This happens in every aspect of journalism. People will attack you and attack your credibility if your article doesn't fall in line with their own personal viewpoints. You can have the most objective and fair article in the known universe and you're still going to get criticism.
I found Teri's article very interesting. It's good to point out that just because there was this monumental thread with many voices expressing negative opinions on something does not automatically prove the majority of players nor the majority of posters in that thread have such negative opinions. Sometimes, sure, but not in the particular thread in question.
I've heard people say a lot of things. It doesn't mean that they're right or that every third party who repeats them understands what they're talking about. I'm reminded of Will Ferell in Anchorman trying desperately to make use of "When in Rome..." or every person who ever made an insanely unrealistic demand saying "The customer is always right!"
In any case, the supposed "thread of rage" represented a tiny portion of the community. Most of the people I've come across in game seem to have a "wait and see" mentality or else are very excited about the new content. Probably a lot of them didn't have pre conceived notions of what things would be like or should be like, so they don't feel let down the way that some people on the forum are.
Anyway, I think it's awesome that this thread has swerved so far off course from the actual topic, since it illustrates nicely what that poster discovered: that the largest category of posts on these forums is "off topic."
Branflakes shouldn't ever linked to terrylinns article. The whole discussion was shifted into talking about this statistics and about journalism. Personally i dont trust statistics. Too easy to manipulate and misused to support one side or the other side.
Please lets go the point:
The community is divided into two groups(which one is bigger is not interesting).
I didn't want to say journalists shouldn't neutral more that reality showed me that there is no neutrality that is why i read more than one newspaper and compare the arguments.
At late I've seen a few posts pointing out that forum posters are a small minority and that their expressed opinions don't really matter in the grand scheme.
I find this to be most like a public relations campaign to mitigate the impact sentiments on the forums have with players.
I sure hope someone's getting their dilithium's worth for their trouble.
As for the issue at hand, I'm exited about finally being able to play a Romulan and fly Romulan ships.
But I'm damned disappointed that now that the Romulans have finally arrived, they are little more than a playable species offered to either of the two existing factions. Like the Caitians and the Ferasans.
I was hoping for more. That's an honest opinion without rage.
In regards to Terylinn, I like her well enough and respect her right to an opinion, but that interview where she called players loosers and suggested that they get a life, you know the one where she told someone to suck her .......
She's lost some credibility with me right there. You can't remark with clarity about those who rage if you partake in the occasional rant yourself.
Her opinion is no more valid than the average players.
1.)She defines the thread as "thread of rage"...it isn't .. it is disappointment mixed with passion for this game....we are not ragers or haters....we love this game
She did no such thing; others defined it that way to her. That was part of what lead her to make this analysis. If anything, her analysis showed that wasn't an accurate characterization.
Former moderator of these forums. Lifetime sub since before launch. Been here since before public betas. Foundry author of "Franklin Drake Must Die".
The media was once known ad the 3rd power, reason was because we have two independent powers ... the government and the judiciary.
When media started to be "opinionated" it stop being a 3rd power because they have no neutrality, they reported facts ... now they do nothing but propaganda.
If you are reading more that a newspaper to "compare arguments" then it failed, even Fox News had once the logo, "we report you decide" ... newspapers should not offer arguments, they should report news and any opinion piece should be clearly labeled as such to not be mistaken as facts.
Where did you get that weird idea that journalists were ever unbiased? It's ALWAYS been the way it is now....
It impossible to write a truly unbiased article unless you simply don't care about the subject. Journalism isn't really about being unbiased, people try, but the real point of journalism is to discuss a topic.
Please elaborate on how you would have characterized those 10 posts. I'm curious to see your thoughts.
Anyways, Flash's post is, to me, a very polite way of well... almost trolling the Devs. At one point he accuses Stahl of ignoring player feedback just because he(flash) didn't see any changes based on it... Flash also says that he feels that advertisements of RR as a "complete unique faction" were a misrepresentation of what it actually was.
I mean really.... we don't have enough data to make such drastic conclusions. discussing the merits of the data is a bit futile due to how little it is so far.
