While I think that you wrote a very thought provoking post, this forum is for site enhancements and feedback about the features on the site. DouglasBuffone

I didn't know where else to put this. I thought it would be alright since it does suggest a site enhancement, the "accountability tab".

I know you've blogged this, and spent a lot of time writing, but in the forums, nobody will really care, thousands of others have the same opinion and feel terrible for Jeff's departure.
But Gamespot, or any of it's users won't listen to one persons thoughts, or any for that matter.

I'm sure they have their own Ideas and thoughs on how to resolve this problem.

You've just wasted your own time as this topic is considered as 'spam' and will be locked soon enough.

Sorry!

sun_spirit

I'm just offering some suggestions. I didn't write anything especially nasty or fanboyish. Will it be locked? Maybe, but it hasn't been yet, (Which of course isn't to suggest it won't be.

One thing I feel you and countless others have overlooked regarding Jeff's termination is that he was a terrible reviewer. Wait a minute before you flame and hear me out. Jeff's reviews were extremely entertaining and funny largely due to his quirky sense of humor and unique ability to convey the most visceral subjective impressions with his over the top body language. I'll admit that I watched them and enjoyed them. This being said each and every one of them was chalk full of personal bias and objectivity went right out the window. I sincerely hope that Gamespot as an organization figured out that he was a loose cannon spewing out horrible but entertaining reviews without someone more objective and responsible like Greg K. keeping a leash on him.

I'm sure he's a nice guy and I stand 100%behind Gamespot refusing to disclose the details of his termination in the interest of allowing him to save face. Having the kind of professional integrity to make the call that Jeff had to go and then take a huge PR smear to let him do so gracefully is admirable and may speak well of what we may be able to expect from Gamespot in the future.

Uberbadassmufuh

I'm not commenting on the quality of his or anyone elses reviews. I'm just saying that it wouldn't hurt if they maybe explained how they come to certain conclusions. Why and how they rate the games they review. And if they made more standardized and recognizably consistent reviews.

As for your second paragraph, who knows, maybe you're right, though that does sound a little impractical.The problem is we don't really have much proof one way or the other.

I used to believe the sheep who blindly believed what they are told from the gaming sites and blogs, but upon personal investigation, I am unconvinced that Jeff Gertsmann left GameSpot due to his review on "Kane& Lynch." I am not convinced like the sheep on any alleged conspiracy theories regarding CNET and Eidos (there are so many holes and logical fallacies in these "theories"), and I think those who who perpetrate these falsehoods are ignorant and immature.

It is not that GameSpot that needs to do to restore its credibility (it has not committed any offenses contrary to the weak claims of the "sheep"), but the idiots that spread falsehoods and their undiscerning flock who need to restore their credibility. Instead of demanding GameSpot to apologize for something it is falsely accused of, the gaming sites, blogs, and their flock need to apologize to GameSpot, CNET, and Eidos for their malice and libel.

To those who defame GameSpot, CNET, and Eidos: Shame, shame, shame on you!

onesimos

That is simply uncalled for. Obviously there is a problem, and if there isn't they've created a situation in which with little to no evidence to the contrary, they've established in peoples interpretation of events the appearance ofa problem. You can't blame people for suspecting something fishy when someone is fired abruptly, the circumstances behind the firing kept secret, an advertisers advertising removed, a video pulled, and everything else that has surrounded this incident. Furthermore it is "ignorant and immature" to call someone or a group of people "sheep" for disagreeing with you. Whether you like it or not, to the public, the burden of proof is on Gamespot. Whether real or perceived their credibility has been damaged, and they need to take noticeable public steps to restore public confidence in their site. Steps greater then a single, somewhat conciliatory podcast, or one or two news posts.

What I wrote is fairly supportive of Gamespot. The facts aren't really out. Maybe in-spite of the tone and unnecessarily rude language of what you said, your point is valid, (though people are free to say what they like about anything, even if its negative) the problem is without evidence of what happened one way or the other with public, transparent practises in their reviews and or financial affairs there is no safeguard against having something similar happen again, whatever may or may not have happened this time.

The staff of Gamespot does seem to be made up of yes, fairly nice people, that doesn't mean they (or their higher-ups)are incapable of impropriety. Their friendly demeanor doesn't excuse them from the realities of public accountability.

Video games are expensive, we need to have trust in the organizations that review them, and if a trust is broken through real or imagined behavior, the organization needs to take public and verifiable steps to restore that trust.

The Gerstmann affair, or what Gamespot needs to do to restore its credibility. An open letter to Gamespot, Cnet, Eidos and the gaming public.

As everyone is now aware Gamespot is in the middle of a seemingly self induced crisis. It's become apparent that the website fired its long-time editorial director Jeff Gerstmann for giving the newly released game "Kane & Lynch: Dead Men" a score of 6.0 to the dismay of its publisher, Eidos, a company that also pays for its games to be advertised on the site. That after being given what the publishing company considered an unacceptably low review score it pressured Gamespot into firing Mr. Gerstmann. It also then proceeded to withdraw future advertising revenue.

