Fucking Kotaku

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

I think this sums it up from the INtroducing Kotaku Care article:

 

You won't see stories about the culture surrounding video games.

 

Why you guys are making a big deal out of that I don't know. Kotaku has always been about more than news. Anyways, they need to make a "Core2.0" that's everything except all of the articles about Japan's otaku culture. I want to hear about politics and video games alongside my game news. I just don't want cosplay galleries.

[TCP]

FDS, that's what I've been trying to say.

And I agree, personally, I'm not into the cosplay either. But I do understand it and see it's place. Kotaku is a business, and they need clicks, so posting that stuff is good, if it actually gets them more clicks. At the end of the day, all they're doing is offering us a free service, so we're not really entitled to anything other than a choice what or what not to visit.

[deanb]

So first what I was going to post:

To be fair to Totilo before writing for Kotaku he did used to work for MTV so you can see how he'd struggle with the concept of sticking to a sites focus.

 

But I do understand it and see it's place. Kotaku is a business, and they need clicks, so posting that stuff is good, if it actually gets them more clicks. At the end of the day, all they're doing is offering us a free service, so we're not really entitled to anything other than a choice what or what not to visit.

Funny you should say that. I'll point out "they're a business" is a terrible terrible excuse to bring up at any occasion. PXOD isn't a business (it'd open so many more doors if we were), but we too rely on clicks in order to offer a free service(a considerably free service), yet we're not spoiling games plots months in advance, posting about the death of Kim Jong Il, a dude dying near an arcade, factual errors about concords, and other parts of "gamer culture". If you're reaching the point where you're scarping the barrel in order to shit out articles then maybe either scale back how much you post (kotaku push out about 60 posts a day last I went) or pick other gaming topics. There's so much Kotaku miss in favour of posting about the latest person killed within ear shot of a Gamestop. If that's something you enjoy and want to read about then fill your boots. For most of us we jsut go to games sites for games stuff. We go elsewhere for other stuff (like proper science articles).

[Mr. GOH!]

My immediate thought was that Kotaku Core is for readers who don't want to hear about gender and race issues in video gaming, since those articles get lots and lots of hate in the comments. I'm a fan, personally, because the articles, while imperfect, engage very real issues in gaming and video game culture. I just thought folks who don't wanna read Ashcraft's night shift Orientalist tomfoolery could easily avoid it.

 

I think debating about what Kotaku claims to be or should be is uninteresting and pointless. It's obvious what kind of site it actually is after a few minutes of reading it, so what does it matter what it says it is? Would folks be satisfied if they added " and lots of other stuff!" to the site description? There are lots of other aspects of Kotaku that make me shake my head and mutter "Fucking Kotaku"; the types of articles hasn't really ever been one of them, though.

[DocSeuss]

Apparently, that led to this.

 

Yeah. Apparently, I trolled a Kotaku writer by accident.

No, that's a repost from elsewhere. I remember reading that before.

 

EDIT: Ah, I'd seen it on RPS's 'Sunday Papers'. Not to say you couldn't have inspired the repost but chances are it's been doing the rounds.

 

Huh. I missed that. It's quite possible that they posted it to counter what I'd said. Kirk Hamilton, after all, used to work there, iirc.

[Hot Heart]

Huh. I missed that. It's quite possible that they posted it to counter what I'd said. Kirk Hamilton, after all, used to work there, iirc.

Nope. He didn't. He's just a fan.

[Thorgi Duke of Frisbee]

So, Jesus Diaz just got himself banned from commenting... http://gizmodo.com/5879213/i-just-banned-jesus-diaz

[FredEffinChopin]

Holy hell... What a image-clusterfuck they're gotten themselves into over there. There is so much ego in the Gawker staff that it's making my laptop reek. I was just reading through some of the threads that got him banned (I'm still shaking my head at the idea of it), and one commenter in particular stood out to me. Here are a couple of excerpts from Andrew Tarantola (editor), in response to commenters who are pointing out what an dickhead Jesus was being:

 

"If we didn't have to deal with dozens of asshats like this guy weekly, yeah, we'd probably be a little more tolerant. Remember, your ability to comment on this site is a privilege, not a right. Much like your stars. "

 

"Just as soon as I don't have to sift through a half dozen emails every morning telling me how much of a shithead I am for making a single spelling mistake the night before. "

 

Poor baby. I'd love to spit in this guy's mouth and slap his stupid ingrate face. That isn't me trying to make an abstract point about hyperbolic language and expression or anything like that, I'm being literal. Does he really want sympathy for doing his job? No commenters forced him to become an editor for Gawker, that was his choice. I also suspect that it isn't charity work, and he is being payed.

 

Let me paint a picture. Imagine a local cop is walking down the street, and gets bumped into by a pedestrian. Then imagine that individual saying "Hey, watch your step", and the cop taking a nightstick to his face in response. Now imagine that cop trying to explain his behavior to a judge or superior, and justifying it by talking about how he handles the scum of the Earth all day, and that anyone might do the same in his situation. Can you even imagine someone with balls that big and a head that empty? Would that not be the moment that indisputably shows that this man is unfit for the profession he's taken on?