Well, Flash's post is probably the best I've seen of saying "We want independent Romulans, and a robust PvP system." I know I would prefer Romulans closer to the show than D'Tan's Fed-Lite Republic (unless their storyline is incredible, I will probably roleplay as a member of the RSE - which DOES exist in STO, separate from the Tal'Shiar (which is why it doesn't make sense that we shouldn't get to choose between it and D'Tan)). Additionally, I don't want any storyline decisions to be made expressly for the purpose of keeping the game as a Fed vs. KDF PvP system. Either open up PvP so it's one big button and two teams are assigned randomly, or take a leap, do some innovation, and add 3-way PvP. Or something - either way, story should drive gameplay, not the other way around.
As for the posts, there's two that I big-time disagree with (4 & 6) and others that are borderline:
#3: Possibly off topic like you said , but I think it could be that this poster think Romulans are being portrayed incorrectly. Then again, the "lol jk" could mean they're neutral. Either way, directly discussing Romulans' portrayal is related to LoR.
#4: Discussing who the Romulans consider enemies (and therefore who they will or will not consider allies) is pretty clearly talking about LoR, and the fact that the Romulans are "allied" with the existing factions.
#6: "I don't mind this new idea" is not a clear positive. Neutral at best. The post goes on to question why a Rom would join the KDF, given the content disparity between Fed and KDF, which, while not a negative, is again, neutral at best (neutral to LoR, negative towards the KDF).
#8: The first sentence could possibly be on topic, but I'm not sure where that poster is going with it, and the main gist is off topic.
#9: This is arguably off-topic, but extending the logic of a Romulan being able to fly their allied faction's Zen ships to being able to wear outfits could be related to LoR. But the poster does go on to extend that logic to being able to wear outfits on every character, regardless of species, so tangentially related at best.
In this one page, it's not too terribly different, but over the course of the whole thread you can see where small differences of opinion like this could cause the whole method of using numbers to see how much "rage" there is to fall apart.
Edit: As a side note, I haven't read too many of the Massively articles about STO, but it seems like a lot of the time that one is released, many people take issue with how it glosses over problems with the game, and is one-sided in favor of it and Cryptic. So I have to wonder about what's going on with these articles that they cause so much controversy.
Well, Flash's post is probably the best I've seen of saying "We want independent Romulans, and a robust PvP system." I know I would prefer Romulans closer to the show than D'Tan's Fed-Lite Republic (unless their storyline is incredible, I will probably roleplay as a member of the RSE - which DOES exist in STO, separate from the Tal'Shiar (which is why it doesn't make sense that we shouldn't get to choose between it and D'Tan)). Additionally, I don't want any storyline decisions to be made expressly for the purpose of keeping the game as a Fed vs. KDF PvP system. Either open up PvP so it's one big button and two teams are assigned randomly, or take a leap, do some innovation, and add 3-way PvP. Or something - either way, story should drive gameplay, not the other way around.
As for the posts, there's two that I big-time disagree with (4 & 6) and others that are borderline:
#3: Possibly off topic like you said , but I think it could be that this poster think Romulans are being portrayed incorrectly. Then again, the "lol jk" could mean they're neutral. Either way, directly discussing Romulans' portrayal is related to LoR.
#4: Discussing who the Romulans consider enemies (and therefore who they will or will not consider allies) is pretty clearly talking about LoR, and the fact that the Romulans are "allied" with the existing factions.
#6: "I don't mind this new idea" is not a clear positive. Neutral at best. The post goes on to question why a Rom would join the KDF, given the content disparity between Fed and KDF, which, while not a negative, is again, neutral at best (neutral to LoR, negative towards the KDF).
#8: The first sentence could possibly be on topic, but I'm not sure where that poster is going with it, and the main gist is off topic.
#9: This is arguably off-topic, but extending the logic of a Romulan being able to fly their allied faction's Zen ships to being able to wear outfits could be related to LoR. But the poster does go on to extend that logic to being able to wear outfits on every character, regardless of species, so tangentially related at best.
In this one page, it's not too terribly different, but over the course of the whole thread you can see where small differences of opinion like this could cause the whole method of using numbers to see how much "rage" there is to fall apart.
Edit: As a side note, I haven't read too many of the Massively articles about STO, but it seems like a lot of the time that one is released, many people take issue with how it glosses over problems with the game, and is one-sided in favor of it and Cryptic. So I have to wonder about what's going on with these articles that they cause so much controversy.
Well, #3 is vaguely talking about Romulans, but... may or may not be talking about the LoR expansion.
