[Updated] Escapist nominated for Kunkel award for reporting on project woes

Kefo

http://blogs.spjnetwork.org/kunkel/2016/03/09/final-finalists/

Thought I would share since I didn't see it mentioned anywhere else.

Personally I hope they win the award but then again I am biased lol

Update: looks like they tied with another article at third place and kotaku takes the win as well as second and the tie for third. I still think they did awesome to get nominated let alone place third but that's just me lol.

cheyane

I thought they were going to get sued. They got nominated for an award instead. Bizarre.

SmartySmart

Kefo said:

http://blogs.spjnetwork.org/kunkel/2016/03/09/final-finalists/

Thought I would share since I didn't see it mentioned anywhere else.

Personally I hope they win the award but then again I am biased lol

There is your source aka "didn't see it mentioned anywhere else":

https://mobile.twitter.com/dsmart/status/707694447635668992

[mod edit]

Talonsin

DirtyDozen said:

From their site:

"Anyone can nominate someone"

Pretty good bet I know who did the nominating.

Sure anyone can NOMINATE but the list in the article says FINALIST.  I dont know if you understand how this kind of thing works but the NOMINEES dont all make it to become FINALISTS.

SmartySmart

I do not hate DS. I just happen to know him and his intentions and therefor am here to inform uninformed readers.

As I wrote before... what do you bring into the discussion? What do you want to talk about?

What is there really to discuss when we already chewed through the whole Escapist dilemma?

Adjuvant1

Escapist is an amazing site and to hold prejudice just because a contributor spoke the truth, which cast your favorite thing in a negative light, is ridiculous. On any other given day you would love most of their content. If you can't admit this, you're being intentionally obtuse, because it's not about one instance but the "whole" of their journalism.

I'm saying, one guy says something negative and you flame him, that's what you do, but you aren't under any circumstance, going to challenge the position and veracity of Escapist as a whole. They absolutely deserve journalistic recognition in the gaming world.

Kefo

SmartySmart said:

I do not hate DS. I just happen to know him and his intentions and therefor am here to inform uninformed readers.

As I wrote before... what do you bring into the discussion? What do you want to talk about?

What is there really to discuss when we already chewed through the whole Escapist dilemma?

I doubt there are any uninformed readers left since there is always pitchforks and torches ready to go if his name is mentioned.

Ive already said I was posting a news article which has been better then your posts so fa with the exception of the quoted post.

The fact that there are people out there who are willing to possibly give an award to a gaming site that was denounced for writing a hit piece is news worthy to me.

Talonsin

SmartySmart said:

What is there really to discuss when we already chewed through the whole Escapist dilemma?

Can we discuss how the journalistic coverage of the gaming industry blows chunks?  How most of it is driven by ad revenue from the same companies they are supposed to write about.  How is that not a conflict of interest?  Why have so many MMO's and single player video games failed in the last few years and yet there are so few negative stories about them?  Lets look at an example...

Sergey Titov and his War Inc / War-Z / Infestation / AfterMath.  This guy lied about his game and features, got removed from steam, threatened with legal action for using the name War-Z and continues to re-release the same game with the same scams over and over again under different game and company names.  Do you see any negative stories from this site or PCGamer magazine?  Heck, this site gave them an event just a few short months ago to let them promote and answer (heavily moderated) questions about their new version of the same game and removed any mention of their previous scamming.

It is very sad what the game industry has become and even sadder what has happened to journalism in this industry.

Octagon7711

Strange how that story blow up and was left hanging in the air with Escapist's last words being something like. "We've been invited to their studio to see for ourselves."  After that nothing...

jesteralways

Kefo said:

SmartySmart said:

I do not hate DS. I just happen to know him and his intentions and therefor am here to inform uninformed readers.

As I wrote before... what do you bring into the discussion? What do you want to talk about?

What is there really to discuss when we already chewed through the whole Escapist dilemma?

I doubt there are any uninformed readers left since there is always pitchforks and torches ready to go if his name is mentioned.

Ive already said I was posting a news article which has been better then your posts so fa with the exception of the quoted post.

The fact that there are people out there who are willing to possibly give an award to a gaming site that was denounced for writing a hit piece is news worthy to me.

