|
I don't hate Slasher, and I don't think what he did is unethical. It is a fair argument to say journalists should not withhold stories because reporting is their duty. I see a lot of arguments out there, but surprisingly I don't see many resembling my thoughts on the situation. I figured it would be good to put my thoughts out there.
I've talked to Slasher about these things yesterday and he is both understanding as well as receptive to the arguments provided.
My view is not about the ethics or the morality of the situation, I don't believe these need to be part of the discussion. I have my own reasons for minding Slasher leaking our announcements to the public, not necessarily in line with what was said on Lo3. I am not upset over this, I am not stressed over it, and I certainly don't hate Slasher. Unfortunately, I internally deal with things on a regular basis that are much more stressful and impactful to my organization. Still, I find it an interesting case to talk about and believe I can add something to the discussion at hand.
My argument is based around relationship management. I see many people looking at other sports for the ethical justification of journalists leaking information. I agree with you there. I want to take a look at other sports as well. If you are an investigating journalist in another sport you will often find yourself being friends with a player. This player can provide you with information on his teammates, management, sponsors, club, atmosphere, and more. For as long as the journalist does not screw over his source he may benefit from this relationship. If he does screw him, the relationship is over and he has lost his connection.
Slasher on the one hand wants to use Liquid for information supply, as well as work with us officially on interviews and other content. Yet, on the other hand he will look for leaks outside of my organization that will impact me negatively upon releasing the information. I view this as poor relationship management. I don't think it works like that anywhere, neither here nor in other sports.
I enjoy Slasher's company, and I don't mind sitting down with him for a beer outside of all of this, but in the end it comes down to being capable of separating my business relationships from a personal like or dislike for his character. If he does these things, that again are ethically entirely acceptable, then our business relation will be in a poor condition. If he picks which one he wants to be doing, I will blame him for neither, but trying to do both makes it very difficult.
 
|
|
|
Thank you for bringing a more level-headed explanation to the table than our dear (and slightly angry) friend, Mr. Garfield.
|
I think a lot of this is true: I'm glad you are not focused on ambiguous ideas such as "ethics" in this realistic situation.
But what about in cases in which the journalist does not get his information from the source that the information is about? Like if other teams were bidding on Snute, and one of those teams told him? What would this mean for a relationship between the journalist and the tema?
|
|
|
Nazgul, with the smart-hammer once again.I completely agree with this.
|
So Slasher, what will your pick be? *camera pans to Rod* *face zoom* *music stops*
|
Very well said. Imo the way Alex Garfield attacked Slasher (on a show that is basically controlled by EG) for doing his job was way over the top, although ubderstandable.
|
Journalism is about give and take. "Finding the balance". It's something that no one should take personally, or get outraged about.
Teams should never expect journalists to give themselves up to them fully - but on the flip side, journalists should not excessively take away from or piss off the teams, else they risk burning bridges. Going public with leaks is part of a journalist's job (especially if there's significant public interest) and as long as they understand teams will probably be miffed about it, then it's all good.
There would be situations where a journalist has a weak relationship with a team and there might be zero incentive for the journalist to "hold back", so to speak. Teams in this position would be wise to *build* a relationship here; offering interview opportunities in exchange for agreeing to an embargo, for example.
At the end of the day, journalists need teams and teams need journalists. As such, you can't really have one-sided relationships.
Props to Nazgul for him actually speaking his mind too - rather than letting others speak for him.
|
So is the argument that publishing information obtained through friendship ruins said friendship or is the argument that publishing information that negatively impacts the team makes him a bad friend to the team?
Because I can understand that someone would feel used if they were unwillingly used as a source under the guise of friendship, you'd feel betrayed. But I find it hard to relate to a stance that implies "if you leak something that hurts my business I'll blackball you". There's obviously a middle ground here somewhere, how do you figure?
|
|
|
I agree the comparisons to other sports, especially in an ethics discussion, doesn't make a lot of sense. Thanks for taking the time to give us your perspective.
|
Austria24417 Posts
Very good argument. Now that it's been made I'm really surprised that nobody has stated this before.
|
Is there any summary of all this? I have to work alot, so i can't watch 2 hours of LO3 or whatnot.
Some short overview of what happend would be much appreciated.
|
On January 17 2013 19:55 reapsen wrote:
Is there any summary of all this? I have to work alot, so i can't watch 2 hours of LO3 or whatnot.
Some short overview of what happend would be much appreciated.
There was a debate on LO3 between Slasher and Alex Garfield regarding whether or not Slasher should constantly leak information he finds out about. One side says that it's Slasher's job to do so as a journalist, the other side says its very harmful to teams to depend on hype to general page views and attention as well as the fact that Slasher can still get the same story if he had patience.
|
Very insightful. 100% true.
|
Completely agree. Personally i felt this consequence wasn't really the issue. I thought more about the ethical side of things, as Nazgul mentioned. Nazgul's view is more practical, and a useful complement to the current situation (no restrictions whatsoever). Once you (as a representative of a company or whatever) talk to a journalist, the amount of trust on either side determines how much information is presented, and how much is leaked. If both parties trust eachother greatly, then there will be secrets revealed to the journalist, who will be expected to keep them to himself, by the representative. Is there no trust at all, nothing will be revealed and thus, nothing leaked. One can guess how the other 2 will play out.
What happened here was that information was given to slasher; he was expected to not leak it, but he did. What consequences will this have? Above mentioned combinations of trust are in equilibrium. A leak as big as this one is a significant disturbance in this equilibrium. As said in the blog, would slasher be doing this again, people will reconsider their relation with him as a journalist, making him less relevant, because of a lack of trust.
This is somewhat of a metaphysical story, but i think this is kind of how it works.
and, this is almost exactly what nazgul said, but rearranged and in a bit more general terms :')
|
Your stance is natural in your position. If something is impacting you negative you will try to minimize the expose.
I also think you can understand the community (large part) wishes that a journalist should not be too afraid to report something that might impact a team negatively because then he will be cut off.
I rather have a journalist with no direct access to teams that are able to report things that will be negative for the teams then a journalist with great access to the teams that only writes things with no negative impact.
|
Kinda obvious Nazgul would take a middle of the road approach after Alex got butthurt by everyone.
|
Good to see that the owner of my favorite team understands that matters like these are not handled in public. And it kinda sucks if your name is dragged into drama like this so I understand the reason for this post. Nevertheless I personally think it's best in cases like this to not do or say anything at all. You know, be an invisible wraith.
|
On January 17 2013 20:13 pmastah wrote:
Kinda obvious Nazgul would take a middle of the road approach after Alex got butthurt by everyone. lol, did you even read this blog?
|
Requesting 1 week ban so i can ponder over this respondse and release a full blown article soon.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On January 17 2013 20:08 Yorbon wrote:
Completely agree. Personally i felt this consequence wasn't really the issue. I thought more about the ethical side of things, as Nazgul mentioned. Nazgul's view is more practical, and a useful complement to the current situation (no restrictions whatsoever). Once you (as a representative of a company or whatever) talk to a journalist, the amount of trust on either side determines how much information is presented, and how much is leaked. If both parties trust eachother greatly, then there will be secrets revealed to the journalist, who will be expected to keep them to himself, by the representative. Is there no trust at all, nothing will be revealed and thus, nothing leaked. One can guess how the other 2 will play out.
What happened here was that information was given to slasher; he was expected to not leak it, but he did. What consequences will this have? Above mentioned combinations of trust are in equilibrium. A leak as big as this one is a significant disturbance in this equilibrium. As said in the blog, would slasher be doing this again, people will reconsider their relation with him as a journalist, making him less relevant, because of a lack of trust.
This is somewhat of a metaphysical story, but i think this is kind of how it works.
and, this is almost exactly what nazgul said, but rearranged and in a bit more general terms :')
Well wait a minute. I'm completely with you on saying that there should be trust and when you give information to Slasher, he needs to be responsible with that information. But that wasn't the case here ever.
Slasher was given information from third parties and reported on it. If these teams had told Slasher themselves and gave a date on when it was ok to report on it, it'd be completely different. Please correct me if I'm wrong!
Nazgul seems to be arguing a position where, regardless where the information comes from, Slasher should only report on the information which is convenient to us and when it's convenient to us or we simply won't maintain a relationship with him and shut him out. Does this not set off alarm bells with anyone here?
|
Exactly the missing point in this discussion!
|
On January 17 2013 20:22 Martijn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 20:08 Yorbon wrote:
Completely agree. Personally i felt this consequence wasn't really the issue. I thought more about the ethical side of things, as Nazgul mentioned. Nazgul's view is more practical, and a useful complement to the current situation (no restrictions whatsoever). Once you (as a representative of a company or whatever) talk to a journalist, the amount of trust on either side determines how much information is presented, and how much is leaked. If both parties trust eachother greatly, then there will be secrets revealed to the journalist, who will be expected to keep them to himself, by the representative. Is there no trust at all, nothing will be revealed and thus, nothing leaked. One can guess how the other 2 will play out.
What happened here was that information was given to slasher; he was expected to not leak it, but he did. What consequences will this have? Above mentioned combinations of trust are in equilibrium. A leak as big as this one is a significant disturbance in this equilibrium. As said in the blog, would slasher be doing this again, people will reconsider their relation with him as a journalist, making him less relevant, because of a lack of trust.
This is somewhat of a metaphysical story, but i think this is kind of how it works.
and, this is almost exactly what nazgul said, but rearranged and in a bit more general terms :') Well wait a minute. I'm completely with you on saying that there should be trust and when you give information to Slasher, he needs to be responsible with that information. But that wasn't the case here ever. Slasher was given information from third parties and reported on it. If these teams had told Slasher themselves and gave a date on when it was ok to report on it, it'd be completely different. Please correct me if I'm wrong! Nazgul seems to be arguing a position where, regardless where the information comes from, Slasher should only report on the information which is convenient to us and when it's convenient to us or we simply won't maintain a relationship with him and shut him out. Does this not set off alarm bells with anyone here? To be honest, i don't really know anything about this, i assumed a scenario. That said, what described was a general point. I'll elaborate:
if slasher wants to maintain a relation with tl, he needs 'trust' (my definition) from tl. If he leaks information about tl, which tl had rather kept a secret, then tl will trust him less. There is no 'should' in this issue. Effects of leaking are the following: short term success (slasher has a great article), possible long term grief (tl gives slasher no more information, no more interviews etc). The more slasher goes for short term success, the more likely the long term grief becomes.
The reason nazgul argues from his position, is because he assumed a trustful position between the 2 parties. Apperently, that was a misconception. Core of relationshipmanagement is knowing what to expect. When impredictabilty rises, the added value of the relation lessens.
Note there is no good or bad here. I'm just talking about the 'natural' thing to do in certain positions.
edit: i saw you're from the netherlands. Try to look at soccer-reporters from voetbal international. They do this very well and manage to get very good stories as well as maintain a very good relationship with relevant people.
edit2: lol, i just saw it was between eg and slasher. How about i have no clue. But still, my point remains the same.
|
There is something I don't really understand and i would like if someone could explain it to me.
How does leaking the announcement hurts?
From my point of view, when it was leaked that snute would join liquid I was excited and hyped to see the offical announcement. I visited the liquid page more often just to check if the announcement is allready there.
Also, I can hardly imagine that someone doesn't read the offical announcement because it was leaked before.
|
Great words, Nazgul understands that he can't blame Slasher for doing his job. But he can very well choose to cut their business relationship. I am 100% sure Slasher knows that as well and is leaking news, well aware of the risks that come with it. So the only thing I disagree with is, is to call it "poor realtionship handling", since imo Slasher knows the risks and thinks it's worth it to have the relationship worsen. Slasher being known to always be the first to report things, even before the official announcement is worth a lot.
I still hope Slasher and the teams will continue to work together sometimes and Slasher thinks again about the way he does things and accepts embargoes, so the community gets to enjoy more great exclusive content  .
|
On January 17 2013 20:22 Martijn wrote:
Nazgul seems to be arguing a position where, regardless where the information comes from, Slasher should only report on the information which is convenient to us and when it's convenient to us or we simply won't maintain a relationship with him and shut him out. Does this not set off alarm bells with anyone here?
What is wrong with that? Obviously if Slasher doesn't respect the team at all, then they will give whatever reporter priviligies they can to other reporters who may give it a second thought before fucking them over.
As I see it there are three basic ways a leak could go down.
1) Slasher is a dick and just releases the leaked information with no consideration for anyone and gives no one a heads up. Obviously the team organization will then prefer to use other reporters in the future. Whatever trust people have in Slasher would be damaged heavily for the sake of a single story (other teams obviously take note as well).
2) Slasher tells EG "I have gotten this information and verified it. I will publish an article in 8-12 hours detailing what I know. Just giving you a heads up so you can prepare". EG then moves their announcement up, prepares for questions, etc. They know Slasher did as much for them as any respectable journalist ever would. No respectable journalist would ever hold back a leak because the team says so. In the future EG would know Slasher as a reputable reporter, but one who wouldn't fuck them over a little story. This leads to a healthy relationship and is probably how it should have gone down, but obviously wasn't how it went down.
3) Slasher tells EG the same as in (2), but EG responds "No. You wait till after our planned release in 8 days. Are you trying to kill ESPORTS?" Then Slasher would have no choice but to publish, and no healthy journalistic relationship with EG was apparently possible anyway.
|
On January 17 2013 20:39 Uranyl wrote:
There is something I don't really understand and i would like if someone could explain it to me.
How does leaking the announcement hurts?
From my point of view, when it was leaked that snute would join liquid I was excited and hyped to see the offical announcement. I visited the liquid page more often just to check if the announcement is allready there.
Also, I can hardly imagine that someone doesn't read the offical announcement because it was leaked before.
Ah yes, that's true for me as well but I don't think it's the case for the majority. While I get hyped and wait eagerly for the real announcement to confirm if it's really true, many will not find it worth their time to read the official thing when they know abouit it since yesterday. That's my guess at least. Also it's way worse for all the lesser known teams with smaller sides than it is for TL.
|
On January 17 2013 20:50 Musicus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 20:39 Uranyl wrote:
There is something I don't really understand and i would like if someone could explain it to me.
How does leaking the announcement hurts?
From my point of view, when it was leaked that snute would join liquid I was excited and hyped to see the offical announcement. I visited the liquid page more often just to check if the announcement is allready there.
Also, I can hardly imagine that someone doesn't read the offical announcement because it was leaked before. Ah yes, that's true for me as well but I don't think it's the case for the majority. While I get hyped and wait eagerly for the real announcement to confirm if it's really true, many will not find it worth their time to read the official thing when they know abouit it since yesterday. That's my guess at least. Also it's way worse for all the lesser known teams with smaller sides than it is for TL.
Accidantly quoted myself, when I wanted to edit a spelling error. I am verry sorry.
|
On January 17 2013 20:36 Yorbon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 20:22 Martijn wrote:On January 17 2013 20:08 Yorbon wrote:
Completely agree. Personally i felt this consequence wasn't really the issue. I thought more about the ethical side of things, as Nazgul mentioned. Nazgul's view is more practical, and a useful complement to the current situation (no restrictions whatsoever). Once you (as a representative of a company or whatever) talk to a journalist, the amount of trust on either side determines how much information is presented, and how much is leaked. If both parties trust eachother greatly, then there will be secrets revealed to the journalist, who will be expected to keep them to himself, by the representative. Is there no trust at all, nothing will be revealed and thus, nothing leaked. One can guess how the other 2 will play out.
What happened here was that information was given to slasher; he was expected to not leak it, but he did. What consequences will this have? Above mentioned combinations of trust are in equilibrium. A leak as big as this one is a significant disturbance in this equilibrium. As said in the blog, would slasher be doing this again, people will reconsider their relation with him as a journalist, making him less relevant, because of a lack of trust.
This is somewhat of a metaphysical story, but i think this is kind of how it works.
and, this is almost exactly what nazgul said, but rearranged and in a bit more general terms :') Well wait a minute. I'm completely with you on saying that there should be trust and when you give information to Slasher, he needs to be responsible with that information. But that wasn't the case here ever. Slasher was given information from third parties and reported on it. If these teams had told Slasher themselves and gave a date on when it was ok to report on it, it'd be completely different. Please correct me if I'm wrong! Nazgul seems to be arguing a position where, regardless where the information comes from, Slasher should only report on the information which is convenient to us and when it's convenient to us or we simply won't maintain a relationship with him and shut him out. Does this not set off alarm bells with anyone here? To be honest, i don't really know anything about this, i assumed a scenario. That said, what described was a general point. I'll elaborate: if slasher wants to maintain a relation with tl, he needs 'trust' (my definition) from tl. If he leaks information about tl, which tl had rather kept a secret, then tl will trust him less. There is no 'should' in this issue. Effects of leaking are the following: short term success (slasher has a great article), possible long term grief (tl gives slasher no more information, no more interviews etc). The more slasher goes for short term success, the more likely the long term grief becomes. The reason nazgul argues from his position, is because he assumed a trustful position between the 2 parties. Apperently, that was a misconception. Core of relationshipmanagement is knowing what to expect. When impredictabilty rises, the added value of the relation lessens. Note there is no good or bad here. I'm just talking about the 'natural' thing to do in certain positions.
I think that by extension this could be really harmful. If we're arguing that Slasher should pick and choose on what and when he reports the news because he'll lose faction (yeah I once played WoW, yeah I'm ashamed, the analogy just works) with certain teams, doesn't that mean that certain teams will start to control what is and isn't posted? At what point does he stop being a journalist and is just another promotional outlet?
How much control should teams like TL, like EG, like team whatever, have over what people report on? Now this is a pure hypothetical, nothing like this has ever happened as far as I know. But what if TL were to say, hey Slasher, Empire is going to sign Dimaga, but if you don't report on it, we'll let you know our next big team news 2 days before anyone else. Through this whole "relationship management" Empire would get no coverage for a big addition to their team. Whether it's a matter of ethics, or relationship management, or whatever, anything that gives teams control over journalists should be frowned upon.
The obvious middle road is that teams tell Slasher directly when there is news under an embargo saying to only report on it after 2 days, or whatever. Because controlling what information you give journalists and under what terms is completely fair, controlling what journalists report on is evil.
On January 17 2013 20:46 rasnj wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 20:22 Martijn wrote:
Nazgul seems to be arguing a position where, regardless where the information comes from, Slasher should only report on the information which is convenient to us and when it's convenient to us or we simply won't maintain a relationship with him and shut him out. Does this not set off alarm bells with anyone here? What is wrong with that? Obviously if Slasher doesn't respect the team at all, then they will give whatever reporter priviligies they can to other reporters who may give it a second thought before fucking them over. As I see it there are three basic ways a leak could go down. 1) Slasher is a dick and just releases the leaked information with no consideration for anyone and gives no one a heads up. Obviously the team organization will then prefer to use other reporters in the future. Whatever trust people have in Slasher would be damaged heavily for the sake of a single story (other teams obviously take note as well). 2) Slasher tells EG "I have gotten this information and verified it. I will publish an article in 8-12 hours detailing what I know. Just giving you a heads up so you can prepare". EG then moves their announcement up, prepares for questions, etc. They know Slasher did as much for them as any respectable journalist ever would. No respectable journalist would ever hold back a leak because the team says so. In the future EG would know Slasher as a reputable reporter, but one who wouldn't fuck them over a little story. This leads to a healthy relationship and is probably how it should have gone down, but obviously wasn't how it went down. 3) Slasher tells EG the same as in (2), but EG responds "No. You wait till after our planned release in 8 days. Are you trying to kill ESPORTS?" Then Slasher would have no choice but to publish, and no healthy journalistic relationship with EG was apparently possible anyway.
If we're talking about getting a notice, I'm all for it, you can get a confirmation or statement from the team so it helps out everyone. But neither Alex or Nazgul have made that one of their points. I'd feel much better if the discussion were "Slasher should give us a headsup", but so far it's "Slasher shouldn't have reported on these things at all" which is concerning.
|
Well yeah, ethical or not -- it's just going to end up being about relationship management.
Slasher is probably a cool guy when business is separated, it just comes down to when he wants to be Slasher or Non-working-man Slasher (idont remember his name, sorry) *edit*. I also wonder where the "Slasher doesn't have a horse in this race" view plays into what Nazgul said. It might make his relationships harder and what not : (.
|
if Slasher is really biting the hand that he hopes it'll feed him later on...
|
Well written and good decision to do so since Alex Garfield made it sound like you where hating him as much as he does. And it was a good perspective to write about the relationship of it all. You can't really do both even though both are in line with what journalists does.
I support Slasher and what he did, all the hate coming his way is uncalled for. The entire mistake lies within EG itself. And what Alex said, a lot of it was uncalled for.
|
On January 17 2013 19:33 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
Slasher on the one hand wants to use Liquid for information supply, as well as work with us officially on interviews and other content. Yet, on the other hand he will look for leaks outside of my organization that will impact me negatively upon releasing the information. I view this as poor relationship management. I don't think it works like that anywhere, neither here nor in other sports.
There are two possible solutions to this, a) "X team" doesn't leak information or b) once slasher confirms leaked information he can trade his secrecy in trade for an exclusive interview to be embedded in the initial announcement linking to game spot or something equally as valuable to him.
