New [H] editorial...
- Thread starter 5150 Joker
- Start date
Is this a case of "he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't"?
While I don't doubt that his motivations may not be as altruistic as his wording would indicate, I see little reason to rag on Kyle for this editorial. Cut the guy a little bit of slack and let's wait and see how this all plays out.
(Ragging on him for banning Dave, well, that's legitimate... but outside the scope of this topic).
While I don't doubt that his motivations may not be as altruistic as his wording would indicate, I see little reason to rag on Kyle for this editorial. Cut the guy a little bit of slack and let's wait and see how this all plays out.
(Ragging on him for banning Dave, well, that's legitimate... but outside the scope of this topic).
Slides said:
Well, since you asked.
Addressing this comment of yours:
Both the theories that he was and was not being "paid off" are "not facts" (or, as more accurately phrased, "not proven", as far as info commonly available, to my knowledge)...your opinion contrary to the "conspiracy" theories is not "proven" at all, and seems actually contra-indicated by observation.
The idea of "innocent until proven guilty" you are introducing is a principle of fairness in making absolute statements, not one of whether something is reasonably indicated or not. Our legal system is based on "reasonable doubt", that is supposed to start from an absolute of innocence...whom we trust does not, as other people quite commonly have selfish motives that cost us to benefit themselves. Facts are quite reasonably indicative that Kyle is on "the nVidia payroll" (though I'd disagree with those who say that is the only reasonable indication), and also non-indicative of him not being on such a "payroll".
Your opinion that it is an invalid (or perhaps unfair, and you misspoke above?) conclusion is not a fact. Only some people's opinion on fairness (including mine, because of my care with what I label as "proven"), and the absence of some facts for this particular issue, supports that stance, not the facts concerning his actions and words that have been presented. What you are presenting as a complete absence of facts with regard to a "conspiracy theory" is really just your deciding where to draw the line on what facts to dismiss as inconclusive for your decision regarding trusting him without having to defend why your "trust criteria" evaluation makes more sense than anyone else's.
If you want to discuss the facts observed about Kyle's behavior and whether it is fair to for people to conclude as they have for their own working opinion/trust of Kyle based on existing facts and observations, then I suggest that you introduce facts that work to counter them when doing so instead of confusing "not ironclad and absolutely proven" with "not reasonably indicated". My own theory is decidedly not related to "payroll", but I don't have facts to propose it over that one...maybe you can share some I don't know about?
Rewording some of the last post:
Not all of the people who are not saying "bravo" to Kyle are simply proposing such a "payroll conspiracy theory", and it is seems useful to use names instead of "some B3D posters" when proposing your viewpoint in disagreement, since quite a few B3D posters seem to make statements that disagree with your viewpoint.
If you have a useful reply to my observation that people who you might be condemning might simply have higher standards to apply to Kyle than you do when you do say "bravo", and that "late is not better than on-time" and might still be a problem in Kyle's behavior, why did I have to reply again to receive it? If you don't think these comments of mine are relevant to your intent, protesting that you didn't notice my saying it was not a useful reply to work towards indicating why.
What in God's good name are you talking about? Read my post again and try to understand it and not over analyze it this time. It's not that hard. Don't try to make things more difficult then they are. It's just a website and I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain a very simple post about Kyle of all people.
You just like to drown people out with your histrionics.
If you have conclusive proof that Kyle is on Nvidia's payroll, bring it forward, otherwise please clam down. Innocent until proven guilty and all that. Conjecture and your personal feelings, or even Kyle's own bias is NOT proof of anything other then that Kyle is biased. Saying that Kyle's editorial is linked with Nvidia's PR campaign is obviously a conspiracy story, until we seem some hard evidence.
You just like to drown people out with your histrionics.
If you have conclusive proof that Kyle is on Nvidia's payroll, bring it forward, otherwise please clam down. Innocent until proven guilty and all that. Conjecture and your personal feelings, or even Kyle's own bias is NOT proof of anything other then that Kyle is biased. Saying that Kyle's editorial is linked with Nvidia's PR campaign is obviously a conspiracy story, until we seem some hard evidence.
