The problem is that she had entirely anonymous sources. We have to take everything we say on faith, because there is no person that we can go to for confirmation. That, combined with past articles that show she is already biased on the topic of Star Citizen, undermine a LOT of her credibility.If, as she claims, Star Citizen is a terrible place to work and going to ultimately crash and burn, wouldn't there be more people willing to talk about it on a public basis?
I agree wholeheartedly, her previous article certainly didn't help her in the least. And there's always that pitfall with citing anonymous sources. But while they were listed as anonymous in the published article, supporting statements from
the Managing Editor's article indicate the sources were vetted through their legal department as per the request of the Editor in Chief. These sources were passed through too many hands, especially from so high up the ladder, to suggest this was just some vain attempt by Lizzy Finnegan to save face from the previous article.
My take is this. The sources were never truely confirmed. The sources were ex employees who might have a grudgr against cig. They claims that were stated had no evidence. The journalist has harassed Sandi before on twitter. 24 hours is nothing in timewise. Lets say they sent it at 1400pm. By the time it got opened and escalatex to CR it was probably arounf quiting time, if it even made it to him. CR comes in at 0900 does his meeting of the day ends at 1000. Performs his his daily routine/walkaround its 1100. Takes lunch its 1200. Comes to work foes his fucking job for 2 hours its 1400.
There is a common way to hit someone with a 24 hour timestamp and give them mo tome to respond. I have done this and had it done to me. I have sent reports to leadership with a 24 hour timestamp for dissapproval/approval and sent it a few hours before closing. They dont have time to respind so i get the choice. By the time the article was published CR had to respond and did it in a emotional way a farcry from his usual calm writing. Not only that they attacked his wife. Thats enough to make any husband go into a emotional state.
It's truly unfortunate that readers have no way of confirming the sources, but the
Managing Editor supports the legitimacy of the sources. This isn't just from some blog a handful of people run in their free-time. This is from a publication that has been around for years, several of which I've been a reader, and not the sort of place where people can just freely post what they please and have it promoted as a featured article. There's a vetting process for every featured article with sources that need to be verified before it's published.
As for the 24 hours, it seems I had missed the part in Roberts's response (admittedly, I was more focused on the timestamps) where he stated he had worked on the response for around eight hours, much of which was in the late night/early morning. It makes his response more understandable (I don't know many people who are even coherent that time of day) and I can sympathize with that. Especially considering the allegations against his wife.
CS3 "I'm guessing something will come out,"
-Confirmed!
Everything aside, this brought a smile to my face.
Getting back to the discussion, regarding the allegations I think it's important that, as Chris Roberts even noted in his letter, "As always, there are two sides to each story." What is presented in the article are the stories of the employees, both current and non. It's certainly not the whole picture and, as I've been saying from the beginning, not categorically factual. If, and it's a very big if, any number of allegations turns out to be true, I find it highly unlikely that CIG would be quick to corroborate that. On the other hand, it really does put CIG in a bind because some of the information they really are in no position to be disclosing. Truly an unfortunate predicament.
But I'm confident they weren't simply conjectures from a few people that were shuffling papers at a desk for just handful of hours a week. Conjectures they may be, but the level of experience within the company does matter, I think. There was a process in choosing who to quote and who to use as sources and the editor was confident these people were in a position to at least have some grasp on the operations. I have confidence in the editor's abilities, but you are of course free to place as much or as little confidence in him as you'd like.
As for the allegations specifically against Roberts and Gardiner, it's not unreasonable to see them as personal attacks. However, when money from the company comes into question, it is no longer a personal matter but a matter of the company and it's finances. I have no opinion on this other than it's a simple matter of perspective. In my, admittedly limited, experience, when it comes to the use of company funds there's a bit of a grey area. Embezzlement has a very broad spectrum. Taking a few paperclips from the office or using the company car to run an errand? Yeah, that's embezzlement. Is it going to destroy the very foundation of the company? Not likely. Those employees can cry foul all they want, but if it's something (proportionally) minor, then it's really no big deal.
After more thought and more reading, I'll go ahead and say that yeah, there is definitely some bias on the part of Lizzy Finnegan especially regarding her previous article. And honestly, I'm not sure how I feel about the allegations that have been made. As with any anonymous source, they have to be taken with a grain of salt. Or perhaps a rock of salt in this case. I have more than enough confidence in both the publication process and integrity of The Escapist editorial staff to not believe that this was just some hatchet job thrown up for the sake of attention. And I have more than enough confidence in Chris Roberts and CIG to believe in their work and genuineness in realizing their dream.
Suffice it to say my feelings in this matter are complicated.