Just as he is ready with pitchfork and torch as soon as Star Citizen and Chris Roberts is mentioned? It goes both ways. DS is a con artist, he conned his way into companies, took all of their money and turned that company into shit then left them to die. His intention is to get his hands on the money SC made through crowdfunding and run.

SmartySmart

Adjuvant1 said:

Escapist is an amazing site and to hold prejudice just because a contributor spoke the truth, which cast your favorite thing in a negative light, is ridiculous. On any other given day you would love most of their content. If you can't admit this, you're being intentionally obtuse, because it's not about one instance but the "whole" of their journalism.

I'm saying, one guy says something negative and you flame him, that's what you do, but you aren't under any circumstance, going to challenge the position and veracity of Escapist as a whole. They absolutely deserve journalistic recognition in the gaming world.

The Escapist was a pretty good site but that is no more in my opinion. Since they got in touch with GG, when they had massive layoffs, Viacom investment in Defy Media and so on, they lost credibility.

I still love Zero Punctuation but they have so many click bait articles now that I lost my interest in it. 

Concerning the Star Citizen articles we now know that Lizzy was baited by Mr. Smart. The racist accusation of Sandi Roberts/Gardiner were too much in my opinion and have been proven false like some other things mentioned in the article. This has been discussed massively on Reddit. 

Why is it flaming when I just showed that his "did not see it elsewhere" statement was a lie due to his supporting of Mr. Smarts POV. Most of the anti-SC propaganda has been initiated by him and you can see it often very clearly on the used words/wording or arguments some posters here and on other sites use. 

SmartySmart

Kefo said:

SmartySmart said:

I do not hate DS. I just happen to know him and his intentions and therefor am here to inform uninformed readers.

As I wrote before... what do you bring into the discussion? What do you want to talk about?

What is there really to discuss when we already chewed through the whole Escapist dilemma?

I doubt there are any uninformed readers left since there is always pitchforks and torches ready to go if his name is mentioned.

Ive already said I was posting a news article which has been better then your posts so fa with the exception of the quoted post.

The fact that there are people out there who are willing to possibly give an award to a gaming site that was denounced for writing a hit piece is news worthy to me.

Have you read all my comments? If yes than you would not make the statement that your post is better than what I have written since I am here. Are we in kindergarten? My posts are better than yours? Noooo mine are... Noooo miiiiine.... "hits the other kid in the face".

Please.... no!

Talonsin

SmartySmart said:

Concerning the Star Citizen articles we now know that Lizzy was baited by Mr. Smart. The racist accusation of Sandi Roberts/Gardiner were too much in my opinion and have been proven false like some other things mentioned in the article. This has been discussed massively on Reddit. 

How can you say this was "proven false"?  Did Chris Roberts himself not threaten to sue the escapist for false reporting?  If he could honestly PROVE the accusations were false, why did he not sue them?  Does he hate Sandi so much to actually not sue when someone libels her?  What you should say is that in your opinion, CR or whoever, provided enough evidence to convince YOU it is false.  No evidence has ever been presented except for anonymous testimony. 

You guys are hilarious in your logic.  When someone leaves a company, you use that as an excuse for reporting bad things and say "they lost their job, of course they are going to say bad things".  But then when a current employee is presented to the public to say what a great place the company is to work at you say "See, it was all made up" and you completely ignore the fact that a current employee will say whatever the boss wants them to say.  I mean seriously, If Chris asked Ben to go on the show and say good things about Sandi, what is Ben going to do?  Say, sorry Chris, shes a Bi**h?

Logic holds for both sides of the argument or it is not logical.

Kefo

SmartySmart said:

Adjuvant1 said:

Escapist is an amazing site and to hold prejudice just because a contributor spoke the truth, which cast your favorite thing in a negative light, is ridiculous. On any other given day you would love most of their content. If you can't admit this, you're being intentionally obtuse, because it's not about one instance but the "whole" of their journalism.

I'm saying, one guy says something negative and you flame him, that's what you do, but you aren't under any circumstance, going to challenge the position and veracity of Escapist as a whole. They absolutely deserve journalistic recognition in the gaming world.. 

