Just realized something...what if they had him sign a non-compete clause? He'd not be able to get a job at other review places...
Fuck...
I don't know about other places, but my non-compete clause for my job means I can't go out and actively try and recruit my company's clients for up to a year after I leave the company. I don't really see how that would apply in this situation.
I got a contract once where the contract said I would agree to not be a Computer Technician at any other company for a year after I left their employ... I think that place was run by a giant dumbass though, so I guess it isn't common.
Just realized something...what if they had him sign a non-compete clause? He'd not be able to get a job at other review places...
Fuck...
I don't think the gaming industry has a more iron cland one then my jobs have had. For the most part it means not sharing ip, road maps, or stealing former emps, with a time lock on when you can get hired if there is a competitive plan.
If reviewing games is subject to that, it's time to trash all the online sites and be done with it.
I'm not a lawyer, but I've been though this (ie non-compete) for tech crap, if they pull this (give that it's a fucking editorial) they are in for a lawsuit like none other.
waterlogged on
Democrat that will switch parties and turn red if Clinton is nominated.:P[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Awesome, it made Ars Technica here which means it has a good shot at being on the TWiT podcasts, which means more exposure. I hope the entire technology industry takes note of this disgusting episode.
Awesome, it made Ars Technica here which means it has a good shot at being on the TWiT podcasts, which means more exposure. I hope the entire technology industry takes note of this disgusting episode.
Doesn't TWiT usually have a person or two that write for CNET? Could end up interesting....
I feel like quoting this again, just because something about it seems quite genuine and if it is, it's very very informative. For those who missed it, this is the mysterious, anonymous "gamespot" posting over on Valleywag.
Many had questioned the timing of the termination, wondering why, if the Kane & Lynch: Dead Men review had been published over two weeks ago, was Jeff fired just two days ago?
The main problem here is that no one in the entire editorial team was aware that this was about to occur, least of all Gerstmann. We're very clear in our review policies that all reviews are vetted by the entire team before they go live - everything that goes up is the product of an entire team's output. Our freelancers are especially guilty of making snide comments, but those are always yanked before the review goes live, because everyone in the office reads these reviews and makes sure they're up to our standards before they get put up.
If there was a problem with his reviews, then it would've been a problem with the entire team. Firing him without telling anyone implies that anyone else on this team can be fired at the drop of a hat as well, because none of us are writing any differently or meaner or less professionally than we were two years ago before the management changed. I'm sure management wants to spin this as the G-Man being unprofessional to take away from the egg on their face that results after a ten-year employee gets locked out of his office and told to leave the premises and then no one communicates anything to us about it until the next day.
Addressing the timing, "gamespot" weighs in again.
Also, despite the fact that this occured two weeks ago, there was no way they were going to fire him then; the last big games didn't come out until just before Thanksgiving, and there was no doubt that management knew that the rest of the reviewers would refuse to write any reviews after his termination, which is indeed what is happening. After thanksgiving nothing major comes out in games; everything is either before thanksgiving or comes out in January. They waited to fire him until they knew that any strike or walkout by the rest of the staff wouldn't have much of an effect.
Also, keep in mind that these salespeople do have axes to grind with editorial. I know a lot of people busted their asses to get not only this large deal with Eidos done, but also other huge ad deals. The salespeople and the marketers are the ones who have to deal with the publishers when a heavily-advertised game gets a bad review, so obviously they like it if every game that comes out is peachy keen and gets a 9.0 or above. If a salesperson knows anything about unprofessional review practices, then that says a lot about the management team that we have in place because not a single other member of the editorial team had heard word one about this until Jeff was fired. Surely site management would want to let us know about their concerns before firing the most senior staff member and one of the most respected game critics in the industry? If they're sharing their concerns with the salespeople and not with us then that says a lot about their priorities.
In response to Valleywag write Paul Boutin's opinion that he doesn't believe the rumor that Gerstmann was solely fired for his Kane & Lynch review, partially based on the fact that no named sources have weighed in on the topic, "gamespot" responded again.