 

This guy seems to have zero grasp of the nature of his profession when applied to a website where the public are allowed to discuss and offer feedback on the stories. That type of interaction is going to take place. If the stress of reading words they don't like is too much for anyone there, they aren't people who belong writing for or editing that kind of site. This is what happens when you put your work out there for the world to see. People will criticize. Especially when you sensationalize/bait people like they do. You don't see writers for other sites calling their readers "corporate cocksuckers" when having a text dispute with a reader. That might fly (in my opinion) on a site that isn't so notorious for banning people for their conduct in the comments section, but certainly not on Gawker.

 

Also, am I the only one who feels like every time one of these people bans someone or types the reminder that commenting is a privilege, they are doing so with a full erection?

 

Whatever, self-righteousness and egomaniacal behavior isn't exactly news (no pun intended) coming from Gawker. It's amusing to see that they've gotten so tangled up in knots over their policing of comments that they've had to put a man-leash on one of their writers. Frustrating to know that not everyone over there gets it, still.

[Battra92]

They wouldnt need this "Core" version if they just got rid of Ashcraft. I wish they would.

 

And Tim Rogers and Lisa Foiles. Seriously, I'm sick and tired of their masturbatory articles. Of course I avoid them by just avoiding Kotaku. Plenty of places to get gaming news online.

[fuchikoma]

Let me paint a picture. Imagine a local cop is walking down the street, and gets bumped into by a pedestrian. Then imagine that individual saying "Hey, watch your step", and the cop taking a nightstick to his face in response. Now imagine that cop trying to explain his behavior to a judge or superior, and justifying it by talking about how he handles the scum of the Earth all day, and that anyone might do the same in his situation. Can you even imagine someone with balls that big and a head that empty? Would that not be the moment that indisputably shows that this man is unfit for the profession he's taken on?

 

Yes, but when I got banned from Kotaku, they didn't come to my house and kick my PC. I think a closer analogy would be if someone owned a community center or club that used to be VIPs only, then one of the guests says something to annoy the staff, so the owner bans them from the building. Others may avoid the place because they get a bad reputation for it - or maybe they like it, who knows.

It may be unjustified, but ultimately it's a symbolic gesture and they own the whole place so they make the rules. Dean could kick us right now for making a spelling mistake if he likes - or just for the hell of it. If Gawker wants to let their staff act like petulant children, that's their prerogative. I was irritated when I left the site, but that's my fault for getting attached to it. It's always been sort of a haphazard fiefdom over there.

 

I agree with your other points though. But this case is kind of ironic, because I've long hated Diaz's style - he's like a pro troll - but in this case, while he was inarticulate as ever, I agreed with his sentiment... Figures that would be the one that gets him booted.

Edited January 26, 2012 by fuchikoma

[Luftwaffles]

So, Jesus Diaz just got himself banned from commenting... http://gizmodo.com/5...nned-jesus-diaz

 

That article is so dumb. I mean, I personally think that's great that their commenting TOS is carrying over to their writers as well, as fair is fair, but writing an article like that accomplishes nothing and just serves as a blatant "look what I can do" dickwaggling.

 

Diaz is a dick, though, so whatever.

 

EDIT: Spelling.

Edited January 26, 2012 by Sporkwaffles

[FredEffinChopin]

Yes, but when I got banned from Kotaku, they didn't come to my house and kick my PC. I think a closer analogy would be if someone owned a community center or club that used to be VIPs only, then one of the guests says something to annoy the staff, so the owner bans them from the building. Others may avoid the place because they get a bad reputation for it - or maybe they like it, who knows.

It may be unjustified, but ultimately it's a symbolic gesture and they own the whole place so they make the rules. Dean could kick us right now for making a spelling mistake if he likes - or just for the hell of it. If Gawker wants to let their staff act like petulant children, that's their prerogative. I was irritated when I left the site, but that's my fault for getting attached to it. It's always been sort of a haphazard fiefdom over there.

 

Yeah, it probably wasn't the most apt analogy to convey the relationship between the participants. It was more to highlight the absurdity of someone willing to take a position, performing the complete opposite of the way he/she should, and then placing the blame of it on the fact that they can't handle the job they willingly took, all while looking around doe-eyed. Or someone else close to them in the organization saying it for them, in this case. Which I guess I didn't need an analogy to point out...

 

It's true, they totally run the place and can do what they see fit. My criticism comes when an they adopt a holier-than-thou stance when it comes to forum conduct, and then have the balls to defend the type of behavior they usually condemn when it comes from one of their own, asking people to try to be understanding. That too is their right if they feel like operating that way, but it seems only natural and right to me that they get a little of shit kicked in their direction for it.

 

The Jesus thing didn't get me irritated as much as it made me chuckle. The Andrew comments were the ones that burned me a bit. It seems a bit disingenuous to me to keep leaning so heavy on the "it's a privilege" line, as if the relationship between the reader and the site isn't mutually beneficial. Even the (as Andrew put it) "asshats" that have the nerve to accuse writers who print stories with images like this one next to the headline of being sensational. All those jerks who visit too, which I'm pretty sure they're aware of if their willingness to print provocative and sensationalist flamebait is any kind of gauge. While the Gawker site as a whole has taken a measure to convey that they don't condone that type of behavior from their staff, the immediate reaction to almost complete criticism from readers, at least one of their camp decided to say "Hey, you might be an asshole too if you had to deal with as many assholes as we do!" It seems like poor form to me, at best. The only reason I know Jesus Diaz's name is that he's a known troll, and (unless I'm confusing him with another writer from the Gawker network) I feel like I've seen links to him being a huge baby and a general jerk in the past. Evidently Gawker are comfortable with the negativity he draws to the site (as negativity tends to do), so I don't feel sympathy for the fact that he or anyone there has to read a lot of FUs in his mailbox. Their job, not ours. Our job is to sit through overbearing ads and crappy site design (honestly, a couple of things weren't working right in Chrome last night, all this time after the redesign), and our payment is the content that is on the site.

 

But yeah, it just made him come off as brazen and ungrateful to me. Instead of pulling the old "privilege" line out on another reader, he might want to consider that it's also a privilege to have your name plastered all over a site as big as Gawker with the word "editor" next to it. I'm sure plenty of out-of-work English majors would gladly take the burden on, annoying text and all. I don't think those guys are so quick to apologize to Jesus for making him flame them.

[fuchikoma]

I agree. I guess I got kind of thick skinned to it after hanging out at a few of their sites for a few years - it didn't strike me as the issue so I was just looking at how they banned Jesus and various commenters. Your earlier ending summed it up well though.

 

Whatever, self-righteousness and egomaniacal behavior isn't exactly news (no pun intended) coming from Gawker. It's amusing to see that they've gotten so tangled up in knots over their policing of comments that they've had to put a man-leash on one of their writers. Frustrating to know that not everyone over there gets it, still.

 

I look at the chaos that stirs up there from time to time and think "what a mess..."

[deanb]

I only hunted this down cos Kucherea tweeted that Kotaku had cropped their watermark.

Then I found out that the article itself was bringing the hard hitting gaming news Kotaku are known for:

http://kotaku.com/5886466/breaking-gabe-newell-grows-beard

 

I've a feeling they didn't even read the rest of the article they sourced, for which there's plenty of snippets to take away.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

http://kotaku.com/speakup/forum?comment=47179435

 

Funnily enough, my first thought "wait, what if the frame was just covering the watermark?" Which is exactly what happened.

[Luftwaffles]

This thread needs a revive.

 

http://kotaku.com/5888677/how-i-achieved-greatness-on-a-sonic-the-hedgehog+themed-bed

 

What a perfect excuse. I'd call this a new low.

 

Also, for those that don't want to give Kotaku any traffic.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

It's a mildly amusing story about a "nerd" getting laid. What's the big deal?

 

 

Oh right, you guys never get laid.

[Thursday Next]

From the comments: "I am new here on Kotaku, but does the poor judgement of quality articles have to do with Brian Crecente leaving? Taking wild guesses here".

 

Pretty sure that's not the case. Just taking a wild guess myself.

[deanb]

The way Totilo is reacting does seem to suggest this wasn't one of their nerd-bait type pieces. Though he's hilariously missing the mark again in why folks disapprove of the piece. He seems to think it's cos it implies gamers are all straight. Folks are complaining cos it's just a crappy article that has zero place on a gaming site. But then again Kotaku is, despite still retaining the "gamers guide" description, moving on beyond gaming now, with the gaming just being a sort of tumour on the side they have to deal with now n then.

 

hehehe.

 

Also Spork I don't think that's a cached link, just a re-direct.

[Thursday Next]

It wasn't even that it wasn't about games. It was just a guy who got laid, that's not just uninteresting to gamers, it's uninteresting to everyone except the guy and the girl involved, and even they might not have thought it was that great. I mean even the red-tops manage to stick to stories about famous people who got laid.

 

I'd also be a bit resentful at the implication that it is really difficult for people who play video games to get laid, and as such, when one of them does it's worth a story.

[deanb]

Oh not only did he get laid once...but you can read about his many more escapades in his sonic bed in his book.

[Thursday Next]

Fuck off there's a book! Really? (Must admit I only skimmed the article).

[deanb]

Trust me, she wasn't the only one to enjoy His Royal Kailness upon such luxuries. In fact, there were many others (which you can read about in my book Slacker's Paradise).

[Thursday Next]

Oh now that's just sad.

[Hot Heart]

Hehehe