Now, what happens if leaked information is found and "X team" refuses his request for an exclusive in the above manner, slasher will be forced to release the information early anyway.
This is the only solution I can really think of to make both parties happy, and it entirely depends on the teams choices or actions. If neither of these are done is it really still poor relationship management on slashers part? I would argue no, but the result is the same.
|
On January 17 2013 20:53 Martijn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 20:36 Yorbon wrote:On January 17 2013 20:22 Martijn wrote:On January 17 2013 20:08 Yorbon wrote:
Completely agree. Personally i felt this consequence wasn't really the issue. I thought more about the ethical side of things, as Nazgul mentioned. Nazgul's view is more practical, and a useful complement to the current situation (no restrictions whatsoever). Once you (as a representative of a company or whatever) talk to a journalist, the amount of trust on either side determines how much information is presented, and how much is leaked. If both parties trust eachother greatly, then there will be secrets revealed to the journalist, who will be expected to keep them to himself, by the representative. Is there no trust at all, nothing will be revealed and thus, nothing leaked. One can guess how the other 2 will play out.
What happened here was that information was given to slasher; he was expected to not leak it, but he did. What consequences will this have? Above mentioned combinations of trust are in equilibrium. A leak as big as this one is a significant disturbance in this equilibrium. As said in the blog, would slasher be doing this again, people will reconsider their relation with him as a journalist, making him less relevant, because of a lack of trust.
This is somewhat of a metaphysical story, but i think this is kind of how it works.
and, this is almost exactly what nazgul said, but rearranged and in a bit more general terms :') Well wait a minute. I'm completely with you on saying that there should be trust and when you give information to Slasher, he needs to be responsible with that information. But that wasn't the case here ever. Slasher was given information from third parties and reported on it. If these teams had told Slasher themselves and gave a date on when it was ok to report on it, it'd be completely different. Please correct me if I'm wrong! Nazgul seems to be arguing a position where, regardless where the information comes from, Slasher should only report on the information which is convenient to us and when it's convenient to us or we simply won't maintain a relationship with him and shut him out. Does this not set off alarm bells with anyone here? To be honest, i don't really know anything about this, i assumed a scenario. That said, what described was a general point. I'll elaborate: if slasher wants to maintain a relation with tl, he needs 'trust' (my definition) from tl. If he leaks information about tl, which tl had rather kept a secret, then tl will trust him less. There is no 'should' in this issue. Effects of leaking are the following: short term success (slasher has a great article), possible long term grief (tl gives slasher no more information, no more interviews etc). The more slasher goes for short term success, the more likely the long term grief becomes. The reason nazgul argues from his position, is because he assumed a trustful position between the 2 parties. Apperently, that was a misconception. Core of relationshipmanagement is knowing what to expect. When impredictabilty rises, the added value of the relation lessens. Note there is no good or bad here. I'm just talking about the 'natural' thing to do in certain positions. I think that by extension this could be really harmful. If we're arguing that Slasher should pick and choose on what and when he reports the news because he'll lose faction (yeah I once played WoW, yeah I'm ashamed, the analogy just works) with certain teams, doesn't that mean that certain teams will start to control what is and isn't posted? At what point does he stop being a journalist and is just another promotional outlet? How much control should teams like TL, like EG, like team whatever, have over what people report on? Now this is a pure hypothetical, nothing like this has ever happened as far as I know. But what if TL were to say, hey Slasher, Empire is going to sign Dimaga, but if you don't report on it, we'll let you know our next big team news 2 days before anyone else. Through this whole "relationship management" Empire would get no coverage for a big addition to their team. Whether it's a matter of ethics, or relationship management, or whatever, anything that gives teams control over journalists should be frowned upon. The obvious middle road is that teams tell Slasher directly when there is news under an embargo saying to only report on it after 2 days, or whatever. Because controlling what information you give journalists and under what terms is completely fair, controlling what journalists report on is evil. There is no control in the way you describe it. Reacting to your last alinea the point is exactly giving information and not controlling it. A business would think twice before giving a journalist secret information after he leaks 2 or 3 business secrets regardless of where it came from. I don't see how the journalist is controlled directly by teams. He is controlled indirectly by his own interest; he has to know secrets to stay relevant.
Now, applying this to your second alinea, slasher could never accept that offer from team liquid. Like i said, the added value is knowing what to expect from eachother. First, Slasher will not know what those 2 stories are, before 2 days before scheduled release. Second, what can he do with them, leak them? Maybe that, as well, will destroy the relation? Third, without accepting the offer, he knows there are 2 stories, so there may be other ways to get information on them. And last, there is no information on his relationship with empire. Dependent on this, he will or will not release his information.
Overall, the first 3 things all point to an unpredictable tl, and so the value of the relation is very little. The last thing gives us that a journalist is not dependent on 1 party.
Now, going back to a lot of journalists. tl's proposal would be ridiculous, because it can be given only once, and who knows how many journalists know the story. Also, if tl pulls that stuff more often, they'd get less media attention, resulting in diminished relevance. Also for tl it's beneficial to have a good relation with journalists.
To be honest, i don't think your concerns are invalid, but i do think you're only looking at 1 side of the coin. Both parties are benefiting from good relations.
|
On January 17 2013 21:27 Yorbon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 20:53 Martijn wrote:On January 17 2013 20:36 Yorbon wrote:On January 17 2013 20:22 Martijn wrote:On January 17 2013 20:08 Yorbon wrote:
Completely agree. Personally i felt this consequence wasn't really the issue. I thought more about the ethical side of things, as Nazgul mentioned. Nazgul's view is more practical, and a useful complement to the current situation (no restrictions whatsoever). Once you (as a representative of a company or whatever) talk to a journalist, the amount of trust on either side determines how much information is presented, and how much is leaked. If both parties trust eachother greatly, then there will be secrets revealed to the journalist, who will be expected to keep them to himself, by the representative. Is there no trust at all, nothing will be revealed and thus, nothing leaked. One can guess how the other 2 will play out.
What happened here was that information was given to slasher; he was expected to not leak it, but he did. What consequences will this have? Above mentioned combinations of trust are in equilibrium. A leak as big as this one is a significant disturbance in this equilibrium. As said in the blog, would slasher be doing this again, people will reconsider their relation with him as a journalist, making him less relevant, because of a lack of trust.
This is somewhat of a metaphysical story, but i think this is kind of how it works.
and, this is almost exactly what nazgul said, but rearranged and in a bit more general terms :') Well wait a minute. I'm completely with you on saying that there should be trust and when you give information to Slasher, he needs to be responsible with that information. But that wasn't the case here ever. Slasher was given information from third parties and reported on it. If these teams had told Slasher themselves and gave a date on when it was ok to report on it, it'd be completely different. Please correct me if I'm wrong! Nazgul seems to be arguing a position where, regardless where the information comes from, Slasher should only report on the information which is convenient to us and when it's convenient to us or we simply won't maintain a relationship with him and shut him out. Does this not set off alarm bells with anyone here? To be honest, i don't really know anything about this, i assumed a scenario. That said, what described was a general point. I'll elaborate: if slasher wants to maintain a relation with tl, he needs 'trust' (my definition) from tl. If he leaks information about tl, which tl had rather kept a secret, then tl will trust him less. There is no 'should' in this issue. Effects of leaking are the following: short term success (slasher has a great article), possible long term grief (tl gives slasher no more information, no more interviews etc). The more slasher goes for short term success, the more likely the long term grief becomes. The reason nazgul argues from his position, is because he assumed a trustful position between the 2 parties. Apperently, that was a misconception. Core of relationshipmanagement is knowing what to expect. When impredictabilty rises, the added value of the relation lessens. Note there is no good or bad here. I'm just talking about the 'natural' thing to do in certain positions. I think that by extension this could be really harmful. If we're arguing that Slasher should pick and choose on what and when he reports the news because he'll lose faction (yeah I once played WoW, yeah I'm ashamed, the analogy just works) with certain teams, doesn't that mean that certain teams will start to control what is and isn't posted? At what point does he stop being a journalist and is just another promotional outlet? How much control should teams like TL, like EG, like team whatever, have over what people report on? Now this is a pure hypothetical, nothing like this has ever happened as far as I know. But what if TL were to say, hey Slasher, Empire is going to sign Dimaga, but if you don't report on it, we'll let you know our next big team news 2 days before anyone else. Through this whole "relationship management" Empire would get no coverage for a big addition to their team. Whether it's a matter of ethics, or relationship management, or whatever, anything that gives teams control over journalists should be frowned upon. The obvious middle road is that teams tell Slasher directly when there is news under an embargo saying to only report on it after 2 days, or whatever. Because controlling what information you give journalists and under what terms is completely fair, controlling what journalists report on is evil. There is no control in the way you describe it. Reacting to your last alinea the point is exactly giving information and not controlling it. A business would think twice before giving a journalist secret information after he leaks 2 or 3 business secrets regardless of where it came from. I don't see how the journalist is controlled directly by teams. He is controlled indirectly by his own interest; he has to know secrets to stay relevant. Now, applying this to your second alinea, slasher could never accept that offer from team liquid. Like i said, the added value is knowing what to expect from eachother. First, Slasher will not know what those 2 stories are, before 2 days before scheduled release. Second, what can he do with them, leak them? Maybe that, as well, will destroy the relation? Third, without accepting the offer, he knows there are 2 stories, so there may be other ways to get information on them. And last, there is no information on his relationship with empire. Dependent on this, he will or will not release his information. Overall, the first 3 things all point to an unpredictable tl, and so the value of the relation is very little. The last thing gives us that a journalist is not dependent on 1 party. Now, going back to a lot of journalists. tl's proposal would be ridiculous, because it can be given only once, and who knows how many journalists know the story. Also, if tl pulls that stuff more often, they'd get less media attention, resulting in diminished relevance. Also for tl it's beneficial to have a good relation with journalists. To be honest, i don't think your concerns are invalid, but i do think you're only looking at 1 side of the coin. Both parties are benefiting from good relations.
I'm on board with your reasoning as to why the proposal is impractical and I don't think big organisations would make offers like that purely on my own philosophy that being evil hurts your own business more than any. But if we don't draw lines somewhere, a scenario like it is not impossible which is worrisome. What I'm asking from Nazgul is to state where the line should be drawn.
Are we talking about teams deciding when and what gets reported and enforcing this by shunning anyone who inconveniences them making it impossible for them to do their jobs or are we talking about teams asking to get a 1-2 day notice that something will get reported to make it possible to prepare a statement and have an open dialogue with the journalists before something is made public. I think it's important to frame the discussion.
I'm completely behind people arguing there should be a dialogue between teams and journalists, but I'm very much against teams getting control over what gets reported.
|
On January 17 2013 21:11 FXOUnstable wrote:
There are two possible solutions to this, a) "X team" doesn't leak information or b) once slasher confirms leaked information he can trade his secrecy in trade for an exclusive interview to be embedded in the initial announcement linking to game spot or something equally as valuable to him.
Now, what happens if leaked information is found and "X team" refuses his request for an exclusive in the above manner, slasher will be forced to release the information early anyway.
This is the only solution I can really think of to make both parties happy, and it entirely depends on the teams choices or actions. If neither of these are done is it really still poor relationship management on slashers part? I would argue no, but the result is the same.
I think an additional solution would be, if "X team" would talk to slasher and say:
"We're going to sign a new player. Are you interested in an exclusive interview, to publish when we announce him offically?"
Maybe not perfect, but at least an active way for the team.
|
I don't like that Nazgul and Alex turned this discussion into ad homimen against Slasher, because maybe they can convince him to stop scooping news in favour of having good relationships with teams, but then another guy will do it and team will have to deal with the problem again.
|
Liquid`Nazgul such a reasonable and wise man.
His core arguments are in my opinion similar to alex one's but he expresses them in a sensible and positive way.
I hope the cummunity argrees and hopefully slasher chooses his next actions carefully.
|
On January 17 2013 21:38 Uranyl wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 21:11 FXOUnstable wrote:
There are two possible solutions to this, a) "X team" doesn't leak information or b) once slasher confirms leaked information he can trade his secrecy in trade for an exclusive interview to be embedded in the initial announcement linking to game spot or something equally as valuable to him.
Now, what happens if leaked information is found and "X team" refuses his request for an exclusive in the above manner, slasher will be forced to release the information early anyway.
This is the only solution I can really think of to make both parties happy, and it entirely depends on the teams choices or actions. If neither of these are done is it really still poor relationship management on slashers part? I would argue no, but the result is the same. I think an additional solution would be, if "X team" would talk to slasher and say: "We're going to sign a new player. Are you interested in an exclusive interview, to publish when we announce him offically?" Maybe not perfect, but at least an active way for the team.
That's how an embargo works "heres info dont talk till X date". I am talking about a reporter finding leaked information and how to handle it.
|
|
|
So Nazgul and Alex said the same thing, just Alex said it more aggressively and took it a step further to explain exactly how it hurts him.
Obviously, if you're releasing information that hurts one of your favorable sources, they won't be your source anymore. If you're interested in keeping that favorable source, trade that information for exclusive content. If you're not interested in keeping that source anymore, release that information.
|
You and your website have the power in this area to get away with such a statement, sadly.
You have a total misunderstanding about the role of media.
You think you are the owner of an information.
You think by buying a player you own the information of you buying him.
Thats not the case!
You say: "write what i want or i dont talk to you any more".
I hope that the media in this area gets powerful enough that they can say:
"You dont want to talk to us, then we dont write about your team any-more"
You abuse the power to be the owner of a Team and a Media site. Thats all.
In any real sport or politics this statement would be the end of your career.
At the moment thats not the case in esport and that gives you the chance, to rethink your statement.
If you would not have your own media site/show and no power over slasher,
if he would not need your information at all (Lets say he is a big journalist from a big new company)
Would we have this discussion?
I dont think so...
|
Ok It's my second post here so i will try to be a little constructive ( and hopefully avoid the mighty Ban Hammer).
Liquid`Nazgul was damn right. I can say it better and he seem to have a good grasp on how it's work in both worlds ( and by the way it's seem normal since im basicly posting that on is home : a gaming news website ) but i must say he have, i think at least, miss a point. Agree or not with Destiny and is cast about the issue you can denied he have One point.
It's the company responsability to NOT LEAK at anytime. Plain and simple.
If she leaks... well sorry buddy but you know it's my job.
let's talk about myself a bit
I'm a dev, usually in gaming hardware company / game company and clan leader. I happen to have my best friend who work dev team in a game company. Since i have works for Logitech in the past and have lot's of theyr stuff, im usually invite to test out if my stuff work on the game and was a nearly permanent beta player for is company and many others. and you know what ? I sign an NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement) !
with my own best friend.
We lived in the same house back then and yet we sign contract to each other.
handling sensitive data is standard stuff and process in this kind of industry. If someone on Logitech, blizzard or Ncsoft open theyr mouth they are kicked out, period.
But i know where this is coming : "we are eSport team, we can't fired our player and staff like that .." yes. true. But it doesn't mean us, the people, must do your job.
If Liquid`Nazgul hands me a usb key with the recording stats of his players hardware ( pressure, speed etc...)and theyr preference on gaming stuff, and doesnt make me sign an NDA ? dude ! this key will be on my ex boss desk in Logi before the end of the day.
Even if im huge fan of TL.
It's how it's work in real world. You care for your company i care for the one who pay my check.
If instead of going dark and cry that Slasher have found out EG have gone to Gamespot, IGN or anyother a month in advance and say "Hey we will add some player to our roster, we will let you make the announcement and have an exclusive interview with him. in exchange we want Sponsor logo here and here for than amount of hours and you must make it the 21"
Then it was an agreement. you work together. You making good journalisme ( your unbiased, you doesn't have agree on modify your view, and have full liberty to do it the way you want) , good sponsort exposure and set up a relationship who maybe will make that someday Slasher will tip ou on the "hey, i think this guy in your troops talk a bit to much care of that".
Instead of that, they bring nothing to the table and yell that a journalist have made a paper about infos, have found out himslef... wait what ? you bring nothing and yelled ? why slasher even listenning to them ?
and for all those who will say " you can't keep your people from talking". just one word : NDA.
I have left Logitech in the late 2008 as of now i can't talk about what i have done there ( and dont have ) and can't have work in a competing campany as late as june 2009. If i have broke one of these conditions, they can sue me and make me pay a HUGE fine. Welcome to real world.
So to put in a nutshell :
-Trade agreement and working relation works both way, so give something to the press if you expect something from the press ( PR 101)
-Don't be naive and bunker up yourself with NDA and paperworks, and actually remove the leaks.
Since EG made none of these thing, they have basicly no roots for theyr claims.
If you want play in big league and major média, act like big players, not like a familly small shop.
TL;DR; Look the last bit 
Ps: sorry for my bad spelling skill, was bad in my own language so in english...
|
On January 17 2013 21:45 FXOUnstable wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 21:38 Uranyl wrote:On January 17 2013 21:11 FXOUnstable wrote:
There are two possible solutions to this, a) "X team" doesn't leak information or b) once slasher confirms leaked information he can trade his secrecy in trade for an exclusive interview to be embedded in the initial announcement linking to game spot or something equally as valuable to him.
Now, what happens if leaked information is found and "X team" refuses his request for an exclusive in the above manner, slasher will be forced to release the information early anyway.
This is the only solution I can really think of to make both parties happy, and it entirely depends on the teams choices or actions. If neither of these are done is it really still poor relationship management on slashers part? I would argue no, but the result is the same. I think an additional solution would be, if "X team" would talk to slasher and say: "We're going to sign a new player. Are you interested in an exclusive interview, to publish when we announce him offically?" Maybe not perfect, but at least an active way for the team. That's how an embargo works "heres info dont talk till X date". I am talking about a reporter finding leaked information and how to handle it.
I understand what you're talking about. But where is the difference between your a) and my idea in this context? Both prevent the situation of leaked informations getting published? And other than your b), where the reporter "threatens" a team, if a team offers a deal, the whole situations is more relaxed and there are less tensions between the reporter and the team.
|
On January 17 2013 21:45 FXOUnstable wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 21:38 Uranyl wrote:On January 17 2013 21:11 FXOUnstable wrote:
There are two possible solutions to this, a) "X team" doesn't leak information or b) once slasher confirms leaked information he can trade his secrecy in trade for an exclusive interview to be embedded in the initial announcement linking to game spot or something equally as valuable to him.
Now, what happens if leaked information is found and "X team" refuses his request for an exclusive in the above manner, slasher will be forced to release the information early anyway.
This is the only solution I can really think of to make both parties happy, and it entirely depends on the teams choices or actions. If neither of these are done is it really still poor relationship management on slashers part? I would argue no, but the result is the same. I think an additional solution would be, if "X team" would talk to slasher and say: "We're going to sign a new player. Are you interested in an exclusive interview, to publish when we announce him offically?" Maybe not perfect, but at least an active way for the team. That's how an embargo works "heres info dont talk till X date". I am talking about a reporter finding leaked information and how to handle it.
How to handle it? Normally you run with the reporter/journalist cause he's in control when he's got leaked information. You can offer him something for keeping the story back but other then that you cant do much. You can ban him from talking to other people in your organisation but that wont help you at all cause he clearly doesn't need to speak to you to get a scoop anyway. And since in this case there aren't many journalist in the first place in esports, all teams kinda need Slasher.
Basically you cant do shit when something gets leaked, its not longer in your hands.
But I guess we are have to be happy that esports isn't that big yet cause if Slasher can make this kind of drama with these kind of small things...... i can only imagine the drama we would have if there were some good investigative journalists who dig up real shit and write people/organizations what ever in to the ground.
|
Brazil1429 Posts
On January 17 2013 21:38 Uranyl wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 21:11 FXOUnstable wrote:
There are two possible solutions to this, a) "X team" doesn't leak information or b) once slasher confirms leaked information he can trade his secrecy in trade for an exclusive interview to be embedded in the initial announcement linking to game spot or something equally as valuable to him.
Now, what happens if leaked information is found and "X team" refuses his request for an exclusive in the above manner, slasher will be forced to release the information early anyway.
This is the only solution I can really think of to make both parties happy, and it entirely depends on the teams choices or actions. If neither of these are done is it really still poor relationship management on slashers part? I would argue no, but the result is the same. I think an additional solution would be, if "X team" would talk to slasher and say: "We're going to sign a new player. Are you interested in an exclusive interview, to publish when we announce him offically?" Maybe not perfect, but at least an active way for the team.
That's not how an embargo works. Teams organizing one MUST offer something in exchange, and it must be better than a 'exclusive,' because breaking the news is simply way more important than an exclusive. On the games industry for example, journalists have a very early access to games and to the dev team.
Most importantly, there's usually a professional publicist working with the journalists and making sure that everything is working,
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51451 Posts
Nicely put but their is still flaws in that idea as well.
Many journalists aren't friends with (lets take football as an example) with football players themselves but their "agents" the people representing them who really dont give a flying (..) about who they play for or how they are doing they just care about how much $$$$ they can make for them.