No one wants to be named because no one wants to get fucking fired! This management team has shown what they're willing to do. Jeff had ten years in and was fucking locked out of his office and told to leave the building.
What you might not be aware of is that GS is well known for appealing mostly to hardcore gamers. The mucky-mucks have been doing a lot of "brand research" over the last year or so and indicating that they want to reach out to more casual gamers. Our last executive editor, Greg Kasavin, left to go to EA, and he was replaced by a suit, Josh Larson, who had no editorial experience and was only involved on the business side of things. Over the last year there has been an increasing amount of pressure to allow the advertising teams to have more of a say in the editorial process; we've started having to give our sales team heads-ups when a game is getting a low score, for instance, so that they can let the advertisers know that before a review goes up. Other publishers have started giving us notes involving when our reviews can go up; if a game's getting a 9 or above, it can go up early; if not, it'll have to wait until after the game is on the shelves.
I was in the meeting where Josh Larson was trying to explain this firing and the guy had absolutely no response to any of the criticisms we were sending his way. He kept dodging the question, saying that there were "multiple instances of tone" in the reviews that he hadn't been happy about, but that wasn't Jeff's problem since we all vet every review. He also implied that "AAA" titles deserved more attention when they were being reviewed, which sounded to all of us that he was implying that they should get higher scores, especially since those titles are usually more highly advertised on our site.
I know that it's all about the money, and hey, I like money. I like advertising because it pays my salary. Unfortunately after Kasavin left the church-and-state separation between the sales teams and the editorial team has cracked, and with Jeff's firing I think it's clear that the management now has no interest at all in integrity and are instead looking for an editorial team that will be nicer to the advertisors.
When companies make games as downright contemptible as Kane and Lynch, they deserve to be called on it. I guess you'll have to go to Onion or a smaller site for objective reviews now, because everyone at GS now thinks that if they give a low score to a high-profile game, they'll be shitcanned. Everyone's fucking scared and we're all hoping to get Josh Larson removed from his position because no one trusts him anymore. If that doesn't happen then look for every game to be Game of the Year material at GameSpot.
(this transcript ripped wholesale from kotaku, btw)
I don't want to sound like some big newsy, because I'm not, but I've been in the news business for a year and a similar rift is between our news people and sales. Thankfully, we're not in a position where we have to bite the hand that feeds.
Just saying, that reads pretty legit.
EDIT: aside from all that, I don't see Gamespot really getting hurt. A lot of people thought Digg was headed for disaster earlier this year, correct?
I don't want to sound like some big newsy, because I'm not, but I've been in the news business for a year and a similar rift is between our news people and sales. Thankfully, we're not in a position where we have to bite the hand that feeds.
Just saying, that reads pretty legit.
EDIT: aside from all that, I don't see Gamespot really getting hurt. A lot of people thought Digg was headed for disaster earlier this year, correct?
yeah, but with Digg, they "relented". Here, it's rug sweeping. Also, people tend to see Digg as more social and friendly over a site like Gamespot.
At this point it doesnt even matter if its true or not Gsmespots in trouble. The damage has been done, and i cant think of an easy way to fix this.
Dunno. Informed gamers never went there for real news in the first place. And uninformed games will never even know this happened, and will just think a lot of games have gotten really good lately, with all the high scores.
But, if you believe what's been posted by this anonymous editor, there have already been mass cancellations of subscriptions worthy of management's concern, which would indicate that a large portion of the users of the website are informed and savvy.
I don't want to sound like some big newsy, because I'm not, but I've been in the news business for a year and a similar rift is between our news people and sales. Thankfully, we're not in a position where we have to bite the hand that feeds.
Just saying, that reads pretty legit.
EDIT: aside from all that, I don't see Gamespot really getting hurt. A lot of people thought Digg was headed for disaster earlier this year, correct?
yeah, but with Digg, they "relented". Here, it's rug sweeping. Also, people tend to see Digg as more social and friendly over a site like Gamespot.
I dunno, it'd be hard for me to say no to going there to see, for example, an exclusive look at Turok. These things just don't have any tendency to stick for a substantial amount of time.
HD-DVD Encryption Key — The Numbers That Shall Not Be Named, and the Revolt.