Gamespots credibility has been further eroded by its inability to properly explain why it came to the decision to fire Mr. Gerstmann and why it has pulled the video of the review from its site. Also Eidos's credibility has been tarnished by the publishing on the game's official website of misleading and erroneous reviews and scores from other video game publications, that inflate the scores actually given by those organizations. All of these events together in the minds of gamers lead to the belief of a conspiracy by Eidos to exaggerate the reviews of a seemingly lackluster game (the apparent low quality of the content being known beforehand by Eidos) in a concerted advertising push to make the public believe the game was significantly more desirable then appears to otherwise be the case. And that in their zeal they used their leverage as a major advertiser at Gamespot to press for a good review and when they didn't receive it, exerted their influence in getting Mr. Gerstmann fired, with perhaps Gamespot having a pre-existing desire (legitimate or not) to fire Mr. Gerstmann with this situation providing an excuse.

Whether or not the events surrounding Mr. Gerstmanns firing in truth played out as they've been described is at the moment, beside the point. The public, and anecdotal evidence suggests a large percentage of Gamespots paid subscribers, perceive and assume these events to be true and accurate. And without evidence to the contrary, one can hardly blame them.

Unfortunately the burden of proof is now on Gamespot to disprove the rumors of its motivations in the recent series of events. If there is a reasonable and legitimate reason for firing Mr. Gerstmann we the public need to hear it. And be shown proof of its validity.

But as seems likely the events and the sinister motivations behind Gamespots actions are what we have already concluded them to be, then the burden of responsibility is again on Gamespot. Responsibility to acknowledge them and acknowledge that they were wrong in an attempt to resolve the situation.

First off, after admitting wrongdoing, Gamespot needs to offer to restore Mr. Gerstmann to his former position with no loss of pay, benefits or status.

Then as a bulwark against future scandals Gamespot should feel obliged to create an "accountability tab" to sit alongside its forums, videos, cheat codes, features, downloads, sports and news tabs. The contents of this new tab explaining the entire game reviewing process. Starting with when a game was first received for review, what version of the game was received (whether or not it is the full public version) whether or not the game was provided free for review, the number of and names of the individuals tasked with reviewing the game, information on the time spent reviewing it, and if, when and where possible the reviewers notes on the game.

Efforts to make the reviews more standardized and predictable should be taken. The act of reviewing games should be published as the process by which all games start at a ten until its errors and faults when encountered earn a game a lower score. Explanations of what problems are encountered and how and why they've cost a game a ten must be presented.

Verifiable and predictable patterns should emerge as more objective standards are applied more thoroughly. If a jagged or jerky graphical presentation lowers a games score by five points, then other games with similar problems must be similarly devalued. If an uninspired artistic style reduces a games score by twenty points, then other games with similarly reviewed deficiencies must be similarly devalued. Along with in both cases an explanation of the criteria and reasoning behind labeling something as "uninspired".

All of these suggestions are based around concepts of transparency and accountability. These ideas must also be applied to Gamespot and Cnets finances as well.

In the accountability tab all sources of revenue must be disclosed, with links or information provided regarding Gamespot and Cnets tax filings. All gifts, objects or promotional items given to Gamespot must also be documented. Gamespot should also press upon its advertisers the need to agree to and sign some sort of publicly available and verifiable non interference contract, again to be posted in the accountability tab, that declares an advertisers agreement to exert, at most, a minimal influence on editorial content. Any reviews of products created by an organization that advertises on Gamespot should have links to its products posted directly underneath a quote of revenue obtained by Gamespot, from the advertiser. To help in verifying that no preference for an advertisers products has been shown. Finally as a precaution all advertising links with Eidos should be severed.

This has been my interpretation of the recent events surrounding Gamespot and its firing of its editorial director Jeff Gerstmann, and the steps needing to be taken by Gamespot to restore its credibility.

I like Gamespot, trusted it's reviews and enjoyed the large, active community of gamers that gathered at the site. I would like to see it restored to its former position, and not have to wonder where I'm going to find all the people who may or may not have already scattered based on Gamespots recent actions.

Thank you.

Damn, all out of Oblivion factions. I have no idea what or who any of the remainders are. Therefore I refuse to participate. :P

Morag Tong - 30
Clan Aundae - 24
Clan Quarra - 26
East Empire Company - 3
House Redoran - 87
Imperial Cult - 22
Tribunal Temple - 15

Mages Guild - 9
Dark Brotherhood - 9
Morag Tong - 28
Clan Aundae - 24
Clan Quarra - 28
East Empire Company - 13
House Redoran - 69
Imperial Cult - 24
Tribunal Temple - 20

Hurt: Dark Brotherhood

Heal: Mages Guild

hmm, anyone here play pc games online?lettuceman44

Last month I was playing the bejeesus out of the CS zombie mod. I'm not really playing anything online at the moment though.

I'm mostly making a mod and playing Galactic Civilizations 2. Which I would never play on-line against anyone as I'm sure to get my a$$ handed to me. Extorting alien bastards.