They also know that any press is good press, so when contract negotiations are coming up they make it public what is going on to get other clubs sniffing around him and offering the money that the agent can get. The agent will be speaking to press people all the time getting awareness for his player, whether it will be saying " he isn't happy at the moment " or " he is not signing a contract yet".
Now try and switch this back into E-Sports perspective, and the way our organization is, it is not hard for say a player, to tell his friend some sort of story that is under the carpet. Now this friend could quite also be a friend of Slasher (lets just use him like everyone else is ;_; ) or even his friend might be a friend of Slasher's. It wont be long before what the player told his friend is being repeated back to Slasher. Then Slasher just goes straight out and reports it. That is what i think is happening here, many pro gamers don't really understand what they are involved with and have no sort of "rule book" so to say in terms of how they should be acting/representing themselves and what they should be talking about to others.
Now you can also add, is anything of this actually "bad", is Slasher reporting that TL is going to sign player "x" before we know about it good or bad?
Is Slasher reporting that team "y" is going to close down, before an announcement to much ?
Imo, no it is not, aslong as he has credited sources and isn't just flat out lieing to get views on his journalism.
It is down to the teams themselves to keep information more tight if they don't want it out in the open, or atleast not until they release it themselves.
|
I understand the point, and it's completely realistic. But journalists in the general world spend a lot of time worried that this sort of thing will happen. A journalist who doesn't print an embarrassing story about a cabinet secretary because then that person would stop leaking to them is seen as putting their own career above good journalism. Of course it happens all the time, and the people with information (cabinet secretary, Nazgul, whoever) use it all the time to try to get favorable coverage. But journalists idolize the people who don't care and publish the embarrassing story anyway as the model of what journalism should be.
|
On January 17 2013 22:07 Uranyl wrote:
I understand what you're talking about. But where is the difference between your a) and my idea in this context? Both prevent the situation of leaked informations getting published? And other than your b), where the reporter "threatens" a team, if a team offers a deal, the whole situations is more relaxed and there are less tensions between the reporter and the team.
The difference is in relationship management as Nazgul was saying, it depends on the context, reporter has the information already not saying anything is more damaging than is "threat" because the end result is the same, he is still coming to the team saying "hey lets both get something out of this" instead of one hurting the other ect.
On January 17 2013 22:20 TheSir wrote:
How to handle it? Normally you run with the reporter/journalist cause he's in control when he's got leaked information. You can offer him something for keeping the story back but other then that you cant do much. You can ban him from talking to other people in your organisation but that wont help you at all cause he clearly doesn't need to speak to you to get a scoop anyway. And since in this case there aren't many journalist in the first place in esports, all teams kinda need Slasher.
Basically you cant do shit when something gets leaked, its not longer in your hands.
But I guess we are have to be happy that esports isn't that big yet cause if Slasher can make this kind of drama with these kind of small things...... i can only imagine the drama we would have if there were some good investigative journalists who dig up real shit and write people/organizations what ever in to the ground.
Again, this context is in relationship management as Nazgul was saying. No there is nothing that the team can do, its all on the reporters shoulders, but if the team really is going to try to blacklist him then that is the only medium that can be had.
|
On January 17 2013 20:13 pmastah wrote:
Kinda obvious Nazgul would take a middle of the road approach after Alex got butthurt by everyone.
Or you know.. they are different people and have different thoughts. That could be it too.
|
Calgary25969 Posts
But how is this something that needs to be discussed publicly at all? If I'm not trustworthy you would make a thread "Chill is not trustworthy". You wouldn't make a thread "untrustworthy people in Esports". More than likely the thread would be a private conversation with your staff.
That's what I don't get about this entire situation. If Slasher is fine with what he's doing but people feel he isn't trustworthy, then then need to privately inform their organization and change their own actions dealing with him, not start a campaign against articles.
|
On January 17 2013 22:41 Chill wrote:
But how is this something that needs to be discussed publicly at all? If I'm not trustworthy you would make a thread "Chill is not trustworthy". You wouldn't make a thread "untrustworthy people in Esports". More than likely the thread would be a private conversation with your staff.
That's what I don't get about this entire situation. If Slasher is fine with what he's doing but people feel he isn't trustworthy, then then need to privately inform their organization and change their own actions dealing with him, not start a campaign against articles.
Well Alex said that he had countless discuissions with slasher before with no results.
Maybe he thought the community would take his side and this would have an influence on slasher's attidude.
|
I'm glad I got to read your thoughts on this Victor. However, I hope that you at least acknowledge that the onus is on yourself and your organization to keep information that could affect your bottom line a little closer to the chest.
I understand in certain cases doing so is a very difficult proposition but Slasher's responsibility is to Gamespot at the end of the day, so if he chooses to sit on information that he receives he's hurting his own employer in the process. I still believe it's his job and his responsibility to report the news as it comes in, despite the fact that as Alex said, he wouldn't be able to announce it as well as the organization.
I also understand it's perfectly within your right to disassociate with Slasher in the future, but I think this is just setting a bad precedent for the relationship between the organizations and the media. Again, I think this is on the organizations themselves to keep this information from leaking to the media.
Perhaps eSports teams in general need to re-evaluate their business models if so much of their total revenue comes from the page hits generated from a single news announcement (Alex implied as much during his rant).
|
On January 17 2013 20:39 Uranyl wrote:
There is something I don't really understand and i would like if someone could explain it to me.
How does leaking the announcement hurts?
From my point of view, when it was leaked that snute would join liquid I was excited and hyped to see the offical announcement. I visited the liquid page more often just to check if the announcement is allready there.
Also, I can hardly imagine that someone doesn't read the offical announcement because it was leaked before.
I did this as well. The leaked information got me super eaget about the official confirmatipn.
|
On January 17 2013 22:31 FXOUnstable wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 22:07 Uranyl wrote:
I understand what you're talking about. But where is the difference between your a) and my idea in this context? Both prevent the situation of leaked informations getting published? And other than your b), where the reporter "threatens" a team, if a team offers a deal, the whole situations is more relaxed and there are less tensions between the reporter and the team.
The difference is in relationship management as Nazgul was saying, it depends on the context, reporter has the information already not saying anything is more damaging than is "threat" because the end result is the same, he is still coming to the team saying "hey lets both get something out of this" instead of one hurting the other ect. Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 22:20 TheSir wrote:
How to handle it? Normally you run with the reporter/journalist cause he's in control when he's got leaked information. You can offer him something for keeping the story back but other then that you cant do much. You can ban him from talking to other people in your organisation but that wont help you at all cause he clearly doesn't need to speak to you to get a scoop anyway. And since in this case there aren't many journalist in the first place in esports, all teams kinda need Slasher.
Basically you cant do shit when something gets leaked, its not longer in your hands.
But I guess we are have to be happy that esports isn't that big yet cause if Slasher can make this kind of drama with these kind of small things...... i can only imagine the drama we would have if there were some good investigative journalists who dig up real shit and write people/organizations what ever in to the ground.
Again, this context is in relationship management as Nazgul was saying. No there is nothing that the team can do, its all on the reporters shoulders, but if the team really is going to try to blacklist him then that is the only medium that can be had.
Don't forget that's not just in the reporters interest to have a good relationship with a team, but also the other way around.
And the teams are the one how create the information and decide how to handle it. The first move is theirs.
Not that I have any idea what the teams can really do or not.
|
I don't get why some people are even surprised by this. This move was basically forced by Slasher. Relationships between press and industry "in the real world" work based on tension between the 2, and now that Slasher wants to put on the big boy pants, obviously teams will start too. They don't owe him anything. He's legally free to write about whatever information he manages to find, so are the teams to just stop talking to him completely.
|
So, you're admitting the leak came from TL?
|
PC Gamer & ESPN have informed on this situation well, methinks. Cooler heads have prevailed.
|
I believe huk twitted the same thing yesterday, "there's nothing wrong with trying to be the TMZ or the TIME mag of esports, but you can't be both"
|
|
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
On January 17 2013 22:41 Chill wrote:
But how is this something that needs to be discussed publicly at all? If I'm not trustworthy you would make a thread "Chill is not trustworthy". You wouldn't make a thread "untrustworthy people in Esports". More than likely the thread would be a private conversation with your staff.
That's what I don't get about this entire situation. If Slasher is fine with what he's doing but people feel he isn't trustworthy, then then need to privately inform their organization and change their own actions dealing with him, not start a campaign against articles.
That is what puzzles me as well, though you can say Nazgul is just adding his own views to what is already a wet floor, covered in split milk. I suppose EG, or maybe just Alex Garfield, was personally affronted by what Slasher did, but surely he is intelligent and experienced enough to know Slasher was within his 'journalistic rights' to do what he did? There was absolutely no need to go public with all this unless it was just to vent, and gain some sympathy for him and his organisation, as well as to try and turn the community against Slasher. That would be a low move, but I wouldn't put it past EG or Alex Garfield. Heck, that would make more sense to me than someone like him actually thinking Slasher's decision was morally or ethically indefensible. It's funny that someone like Alex Garfield, who talks so often about what needs to be done for esports to be a legit industry, has no problem taking a personal vendetta public just to win the popular vote.
I don't claim I know what the industry needs, but I can tell you what it can do without; these darn episodes of drama that's no good, or of use to anyone.
|
It is actually this easy and it was a bit unfortunate that Alex did not say the same thing as Nazgul (as I do believe that this was close to his point too). It always comes down to personal relationships and trust. When a major organization (sports or otherwise) want to inform the public about something they write a press release (or make a video or similar) and grant trusted journalists access to deeper information. There are two things that comes into being a trusted journalist; (1) not releasing information that will damage the organization in question and (2) producing high-quality articles/media.
Any journalist can choose whether they want to try to comply with the two points above, thus making them "trustworthy" to the organization, or if they want to take another (perhaps easier) road and publish things that they might know that the organization might not like or produce low-quality results.
In the discussion on Inside the game, Rob wanted to convey the message that he does write high-quality articles from time to time. The problem is that he also release information that might not be what the organizations want to have released in this way and he compose low-quality articles (tweets and whatnot). This makes him not trustworthy and thus the organizations will look for better partners when they want to release information/news to the public.
Edit: So in short, I don't think that "embargo's" or trade agreements are the way to go. Personal connections between trusted journalists and the organizations will be the solution. People that show themselves as not trustworthy will be stuck publishing shitty news and not have access to the leaders of organizations and players after a while. There will be some sort of "natural selection" as soon as the scene stabilizes. There will always be a place for both the news-leakers that only want to get the easy, short term, posts and for the serious journalists that makes good pieces. There is no way to remove one or the other.
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
|
Perfect. At the end of the day, it is about relationships. Business and relationships do not always follow the same rules of engagement.
|
Glad you are the owner of Liquid, because you have such good reason and logic.
|
Wait, what have I missed now? What has Slasher done? 
|
On January 18 2013 00:27 Holgerius wrote:Wait, what have I missed now? What has Slasher done?
Leaked transfers before official announcements by respective teams.
|
On January 17 2013 20:22 Martijn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 20:08 Yorbon wrote:
Completely agree. Personally i felt this consequence wasn't really the issue. I thought more about the ethical side of things, as Nazgul mentioned. Nazgul's view is more practical, and a useful complement to the current situation (no restrictions whatsoever). Once you (as a representative of a company or whatever) talk to a journalist, the amount of trust on either side determines how much information is presented, and how much is leaked. If both parties trust eachother greatly, then there will be secrets revealed to the journalist, who will be expected to keep them to himself, by the representative. Is there no trust at all, nothing will be revealed and thus, nothing leaked. One can guess how the other 2 will play out.
What happened here was that information was given to slasher; he was expected to not leak it, but he did. What consequences will this have? Above mentioned combinations of trust are in equilibrium. A leak as big as this one is a significant disturbance in this equilibrium. As said in the blog, would slasher be doing this again, people will reconsider their relation with him as a journalist, making him less relevant, because of a lack of trust.
This is somewhat of a metaphysical story, but i think this is kind of how it works.
and, this is almost exactly what nazgul said, but rearranged and in a bit more general terms :') Well wait a minute. I'm completely with you on saying that there should be trust and when you give information to Slasher, he needs to be responsible with that information. But that wasn't the case here ever. Slasher was given information from third parties and reported on it. If these teams had told Slasher themselves and gave a date on when it was ok to report on it, it'd be completely different. Please correct me if I'm wrong! Nazgul seems to be arguing a position where, regardless where the information comes from, Slasher should only report on the information which is convenient to us and when it's convenient to us or we simply won't maintain a relationship with him and shut him out. Does this not set off alarm bells with anyone here?
That's not what I gathered from this post. I saw it more with Nazgul saying that Slasher is more than welcome to continue to post news like he has, and that Nazgul has no ethical qualm with Slasher doing it.
However, he believes that this will make it difficult for him to continue working with Slasher in a more official capacity. Slasher wants business information, and it's his job to report that information. However if he's going to post the news that he gets from other sources when it's more convenient for him and less convenient for liquid (or completely inconvenient at that) then it's harder for the business relationship to continue working as it has.
Nazgul is not really arguing from a particular position as far as I can see, he's more just stating basic business practices.
Say your job is town crier for a small town, and you are the only person with a watch. If you make a deal with a loudspeaker company to make your announcement in 100 heartbeats that it is noon, and that loudspeaker company tells a journalist this information, who spreads that information by word of mouth, then your job is not necessarily negated, but it's far less impactful. You may be friends with that journalist on the side, and accept and like him as a person, but it's not likely that you're going to tell him about daylight savings time in advance which you may have otherwise, he's going to have to find that out from the loudspeaker company again.
That metaphor was way confusing I think, but fits... maybe?
|
This is very true, to esports. Since it's so small. How you don't see this is other sports is however beyond me. The press has a far greater power in other sports and can easily play both roles. It's about the balance.
|
Nazgul always calm and collected :D
|
On January 17 2013 19:33 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
I don't hate Slasher, and I don't think what he did is unethical. It is a fair argument to say journalists should not withhold stories because reporting is their duty. I see a lot of arguments out there, but surprisingly I don't see many resembling my thoughts on the situation. I figured it would be good to put my thoughts out there.
I've talked to Slasher about these things yesterday and he is both understanding as well as receptive to the arguments provided.
My view is not about the ethics or the morality of the situation, I don't believe these need to be part of the discussion. I have my own reasons for minding Slasher leaking our announcements to the public, not necessarily in line with what was said on Lo3. I am not upset over this, I am not stressed over it, and I certainly don't hate Slasher. Unfortunately, I internally deal with things on a regular basis that are much more stressful and impactful to my organization. Still, I find it an interesting case to talk about and believe I can add something to the discussion at hand.
My argument is based around relationship management. I see many people looking at other sports for the ethical justification of journalists leaking information. I agree with you there. I want to take a look at other sports as well. If you are an investigating journalist in another sport you will often find yourself being friends with a player. This player can provide you with information on his teammates, management, sponsors, club, atmosphere, and more. For as long as the journalist does not screw over his source he may benefit from this relationship. If he does screw him, the relationship is over and he has lost his connection.
Slasher on the one hand wants to use Liquid for information supply, as well as work with us officially on interviews and other content. Yet, on the other hand he will look for leaks outside of my organization that will impact me negatively upon releasing the information. I view this as poor relationship management. I don't think it works like that anywhere, neither here nor in other sports.
I enjoy Slasher's company, and I don't mind sitting down with him for a beer outside of all of this, but in the end it comes down to being capable of separating my business relationships from a personal like or dislike for his character. If he does these things, that again are ethically entirely acceptable, then our business relation will be in a poor condition. If he picks which one he wants to be doing, I will blame him for neither, but trying to do both makes it very difficult.
I would agree with that if Slasher was the only journalist "in esports". But he isn't and if there are information leaks that will impact you or your company negatively someone will find and publish them. Why shouldn't it be Slasher who profits from such a leak, a guy you admittedly like, instead of someone else? The information will get out anyway, the only thing Slasher maybe (not nesessarily) should have the courtesy of doing is to warn you that the information is out there.
|
Usually two reporters cover the beat differently. One will do investigative/enterprise coverage while another is the "beat" reporter. This helps the beat reporter manage his relationships better, and not burn brides, but let's the enterprise reporter break leaks because ultimately he may or may not be dealing with a team on a daily basis.
|
OP is lacking in understanding of how the press typically relate to those they cover. It is at once an adversarial and mutually beneficial relationship. The press try to figure out and report what is going on and attempt to do so with scant regard for the time tables of those they cover and in exchange be used as a tactical publicity tool by the covered parties. The reason this functions in such a bizarre manner in SC2 "e-sports" is that the major entities in the scene like EG and TL are already functioning as pseudo-news-providing-agencies that churn out fluff and community interest pieces as well as game analysis (but do not produce self-critical coverage or cover the day to day tick-tock type news). This does in fact put them into competition with people like Slasher because an actual journalist is unlikely to be willing to create some sort of intra-scene division of labor in which they report on the things that the teams aren't interested in but leave the rest alone.
It is understandable that a site like TL that has had a virtual monopoly on english language Starcraft coverage for over a decade would react adversely to competition even if said competition is only tangential to what they do. The idea of a coordinated or unilateral freezing out of the press is also not a new idea. It is, however, an idea whose success is dependent on things outside the control of TL. Mainly, it depends on whether or not there is a real demand for the type of coverage that Slasher provides. There will always be leaks and as the scene becomes larger and more intertwined they will become increasingly inevitable. A lack of demand for news typically signifies a lack of interest. If e-sports grows and becomes more popular news coverage of the type Slasher provides will become indispensable and will eventually reach more eyeballs (and most importantly different eyeballs) than the community based fansites. Either accept that as reality and learn to deal with it or hope that the scene remains a small, tight knit group of fanatics who you can peddle to your sponsors.
As an aside, I really hope that most of the posters in this thread don't vote in elections.
|
On January 18 2013 00:32 Noobity wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 20:22 Martijn wrote:On January 17 2013 20:08 Yorbon wrote:
Completely agree. Personally i felt this consequence wasn't really the issue. I thought more about the ethical side of things, as Nazgul mentioned. Nazgul's view is more practical, and a useful complement to the current situation (no restrictions whatsoever). Once you (as a representative of a company or whatever) talk to a journalist, the amount of trust on either side determines how much information is presented, and how much is leaked. If both parties trust eachother greatly, then there will be secrets revealed to the journalist, who will be expected to keep them to himself, by the representative. Is there no trust at all, nothing will be revealed and thus, nothing leaked. One can guess how the other 2 will play out.
What happened here was that information was given to slasher; he was expected to not leak it, but he did. What consequences will this have? Above mentioned combinations of trust are in equilibrium. A leak as big as this one is a significant disturbance in this equilibrium. As said in the blog, would slasher be doing this again, people will reconsider their relation with him as a journalist, making him less relevant, because of a lack of trust.
This is somewhat of a metaphysical story, but i think this is kind of how it works.
and, this is almost exactly what nazgul said, but rearranged and in a bit more general terms :') Well wait a minute. I'm completely with you on saying that there should be trust and when you give information to Slasher, he needs to be responsible with that information. But that wasn't the case here ever. Slasher was given information from third parties and reported on it. If these teams had told Slasher themselves and gave a date on when it was ok to report on it, it'd be completely different. Please correct me if I'm wrong! Nazgul seems to be arguing a position where, regardless where the information comes from, Slasher should only report on the information which is convenient to us and when it's convenient to us or we simply won't maintain a relationship with him and shut him out. Does this not set off alarm bells with anyone here? That's not what I gathered from this post. I saw it more with Nazgul saying that Slasher is more than welcome to continue to post news like he has, and that Nazgul has no ethical qualm with Slasher doing it. However, he believes that this will make it difficult for him to continue working with Slasher in a more official capacity. Slasher wants business information, and it's his job to report that information. However if he's going to post the news that he gets from other sources when it's more convenient for him and less convenient for liquid (or completely inconvenient at that) then it's harder for the business relationship to continue working as it has. Nazgul is not really arguing from a particular position as far as I can see, he's more just stating basic business practices. Say your job is town crier for a small town, and you are the only person with a watch. If you make a deal with a loudspeaker company to make your announcement in 100 heartbeats that it is noon, and that loudspeaker company tells a journalist this information, who spreads that information by word of mouth, then your job is not necessarily negated, but it's far less impactful. You may be friends with that journalist on the side, and accept and like him as a person, but it's not likely that you're going to tell him about daylight savings time in advance which you may have otherwise, he's going to have to find that out from the loudspeaker company again. That metaphor was way confusing I think, but fits... maybe?
You lost me with the metaphor to be honest, but I get the point. Argument being I believe that, regardless of where the information comes from, the team should have control over it or else they should feel free to punish the person reporting on it. Which I simply can't agree on. Yeah, obviously TL or EG or team X could make Slashers or any reporters job a lot harder if they wanted to. Aside from the Kafkaesque environment that turns esports in, that's certainly bad business for the team as well though
Even if we take ethics and morality out of the discussion (which I think is pretty ridiculous because of the potential consequences), yeah a team can blackball a reporter, but the team benefits from that talent and exposure from that reporter. Arguing it's ok to cut a reporter off because you're unhappy with them doing their job is arguing it's ok to hurt both your team and the reporter because of personal conflicts.
|
On January 18 2013 00:28 S_SienZ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 00:27 Holgerius wrote:Wait, what have I missed now? What has Slasher done? Leaked transfers before official announcements by respective teams.