Although it was by no means a new piece of information, the hexadecimal key that allowed HD-DVDs to be encrypted with Linux had been vociferously tracked down by copyright lawyers. The result has been that many blogs have had to take down the key. Digg users got a hold of it and started submitting blogs with this information. The result? These submissions were taken down, some with as many as 15 000 diggs. The rationale? Digg was worried that they would be the receiving end of a DCMA lawsuit, and wanted to protect themselves as much as possible. The problem? The geek community that Digg was built upon took exception to the way Digg was handling this, as it was taking the side of the DMCA (albeit for self-preservation), rather than engaging it in some kind of meaningful conversation. The bigger problem? The Digg community revolted by submitting, then promoting, stories related to this key faster than what Digg could pull down. The richy irony? That Digg was built up on the backs of geeks, and now, in this time and on this issue that geeks are passionate about the best Digg can do is censor itself.
But, if you believe what's been posted by this anonymous editor, there have already been mass cancellations of subscriptions worthy of management's concern, which would indicate that a large portion of the users of the website are informed and savvy.
I was not aware of this. Is there an ongoing thread somewhere?
It is no easy task winning a 1v3. You must jump many a hurdle, bettering three armies, the smallest.
Aye, no mere man may win an uphill battle against thrice your men, it takes a courageous heart and will that makes steel look like copper. When you are that, then, and only then, may you win a 1v3.
But, if you believe what's been posted by this anonymous editor, there have already been mass cancellations of subscriptions worthy of management's concern, which would indicate that a large portion of the users of the website are informed and savvy.
I was not aware of this. Is there an ongoing thread somewhere?
He was fired for "tone" supposedly. That's a vague term really. Especially since tone can be interpreted differently by different people.
What is wrong here doesn't revolve around if he was a negative reviewer. He rightfully should be able to say whatever he wants. Whether it was just Kane and Lynch or numerous previous reviews as well that got him fired, is just plain wrong. Game reviews, game news sites, are journalism. Pushed by publishers or not, they are journalism. Where does freedom of the press come in to play? Right here! Obviously, freedom of the press is affected everywhere, from our daily newspapers to Gamespot. So that idea of "Freedom of the Press" is not actually completely (at least in this entirety) in existence. Which basically means that it shouldn't matter whether or not his previous reviews have been harsh or not. Or if it was just this one time incident. Plain and simple, it was wrong and not the correct thing to do.
But hey, that's how companies work. Those who supply the cash, have the power push. Its shitty, no doubt about it. But we couldn't really have expected much else could we?
I'd also like to point out that this whole thing about his particular reviews being bad and thus the cause of his firing is bullshit considering the fact that GameSpot's entire review editorial team has to sign off on a review before it gets published. No one has made mention of the editorial team being dragged into a meeting to overhaul how they sign off on reviews. If he's guilty of bad reviews, then by virtue of the way GameSpot functions the whole editorial team is.
They just straight up locked him out of his office and kicked him out? Man, that is so fucking harsh. I still can't believe, after this dude has been there for a decade, they can just kick him out on the street that easily.
Dublo7 on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Posts
Shogun Streams Vidya
heh
Fuck...
Azulan Saul Tigh
I don't know about other places, but my non-compete clause for my job means I can't go out and actively try and recruit my company's clients for up to a year after I leave the company. I don't really see how that would apply in this situation.
"SURE!"
Azulan Saul Tigh
The GameSpot HQ is in SF, so he should be safe since non-compete clauses are illegal in California.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
I don't think the gaming industry has a more iron cland one then my jobs have had. For the most part it means not sharing ip, road maps, or stealing former emps, with a time lock on when you can get hired if there is a competitive plan.
If reviewing games is subject to that, it's time to trash all the online sites and be done with it.
I'm not a lawyer, but I've been though this (ie non-compete) for tech crap, if they pull this (give that it's a fucking editorial) they are in for a lawsuit like none other.
Azulan Saul Tigh
Doesn't TWiT usually have a person or two that write for CNET? Could end up interesting....
