The big Phil Fish, Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian discussion thread

gizmo

DeVore wrote: »

They weren't targeting Gawker advertisers before the "bullying" and "neuroatypical" tweets... I for one found them offensive.

Nope, they were targeting Gamasutra's advertisers, solely because of Leigh Alexander's piece, a move I find even more objectionable. Since they had little luck outside of Intel it seems they jumped on Biddle's tweets in order to focus on Gawker instead.

Evac101 wrote: »

Not intended to direct this at either side but too many people seem invested (even here) on the whole 'other is incapable of being right' thing that I'm unsure that the discussion will actually get anywhere. That said a split off discussion which eliminated any references to this main argument to discuss games as art and the future of games in that respect would be interesting.

Really? I see nothing wrong with critiquing the movement and dissecting any evidence presented in order to substantiate any claims made. If anything I think it's vital for both to be carried out in order to have any kind of meaningful debate.

Also, as has been said before, regardless of what "side" of this thing you fall on, no one here is against transparent and ethical journalism. It's everything else that various people have various issues with.

Evac101

Don't know if you realise what I work at these days DeVore but I cannot afford to entertain that particular prejudice :P

Evac101

gizmo wrote: »

Really? I see nothing wrong with critiquing the movement and dissecting any evidence presented in order to substantiate any claims made. If anything I think it's vital for both to be carried out in order to have any kind of meaningful debate.

I don't disagree with this at all gizmo but a number of the more strident contributors on both sides of the fence here seem to just ignore when a point contradicts their particular version of the truth, so instead of a discussion which evolves people are just defending through attacking and ignoring evidence to the contrary, leaving the conversation static.

COYVB

Reekwind wrote: »

What heinous crime against journalism ethics has Polygon perpetuated?

Well...

Generic Dreadhead

DeVore wrote: »

Ah, perhaps I should have mentioned... while they are all diverse, they do all have one common trait. They're all brilliant at what they do and ... forgive me, you don't seem brilliant. So yes, I'm prejudiced against "dumb".

Grumpypants

I think this pretty much hits the nail on the head of what gamergate have been trying to say. Pulled some of the more pertinent quotes out below.

TLDR version: Gamers aren't sexist, there are just assholes on the internet.

http://www.ibtimes.com/developers-gamergate-misogyny-isnt-gaming-problem-its-internet-problem-1707154


“Calling something misogynist is an easy way to dismiss any rational points that have come out of Gamergate," gaming industry veteran and Alberta, Canada, developer Jennifer Dawe tells International Business Times. "The reality is if this were just 'misogyny' it would have died off a long time ago. There are enough people keeping it going and I do not believe most if any of them are actual misogynists.”

“I find it disconcerting that the attacks levied at those who frequent and support the Gamergate movement on Twitter are so constantly attacked for being sexist when, to anyone who actually looks at what Gamergate supporters are saying, that's clearly not the case,” Robalik told IBTimes. “Not only is it probably untrue, it's also a lazy ad hominem attack levied at an extremely diverse group of game enthusiasts that includes a significant amount of women participating on both the #gamergate and #notyourshield hashtags.”


“People never really cared if I was a woman or not, and I've been in the industry for 11 years,” Dawe added. “I've noticed more and more lately, though, [that] we're focusing on people who do get harassed rather than their body of work and I am wondering what kind of impact that is having on perceptions.”

“The main thing is not to respond to it. The more you stoke the fires and argue with random trolls, the more they are going to come at you because they are getting visibility and satisfaction,” Dawe said. “It's also very dishonest to use something that regularly happens on the Internet and attribute it to a group, who just want game journalists to stop insulting them, by default.”

gizmo

Grumpypants wrote: »

I think this pretty much hits the nail on the head of what gamergate have been trying to say. Pulled some of the more pertinent quotes out below.

TLDR version: Gamers aren't sexist, there are just assholes on the internet.

http://www.ibtimes.com/developers-gamergate-misogyny-isnt-gaming-problem-its-internet-problem-1707154

Amusing timing actually since Pew have just released their latest report on Online Harassment.

I haven't had time to go through it in depth yet but from what I've picked up from glancing through the stats, there's nothing really overly surprising on display. There are a couple of decent talking points though, for example the nature of abuse received by both sides leaning heavily on the sexual and stalking side. I was particularly dismayed by the stats for "How welcoming are online "neighbourhoods" to men and women" though.