I hate the word "leaked", because Slasher didn't actually LEAK it. He reports it forward, so someone else does the actual leaking.
|
On January 18 2013 00:32 Noobity wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 20:22 Martijn wrote:On January 17 2013 20:08 Yorbon wrote:
Completely agree. Personally i felt this consequence wasn't really the issue. I thought more about the ethical side of things, as Nazgul mentioned. Nazgul's view is more practical, and a useful complement to the current situation (no restrictions whatsoever). Once you (as a representative of a company or whatever) talk to a journalist, the amount of trust on either side determines how much information is presented, and how much is leaked. If both parties trust eachother greatly, then there will be secrets revealed to the journalist, who will be expected to keep them to himself, by the representative. Is there no trust at all, nothing will be revealed and thus, nothing leaked. One can guess how the other 2 will play out.
What happened here was that information was given to slasher; he was expected to not leak it, but he did. What consequences will this have? Above mentioned combinations of trust are in equilibrium. A leak as big as this one is a significant disturbance in this equilibrium. As said in the blog, would slasher be doing this again, people will reconsider their relation with him as a journalist, making him less relevant, because of a lack of trust.
This is somewhat of a metaphysical story, but i think this is kind of how it works.
and, this is almost exactly what nazgul said, but rearranged and in a bit more general terms :') Well wait a minute. I'm completely with you on saying that there should be trust and when you give information to Slasher, he needs to be responsible with that information. But that wasn't the case here ever. Slasher was given information from third parties and reported on it. If these teams had told Slasher themselves and gave a date on when it was ok to report on it, it'd be completely different. Please correct me if I'm wrong! Nazgul seems to be arguing a position where, regardless where the information comes from, Slasher should only report on the information which is convenient to us and when it's convenient to us or we simply won't maintain a relationship with him and shut him out. Does this not set off alarm bells with anyone here? That's not what I gathered from this post. I saw it more with Nazgul saying that Slasher is more than welcome to continue to post news like he has, and that Nazgul has no ethical qualm with Slasher doing it. However, he believes that this will make it difficult for him to continue working with Slasher in a more official capacity. Slasher wants business information, and it's his job to report that information. However if he's going to post the news that he gets from other sources when it's more convenient for him and less convenient for liquid (or completely inconvenient at that) then it's harder for the business relationship to continue working as it has. Nazgul is not really arguing from a particular position as far as I can see, he's more just stating basic business practices. Say your job is town crier for a small town, and you are the only person with a watch. If you make a deal with a loudspeaker company to make your announcement in 100 heartbeats that it is noon, and that loudspeaker company tells a journalist this information, who spreads that information by word of mouth, then your job is not necessarily negated, but it's far less impactful. You may be friends with that journalist on the side, and accept and like him as a person, but it's not likely that you're going to tell him about daylight savings time in advance which you may have otherwise, he's going to have to find that out from the loudspeaker company again. That metaphor was way confusing I think, but fits... maybe?
Nonsensical analogy aside, why would you accept Nazgul's premise at face value? If an organization works alongside the press in an "official capacity" why would they do so if it weren't already in their best interests? He is portraying it as if he's doing Slasher a favor. Maybe he is, but I would err towards cynicism here.
The utility of working with Slasher shouldn't be affected by his breaking news that TL is trying to keep secret. The fact that he breaks news that he learns about independently doesn't mean that he can't be trusted to abide by embargoes that he agrees to. What he is saying boils down to one of two things:
1. He is willing to bite off his nose to spite his face and forego whatever utility he gained from working officially with Slasher in order to exact some retribution.
2. He wants to make an example of Slasher in particular and would continue to work with other more compliant journalists.
Number 2 makes more sense. If this option is actually workable, however, it would speak volumes about the quality of "journalism" in e-sports and would perfectly reinforce the points made in the pc-gamer OPED that the esports community and its media infrastructure simply don't understand journalism.
|
Could someone provide some context to what we're actually referring to? Is it Slasher releasing news that Snute was joining? Or something else?
|
|
|
Then again, as Destiny pointed out, if something leaks, it is the TEAM's fault, not Slasher's for finding out and doing his job...
|
Austria24417 Posts
On January 18 2013 01:15 AshenCZ wrote:
Then again, as Destiny pointed out, if something leaks, it is the TEAM's fault, not Slasher's for finding out and doing his job...
That is correct. Information should be protected, especially the second money is involved. I think what Nazgul is arguing is that Slasher (or other media agents, but Slasher is mentioned) want to both cooperate with teams on certain production and then minutes later actively search for information to release and thereby hurting the these teams. I mean, the last part is his job as a journalist and it's absolutely alright but it only seems reasonable to me if teams will stop cooperating with him in return, in order to maybe stop him from actively looking for this information.
It's a pretty hot topic, basically Slasher is doing nothing but his job and that's perfectly fine. What is NOT his job but just an added bonus is cooperating with teams. And that's something these teams can stop any second to maybe put pressure on him.
|
On January 18 2013 01:15 AshenCZ wrote:
Then again, as Destiny pointed out, if something leaks, it is the TEAM's fault, not Slasher's for finding out and doing his job...
As no one is saying it is Slashers fault. No one at all. They are only saying that him leaking the information early cuts into their bottom line, which I don’t think a lot of people really thought about this discussion. The team owners are saying the ideal relationship would be if Slasher tried to work with them a little so everyone got exposure. Slasher doesn’t have to work with them, but the teams will then need to take efforts to protect themselves better, which means people may be punished(loss of job, less pay) in the future for leaking stories to Slasher if someone finds out they did. There is no right or wrong, it is just a very open discussion about the relationship the teams have to the press.
Personally, I would like to see the teams and press work better on this issue. Why? Because I think it’s a stupid thing to fight over and I enjoy the coverage that Slasher and Gamespot provide. I don’t want the teams to lose on potential income they need and I want the quality coverage we have gotten to date. I don’t want them to have a combative relationship over a minor issue of leaking signings a couple days early.
|
On January 18 2013 01:50 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 01:15 AshenCZ wrote:
Then again, as Destiny pointed out, if something leaks, it is the TEAM's fault, not Slasher's for finding out and doing his job... The team owners are saying the ideal relationship would be if Slasher tried to work for them a little so everyone got exposure.
Why not just pay the guy to follow their marketing goals? Seems simpler to me.
|
Austria24417 Posts
On January 18 2013 02:11 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 01:50 Plansix wrote:On January 18 2013 01:15 AshenCZ wrote:
Then again, as Destiny pointed out, if something leaks, it is the TEAM's fault, not Slasher's for finding out and doing his job... The team owners are saying the ideal relationship would be if Slasher tried to work for them a little so everyone got exposure. Why not just pay the guy to follow their marketing goals? Seems simpler to me.
Because that would make Slasher lose his credibility as a journalist. Right now if Slasher releases something, you can be pretty sure it's accurate because he's not affiliated with any team. The second he is, people will start doubting whether or not he's just promoting a team when he releases or purposely doesn't release something.
|
No, it is not the team's fault that it leaks. It's something we're not in control over. There are too many people that needs to be involved in player transfers and stuff alike for the team to have control over the situation -- nor do they really control the people who knows. Things such as the team the player comes from, the other bidding teams and tournaments who need to be informed ahead of time in order to secure spots/book/pay for things.
An example is that I had personally informed EG, IPL and IEM about Snute prior to the announcement since if I want Snute to play in SC2L or IPTL, I need to do that. Snute also came from another team and there were other bidders who also knew of our situation. There's just too many people who you don't have power over or control of.
|
Slasher is your typical shmuck, you'd think his name is Shlomo and he sells diamonds in Brooklyn. His personality just, makes sense. Of course he wouldn't give a shit about turning around and leaking stories, as well as hyping up drama, for his own personal benefit.
User was warned for this post
|
Austria24417 Posts
On January 18 2013 02:36 nath wrote:
Slasher is your typical shmuck, you'd think his name is Shlomo and he sells diamonds in Brooklyn. His personality just, makes sense. Of course he wouldn't give a shit about turning around and leaking stories, as well as hyping up drama, for his own personal benefit.
You just described every journalist. Just in a negative way and quite offensive against Jewish people.
|
Everyone welcome our new standard for ESPORTS reporting:
You can either only report what the teams says is OKAY to report at all times, or they will cut every journalist out who prints something they don't like. Got it. ESPORTS reporting will become a giant circle jerk between the teams and the journalists who just want to be in the "scene."
|
On January 18 2013 00:50 Martijn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 00:32 Noobity wrote:On January 17 2013 20:22 Martijn wrote:On January 17 2013 20:08 Yorbon wrote:
Completely agree. Personally i felt this consequence wasn't really the issue. I thought more about the ethical side of things, as Nazgul mentioned. Nazgul's view is more practical, and a useful complement to the current situation (no restrictions whatsoever). Once you (as a representative of a company or whatever) talk to a journalist, the amount of trust on either side determines how much information is presented, and how much is leaked. If both parties trust eachother greatly, then there will be secrets revealed to the journalist, who will be expected to keep them to himself, by the representative. Is there no trust at all, nothing will be revealed and thus, nothing leaked. One can guess how the other 2 will play out.
What happened here was that information was given to slasher; he was expected to not leak it, but he did. What consequences will this have? Above mentioned combinations of trust are in equilibrium. A leak as big as this one is a significant disturbance in this equilibrium. As said in the blog, would slasher be doing this again, people will reconsider their relation with him as a journalist, making him less relevant, because of a lack of trust.
This is somewhat of a metaphysical story, but i think this is kind of how it works.
and, this is almost exactly what nazgul said, but rearranged and in a bit more general terms :') Well wait a minute. I'm completely with you on saying that there should be trust and when you give information to Slasher, he needs to be responsible with that information. But that wasn't the case here ever. Slasher was given information from third parties and reported on it. If these teams had told Slasher themselves and gave a date on when it was ok to report on it, it'd be completely different. Please correct me if I'm wrong! Nazgul seems to be arguing a position where, regardless where the information comes from, Slasher should only report on the information which is convenient to us and when it's convenient to us or we simply won't maintain a relationship with him and shut him out. Does this not set off alarm bells with anyone here? That's not what I gathered from this post. I saw it more with Nazgul saying that Slasher is more than welcome to continue to post news like he has, and that Nazgul has no ethical qualm with Slasher doing it. However, he believes that this will make it difficult for him to continue working with Slasher in a more official capacity. Slasher wants business information, and it's his job to report that information. However if he's going to post the news that he gets from other sources when it's more convenient for him and less convenient for liquid (or completely inconvenient at that) then it's harder for the business relationship to continue working as it has. Nazgul is not really arguing from a particular position as far as I can see, he's more just stating basic business practices. Say your job is town crier for a small town, and you are the only person with a watch. If you make a deal with a loudspeaker company to make your announcement in 100 heartbeats that it is noon, and that loudspeaker company tells a journalist this information, who spreads that information by word of mouth, then your job is not necessarily negated, but it's far less impactful. You may be friends with that journalist on the side, and accept and like him as a person, but it's not likely that you're going to tell him about daylight savings time in advance which you may have otherwise, he's going to have to find that out from the loudspeaker company again. That metaphor was way confusing I think, but fits... maybe? You lost me with the metaphor to be honest, but I get the point. Argument being I believe that, regardless of where the information comes from, the team should have control over it or else they should feel free to punish the person reporting on it. Which I simply can't agree on. Yeah, obviously TL or EG or team X could make Slashers or any reporters job a lot harder if they wanted to. Aside from the Kafkaesque environment that turns esports in, that's certainly bad business for the team as well though Even if we take ethics and morality out of the discussion (which I think is pretty ridiculous because of the potential consequences), yeah a team can blackball a reporter, but the team benefits from that talent and exposure from that reporter. Arguing it's ok to cut a reporter off because you're unhappy with them doing their job is arguing it's ok to hurt both your team and the reporter because of personal conflicts.
Yeah it's a little ridiculous a metaphor. Certainly works in my head.
I don't see it so much as punishment though, more like.. "not giving exceptional treatment towards". Slasher can do his job the way he's been doing it, getting his information from third parties if necessary, and first hand if the opportunity/ability arises. Nazgul and TL have no obligation to provide him with any information at all, and in fact if they have information to give it is directly in their best interest to decide who they give that information to.
It's entirely possible I'm missing your point though, this isn't something I have a high level of understanding over.
|
On January 18 2013 02:40 eight.BiT wrote:
Everyone welcome our new standard for ESPORTS reporting:
You can either only report what the teams says is OKAY to report at all times, or they will cut every journalist out who prints something they don't like. Got it. ESPORTS reporting will become a giant circle jerk between the teams and the journalists who just want to be in the "scene."
That is all reporting, period, not just Esports. Welcome to the real world, where people look out for themselves and don't just turn the other cheek saying "Well that sucked and cost me money, but its ok because s/he is a reporter and the press should be free. I should invite them over to my next team meeting."
|
This whole idea of Slasher choosing between being inside an organization like TL or to be "banned" and only use 3rd party sources seems so childish of the teams. Do you think it was Nazgul himself that told Slasher about Snute? Just like Bumblebee the fucking TL staff member said too many people had to be informed. I think Slasher should tell the teams to FUCK OFF and use the sources he has BEEN using for the leaks.
|
On January 18 2013 02:24 Bumblebee wrote:
No, it is not the team's fault that it leaks. It's something we're not in control over. There are too many people that needs to be involved in player transfers and stuff alike for the team to have control over the situation -- nor do they really control the people who knows. Things such as the team the player comes from, the other bidding teams and tournaments who need to be informed ahead of time in order to secure spots/book/pay for things.
An example is that I had personally informed EG, IPL and IEM about Snute prior to the announcement since if I want Snute to play in SC2L or IPTL, I need to do that. Snute also came from another team and there were other bidders who also knew of our situation. There's just too many people who you don't have power over or control of.
Robin if you can't trust the people you're telling, you should not be telling them or have them sign something that says they can't. I like knowing about which player moves where beforehand, it's nice being in the know. That's why I wouldn't leak something because if I did leak something I would expect there to be consequences.
With a post like this you're indirectly implying people should feel it's perfectly ok to leak things and there will be 0 consequences because it's outside of your control. Obviously this is very dangerous. Most of us don't leak things because we know it's not ok. Fault lies with the people leaking the information as they can't be trusted. So expose and blackball those people, not journalist doing their job.
Of course in some cases morality might outweigh someone's responsibility to keep privileged information privileged, but I'm going to just assume no one is going to bring that up seeming that's a whole different discussion.
|
On January 18 2013 02:49 eight.BiT wrote:
This whole idea of Slasher choosing between being inside an organization like TL or to be "banned" and only use 3rd party sources seems so childish of the teams. Do you think it was Nazgul himself that told Slasher about Snute? Just like Bumblebee the fucking TL staff member said too many people had to be informed. I think Slasher should tell the teams to FUCK OFF and use the sources he has BEEN using for the leaks.
I would say that is a very poor way to have a professional relationship, he has to deal with these teams. The teams could start requesting that events and groups they deal with limit all information people they know will not leak it to Slasher. They could deny him interviews and provide leaks to other reporters to undercut him. Professional relationships are two way streets, Slasher is not the only one that can say "FUCK YOU".
|
On January 18 2013 02:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 02:49 eight.BiT wrote:
This whole idea of Slasher choosing between being inside an organization like TL or to be "banned" and only use 3rd party sources seems so childish of the teams. Do you think it was Nazgul himself that told Slasher about Snute? Just like Bumblebee the fucking TL staff member said too many people had to be informed. I think Slasher should tell the teams to FUCK OFF and use the sources he has BEEN using for the leaks. I would say that is a very poor way to have a professional relationship, he has to deal with these teams. The teams could start requesting that events and groups they deal with limit all information people they know will not leak it to Slasher. They could deny him interviews and provide leaks to other reporters to undercut him. Professional relationships are two way streets, Slasher is not the only one that can say "FUCK YOU".
Don't you think they might have said something already to those people about not leaking? Just because they say "Hey guys, don't leak this to Slasher." doesn't change a thing. The people who want to give the info to outside sources will continue to do so just like any industry.
EDIT: And I wouldn't say missing a few Liquid or EG interviews would be the end of the world with their performances the alst 2 years, but I digress.
|
Austria24417 Posts
It's not like TL or EG couldn't produce their own interviews so they won't be hurting themselves too much I feel. This completely makes sense and it's not a "Fuck you" from either party to the other. It's just a "you can't have both", which is just reasonable.
|
On January 18 2013 02:53 Martijn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 02:24 Bumblebee wrote:
No, it is not the team's fault that it leaks. It's something we're not in control over. There are too many people that needs to be involved in player transfers and stuff alike for the team to have control over the situation -- nor do they really control the people who knows. Things such as the team the player comes from, the other bidding teams and tournaments who need to be informed ahead of time in order to secure spots/book/pay for things.
An example is that I had personally informed EG, IPL and IEM about Snute prior to the announcement since if I want Snute to play in SC2L or IPTL, I need to do that. Snute also came from another team and there were other bidders who also knew of our situation. There's just too many people who you don't have power over or control of. Robin if you can't trust the people you're telling you should not be telling them or have them sign something that says they can't. I like knowing about which player moves where beforehand, it's great being in the know. That's why I wouldn't leak something because if I did leak something I would expect there to be consequences. You're indirectly implying people should feel it's perfectly ok to leak things and there will be 0 consequences because it's outside of your control. Obviously this is very dangerous. Most of us don't leak things because we know it's not ok. Fault lies with he people leaking as they can't be trusted. So expose and blackball those people, not journalist doing their job. Written on my cell, promise to proof read later.
So either he can't have Snute playing in any of these leagues in order to make an announcement? You're being completely unrealistic. Do you honestly expect him to be able to get /everyone/ who knows about it to sign agreements not to spill any info? What if they refuse?
|
Katowice25012 Posts
I think this is the most clear cut way to look at it. I don't know how this turned into an ethics debate or something over freedom of press, because that isn't the issue at hand. Journalists needs to do their job and the teams need to do theirs, occasionally these two things will conflict and the resolution isn't easy. The journalists need to be aware, however, that the way they choose to do it carry with them the risk of negatively impacting their ability to do the same things in the future. This is how the world works.
On January 18 2013 01:15 AshenCZ wrote:
Then again, as Destiny pointed out, if something leaks, it is the TEAM's fault, not Slasher's for finding out and doing his job...
I understand how people come to this conclusion because it seems like a logical way to look at it, but it's completely untrue. The esports world is very small, if team management are talking to one guy or another it's obvious to a ton of people who have no involvement in the transaction. Negotiations can take forever and during these any team who has expressed interest but been turned down will figure out by process of elimination where they are going, the team has no control over a ton of people who know outside their organization.
|
On January 18 2013 03:07 Zealos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 02:53 Martijn wrote:On January 18 2013 02:24 Bumblebee wrote:
No, it is not the team's fault that it leaks. It's something we're not in control over. There are too many people that needs to be involved in player transfers and stuff alike for the team to have control over the situation -- nor do they really control the people who knows. Things such as the team the player comes from, the other bidding teams and tournaments who need to be informed ahead of time in order to secure spots/book/pay for things.
An example is that I had personally informed EG, IPL and IEM about Snute prior to the announcement since if I want Snute to play in SC2L or IPTL, I need to do that. Snute also came from another team and there were other bidders who also knew of our situation. There's just too many people who you don't have power over or control of. Robin if you can't trust the people you're telling you should not be telling them or have them sign something that says they can't. I like knowing about which player moves where beforehand, it's great being in the know. That's why I wouldn't leak something because if I did leak something I would expect there to be consequences. You're indirectly implying people should feel it's perfectly ok to leak things and there will be 0 consequences because it's outside of your control. Obviously this is very dangerous. Most of us don't leak things because we know it's not ok. Fault lies with he people leaking as they can't be trusted. So expose and blackball those people, not journalist doing their job. Written on my cell, promise to proof read later. So either he can't have Snute playing in any of these leagues in order to make an announcement? You're being completely unrealistic. Do you honestly expect him to be able to get /everyone/ who knows about it to sign agreements not to spill any info? What if they refuse?
Let me translate for you. The point was they are stupid for thinking if they info crossed so many hands that it wouldn't get leaked.
|
On January 18 2013 03:09 heyoka wrote:I think this is the most clear cut way to look at it. I don't know how this turned into an ethics debate or something over freedom of press, because that isn't the issue at hand. Journalists needs to do their job and the teams need to do theirs, occasionally these two things will conflict and the resolution isn't easy. The journalists need to be aware, however, that the way they choose to do it carry with them the risk of negatively impacting their ability to do the same things in the future. This is how the world works. Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 01:15 AshenCZ wrote:
Then again, as Destiny pointed out, if something leaks, it is the TEAM's fault, not Slasher's for finding out and doing his job... I understand how people come to this conclusion because it seems like a logical way to look at it, but it's completely untrue. The esports world is very small, if team management are talking to one guy or another it's obvious to a ton of people who have no involvement in the transaction. Negotiations can take forever and during these any team who has expressed interest but been turned down will figure out by process of elimination where they are going, the team has no control over a ton of people who know outside their organization.