3DS Friend Code: 2165-6448-8348 www.Twitch.TV/cooljammer00
Battle.Net: JohnDarc#1203 Origin/UPlay: CoolJammer00
Not really. Thats more for things like being fired for you sex/religion/race/nationality.
NNID: Glenn565
Nope. He can quit any time for any reason, they can fire him at any time for any reason (except special cases like race/religion/etc.)
At-will contract.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Commenter "gamespot" responded.
Addressing the timing, "gamespot" weighs in again.
In response to Valleywag write Paul Boutin's opinion that he doesn't believe the rumor that Gerstmann was solely fired for his Kane & Lynch review, partially based on the fact that no named sources have weighed in on the topic, "gamespot" responded again.
(this transcript ripped wholesale from kotaku, btw)
Just saying, that reads pretty legit.
EDIT: aside from all that, I don't see Gamespot really getting hurt. A lot of people thought Digg was headed for disaster earlier this year, correct?
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
yeah, but with Digg, they "relented". Here, it's rug sweeping. Also, people tend to see Digg as more social and friendly over a site like Gamespot.
3DS Friend Code: 2165-6448-8348 www.Twitch.TV/cooljammer00
Battle.Net: JohnDarc#1203 Origin/UPlay: CoolJammer00
I never knew that. Is it that Ziff Davis building?
MineCraft: Menetherin
Steam: Vloeza_SE++
Ziff Davis = 1up.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digg.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy
I dunno, it'd be hard for me to say no to going there to see, for example, an exclusive look at Turok. These things just don't have any tendency to stick for a substantial amount of time.
for Slash:
http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2006/08/25/a-brief-history-of-digg-controversy/
HD-DVD Encryption Key — The Numbers That Shall Not Be Named, and the Revolt.
Although it was by no means a new piece of information, the hexadecimal key that allowed HD-DVDs to be encrypted with Linux had been vociferously tracked down by copyright lawyers. The result has been that many blogs have had to take down the key. Digg users got a hold of it and started submitting blogs with this information. The result? These submissions were taken down, some with as many as 15 000 diggs. The rationale? Digg was worried that they would be the receiving end of a DCMA lawsuit, and wanted to protect themselves as much as possible. The problem? The geek community that Digg was built upon took exception to the way Digg was handling this, as it was taking the side of the DMCA (albeit for self-preservation), rather than engaging it in some kind of meaningful conversation. The bigger problem? The Digg community revolted by submitting, then promoting, stories related to this key faster than what Digg could pull down. The richy irony? That Digg was built up on the backs of geeks, and now, in this time and on this issue that geeks are passionate about the best Digg can do is censor itself.
EDIT: beat'd. anyway:
I was not aware of this. Is there an ongoing thread somewhere?
Also, I think Kane is a 3/10 and Gerstmann is my favorite reviewer as of now.
Gamespot is a couple of blocks from 1up. They're actually friends.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/BlindProphet
Wow. These fuckers are fast.
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showpost.php?p=3704388&postcount=736
Click the spoiler button, it's a copy/paste from Kotaku quoting Valleywag.
He was fired for "tone" supposedly. That's a vague term really. Especially since tone can be interpreted differently by different people.
What is wrong here doesn't revolve around if he was a negative reviewer. He rightfully should be able to say whatever he wants. Whether it was just Kane and Lynch or numerous previous reviews as well that got him fired, is just plain wrong. Game reviews, game news sites, are journalism. Pushed by publishers or not, they are journalism. Where does freedom of the press come in to play? Right here! Obviously, freedom of the press is affected everywhere, from our daily newspapers to Gamespot. So that idea of "Freedom of the Press" is not actually completely (at least in this entirety) in existence. Which basically means that it shouldn't matter whether or not his previous reviews have been harsh or not. Or if it was just this one time incident. Plain and simple, it was wrong and not the correct thing to do.
But hey, that's how companies work. Those who supply the cash, have the power push. Its shitty, no doubt about it. But we couldn't really have expected much else could we?
Also, freedom of the press has nothing to do with the freedom to get your ass fired.
That, right there, is the truthiest thing said here.