Quote:
Originally Posted by OnMyBike
Fair points and questions, thanks Bobo.
I'm not exactly sure what my ask is, so I was intentionally vague about that - my goal was really to get Mason to consider what a better appropriate outcome would be, and to encourage sober second thoughts about the ramifications of the change.
That's fair. And I think the discussion is helpful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnMyBike
I hold 2p2 in high regard, almost at a journalistic standard. I appreciate that it may not be fair to place that burden, because this is Mason's space, but 2p2 has a long history of being a place where fairness and integrity ultimately reign, and the truth comes out. When I come in here to ***** about something, it's usually because I'm trying to encourage and protect that behaviour and reputation.
I'm happy 2+2 is held to a higher standard, and I do think that reputation drives that. And I'm sure Mason & Mat take pride in it, and *try* to make decisions that will keep that reputation - for both ethical and business reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnMyBike
What I'm *not* trying to do is argue for a particular title. I agree with you the new title isn't out of line as a descriptor. The problem I have is with someone other than OP having undue influence over the title, because it sets the tone of the discussion, generates interest and views that fuel the discussion, and is the single most viewed piece of text on any particular issue. In this case, the influence is coming from an advertiser being criticized, which absolutely complicates things and makes it a much different case than other thread title changes (which I assume happen for a wide variety of reasons).
Agreed. I guess the question might be whether it was undue influence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnMyBike
Mason thought the requested change was reasonable - and you and I agree the new title isn't 'wrong' - but what about the original? Was it reasonable? Was it wrong? Lots of inflammatory and accusatory titles fill NVG, including in threads started by Doug. If the OP's title was fair, why should the person/entity being criticized have the ability to change it? Doug isn't shy about his accusations on others, and doesn't pull any punches in his attacks, so reigning in the counterpunches against him seems supremely imbalanced. The reason Doug cares (and why I say "major impacts") is because thread titles are seen, popular threads are seen more, google results matter, and people are heavily influenced by the first few things they read on a subject. Changing the title can have a tangible impact on how this plays out for the parties in the dispute - if this weren't true Doug wouldn't care about the title, and his youtube videos wouldn't be plastered with clickbait titles in huge letters. (And I say this as a fan of his videos, haha)
cheers
But was it fair?
Here's what the thread title was:
"Doug Polk's company Upswing Poker allegdly scammed JNandez for $100k"
Now, from my take on the threads, I don't know that there are a lot of people that believe DP literally scammed Nandez out of $100,000. That said, an argument can be made that Doug is free to defend himself and let readers decide for themselves - and with most of these sort of threads, that's my stance on it. But I think we can all agree that simply putting "allegedly" in a thread title shouldn't mean that anything goes. If someone were to start a thread tomorrow that said "Bobo Fett allegdly scammed OnMyBike for $100k", I'd be pretty ****ing pissed off about it, and would not just be requesting, but demanding, a title change. And yes, it would be because the thread title matters - if I know I didn't scam $100,000, is it fair that I would have such a thread title showing up in Google searches, especially if it was my real name in the title rather than Bobo Fett?
Now, that's not to say that the title change in this case was (or wasn't) right, but to show why I believe there are going to be times when a change requested by the accused is a reasonable thing to grant. That said, Doug's a public figure, businesses and their owners are going to see criticism, fair or not, posted publicly. And I think it's incumbent on 2+2 to allow fair and reasonable criticism whenever possible. Also, it's not reasonable to solely rely on hindsight and say that since it doesn't look like most people believe it was a scam (if I'm correct about that), then the title change was right - that would be, as we like to say in poker, results-oriented thinking. But it
could be an indicator that the 2+2 powers that be had good reason to think a change was warranted.
That's just my two cents (and then some) on the whole thing. I haven't spent a moment talking to Mat or Mason about this, and have no idea what went into the thread title decision. But I find the discussion beneficial, as I'm faced with similar decisions from time to time. Rarely from advertisers - probably more often from alleged scammers. Good to hear different perspectives on this.
Edit to add: One important point I forgot. I think part of the reason people were struck by this change was because there are so many other accusatory thread titles that are left the way they are. As Mat alluded to, the main reason is simply because changes aren't often requested.