So therefore if so many people know anyway, why the Slasher witch hunt? Someone else would have just reported it.
|
On January 18 2013 03:07 Zealos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 02:53 Martijn wrote:On January 18 2013 02:24 Bumblebee wrote:
No, it is not the team's fault that it leaks. It's something we're not in control over. There are too many people that needs to be involved in player transfers and stuff alike for the team to have control over the situation -- nor do they really control the people who knows. Things such as the team the player comes from, the other bidding teams and tournaments who need to be informed ahead of time in order to secure spots/book/pay for things.
An example is that I had personally informed EG, IPL and IEM about Snute prior to the announcement since if I want Snute to play in SC2L or IPTL, I need to do that. Snute also came from another team and there were other bidders who also knew of our situation. There's just too many people who you don't have power over or control of. Robin if you can't trust the people you're telling you should not be telling them or have them sign something that says they can't. I like knowing about which player moves where beforehand, it's great being in the know. That's why I wouldn't leak something because if I did leak something I would expect there to be consequences. You're indirectly implying people should feel it's perfectly ok to leak things and there will be 0 consequences because it's outside of your control. Obviously this is very dangerous. Most of us don't leak things because we know it's not ok. Fault lies with he people leaking as they can't be trusted. So expose and blackball those people, not journalist doing their job. Written on my cell, promise to proof read later. So either he can't have Snute playing in any of these leagues in order to make an announcement? You're being completely unrealistic. Do you honestly expect him to be able to get /everyone/ who knows about it to sign agreements not to spill any info? What if they refuse?
Speaking of "unrealistic" Leagues WANT these players competing, they're going to sign the agreement. Hell, usually they're the ones producing most paperwork and expecting you to sign it. I count 4 involved parties, that's 4 faxes. It's completely doable, that's why NDA's exist. It's a cultural problem in which many people think that it is fine to leak information and where teams feel it's too much work to protect their information.
|
I think it's understood without being said that if slasher pisses someone off, they may stop working with him. That's not just with journalism, that's with every relationship.
I don't really understand what saying this publicly does for the current situation though. If you're not happy with the give and take between liquid and slasher, you stop giving, and you stop getting whatever he's giving. No one is to blame in that situation as it's up to both parties on whether they want to work together. If you are happy with the relationship, you can continue. If him releasing information that you didn't want him to hurts the relationship, you tell him directly, and he gets to decide what is more valuable to him - releasing information like that and losing liquid's give and take relationship, or not releasing information and keeping that relationship.
The main issue in this situation is whether slasher's journalistic responsibility changes due to how esports monetizes. I don't see an answer to that issue in the OP. What I got out of it was you don't think slasher's good at relationship management (or is at least not focusing on it), which should really just be a thought kept to your organization that you can use to decide how you want to interact with slasher in the future.
|
On January 18 2013 03:00 eight.BiT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 02:55 Plansix wrote:On January 18 2013 02:49 eight.BiT wrote:
This whole idea of Slasher choosing between being inside an organization like TL or to be "banned" and only use 3rd party sources seems so childish of the teams. Do you think it was Nazgul himself that told Slasher about Snute? Just like Bumblebee the fucking TL staff member said too many people had to be informed. I think Slasher should tell the teams to FUCK OFF and use the sources he has BEEN using for the leaks. I would say that is a very poor way to have a professional relationship, he has to deal with these teams. The teams could start requesting that events and groups they deal with limit all information people they know will not leak it to Slasher. They could deny him interviews and provide leaks to other reporters to undercut him. Professional relationships are two way streets, Slasher is not the only one that can say "FUCK YOU". Don't you think they might have said something already to those people about not leaking? Just because they say "Hey guys, don't leak this to Slasher." doesn't change a thing. The people who want to give the info to outside sources will continue to do so just like any industry. EDIT: And I wouldn't say missing a few Liquid or EG interviews would be the end of the world with their performances the alst 2 years, but I digress.
I am sure they can go to MLG, NASL, Dream Hack or any other league and say "You need to limit who has information on who we are sending or we arn't sending anyone." This was something no league was thinking about until now, but I am sure the teams are looking into it and talking to them about keeping information under wraps. Events could limit Slasher's access and a whole number of other things. Gamespot isn't going to ignore MLG or NASL, but those two leagues don't need to give them unlimited access to players or the leagues staff.
You would be shocked how much they can clamp down of this stuff when asked to. Right now, they were never asked to.
|
Should all "leaks" be considered the same? In my opinion, signing a player shouldn't be hidden at all.. If SC2/ESPORTS gets "official" enough, you would have to get the federation's approval for the signing, and once you've got it, other teams have to be aware of it to stop bidding. Expecting this to become a secret is simply out of the question.
If a journalist tries to find leaks about the contract negotiations between a player and his management being problematic, then it would make sense for the team to be upset. A journalist who wants to get content from the team, is also happy to provide other teams with vital information. But when it comes to signing a player, a team can only benefit from the news being as big as possible. And the longer the wait after the signing, the lower the maount of hype will be.
|
On January 18 2013 03:16 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 03:00 eight.BiT wrote:On January 18 2013 02:55 Plansix wrote:On January 18 2013 02:49 eight.BiT wrote:
This whole idea of Slasher choosing between being inside an organization like TL or to be "banned" and only use 3rd party sources seems so childish of the teams. Do you think it was Nazgul himself that told Slasher about Snute? Just like Bumblebee the fucking TL staff member said too many people had to be informed. I think Slasher should tell the teams to FUCK OFF and use the sources he has BEEN using for the leaks. I would say that is a very poor way to have a professional relationship, he has to deal with these teams. The teams could start requesting that events and groups they deal with limit all information people they know will not leak it to Slasher. They could deny him interviews and provide leaks to other reporters to undercut him. Professional relationships are two way streets, Slasher is not the only one that can say "FUCK YOU". Don't you think they might have said something already to those people about not leaking? Just because they say "Hey guys, don't leak this to Slasher." doesn't change a thing. The people who want to give the info to outside sources will continue to do so just like any industry. EDIT: And I wouldn't say missing a few Liquid or EG interviews would be the end of the world with their performances the alst 2 years, but I digress. I am sure they can go to MLG, NASL, Dream Hack or any other league and say "You need to limit who has information on who we are sending or we arn't sending anyone." This was something no league was thinking about until now, but I am sure the teams are looking into it and talking to them about keeping information under wraps. Events could limit Slasher's access and a whole number of other things. Gamespot isn't going to ignore MLG or NASL, but those two leagues don't need to give them unlimited access to players or the leagues staff. You would be shocked how much they can clamp down of this stuff when asked to. Right now, they were never asked to.
Exactly, and this is why I'm so irate reading this blog from Nazgul saying exactly what Alex Garfield said in a more well spoken way. Garbage. This is 100% the teams and organizations fault and all the "higher ups" do is blame Slasher.
|
On January 18 2013 03:11 eight.BiT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 03:09 heyoka wrote:I think this is the most clear cut way to look at it. I don't know how this turned into an ethics debate or something over freedom of press, because that isn't the issue at hand. Journalists needs to do their job and the teams need to do theirs, occasionally these two things will conflict and the resolution isn't easy. The journalists need to be aware, however, that the way they choose to do it carry with them the risk of negatively impacting their ability to do the same things in the future. This is how the world works. On January 18 2013 01:15 AshenCZ wrote:
Then again, as Destiny pointed out, if something leaks, it is the TEAM's fault, not Slasher's for finding out and doing his job... I understand how people come to this conclusion because it seems like a logical way to look at it, but it's completely untrue. The esports world is very small, if team management are talking to one guy or another it's obvious to a ton of people who have no involvement in the transaction. Negotiations can take forever and during these any team who has expressed interest but been turned down will figure out by process of elimination where they are going, the team has no control over a ton of people who know outside their organization. So therefore if so many people know anyway, why the Slasher witch hunt? Someone else would have just reported it.
To my knowledge, other teams/leagues/etc. knowing where players are going isn't new, and this wasn't an issue before.
|
On January 18 2013 03:11 eight.BiT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 03:09 heyoka wrote:I think this is the most clear cut way to look at it. I don't know how this turned into an ethics debate or something over freedom of press, because that isn't the issue at hand. Journalists needs to do their job and the teams need to do theirs, occasionally these two things will conflict and the resolution isn't easy. The journalists need to be aware, however, that the way they choose to do it carry with them the risk of negatively impacting their ability to do the same things in the future. This is how the world works. On January 18 2013 01:15 AshenCZ wrote:
Then again, as Destiny pointed out, if something leaks, it is the TEAM's fault, not Slasher's for finding out and doing his job... I understand how people come to this conclusion because it seems like a logical way to look at it, but it's completely untrue. The esports world is very small, if team management are talking to one guy or another it's obvious to a ton of people who have no involvement in the transaction. Negotiations can take forever and during these any team who has expressed interest but been turned down will figure out by process of elimination where they are going, the team has no control over a ton of people who know outside their organization. So therefore if so many people know anyway, why the Slasher witch hunt? Someone else would have just reported it.
Because Slasher was not willing to take the heat for his actions of leaking information and complained "I was just doing my job and it is good for everyone this is being reported on." Slasher knew that was untrue, but didn't really want to fess up and say, "Yeah, that likely cost you some money and I knew that."
|
On January 18 2013 03:11 Martijn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 03:07 Zealos wrote:On January 18 2013 02:53 Martijn wrote:On January 18 2013 02:24 Bumblebee wrote:
No, it is not the team's fault that it leaks. It's something we're not in control over. There are too many people that needs to be involved in player transfers and stuff alike for the team to have control over the situation -- nor do they really control the people who knows. Things such as the team the player comes from, the other bidding teams and tournaments who need to be informed ahead of time in order to secure spots/book/pay for things.
An example is that I had personally informed EG, IPL and IEM about Snute prior to the announcement since if I want Snute to play in SC2L or IPTL, I need to do that. Snute also came from another team and there were other bidders who also knew of our situation. There's just too many people who you don't have power over or control of. Robin if you can't trust the people you're telling you should not be telling them or have them sign something that says they can't. I like knowing about which player moves where beforehand, it's great being in the know. That's why I wouldn't leak something because if I did leak something I would expect there to be consequences. You're indirectly implying people should feel it's perfectly ok to leak things and there will be 0 consequences because it's outside of your control. Obviously this is very dangerous. Most of us don't leak things because we know it's not ok. Fault lies with he people leaking as they can't be trusted. So expose and blackball those people, not journalist doing their job. Written on my cell, promise to proof read later. So either he can't have Snute playing in any of these leagues in order to make an announcement? You're being completely unrealistic. Do you honestly expect him to be able to get /everyone/ who knows about it to sign agreements not to spill any info? What if they refuse? Speaking of "unrealistic" Leagues WANT these players competing, they're going to sign the agreement. Hell, usually they're the ones producing most paperwork and expecting you to sign it. I count 4 involved parties, that's 4 faxes. It's completely doable, that's why NDA's exist. It's a cultural problem in which many people think that it is fine to leak information and where teams feel it's too much work to protect their information.
So he's gotta travel to each HQ's to get EVERYONE to sign. Don't be so naive, I am sure Bumble has /far/ more experience doing this than you do, if he says it is unrealistic, it is.
|
On January 18 2013 03:22 Ercster wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 03:11 eight.BiT wrote:On January 18 2013 03:09 heyoka wrote:I think this is the most clear cut way to look at it. I don't know how this turned into an ethics debate or something over freedom of press, because that isn't the issue at hand. Journalists needs to do their job and the teams need to do theirs, occasionally these two things will conflict and the resolution isn't easy. The journalists need to be aware, however, that the way they choose to do it carry with them the risk of negatively impacting their ability to do the same things in the future. This is how the world works. On January 18 2013 01:15 AshenCZ wrote:
Then again, as Destiny pointed out, if something leaks, it is the TEAM's fault, not Slasher's for finding out and doing his job... I understand how people come to this conclusion because it seems like a logical way to look at it, but it's completely untrue. The esports world is very small, if team management are talking to one guy or another it's obvious to a ton of people who have no involvement in the transaction. Negotiations can take forever and during these any team who has expressed interest but been turned down will figure out by process of elimination where they are going, the team has no control over a ton of people who know outside their organization. So therefore if so many people know anyway, why the Slasher witch hunt? Someone else would have just reported it. To my knowledge, other teams/leagues/etc. knowing where players are going isn't new, and this wasn't an issue before.
It wasn't an issue before? Those leaks stilled happened but that was 2 years ago when no one with money gave two shits about SC2. Money. Moneymoneymoney.
|
On January 18 2013 03:24 Zealos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 03:11 Martijn wrote:On January 18 2013 03:07 Zealos wrote:On January 18 2013 02:53 Martijn wrote:On January 18 2013 02:24 Bumblebee wrote:
No, it is not the team's fault that it leaks. It's something we're not in control over. There are too many people that needs to be involved in player transfers and stuff alike for the team to have control over the situation -- nor do they really control the people who knows. Things such as the team the player comes from, the other bidding teams and tournaments who need to be informed ahead of time in order to secure spots/book/pay for things.
An example is that I had personally informed EG, IPL and IEM about Snute prior to the announcement since if I want Snute to play in SC2L or IPTL, I need to do that. Snute also came from another team and there were other bidders who also knew of our situation. There's just too many people who you don't have power over or control of. Robin if you can't trust the people you're telling you should not be telling them or have them sign something that says they can't. I like knowing about which player moves where beforehand, it's great being in the know. That's why I wouldn't leak something because if I did leak something I would expect there to be consequences. You're indirectly implying people should feel it's perfectly ok to leak things and there will be 0 consequences because it's outside of your control. Obviously this is very dangerous. Most of us don't leak things because we know it's not ok. Fault lies with he people leaking as they can't be trusted. So expose and blackball those people, not journalist doing their job. Written on my cell, promise to proof read later. So either he can't have Snute playing in any of these leagues in order to make an announcement? You're being completely unrealistic. Do you honestly expect him to be able to get /everyone/ who knows about it to sign agreements not to spill any info? What if they refuse? Speaking of "unrealistic" Leagues WANT these players competing, they're going to sign the agreement. Hell, usually they're the ones producing most paperwork and expecting you to sign it. I count 4 involved parties, that's 4 faxes. It's completely doable, that's why NDA's exist. It's a cultural problem in which many people think that it is fine to leak information and where teams feel it's too much work to protect their information. So he's gotta travel to each HQ's to get EVERYONE to sign. Don't be so naive, I am sure Bumble has /far/ more experience doing this than you do, if he says it is unrealistic, it is.
I don't know about you but the rest of us live in 2013.
|
On January 18 2013 03:20 eight.BiT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 03:16 Plansix wrote:On January 18 2013 03:00 eight.BiT wrote:On January 18 2013 02:55 Plansix wrote:On January 18 2013 02:49 eight.BiT wrote:
This whole idea of Slasher choosing between being inside an organization like TL or to be "banned" and only use 3rd party sources seems so childish of the teams. Do you think it was Nazgul himself that told Slasher about Snute? Just like Bumblebee the fucking TL staff member said too many people had to be informed. I think Slasher should tell the teams to FUCK OFF and use the sources he has BEEN using for the leaks. I would say that is a very poor way to have a professional relationship, he has to deal with these teams. The teams could start requesting that events and groups they deal with limit all information people they know will not leak it to Slasher. They could deny him interviews and provide leaks to other reporters to undercut him. Professional relationships are two way streets, Slasher is not the only one that can say "FUCK YOU". Don't you think they might have said something already to those people about not leaking? Just because they say "Hey guys, don't leak this to Slasher." doesn't change a thing. The people who want to give the info to outside sources will continue to do so just like any industry. EDIT: And I wouldn't say missing a few Liquid or EG interviews would be the end of the world with their performances the alst 2 years, but I digress. I am sure they can go to MLG, NASL, Dream Hack or any other league and say "You need to limit who has information on who we are sending or we arn't sending anyone." This was something no league was thinking about until now, but I am sure the teams are looking into it and talking to them about keeping information under wraps. Events could limit Slasher's access and a whole number of other things. Gamespot isn't going to ignore MLG or NASL, but those two leagues don't need to give them unlimited access to players or the leagues staff. You would be shocked how much they can clamp down of this stuff when asked to. Right now, they were never asked to. Exactly, and this is why I'm so irate reading this blog from Nazgul saying exactly what Alex Garfield said in a more well spoken way. Garbage. This is 100% the teams and organizations fault and all the "higher ups" do is blame Slasher.
I think you are confused. They are not blaming him, they are informing him that his actions harm their teams, which he did not really own up to before. The issue is more that Slasher wants it both ways. He wants to be seen as furthering Esports by reporting on it, but also to leak stories that hurt the teams. He can't have both and the teams have very publicly informed him(and other reporters) of this, so he doesn't act shocked when they deny him an interview
|
On January 18 2013 03:26 eight.BiT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 03:22 Ercster wrote:On January 18 2013 03:11 eight.BiT wrote:On January 18 2013 03:09 heyoka wrote:I think this is the most clear cut way to look at it. I don't know how this turned into an ethics debate or something over freedom of press, because that isn't the issue at hand. Journalists needs to do their job and the teams need to do theirs, occasionally these two things will conflict and the resolution isn't easy. The journalists need to be aware, however, that the way they choose to do it carry with them the risk of negatively impacting their ability to do the same things in the future. This is how the world works. On January 18 2013 01:15 AshenCZ wrote:
Then again, as Destiny pointed out, if something leaks, it is the TEAM's fault, not Slasher's for finding out and doing his job... I understand how people come to this conclusion because it seems like a logical way to look at it, but it's completely untrue. The esports world is very small, if team management are talking to one guy or another it's obvious to a ton of people who have no involvement in the transaction. Negotiations can take forever and during these any team who has expressed interest but been turned down will figure out by process of elimination where they are going, the team has no control over a ton of people who know outside their organization. So therefore if so many people know anyway, why the Slasher witch hunt? Someone else would have just reported it. To my knowledge, other teams/leagues/etc. knowing where players are going isn't new, and this wasn't an issue before. It wasn't an issue before? Those leaks stilled happened but that was 2 years ago when no one with money gave two shits about SC2. Money. Moneymoneymoney.
Okay, so it stopped 2 years ago?
|
On January 18 2013 03:29 Ercster wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 03:26 eight.BiT wrote:On January 18 2013 03:22 Ercster wrote:On January 18 2013 03:11 eight.BiT wrote:On January 18 2013 03:09 heyoka wrote:I think this is the most clear cut way to look at it. I don't know how this turned into an ethics debate or something over freedom of press, because that isn't the issue at hand. Journalists needs to do their job and the teams need to do theirs, occasionally these two things will conflict and the resolution isn't easy. The journalists need to be aware, however, that the way they choose to do it carry with them the risk of negatively impacting their ability to do the same things in the future. This is how the world works. On January 18 2013 01:15 AshenCZ wrote:
Then again, as Destiny pointed out, if something leaks, it is the TEAM's fault, not Slasher's for finding out and doing his job... I understand how people come to this conclusion because it seems like a logical way to look at it, but it's completely untrue. The esports world is very small, if team management are talking to one guy or another it's obvious to a ton of people who have no involvement in the transaction. Negotiations can take forever and during these any team who has expressed interest but been turned down will figure out by process of elimination where they are going, the team has no control over a ton of people who know outside their organization. So therefore if so many people know anyway, why the Slasher witch hunt? Someone else would have just reported it. To my knowledge, other teams/leagues/etc. knowing where players are going isn't new, and this wasn't an issue before. It wasn't an issue before? Those leaks stilled happened but that was 2 years ago when no one with money gave two shits about SC2. Money. Moneymoneymoney. Okay, so it stopped 2 years ago?
No, I'm saying this has happened since the start of SC2 and continued until today...
|
On January 18 2013 03:24 Zealos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 03:11 Martijn wrote:On January 18 2013 03:07 Zealos wrote:On January 18 2013 02:53 Martijn wrote:On January 18 2013 02:24 Bumblebee wrote:
No, it is not the team's fault that it leaks. It's something we're not in control over. There are too many people that needs to be involved in player transfers and stuff alike for the team to have control over the situation -- nor do they really control the people who knows. Things such as the team the player comes from, the other bidding teams and tournaments who need to be informed ahead of time in order to secure spots/book/pay for things.