#4, maybe, maybe not
#6 is kinda vague, but I see it as the poster offering a counterpoint to the people posting negatively. Granted even with that in mind, it is weakly positive.
#5 is a great example of why a lot of posts got dumped in "offtopic". Sure it's a rage filled post but.... What is is about?
This happens in every aspect of journalism. People will attack you and attack your credibility if your article doesn't fall in line with their own personal viewpoints. You can have the most objective and fair article in the known universe and you're still going to get criticism.
.
I know what you mean. My buddies over at Fox News say the same thing to me everyday.
Beers,
Jengoz =/
"Star Trek Online is powered by the most abundant resource in the galaxy . . . Gullibility"
"Star Trek Online is powered by the most abundant resource in the galaxy . . . Gullibility"
Yeah, that's interesting. Nothing in the Path to 2409 says that, and as I recall Obisek mentions that they are NOT allies. I hope that Sela ends up seeing the error of her ways and throwing off Hakeev and his Iconian allies, but I guess we'll see.
Regardless, there should be a third Romulan option: a new Romulan Star Empire, free from the Tal Shiar's meddling, and free from D'Tan's Fed-Lite Republic and its "allies" the Fed and KDF.
Where did you get that weird idea that journalists were ever unbiased? It's ALWAYS been the way it is now....
It impossible to write a truly unbiased article unless you simply don't care about the subject. Journalism isn't really about being unbiased, people try, but the real point of journalism is to discuss a topic.
No. Completely wrong. The point of journalism is to report FACTS. A news report should answer the following questions:
1. Who?
2. What?
3. Where?
4. When?
5. How?
Unfortunately, modern media has foregone any semblance of objectivity in the interest of stumping for their particular side, and that goes for BOTH sides of the political spectrum.
No. Completely wrong. The point of journalism is to report FACTS. A news report should answer the following questions:
1. Who?
2. What?
3. Where?
4. When?
5. How?
Unfortunately, modern media has foregone any semblance of objectivity in the interest of stumping for their particular side, and that goes for BOTH sides of the political spectrum.
Here's the thing... the 5 Ws do NOT require the person writing the report to be unbiased. You can go over every peice of known data and perfectly capture all of the relevent information, and then toss in your "observations" about the event. Being "free of bias" is largely a marketing gimmick used by news agencies. If you don't beleive me.... go read some WW2 era newspapers. Or.. well.... any decade of your choosing.
No. Completely wrong. The point of journalism is to report FACTS. A news report should answer the following questions:
1. Who?
2. What?
3. Where?
4. When?
5. How?
Unfortunately, modern media has foregone any semblance of objectivity in the interest of stumping for their particular side, and that goes for BOTH sides of the political spectrum.
Here's the thing... the 5 Ws do NOT require the person writing the report to be unbiased. You can go over every peice of known data and perfectly capture all of the relevent information, and then toss in your "observations" about the event. Being "free of bias" is largely a marketing gimmick used by news agencies. If you don't beleive me.... go read some WW2 era newspapers. Or.. well.... any decade of your choosing.
Who: The people who stated the thread proved the majority of players hated the game.
What: The Ask Cryptic thread.
When: Saturday March 31st, 2013.
Where: The analysis took place in my office. The thread is on the Cryptic Forum.
Why: Twofold: 1) To analyze the validity the claim that the thread proved a majority of players hated the expansion and; 2) To invalidate the claims that I was refusing to cover the "rage" in the thread.
How: We used simple math, an excel spreadsheet and a neutral third party, read 770 posts and used the excel spreadsheet to determine if the length of the thread had any correlation to the number of people who expressed negative opinions.
Oddly - all those things were covered in the column. I'm still confused as to how that could be missed.
Not that journalism standards matter, since terilynns is a commentator, AKA "pundit", not a journalist. Her job is to offer opinion.
She documented all her sources, and divulged the parts that involved her own opinion. She made a good-faith attempt to ensure that such judgments erred on the side of aiding the opposite opinion. She went above and beyond.
Former moderator of these forums. Lifetime sub since before launch. Been here since before public betas. Foundry author of "Franklin Drake Must Die".
Not that journalism standards matter, since terilynns is a commentator, AKA "pundit", not a journalist. Her job is to offer opinion.
