EPTI do think him breaking content does reduce hype for smaller teams. I can tell you right now if Naniwa did indeed sign with WW (and I found out via a tweet) I would have never visited their site, unlike if they announced it themselves on TL with just a teaser and a link to their site, I probably would have clicked. For a team as big as EG, Slasher's impact is probably negligible.
[Show] Inside The Game - Official Thread - Page 411
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
seiferoth10
3362 Posts
I do think him breaking content does reduce hype for smaller teams. I can tell you right now if Naniwa did indeed sign with WW (and I found out via a tweet) I would have never visited their site, unlike if they announced it themselves on TL with just a teaser and a link to their site, I probably would have clicked. For a team as big as EG, Slasher's impact is probably negligible. | ||
|
Kishin2
United States7534 Posts
On January 16 2013 19:56 Lysenko wrote: Slasher didn't "leak" anything. The person who leaked was whomever was authorized to have the information who shared it with someone who wasn't.* Also, it's not a journalist's job to stand up for the better interests of "esports," as though those can even be identified in a situation like this. * Edit: Probably half of Team EG told someone who wasn't actually supposed to know about any given piece of interesting news. These leaks happen because teams have no discipline for controlling competitively useful information about their plans. Everyone in e-sports was thought to be authorized to the information. We of course, know this is now no longer true. The point was that slasher was trusted inside the scene, to not publicly release news preemptively, since it would harm e-sports. It's not slasher, the journalist's job to stand up for the better interests of esports, it's slasher, the member of the esports community who wants it to grow's job. EG probably wants to tell someone so that person tells someone else and so on until it gets to your typical follower of esports. With time the information gets distorted so no one at the follower of esports end actually knows what the truth is and even if they did they would have no credibility. In the episode, it was heavily implied that EG doesn't mind small leaks to build up hype for the official announcement. | ||
|
Angelbelow
United States3728 Posts
On January 16 2013 20:09 Lysenko wrote: Forget sports, it's how all interaction works with the media in every field. So assuming that is true, its basically okay because that's the way the world works right. Forget the attempts to improve our standards or satisfy the people who fund what we love. No point in fighting for improvement. And again, I agree with you that teams should do a better job of keeping their information a secret from now on. I just hope Slasher can continue to generate enough traffic for gamespot. Would hate to lose them as an outlet. | ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
On January 16 2013 20:15 Kishin2 wrote: Everyone in e-sports was thought to be authorized to the information. We of course, know this is now no longer true. The point was that slasher was trusted inside the scene, to not publicly release news preemptively, since it would harm e-sports. It's not slasher, the journalist's job to stand up for the better interests of esports, it's slasher, the member of the esports community who wants it to grow's job. Which of those two jobs is paying him? | ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On January 16 2013 20:08 Angelbelow wrote: I know you're an EG fan but you don't agree with their POV in this instance. How about TBs? TB's point of view is very pragmatic. A key difference with EG's point of view is that he's not BLAMING him for the thing. What he's doing is making a case that it might be better in Slasher's interest to approach these stories differently. That's an entirely different question than moral judgment. | ||
|
Angelbelow
United States3728 Posts
On January 16 2013 20:08 DwD wrote: I just did but please point me in the right direction and I'll watch again. Where in the VOD is your reply relevant? Oh you are right. But it's still his duty to report to his boss if he comes over info that could bring in good revenue. It's up to his boss if they should run it or not. It would be different if Slasher had his own website that he ran but he does not. He is an employee. The employers will ask him for generate viewership to gauge the level of interest. So if leaking information rubs teams the wrong way, and they really do stop going to him with information. He'll have a harder time generating that viewership. I think exclusive rights to interview certain players right when the news hits plus speculation articles are more advantageous in the long run. In this sense, I agree with what TB was saying. | ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On January 16 2013 20:15 Kishin2 wrote: Everyone in e-sports was thought to be authorized to the information. Authorized by whom? Your statement makes no sense. EG certainly didn't think that "everyone" was "authorized" to have their proprietary business information that they wanted to control with their own release. | ||
|
Kishin2
United States7534 Posts
On January 16 2013 20:02 DwD wrote: Since when is it the journalist responsibility to keep secret business info? It's all on the team. If they don't want it released, sort your team out. Slasher has an employee, frankly I doubt he cares about the EG team. He answers to his employer and he has to provide what he was hired to do. It's not the journalist's responsibility. It's the responsibility of someone in e-sports that wants to see it grows'. There were 2routes slasher could have chosen. The first is where he waits until EG make the official announcement and redirect people then. In this case, EG makes a profit of say x and Gamespot makes a profit of say y. The second route is where slasher did what he did here and prematurely released information. In this case EG makes a profit of .3x while Gamespot makes a profit of 4y. It's e-sports. There's an ethical part of it all. | ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On January 16 2013 20:17 Angelbelow wrote: So assuming that is true, its basically okay because that's the way the world works right. Forget the attempts to improve our standards or satisfy the people who fund what we love. No point in fighting for improvement. It's a lot easier for organizations to control their own message than it is to try to slap down a journalist for printing information he gets from secondhand sources who shouldn't have the information in the first place. | ||
|
Angelbelow
United States3728 Posts
On January 16 2013 20:20 Lysenko wrote: TB's point of view is very pragmatic. A key difference with EG's point of view is that he's not BLAMING him for the thing. What he's doing is making a case that it might be better in Slasher's interest to approach these stories differently. That's an entirely different question than moral judgment. At the end of the day, they're both suggesting the same thing. Alex's approach was obviously a pissed off one and probably rubbed a few people the wrong way. But his sentiment is the same. Basically both guys are saying Slasher should not be doing this, and has other ways to elevate his contributions and ultimately his viewership. | ||