An example is that I had personally informed EG, IPL and IEM about Snute prior to the announcement since if I want Snute to play in SC2L or IPTL, I need to do that. Snute also came from another team and there were other bidders who also knew of our situation. There's just too many people who you don't have power over or control of. Robin if you can't trust the people you're telling you should not be telling them or have them sign something that says they can't. I like knowing about which player moves where beforehand, it's great being in the know. That's why I wouldn't leak something because if I did leak something I would expect there to be consequences. You're indirectly implying people should feel it's perfectly ok to leak things and there will be 0 consequences because it's outside of your control. Obviously this is very dangerous. Most of us don't leak things because we know it's not ok. Fault lies with he people leaking as they can't be trusted. So expose and blackball those people, not journalist doing their job. Written on my cell, promise to proof read later. So either he can't have Snute playing in any of these leagues in order to make an announcement? You're being completely unrealistic. Do you honestly expect him to be able to get /everyone/ who knows about it to sign agreements not to spill any info? What if they refuse? Speaking of "unrealistic" Leagues WANT these players competing, they're going to sign the agreement. Hell, usually they're the ones producing most paperwork and expecting you to sign it. I count 4 involved parties, that's 4 faxes. It's completely doable, that's why NDA's exist. It's a cultural problem in which many people think that it is fine to leak information and where teams feel it's too much work to protect their information. So he's gotta travel to each HQ's to get EVERYONE to sign. Don't be so naive, I am sure Bumble has /far/ more experience doing this than you do, if he says it is unrealistic, it is.
Or he can send them a fax or email. But yeah, lets pretend he'd have to travel around the world for it, that's reasonable.
Also I'd like to note I'm quite well aware and have always respected the work Bumblebee does. In no way am I targeting him or his way of doing business personally.
The larger problem is people that find out about these trades and can't be held accountable. Especially players themselves should take note of this, DON'T DISCUSS WHO YOU'RE NEGOTIATING WITH. Additionally a large problem is with teams and people related to teams not being professional enough. To them I say, if you're not trustworthy, your contribution to esports is worth a lot less. I'm sure we have someone within the community capable of writing up a generic NDA that players and teams can practically copy/paste. I don't think enforcing it will even be an issue, it's just that it's "too much hassle" now half the time.
|
On January 18 2013 03:31 eight.BiT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 03:29 Ercster wrote:On January 18 2013 03:26 eight.BiT wrote:On January 18 2013 03:22 Ercster wrote:On January 18 2013 03:11 eight.BiT wrote:On January 18 2013 03:09 heyoka wrote:I think this is the most clear cut way to look at it. I don't know how this turned into an ethics debate or something over freedom of press, because that isn't the issue at hand. Journalists needs to do their job and the teams need to do theirs, occasionally these two things will conflict and the resolution isn't easy. The journalists need to be aware, however, that the way they choose to do it carry with them the risk of negatively impacting their ability to do the same things in the future. This is how the world works. On January 18 2013 01:15 AshenCZ wrote:
Then again, as Destiny pointed out, if something leaks, it is the TEAM's fault, not Slasher's for finding out and doing his job... I understand how people come to this conclusion because it seems like a logical way to look at it, but it's completely untrue. The esports world is very small, if team management are talking to one guy or another it's obvious to a ton of people who have no involvement in the transaction. Negotiations can take forever and during these any team who has expressed interest but been turned down will figure out by process of elimination where they are going, the team has no control over a ton of people who know outside their organization. So therefore if so many people know anyway, why the Slasher witch hunt? Someone else would have just reported it. To my knowledge, other teams/leagues/etc. knowing where players are going isn't new, and this wasn't an issue before. It wasn't an issue before? Those leaks stilled happened but that was 2 years ago when no one with money gave two shits about SC2. Money. Moneymoneymoney. Okay, so it stopped 2 years ago? No, I'm saying this has happened since the start of SC2 and continued until today...
If teams like EG and TL were in need of the money more back then than now, why is it only an issue now?
|
I still see it like this, Big teams that don't want info leaked = US Government, Slasher = Julian Assange. To be frank, which is "right" depends on which side you're on.
|
On January 18 2013 03:40 SamanthaRain wrote:
I still see it like this, Big teams that don't want info leaked = US Government, Slasher = Julian Assange. To be frank, which is "right" depends on which side you're on.
HOW?!?!?! The US government probably wouldn't have released the information that he released. The teams would have. As a matter of fact, the leaks that were talked about were released officially within 2 weeks.
|
Good post by Nazgul, very straightforward.
|
On January 18 2013 03:40 SamanthaRain wrote:
I still see it like this, Big teams that don't want info leaked = US Government, Slasher = Julian Assange. To be frank, which is "right" depends on which side you're on.
more like it seems like you don't know what US Government was actually doing.
|
On January 18 2013 03:27 eight.BiT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 03:24 Zealos wrote:On January 18 2013 03:11 Martijn wrote:On January 18 2013 03:07 Zealos wrote:On January 18 2013 02:53 Martijn wrote:On January 18 2013 02:24 Bumblebee wrote:
No, it is not the team's fault that it leaks. It's something we're not in control over. There are too many people that needs to be involved in player transfers and stuff alike for the team to have control over the situation -- nor do they really control the people who knows. Things such as the team the player comes from, the other bidding teams and tournaments who need to be informed ahead of time in order to secure spots/book/pay for things.
An example is that I had personally informed EG, IPL and IEM about Snute prior to the announcement since if I want Snute to play in SC2L or IPTL, I need to do that. Snute also came from another team and there were other bidders who also knew of our situation. There's just too many people who you don't have power over or control of. Robin if you can't trust the people you're telling you should not be telling them or have them sign something that says they can't. I like knowing about which player moves where beforehand, it's great being in the know. That's why I wouldn't leak something because if I did leak something I would expect there to be consequences. You're indirectly implying people should feel it's perfectly ok to leak things and there will be 0 consequences because it's outside of your control. Obviously this is very dangerous. Most of us don't leak things because we know it's not ok. Fault lies with he people leaking as they can't be trusted. So expose and blackball those people, not journalist doing their job. Written on my cell, promise to proof read later. So either he can't have Snute playing in any of these leagues in order to make an announcement? You're being completely unrealistic. Do you honestly expect him to be able to get /everyone/ who knows about it to sign agreements not to spill any info? What if they refuse? Speaking of "unrealistic" Leagues WANT these players competing, they're going to sign the agreement. Hell, usually they're the ones producing most paperwork and expecting you to sign it. I count 4 involved parties, that's 4 faxes. It's completely doable, that's why NDA's exist. It's a cultural problem in which many people think that it is fine to leak information and where teams feel it's too much work to protect their information. So he's gotta travel to each HQ's to get EVERYONE to sign. Don't be so naive, I am sure Bumble has /far/ more experience doing this than you do, if he says it is unrealistic, it is. I don't know about you but the rest of us live in 2013.
Regardless, NDA's aren't that simple, or it would already be happening. Hell, why does any info get leaked in any walk of life, when you can just NDA everyone everywhere?
|
A well formulated blog. It's recommendable that you keep a calm and professional attitude in this situation, unlike other team managers!
|
Nazgul stops one step short. Yes Slasher can hurt his business relationship by leaking information teams want to keep but if you then cut off Slasher you can limit your players' exposure and the public's opinion of the team. 'Cutting your nose off to spite your face' is the common expression.
|
On January 18 2013 04:17 dvorakftw wrote:
Nazgul stops one step short. Yes Slasher can hurt his business relationship by leaking information teams want to keep but if you then cut off Slasher you can limit your players' exposure and the public's opinion of the team. 'Cutting your nose off to spite your face' is the common expression.
I think this is what Kennigit has been saying on Reddit the past day or so. Both sides need to make a cost:benefit analysis and decide what level of transparency and cooperation is right for them. There are benefits/costs to reporting leaks and there are benefits/costs to shutting out prominent members of the press.
I like what many have said that attempting to organize a public blackballing of Slasher is probably one step beyond what the public is comfortable with. No one at Liquid has hinted at doing this, but there were specters of it in the ITG conversation, and I think that makes people (at least it makes me) squeamish.
|
It's a lot more than just the people we decide to tell. Let's look at it with the example of Snute. Snute is one of the strongest foreign players out there and inevitably a lot of teams will be in the hunt for him and bidding on him. These teams will be informed that they weren't chosen and who overbid them. I don't believe we, as one of the teams, are in a position to make demands from these people about contracts and stuff. We can -- which we of course do -- ask them nicely to respect our signing and let us have our own announcements. We tell our players the same thing, even when they get the hands on this information.
In a scene as young as this, a lot of the stuff going will and, due to the current state, has to be done out of pure respect for other people's things. I'm not saying what Slasher did is disrespectful. We let him do his job and we try to do ours. That's how it is. There's no reason to blame Slasher.
|
On January 18 2013 04:51 Bumblebee wrote:
It's a lot more than just the people we decide to tell. Let's look at it with the example of Snute. Snute is one of the strongest foreign players out there and inevitably a lot of teams will be in the hunt for him and bidding on him. These teams will be informed that they weren't chosen and who overbid them. I don't believe we, as one of the teams, are in a position to make demands from these people about contracts and stuff. We can -- which we of course do -- ask them nicely to respect our signing and let us have our own announcements. We tell our players the same thing, even when they get the hands on this information.
In a scene as young as this, a lot of the stuff going will and, due to the current state, has to be done out of pure respect for other people's things. I'm not saying what Slasher did is disrespectful. We let him do his job and we try to do ours. That's how it is. There's no reason to blame Slasher.
Out of curiosity, because I really have no idea, who is doing the informing in the emboldened portion? I guess I'm simply curious as to why player negotiations are as open as they seem to be, and whether or not standards of communication/conduct in regards to player signings could be improved upon.
|
On January 18 2013 04:22 Takkara wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 04:17 dvorakftw wrote:
Nazgul stops one step short. Yes Slasher can hurt his business relationship by leaking information teams want to keep but if you then cut off Slasher you can limit your players' exposure and the public's opinion of the team. 'Cutting your nose off to spite your face' is the common expression. I think this is what Kennigit has been saying on Reddit the past day or so. Both sides need to make a cost:benefit analysis and decide what level of transparency and cooperation is right for them. There are benefits/costs to reporting leaks and there are benefits/costs to shutting out prominent members of the press. I like what many have said that attempting to organize a public blackballing of Slasher is probably one step beyond what the public is comfortable with. No one at Liquid has hinted at doing this, but there were specters of it in the ITG conversation, and I think that makes people (at least it makes me) squeamish.
IMO you are on the right path with this. But there is another solution as blackballing independent media, just include them in your marketing strategies! That is what "real sportorganisations" do allready as they are dependent on coverage from big media outlets.
At the moment especially the big teams may not need independent media to get their message out as the community is relativ small and there are other ways, for example comunity sites like TL or Reddit. But I don't think it would be good for teams to try to shut down independent journalists like Slasher. They may be able to do it in this case but when things really get bigger and therefore more interessting for many more professional mediaoutlets there will be no way to control them.
|
I'm starting to see why Slasher just shut his mouth in the face of the latter half of Garfield's accusatory words on ITG.
Nazgul wasn't upset at Slasher at all, despite what Garfield eluded to. I am glad to see cooler heads prevailing.
|
The more people that are privy to information, the more likely it is to leak. A basic tenant in most organizations is the aspect of keeping things on a need-to-know basis, especially if it involves somewhat sensible material/information. If that means not letting players, or certain staff aware of the moves happening behind the scenes, that's one route to take.
If you're going to argue that you want to keep an open and fluid organization, you might have to get NDAs signed with partners (and even your own staff/players), and outside sources in whatever deals, promotions or moves you're making, if you're truly committed to being the ones orchestrating and announcing the information.
For someone as business-savvy as Alex, I'm surprised a lot of this has taken place. I'm sure we can definitely expect some changes in the future.
(And NDAs aren't all that complicated for people suggestion such a notion.)
|
On January 18 2013 04:54 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 04:51 Bumblebee wrote:
It's a lot more than just the people we decide to tell. Let's look at it with the example of Snute. Snute is one of the strongest foreign players out there and inevitably a lot of teams will be in the hunt for him and bidding on him. These teams will be informed that they weren't chosen and who overbid them. I don't believe we, as one of the teams, are in a position to make demands from these people about contracts and stuff. We can -- which we of course do -- ask them nicely to respect our signing and let us have our own announcements. We tell our players the same thing, even when they get the hands on this information.
In a scene as young as this, a lot of the stuff going will and, due to the current state, has to be done out of pure respect for other people's things. I'm not saying what Slasher did is disrespectful. We let him do his job and we try to do ours. That's how it is. There's no reason to blame Slasher. Out of curiosity, because I really have no idea, who is doing the informing in the emboldened portion? I guess I'm simply curious as to why player negotiations are as open as they seem to be, and whether or not standards of communication/conduct in regards to player signings could be improved upon.
Usually it just comes naturally, I think. I'm not the one who sits with the negotiation itself; that's Nazgul. I don't think player negotations are directly open and overbid is also the wrong word to use since people can choose a lesser offer in money if there are other benefits obviously. It seems pretty natural to me that it's a process that has to be somewhat open between the parts involved. People go back and forth with offers and the player uses an offer to notch up the other offer even more, etc. Also it's only natural for the teams to find out who they're up against.
|
On January 18 2013 02:16 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 02:11 Dfgj wrote:On January 18 2013 01:50 Plansix wrote:On January 18 2013 01:15 AshenCZ wrote:
Then again, as Destiny pointed out, if something leaks, it is the TEAM's fault, not Slasher's for finding out and doing his job... The team owners are saying the ideal relationship would be if Slasher tried to work for them a little so everyone got exposure. Why not just pay the guy to follow their marketing goals? Seems simpler to me. Because that would make Slasher lose his credibility as a journalist. Right now if Slasher releases something, you can be pretty sure it's accurate because he's not affiliated with any team. The second he is, people will start doubting whether or not he's just promoting a team when he releases or purposely doesn't release something.
I know that, and I appreciate that there are independent people in the scene. I meant that if teams/businesses expect co-operation, and get flustered when independent people do their own jobs without regard for said team, why not give them an actual incentive? Hell, I'd rather someone be paid to do what EG wants than do it because EG told them to.
|
On January 18 2013 05:22 Bumblebee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 04:54 farvacola wrote:On January 18 2013 04:51 Bumblebee wrote:
It's a lot more than just the people we decide to tell. Let's look at it with the example of Snute. Snute is one of the strongest foreign players out there and inevitably a lot of teams will be in the hunt for him and bidding on him. These teams will be informed that they weren't chosen and who overbid them. I don't believe we, as one of the teams, are in a position to make demands from these people about contracts and stuff. We can -- which we of course do -- ask them nicely to respect our signing and let us have our own announcements. We tell our players the same thing, even when they get the hands on this information.
In a scene as young as this, a lot of the stuff going will and, due to the current state, has to be done out of pure respect for other people's things. I'm not saying what Slasher did is disrespectful. We let him do his job and we try to do ours. That's how it is. There's no reason to blame Slasher. Out of curiosity, because I really have no idea, who is doing the informing in the emboldened portion? I guess I'm simply curious as to why player negotiations are as open as they seem to be, and whether or not standards of communication/conduct in regards to player signings could be improved upon. Usually it just comes naturally, I think. I'm not the one who sits with the negotiation itself; that's Nazgul. I don't think player negotations are directly open and overbid is also the wrong word to use since people can choose a lesser offer in money if there are other benefits obviously. It seems pretty natural to me that it's a process that has to be somewhat open between the parts involved. People go back and forth with offers and the player uses an offer to notch up the other offer even more, etc. Also it's only natural for the teams to find out who they're up against.
Yes, I suppose that makes sense. I guess teams find themselves between a rock and a hard place; on one hand, their solvency basically hinges on monetized exposure, and on the other, attempts at controlling that exposure can negatively impact that very thing. 'Tis a tricky situation to be sure.
|
I really wanted to comment on the issue, but the dozens of drama-laden pages that have already been written discouraged me. After reading this post I feel as though I have said my piece, just more articulate. Thanks for being awesome Nazgul
|
On January 17 2013 22:02 skeldark wrote:
You and your website have the power in this area to get away with such a statement, sadly.
You have a total misunderstanding about the role of media.
You think you are the owner of an information.
You think by buying a player you own the information of you buying him.
Thats not the case!
You say: "write what i want or i dont talk to you any more".
I hope that the media in this area gets powerful enough that they can say:
"You dont want to talk to us, then we dont write about your team any-more"
You abuse the power to be the owner of a Team and a Media site. Thats all.
In any real sport or politics this statement would be the end of your career.
At the moment thats not the case in esport and that gives you the chance, to rethink your statement.
If you would not have your own media site/show and no power over slasher,
if he would not need your information at all (Lets say he is a big journalist from a big new company)
Would we have this discussion?
I dont think so...
This!
User was warned for this post
|
On January 18 2013 04:57 Myt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 04:22 Takkara wrote:On January 18 2013 04:17 dvorakftw wrote:
Nazgul stops one step short. Yes Slasher can hurt his business relationship by leaking information teams want to keep but if you then cut off Slasher you can limit your players' exposure and the public's opinion of the team. 'Cutting your nose off to spite your face' is the common expression. I think this is what Kennigit has been saying on Reddit the past day or so. Both sides need to make a cost:benefit analysis and decide what level of transparency and cooperation is right for them. There are benefits/costs to reporting leaks and there are benefits/costs to shutting out prominent members of the press. I like what many have said that attempting to organize a public blackballing of Slasher is probably one step beyond what the public is comfortable with. No one at Liquid has hinted at doing this, but there were specters of it in the ITG conversation, and I think that makes people (at least it makes me) squeamish. IMO you are on the right path with this. But there is another solution as blackballing independent media, just include them in your marketing strategies! That is what "real sportorganisations" do allready as they are dependent on coverage from big media outlets. At the moment especially the big teams may not need independent media to get their message out as the community is relativ small and there are other ways, for example comunity sites like TL or Reddit. But I don't think it would be good for teams to try to shut down independent journalists like Slasher. They may be able to do it in this case but when things really get bigger and therefore more interessting for many more professional mediaoutlets there will be no way to control them.
The thing is ESPN or TSN can hype something and they do it damn well. They get people excited and usually have well written articles and analysis. Slasher does not do it as well as EG or TL can. I think they could use him in some way but the teams in SC2 are better equipped to hype than one person on his own who doesn't seem to want to do analysis of these things.
|
On January 18 2013 06:04 nkmaNanashi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 22:02 skeldark wrote:
You and your website have the power in this area to get away with such a statement, sadly.
You have a total misunderstanding about the role of media.
You think you are the owner of an information.
You think by buying a player you own the information of you buying him.
Thats not the case!
You say: "write what i want or i dont talk to you any more".
I hope that the media in this area gets powerful enough that they can say:
"You dont want to talk to us, then we dont write about your team any-more"
You abuse the power to be the owner of a Team and a Media site. Thats all.
In any real sport or politics this statement would be the end of your career.
At the moment thats not the case in esport and that gives you the chance, to rethink your statement.
If you would not have your own media site/show and no power over slasher,
if he would not need your information at all (Lets say he is a big journalist from a big new company)
Would we have this discussion?
I dont think so... This!
Post was garbage and did not understand the point of Naz'Gul's statement at all. If this was a "real sport", like the post said, and a reporter was disrupting a teams media announcments, they would just deny him access and black list that reporter. Its very common, these sorts of open discussions on the subject are not.
|
On January 18 2013 06:07 mrtomjones wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 04:57 Myt wrote:On January 18 2013 04:22 Takkara wrote:On January 18 2013 04:17 dvorakftw wrote:
Nazgul stops one step short. Yes Slasher can hurt his business relationship by leaking information teams want to keep but if you then cut off Slasher you can limit your players' exposure and the public's opinion of the team. 'Cutting your nose off to spite your face' is the common expression. I think this is what Kennigit has been saying on Reddit the past day or so. Both sides need to make a cost:benefit analysis and decide what level of transparency and cooperation is right for them. There are benefits/costs to reporting leaks and there are benefits/costs to shutting out prominent members of the press. I like what many have said that attempting to organize a public blackballing of Slasher is probably one step beyond what the public is comfortable with. No one at Liquid has hinted at doing this, but there were specters of it in the ITG conversation, and I think that makes people (at least it makes me) squeamish. IMO you are on the right path with this. But there is another solution as blackballing independent media, just include them in your marketing strategies! That is what "real sportorganisations" do allready as they are dependent on coverage from big media outlets. At the moment especially the big teams may not need independent media to get their message out as the community is relativ small and there are other ways, for example comunity sites like TL or Reddit. But I don't think it would be good for teams to try to shut down independent journalists like Slasher. They may be able to do it in this case but when things really get bigger and therefore more interessting for many more professional mediaoutlets there will be no way to control them. The thing is ESPN or TSN can hype something and they do it damn well. They get people excited and usually have well written articles and analysis. Slasher does not do it as well as EG or TL can. I think they could use him in some way but the teams in SC2 are better equipped to hype than one person on his own who doesn't seem to want to do analysis of these things.
You are right as long as we are talking about slasher and player announcements. Slasher may not be great or even interested in analysis but on the other side, it is also about credibility and for that independent journalism is crucial.
And for the hype part - that is not the job for media itself, hype has always to be created by the teams. They need just to find different ways to do so and adapt to a new situation. For that I'm with Nazgul, this will change the relationship from teamofficials to jounalists but I don't think this is nessessary a bad thing for any side as long as both sides know how to deal with another.