Grumpypants wrote: »

“Calling something misogynist is an easy way to dismiss any rational points that have come out of Gamergate," gaming industry veteran and Alberta, Canada, developer Jennifer Dawe tells International Business Times. "The reality is if this were just 'misogyny' it would have died off a long time ago. There are enough people keeping it going and I do not believe most if any of them are actual misogynists.”

And if they could list the rational points, backed up with actual evidence where required, I think everyone could sit down and join in with the debate.

She's certainly correct on the latter point though, it's not just about misogyny. The problem is though, it's a strong factor if you look at the foundation of the movement.

Grumpypants wrote: »

“I find it disconcerting that the attacks levied at those who frequent and support the Gamergate movement on Twitter are so constantly attacked for being sexist when, to anyone who actually looks at what Gamergate supporters are saying, that's clearly not the case,” Robalik told IBTimes.

This is actually quite true. From what I've seen, those responsible for the worst rhetoric in the movement seem to have been on the receiving end of the least amount of direct abuse. That being said, that's hardly surprising.

Grumpypants wrote: »

“People never really cared if I was a woman or not, and I've been in the industry for 11 years,” Dawe added. “I've noticed more and more lately, though, [that] we're focusing on people who do get harassed rather than their body of work and I am wondering what kind of impact that is having on perceptions.”

If #1reasonwhy showed us anything it's that people do care if they're a woman or not. That being said, like with the introduction of #1reasontobe, there's still an emphasis on the positive aspects of being in the industry. As for concentrating on their body of work, I'd be interested to know what she means by this. Features on prominent females in the industry, for instance?

C14N

gizmo wrote: »

Really? I see nothing wrong with critiquing the movement and dissecting any evidence presented in order to substantiate any claims made. If anything I think it's vital for both to be carried out in order to have any kind of meaningful debate.

I don't see anything wrong with that either, but the point being made is that's not what we're seeing a lot of, or at least not what I've seen a lot of. What I have seen a lot of is what the previous poster mentioned where everyone is incapable of seeing the other side as right. Only a handful of criticisms I've seen levelled at the movement seem to have any grounding at all.

Far more seem to only follow this from sensationalist news stories and have basically asserted that if you in any way support or tolerate the movement it's because you literally hate women and believe that sending death threats to women is absolutely justifiable. If you throw up stuff about journalism, it's just a smokescreen to distract from the "real" goal, which is to scare women out of ever talking about video games again. To many, the idea of defending Gamergate is nearly on par with defending the Ku Klux Klan (and indeed, more than once the two have been compared) and even the more restrained supporters are basically saying "look, I'm not saying I approve of the executions but on the whole I think we need to give ISIS a chance".

Not that the pro-side isn't guilty of this too. I've seen many supporters who get this idea into their head that if anyone opposes Gamergate, it's because they're a diehard social justice warrior. Someone so delicate that they want to take anything even slightly offensive out of games and who cares far less about actually playing games than their own agenda. Anyone who tries to move the movement in a different direction is a shill coming in to try and ruin it to promote their radical feminist agenda.

And unfortunately, since most of this happened on Twitter, that's how things have been. All you get are strangers about whom you know nothing besides which side they're on arguing with each other and it's much easier to convince yourself that you're right when what you argue against is a faceless strawman. There's a productive discussion to be had but by and large, people don't seem to want to have it and it seems particularly hard given that so many outlets (so far I've seen NeoGaf, Cracked and Wikipedia) just straight up banning anyone who supports it.

C14N

Reekwind wrote: »

one of the sites that you advertise on recently launched a vicious attack on me by suggesting, and I quote, that 'games are at a cultural turning point. No longer are games designed, marketed and sold to a niche group of young men.' As a male, I find this to be terribly offensive"

See, that's not what upset people though and I think you know that. You cut off that article right before it got into the meaty stuff that caused the gamergate campaign to take off so big in the first place. What did upset people was stuff like:

Originally by Leigh Alexander
‘Game culture’ as we know it is kind of embarrassing, it’s not even culture. It’s buying things, spackling over memes and in-jokes repeatedly, and it’s getting mad on the internet.

It’s young men queuing with plush mushroom hats and backpacks and jutting promo poster rolls. Queuing passionately for hours, at events around the world, to see the things that marketers want them to see. To find out whether they should buy things or not. They don’t know how to dress or behave. Television cameras pan across these listless queues, and often catch the expressions of people who don’t quite know why they themselves are standing there.