I don't think anyone has accused Kyle of accepting payment from nVidia or being on their payroll in this thread. The payment I think most are refering to is all the ego stroking nVidia gave to Kyle and some favoratism for reviews and inside info and such.Slides said:
I really don't think anyone here seriously thinks that Kyle is taking cash under the table from nVidia.
digitalwanderer said:I don't think anyone has accused Kyle of accepting payment from nVidia or being on their payroll in this thread. The payment I think most are refering to is all the ego stroking nVidia gave to Kyle and some favoratism for reviews and inside info and such.
I really don't think anyone here seriously thinks that Kyle is taking cash under the table from nVidia.
Actually that's exactly what some people have accused Kyle of on this very thread. But beyond just the question of money, it's the question of Kyle being permanently allied with Nvidia, which from all indications seems false. He may have erroneously defended Nvidia's position on more then one occasion due to his "friendly" relations and ego, but that does not mean he is permanently tied in with Nvidia's marketing department and is completely to oblivious to the truth as some are suggesting. If anything, this editorial proves that Kyle is capable of blaming Nvidia for what they did. But the future will tell us even more.
Some people seem to believe that since he came out with this article 11 months late that this totally wipes the slate clean. Wrong! He has been in conjunction with Nvidia on this whole soap opera decieving consumers and is trying to save face. For those that don't know the full story, they applaud him as a hero which is exactly what he was aming for. For those in the know, it is a differnet story. Isn't BFG associated with Nvidia. I'm not going to suggest anything but he sure does have a "strong" relationship with that company since day 1.
There is no slate to wipe clean. We all know Kyle's biases. That he can look beyond that for once and say the truth, is a good sign. That's what my "bravo" was meant for, not to portray Kyle as a champion of the people.
I don't know, I guess I'm just not looking hard enough for a conspiracy theory here. :?
I don't know, I guess I'm just not looking hard enough for a conspiracy theory here. :?
Slides said:
I find your continous harping on "conspiracies" irritating. Since it is only possible to observe the results, not the causes, people try to use their knowledge of the world and people in it to fathom the reasons why Kyle acted so strangely. A lot (most?) fields of science work exactly the same way when trying to analyze something unobserveable.
Since the other explanation essentially seems to be that "Kyle is stupid and easily misled due to egomaniacal tendencies", I'm not sure that a "money" explanation is necessarily less likely, nor less flattering.
Entropy
Edit:
From what I've seen of Kyles writing over time, I'd say:
Growing egomaniac tendencies - Yes
Posturing as representing the "common enthusiast" - Yes
Stupid - No
Which is why I find it difficult to fully buy into any theory for his behaviour that presupposes that the guy is incapable of understanding the issues involved.
Also, for the record, I think it is good that he speaks out against the actions of nVidia, regardless of what his reasons for doing so may be, as their actions IMHO have to be condemned by the reviewing community.
reever said:
Distrubing isn't it that this is the "informed" community, yet also seems to be the most gullible. Kyle bashes nVidia once, and suddenly he's reliable.
What a load of crap. You earn trust and respect, you don't buy it with an editorial saying what we wanted him to say. We wanted him to say it months ago, it's far too late now, and frankly, of little use considering that the nv35 is already out in the field, and has been for some time.
It's nice to see [H] attack nVidia for valid reasons, but that doesn't make Kyle in the slighest bit better. He's doing this because it suits him, and when it suits him to be biased again, he will.
I don't care for a thing that man posts until he is posting facts for facts sake, not to sate his latest mood.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
Quitch said:
I think a lot of people want to be seen to be encouraging Kyle in the right direction. Like a little child, Kyle needs careful encouragement to keep him doing the right thing, otherwise he'll get a scowl on his little face and go back to his bad old ways. Bad Kyle, bad Kyle!
There's also those that want to be seen to be very reasonable, to rise above it all. They feel that what they say carries more weight if it is said in a calm, reasonable fashion, rather than a mad rant. They are probably right.
There are however, a lot of us here who need to see more than just one sulky webpage generated by Kyle's bruised ego. Like you, I belive that trust and forgiveness should be earned, and that one qualified and conditional webpage from Kyle does not make up for all the damage he has done in the past year. Until I can see a true change in the man's attitudes, rather than this self-serving public sulk, I have no reason to treat his actions differently than the opinions I have from all his previous support of Nvidia. Just because Kyle's ego is bruised and is now posting bias in the other direction, that does not mean he has suddenly become more technically informed or objective.