Why is it flaming when I just showed that his "did not see it elsewhere" statement was a lie due to his supporting of Mr. Smarts POV. Most of the anti-SC propaganda has been initiated by him and you can see it often very clearly on the used words/wording or arguments some posters here and on other sites use. 

http://gamepolitics.com/2016/03/09/spj-announces-finalists-for-the-bill-kunkel-excellence-in-news-reporting-award/

I was also saying I didn't see it anywhere else meaning on this site. And if you want to be technical I have been voicing my concerns long before Derek entered the scene so really he's agreeing with me.

SmartySmart

Talonsin said:

SmartySmart said:

Concerning the Star Citizen articles we now know that Lizzy was baited by Mr. Smart. The racist accusation of Sandi Roberts/Gardiner were too much in my opinion and have been proven false like some other things mentioned in the article. This has been discussed massively on Reddit. 

How can you say this was "proven false"?  Did Chris Roberts himself not threaten to sue the escapist for false reporting?  If he could honestly PROVE the accusations were false, why did he not sue them?  Does he hate Sandi so much to actually not sue when someone libels her?  What you should say is that in your opinion, CR or whoever, provided enough evidence to convince YOU it is false.  No evidence has ever been presented except for anonymous testimony. 

You guys are hilarious in your logic.  When someone leaves a company, you use that as an excuse for reporting bad things and say "they lost their job, of course they are going to say bad things".  But then when a current employee is presented to the public to say what a great place the company is to work at you say "See, it was all made up" and you completely ignore the fact that a current employee will say whatever the boss wants them to say.  I mean seriously, If Chris asked Ben to go on the show and say good things about Sandi, what is Ben going to do?  Say, sorry Chris, shes a Bi**h?

Logic holds for both sides of the argument or it is not logical.

Proven false as we can see many peoples working for SC that should not be there if the accusations of Sandi's recruitment criterion are true. Photos of said not wanted employees together with Sandi [sarcasm] who have been paid to post for the pictures [/sarcasm off]. Another indication for my was when she read her letter to ththe public during the SC convention (forgot the name of the event) which almost made her cry. Please do not say she was acting... there were enough micro expressions and body movements only the best actors could pull of. The accusations made by some beforehand really had an impact on her.

Or the thing with the employee tokens who were not personalized as was said by Lizzy to prove credibility of some sources. I believe some ex employees were real and legitimate. But this does not make their accusations true.

What do we really know what happened after the legal letter send by CIG to the Escapist? I have no info on that... If someone else has something please feel free to tell us. But since then the Escapist has been completely silent on the SC topics. Might be due to different reasons.

Where do you get that with the logic and combine it with the ex employee behavior? That is not my way of thinking about that topic. I know how an ex employee can feel or act after being fired or after terminating on their behalf. It all depends on why he was fired/quit the job and his personality. It's not black and white as you accuse my of seeing these things. 

Ben is and always was under CR's spell... of course he does what Chris tells him. I do not think it is healthy for him and being a public figure it leaves a mark for sure. I hoped being in the spotlight would make Ben a stronger person but his self doubt has barely gone away. 

As as you can see I am not happy with everything SC related. But I am patient and will wait for a result to make my judgement. But I support the vision and ambition of whole CIG and sometimes just shake my head for some hate boners... and how they are "generated".

SmartySmart

Kefo said:

SmartySmart said:

Adjuvant1 said:

Escapist is an amazing site and to hold prejudice just because a contributor spoke the truth, which cast your favorite thing in a negative light, is ridiculous. On any other given day you would love most of their content. If you can't admit this, you're being intentionally obtuse, because it's not about one instance but the "whole" of their journalism.

I'm saying, one guy says something negative and you flame him, that's what you do, but you aren't under any circumstance, going to challenge the position and veracity of Escapist as a whole. They absolutely deserve journalistic recognition in the gaming world.. 

Why is it flaming when I just showed that his "did not see it elsewhere" statement was a lie due to his supporting of Mr. Smarts POV. Most of the anti-SC propaganda has been initiated by him and you can see it often very clearly on the used words/wording or arguments some posters here and on other sites use. 

http://gamepolitics.com/2016/03/09/spj-announces-finalists-for-the-bill-kunkel-excellence-in-news-reporting-award/

I was also saying I didn't see it anywhere else meaning on this site. And if you want to be technical I have been voicing my concerns long before Derek entered the scene so really he's agreeing with me.