'Games culture’ is a petri dish of people who know so little about how human social interaction and professional life works that they can concoct online ‘wars’ about social justice or ‘game journalism ethics,’ straight-faced, and cause genuine human consequences. Because of video games.

It was a pretty suicidal article and it couldn't even be written in the vain of "we're just criticising the misogynistic gamers" like so many previous ones could. This article basically just called people who love games and do things like make jokes about them or turn up to launch events a bunch of socially retarded morons who are so vile and repulsive that nobody should still try and target them as an audience and that their passtime is a trivial thing that nobody should ever get that invested in. It's not at all hard to see advertisers pulling out their support from someone who so openly insults the people they try to sell to.

I would agree that it's unfair and childish to do something like this if someone has an opinion you don't agree with. However, when the person's opinion is so venomously and personally insulting to most of the readers, it kind of makes sense. I support free speech but not consequence-free speech and she said some pretty hurtful stuff there.

You can't deny that there are some cases where things like this are justifiable. Imagine if the Sunday Times ran a big front-page op-ed about how Irish people are lazy, drunken idiots who can't do anything right and that international companies would be better off if they ceased doing business there. People would be outraged and they would lose advertising over it. It doesn't matter if the views don't represent those of the paper, they still endorsed it as at least being okay by printing it.

The only thing you have to ask is what sort of groups are okay to be talked about this way. If it's acceptable because it's a group associated by hobby instead of nationality or race, then what other kinds are fair game? People associated by school attended? University degree? Occupation? Preferred operating system? Team supported?

COYVB

I think a big, big mistake being made in a lot of places is that "gamer culture" is being confused with "anonymous assholes on the internet culture". Obviously there's overlap there, but that's not down to "gamers" that's down to assholes

DeVore

There are at least 5 groups involved in this debacle imho.

1. Female gamers who are (rightfully) p1ssed at what they have to put up with both playing games and in the content of games which rarely represents them.

2. Male gamers who are (rightfully) reacting to being labelled neck-bearded nerds and misogynists because most remember that sort of bullying from school days and are hitting back.

3. SJWs and Feminists (some of whom are gamers) who want to open another battlefront in their much bigger perceived "war"

4. MRAs and misogynistic douches (some of whom are gamers) who want to take any opportunity to hit back in that "war"

5. Internet trolls who want to see the whole thing burn for ever and are stoking both sides.

There are not equal numbers in each of these and the lines aren't clear but that's the grouping of motivations I've seen.

The funny thing is that 1 and 2 should ally against the rest but 3,4 and 5 don't want to see that happen. They are invested in the fight, not in the solution.

C14N

DeVore wrote: »

There are at least 5 groups involved in this debacle imho.

1. Female gamers who are (rightfully) p1ssed at what they have to put up with both playing games and in the content of games which rarely represents them.

2. Male gamers who are (rightfully) reacting to being labelled neck-bearded nerds and misogynists because most remember that sort of bullying from school days and are hitting back.

3. SJWs and Feminists (some of whom are gamers) who want to open another battlefront in their much bigger perceived "war"

4. MRAs and misogynistic douches (some of whom are gamers) who want to take any opportunity to hit back in that "war"

5. Internet trolls who want to see the whole thing burn for ever and are stoking both sides.

There are not equal numbers in each of these and the lines aren't clear but that's the grouping of motivations I've seen.

The funny thing is that 1 and 2 should ally against the rest but 3,4 and 5 don't want to see that happen. They are invested in the fight, not in the solution.

Regarding group 2, I don't think it's even just male gamers. There are females in this group too, like the ones who did the Huffington Post video or the supporters of the #notyourshield thing. Now I still do think it is mostly male gamers, just not exclusively and I think there are some female ones who resent the coverage that makes it look like they don't exist.

Evac101

Don't forget:

6) The (perhaps) sizeable group who are attempting to refuse to be drawn into one side or the other and instead want to have a balanced look at the faults and merits of both sides, because despite what people and definitely the gaming press, would like you to believe, both sides do have both.

kunst nugget

C14N wrote: »

Regarding group 2, I don't think it's even just male gamers. There are females in this group too, like the ones who did the Huffington Post video or the supporters of the #notyourshield thing. Now I still do think it is mostly male gamers, just not exclusively and I think there are some female ones who resent the coverage that makes it look like they don't exist.