In case u miss it,here is comment from tweaktown:
"I read Kyle Bennett’s latest editorial blasting on nVidia and their various benchmark optimizations at HardOCP last night and at the end of it I was left wondering what the actual point of it was. What was he trying to achieve? Does he have another reason for being annoyed at nVidia? Why did he let his personal opinion publicly judge a multi million dollar company in a negative manor? These are the questions which left me in a daze.
What Kyle neglects to acknowledge, whether intentionally or not, is that nVidia are a huge company which on the outside may appear to act on every word us enthusiasts say (at least Kyle Bennett thinks this and hopes this), but deep down will and should do whatever it takes to improve the bottom line for their share holders – just like any real business with any real business sense. Sure, nVidia may have made a few bad judgments over the past 8 or so months with benchmark optimizations but it is nothing which ATi (and I dare say many other companies) have not delved into in the past to help their bottom lines as well, which again Kyle neglects to acknowledge. This is the real world, companies are out to make as much money as possible – it’s not the sugar coated enthusiast world which Kyle makes it out to be!
Kyle had no right to publicly degrade nVidia to the extent he did in his latest editorial. Kyle must get off his high horse which he has been riding for the past few years and get down to the facts instead of trying to make himself out as an American saviour for the PC enthusiast or whatever he thinks he wants to be - it’s truly pathetic and futile. Everyone is entitled to their public opinion; some people just need to learn how to control it and realize when enough is enough."
"I read Kyle Bennett’s latest editorial blasting on nVidia and their various benchmark optimizations at HardOCP last night and at the end of it I was left wondering what the actual point of it was. What was he trying to achieve? Does he have another reason for being annoyed at nVidia? Why did he let his personal opinion publicly judge a multi million dollar company in a negative manor? These are the questions which left me in a daze.
What Kyle neglects to acknowledge, whether intentionally or not, is that nVidia are a huge company which on the outside may appear to act on every word us enthusiasts say (at least Kyle Bennett thinks this and hopes this), but deep down will and should do whatever it takes to improve the bottom line for their share holders – just like any real business with any real business sense. Sure, nVidia may have made a few bad judgments over the past 8 or so months with benchmark optimizations but it is nothing which ATi (and I dare say many other companies) have not delved into in the past to help their bottom lines as well, which again Kyle neglects to acknowledge. This is the real world, companies are out to make as much money as possible – it’s not the sugar coated enthusiast world which Kyle makes it out to be!
Kyle had no right to publicly degrade nVidia to the extent he did in his latest editorial. Kyle must get off his high horse which he has been riding for the past few years and get down to the facts instead of trying to make himself out as an American saviour for the PC enthusiast or whatever he thinks he wants to be - it’s truly pathetic and futile. Everyone is entitled to their public opinion; some people just need to learn how to control it and realize when enough is enough."
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros. said:
I find it even more disturbing that you guys are so intent on bashing Kyle for making a stand on the issue and at least making a difference for the people out there who actually play games on the PC (yes, there are people who actually do that *gasp!*) At least there are people like Dave Baumann, Reverend, and Sharkfood, that voice their thoughts loud enough on webpages to be heard by companies like ATI and NVIDIA. Whilst the rest of you are bashing Kyle without restraint, just remember, there are people out there who do want the best for their games, and are at least making a difference in the process.
Right now NVIDIA are sweating due to this editorial. When NVIDIA had us all in a conference call due to the whole 3DMark03 cheating issue, I, along with others, told them what gamers want and don't want, and optimizations in synthetic benchmarks aren't what we want, and taking away control of image quality in our games is not what we want, and so on. We're voicing our opinion, and whether NVIDIA hears us or not is up to them, but they're at least hearing our voices. Bashing people within the community for making a stand to get these companies to realize what we want is hardly something I'd call a bright idea.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Matt said:
I personally find Kyle disturbing....because it is obvious to me that Kyle only stands for himself, not for gamers. Note that whatever is good for Kyle's site, and Kyle's personal success, is not necessarily good for gamers.
And when he does finally voice "a negative opinion" on nVidia, and this DOES happen to coincide with what's good for gamers, that doesn't change my opinion of him, nor does that mean he earns my respect. Why? Because I know that the next IHV that caters to Kyle, will get good press from Kyle. Regardless of how good or bad that IHVs practices or products are for gamers. And I know that the next IHV that ignores or "does Kyle wrong, will get negative press. Regardless of how good or bad that IHV's practices and products are.
I'm not sure about that. Might be mildly annoyed.