She documented all her sources, and divulged the parts that involved her own opinion. She made a good-faith attempt to ensure that such judgments erred on the side of aiding the opposite opinion. She went above and beyond.
Ah yes, the "I'm not a journalist, I'm a pundit/comedy show/blogger" defense. Who needs journalistic integrity when you can just claim you're not a journalist whenever it suits you?
Meanwhile, tons of people get their news from "The Daily Show".
Nowhere on that page does it claim to be an editorial. Yet at the bottom it does say:
Captain's Log is now transmitting direct from Terilynn Shull every Monday, providing news, rumors, and dev interviews about Star Trek Online.
So yes, she damn well is a journalist, or at least claims to be.
Ah yes, the "I'm not a journalist, I'm a pundit/comedy show/blogger" defense. Who needs journalistic integrity when you can just claim you're not a journalist whenever it suits you?
Meanwhile, tons of people get their news from "The Daily Show".
Nowhere on that page does it claim to be an editorial. Yet at the bottom it does say:
So yes, she damn well is a journalist, or at least claims to be.
Actually, I never have claimed to be a "journalist", I'm a columnist. At the top of every single one of my columns it pretty obviously is tagged as 'opinion' and Massively itself is defined as an "enthusiast blog". You can look it up yourself, by clicking on the "about" tab on our home page.
It's pretty darned nice to be able to write a blog that contains my opinions. It's even better when I get to write a blog in response to players requests that I cover a forum thread.
Actually, I never have claimed to be a "journalist", I'm a columnist. At the top of every single one of my columns it pretty obviously is tagged as 'opinion' and Massively itself is defined as an "enthusiast blog". You can look it up yourself, by clicking on the "about" tab on our home page.
It's pretty darned nice to be able to write a blog that contains my opinions. It's even better when I get to write a blog in response to players requests that I cover a forum thread.
And yet your blurb claims to present news and developer interviews. That's called reporting, making you a reporter, which is a synonym for journalist.
But since you don't want to be obligated to follow any sort of journalistic ethics, you hide behind the "I'm not a journalist, I'm a blogger" excuse.
You're a fine example of everything that is wrong with modern media.
And yet your blurb claims to present news and developer interviews. That's called reporting, making you a reporter, which is a synonym for journalist.
No, that's always also been part of a commentator's job. Hell, it'd be impossible for them to do commentary without having some news upon which to comment.
Trying to redefine her job as something else so that you can take her to task for not meeting the standards of that OTHER job is rather unfair. It is literally her entire job to offer opinion, and you're complaining that she offers opinion.
Reporters report; commentators comment. It's what they do. It's *ALWAYS* been what they do. Attempting to redefine it now is at best self-serving.
Former moderator of these forums. Lifetime sub since before launch. Been here since before public betas. Foundry author of "Franklin Drake Must Die".
No, that's always also been part of a commentator's job. Hell, it'd be impossible for them to do commentary without having some news upon which to comment.
Trying to redefine her job as something else so that you can take her to task for not meeting the standards of that OTHER job is rather unfair. It is literally her entire job to offer opinion, and you're complaining that she offers opinion.
Reporters report; commentators comment. It's what they do. It's *ALWAYS* been what they do. Attempting to redefine it now is at best self-serving.
I'm not redefining anything. It's right there on her page:
Captain's Log is now transmitting direct from Terilynn Shull every Monday, providing news, rumors, and dev interviews about Star Trek Online.
She claims to be reporting news, not providing commentary or analysis. End of story.
Well she could be all of those things. Also I'm surprised that someone got into an argument with a moderator.
Having a purple name doesn't make him right.
Above post is darkelofficer's---
EDIT: This conversation is too far off topic to keep it going. But, as someone who used to work for Massively, I will say that the Columnists' job description is not to be journalistic but to opine. Those that post news on the site are the journalists. Some journalists may also write columns, so their columns will contain opinions. To me, Teri's signature, because she is a columnist, just indicates that her columns will include news, interviews and rumors. /thread -Brandon
Comments
I found Teri's article very interesting. It's good to point out that just because there was this monumental thread with many voices expressing negative opinions on something does not automatically prove the majority of players nor the majority of posters in that thread have such negative opinions. Sometimes, sure, but not in the particular thread in question.