A lot of the times, people or bits or information that don't fit whatever narrative someone is trying to create are usually ignored.

kunst nugget

Evac101 wrote: »

Don't forget:

6) The (perhaps) sizeable group who are attempting to refuse to be drawn into one side or the other and instead want to have a balanced look at the faults and merits of both sides, because despite what people and definitely the gaming press, would like you to believe, both sides do have both.

I think it's hard to get a balanced look at the faults and merits of each side's arguments because, let's face it, they are not even agreed on what they are actually talking about.

C14N

kunst nugget wrote: »

A lot of the times, people or bits or information that don't fit whatever narrative someone is trying to create are usually ignored.

That has been a major problem here, especially given the lack of quality investigative journalism in the whole case. Most of the primary sources are the games sites themselves and these are sites that are neither well practiced at investigation nor willing to demonise themselves. Most of the bigger news outlets will just draw on these sources for their own reporting too. People are willing to do it on the other side too, although you generally don't expect quality fact-checking from an angry mob the way you do from a self-proclaimed news website.

Timmyctc

Grumpypants wrote: »

TLDR version: Gamers aren't sexist, there are just assholes on the internet.

Don't like tooting my own horn but me and COYVB have said this a fair few times in the infancy of this thread :P I think they plagarised us :pac:

COYVB

Timmyctc wrote: »

Don't like tooting my own horn but me and COYVB have said this a fair few times in the infancy of this thread :P I think they plagarised us :pac:

I actually covered this whole thing before it was a thing once back in February in a North American publication, and prior to that in 2013 in a European one and arrived at that very outcome. I got yelled at for the February article, a lot, by a corporate partner.

Shiminay

COYVB wrote: »

I got yelled at for the February article, a lot, by a corporate partner.

Is that something you can elaborate on? Seems unusual that anyone would give you guff for covering a topic no one else will and thereby gathering more eyeballs

COYVB

Shiminay wrote: »

Is that something you can elaborate on? Seems unusual that anyone would give you guff for covering a topic no one else will and thereby gathering more eyeballs

Can't go into too much detail on it to be honest, for an assortment of unrelated reasons, but essentially they didn't like the idea of calling out any part of a lucrative market for them as being anything less than super wonderful human beings. I'll concede that it was not the right outlet for that particular piece, though.

K.O.Kiki

Back to journalistic integrity:

re: Polygon's 10/10 review for Gone Home.

kunst nugget

Isn't the simple solution just to ignore her reviews from now on if you think it's an issue? I find it very hard to get het up about stuff like this.

gizmo

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Back to journalistic integrity:

re: Polygon's 10/10 review for Gone Home.

<image>

Finally, an example we can talk about, excellent!

So, in the context of that image...

Do you think the reviewer gave Gone Home a 10/10 score because of their friendship with the contracted Composer behind the game?

Do you think this is an example of corruption, cronyism or nepotism or just failing to disclose said link in the byline of the article because the author didn't believe it to be relevant?

Do you believe the tone of the language used in that image to be conducive to helpful discussion on the subject?

****

My two cents, on matter.

No I don't think the reviewer gave the game the score it did because of said friendship. The game, in my opinion, deserved the score and praise it received at Polygon and several other publications. Probably worth noting it also won Polygon's 2013 GOTY.

No, I don't think it's an example of corruption, cronyism or nepotism. It should certainly have been disclosed at the time of the review, however, given the nature of the friendship with respect to the position Remo held on the project, I can see why Riendeau may have felt it wasn't relevant. If the friendship have been with one of the actual development team at Fullbright I'd feel very differently on the matter.

Yes, I believe the language was overly hostile. The title alone is a rather horrible combination of assumption and snark. There were far better ways to collate that material which could have led to more reasoned debate on the matter.


****

As a tangential discussion, here is Polygon's Ethics Statement. Of particular note is the Conflicts section...

CONFLICT:

Unless specifically on a writer's profile page, Polygon staffers do not cover companies (1) in which they have a financial investment, (2) that have employed them previously or (3) employ the writer's spouse, partner or someone else with whom the writer has a close relationship. When a Polygon contributor has affiliations of prior employment experience that would represent a material conflict of interest with their reporting, that information will be disclosed in context or footnotes of that piece.

Polygon staff are permitted to contribute to Patreon campaigns for members of the video game industry, but need to disclose the details of those contributions on their staff page as well as on any related coverage they publish on the site.