I have to take your word but it's ok... hope you are honest with where you got the info from. People are lying a lot these days... more than it used to be. Especially on the Internet.

Adjuvant1

Talonsin said:

  I mean seriously, If Chris asked Ben to go on the show and say good things about Sandi, what is Ben going to do?  Say, sorry Chris, shes a Bi**h?

Weeks ago, during a "RtV", when it was known 3 of the people around the table were working to improve themselves with diets, Gardiner sits there eating treats in front of them on camera, then put a stack of boxes of donuts front and center on the table. It was a pretty mean thing to have done, thoughtless and an obvious subconscious effort to inflict pain. When called on it, in various forums, Lesnick eventually stepped up to say, "oh it was an office in-joke". Office in-joke, indeed.

My point is, these people on camera are yes-men. It's not their job to raise, or even entertain, any type of real ridicule or controversy, else their very jobs be threatened. You can not, should not, believe you are receiving an entire picture of this company by the comments or justifications of the pr people. This should go without saying, as Talonsin said, and I shouldn't even have to mention it.

Further point, well, this...


... and what else can they say. People run with it, believing this "us vs them" juxtaposition. CIG has convenient bogey men, and somehow this explains away all the rest of their mismanagement, gaslighting, etc. Whatever. I think, lately, people actually enjoy being snowed and fleeced. "Best game development experience ever, because I'm being lied to and summarily abused by mind control!". Neat.

Brenics

SmartySmart said:

Adjuvant1 said:

Escapist is an amazing site and to hold prejudice just because a contributor spoke the truth, which cast your favorite thing in a negative light, is ridiculous. On any other given day you would love most of their content. If you can't admit this, you're being intentionally obtuse, because it's not about one instance but the "whole" of their journalism.

I'm saying, one guy says something negative and you flame him, that's what you do, but you aren't under any circumstance, going to challenge the position and veracity of Escapist as a whole. They absolutely deserve journalistic recognition in the gaming world.

The Escapist was a pretty good site but that is no more in my opinion. Since they got in touch with GG, when they had massive layoffs, Viacom investment in Defy Media and so on, they lost credibility.

I still love Zero Punctuation but they have so many click bait articles now that I lost my interest in it. 

Concerning the Star Citizen articles we now know that Lizzy was baited by Mr. Smart. The racist accusation of Sandi Roberts/Gardiner were too much in my opinion and have been proven false like some other things mentioned in the article. This has been discussed massively on Reddit. 

Why is it flaming when I just showed that his "did not see it elsewhere" statement was a lie due to his supporting of Mr. Smarts POV. Most of the anti-SC propaganda has been initiated by him and you can see it often very clearly on the used words/wording or arguments some posters here and on other sites use. 

Really have to disagree with everything you just said. But please show the proof of your statement "The racist accusation of Sandi Roberts/Gardiner were too much in my opinion and have been proven false like some other things mentioned in the article" Oh and just so you know what is said on Reddit is not proof!

Kefo

SmartySmart said:

Kefo said:

SmartySmart said:

Adjuvant1 said:

Escapist is an amazing site and to hold prejudice just because a contributor spoke the truth, which cast your favorite thing in a negative light, is ridiculous. On any other given day you would love most of their content. If you can't admit this, you're being intentionally obtuse, because it's not about one instance but the "whole" of their journalism.

I'm saying, one guy says something negative and you flame him, that's what you do, but you aren't under any circumstance, going to challenge the position and veracity of Escapist as a whole. They absolutely deserve journalistic recognition in the gaming world.. 

Why is it flaming when I just showed that his "did not see it elsewhere" statement was a lie due to his supporting of Mr. Smarts POV. Most of the anti-SC propaganda has been initiated by him and you can see it often very clearly on the used words/wording or arguments some posters here and on other sites use. 

http://gamepolitics.com/2016/03/09/spj-announces-finalists-for-the-bill-kunkel-excellence-in-news-reporting-award/

I was also saying I didn't see it anywhere else meaning on this site. And if you want to be technical I have been voicing my concerns long before Derek entered the scene so really he's agreeing with me.