I've heard people say a lot of things. It doesn't mean that they're right or that every third party who repeats them understands what they're talking about. I'm reminded of Will Ferell in Anchorman trying desperately to make use of "When in Rome..." or every person who ever made an insanely unrealistic demand saying "The customer is always right!"
In any case, the supposed "thread of rage" represented a tiny portion of the community. Most of the people I've come across in game seem to have a "wait and see" mentality or else are very excited about the new content. Probably a lot of them didn't have pre conceived notions of what things would be like or should be like, so they don't feel let down the way that some people on the forum are.
Anyway, I think it's awesome that this thread has swerved so far off course from the actual topic, since it illustrates nicely what that poster discovered: that the largest category of posts on these forums is "off topic."
Please lets go the point:
The community is divided into two groups(which one is bigger is not interesting).
Lets find solutions
@f2pdrakron:
I didn't want to say journalists shouldn't neutral more that reality showed me that there is no neutrality that is why i read more than one newspaper and compare the arguments.
I find this to be most like a public relations campaign to mitigate the impact sentiments on the forums have with players.
I sure hope someone's getting their dilithium's worth for their trouble.
As for the issue at hand, I'm exited about finally being able to play a Romulan and fly Romulan ships.
But I'm damned disappointed that now that the Romulans have finally arrived, they are little more than a playable species offered to either of the two existing factions. Like the Caitians and the Ferasans.
I was hoping for more. That's an honest opinion without rage.
In regards to Terylinn, I like her well enough and respect her right to an opinion, but that interview where she called players loosers and suggested that they get a life, you know the one where she told someone to suck her .......
She's lost some credibility with me right there. You can't remark with clarity about those who rage if you partake in the occasional rant yourself.
Her opinion is no more valid than the average players.
She did no such thing; others defined it that way to her. That was part of what lead her to make this analysis. If anything, her analysis showed that wasn't an accurate characterization.
It impossible to write a truly unbiased article unless you simply don't care about the subject. Journalism isn't really about being unbiased, people try, but the real point of journalism is to discuss a topic.
My character Tsin'xing
Well, Flash's post is probably the best I've seen of saying "We want independent Romulans, and a robust PvP system." I know I would prefer Romulans closer to the show than D'Tan's Fed-Lite Republic (unless their storyline is incredible, I will probably roleplay as a member of the RSE - which DOES exist in STO, separate from the Tal'Shiar (which is why it doesn't make sense that we shouldn't get to choose between it and D'Tan)). Additionally, I don't want any storyline decisions to be made expressly for the purpose of keeping the game as a Fed vs. KDF PvP system. Either open up PvP so it's one big button and two teams are assigned randomly, or take a leap, do some innovation, and add 3-way PvP. Or something - either way, story should drive gameplay, not the other way around.
As for the posts, there's two that I big-time disagree with (4 & 6) and others that are borderline:
#3: Possibly off topic like you said , but I think it could be that this poster think Romulans are being portrayed incorrectly. Then again, the "lol jk" could mean they're neutral. Either way, directly discussing Romulans' portrayal is related to LoR.
#4: Discussing who the Romulans consider enemies (and therefore who they will or will not consider allies) is pretty clearly talking about LoR, and the fact that the Romulans are "allied" with the existing factions.
#6: "I don't mind this new idea" is not a clear positive. Neutral at best. The post goes on to question why a Rom would join the KDF, given the content disparity between Fed and KDF, which, while not a negative, is again, neutral at best (neutral to LoR, negative towards the KDF).
#8: The first sentence could possibly be on topic, but I'm not sure where that poster is going with it, and the main gist is off topic.
#9: This is arguably off-topic, but extending the logic of a Romulan being able to fly their allied faction's Zen ships to being able to wear outfits could be related to LoR. But the poster does go on to extend that logic to being able to wear outfits on every character, regardless of species, so tangentially related at best.
In this one page, it's not too terribly different, but over the course of the whole thread you can see where small differences of opinion like this could cause the whole method of using numbers to see how much "rage" there is to fall apart.
Edit: As a side note, I haven't read too many of the Massively articles about STO, but it seems like a lot of the time that one is released, many people take issue with how it glosses over problems with the game, and is one-sided in favor of it and Cryptic. So I have to wonder about what's going on with these articles that they cause so much controversy.
#4, maybe, maybe not
#6 is kinda vague, but I see it as the poster offering a counterpoint to the people posting negatively. Granted even with that in mind, it is weakly positive.
#5 is a great example of why a lot of posts got dumped in "offtopic". Sure it's a rage filled post but.... What is is about?
Oh and it's official, Sela runs the Tal'Shiar....
My character Tsin'xing
I know what you mean. My buddies over at Fox News say the same thing to me everyday.
Beers,
Jengoz =/
"Star Trek Online is powered by the most abundant resource in the galaxy . . . Gullibility"
Yeah, that's interesting. Nothing in the Path to 2409 says that, and as I recall Obisek mentions that they are NOT allies. I hope that Sela ends up seeing the error of her ways and throwing off Hakeev and his Iconian allies, but I guess we'll see.
Regardless, there should be a third Romulan option: a new Romulan Star Empire, free from the Tal Shiar's meddling, and free from D'Tan's Fed-Lite Republic and its "allies" the Fed and KDF.
No. Completely wrong. The point of journalism is to report FACTS. A news report should answer the following questions:
1. Who?
2. What?
3. Where?
4. When?
5. How?
Unfortunately, modern media has foregone any semblance of objectivity in the interest of stumping for their particular side, and that goes for BOTH sides of the political spectrum.
My character Tsin'xing
Who: The people who stated the thread proved the majority of players hated the game.
What: The Ask Cryptic thread.
When: Saturday March 31st, 2013.
Where: The analysis took place in my office. The thread is on the Cryptic Forum.
Why: Twofold: 1) To analyze the validity the claim that the thread proved a majority of players hated the expansion and; 2) To invalidate the claims that I was refusing to cover the "rage" in the thread.
How: We used simple math, an excel spreadsheet and a neutral third party, read 770 posts and used the excel spreadsheet to determine if the length of the thread had any correlation to the number of people who expressed negative opinions.
Oddly - all those things were covered in the column. I'm still confused as to how that could be missed.
She documented all her sources, and divulged the parts that involved her own opinion. She made a good-faith attempt to ensure that such judgments erred on the side of aiding the opposite opinion. She went above and beyond.
Ah yes, the "I'm not a journalist, I'm a pundit/comedy show/blogger" defense. Who needs journalistic integrity when you can just claim you're not a journalist whenever it suits you?
Meanwhile, tons of people get their news from "The Daily Show".
Nowhere on that page does it claim to be an editorial. Yet at the bottom it does say:
So yes, she damn well is a journalist, or at least claims to be.
Actually, I never have claimed to be a "journalist", I'm a columnist. At the top of every single one of my columns it pretty obviously is tagged as 'opinion' and Massively itself is defined as an "enthusiast blog". You can look it up yourself, by clicking on the "about" tab on our home page.
It's pretty darned nice to be able to write a blog that contains my opinions. It's even better when I get to write a blog in response to players requests that I cover a forum thread.
And yet your blurb claims to present news and developer interviews. That's called reporting, making you a reporter, which is a synonym for journalist.
But since you don't want to be obligated to follow any sort of journalistic ethics, you hide behind the "I'm not a journalist, I'm a blogger" excuse.
You're a fine example of everything that is wrong with modern media.
No, that's always also been part of a commentator's job. Hell, it'd be impossible for them to do commentary without having some news upon which to comment.
Trying to redefine her job as something else so that you can take her to task for not meeting the standards of that OTHER job is rather unfair. It is literally her entire job to offer opinion, and you're complaining that she offers opinion.
Reporters report; commentators comment. It's what they do. It's *ALWAYS* been what they do. Attempting to redefine it now is at best self-serving.
I'm not redefining anything. It's right there on her page:
She claims to be reporting news, not providing commentary or analysis. End of story.
http://massively.joystiq.com/editor/terilynn-shull
...which shows her title is "-Columnist-", and that she is:
Having a purple name doesn't make him right.
Above post is darkelofficer's---
EDIT: This conversation is too far off topic to keep it going. But, as someone who used to work for Massively, I will say that the Columnists' job description is not to be journalistic but to opine. Those that post news on the site are the journalists. Some journalists may also write columns, so their columns will contain opinions. To me, Teri's signature, because she is a columnist, just indicates that her columns will include news, interviews and rumors. /thread -Brandon