Do you believe the word close should be omitted?

Robert ninja

kunst nugget wrote: »

Isn't the simple solution just to ignore her reviews from now on if you think it's an issue? I find it very hard to get het up about stuff like this.

I think the idea is to expose it so more people know who might otherwise just google "gone home review". It's pretty much a given that anyone aware of these issues ignores the validity of the review as a review but that doesn't mean they have to ignore its existence or stop talking about it like everything is dandy.

gizmo

Robert ninja wrote: »

I think the idea is to expose it so more people know who might otherwise just google "gone home review". It's pretty much a given that anyone aware of these issues ignores the validity of the review as a review but that doesn't mean they have to ignore its existence or stop talking about it like everything is dandy.

It's worth pointing out this was discussed back when the review was originally posted in August 2013. The conversation, albeit brief, which ensued was entirely civilised with a few varying points of view expressed. If anything it shows that plenty of people who are, or at least were, aware of the issue at the time believed the review to still be perfectly valid.

Kirby

gizmo wrote: »

Gone home snip

Seriously? That's some mighty fine mental gymnastics.

It's called a conflict of interest and happens in lots of walks of life. It's common and what usually happens in a professional environment is that the review would get passed off to somebody who wasn't friends with one of the creators of the game. It's just common sense and designed to protect everyone involved from accusations of bias.

Frankly the fact that this wasn't done is unprofessional and is a microcosm for the problems with video game "journalism". If you want to be treated like the big boys, you have the act like them.....

COYVB

gizmo wrote: »

Finally, an example we can talk about, excellent!

So, in the context of that image...

Do you think the reviewer gave Gone Home a 10/10 score because of their friendship with the contracted Composer behind the game?

Do you think this is an example of corruption, cronyism or nepotism or just failing to disclose said link in the byline of the article because the author didn't believe it to be relevant?

Do you believe the tone of the language used in that image to be conducive to helpful discussion on the subject?

****

My two cents, on matter.

No I don't think the reviewer gave the game the score it did because of said friendship. The game, in my opinion, deserved the score and praise it received at Polygon and several other publications. Probably worth noting it also won Polygon's 2013 GOTY.

No, I don't think it's an example of corruption, cronyism or nepotism. It should certainly have been disclosed at the time of the review, however, given the nature of the friendship with respect to the position Remo held on the project, I can see why Riendeau may have felt it wasn't relevant. If the friendship have been with one of the actual development team at Fullbright I'd feel very differently on the matter.

Yes, I believe the language was overly hostile. The title alone is a rather horrible combination of assumption and snark. There were far better ways to collate that material which could have led to more reasoned debate on the matter.


****

As a tangential discussion, here is Polygon's Ethics Statement. Of particular note is the Conflicts section...



Do you believe the word close should be omitted?

The aim of the publication is not just to ensure there is no conflict of interest, but also that there can be no perception of conflict of interest. That's not the case here, so polygon failed on that front. I don't believe there was anything remotely dirty about the review, but it certainly wasn't arm's length enough to be bulletproof

Vicxas

DeVore wrote: »

There are at least 5 groups involved in this debacle imho.

1. Female gamers who are (rightfully) p1ssed at what they have to put up with both playing games and in the content of games which rarely represents them.

2. Male gamers who are (rightfully) reacting to being labelled neck-bearded nerds and misogynists because most remember that sort of bullying from school days and are hitting back.

3. SJWs and Feminists (some of whom are gamers) who want to open another battlefront in their much bigger perceived "war"

4. MRAs and misogynistic douches (some of whom are gamers) who want to take any opportunity to hit back in that "war"

5. Internet trolls who want to see the whole thing burn for ever and are stoking both sides.

There are not equal numbers in each of these and the lines aren't clear but that's the grouping of motivations I've seen.

The funny thing is that 1 and 2 should ally against the rest but 3,4 and 5 don't want to see that happen. They are invested in the fight, not in the solution.

My biggest fear is that 3 and 4 are mutating so rapidly that 1 and 2 will see a bit part in this vastly escalating war.

This is no longer about sexism in video games, its about this new, how do I say this without sounding sexist. This form of neo feminism that has been gaining traction on the net VS the sub section of men that are just under the impression that women are objects to be conquered.

gizmo

Kirby wrote: »

Seriously? That's some mighty fine mental gymnastics.

