EPTAnyway, iirc this isn't the first time MYM leaked info that wasn't supposed to be leaked (TLT comes to mind), but yeah, This is only hurting their on opportunity for future exclusive information.
Community eSport ethics - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
Anyway, iirc this isn't the first time MYM leaked info that wasn't supposed to be leaked (TLT comes to mind), but yeah, This is only hurting their on opportunity for future exclusive information. | ||
|
lakrismamma
Sweden543 Posts
On June 25 2008 00:39 rpf wrote: Let me put it this way: TL is the only site that does things properly with stuff like this; other sites don't take anything seriously, and go and ruin aspects of the game for people. I may make fun of TL and its community from time to time, but there's a good reason I'm only a member of TL and not of other gaming sites. Granted my membership means relatively little to gaming as a whole, but I hope this makes sense. Keep doin' what you're doin'. Edit: Blizzard shouldn't only come to TL, but I think after this (and all of the community's feedback), they'd understand to hold TL in a higher regard than obviously lesser sites. Clearly the people behind the curtains at TL know what to do (and not to do). I seem to remember that when SC2 was shown for the first time. TL took pictures and posted them even though that wasnt allowed by Blizzard. So we are not innocent here.. | ||
|
Too_MuchZerg
Finland2818 Posts
On June 25 2008 05:41 Aesop wrote: So as I see it, the basic logic of the official MYM statement is: 1) They have had the player's list since a while 2) They chose not to publish it, just like everyone else. 3) Replays.net published player lists, first a totally rumorous and inaccurate one, second an accurate one. 4) myMYM reports about Replays.net publishing the list (s). Thus, the real culprit is replays.net and myMYM was just reporting about them publishing a rumour. What I am still wondering however is this: If you have the real informations at hand (as stated), and someone else posts a rumour which you know to be false. Isn't it still unethical to provide the rumour with more fuel despite knowing that it is not just a rumour but plainly wrong? There is a need to "cater the readers" cited. Yes, sure, if you are posting a rumour that can yet prove to be right or wrong, this might be catering your readers. But on the first hand reporting something which you know to be wrong and on the second hand linking to something you know yourself but you did not want to disclose by yourself, both of these still appear dubitable to me. Well what I understood the.crow post is that editor didn't have any clue who is going to participate there, but Phil had list. So editor did correct thing because he had no idea that and Phil couldn't correct information because promise to Blizzard? Seems to me that normal rumor/news at work. And that would have been more suspicious if Phil would have removed/stopped news and this would have raised even more questions at least from editors point of view. | ||
|
Skew
United States1019 Posts
On June 25 2008 05:25 expostfacto wrote: seems like a self-correcting problem to me. if site X doesn't respect your request to keep something confidential, you don't tell them anything confidential next time. "the community" as a whole isn't really a factor here. Bingo. | ||
|
SonuvBob
Aiur21550 Posts
On June 24 2008 19:32 Manifesto7 wrote: This is something I am more and more concerned about as SC2 approaches. As someone who has an active role in maintaining this site, I am often approached with offers from many different companies regarding the promotion of eSports and whatever product they choose to promote. With the publicity of the TSL, it has been a real eye-opener for us, especially the core group of staff. These events will only intensify as the community swells in anticipation of the big event. However I feel that some sites are not taking their responsibilities as seriously as they should. Because they have access to privileged information, information companies are trusting them with, they feel that it is ok for them to post it and grab a quick headline. Obviously the latest incident is with replays.net posting the lineups for the WWI on their sites, which led to replays.net and other sites following. There are many people who have known the lineups for more than a month now, but have managed to be quiet about it. That is because confidentiality was requested in the emails. However, what these spoilers don't know is that their actions cast suspicion and doubt over the entire length of community sites, staff, and players. Right now I am talking to people who are rightfully pissed off. There is a difference between being a journalist and disrespecting the wishes of those who help you. I would hope that in the future, all sites have respect for their partners in the field. If they don't it will not only damage their site, but also this site, and the community in general who will feel the effects of the lack of trust between companies and communities. This is my opinion, but it isn't everyone's. What do you think the obligations of community sites are in these situations? Fixed? :p | ||
|
SonuvBob
Aiur21550 Posts
| ||
|
NerveGaming
Korea (South)36 Posts
| ||
Manifesto7
Osaka27161 Posts
Thank you for the distinction between MYM players and the myMYM site though. Obviously there is a connection there through name recognition, but it is helpful to know how those two entities are different. I don't think I am alone when I view them as the same. Lastly, I posted this on the forums, not the news page. The news page is TL's official voice, the forums are my own personal voice. There is a big difference there. Nothing in this post is the opinion of TL.net. @Koalla: Also, I was also not trying to garner sympathy or favour with TL people. I am actually surprised the responses are all one-way like this. I thought for sure some internet-cowboys would come in screaming about freedom of information. That is why I thought this thread would be good for discussion. I guess I was wrong. I just wanted to discuss the ethics in reporting things. For years the community sites had zero contact with Blizzard. Now that they have opened the door the way that people in charge of sites have to behave is different. That is what I wanted to talk about, not create a witch hunt =/ So again, the question is, when Mr. Rasmussen from mym says: On the other hand we are a news page, and a news page caters its readers. So when Replays.Net publishes a rumor about the participants of WWI we are going to bring it. Do you think that is the right attitude? | ||
|
The.Crow
619 Posts
 | ||
mikeymoo
Canada7170 Posts
On June 25 2008 08:01 The.Crow wrote: Ok got it, seems I took it a bit too personal at the first glance We don't hate you.I also misinterpreted the OP so let me reread what I said. | ||
|
Manifesto7
Osaka27161 Posts
On June 25 2008 08:01 The.Crow wrote: Ok got it, seems I took it a bit too personal at the first glance I reread what I wrote and I don't blame you. I didn't do a very good job expressing what I wanted to. I reworded some parts so it is clearer. | ||
|
prOxi.swAMi
Australia3091 Posts
| ||
|
Steelflight-Rx
United States1389 Posts
On June 24 2008 19:32 Manifesto7 wrote: There is a difference between being a journalist and disrespecting the wishes of those who help you. this is a really good point. Its important to respect other people's wishes and remain professional especially in a community atmosphere where there isnt always a someone telling you how to act, it is up to the individual members of the community. So if someone, say blizzard, were providing information and asking you not to use it, it is only right that you don't use it, regardless of why they are asking. After all, its their hard work going into the information they provide, so morally they should have control over it. Yes? Poll: (Vote): Yes (Vote): No | ||
|
Dknight
United States5223 Posts
| ||
|
Spenguin
Australia3316 Posts
On June 24 2008 21:39 thedeadhaji wrote: tl kinda used to be like that too tho? :O That is the blasphemous Old Testament. | ||
| ||
