Aug 25th 2009 2:18PM @ Masterash.
There has to be an editorial line, I think Mike, Dan and Elizabeth would all argue this, editorial decisions that have to be made in this "blog" this isn't anything goes, or we'd have stories about "How to hack" "how to scam etc", I just feel this piece crossed the line. I love this site, I come to it often and I don't have a personal issue with anyone and think they do a great job in general, but i disagree with this decision.
It's ludicrous to argue my point of view is childish. I'm not espousing burying your head in the sand pretending like private servers don't exist, the context was wrong with this story in my opinion.
Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean they're an idiot. I understand the argument for running it, (though it's not been argued by the editors) and I respect it, I just disagree.
Aug 25th 2009 2:10PM @ Boom
Yeah I boo'd. It was probably a little over the line, but as I said. I disagree with their position it was from the heart.
Thank you for almost having a discussion, I'm not sure how my journalistic ideas are both those things (or either), but I do appreciate the mostly lack of personal attacks.
when you say 18th century do you mean in that I am trying to avoid talking about unpleasant things? or ..sorry I'm just not understanding that part.
I get the 9-year-old (which is also kinda a ad-hominem attack...just couched more elegantly..) but also I disagree.
You can disagree that piece should run, - I'd have no problem with it if done differntly myself, but I find it hard to consider my position both childish and old fashioned...
Aug 25th 2009 1:52PM @ boom ad hominem attacks are funny, but also means you surrender.
Where did I ridicule? I've kept my point of view respectful and ordered. You're the one name calling and insult hurling. I think it was the wrong feature, and the wrong way to feature private servers plain and simple. How they featured it was a tacit approval of them as members of the wow community.
It's not the same thing, the way it was couched. it was a glowing first person account of something illegal with no counterpoints. if 20-20 ran an interview with a illicit-drug proponent they would also interview people with an opposing view point. Not just a bio-piece on how great it is.
Aug 25th 2009 1:42PM The main problem is there was no voice from wow insider, it was 10 questions and let someone spout off on how cool they are doing something illegal. This wasn't a journalistic highpoint for WOW.com, in a piece designed to feature members of the community. yuck.
Aug 25th 2009 1:40PM That's fine, if you want to do an investigative or exploratory piece, the other's you mentioned were well done, the interview with "porkchop" was close to the line this crossed it.
it's in "15 minutes of fame" the description is ""I never thought of playing WoW like that!" - neither did we, until we talked with these players. From an award-winning fantasy author and an Oscar-winning 3-D effects director to a bunch of guys who get together for dinner and group raiding in person every week, catch it on 15 Minutes of Fame."
You shouldn't be thinking of playing wow like this.
Aug 25th 2009 1:29PM Hmmm where to start...
Kid? I'm almost 40, so, by most definitions I'm out of "kid" stage.
Troll? So trolling is now defined as disagreeing with an editorial decision? I would be to differ that interpretation. I was also fairly composed despite a very strong negative reaction to this story. I posted my thoughts on the decision. I *actually* believe what I posted so I'm thinking "troll" is on very thin ice.
WOW.com is a *legitimate* wow site, this is not a legitimate wow story.
If Blizzard cracks down and sues 100 private servers, that would meet the editoral standards of a legitimate site, getting point of view from an private server is not up to this criteria.
So are we going to get stories on "How to Hack WOW?" "Steal goldz with this scam?" what's the difference, if the above passes muster.
Aug 25th 2009 1:08PM I would think this would fall outside WOW.com's editorial purview, claiming "while we don't endorse it doesn't make it true if you then run a feature endorsing it. claiming a lack of something doesn't automatically make it true. With hundreds of news features and announcements out of Blizzcon, you come to this story two days later?
Aug 10th 2009 3:40PM They do if they want people to keep coming back. it's community policing while yes they may not have the editorial board of the NYtimes reviewing their sources or heck even an ombudsman, they want people reading their site. I don't know many people that would read the site if they made stuff up.
Aug 10th 2009 3:16PM Guys you need a fundamental lesson in journalism. They Do NOT need to give "details" on their sources, they do NOT expose their sources so despite everyone's "journalistic integrity crying fowl".
The point of having sources is to keep them secret. You as the discerning news consumer will hold them accountable, it's in their best interest to NOT make things up, because if they did, if they went with anonymous emails etc.... then when those things didn't occur, you would stop consuming their product. (except for FoxNews, they do those things and people eat it up in some strange cult-of-personality)
IF they're reporting it, they believe what their sources are telling them, and they trust their sources are positioned to know of what they speak.
Note they're reporting it, not speculating.
Aug 5th 2009 5:11PM Switzerland. CN is china if that's what you're thinking.