I believe that the esports industry at large can start taking more responsibility for the kinds of discourse/discussion that occurs. Whether that’s on reddit, twitter, behind closed doors, what have you: I am getting tired of seeing “Not my problem” as the excuse to let dangerously defamatory discussion go on. The “solution,” if you can even call it that, requires people at every level re-thinking their approach to esports and the discourse that goes on around it. Fans, teams aren’t there to appease you and journalists aren’t disposable chaff. Journalists, teams aren’t your enemies and other journalists aren’t a stepping stone for you to target for a step forward. Teams, journalists aren’t out to get you and fans aren’t your lapdog that you should be sicking on anyone that threatens your status quo. Moderators, Reddit isn’t your play toy and while you may “own” your subreddits, you do owe a responsibility to the wider public to use that power/influence responsibly.

Those four bolded names will each have an individual focus in this piece. This is already a lot longer than I anticipated, and I haven’t even actually “begun.” Oh boy.

Memes Do Matter: Pseudonymity is Not an Excuse for Defamation

As luck would have it, Thorin recently released a video on a very similar topic regarding journalism in esports and the reaction of the community to the practice in light of recent events. (As a sidenote, I was already planning to write this before the video came out. It was a happy coincidence.) Please give it a watch beforehand, as much of it interplays with what I am about to say.

Whenever discussion about how “randoms” behave start, the first target of criticism tends to be public figures. The usual argument is “you know how your followers act, and how your actions can encourage their behavior.” But whatever minuscule effect that might have, the problem begins and ends with the fans first. Contrary to popular belief, there is a way to meaningfully influence the trend of current fanbase beliefs and behaviors by starting with the fans themselves. Most redditors aren’t going to read this. It’s a giant ocean and I don’t have a net large enough to cast. So this is more me speaking to a hypothetical representative sitting in front of me a la Clint Eastwood at the 2012 RNC convention.

Addressing a problem begins with recognizing that one exists. Reddit does have a tangible effect on the way news and discussion around it develops as well as on the reputations of those involved. I am not talking about reddit’s hilarious ego-trip of thinking that their words and voting can somehow get a Jacob Wolf or Richard Lewis fired from their positions. Contrary to popular belief, many current journalists aren’t paid “per click” anymore (I’m not sure if they ever were actually), and a reputable publication isn’t going to hire and fire because of baseless reddit rumors and defamation.

The “danger” (if you can call it that) of perpetuating and allowing defamation in the form of “memes” is that it slowly deteriorates the public’s relationship to news media. As I mentioned before, most groupthink lies are usually just exaggerations that once began in truth. For example, Jacob Wolf’s reputation among the mouthy reddit-base as a rumor-mongerer (to put it succinctly) began from what I can tell as a reaction to a few reports that went awry: CLG negotiating with Kori to join the side as a jungler and Piglet’s leaving TL to return to Korea. Now to my knowledge, both of those stories were actually based in at least some truth when written (I’m being cautious here because I don’t know what I am at liberty to say on this), and the issue was with either the interpretation of facts or events that came after the receipt of facts and date of publication. But in any case, redditors ran with it for months on end, and now even such things as Amazing returning to NA based on a reddit rumor and Cabochard’s retirement based on a troll tweet are misattributed to Jacob Wolf, damaging his credibility even further, and weakening the efficacy that readers — new and old — may have in Jacob Wolf or ESPN’s news reporting. Part of this lies in self-entitled individuals, and those people probably cannot be “changed” by me (or anyone for that matter); I tweeted a comment the other day saying that once his trust had been betrayed ever, it could not be re-earned. But there is a slow roll of how small “jokes” and “memes” can be perpetuated over time to seriously harm one’s reputation in the public eye and the public’s perception of how news reporting and journalism are conducted.

As I mentioned before though, I am probably preaching to the choir. If you follow me on twitter or were sent this article in some way, you probably already know much of what I’m saying and aren’t one of those people perpetuating dumb and dangerous “jokes”. On the off chance that you are:

Please stop.