|
Kishin2
United States7534 Posts
On January 16 2013 20:23 Lysenko wrote: Authorized by whom? Your statement makes no sense. EG certainly didn't think that "everyone" was "authorized" to have their proprietary business information that they wanted to control with their own release. Authorized in the sense that they could be trusted with knowing something the general public does not and won't spill it. EG thought they could trust anyone in e-sports that was relevant enough to have credibility with any inside information. Slasher was thought to be one of these people, but not any longer. | ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On January 16 2013 20:25 Angelbelow wrote: At the end of the day, they're both suggesting the same thing. Alex's approach was obviously a pissed off one and probably rubbed a few people the wrong way. But his sentiment is the same. Basically both guys are saying Slasher should not be doing this, and has other ways to elevate his contributions and ultimately his viewership. No. Moral judgment vs. pragmatic analysis of Slasher's own interests. Different. | ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On January 16 2013 20:27 Kishin2 wrote: Authorized in the sense that they could be trusted with knowing something the general public does not and won't spill it. I guess I don't understand the difference between "general public" and "everyone in esports." | ||
|
Schelim
Austria11528 Posts
that being said, i don't know why random fans (such as myself) feel the need to discuss this so much. everybody is obviously entitled to their own opinion, i just don't understand the amount of passion (no Tasteless) people put into matters that ultimately do not affect them, but only the teams/sites/pros etc. in other words, the industry. if you are posting on this forum, chances are you are NOT part of the industry (a few exceptions aside of course). you are, and i am, a consumer of the industry. i want to get information on what is going on in the industry, but why do i care what source exactly this information is coming from and whether they are going to make money off of page views? that's their problem, not mine. i guess i just contradicted myself by making such a long post about how i don't care. lol. whatever, i'm a hypocrite. | ||
|
Angelbelow
United States3728 Posts
On January 16 2013 20:28 Lysenko wrote: No. Moral judgment vs. pragmatic judgment. Different. You disagree with the deliver sure, but surely you can see that they're both asking him to: 1. stop leaking information 2. hold yourself to a higher standard and provide better content | ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
On January 16 2013 20:23 Kishin2 wrote: It's not the journalist's responsibility. It's the responsibility of someone in e-sports that wants to see it grows'. There were 2routes slasher could have chosen. The first is where he waits until EG make the official announcement and redirect people then. In this case, EG makes a profit of say x and Gamespot makes a profit of say y. The second route is where slasher did what he did here and prematurely released information. In this case EG makes a profit of .3x while Gamespot makes a profit of 4y. It's e-sports. There's an ethical part of it all. Why is EG e-Sports and GameSpot not e-Sports? | ||
|
Kishin2
United States7534 Posts
On January 16 2013 20:25 Lysenko wrote: It's a lot easier for organizations to control their own message than it is to try to slap down a journalist for printing information he gets from secondhand sources who shouldn't have the information in the first place. E-sports isn't big enough for what you're saying to apply. In the real world many of the things you're saying are generally true. E-sports isn't there, not yet at least. Well, one can say we are there due to this recent incident, but E-sports shouldn't be there yet. EG didn't try very hard to conceal information since they didn't need to and it was more advantageous for them to do so. Can you imagine this might be a possibility instead of EG being completely incompetent with how they spread their information? | ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On January 16 2013 20:30 Angelbelow wrote: You disagree with the deliver sure, but surely you can see that they're both asking him to: 1. stop leaking information 2. hold yourself to a higher standard and provide better content Once again, what Slasher's doing isn't "leaking." The "leaking" is done by the legitimate holders of the information who share it with people who aren't trusted (who might be people other than Slasher.) Second, admonishing Slasher to "hold [him]self to a higher standard" is precisely the kind of moral judgment that Alex was making that TB was not. TB was suggesting that Slasher consider the impact of his choices on the community as part of his decision about whether to write about information. Alex was taking the position that Slasher's writing about his story was somehow ethically wrong. Telling someone to "hold themselves to a higher standard" is an ethical judgment like Alex's, not a pragmatic analysis like TB's. | ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On January 16 2013 20:32 Kishin2 wrote: E-sports isn't big enough for what you're saying to apply. In the real world many of the things you're saying are generally true. E-sports isn't there, not yet at least. Well, one can say we are there due to this recent incident, but E-sports shouldn't be there yet. I don't agree. I personally take responsibility for what of my own information is public and what isn't, what I share and what I don't, and I'm just one person. The thrust of Alex's argument was to argue that it's too much trouble to do that. EG didn't try very hard to conceal information since they didn't need to and it was more advantageous for them to do so. Can you imagine this might be a possibility instead of EG being completely incompetent with how they spread their information? If they didn't need to control the information, then why did they get so upset and complain about all the downsides when their story wound up in the view of the public before their announcement? | ||
|
seiferoth10
3362 Posts
On January 16 2013 20:38 Lysenko wrote: I don't agree. I personally take responsibility for what of my own information is public and what isn't, what I share and what I don't, and I'm just one person. The thrust of Alex's argument was to argue that it's too much trouble to do that. If they didn't need to control the information, then why did they get so upset and complain about all the downsides when their story wound up in the view of the public before their announcement? He was arguing some for his team, but some hypothetically, where a smaller team would indeed see a noticeable decline in ad revenue because of a broken story. | ||
| ||
