Blog Banter Bias
This post is not a blog banter. This post is about blog banters and the community issues surrounding them.
Banter Background
Anyone can get on CK‘s list (just ask him), and about once a month he’ll send out a prompt for everyone interested to write on the same topic. Lots of blogging communities engage in this sort of activity, though under different names. For those who participate in the EVE Twitter community (aka “Tweet Fleet”), the occasional QotD serves a similar purpose.
I don’t participate in every blog banter. Sometimes the topic doesn’t interest me, sometimes they come along during a slight ebb in my blogging, sometimes I don’t know what I think, and sometimes I keep my reasons to myself. Similarly, I don’t write a post on every single meme that comes up, nor on every single commonly-discussed topic.
When I blog, I do it because I like it. It helps me find focus and structure around my own gameplay, and it lets me feel like I participate in the larger game even when I can’t log in directly.
July 2010 Blog Banter
NB: I don’t have any animosity towards CK or AnMiTh, the owner and operator of EVEPress. As silly as getting angry about Internet spaceship pixels would be, getting angry about Internet spaceship pixel blogs would be even sillier. I don’t engage in name-calling and personal attacks; I say what I think and I move on. I can’t think of a single EVE blogger or Twitterean for whom I wouldn’t happily buy a beer (or other preferred beverage) were I to visit their city. We can disagree without being disagreeable.
That said, I do have a significant problem with the prompt this month. It reads as follows:
Welcome to the nineteenth installment of the EVE Blog Banter, the monthly EVE Online blogging extravaganza created by CrazyKinux. The EVE Blog Banter involves an enthusiastic group of gaming bloggers, a common topic within the realm of EVE Online, and a week to post articles pertaining to the said topic. The resulting articles can either be short or quite extensive, either funny or dead serious, but are always a great fun to read! Any questions about the EVE Blog Banter should be directed to crazykinux@gmail.com. Check out other EVE Blog Banter articles at the bottom of this post!
This months topic comes to us from @evepress, and he asks: The CSM: CCP’s Meta Game? – The CSM, an eve players voice to CCP.Right? In the grand scheme of things yes, the players bring up issues and the CSM presents them to CCP. But in its current iteration the CSM was supposed to be given small authority to assign CCP assets toprojects that the CSM thought needed work on. As it has not come outthis was not the case. So fellow bloggers, is the CSM worth it, has the CSM improved the game in any way, or is it just a well thought out scamby CCP to give us players a false sense of input in the game? What’s your take?
AnMiTh and CK should have done a better job copyediting. Yes, I’m more than a little anal about this. I actively participate as a member of the Wikipedia Guild of Copy Editors, so I freely admit that perhaps I take this area more seriously than most people. I might even take it more seriously than I should, as friends of mine would probably agree… I often silently correct minor typographical errors or other spelling, punctuation, and grammatical mistakes in the material I quote or use. Unquestionably, despite my best efforts, sometimes I make them myself.
But that isn’t my primary issue here.
Bias
I fundamentally disagree with the factual assertions in the prompt as written. CCP never committed to allowing the CSM to assign internal resources on any level. They made them stakeholders, and not just in a high-level sense. After all, every single EVE Online player has a stake in the game, and without our support, CCP wouldn’t exist. But CCP went a step further:
If you are a stakeholder it means that your position has a representative interest in the issue/feature and that your input carries weight when it comes to refining it and following its development, while not necessarily being part of the development team who is designing and coding the feature. I am sure development has a much stricter definition of it but this is my basic understanding.
CCP has done this for some time and does so more explicitly now. I’ve already said what I have to say about the recent issues surrounding the CSM Summit and CCP, but I want to emphasize here that the banter prompt has a fundamental flaw. In my view, it’s a fatal one: misrepresenting the facts to push a point of view.
In the real world, we call this “bias”. That’s not being “thought-provoking”, as AnMiTh claims. When I mentioned my problems with this Banter on Twitter, he had the following to say:
#: You see bias… I see thought provoking. Though I don’t see what is inaccurate about what was said in the prompt.
#: The question is meant to stir the pot, bring out strong feelings for both sides.
#: take the opportunity to set the record straight. Not answering seems rather like a cop out. tbh
#: ive read in numerous places that the part of the csm being a stakeholder was to help allocate resources.
#: I don’t see the resemblance, in my opinion its the question that matters, not how it was written or posed.
I want to say this as clearly as I can, so let me be very blunt here:
I do not agree with deliberately wording a question to lean in a particular direction. I find it intellectually dishonest and irresponsible, particularly in a public context. Claiming that you have done so to foster discussion only reveals your goal of getting other individuals to agree. Push your perspective, but don’t expect me to buy into it.
CrazyKinux
I myself don’t follow CK’s Twitter account from @Casiella, primarily because such a large portion of his tweets have nothing to do with EVE. (I do follow him from one of my more general Twitter accounts.) But he can twitter about whatever he wants, and he can blog about whatever he wants, just like you and I can. He should do what’s fun for him.
CK has long taken criticism for his methods, and on this I do agree to an extent with his critics. The writing tends to be a little self-congratulatory. He has a low frequency of posting about EVE Online, to the point that I really think of it as a “geek blog” (of which I subscribe to quite a few). He may promote EVE and EVE blogging, but he primarily promotes himself. That sort of thing leads to my friend Ga’len calling him out. (Ga’len, I agree with much of what you write, but I respectfully suggest that doing so in such an insulting manner does nothing useful for your message.)
CK applies his professional interests and skills to his blogging, and he’s never hidden the fact that he’s primarily a marketer. In my RL, I work in information security, managing incident response at a financial services firm (though, in case somebody from Legal reads this, I should quickly note my company has nothing to do with any of my stances on anything related to gaming). I hold a private investigation license. So, rightfully so, Rettic and others frequently note my paranoia and skepticism. We bring our identities and interests to EVE, which keeps things interesting. I’d like CK to ease off on what many of us perceive as manipulative methods, really. Probably some folks would like me to ease off on being a jackass from time to time. Unfortunately, this post comes about as close as I probably will to easing off.
When you get right down to it, I don’t think that CK or AnMiTh presented this Banter fairly, or even close to it. I hope that we’ll not see the sort of pandering to hot emotions in the service of page views again.
Related posts:
Date: 2010-07-21
Categories: OOC
Comments RSS TrackBack View Comments
rantuket
I agree with it being a horrible banter topic, why is the ccp-csm meta game getting so much attention anyway? All I see it as is a few players being able to bring key issues to the attention of the developer. They get a free trip out of it and everyone gets a bit of nice PR, it is not like the CSM are paid GM's.
Seems like CK might be having similar thoughts too.
Banear
I totally agree with your criticism of the copyediting. The question itself was a bit of a mess, I tried to clean it up slightly for my own Banter and I focused on the sub-question 'Is the CSM worth it'.
As for the allegation of bias, I'll admit that it does exist. Ga'len seemed to think that the question was formulated to create good publicity for CCP and the CSM. I really don't understand how he can possibly say that since the question itself is framed in an overly negative way towards CCP and the CSM. For example it asserts that CCP and the CSM has already failed in some way:
'As it has not come outthis was not the case.'
It then goes on to introduce the idea that the CSM might be some kind of clever panacea for raging players.
'or is it just a well thought out scamby CCP to give us players a false sense of input in the game?'
So my own view is that the bias in this question is swaying against CCP and the CSM rather than for it. I don't really know where you stand on this issue of bias because you didn't really elaborate on what direction the bias was leaning. I agree with you that it exists, but it didn't change the way I wrote my own Banter and I suspect that if the Banter is a giant ploy for good publicity then somebody, somewhere, is going to be disappointed.
Ga'len also mentioned adverts and I can perhaps understand somebody's discomfort if traffic is being generated merely for advert revenue. I couldn't possibly say whether this is the case or not. I'm not a huge fan of adverts myself, but I'm happy to just put up with them. If somebody has the time and patience to put together a site like CK's, but without adverts, that would be great. A little bit of competition would keep us all on our toes.
Since this has turned into a mini-post, I'c better leave it there. I have to say that I'm really not convinced of the subtle deviousness of this Banter. I just see a relevant topic, a badly worded question and what is likely to become a large amount of negative publicity for CCP. If I'm being naive and missing something, please explain further.
Manasi
The question was poorly worded, so what. The intent was to express an opinion on a topic that does indeed have some relevance with EVE. I think the CSM were “sold a bill of goods”, and if being locked away in a conference room for 9-10 hours in iceland is the reward, thanks but I will pass on that.
CCP could not communicate effectively unless their lives depended on it. They just are pathetic at it. Does that mean any other companies are better? Hardly, I think they try the best, but it still stinks. This whole thing comes down to what the players expected versus what CCP expected. When given ideas they basically said, Thanks much we will add them to the list, and do not expect anything ( from any CSM) in the next 18 months.
Perfectly within their rights to do so, but to give anyone ( the player base, or the CSM ) the idea that they might actually think about implementing their ideas is mis-communication at it's finest if not outright obfuscation. The implication that they might have a bigger say in the process, was false, which they knowingly used to their advantage.
Had I gone to Iceland and sat in 30-40 hours of meetings only to be told ..”yea yea we will add it to the list and do not expect shit for 18 months,” I'd have realized that CCP hears, but does not listen.
Max Torps
In all fairness I think I'm with you on this Banear. It is a topical banter and if you just take from the subject of the banter rather than the improperly worded question you can blog your own take…in fact it does ask for your own take.
Mandrill
I understand better where you're coming from now, thank you for clarifying. I would say that from the rest of the banters that I've read that alot of the participants saw the same flaw as you did and a few have even corrected the misinterpretation of what a stakeholder actually is.
Ga'len
For clarification, I did not have an issue with the banter topic, I just have an issue with CK and his apparent third party business relationship with CCP. I will admit that I was very harsh in my post and if I upset anyone, I am sorry.
One of my issues with the self-congratulatory attitude that CK projects, as you noted in your post. It's like being stuck behind someone on a single lane road who is driving twenty kilometers slower that the speed limit for over a hundred miles. You can only take so much before you snap.
I admit, I snapped and I was needlessly mean and I will not justify my actions as I must agree they were a bit out of line.
Yes I made some allegations concerning CK's blog and in that there does seems to be a double standard for compliance for a listed fan website with CCP. My question on that relationship still stands as it has an appearance of a ethical conflict. Why do all the fan sites that are listed on the EVE website have to remove ads that are not promoting EVE whereas CK's ads have remained? I asked this question over a year ago of CCP and of CK and have yet to receive a response.
Casiella Truza
Thanks for your post. I intentionally stayed away from discussion of which way the bias leaned, primarily because I wanted to focus on the larger issue about the question rather than get down into the weeds of the actual CSM/CCP problems right now.
And mini-posts are always welcome!!
Casiella Truza
CCP and David Perry do appear to have some sort of undisclosed business relationship, I believe. If they do, I believe it's highly unethical not to disclose it.
And thanks for your post, Ga'len. I know passions run high around this sort of thing.
Casiella Truza
Tired of the CSM debate, too. Let's get back to talking about EVE!
Mandrill
I think you misunderstood, I see the CSM as an important (if currently flawed) part of EVE and its development, and is something we should be talking about, along with everything else about EVE.
When the focus of discussion turns away from that to the community itself (and/or specific members of that community) then we've lost something, and should try and find it again before the community fragments and breaks apart.
It doesn't matter if one person is all “Me! Me! Look at me!” what is important is the community as a whole rather than the behaviour (good or bad) of any single member.
Eric Schoneveld
A lot of blogger had already posted on the subject. So mine and i noticed a few others are pretty short and to the point. I interpreted the rather messy question / subject as 'is the csm worth it'. Think I am done posting on the subject for now
.
Ga'len
Passion in EVE? Say it ain't so!
Do remember that the FTC law here in the USA does not apply to a blogger in, say, Canada. It only applies to a blogger who is a US Citizen regardless of where they were when they wrote the blog post.
Now, say a company that has a US business license, as CCP does for their Atlanta, GA office, goes and uses a blogger outside the USA to avoid having to comply with the disclosure act. I don't know if that violates the law. Anyone a legal eagle here who could answer that question?
Anthony Thurston
Well… My topic worked. It has stirred the pot, though not in the intended way. I will agree that my question was written leaning towards a growing consensus(at least when one reads the forums) that the playerbase had been duped by ccp. The question was meant to bring out strong opinions for or against. Regardless, I still feel the spirit of the question was worthy of the banter, maybe the wording just didn't come up to the same level.
Also, in regards to my twitter posts Cas. I got rather defensive and I apologize.
Casiella Truza
Whether or not astroturfing is illegal in a jurisdiction, I still consider it unethical to fake a grassroots movement. And if we're wrong and there's no business relationship there, then so much the better.
Casiella Truza
Your topic “worked” just like Fox News fosters civic debate. I'd rather not see this sort of approach in the future, just like I'd rather not pour gasoline on the fire where kids are roasting marshmallows.
And thank you regarding your twitter posts. Like I said, it's all about Internet spaceship pixel blogs.
Anthony Thurston
agreed. May I consult you though on my Eveathon topics from time to time. Id like it to be a regular event, but that requires good topics. Something I think that you could help with.
Ga'len
Stirring the pot? Hmm…I smell a in game medal for you. The Star of Stirring Up Shit.
Anthony Thurston
HA! nice one
guest
Agree that this is a stupidly-worded prompt. I think rather than focus on the literal question, you should have just realized it was trying to say “talk about the CSM controversy and the latest devblog.” I think this guy did a great job: http://amerrylifeandashortone.blogspot.com/2010...
I kind of see what you're getting at with bias, and if you felt compelled to narrowly answer the prompt and be done with it (does CCP contractually owe dev time to CSM ideas? derp derp CCP said they'll listen but that's it. next post subject: tell everyone how psyched you are for this jove region mission bullshit that's coming out in december!) But, as I said, no need to be literal and narrow in your response to the prompt — it's not a law school exam.
Which brings me to, I'm not a lawyer, but I just graduated law school, and have no idea what the hell you're talking about with regard to the FTC and blogging disclosure. There are no such laws. The First Amendment provides pretty strong protection to people posting nearly anything they like on internet blogs, no matter who pays them.
Rixx Javiv
All good points and well discussed. I tend to stay away from “politics” as much as possible, but this one needed to be talked about. It feels a bit like beating a dead horse at this point and I grow weary of it. I had my two cents worth and got it out of my system and that'll be the end of it for me.
The CSM is a potentially worthy body that can potentially represent the player base to a potentially disinterested corporation. It's all potential.
Ga'len
You should google for FTC Disclosure Policy. Head over to http://disclosurepolicy.org for some more information. It is a law that went into effect on 1 December 2009. It regulates the disclosure of compensated blog posts, such as reviews or source materials for PR based contests.
The best TL;DR article on this can be found at http://www.businessinsider.com/ftc-goes-after-b.... Violations can result in a fine of $11,000 per infraction. The purpose of this law was to stop the tide of corporations having favorable reviews while compensating the blogger, either in cash or free products.
Congratulations on completing law school and remember one of the many things they taught you. New laws are passed all the time. The hard part is keeping informed.
Casiella Truza
Keep in mind that that only applies to bloggers and companies in the US. CK (David) is in Canada…
Casiella Truza
If you just graduated law school, then you should have learned about making categorical statements when you may not have all the facts. It's not a “law”, per se, but it is a federal regulation that would lead to the FTC filing a civil lawsuit for violation of the FTC Act. See http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm for more.
The First Amendment does not mean that commercial speech can have no restrictions, and you should know that quite well.
Ga'len
Yes, that is very correct. It's a law that ONLY affects US Citizens. This is the basis of my unanswered question I sent to CK over a year ago. Did CCP contact him and ask him to run the contests he was running or was it CK who reached out to CCP.
The implications of that answer means a lot, at least to me. If he was the one doing the asking, then there would really not be anything unethical going on. He offered a PR blitz and CCP provided prizes.
If the other scenario is what happened, then it's an issue of a company, with a business license in the USA (the Atlanta, GA office) using a non-US Citizen blogger to promote their products with compensated blog posts (compensation in both prizes that he would have to purchased as well as ad revenue from increased traffic) without disclosure. I may have this wrong and someone please correct me, but i don't think there has been a US Citizen blogger for EVE running a contest with prizes provided by CCP.
guest
Yes, it's commercial speech, which is also protected by the 1st Amendment. Regulation of commercial speech is only permitted to prevent misleading or fraudulent speech, or if the regulation is narrowly tailored to directly advance a substantial government interest. See, e.g. SUNY Board of Trustees v. Fox, 492 US 469 (1989).
It's not a law, it's not a regulation. It's a guideline for interpreting a regulation, albeit one subject to Chevron deference. This guideline has never been tested in court. The one test case to date appears to have resulted in no fine (http://mashable.com/2010/04/30/ann-taylor-ftc-i...).
One thing you learn in law school is that “the law” is not simply the written code of conduct as embodied in case law, regulations, and statute. Rather, it is a prediction of how legal actors will behave in a given situation. It strains credulity to imagine that the FTC would care about an arguable interpretation of a prompt for a blog discussion. Reliance is a key element in misrepresentation actions — are people subscribing to EVE based on this omission? (Duh, they can get a free two week trial). Even assuming the FTC wants to be chasing internet spaceships in an election year amid economic collapse, they have never prosecuted a case under this interpretation, and this obviously would be a terrible test case since there is no induced reliance or damages.
And thanks, Ga'len. That will be 6 billion isk, please =)
Ga'len
Two things.
First, thank you for taking the time to continue our discussion, it would Be nice to know whose decent mind we are engaging.
Second, if I understand your point, you are saying that this “federal regulation” has no credence on our question on the basis that there are no perceived damages nor gains received by the parties in question.
So, a company may compensate a blogger to alter the perception of a product without that reader knowing that the information they are reading is not an objective and unbiased opinion.
Tell me, if a law or federal regulation exists and no one is prosecuted for said law, regulation and/or statute, does making that violation any less illegal?
One thing you are not considering and perhaps you should, thinking that in the grand scheme of things that this infraction is not doing a large enough amount of damage, ethically speaking, can not justify an infraction of a law, regulation and/or statute.
If one person is separated from the amount of money of one month's subscription or looses a month's worth of their time due to misrepresentation of a product, that person would argue that they suffered damages. To the normal person, damages received from product misrepresentation is not measured in the millions or billions, but rather in much smaller numbers.
Of course, the worst damage from such infractions is really unmeasurable. How to you quantify the compromising of public opinion or more importantly, personal integrity?
Keldar's Quips
[...] tussle over the blog banter topic in previous days, I was interested in what her take was. In Casiella’s post titled “Blog Banter Bias” she details her opinions about how the topic was biased and [...]
Anthony Thurston
I am in the US Galen, I have run a few contests backed by CCP in the past.
Ga'len
Well, in my defense, I didn't know you were in the US, thank you for that clarification.
If I remember correctly, and please do correct me if I have this wrong, you were running a contest where the people who signed up for the service you were offering would become eligible for prizes offered by CCP. This was a contest to promote your services to the gaming community. The compensation you received was the free prizes from CCP and the leveraging of being able to directly access CCP's customers with an endorsement from CCP. I do believe that was also fully disclosed at the time by the organization endorsing your services, again the afore mentioned CCP..
That contest really is the opposite of what we are talking about here, isn't it? It was CCP promoting your service offerings, not you promoting theirs.
wr3cks
Happy to engage. My name (ingame) is wr3cks; I just don't care to register solely for the sake of posting comments.
If the statement does not induce reliance and does not create damages, there is no case for misrepresentation. Those are two of the prima facie elements (necessary ingredients that define a cause of action).
You quantify the compromise of personal integrity or public opinion in much the same way that you place a price tag on lying to your mother, or cheating at cards with your friend. Zero dollars. Courts are not arbiters of morality, they're just a mechanism for dispute resolution, and not a terribly efficient one, at that.
Your question about the meaning of the word illegal is a philosophical one. Insofar as I subscribe to legal realism, I'd say, no, but tbqh I'm not dying to engage in a philosophical debate about the meaning of law in this forum. Particularly because this interpretive guideline has never been tested in court, it may not even be valid law. Regulatory guidelines like this are subject to challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act, which prohibits arbitrary and capricious decisions. The article that you linked, entitled “FTC Issues Ludicrous Blogger Disclosure Policy” pretty much sums up the argument, and policies that implicate free speech are subject to heightened scrutiny.
This untested interpretive guideline is suspect law. That's why the FTC “settled” with Ann Taylor without even pressing any charges (and Ann Taylor doesn't want to hire a pack of lawyers, for their part, if they can get away with a “sorry, we won't do that again”). If the FTC is going to pick a test case to litigate, it's going to be something a hell of a lot more clear cut and egregious than an arguably biased discussion prompt about a videogame that's free to try for 2-3 weeks.
Anthony Thurston
One of the contests was like to said yeah. But Ive run others, one for Titan Weekly, and another just on one of my blogs, which had CCP sponsored prizes. I understand your point, CK surely has had more Sponsored CCP prizes than anyone, but that in itself isnt an indicator of anything.
Ga'len
wr3cks, a pleasure to meet you.
I agree with you that it's a, what's the word, stupid law. Would you agree, even though the law itself is ridiculous, that the spirit of what it's trying to do is a good thing?
So there is no confusion, the spirit of this thing is to ensure that when someone reads an endorsement blog post, they are well aware that is an endorsement due to active disclosure of that relationship, i.e., “This review of XYZ Airlines service was made possible by a free flight offered by said airline.”
Ga'len
It was such a simple question I asked him over a year ago. Did CCP come to you to run these contests? If not, then it really speaks volumes of his dedication to our community.
If CCP did come to him, he should be saying so. Not for any legal reason but simply to be straightforward and honest with the community. He sees himself as “the blogfather”, a leader in our community. Should we not expect our 'leaders' to be honest with us?
Darker turn » Ecliptic Rift
[...] Blog Banter Bias [...]