I have to take your word but it's ok... hope you are honest with where you got the info from. People are lying a lot these days... more than it used to be. Especially on the Internet.

But does it really matter where the info came from? You might not like someone but just because they tell you something doesn't mean you should dismiss it immediately.

Talonsin

SmartySmart said:

 
Please do not say she was acting... there were enough micro expressions and body movements only the best actors could pull of. The accusations made by some beforehand really had an impact on her.

So... an "actress" cry's on stage and you are trained to spot her "micro expressions" and tell she is not acting?  Could it simply be that she was so embarrassed to be found out that there was some actual emotion behind her acting?  I for one, do not know and can not honestly say but apparently you are trained to detect patterns in "micro expressions" and have decided without a doubt the whole article is false.

All I can honestly say is, the Escapist wrote an article accusing Sandi of poor business behavior.  Chris publicly threatened to sue them if they did not apologize.  They DID NOT apologize and Chris did NOTHING.  I dont need "micro expressions" to tell me there must have been some truth to that article for Chris to not do anything and drop it after having his threat/bluff called.  Now which part or parts of the article were actually true I do not know.  I do know that Chris did not want it to go to court because he was afraid of something.

Kiyoris

wtf

Adjuvant1

She is the wife of the CEO, secured in her position by his sole discretion. I "think" (correct me if I'm mistaken please), human service complaints go to Ben Lesnick's wife (often on camera in previous RtV), which creates an echo chamber, and basically dismissal of any who raise complaint.

Horusra

Talonsin said:

SmartySmart said:

Concerning the Star Citizen articles we now know that Lizzy was baited by Mr. Smart. The racist accusation of Sandi Roberts/Gardiner were too much in my opinion and have been proven false like some other things mentioned in the article. This has been discussed massively on Reddit. 

How can you say this was "proven false"?  Did Chris Roberts himself not threaten to sue the escapist for false reporting?  If he could honestly PROVE the accusations were false, why did he not sue them?  Does he hate Sandi so much to actually not sue when someone libels her?  What you should say is that in your opinion, CR or whoever, provided enough evidence to convince YOU it is false.  No evidence has ever been presented except for anonymous testimony. 

You guys are hilarious in your logic.  When someone leaves a company, you use that as an excuse for reporting bad things and say "they lost their job, of course they are going to say bad things".  But then when a current employee is presented to the public to say what a great place the company is to work at you say "See, it was all made up" and you completely ignore the fact that a current employee will say whatever the boss wants them to say.  I mean seriously, If Chris asked Ben to go on the show and say good things about Sandi, what is Ben going to do?  Say, sorry Chris, shes a Bi**h?

Logic holds for both sides of the argument or it is not logical.

Just because someone lies about you does not mean you can win the case in court or that winning would be worth the fight.  that is why there are so few defamation lawsuits compared to other types of lawsuits.

Adjuvant1

Horusra said:

Talonsin said:

SmartySmart said:

Concerning the Star Citizen articles we now know that Lizzy was baited by Mr. Smart. The racist accusation of Sandi Roberts/Gardiner were too much in my opinion and have been proven false like some other things mentioned in the article. This has been discussed massively on Reddit. 

How can you say this was "proven false"?  Did Chris Roberts himself not threaten to sue the escapist for false reporting?  If he could honestly PROVE the accusations were false, why did he not sue them?  Does he hate Sandi so much to actually not sue when someone libels her?  What you should say is that in your opinion, CR or whoever, provided enough evidence to convince YOU it is false.  No evidence has ever been presented except for anonymous testimony. 

You guys are hilarious in your logic.  When someone leaves a company, you use that as an excuse for reporting bad things and say "they lost their job, of course they are going to say bad things".  But then when a current employee is presented to the public to say what a great place the company is to work at you say "See, it was all made up" and you completely ignore the fact that a current employee will say whatever the boss wants them to say.  I mean seriously, If Chris asked Ben to go on the show and say good things about Sandi, what is Ben going to do?  Say, sorry Chris, shes a Bi**h?

