Gamespot fires Gerstmann
- Thread starter PARANOiA
- Start date
What would classify as factual evidence, apart from CNet release a comment stating they fired a reviewer for giving a low score to a sponsor? This will never happen.
Have a solid read of the Penny-Arcade article - not just the comic. It explains the story as they investigated by speaking to those who were involved.
That was essentially the question I asked.
PARANOiA said:
I've read that comic and it's homepage religiously since as long as I can remember, so yes, I've read it already.
Here's an interesting read. I don't expect everyone to take it completely seriously, they claim they can't disclose the reasons which is suspicious:
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6183603.html?part=rss&tag=gs_news&subj=6183603
He doesnt have a case. Not to mention I am pretty sure the severence package he received is tied to a gag order.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/techspace/2007/11/and-speaking-of.html
oh god, it's on USA today. well at least a blog. if somebody emails jack thompson and says gerstmann gave an "extremely violent and sex-filled game" a low score and got fired, it'll be all over CNN and Fox news.
oh god, it's on USA today. well at least a blog. if somebody emails jack thompson and says gerstmann gave an "extremely violent and sex-filled game" a low score and got fired, it'll be all over CNN and Fox news.
You have the actual details such that you can make this as a statement of fact?
Again if you have a link with details of any agreement regarding his dismissal I'd love to see them.
Yes, but at the same time the video review of a certain game was pulled, right? I mean, we can only watch that on YouTube right now, no longer on GameSpot. So that's still a bit suspicious, wouldn't you think?
Maybe GS instated a policy where reviewers are no longer allowed to say that a game is a rental when the game is being advertised on the site, and Gerstman broke that? Or that you have to respectfully diss a game if it is an advertiser's game? Who knows. But right now, they still have some explaining to do.
Oh I agree with you - that response was the type of thing no doubt written by a joint effort of their legal and PR departments. I simply posted to generate discussion and hopefully share the other side of the story.
In California they do not have to have a reason to fire someone, that happens in several other states, like the one I reside in.
As for the 2nd one, is common practice, and Jeff did email Kotaku or some other website and said he could not discuss the situation. So while I do not know for sure on the 2nd one, I think is not that far fetched to assume it.
I'm just wondering how he could be legally restrained from talking about why he was fired without tying a severance package to such an agreement. AFAIK, there's no law against bad-mouthing a former employer.
Hey 84 Lumber, you suck! I got fired because your business hit a low patch for two weeks!
Fair enough but from the tone of your post it almost sounded like you had inside information or information that at least wasn't already in this thread.
Well its quite possible he made some agreement with them regarding his dismissal (we'd like you to go away and shut up and we'll give you X amount of money if you do), but that hasn't been reported. Legal reasons for not speaking can involve a lot of things. Also just because he doesn't work there means that he wants to go off on them as it might hinder his opportunity elsewhere as they might not be eager to bring that kind of baggage on board.
unbelievable. I can't stand that i have to add stuff like this to my hate list. Did they think nobody would notice? Kotaku of all places?
Oh, come on. Those stars aren't intended to mislead or to be seen as indicative of an actual review score. They're just a separator. No different than a <hr /> or the "Top 3% performance; Excellent productivity evaluations; Employee of the Year" I use on my CV!
Some people...