It's called a conflict of interest and happens in lots of walks of life. It's common and what usually happens in a professional environment is that the review would get passed off to somebody who wasn't friends with one of the creators of the game. It's just common sense and designed to protect everyone involved from accusations of bias.

Frankly the fact that this wasn't done is unprofessional and is a microcosm for the problems with video game "journalism". If you want to be treated like the big boys, you have the act like them.....

By saying I felt it should have been disclosed indicates I do identify it as a conflict of interest which is also why I brought up their ethics statement at the end which deals with precisely that area. So no, no mental gymnastics on display here.

What I don't see it as, is an example of corruption, cronyism or nepotism which they, as a publication, are being accused of being guilty of. I certainly agree with your summation but the difference in this case is that editorial staff weren't made aware of the relationship prior to the review being written therefore they wouldn't have been in a position to hand it over to someone else.

A fantastic example of handling these kinds of relationships comes from GiantBomb, who were more than happy to recuse themselves entirely from writing a review of Bastion (or Transistor for that matter), due to their relationship with the Creative Director of Supergiant Games.

COYVB wrote: »

The aim of the publication is not just to ensure there is no conflict of interest, but also that there can be no perception of conflict of interest. That's not the case here, so polygon failed on that front. I don't believe there was anything remotely dirty about the review, but it certainly wasn't arm's length enough to be bulletproof

As I was saying above, I guess I'm trying to draw a distinction between Polygon and the reviewer here, probably because when I think of a review I think of it as coming from the latter rather than the former. In this case, Riendeau failed to disclose her relationship with someone involved with the development of the game, if she had disclosed it and they had let her review it anyway especially without any form of disclaimer then I'd see it as a failure of the publication for the reasons you outline. That wasn't the case here though which is why I feel the blame should focus on her and, as a result, shouldn't be used as an example of any systemic issues within the industry.

C14N

kunst nugget wrote: »

Isn't the simple solution just to ignore her reviews from now on if you think it's an issue? I find it very hard to get het up about stuff like this.

Well yes, but at the same time, if people weren't drawing attention to stuff like this, how would people know to ignore her? It would be one thing if this was some small-time shill reviewer but Polygon are a big gaming website on a large network. They have influence and also probably get a good sway on the Metascore which is weighted in favour of more respected sources.

It also does seem to kind of unfairly tip the scales for indies looking to make it big in the industry. There are only so many games they can write reviews for and shine a light on, how are the ones with no connections to critics or writers supposed to compete?

gizmo wrote: »

Do you think the reviewer gave Gone Home a 10/10 score because of their friendship with the contracted Composer behind the game?

Do you think this is an example of corruption, cronyism or nepotism or just failing to disclose said link in the byline of the article because the author didn't believe it to be relevant?

I don't think the reviewer gave that score just because of the friendship with the composer and a lot of problem I've had with GG has been people spinning it this way. Much the same way as Zoe Quinn clearly did not just go to Nathan Grayson and say "I'd do anything for some good coverage ;>", this image GG are presenting of Riendeau sitting at a desk twiddling her moustache as she hands out 10s to friends with abaddon is a load of bull-hockey. I greatly doubt anyone at Polygon played Gone Home and thought to themselves "oh s**t, how are we going to spin this pile of garbage to make it seem like a good game?".

I think it's much more subtle than that. The problem I have is that if you play something that your close friend worked on, you're just much more inclined to view it positively, even if its only subconscious. Especially if you do a podcast with said just days before its release and the podcast is very friendly on a personal level with the director of the game (who was a regular on the show not that long before) it seems very unlikely that you're going to go in as unbiased as you could be, in much the same way as you are less inclined to be critical of a project that you have donated money to. It's not open and shut of course, it's not like nobody ever gives bad reviews to things they were invested in, but it certainly does influence it.

I think that she should not have written the review, even if she recused herself, because she was already too invested in this. Someone else at Polygon should have done it instead, regardless of whatever life experience she had that made her "uniquely suited" to review it. I don't think its a case of malice or deliberate deceit on the part of Riendeau or Polygon, but I do think it's terribly unprofessional for them to wade into these muddy waters and then act surprised that people think there's a conflict of interest.

gizmo wrote: »

Yes, I believe the language was overly hostile. The title alone is a rather horrible combination of assumption and snark. There were far better ways to collate that material which could have led to more reasoned debate on the matter.

Agreed on this one, although at the same time most of these things are being made by amateurs with no guidance or diplomatic experience.