But for the rest of us, I want to dispel the notion that there’s no way of fixing it. “Not my problem” may be truer in this instance than in any other, but I firmly believe in these three things: (1) reddit has a vicegrip on journalism and content creation in esports, (2) the reddit-public opinion influences how tightly that vicegrip restricts creators and journalists from being effective and prosperous, and (3) that opinion and “memetic” culture can be improved. How? Hurtful/slanderous memes are perpetuated in the same way that they can be curbed: discourse between individuals. I interact on reddit and with “random redditors” more than probably anyone else I regularly talk to. You’ll find that these kinds of disrespectful/slanderous remarks tend to come half from a handful of individuals on a consistent basis and the other half from truly “random” redditors on an equal but inconsistent basis. Now I’m not asking you to pay attention to every comment and keep track of specific usernames that keep coming up (I tweeted a list of redditors that I personally have “ignored” through the Reddit Enhancement Suite a few days ago).

But what you can do is challenge opinions and make people defend themselves when they’re saying things you know (or believe) are wrong. Granted this takes some self-education: look up journalistic ethics, standards in content creation, or different creators’ past works to have talking points without having to look them up each time. But challenge these people to back up their claims with proof, to support their “memes” with actual arguments, and to challenge their own beliefs and yours with rationality. You’ll find a lot of people can’t. And every time you knock someone down a peg, you’re also saving the dominos that sit behind him, waiting to repeat the things he’s spewing. This is the accountability I was talking about with the #NoHarass fiasco regarding tweeting reddit usernames. It’s not about doxxing or abuse. It’s about making sure that pseudonymity (my made-up word for flying around by a fixed username on the internet) doesn’t give you a digital Ring of Gyges to spew whatever dangerous filth you want. Report comments that are abusive or slanderous; trust me that the mods (at least on /r/leagueoflegends) are responsive to comment reports. Stemming hurtful discourse begins and ends with the individual users.

Journalism, Peer Review, and Your Role in Promoting Healthy Discussion

I’ll preface this section by saying I know less about this specific subject than the other three I’m addressing here. Some of what I say will probably come off ignorant because it’s missing the inner workings of the industry that I couldn’t/don’t know personally. That being said, I believe I know enough here to share an informed opinion; whether those affected will find it helpful is another story. But since the subject of this entire piece is the discourse between the public and creators/journalists and discussion about creators/journalists by the public, it seems only fair that they be my focus next. Luckily it’s actually pretty short. Content creators and journalists can and should do more to build each other up and support each other in the face of backward public sentiment.

Once again, the first step of fixing the problem is to recognize there is one to begin with. I believe that journalists and publications do not do enough to protect their own in esports. This begins first with teaching the people that you are already responsible for to engage and interact with reddit responsibly. A short while ago, I got into an admittedly childish spat with someone on twitter and reddit because of what I believed was gross mismanagement of a platform for esports content and journalism. The role of journalists in facilitating discussion here starts with the basics: respect the 9:1 rule by interacting with readers, responsibly title and edit your content to abide by journalistic (and if necessary, reddit’s) standards, and teach those under your guidance to do the same. When you take writers and creators under your wing with the promise of revenue or training, “not my problem” is not only not enough, it’s not even true. It is your problem, and you’ve taken a duty upon yourself to be responsible for the damage that can result when you act negligently on fulfilling those duties.

But as with the topic above, I believe it comes down to accountability. In the video I mentioned before, Thorin mentions journalists’ best practices that provide an internal police function to ensure that reporters act with integrity and meet ethical standards. In many ways, that internalized accountability mirrors the legal practice: state bar associations uphold their licensed attorneys to codes of professional ethics and responsibility so that state and local governments don’t have to. With that peer review comes a tenuous responsibility of not going too far, in effect joining the shouting public in attacking other journalists. In recent memory, both “Esports Express” and “SplitPush” had pieces that — in the name of satire and editorial opinion — fed into the public backlash against a Jacob Wolf’s recent news reporting. Some professionals in the field have since decried those two pieces as public-feeding hit pieces, and I tend to agree. That is not the kind of peer criticism that helps build the public’s trust in the practice of news reporting; it is self-serving and feeds the self-congratulatory nature of the public’s backlash.

I believe that there is room for peer review and peer support in esports journalism that is severely lacking right now. When reports facially break ethical obligations or go against your own sources on the same subject, criticism is more than welcome in the esports dialogue. Likewise when a reporter is being unfairly criticized for practices that are standard or appropriate for journalists in the field, support from their peers saying such publicly can help stem the tides against them. A lot of the vitriol against journalists in esports begins with a backwards understanding by the public of how basic journalism actually functions. The more that industry creators and journalists do to support each others’ content and curb these clearly incorrect notions of the practice, the more that the Silent Majority will be empowered to do their part to challenge those dangerous mindsets before they can get going.