But what if one person within the community is making a stand for himself, and not the community?
Matt, I agree with you for the most part.
Just one thing: A lot of people are not bashing Kyle for this editorial he's written now, but for what he's done in the near past. The editorial is good for us all, and most of us are probably very glad that Kyle has done that. But that doesn't let us forget that Kyle has banned Dave, what was quite a joke, don't you agree?
Just one thing: A lot of people are not bashing Kyle for this editorial he's written now, but for what he's done in the near past. The editorial is good for us all, and most of us are probably very glad that Kyle has done that. But that doesn't let us forget that Kyle has banned Dave, what was quite a joke, don't you agree?
Kyle has brought evey bit of this on himself. He waited months to write an article like this on Nvidia when he knew months before anyone else what was going on. He playcated users of his site for months basically doing Nvidia's damage control for them and now that he apparently has had a personal falling out does he say what eveyone here had known and thought.
All of this from the Nvidia Damage control to this editoral has been because of him and his ego. He is unable to actively inform his readers if it does not benefit him in some way. now that his perosnal ties with nvidia seem to be cut it's his own ego that is striking back at them. He protected them when it served him well and now lashes out in anger over being used. If he had any integrity he would have reported on the facts when he knew them regardless of how it benefited him personally.
This is why he is bashed and this is why his latest editorial is just another example of kyle's self serving need. I agree with everything he said in the article, the problem is it was months to late and he wrote for purely self serving reasons.
All of this from the Nvidia Damage control to this editoral has been because of him and his ego. He is unable to actively inform his readers if it does not benefit him in some way. now that his perosnal ties with nvidia seem to be cut it's his own ego that is striking back at them. He protected them when it served him well and now lashes out in anger over being used. If he had any integrity he would have reported on the facts when he knew them regardless of how it benefited him personally.
This is why he is bashed and this is why his latest editorial is just another example of kyle's self serving need. I agree with everything he said in the article, the problem is it was months to late and he wrote for purely self serving reasons.
Matt said:
Matt,
No disrespect but I dont think Kyle and co have of late been voicing the opinion of the so called community. In fact they have unfortunately disregarded the opinions of most and at times blatantly sugar coated one particular IHVs short comings!
Thankfully now an editorial has been posted tying to change tact but as one post said, it will take many more editorials and reviews to regain the communities trust and respect.
I'd also point out that journalistic integrity is only just being addressed with the readers and general community alike demanding that the reviewers deliver the goods and produce a well written, informative hopefully not too biased, truthful account/experience of the card in question. It wasn't long ago that the reivews simply consisted of a few popular bench marks and often mis configured and IHV biased driver settings.
As for making progress and steering the IHVs, unfortunately until I start to see some clear cut hard hitting statements from all of the sites instead of the wishy washy sitting on the fence PR bull I'm not buying it! ATI and Nvidia currently enjoy using websites as their PR extensions!
Only when a reviewer goes out and purchases one of these cards with his hard earned cash will we really begin to see the truth come out. Lets see the reviewer not care about IQ reduction having just splashed out on a $500 card! At the moment the review sites are so wrapped up in getting samples they'll often soften a hard review in order to keep on good terms with an IHV. I wonder just how grey or deep this goes?
Matt said:
Matt,
no one here is bashing Kyle for standing up. They are bashing him for not standing up sooner. He started banning users on his forums when they said the same thing that his artical said. Why ban those users (even Dave when Dave had a verry polite and informative response) then and now stand up for the same thing that those ban users said? Why tell us in forums that he knows nV has been doing this for the last 3 months and still let reviews out where this is not mentioned? Is it fair to let his readers read reviews where he knows the results are skewed and not inform his reads? Does that do a dis-service to his readers? Why also tell us that there is nothing he can do about it then, and now come out with this article? Kyle had his chance on a number times were these issues were brought to light. Instead of standing up then or supporting the community he goes on a banning spree and resorts to name calling Dave and Rev. He made his bed, he now has to lie in it.
Its about dam time the do. NV has told us on a number of ocasions that they dont optimize for 3d benchmarks. And they have been cuaght lying to us again and again. Yes I know all companies do optimize but please when asked why not tell the truth? Why say that to us? Dont they respect us enough to be honest?
dream caster
Newcomer
The editorial, was it because of all these threads, open and closed?
Similar threads
- Locked
