Matticus

This post is a fairly serious one and it talks about my personal viewpoint when it comes to exclusive info and things like “scoops”. I hope it’ll offer some insight from this blogger’s perspective on why certain things have to be done the way they are and why secrecy is important (along with some arguments for it).

It’s a topic that has irritated me extremely to no end.

As a student, I’ve always been taught to cite my sources when it comes to papers or projects. I know that Syd would otherwise agree otherwise I’d be screwed over for plagiarism reasons. But this isn’t the same type of sources we’re talking about.

No, I’m referring to informational sources. People with inside and exclusive information about things that not everyone (such as the public) can know at the moment.

Before I continue, I need to make a disclosure and a disclaimer.

Disclosure: In case you didn’t already know, I’m a regular columnist for wow.com. I contribute their Raid Rx and Spiritual Guidance columns.

Disclaimer: My perspective does not represent any part of the wow.com staff, it’s affiliates, owners, or anyone related to the organizations therein. They’re just my own.

Wow.com has recently run a few questionable stories. A lot of players were skeptical about some of the stuff they had been reading and some even go as far as to harassing a few writers about where they hear this information from.

Now skepticism is good. Don’t get me wrong. I encourage everyone to really think about what they’re reading, where it’s from, and it’s reliability. Last thing that I’d want to happen is to see anyone falling for anything and being humiliated over their gullibility. What really annoys me is being asked to list who gave out the information that we know.

Honestly, do you really think naming a source is going to change your thoughts or feelings on that? Whether you believe it or not is entirely up to you and I don’t know how saying that Joe Smith from marketing told me is going to make that any more believable.

Even if I stated something as outrageous as Pandaren and Murlocs being playable and reported that it was none other than Ghostcrawler himself that e-mailed me that? It wouldn’t fly anyway.

So if you think that the favourite news site you go to for information (I don’t care if it’s wow.com, wowraid.com, MMO Champion, World of Raids or what have you) is lying to you, please consider the following before making a request to name where the juicy gossip comes from.

Reputation is on the line. You know, contrary to popular belief, no site wants to be known as full of lying crap. It’s against their interest. There is no viable reason why I as a blogger would want to lie to you. We’re not out to get you. If there’s some cool stuff out there that can be reported, it will be reported. If a site gets it’s information wrong, or worse intentionally lies to get traffic hits, that’s a line where once crossed it is difficult to get back. We want you guys as readers and fans. We want to share the information, the exclusives and the scoops. And if the sites are wrong, the internet will have a field day. Everyone likes to “rub it in”. It’s a big risk to the reporting site if they misinterpret or misread something.

Careers are at stake. Can’t remember where I got this from. It caught my eye on my Twitter timeline. USA Today (a news organization) has a policy section on the use of unnamed sources. It’s a great list and it displays the rules that their reporters and journalists are bound under. You can bet that most other news sites will have something similar to this. I don’t think gaming news sites have anything as detailed but you can bet there is serious editorial oversight especially when it comes to reporting information from a source that specifically asks not to be named. I respect and understand the policy that reporters should do what they can to name where they get information from.

But if someone’s job is on the line, that there is an ethical line that I am personally not willing to cross. Given the option between disbelief at information or accusations of lying versus the surefire termination of someone’s job? I’ll take the former. I cannot in good conscience condemn someone to lose their job because a bunch of people want to know who my source is. It doesn’t matter to me. If it were me, the fact that I am willing to report what I hear on a large news organization should already speak volumes about how trustworthy that information is. It’s not like every tip or lead is followed up on everytime an email is received.

The USA Today policy says to be as specific and as precise as possible. Understand that it is well within the realm of reason that anything more revealing than “anonymous source” could be enough to fry someone. These are real people with real jobs and real families. Don’t lose that perspective.

If permission was given to release a name, a position or job title, it wouldn’t be a problem. Sadly that’s nearly never the case.

Think about pot odds. It’s a poker term that doesn’t really mean anything in this context. But probability plays an effect here. The hockey rumor site run by Eklund over at Hockeybuzz is an example I’d point to. Eklund uses a 5 point system to assess the strength of the trade rumors he hears concerning hockey.

Here’s a quick example. It’s not the actual way it’s done, but it gives you an idea.

• E1: 1 reliable source that’s not related to the players or teams involved.
• E2: More than one E1’s. Different people from different teams.
• E3: A source that is directly related to the players and teams involved.
• E4: More than one source with ties to players or teams involved.
• E5: Deal is 100% complete and is awaiting announcement.

That system is used as an indicator as to where and at what level the information that Eklund receives should ranked at. It doesn’t necessarily mean it’s going to be true. Sometimes deals change.

In the WoW context, if one major site reports something, it could be a mistake or it could be wrong. If multiple sites report something at around the same time, you can bet that something’s up. I don’t suspect every player in this business is using the same set of sources that the other guy is using. I don’t actually know. I’m not important enough to warrant any and I’m not a big enough fish in the pond to get first crack at stuff.

By that same token, when one organization hears from multiple sources that are close enough to the situation at hand, then something is up and it warrants investigation. If the sources are gold, expect to hear about it. There’s a lot of oversight involved when it comes to breaking news like this. Everything gets triple checked. Every bush is beaten, every tree gets shaken.

Anyway, that’s my viewpoint on the whole matter. I will never compromise anyone’s life or career like that. And I won’t lie, the job does suck. You know of some cool feature or storyline coming up and you really want to share it. But you can’t. Because someone else gets screwed. That kills the joy in it. I don’t normally break news. I love doing speculations and stuff and that will be labeled clearly. But unless I get the greenlight to break something, I won’t. It’s the job of the big news sites to tell you what they they know (within reason). They don’t have to tell you where. You don’t shoot your only milk producing cow. Otherwise you don’t get any more milk.

Why get the one guy who’s willing to share juicy insider information fired? The chances of getting access to such insider stuff would essentially be shot down to 0. No one would want to ever talk to me again if I did something like that. That would place me at a disadvantage to my “competition”.

I sure as hell would never tell you guys that Hogger’s mustache told me that Zul’Drak is getting a new raid level instance.

(I might have made up that entire last line).

(Or did I?…)

Wow. Just wow.

In case you have no idea what I’m referring to:

I don’t know that I would say we want tanking niches. I ultimately am agreeing with what you’re saying, but once we say "tanking niches" players have visions of the DK who parks outside of Icecrown until boss 4, 17 and _31_ (yes, IC is that big).

– Ghostcrawler

So any ideas on the types of bosses we’re going to see in there? Speculation is always fun. Makes me wonder if we’re going to see faction specific bosses. Maybe 6 Horde and 6 Alliance depending on which faction you’re on.

All I an think is that those raid lock out extensions are going to come in real handy.

Say it with me.

Thirty one.

You never, ever, ever second guess yourself when you’re the boss. You can’t afford to. Otherwise you’ll start growing a collection of white hairs at the ripe old age of 21 (like yours truly).

That’s a direct response to the Fel Firey one.

It’s not very often I craft responses directly to other blog posts. I felt compelled to make an exception because the problems she outlines are similar issues that I’ve experienced. I wanted to share my solution and outlook to everyone as well.

Question 1: Play the veteran no show or the steady underachiever?

All too common question for those in charge of determining raid composition, right?

Do I go with the skilled player who’s attendance has gradually decreased over the past few months and has gotten bored with the game or do I reward the near-flawless attendance player who’s not as skilled and has the gear to compete but cannot match the performance?

In order to answer this, you need to ask yourself what type of organization you’re building. Do you believe in success at all costs or a steadier but more consistent and rewarding pace?

I lean towards the former. I play this game to raid and to kill bosses. I will almost always lean towards picking the team that will grant me the highest chance of a progression kill. It’s a constant reminder to everyone. The onus is on the raiders. They’re not playing to earn a raid spot. They’re playing to keep one. Like it or not, that means the Rogue that did 7000 DPS who just happened to renew his interest in the game is more than likely to get the nod over the 5500 DPS Rogue wearing the same stuff.

Yeah, that’s a pretty big exaggeration but you know what I mean. If the alignment of the guild is in fairness and the like, then you’re going to favor the little guy. The problem is that it might take your guild two weeks or longer to get through an encounter or something. But if the guild doesn’t care about rankings and competing with other guilds, then you’re in the clear anyway.

It’s summer. I’ve seen guilds ahead of us explode and die off that would shoot us from a top 20 placing to a top 5 placing. It’s a fight right now for a lot of leaders just to maintain full strength.

Question 2: How do I cover my ass against players upset at being sat?

Ah the fine print. If there’s anything EULA’s and TOS’s and all those fancy contracts have taught me, it’s that you can get away with almost anything with fine print. If a player gets upset that they’ve been sat or are not being invited, point them to the fine print.

“But you specifically agreed that you were okay with being sat out when you applied to the guild. Isn’t that your signature, retinal scan, thumbprint, and DNA pattern on that form?”

It’s common for guilds to do some line juggling particularly on progression raids. Maybe you have an extra tank. Perhaps you have too much melee DPS. Or you’re lacking healers. Assuming your forces don’t have dual specs of the right sort (or of high enough quality gear), then you have to do an outright character for character swap to maintain the raid.

Look at it this way.

One of the best ways to truly take stock of a person’s character is to ask them to sit out and see how they react. What they say on their application is one thing. How they handle it is another matter entirely. If they handle it extremely poorly, then they’re not a player you want in your organization anyway allowing you to go headhunting again.

Question 3: How can I handle loot discrepancies?

Include the human element. Having a clause that allows a group of players to override something will help with progression. If the guild is more based towards fairness and equality, then don’t bother. I’ve written about loot posts in the past. I firmly favor looting gear to the people who will get the most use out of it instead of passing it to another player where it’s only going to collect dust because they never use that spec. Why did they get it? Because a chart or a list of numbers demanded that it be so. We can’t control item drops. We can only control who it goes to.

It’s about trust. If you don’t trust the guys making the loot decisions, you shouldn’t be in that guild anyway. They’re going to make mistakes. As long as their mistakes don’t exceed the number of right calls, then it should be all good.

Yes human discretion can be bad. I’ve heard the arguments before. But it can also be used for good.

It sucks being in charge. The reason why there’s so few GMs compared to players is because no one wants the job.

Okay, that last bit might not be entirely true. Have a good weekend! (By the way, if you intend to check out GI Joe, leave something in the comments about it when you do. Undecided between theatre or just waiting.)