[exstudent2]

You just said this:

> Oh, and Totilo doesn't describe any kind of compromising relationship between Quinn and any of his writers,

But action was required on Kotaku's behalf because they weren't acting ethically. Here's another Totilo statement about how Kotaku messed up: https://archive.is/fL71k

He does admit wrongdoing. You're straight up saying he doesn't. How is that ethical?

> you idiots continue to bitch about "oh gosh someone in the games industry knows someone else"

That you find people's concern over undisclosed relationships in reporting something worthy of mockery is appalling and quite frankly all the evidence needed to show you're out to push an agenda that requires overlooking a very traditional staple of journalistic integrity.

[DrPizza]

> But action was required on Kotaku's behalf because they weren't acting ethically. Here's another Totilo statement about how Kotaku messed up: https://archive.is/fL71k

What the fuck does that have to do with Quinn? Oh right: nothing.

> That you find people's concern over undisclosed relationships in reporting something worthy of mockery is appalling and quite frankly all the evidence needed to show you're out to push an agenda that requires overlooking a very traditional staple of journalistic integrity.

That you find it remarkable or notable that people who write about games know people who make games shows that you have very little understanding of the trade press. "I know this person" is not a relationship that needs disclosure.

There's no clear consensus on things like Kickstarter, by the way. While investment would be a clear ethical breach, Kickstarter is--by law--not an investment. Kickstarter backers are not acquiring any kind of stake in the company. There's no clear journalistic rule that would, for example, prohibit backing Kickstarters but still permit preordering games (and I've never once seen a gator demand that game preorders be disclosed).

Similarly, the distinction between, for example, making payments through Patreon, subscribing to a game such as WoW, or buying a DLC season pass is quite subtle, and there are no universally agreed, widely established rules on what is and isn't acceptable. This is a matter primarily of personal taste, not hard-and-fast rules.

In any case, _none of this supports your claim that I am an unethical journalist_. I've linked you to a page that should (assuming our CMS is working correctly) list every single article I have written. Which of those pieces is unethical, and why?

[cerberusss]

> What the fuck does that have to do with Quinn Why not keep it civil? I truly don't understand.

[DrPizza]

I haven't been anything other than civil.

It seems quite uncivil to me to claim that I'm unethical and the not even bother to support that claim, but curiously enough, I don't see you complaining about that.

[exstudent2]

> I haven't been anything other than civil.

No you haven't. You almost got both of us banned from HN for being uncivil.

As for Quinn, no on here is talking about her or harassment other than the anti-GGers. I've been talking about Kotaku.

In response to ethical breaches in your articles (opposed to your activism which I've broken down already), I'd say all of your articles are suspect given your publicly stated stance on non-disclosed relationships.

How many of those articles are written about your friends without you disclosing it?

[DrPizza]

> As for Quinn, no on here is talking about her or harassment other than the anti-GGers. I've been talking about Kotaku.

You brought up Kotaku in response to this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10253942

The context is very specifically Zoe Quinn.

> In response to ethical breaches in your articles (opposed to your activism which I've broken down already),

What "activism" have you "broken down"?

> I'd say all of your articles are suspect given your publicly stated stance on non-disclosed relationships.

You do understand, right, that your standards and expectations for disclosure have nothing to do with any recognized standard for journalistic ethics, right? Just open a newspaper or read a website.

> How many of those articles are written about your friends without you disclosing it?

You tell me! You're the one asserting that I'm an unethical journalist. Surely you have some kind of factual basis to justify such an allegation?

[exstudent2]

> You do understand, right, that your standards and expectations for disclosure have nothing to do with any recognized standard for journalistic ethics, right?

Pulitzer disagrees with you. From http://pulitzercenter.org/about-us/ethics-and-standards-poli...

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Normal activities - outside work, investments, political activism - pose special problems for journalists. Often, it's best to avoid activities that might interfere with your ability to function as a journalist. Alternatively, you may be precluded from working on certain topics for the Pulitzer Center if you're personally involved.

A third alternative is public disclosure of any information that a site user might find relevant in understanding the content. Someone who is writing about a relative would need to disclose the relationship. A guest contributor writing about politics would need to disclose if he is associated with a candidate, and any employment or other financial relationship that could be viewed as related to the topic being reported.

Full disclosure of relevant information is standard practice for the Pulitzer Center - a necessary step but not always sufficient when a potential conflict of interest exists.