This hole theme is btw also a question for the future of TL itself. They have to decide in which direction the site will move, I'm pretty sure in a bigger environment TL will lose significance if they not put up more investigative news which would be sad, because I don't think there would be anybody better equipped to not only report the news but also analyse it and put in in the right perspective.
|
Thank you for writing this, and I agree with everything you said. I'm going to be the outlier here, and agree with Alex Garfield almost completely. There is one main, giant point that separates e-sports from real sports, that I think a lot of people miss. E-sport teams make 99% of their revenue from marketing. Sports teams don't make nearly that percentage. When a journalist breaks an announcement over a new signing, it doesn't hurt the sports team. However, it greatly hurts the E-sport teams in most cases. In the case of Stephano, it created a hype train that for sure helped EG, it was almost a game trying to figure out when EG themselves would release the news. In the case of Snute and especially Jaedong, it hurt and almost killed the hype. It's bad for the players, and it's bad for the teams.
I'm not saying Slasher is a bad guy for doing this, but I think an embargo for certain news would definitely help things. I don't however think that teams should band together and completely ban talking to Slasher, that statement seemed more emotionally driven than anything else.
I don't think another debate should be necessary, all the points have already been laid out I think we just have a disagreement.
I think you're all doing a great job.
|
Yet another one. Everyone wants to give their two cents. Anyway, I leave you with this: "It's nothing personal; it's just business."
On January 18 2013 06:58 sLideSC2 wrote:
Thank you for writing this, and I agree with everything you said. I'm going to be the outlier here, and agree with Alex Garfield almost completely. There is one main, giant point that separates e-sports from real sports, that I think a lot of people miss. E-sport teams make 99% of their revenue from marketing. Sports teams don't make nearly that percentage. When a journalist breaks an announcement over a new signing, it doesn't hurt the sports team. However, it greatly hurts the E-sport teams in most cases. In the case of Stephano, it created a hype train that for sure helped EG, it was almost a game trying to figure out when EG themselves would release the news. In the case of Snute and especially Jaedong, it hurt and almost killed the hype. It's bad for the players, and it's bad for the teams.
I'm not saying Slasher is a bad guy for doing this, but I think an embargo for certain news would definitely help things. I don't however think that teams should band together and completely ban talking to Slasher, that statement seemed more emotionally driven than anything else.
I don't think another debate should be necessary, all the points have already been laid out I think we just have a disagreement.
I think you're all doing a great job.
Don't throw around numbers. You used a gross exaggeration to try and make a point and there is still lots of marketing/advertising/endorsement potential outside of announcing a freaking player. I said it many times in other threads. You want to beat everyone else to the punch you have those pressers ready to go from the signing. You don't wait. Let the rumor wheel go nuts during the process because that way it's all rumor. No need for tunnel vision.
|
We need more people with such clear and reasonable thought in politics too.
|
On January 17 2013 19:40 iKill wrote:
Thank you for bringing a more level-headed explanation to the table than our dear (and slightly angry) friend, Mr. Garfield.
is this a joke. nazgul's name is victor goossens. (goosens? i dont know how to spell it)
i think ur thinking of the CEO of evil geniuses whose name is alex garfield.
thats kind of embarassing.
edit: ok i did it
|
On January 18 2013 07:37 snively wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 19:40 iKill wrote:
Thank you for bringing a more level-headed explanation to the table than our dear (and slightly angry) friend, Mr. Garfield. is this a joke. nazgul's name is victor goossens. (goosens? i dont know how to spell it) i think ur thinking of the CEO of evil geniuses, whose name is alex garfield. thats kind of embarassing.
Remove that comma and everything makes sense.
|
On January 17 2013 22:41 Chill wrote:
But how is this something that needs to be discussed publicly at all? If I'm not trustworthy you would make a thread "Chill is not trustworthy". You wouldn't make a thread "untrustworthy people in Esports". More than likely the thread would be a private conversation with your staff.
That's what I don't get about this entire situation. If Slasher is fine with what he's doing but people feel he isn't trustworthy, then then need to privately inform their organization and change their own actions dealing with him, not start a campaign against articles.
BAH! Stole my friggin post, Chill.
Naz: While I appreciate that you came at this with a level head, unlike AG, and I don't disagree with your assessment of the give and take in these relationships, I have to say that I don't see why any of this discourse needs to take place in public at all.
My cynical brain wonders if AG did this intentionally to make up for some of the page views he feels he lost due to Slasher's reporting.
|
If this is about relationships, why is it needed to be debated in public?
|
your pov was expressed on Lo3? wat? the entire arguement was not just "it hurts my team why did u do that" it was "we are friends why did you do that i thought i could trust you"
rather then slap slasher with an official NDA or something of the sorts i took there was an assumed "cmon man lets all gain from this" rather then just you(slasher). they then mentioned how esports are dif from sports simply because they dont have the money to withstand such a loss and they need all the money they can get from whatever they do to get it. slasher basically took money from them and they are mad that not a journalist took it from them but rather a FRIEND. its about a FRIEND breaking the code of FRIENDS.
|
|
|
On January 18 2013 07:39 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 07:37 snively wrote:On January 17 2013 19:40 iKill wrote:
Thank you for bringing a more level-headed explanation to the table than our dear (and slightly angry) friend, Mr. Garfield. is this a joke. nazgul's name is victor goossens. (goosens? i dont know how to spell it) i think ur thinking of the CEO of evil geniuses, whose name is alex garfield. thats kind of embarassing. Remove that comma and everything makes sense.
ok i did it
|
Boycotting Slasher won't work. He didn't get the information from the teams, so if they boycott him he'll still get his information. And since they're boycotting him, he won't hesitate to post something that very may well be harmful to that team.
|
I think the interesting point that hasn't been expreesed enough is that in traditional sports such as baseball or football the majority of the power in the relationahip between the reporter and the teams lies with the reporter unlike in eSports. Most reporters in traditional sports do cultivate relationships with team owners, managers, coaches etc. while at the same time using inside sources when necessary to bypass these high level contacts for other stories, some of shich may embarass or annoy high level team management. Fear of reprisals by management and owners of teams is minimal since most reporters in regular sports are employed by massive media conglomerates that teams would be foolish to make there enemies (for instance ESPN breaks numerous stories in sports and also broadcasts those sports, paying teams massive amounts of money for the rights for the broadcasts, in addition ESPN is owned by Disney who also owns ABC). Even if a team is angry at one these reporters it is not in the teams best interest to do anything that might cause a reprisal by one of these large madia companies and could potentially result in signifanct revenue losses.
In eSports the media does not wield this kind of power. Which means that a reporter can be put in a very difficult position if teams like EG and/or Liguid start threatening the reporters access. The reporter in eSports really has very limited power in the relationship with eSports teams.
|
well said, I guess my opinion on slasher doesnt really matter but as long as everybody is putting theirs out there I will too: I think hes an arrogant prick.
|
On January 18 2013 08:50 -_- wrote:
Boycotting Slasher won't work. He didn't get the information from the teams, so if they boycott him he'll still get his information. And since they're boycotting him, he won't hesitate to post something that very may well be harmful to that team.
of course it'll hurt him, no interviews with players from the two biggest non korean teams with, by far, the biggest fanbases?
|
why is Nazgul always so awesome?
|
On January 18 2013 08:42 Sunfish wrote:I agree almost 100% with Nazgul, and yet, as a member of Evil Geniuses, this post is incredibly frustrating for me. Here's why. Last night, the other staff members and I had a Skype session to discuss the fallout from this incident and give our opinions to Colin (LectR, on these forums), our marketing director/awesome guru. What Nazgul wrote here is essentially the same point all of us made: 1) Alex probably shouldn't have had that conversation on the show, 2) Slasher didn't commit any ethical infractions, 3) Because his actions have been bad for our business, we reserve the right to refuse him access to our players. And yet, whenever any of us have voiced this very reasonable opinion on these forums, Facebook, the PC Gamer article, or /r/starcraft, the proverbial or literal downvotes come out en masse. Then Nazgul posts this, gets hailed as the oracular voice of reason, and makes it to the top of /r/starcraft. I realize there's always been a double standard between EG and Liquid -- Liquid's players do poorly, "oh, he'll do better soon" vs. EG's players do poorly "scrub! cursed!" -- and when it comes to Slasher vs. EG, there's a very appealing David vs. Golaith story. But can you possibly comprehend how soul-crushingly frustrating this is? Imagine if everything you did, no matter how good it is, gets shit on just because you work for a particular organization. Way too often, I feel personally attacked by a community that I was once proud to call myself apart of. A few months ago, I put a huge amount of energy into writing a a social history of StarCraft, something no one else, to my knowledge, has even attempted (my "day job" is as an art history student, and I wanted to try applying an art historical/academic methodology to StarCraft). I'm very proud of that article and I legitimately think it was good, and yet, when I posted it on Reddit, the only upvotes I got were from other EG staff members and my IRL friends, which were instantly drowned by a deluge of downvotes. They came out so fast that there's no way the downvoters could have possibly read my article. The only reason for the negative reception, then, is that the article was associated with EG. This is why I stopped writing what I think could have been a very provocative and intellectual stimulating series: the emotional toll of seeing your hard work vilified not because it was bad (if this was the case, I'd be absolutely fine with a negative reception -- I want to know if someone legitimately doesn't like my writing. I'm always learning; I want feedback), but merely because the article was hosted on evilgeniuses.net. Hell, if I had posted it TL and took the "EG Writer" out of my profile, it might have even been a featured blog. Even when I posted a comment as simple as "Actually, we all signed NDAs, so please stop calling EG idiotic for not requiring NDAs," I got downvoted to hell. There is no opinion to disagree with there; it's just a fact, and yet that doesn't even matter to the denizens of /r/starcraft. Nearly everyone who writes for EG is either a college student or a working young adult. With the exception of a handful of guys, none of us do this full time. Even those of us who get a modest stipend do this for one simple reason: we love eSports. But why does that have to be so hard? Edit: Added a link to the article in question. Edit 2: I posted this (wiht some minor edits) on reddit.. The reaction? As if I needed any other proof...
A bit of a digression, but you work for an organization that has prided itself on being the "bad boys". They've used that reputation to position EG as a foil to Liquid and to create a mutually beneficial "rivalry" that keeps fans of both teams excited and energized. It's not unlike a wrestler scripted arbitrarily into the "evil" persona in WWF. However, it's disingenuous to come back and then complain that the team is being treated like the bad guys. The staff and the players are all great people and work quite hard. EG is probably the best in the business in marketing and has the financial results to prove it. However, the persona they project is cast onto everyone, and that's just something you have to deal with until such time as the organization decides it wants to push its image the other direction.
|
On January 18 2013 04:51 Bumblebee wrote:
It's a lot more than just the people we decide to tell. Let's look at it with the example of Snute. Snute is one of the strongest foreign players out there and inevitably a lot of teams will be in the hunt for him and bidding on him. These teams will be informed that they weren't chosen and who overbid them. I don't believe we, as one of the teams, are in a position to make demands from these people about contracts and stuff. We can -- which we of course do -- ask them nicely to respect our signing and let us have our own announcements. We tell our players the same thing, even when they get the hands on this information.
In a scene as young as this, a lot of the stuff going will and, due to the current state, has to be done out of pure respect for other people's things. I'm not saying what Slasher did is disrespectful. We let him do his job and we try to do ours. That's how it is. There's no reason to blame Slasher.
I still don't see why the necessities of contract negotiation have to result in informational leaks. For curiosity's sake alone I'd like to hear why.
Let's use Snute as the example here:
At time X, Snute comes out of contract, and teams TL, EG, Axiom, and Azubu all decide to commence bidding to sign him. At this point in time, everybody knows that teams will be after Snute, but there is no way of knowing who. If this information, and the subsequent publicity gained from a signing is so crucial to a team's bottom line, then teams should refrain from indicating to other teams or the general public whether or not they are interested in his services at all at that time. At the time of approaching Snute, all teams can require that Snute (and his management if applicable) sign NDAs preventing him from disclosing that that particular team is in the hunt for his services: Mr TL says to Snute 'We'd like to enter into a dialogue with you about joining our organisation, but it is conditional upon your agreement to, amongst other things, not disclose that we are in such a dialogue'.
As negotiations get under way, TL offers $10, EG offers $5, Axiom offers $9 and a lollipop, and Azubu offers $3. Snute, by virtue of his NDA will go to the other teams and say "I've been offered $10" or "I've been offered $9 and a lollipop". Teams will evaluate those offers, and some teams will drop out. There is no need for him to go to EG, Axiom and Azubu and say "TL is giving me $10". This restricts who has what information to mere speculation, which is able to be significantly misleading.
So in this case, EG and Azubu decided the price wasn't right and notify Snute or his management that they cannot match those offers. (As I understand from certain comments made by members of these teams, it is apparent that teams who have dropped out talk to other organisations and divulge that very fact: says Mr EG to Mr Azubu, Mr Axiom, Mr TL, Mr ROOT etc, 'we're out on the Snute bidding man, good luck on your negotiations'). Again, if this information, and the subsequent publicity gained from a signing is so crucial to a team's bottom line, then teams should refrain from indicating to other teams or the general public that they have pulled out. This prevents the process of elimination from occuring which might otherwise allow another team or journalist to determine where Snute is going.
Ultimately, Axiom crunches their numbers and decide they can't match the $10 and bow out. TL signs Snute. Information is kept within the organisation and with the player/management.
Other potential avenues for informational leaks, such as event sign ups and the like need to be discussed with the organisations requiring the information. Perhaps those organisations can allow final rosters to be updated at a time closer to the event itself. I'm not au fait with the ins and outs, but I really struggle to see why it is so difficult to maintain some confidentiality in these discussions. I'd love to hear why, beyond the 'oh it's just the way it is'.
EDIT: The other point I wanted to make is this: A related matter, to who a player signs with, are the actual terms of the signing, i.e. whether a player is paid $50,000 per year or $40,000 plus their travel and accomodation expenses, or $90,000 per year or whatever. To date, outside of the Korean organisations who make this stuff public as a matter of course, I don't recall any player's contractual details ever being leaked to the public. I'm left wondering why this information is somehow better controlled when you're saying that teams and players talk amongst themselves about these issues. If that's the case, apparently the organisations and players are able to show more restraint in that regard as to what they'll divulge, and whom they will divulge it to.
|
On January 18 2013 08:42 Sunfish wrote:I agree almost 100% with Nazgul, and yet, as a member of Evil Geniuses, this post is incredibly frustrating for me. Here's why. Last night, the other staff members and I had a Skype session to discuss the fallout from this incident and give our opinions to Colin (LectR, on these forums), our marketing director/awesome guru. What Nazgul wrote here is essentially the same point all of us made: 1) Alex probably shouldn't have had that conversation on the show, 2) Slasher didn't commit any ethical infractions, 3) Because his actions have been bad for our business, we reserve the right to refuse him access to our players. And yet, whenever any of us have voiced this very reasonable opinion on these forums, Facebook, the PC Gamer article, or /r/starcraft, the proverbial or literal downvotes come out en masse. Then Nazgul posts this, gets hailed as the oracular voice of reason, and makes it to the top of /r/starcraft. I realize there's always been a double standard between EG and Liquid -- Liquid's players do poorly, "oh, he'll do better soon" vs. EG's players do poorly "scrub! cursed!" -- and when it comes to Slasher vs. EG, there's a very appealing David vs. Golaith story. But can you possibly comprehend how soul-crushingly frustrating this is? Imagine if everything you did, no matter how good it is, gets shit on just because you work for a particular organization. Way too often, I feel personally attacked by a community that I was once proud to call myself apart of. A few months ago, I put a huge amount of energy into writing a a social history of StarCraft, something no one else, to my knowledge, has even attempted (my "day job" is as an art history student, and I wanted to try applying an art historical/academic methodology to StarCraft). I'm very proud of that article and I legitimately think it was good, and yet, when I posted it on Reddit, the only upvotes I got were from other EG staff members and my IRL friends, which were instantly drowned by a deluge of downvotes. They came out so fast that there's no way the downvoters could have possibly read my article. The only reason for the negative reception, then, is that the article was associated with EG. This is why I stopped writing what I think could have been a very provocative and intellectual stimulating series: the emotional toll of seeing your hard work vilified not because it was bad (if this was the case, I'd be absolutely fine with a negative reception -- I want to know if someone legitimately doesn't like my writing. I'm always learning; I want feedback), but merely because the article was hosted on evilgeniuses.net. Hell, if I had posted it TL and took the "EG Writer" out of my profile, it might have even been a featured blog. Even when I posted a comment as simple as "Actually, we all signed NDAs, so please stop calling EG idiotic for not requiring NDAs," I got downvoted to hell. There is no opinion to disagree with there; it's just a fact, and yet that doesn't even matter to the denizens of /r/starcraft. Nearly everyone who writes for EG is either a college student or a working young adult. With the exception of a handful of guys, none of us do this full time. Even those of us who get a modest stipend do this for one simple reason: we love eSports. But why does that have to be so hard? Edit: Added a link to the article in question. Edit 2: I posted this (wiht some minor edits) on reddit.. The reaction? As if I needed any other proof...
"Alex probably shouldn't have had that conversation on the show" is putting it lightly. The conversation shouldn't have taken place in public, and it damn sure shouldn't have occurred in the manner it did. The latter being a, if not the most, significant factor in the backlash you've received in relation to this incident. It's not just the message you send, but how you send it, and poorly conveyed messages, coming from the top of the organisation, are going to reflect poorly on it as a whole. It's not the first time that Alex has done this either; I'm surprised more people haven't referenced the 'Milkis incident'.
More generally, as has been indicated already, your organisation is polarising. You are a big name, with big sponsors, big presence, big money and big personalities. Idra is mostly a love him or hate him sort of guy, there are very few people with a middle of the road opinion on him; people think he's honest and 'real' and love him, or they think he's a bad tempered nerd without the ability to moderate what comes out of his mouth. Incontrol has put his foot in his mouth more times than I can count over the years, yet is often absolutely hilarious and really appears to be making significant effort in the scene. You've signed what were big name players in what some would say were arguably dubious circumstances, of course this gives your organisation a large boost by securing players that many fans want to see/interact with. Some feel EG throws it's name/money/experience around and doesn't care for consequences or who they bully in the process. And of course you have, as I started with, Alex who, at times, appears unable to keep his cool and show the sort of judgment which would be expected of the spokesperson for the organisation with the big name, big sponsors, big presence, big money and big personalities.
Clearly EG does A LOT right, or they wouldn't be in as strong a position as an organisation as they are. However if you're really sitting there and wondering why EG cops so much hate, then you're either blinded by your own association or you really don't listen to people (the general fans) enough. As for you and your article, it's unlikely to be anything personal, though you unfortunately seem to be taking it that way.
|
On January 18 2013 09:50 Brett wrote:
As negotiations get under way, TL offers $10, EG offers $5, Axiom offers $9 and a lollipop, and Azubu offers $3. Snute, by virtue of his NDA will go to the other teams and say "I've been offered $10" or "I've been offered $9 and a lollipop". Teams will evaluate those offers, and some teams will drop out. There is no need for him to go to EG, Axiom and Azubu and say "TL is giving me $10". This restricts who has what information to mere speculation, which is able to be significantly misleading.
But what flavor of lollipop? Slasher's reporting isn't so shabby as to leave out such a critical detail.
|
On January 18 2013 08:42 Sunfish wrote:I agree almost 100% with Nazgul, and yet, as a member of Evil Geniuses, this post is incredibly frustrating for me. Here's why. Last night, the other staff members and I had a Skype session to discuss the fallout from this incident and give our opinions to Colin (LectR, on these forums), our marketing director/awesome guru. What Nazgul wrote here is essentially the same point all of us made: 1) Alex probably shouldn't have had that conversation on the show, 2) Slasher didn't commit any ethical infractions, 3) Because his actions have been bad for our business, we reserve the right to refuse him access to our players. And yet, whenever any of us have voiced this very reasonable opinion on these forums, Facebook, the PC Gamer article, or /r/starcraft, the proverbial or literal downvotes come out en masse. Then Nazgul posts this, gets hailed as the oracular voice of reason, and makes it to the top of /r/starcraft. I realize there's always been a double standard between EG and Liquid -- Liquid's players do poorly, "oh, he'll do better soon" vs. EG's players do poorly "scrub! cursed!" -- and when it comes to Slasher vs. EG, there's a very appealing David vs. Golaith story. But can you possibly comprehend how soul-crushingly frustrating this is? Imagine if everything you did, no matter how good it is, gets shit on just because you work for a particular organization. Way too often, I feel personally attacked by a community that I was once proud to call myself apart of. A few months ago, I put a huge amount of energy into writing a a social history of StarCraft, something no one else, to my knowledge, has even attempted (my "day job" is as an art history student, and I wanted to try applying an art historical/academic methodology to StarCraft). I'm very proud of that article and I legitimately think it was good, and yet, when I posted it on Reddit, the only upvotes I got were from other EG staff members and my IRL friends, which were instantly drowned by a deluge of downvotes. They came out so fast that there's no way the downvoters could have possibly read my article. The only reason for the negative reception, then, is that the article was associated with EG. This is why I stopped writing what I think could have been a very provocative and intellectual stimulating series: the emotional toll of seeing your hard work vilified not because it was bad (if this was the case, I'd be absolutely fine with a negative reception -- I want to know if someone legitimately doesn't like my writing. I'm always learning; I want feedback), but merely because the article was hosted on evilgeniuses.net. Hell, if I had posted it TL and took the "EG Writer" out of my profile, it might have even been a featured blog. Even when I posted a comment as simple as "Actually, we all signed NDAs, so please stop calling EG idiotic for not requiring NDAs," I got downvoted to hell. There is no opinion to disagree with there; it's just a fact, and yet that doesn't even matter to the denizens of /r/starcraft. Nearly everyone who writes for EG is either a college student or a working young adult. With the exception of a handful of guys, none of us do this full time. Even those of us who get a modest stipend do this for one simple reason: we love eSports. But why does that have to be so hard? Edit: Added a link to the article in question. Edit 2: I posted this (wiht some minor edits) on reddit.. The reaction? As if I needed any other proof...
hm... do you realize you complain about something which is actually one of the main reasons EG is so successful.
EG has built a very specific image; EG ist the Yang, TL is the Ying, EG is Darth Vader, TL is Obi Wan; TL is the good wrestler, EG is the bad wrestler and from a business point of view both parties benefit a great deal from that.
Stop crying over people downvoting your stuff just because you work for EG; if you wouldn't work for EG much less people would read your stuff, you would have less exposure, maybe nobody would read it at all;
EG has certainly the means to be perceived in any way they want, so quit being a whiner and embrace the possibilities that come with being an Evil Genius; Whining about how people don't appreciate your brilliantly written articles, just because you're affiliated with EG doesn't fit the image of an Evil Genius but more the image of a little girl who cries about not getting the pony she so deserved
|
What's stupid is this sentiment that news and information should be controlled, and specifically there is sentiment to suppress any bad news as well. It's absurd because anyone with a dollar invested only wants to make the scene grow so they can keep raking in the dough, such that they will air out grievances publicly, but because they can't see the forest through the trees, they don't quite calculate when they themselves have blown a situation out of standard proportion. In a way, damage control itself is damaging. Point a finger and someone will rightfully stick a mirror in your path.
Also Slasher is a brave man for even talking to that panel of hacks. ITG is a horrendously skewed agenda-based program with no real checks. Another reckless corporate program that's leading (foreign) esports to its current state of this kind of stupid drama being more entertaining than actual gameplay itself. Ultimately, the condoning fans really get what they deserve. This is the scene we have created.
And in all honesty, to blame a reporter for breaking something a team leaked, or told to too many people who then told so-and-so who then etc. etc., is quite... amusing. Please plug your holes.
EDIT: A good time to say this: This shit is "killing esports"
|
On January 18 2013 11:02 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
What's stupid is this sentiment that news and information should be controlled, and specifically there is sentiment to suppress any bad news as well. It's absurd because anyone with a dollar invested only wants to make the scene grow so they can keep raking in the dough, such that they will air out grievances publicly, but because they can't see the forest through the trees, they don't quite calculate when they themselves have blown a situation out of standard proportion. In a way, damage control itself is damaging. Point a finger and someone will rightfully stick a mirror in your path.
Also Slasher is a brave man for even talking to that panel of hacks. ITG is a horrendously skewed agenda-based program with no real checks. Another reckless corporate program that's leading (foreign) esports to its current state of this kind of stupid drama being more entertaining than actual gameplay itself. Ultimately, the condoning fans really get what they deserve. This is the scene we have created.
And in all honesty, to blame a reporter for breaking something a team leaked, or told to too many people who then told so-and-so who then etc. etc., is quite... amusing. Please plug your holes.
EDIT: A good time to say this: This shit is "killing esports"
hahaha
you're cute
Alex explicitly told us, on air, not to participate so as to not gang up on him. Viewers were complaining about how quiet me and demuslim were throughout it. They had a one on one discussion in which Alex explained what was wrong with what slasher is doing and what the consequences could be and while he was very emotional about it I see very few people with legitimate complaints about things that he ACTUALLY said. Slasher then yelled back about how he has done high quality journalism as well over and over. What did we do to skew what happened? Totalbiscuit was the other party who really participated in the discussion and he shat on slasher too, just in a nicer voice, and he's not associated with eg in any way.
If anything Alex fucked it up by being too emotional because he's too invested in everything. If he were the cold calculating businessman you're trying to paint him as he'd have quietly cut slasher off from anything to do with eg, encouraged trustworthy team owners to do the same thing, and had people who weren't him get the word out that the same thing would probably happen to any other journalist who fucked with eg in similar ways. But no, he went on air and tried to discuss the problem and explain how it hurts not only eg, but the community and industry as well because he'd like to fix the problem instead of just protecting our team. And in doing so he exposed himself to you idiots. Poor guy.
|
On January 18 2013 08:42 Sunfish wrote:I agree almost 100% with Nazgul, and yet, as a member of Evil Geniuses, this post is incredibly frustrating for me. Here's why. Last night, the other staff members and I had a Skype session to discuss the fallout from this incident and give our opinions to Colin (LectR, on these forums), our marketing director/awesome guru. What Nazgul wrote here is essentially the same point all of us made: 1) Alex probably shouldn't have had that conversation on the show, 2) Slasher didn't commit any ethical infractions, 3) Because his actions have been bad for our business, we reserve the right to refuse him access to our players. And yet, whenever any of us have voiced this very reasonable opinion on these forums, Facebook, the PC Gamer article, or /r/starcraft, the proverbial or literal downvotes come out en masse. Then Nazgul posts this, gets hailed as the oracular voice of reason, and makes it to the top of /r/starcraft. I realize there's always been a double standard between EG and Liquid -- Liquid's players do poorly, "oh, he'll do better soon" vs. EG's players do poorly "scrub! cursed!" -- and when it comes to Slasher vs. EG, there's a very appealing David vs. Golaith story. But can you possibly comprehend how soul-crushingly frustrating this is? Imagine if everything you did, no matter how good it is, gets shit on just because you work for a particular organization. Way too often, I feel personally attacked by a community that I was once proud to call myself apart of. A few months ago, I put a huge amount of energy into writing a a social history of StarCraft, something no one else, to my knowledge, has even attempted (my "day job" is as an art history student, and I wanted to try applying an art historical/academic methodology to StarCraft). I'm very proud of that article and I legitimately think it was good, and yet, when I posted it on Reddit, the only upvotes I got were from other EG staff members and my IRL friends, which were instantly drowned by a deluge of downvotes. They came out so fast that there's no way the downvoters could have possibly read my article. The only reason for the negative reception, then, is that the article was associated with EG. This is why I stopped writing what I think could have been a very provocative and intellectual stimulating series: the emotional toll of seeing your hard work vilified not because it was bad (if this was the case, I'd be absolutely fine with a negative reception -- I want to know if someone legitimately doesn't like my writing. I'm always learning; I want feedback), but merely because the article was hosted on evilgeniuses.net. Hell, if I had posted it TL and took the "EG Writer" out of my profile, it might have even been a featured blog. Even when I posted a comment as simple as "Actually, we all signed NDAs, so please stop calling EG idiotic for not requiring NDAs," I got downvoted to hell. There is no opinion to disagree with there; it's just a fact, and yet that doesn't even matter to the denizens of /r/starcraft. Nearly everyone who writes for EG is either a college student or a working young adult. With the exception of a handful of guys, none of us do this full time. Even those of us who get a modest stipend do this for one simple reason: we love eSports. But why does that have to be so hard? Edit: Added a link to the article in question. Edit 2: I posted this (wiht some minor edits) on reddit.. The reaction? As if I needed any other proof...
I couldn't help lol at this. Look, I've made a post several months ago explaining the differences between your two organizations and going through your histories. I don't wish to explain it again. I'm thinking it was back in August of this year, but I did address the issue. The teams are very different. How you guys do business is very different. That's why you guys have that image.
It's the same deal when I talk about body language and power of words in everyday life. It's all about image and perception.
As for your comments on the EG staff. That's common practice for everyone working in the scene. They're all young go getters and it's a learning process. Even as you get old you're going to make mistakes which hopefully you limit. If there's a time to be making mistakes and learn your trade it's now. Last but not least, you cannot change your image overnight and you guys sort of embraced this kind of culture in the EG organization. There's nothing wrong with operating things a little bit differently especially when you find some success with it.
|
I head a major streaming site has stopped paying their broadcasters for nearly a year. How did Slasher's sources miss that bomb? Or maybe he knew, but just couldn't be bothered to write about it.
Now there was a story I was interested in reading about. To bad some folks are focused on signings of players to teams page views.
|
On January 18 2013 12:50 Plansix wrote:
I head a major streaming site has stopped paying their broadcasters for nearly a year. How did Slasher's sources miss that bomb? Or maybe he knew, but just couldn't be bothered to write about it.
Now there was a story I was interested in reading about. To bad some folks are focused on signings of players to teams page views.
Who are you to tell what to write and when to write it? By all means, if you want to be that guy. Go for it.
|
On January 18 2013 03:09 heyoka wrote:I think this is the most clear cut way to look at it. I don't know how this turned into an ethics debate or something over freedom of press, because that isn't the issue at hand. Journalists needs to do their job and the teams need to do theirs, occasionally these two things will conflict and the resolution isn't easy. The journalists need to be aware, however, that the way they choose to do it carry with them the risk of negatively impacting their ability to do the same things in the future. This is how the world works. Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 01:15 AshenCZ wrote:
Then again, as Destiny pointed out, if something leaks, it is the TEAM's fault, not Slasher's for finding out and doing his job... I understand how people come to this conclusion because it seems like a logical way to look at it, but it's completely untrue. The esports world is very small, if team management are talking to one guy or another it's obvious to a ton of people who have no involvement in the transaction. Negotiations can take forever and during these any team who has expressed interest but been turned down will figure out by process of elimination where they are going, the team has no control over a ton of people who know outside their organization.
So your point is that in a small world tons of people knows about this.. Makes no sense. And stating that something is completly untrue... u are of the oppinion that Teams have no responsability at all? I'm sorry if eSports growing and the process around it is difficult to handle.
Taking precausions against the media is what any organisation would do yes, making it a publicdebate and threaths about cutting off a reporter -no. That's not professionalism.
I belive that journalist are aware about how things work. Teams -nah not so much about media atleast. And they don't seem intrested in for the sake of eSports eather since they don't appriciate news reaching outside the original fanbase.
|
First of all, I find it shameful when a particular team owner starts pointing at a journalist for leaking privy information when he should be examining how the information get leaks in the first place.
Although Slasher actions are not unethical, they is similar to those trashy tabloid journalism that jump on any available celebrity gossips to get viewership. Slasher cannot deny he put his self interests first before considering other teams. Again that is human nature, nothing wrong at all, but moving forward, some of us will just look at Slasher in another light.
|
preach!!! So wonderfully put sir. Thank you.
|
Remember that idle threats will get you nowhere. If you continuously threaten to do something, and don't actually do it, your words will be hollow. Character is definitely something that you need in normal-business-environment, but with a shock-value-type, such as Howard Stern, it helps to do things like that. Look at Destiny.
What you do now is ban him from TL, unlist his channel, etc for a time of suspension. 3 days, or 2 weeks, probably, would be adequate, in this situation. I would say on a 2nd ban, to make it a month or two, and then a 3rd strike, and he's out. If he's your friend, he shouldn't be ratting you out, and fucking you over, pardon my French.
Keep your head up. Negative publicity is better than no publicity, and TL as a company/team have a lot more to say than a few trolls on this message board
|
On January 17 2013 22:02 skeldark wrote:
You and your website have the power in this area to get away with such a statement, sadly.
You have a total misunderstanding about the role of media.
You think you are the owner of an information.
You think by buying a player you own the information of you buying him.
Thats not the case!
You say: "write what i want or i dont talk to you any more".
I hope that the media in this area gets powerful enough that they can say:
"You dont want to talk to us, then we dont write about your team any-more"
You abuse the power to be the owner of a Team and a Media site. Thats all.
In any real sport or politics this statement would be the end of your career.
At the moment thats not the case in esport and that gives you the chance, to rethink your statement.
If you would not have your own media site/show and no power over slasher,
if he would not need your information at all (Lets say he is a big journalist from a big new company)
Would we have this discussion?
I dont think so...
You're just flat-out wrong. It is totally about managing relationships. If a politician gives a story to a journalist and that journo then fucks him over by revealing his source, he loses the relationship. It's a give and take situation. The politician needs a good relationship with the press and vice versa.
|
On January 19 2013 00:10 Subversive wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 22:02 skeldark wrote:
You and your website have the power in this area to get away with such a statement, sadly.
You have a total misunderstanding about the role of media.
You think you are the owner of an information.
You think by buying a player you own the information of you buying him.
Thats not the case!
You say: "write what i want or i dont talk to you any more".
I hope that the media in this area gets powerful enough that they can say:
"You dont want to talk to us, then we dont write about your team any-more"
You abuse the power to be the owner of a Team and a Media site. Thats all.
In any real sport or politics this statement would be the end of your career.
At the moment thats not the case in esport and that gives you the chance, to rethink your statement.
If you would not have your own media site/show and no power over slasher,
if he would not need your information at all (Lets say he is a big journalist from a big new company)
Would we have this discussion?
I dont think so... You're just flat-out wrong. It is totally about managing relationships. If a politician gives a story to a journalist and that journo then fucks him over by revealing his source, he loses the relationship. It's a give and take situation. The politician needs a good relationship with the press and vice versa.
That's a horrible analogy. Revealing a source makes him a bad journalist, making it have nothing to do with "managing relationships" and all about ethics and protecting your sources.
Try again.
Edit: And I'm not saying that to be a prick but because I think that there is a valid analogy there that can support your argument.
|
On January 19 2013 00:52 Martijn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 00:10 Subversive wrote:On January 17 2013 22:02 skeldark wrote:
You and your website have the power in this area to get away with such a statement, sadly.
You have a total misunderstanding about the role of media.
You think you are the owner of an information.
You think by buying a player you own the information of you buying him.
Thats not the case!
You say: "write what i want or i dont talk to you any more".
I hope that the media in this area gets powerful enough that they can say:
"You dont want to talk to us, then we dont write about your team any-more"
You abuse the power to be the owner of a Team and a Media site. Thats all.
In any real sport or politics this statement would be the end of your career.
At the moment thats not the case in esport and that gives you the chance, to rethink your statement.
If you would not have your own media site/show and no power over slasher,
if he would not need your information at all (Lets say he is a big journalist from a big new company)
Would we have this discussion?
I dont think so... You're just flat-out wrong. It is totally about managing relationships. If a politician gives a story to a journalist and that journo then fucks him over by revealing his source, he loses the relationship. It's a give and take situation. The politician needs a good relationship with the press and vice versa. That's a horrible analogy. Revealing a source makes him a bad journalist, making it have nothing to do with "managing relationships" and all about ethics and protecting your sources. Try again. Edit: And I'm not saying that to be a prick but because I think that there is a valid analogy there that can support your argument.
I don't have a problem with my analogy but if you think there's a better one then go right ahead. If all you can say is "you're wrong" then I don't agree.
|
Yea this is on the money. people got a bit over zealous over everything. Garfield hit it well that slasher was hurting his own business.. has to be a give and take relationship between organizations and journalists.. and if slasher wants a to just take without giving, as fine as that is, its just a bad business strategy as he will lose his contacts quickly.
|
It makes sense that one MAY like another person for something that they may do but one CAN and WILL take advantage of your connection. I think Slasher may take it too far if allowed for the gain of the community and himself as a reporter.
|
Journalist isn't a greatful job since it's in the nature of the profession that u will be disliked by companies and such. Lets say they are boycotting Slasher. What happens next? There will be someone else making this reports since it's a business. It's shortsighted to believe that this type of journalism will fade away just because there is one person less reporting the news. Since teamowners are willing to unit against this type of journalism, how is it impossible to unit the teams so that information stays within theese walls? The teams in the debate against Slasher claims its impossble to keep the information as other teams are involved in the biddig of a player. So there are bound to be some leaks. Well maybe that is the problem and not one person. There is a error since other teams can't keep quiet, wich u could expect of them. Expecting a journalist to not report isn't the issue here.
|
On January 19 2013 00:10 Subversive wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 22:02 skeldark wrote:
You and your website have the power in this area to get away with such a statement, sadly.
You have a total misunderstanding about the role of media.
You think you are the owner of an information.
You think by buying a player you own the information of you buying him.
Thats not the case!
You say: "write what i want or i dont talk to you any more".
I hope that the media in this area gets powerful enough that they can say:
"You dont want to talk to us, then we dont write about your team any-more"
You abuse the power to be the owner of a Team and a Media site. Thats all.
In any real sport or politics this statement would be the end of your career.
At the moment thats not the case in esport and that gives you the chance, to rethink your statement.
If you would not have your own media site/show and no power over slasher,
if he would not need your information at all (Lets say he is a big journalist from a big new company)
Would we have this discussion?
I dont think so... You're just flat-out wrong. It is totally about managing relationships. If a politician gives a story to a journalist and that journo then fucks him over by revealing his source, he loses the relationship. It's a give and take situation. The politician needs a good relationship with the press and vice versa.
The police or the secret service, is not allowed to observe him to find his source. Even on court a journalist dont have to tell his source! If he calls out his source himself, he is fucked! i total agree.
That is not what happened here. Slasher did not tell his source!
So this have nothing to do with the topic.
When a journalist have information ABOUT this politic from a DIFFERENT source and dont publish it,
he does a bad job. Even if he had this information from the politic himself before that! Else the politics could just tell him what he want not to be published.
If the political say in public:
This journalist published something about me i dont wanted him to publish, so i dont talk to him any more
That would be his last day in politics. At least in my country...
Because it showes that this politics has an undemocratic understanding of media.
He thinks that he can control what they publish.
This politician is not a democrat and there is no place for him in a democracy.
Beside that:
If politics have a good relationship with the press and vise versa, the press does not do their job.
In this situation:
I have the feeling, that the power that you have if you are a owner and the owner of a show/website ( that is core part of the media) was to much for some people.
They control so much that they start thinking, its their right to have control over the press.
|
On January 19 2013 02:23 skeldark wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 00:10 Subversive wrote:On January 17 2013 22:02 skeldark wrote:
You and your website have the power in this area to get away with such a statement, sadly.
You have a total misunderstanding about the role of media.
You think you are the owner of an information.
You think by buying a player you own the information of you buying him.
Thats not the case!
You say: "write what i want or i dont talk to you any more".
I hope that the media in this area gets powerful enough that they can say:
"You dont want to talk to us, then we dont write about your team any-more"
You abuse the power to be the owner of a Team and a Media site. Thats all.
In any real sport or politics this statement would be the end of your career.
At the moment thats not the case in esport and that gives you the chance, to rethink your statement.
If you would not have your own media site/show and no power over slasher,
if he would not need your information at all (Lets say he is a big journalist from a big new company)
Would we have this discussion?
I dont think so... You're just flat-out wrong. It is totally about managing relationships. If a politician gives a story to a journalist and that journo then fucks him over by revealing his source, he loses the relationship. It's a give and take situation. The politician needs a good relationship with the press and vice versa. The police or the secret service, is not allowed to observe him to find his source. Even on court a journalist dont have to tell his source! If he calls out his source himself, he is fucked! i total agree. That is not what happened here. Slasher did not tell his source! So this have nothing to do with the topic.
I don't know where you are geting your information, but journalist are not given special rights in the US. They can be jailed for not revealing a source (From 2005). In this case, I agree with the journalist and respect them for going to jail, but they are just like anyone with a given profession. They can also be invistigated by the police or any other branch of the goverment if there is good cause. If the source was leaking dangerous or classified information, there is no reason why the police cannot follow the reporter.
To be clear, I don't think the goverment should be "policing" the press, I am just pointing out that journalist have no special immunities from laws.
|
@Plansix
Why do you asume i talk about the USA?
Im not from the USA!
In germany there are laws to secure freedom of press .
Btw: I know the case. It was all over the European news that something like this is possible in the usa.
|
On January 19 2013 03:09 skeldark wrote:
@Plansix
Why do you asume i talk about the USA?
I serious dont know if you are trolling me. in case you are not:
Im not from the USA! In germany there are laws to secure freedom of press .
Btw: I know the case. It was all over the European news that something like this is possible in the usa.
Well I assumed because Slasher reports for a US company, you were referencing US laws. To be clear, that sort of thing is very uncommon in the US and it is very rare that a journalist is jailed for anything in relation to their job. Most lawyers won't even touch the subject and the goverment normally goes to great lenghts to avoid asking press for their sources.
|
Wow Victor, that was really well done. I am impressed both by your honesty and the quality and truth of the argument. To have such a well reasoned and level headed point view is rare, especially in our industry. I agree that Rod's handling of the situation was poor and that it is bad business to mix the "source" relationship and the professional relationship. You have a responsibility to protect that information to the best of your ability and working with someone professionally who will leak information is something you cannot afford to do. It would be the wrong choice for your business. Simply put: "Loose lips sink ships." If not rule #1, that's definitely close to the top of the list.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