Logic holds for both sides of the argument or it is not logical.

Just because someone lies about you does not mean you can win the case in court or that winning would be worth the fight.  that is why there are so few defamation lawsuits compared to other types of lawsuits.

No. This is incorrect. Slander and libel litigation must prove loss of income or value. It's very difficult to establish, because you're summarily basing your argument on what "could have, should have, would have". You can't "deface a promise". You can't "deface an intent to deliver". As a matter of fact, with no real substance to show, you're standing in your own glass house of potential fraud. CIG knows, as well as anyone else, a judge takes one look at "one hundred nine million dollars with zero product in release state", and throws out the case.

Horusra

Adjuvant1 said:

Horusra said:

Talonsin said:

SmartySmart said:

Concerning the Star Citizen articles we now know that Lizzy was baited by Mr. Smart. The racist accusation of Sandi Roberts/Gardiner were too much in my opinion and have been proven false like some other things mentioned in the article. This has been discussed massively on Reddit. 

How can you say this was "proven false"?  Did Chris Roberts himself not threaten to sue the escapist for false reporting?  If he could honestly PROVE the accusations were false, why did he not sue them?  Does he hate Sandi so much to actually not sue when someone libels her?  What you should say is that in your opinion, CR or whoever, provided enough evidence to convince YOU it is false.  No evidence has ever been presented except for anonymous testimony. 

You guys are hilarious in your logic.  When someone leaves a company, you use that as an excuse for reporting bad things and say "they lost their job, of course they are going to say bad things".  But then when a current employee is presented to the public to say what a great place the company is to work at you say "See, it was all made up" and you completely ignore the fact that a current employee will say whatever the boss wants them to say.  I mean seriously, If Chris asked Ben to go on the show and say good things about Sandi, what is Ben going to do?  Say, sorry Chris, shes a Bi**h?

Logic holds for both sides of the argument or it is not logical.

Just because someone lies about you does not mean you can win the case in court or that winning would be worth the fight.  that is why there are so few defamation lawsuits compared to other types of lawsuits.

No. This is incorrect. Slander and libel litigation must prove loss of income or value. It's very difficult to establish, because you're summarily basing your argument on what "could have, should have, would have". You can't "deface a promise". You can't "deface an intent to deliver". As a matter of fact, with no real substance to show, you're standing in your own glass house of potential fraud. CIG knows, as well as anyone else, a judge takes one look at "one hundred nine million dollars with zero product in release state", and throws out the case.

Ah...no...To succeed in a defamation lawsuit, the statement must be shown to have caused injury to the subject of the statement. This means that the statement must have hurt the reputation of the subject of the statement. - See more at: http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/defamation-law-the-basics.html#sthash.gnW1XjkE.dpuf

There does not actually have to be a value or income, but hurt of reputation that could lead to those things.  Your current accounts do not matter. 


The issue is that you might get your reputation back (if someone actually reports you won), but you paid out a lot in time and money on a 50/50 case for minimal gain.

Adjuvant1

Horusra said:

There does not actually have to be a value or income, but hurt of reputation that could lead to those things.  Your current accounts do not matter. 

Why yes, yes there must be. It's implied in the very page you linked, number "3". "Injury" doesn't just imply hurt feelings, it must have a measurable value.

I can't, for example, sue SmartySmart for $15 million dollars because he falsely accuses my statements to hold no truth or substance. But why? He's hurt not only my feelings, but also my potential to be taken seriously by subsequent readers of this forum, drowning my position and name to, potentially, a lesser reputation...

Well, I get nothing for posting here. I can't establish I have real damages moving forward I would have had otherwise, because I had none previously. In fact, were I to "try" such a thing, Smarty could very easily sue me for malicious litigation, and any resources or value he puts forth into an effort to combat my case can be afforded him, plus damages.

CIG claims they make zero income from "sales". They're "pledges", and you can't deface a promise.  Neither Escapist nor I can do anything to affect the sales income from CIG, because they claim that amount is zero. This "pledge" game is a double-edged sword, and the longer the company intentionally delays a release-state product, the more difficult it becomes to defend a position on any front.