[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.

[DrPizza]

> Pulitzer disagrees with you.

No they don't.

> Full disclosure of relevant information is standard practice for the Pulitzer Center

Wake me when political or economic writers disclose which candidates and politicians they know and voted for, or when film writers disclose the names of all the PR people who they talk to, or any of the other relationships that aren't routinely disclosed because they're not material. "relevant information" does not mean "anything and everything".

I repeat: your standards and expectations for disclosure have nothing to do with any recognized standard for journalistic ethics.

[comrh]

Just FYI I noticed this is now linked on /r/Kotakuinaction so expect an incoming dog pile.