CoverlessTech's forum posts

#1 Edited by CoverlessTech (749 posts) -

Amazon. With a static site you could even host it in a S3 bucket for pennies a month.

Edit(Your First Project):

Look up hosting static site in S3. You'll find a ton of tutorials about how to host a basic html + css + js site on S3.

Best thing about S3 is you only pay for the storage and bandwidth, so unless he's getting thousands of hits it'll only cost a few pennies/dollars a month. If he's getting so much traffic that it's costing more than a shared hosting provider then he should should be making that money back in spades from clients.

At a high level all you need to do it put your html/css/js in a s3 bucket named after your url and point the CNAME variable of the domain(on godaddy) to the s3 bucket.

#2 Posted by CoverlessTech (749 posts) -

Thats pretty much Smash Bros right?

#3 Posted by CoverlessTech (749 posts) -

So the couple people here who think there is a conflict of interest because of the kickstarter are basically still ignoring the fact there is no monetary gain when you back something.

So the couple of people here who think there can't be other motivations and negative outcomes because of a kickstarter are basically still ignoring the fact there are other possible gains and problems caused by backing something.

#4 Posted by CoverlessTech (749 posts) -

@n1nj4d00m: Sure, there's no harm in disclosing it, but the size of the investment wasn't even really the most significant issue in that hypothetical I laid out. The bigger problems would be getting credited on the film, exercising input in the development, and most of all, standing to profit from the project.

My hypothetical situation did not include any of that. You added that for your own straw man argument.

My example puts a movie journalist doing exactly the same stuff video game journalists do. Some people are to passionate about video games to see past certain things so putting it in another context generally always hits home.

Your reaction is a perfect example. As soon as we changed the context to film you assumed they would become producers and gain monetarily from it. Why does that notion exist in film but not video games?

People could have all sorts of motivation to give money to someone else. We need that information to be able to determine if what they have to say is trustworthy or not. That movie reviewer could give the money for no other reason then to get the "exclusive" first look and coverage. They could have done it to get news stories to drive hits. They could have done it because it's a friends studio and they want to see them succeed and they have a ton of money to spare. We as consumers and readers need to know these connections so we can work out the details ourselves. Most every other industry is open and transparent about this.

#5 Edited by CoverlessTech (749 posts) -

@chaser324 said:

@coverlesstech said:

Would you trust a movie journalist who funded a movie to give an honest opinion about it? Would that journalist give honest opinions of competing movies? Say this funded movie was releasing at sundance along with a very similar movie, would they give equal press to each film? Negative press to one and positive to the other?

I think that's a pretty different situation than backing a Kickstarter. In that hypothetical scenario, you're essentially talking about the person being a producer on the film with probably a significant financial investment and the potential for monetary returns on that investment based on the film's performance. That's a drastically different situation from putting around $5-25 into a crowdfunded project where all you're really doing is pre-paying for the end product - you have no input in the production and nothing to gain from misrepresenting the final product.

As I said before, there's no harm in disclosing your crowdfunding information, but I just don't see it as truly being an ethical dilemma.

No, I am not talking about the person becoming a producer or gaining anything from the success of the film. We don't know their motivation for just giving a lot of money to the film, could be a good friend, could be a cheap indie movie that didn't need a lot of money. That is not the point, the point is at the point of funding something that doesn't exists into existence, are you able to impartially provide honest coverage of it and anything relating to it in the future?

You may think "oh $25 isn't a big deal and wouldn't affect coverage", but how do you know? Maybe it wouldn't affect you, but could it affect others? If they are able to ethically donate that small amount in secret what stops them from donating even more?

The point is there needs to be a line and it should be right at the start. Ask yourself, why not disclose all connections? What is there to hide? It just gives honest intelligent consumers more information to base their own opinions on. The inverse, hiding information? Can be used maliciously. So, why not just always disclose?

#6 Edited by CoverlessTech (749 posts) -

@d_mac said:

That being said, I don't think crowd funding a project means you have a special relationship with that project, you've essential preordred it, you've exchanged money for goods. Movie reviewers do the same thing, they preorder tickets, and in some rare cases screenings or stage performances get cancelled because they're under sold. These aren't unusual circumstances, and the journalist doesn't gain anything special. I agree that publishing an article, to push a game over finish line, and help it get funded ,is crossing the line, if only because the journalist is using their special access, and publication, to alter the course of events.

