fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2790 ]

[ SECRET POST #2790 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2790 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 069 secrets from Secret Submission Post #399.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

nayrt

No, it's still shitty of her as well. But it's completely unfair that the men are getting off scot-free when they're just as shitty as she is, if not even more so.

How is she shitty? "I want to fuck and I want to get my game promoted."
What's that? You're an idiotic manchild who will throw away his career for a fuck? Score!"
She has NO obligation to act in any way regarding her own body or her own works.

It's bribery and it's unethical. It's like telling a reporter "I'll give you free tickets to my theater for a year if you run a review saying how awesome this new play is, even though it's not really that great."

But that doesn't lessen the culpability of the people who will TAKE that bribe. BOTH sides of any such transaction are shitty.

"I'll give you free tickets to my theater for a year if you run a review saying how awesome this new play is, even though it's not really that great."
That is called MARKETING
Every entertainment industry in the world does this exact thing. But when a woman does it, and the payment is sexual not financial, it's bribery and wrong, and fuck those underhanded whores!

No, that's called bribery.

Bribery happens a lot. But if you're going to go for hyperbole at least know what words mean.

Marketing is communications, not a trade of goods or services. Goods might be given away for exposure or promotion, but not as a trade or sale. You can't explicitly get something back for it, or it ceases to be marketing. It also starts being illegal.

Ah, so that's why radio ads and billboards are free.
No, that right, they're not, because marketing costs.
You have to give something to receive marketing. You give someone money and they tell everyone how great you are. That is marketing. If this person has a legal obligation to be impartial, and they betray that obligation, it is on their heads. All you have done is engaged in marketing

Radio stations and billboards are third parties who are not involved in the trade between you and the consumer, unlike a bribe.

It's possible to bribe indirectly if the third party is involved in the trade or connected to one of the first two parties somehow, but that, again, is illegal.

Anon who actually works in marketing here...

Ethical marketing involves transparency. If you were compensated for a review, you have an obligation to state that fact so that readers will be aware that your review is not unbiased.

Also, things like radio ads and billboards are in a completely different category. There is an expectation that money will be involved there - you are paying the company for their space and time.

Guy's stop feeding the troll. They aren't me (though I wish I'd been here earlier, respect troll you beat me to it)

Those are called junket whores, and they're pretty widely despised by the critics who don't go in for that sort of thing. The health of criticism in a given entertainment industry, and to a lesser extent the health of said entertainment industry, can be gauged in part by the relative frequency of junket whores compared to honest critics.

Fair enough. But those Junket whores are the journalist, yes? Not the people giving away free shit, yes? The people who are despised are not usually the people looking for good press, right?

Like I said elsewhere, I don't actually care about Quinn. The problem, if there is a problem, is with the alleged reviewers.

(Kotaku, at least, is standing by Grayson and claiming he didn't commit any ethics violations. I'll keep this to "alleged" until there's been more time to sift through what's going on.)

It's Nathan Grayson. I wouldn't be surprised.

(then again, I'm showing my bias for hating most of the people who've written for RPS)

That's bribery, fuckwad. The company I work for has strict rules against it, and for good reason.

Da

Agreed. It's shit all around and it's bullshit that she's getting most of the heat. While I won't disagree that she deserves a her fair share of criticism, it's ridiculius that the guys she slept with aren't getting nowhere near the criticism she is.

I just want to pipe in and say that none of these guys are getting a pass from me, at least. Least of all Nathan Grayson, who I used to read when he wrote for Rock Paper Shotgun and he was a miniature John Walker with this faux-social justice bullshittery that had very little to do with actual social justice and everything to do with clickbaity outrage porn, which is why RPS is becoming more and more indistinguishable from Kotaku.

I've been bemoaning the state of games journalism for some time now. This is just another nail in the credibility coffin.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #2790 ]

Re: Question:

Re: Question:

Re: Question:

Re: Question:

Re: Question:

Re: Question:

Re: Question:

Re: Question:

Re: Question:

Re: Question:

Re: Question:

Re: Question:

Re: Question:

Re: Question:

Re: Question:

Re: Question: