Jeff's Termination Discussion Thread - Please Keep ALL Related Discussion Here

Have the mods given serious consideration to quitting over this? It's a horrible example of credibility and integrity lost (or in this case sacrificed on the altar of marketing) and I am suprised to think that anyone whose ability to make ends meat isn't affected by quiting would choose to stay?

Do you choose to remain a moderater on these boards because you believe in the company that you are serving? Or do you simply enjoy doing it enough that it outweighs what taking a stand would cost you personally?

This isn't meant as a flame though obviously its pointed. I'm just curious to hear why you would continue to moderate and in turn provide a free service to a company that has done what they have done to an employee of 10 years for the reasons that appear to have occured.

Good luck to all of those unfairly tainted by this throughout CNet's affiliates. This probably sucks more than it does for Jeff at this point since he at least has the benefit of being a martyr in this mess.

bpenticuff

Thanks Skylock and Flames for setting this thread up. The one at OT is just moving too fast to have any sort of meaningful discussion in it.

I can't speak for the rest of the moderation team, but quitting this place because of this is not outside the realm of possibility for me. And it's not just about the credibility loss, and the huge implications this stuff has (we might not even seen yet the full picture), but also because of what this will mean in the short term for the awesome community that I'm proud to be a part of.

I'm not here because of the news, or reviews or whatever. I still hang around here because of all these great posters, forum members, many of which I don't hesitate to call friends, and with which I've grown bonds in the two years i've been on board here. I took the badge as a way to give back a little of the many great things this community has given to me, but if this issue means that most of the core posters around this place will search for new horizons, I guess I'll have to consider what am I left with. I don't know. It's really confusing right now.

One other thing, after reading the article about this situation from the Valley site, it explains why some games have been so late to be reviewed here on GS.

I can't believe I read that. It said that if a game gets scored a 9 or above, they post the review quickly. But when it scores low, they are told to purposely post the review late until the game has been on the retail shelves for awhile.

Is that why games like Contra 4, FFXII Revenant Wings, Dementium, Castlevania Dracula X, etc. has been so late? By the way, Contra 4 and Revenant Wings haven't been reviewed yet!

[QUOTE="Lanezy"]

You Mods must be having a rough 24 hours. I know JustPlainLucas lost his cool in the off-topic board, but apologized afterwards.

Skylock00

All it does is give the moderators more work, when we have nothing to do with the situation, and in several cases feel just as upset as you guys about it.

We, as consumers, only have one way to make our voice heard: Boycott.

If I account suicide my paying TOTAL ACCESS membership, I not only deprive CNET of my direct payments, but also of their ad revenue generated by my hits. I am voting with my feet and giving up on these boards. But only after I feel like I've kicked up enough of a stink on these forums. I am pissed off at CNET and I hope they go out of business.

I know that would put the other editors out of jobs, but really, what is the point of their jobs at all if their reviews are being screened and censored? I am sure they would rather be doing something useful with thier talents than writing BS reviews.

Have the mods given serious consideration to quitting over this? It's a horrible example of credibility and integrity lost (or in this case sacrificed on the altar of marketing) and I am suprised to think that anyone whose ability to make ends meat isn't affected by quiting would choose to stay?

Do you choose to remain a moderater on these boards because you believe in the company that you are serving? Or do you simply enjoy doing it enough that it outweighs what taking a stand would cost you personally?

This isn't meant as a flame though obviously its pointed. I'm just curious to hear why you would continue to moderate and in turn provide a free service to a company that has done what they have done to an employee of 10 years for the reasons that appear to have occured.

Good luck to all of those unfairly tainted by this throughout CNet's affiliates. This probably sucks more than it does for Jeff at this point since he at least has the benefit of being a martyr in this mess.bpenticuff

I think it's fair to say that this has been a very emotional experience for all of us (and it's not over yet). At this point I'm just trying to keep a cool head, it's much too early to make any kind of firm decisions. We're not here to serve the corporate overlords, we're here because we love and have a lot of faith in this community, and also out of deep respect for all of the great guys and gals at GameSpot.

It is economics man.

We, as consumers, only have one way to make our voice heard: Boycott.

If I account suicide my paying TOTAL ACCESS membership, I not only deprive CNET of my direct payments, but also of their ad revenue generated by my hits. I am voting with my feet and giving up on these boards. But only after I feel like I've kicked up enough of a stink on these forums. I am pissed off at CNET and I hope they go out of business.

I know that would put the other editors out of jobs, but really, what is the point of their jobs at all if their reviews are being screened and censored? I am sure they would rather be doing something useful with thier talents than writing BS reviews.

Orwell_84

Account Suiciding doesn't have any direct affect on CNet or the marketing teams, but the moderators themselves, who are merely volunteers for the community.

If you don't want to support this site anymore, then cancel your account if you have one, and stop coming to the site. You don't have to account suicide to do that.

So in the long run, what do you guys think will happen to Gamespot? I've been coming here for a long time and really enjoy this community. I couldn't imagine having to go to another site for my gaming info.Travo_basic

Depends on why he left. If he was fired for unprofessional reviews, many might leave as well (If his review was too "unprofessional" it should have been edited when it was submitted to the other editors, or whoever)

[QUOTE="Travo_basic"]So in the long run, what do you guys think will happen to Gamespot? I've been coming here for a long time and really enjoy this community. I couldn't imagine having to go to another site for my gaming info.dvader654

I don't know, can the site ever be trusted. How do we know that the threat of being fired is not affecting review scores. The site will probably become more ad friendly, certain games may get more attention than others, I dont know. There is this giant cloud of distrust over the site now and probably because of legal matters it can't be cleared up. So I have no clue what to think. But if others start to go I go. I already noticed that today the GGD was a near ghost town.

Ghost Bat: Did you say, "ghost town"?

Do they accept bats?

I Share the general consensus that most of the posters hold... while I may not be a huge furum junkie, I regularly hit GS for my game reviews... I guess you could say I am one of the casuals the "suits" were targeting.

To censor an editorial, lets call it what it is, based on financial backing is unadulterated prostitution. GS has sold its soul and its ethics to the highest bidder and can no longer be held to any sort of standard set by the gaming community.

Your reviews and your ethics are for sale and to be honest, I applaud Jeff for his decision to review the game and say what he thought of it. HINT: it is why we come here... for unbiased reviews. I expect crap software to be called crap. dont sugar coat it.. dont be polite and PC about it... call it what it is.

I have no worries that Jeff wont find greener pastures.. he probably has offers before this ever hit the rumor mill... but all points aside. I personally will never believe another review of anything on gamespot again.

There is one thing in this world that can never be taken, once lost, can never be regained.

HONOR

Your reviews and your ethics are for sale and to be honest, I applaud Jeff for his decision to review the game and say what he thought of it.

Tex_Johnson

[QUOTE="Travo_basic"]So in the long run, what do you guys think will happen to Gamespot? I've been coming here for a long time and really enjoy this community. I couldn't imagine having to go to another site for my gaming info.dvader654

I don't know, can the site ever be trusted. How do we know that the threat of being fired is not affecting review scores. The site will probably become more ad friendly, certain games may get more attention than others, I dont know. There is this giant cloud of distrust over the site now and probably because of legal matters it can't be cleared up. So I have no clue what to think. But if others start to go I go. I already noticed that today the GGD was a near ghost town.

I don't know if the site can ever be trusted, but it certainly feels "different" now. If the community remains intact, I'll stay. Not only the community though, but if certain staff members leave then I doubt I would ever come back. It will definitely be hard to discuss games knowing what the fallout of this event has created.

Not sure if this has been posted already

http://kotaku.com/gaming/rumor/alleged-gamespot-employee-spills-guts-on-valleywag-328797.php

Emphasis on "Rumor", but an interesting read nonetheless.

I think it was referring to Assassin's Creed. Its speculation but all of neogaf seemed to believe there was an embargo on any review not a 9 or up for Assassin's Creed. Not sure if it was ever confirmed but it seemed sort of true. But GS didn't get their review up early and they gave it a 9 so who knows.

dvader654

[QUOTE="ASK_Story"]

One other thing, after reading the article about this situation from the Valley site, it explains why some games have been so late to be reviewed here on GS.

I can't believe I read that. It said that if a game gets scored a 9 or above, they post the review quickly. But when it scores low, they are told to purposely post the review late until the game has been on the retail shelves for awhile.

Is that why games like Contra 4, FFXII Revenant Wings, Dementium, Castlevania Dracula X, etc. has been so late? By the way, Contra 4 and Revenant Wings haven't been reviewed yet!

dvader654

I think it was referring to Assassin's Creed. Its speculation but all of neogaf seemed to believe there was an embargo on any review not a 9 or up for Assassin's Creed. Not sure if it was ever confirmed but it seemed sort of true. But GS didn't get their review up early and they gave it a 9 so who knows.

I'm sure you have it right more than I do. Probably refers to games with higher importance.

But still, those games getting reviewed late than other sites has been a problem for quite some time. When Kasavan was here, reviews have been on time.

Another one bites the dust. Seriously, ever since Kasavin left it's all been downhill. I'm optimistic for the future, though, and hope GOTY isn't tainted as well. We should remember the good times.dlind70

Yeah, I got a little too excited in yesterday night's chaos and went forum invading with like 600 other people...I dont really regret it except for making a mistake click on a topic full of dead people...That image will never leave my mind.

I'm sad about Jeff being gone/fired, he was so much fun to watch on On The Spot :(

Vote with your money - cancel your memberships.

i can decied to leave or not, i mean I don't trust Cnet or gamespot anymore, and the Editors that are still around are scared **** and Tim is also leaving,

I am confused

[QUOTE="KobukSohn"]

Not sure if this has been posted already

http://kotaku.com/gaming/rumor/alleged-gamespot-employee-spills-guts-on-valleywag-328797.php

Emphasis on "Rumor", but an interesting read nonetheless.

dvader654

This part is new:

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.

So is there a strike? Hmmm...

Wow. More than interesting read. I think this part says it all:

If they're sharing their concerns with the salespeople and not with us then that says a lot about their priorities.

so this means halo 2,3 gears of war and many gmaes made by huge money companies prolly paid to get there game a high score....dont blame only kane and lynch theres prolly all the other gmaes to ;_;fl4tlined

But what's to say that they were bought. There's no indication other than a break in the cycle for K&L in the first place. i've played all three of those games and they are really good.

That's pretty dirty. If I was a reviewer here, I wouldn't want to do it anymore. You may as well work in a dictatorship if you can't write the truth about the games you are reviewing. The reason why reviews are so important is because it affects us, the consumers, when we make game purchases. If they are being influenced by ads, then they are ABSOULTELY WORTHLESS. I want an honest opinion, not an opinion forced by money.

[QUOTE="Lanezy"]

You Mods must be having a rough 24 hours. I know JustPlainLucas lost his cool in the off-topic board, but apologized afterwards.

Skylock00

All it does is give the moderators more work, when we have nothing to do with the situation, and in several cases feel just as upset as you guys about it.

If the mods are just as upset... they should quit modding for this joke of a site. Plain AND Simple.

If the mods are just as upset... they should quit modding for this joke of a site. Plain AND Simple.

d3c1m8r

The day I stop being a moderator is the day I stop being involved with this community.

[QUOTE="fl4tlined"]so this means halo 2,3 gears of war and many gmaes made by huge money companies prolly paid to get there game a high score....dont blame only kane and lynch theres prolly all the other gmaes to ;_;FreyarHunter

But what's to say that they were bought. There's no indication other than a break in the cycle for K&L in the first place. i've played all three of those games and they are really good.

i wouldnt doupt it though think about it

i always knew that game companies buy coverage but to fire someone for telling the truth....needless to say the cabal is now watching ign. consider yourselves counted along side S.O.E.

suske

cabal minister of propaganda

One other thing, after reading the article about this situation from the Valley site, it explains why some games have been so late to be reviewed here on GS.

I can't believe I read that. It said that if a game gets scored a 9 or above, they post the review quickly. But when it scores low, they are told to purposely post the review late until the game has been on the retail shelves for awhile.

Is that why games like Contra 4, FFXII Revenant Wings, Dementium, Castlevania Dracula X, etc. has been so late? By the way, Contra 4 and Revenant Wings haven't been reviewed yet!

ASK_Story

Good theory. GS used to post their review pretty quick but everytime now, IGN is just beating them to it.

Wow, GS just hit an all-time low. Jeff was one of my favourite reviewers and he reviewed every game too whether it's good or bad unlike Kasavin who gets all the big-name games.

jeff getting fired doesn't make gamespot worse, actually it makes it better

but i lost hope on gamespot, the downloads are too slow and a download manager that runs without you asking to, biased reviews, always late ''news''

2 years ago gamespot was awesome, today i think its one of the worst gaming websites, only 1UP is worse

[QUOTE="Skylock00"][QUOTE="Lanezy"]

You Mods must be having a rough 24 hours. I know JustPlainLucas lost his cool in the off-topic board, but apologized afterwards.

d3c1m8r

All it does is give the moderators more work, when we have nothing to do with the situation, and in several cases feel just as upset as you guys about it.

If the mods are just as upset... they should quit modding for this joke of a site. Plain AND Simple.

[QUOTE="SteelAttack"][QUOTE="d3c1m8r"][QUOTE="Skylock00"][QUOTE="Lanezy"]

You Mods must be having a rough 24 hours. I know JustPlainLucas lost his cool in the off-topic board, but apologized afterwards.

SavingPvtBryn

All it does is give the moderators more work, when we have nothing to do with the situation, and in several cases feel just as upset as you guys about it.

If the mods are just as upset... they should quit modding for this joke of a site. Plain AND Simple.

Many of us are upset, but to stop moderating this place altogether would only mean harm to ourselves. I mean both moderation team and users. I'm still in here for the community, not because CNet or whatever. We're all in the same boat here.

We're not in the same boat. Don't you dare say that again. You're CNET's pawn.

We're not in the same boat. Don't you dare say that again. You're CNET's pawn.

SavingPvtBryn

Sorry, but your accusation is flat out false. We aren't paid employees of GS/CNet in any capacity. We're merely forum members who try to enforce the rules, and try to keep things civil on the boards.

For the purposes of this situation, we are in the same boat as you guys, period.