It's a little different then that. Patronage or kickstarter is more like funding the movie getting made, not purchasing the ticket. The ticket is a result of the movie already existing.

Would you trust a movie journalist who funded a movie to give an honest opinion about it? Would that journalist give honest opinions of competing movies? Say this funded movie was releasing at sundance along with a very similar movie, would they give equal press to each film? Negative press to one and positive to the other?

Backing a game is similar. You want it to succeed and you'll use your power to make it happen, you may even ignore better games coming out at the same time because you've already thrown your hat in with one. A good journalist would never do that, but a good journalist would also always disclose their connections. If they don't do one how can you trust them to do the other?

#7 Posted by CoverlessTech (749 posts) -

@extomar said:

And you are having a hard time understanding the issue and haven't answered this simple question: What is the ethics violation/issue here? Just thinking there is an ethics violation doesn't mean there is one.

To use your exact example there, the ethics issue is that Ben has a vested interest in seeing Zoe succeed. This means that he may only post positively about Zoe, this means he may ignore other creatives that may be doing a similar thing as Zoe (if I create a game about depression would he be more or less likely to feature me because he already is invested in Zoe? Arguably my game could be in competition with Zoe's so my success may take away from hers. So why would he feature me at all, he could bury me in fact, or use any coverage of my game to promote Zoe's). As a professional, not a consumer, this causes an issue for consumers who want un-biased news.

I'm not saying Ben has done that but without disclosing his obvious connections then there is no way to know.

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

#8 Posted by CoverlessTech (749 posts) -
@extomar said:

Again people saying there is a conflict of interest but they don't understand what it means. What is the conflict of interest for Ben Kuchera in supporting Zoe Quinn? Is Kuchera getting paid if Zoe Quinn is successful? Unless there is something else going on then answer is clearly "NO" so where is the ethics issue?

In particular, I see GB Subscribers in this thread complaining about this strange situation. They enjoy GB Premium content and features and have a vested interest in seeing more GB stuff. Can they praise or complain about the stuff going on in Professional Fridays or Alt-F1? I don't see the problem but evidently according to these comments it is an issue...? I'm confused.

You seem to be having a hard time separating users/consumers from professionals/journalists.

To use your exact example there, the ethics issue is that Ben has a vested interest in seeing Zoe succeed. This means that he may only post positively about Zoe, this means he may ignore other creatives that may be doing a similar thing as Zoe (if I create a game about depression would he be more or less likely to feature me because he already is invested in Zoe? Arguably my game could be in competition with Zoe's so my success may take away from hers. So why would he feature me at all, he could bury me in fact, or use any coverage of my game to promote Zoe's). As a professional, not a consumer, this causes an issue for consumers who want un-biased news.

I'm not saying Ben has done that but without disclosing his obvious connections then there is no way to know.

#9 Posted by CoverlessTech (749 posts) -

@ford_dent: Again, false analogy and straw man. Would you trust a movie reviewer/journalist's opinion of movies if they have been funding a certain studio? What if your favourite movie reviewer started funding his friends new studio and started talking about it on their website at every chance they got without disclosing that the studio is their friends or that they put their money into the studio? Would you continue to trust that reviewer?

Not only are they using their weight to push the success of their friends who they have a vested interest in, they may even be ignoring other new studios or creatives because they are focusing on their friends. Would that reviewer post honest un-biased news and reviews of another competing studio?

#10 Posted by CoverlessTech (749 posts) -

@extomar: There is a difference between a user review/comment and a professional journalist review/comment. It's a given that consumer reviews will be biased because consumers by default are not suppose to uphold the type of integrity that professionals are held up to.

By becoming a patron of someone you are showing you have a vested interest in their success. When you are a professional with a lot of respect and weight in an industry it is expected that you would be honest and open about what you do. Some people in the industry have proven that they are patrons of people and use their weight in the industry to raise them up, because of their bias.

It's not about patronage or paying off or not being about to comment on things. It's about how much integrity you can have when you have a pre-conceived vested interest in something.

You are using some very bad analogies to support your side. Take your restaurant example, it is not analogous to the original problem at all. In your analogy add that the reviewer buying the meal has invested money into the restaurant outside of the meal and is a professional who has a lot of weight in the restaurant business. He's already shown bias towards the restaurant by investing, do you really think he will provide a fair un-biased opinion of it?