Players, Talent, and Organizations: Balancing the Value of Journalism with Self-Protection

While the last section may be the one I know least about, this will probably be the one with the least impact since… Well I’m not exactly a huge name in esports. (ESPN-certified ‘key player’ isn’t what it used to be.) But I do still want to share my thoughts on this and thank some owners/players that I believe have done well in facilitating proper discussion in esports.

The usual circle of esports news is pretty well-known now — almost a meme unto itself. Journalist reports news about X player and/or Y team. X and Y both deny it, often with charged language like “rumor” or “mere speculation.” Public latches onto the words of X and Y because their allegiance is with them first and foremost; they’re the stars of the industry after all. Nine times out of ten, the journalist was right, his sources were true, and the “speculation” was actually just good faith journalism put into practice. But X and Y get to go scot-free knowing that the public would never turn on them over something as small as denying a report. Hey “everyone does it” right? Meanwhile that reporter gets to face the temporary public vitriol until the claims are proven true, and a longer lasting public dissatisfaction with them regardless.

It’s a tale that’s been told time and again. The most recent example is the ROX Tigers report by (as per usual) Jacob Wolf. I’ll say that there are criticisms to be made about the timing of the report and the language used in the title; and believe me I’ve personally made those to him. But there are also mechanics of the industry that usually put these things out of the control of the by-lined author. Most notably, the editor not the author generally decides when an article is published and the language in the headline at publication. So that leaves the content of the article, which the ROX organization was quick to chalk up to “mere speculation”, and for which Jacob was lambasted publicly for weeks until the report was proven true in the past few days.

I can understand the reasoning behind it: investigative reporting does by its nature intrude into what would otherwise be the private affairs of teams and players. But it fulfills a vital purpose to the industry of keeping the involved actors publicly accountable to reasonableness, moraliy, ethics, decency, and legality (etc., etc., etc…). The same team that may scorn a journalist’s work because it directly affects them now, may need that journalist or another in the field later to report on the misdoings of another organization. But I’m sure everyone is aware of that; frankly it takes little more than 5 minutes of thought to realize it. The problem seems to be that while everyone respects the “practice of journalism” at large, they either (1) feel the short term benefit of knee-jerk denials outweighs the greater industry need or (2) find specific journalists to be “expendable” and therefore don’t mind cutting them down for self-preservation.

I believe both mentalities to be dangerous for the wider esports industry, and I’m happy to see organizations recently taking steps to partner with news outlets for announcements and projects. Immortals, P1, NRG, and Splyce have all made it a point to work with news outlets rather than against them for major announcements, and that partnership promotes civil discussion by preventing the adversarial mentality of fans when journalists are on the “other side” of their favorite teams/players. That doesn’t mean teams and players have to sit idly by when journalists actually get things wrong. George ‘HotshotGG’ Georgalidis’ response to the CLG Kori report was defensive (appropriately so), but due to a heated back-and-forth with him and Thorin including charged commentary from both sides, the situation escalated from what could have been a misunderstanding (I don’t know enough to comment) to lasting damage to Jacob’s reputation and the relationship between the two going forward. On the other hand, Splyce Owner Marty ‘LazerChickenzzz’ Strenczewilk quickly responded to a recent mis-title and mislabeled tweet by news outlet GAMURS, taking the time to further delineate his issues with the report and availability for comment publicly. While stern, his response was tempered and showed a thoughtfulness toward GAMURS that public figures in esports tend to lack when responding to reports about them.

To shamelessly plug a great song from most of our childhoods, everything’s better when we’re working together. Organizations and players have begun working together with journalists more often than in the past, and it has yielded dividends in the public awareness of some of the underpinnings of esports. Players are looking for agents more often than they used to, organizations are becoming more aware of systemic problems that they can help address, and the public has a better eye to both the good, bad, and ugly of esports organizations. Players and teams have dedicated followings, and while I’m not going to preach about them being primarily responsible for the actions of their followers, players and teams can influence the trend of public discourse around journalism and content creation for the better. It begins with treating them as industry partners, not expendable nuisances. But likewise, it requires journalists to be mindful of the effect of their reports a la the harm limitation principle. Journalists can be more inclusive of players and teams pre-reporting, but players and teams must be reasonable in their responses.

Jury, Judge, and Janitor?: Thankless Moderating and Public Nuisance Law

Mods. Let me begin by saying I think you’re far less to blame for things than many others seem to believe. Frankly, it’s not easy and takes a lot of attention, politicking, and thoughtfulness to do well. More than that, it takes some serious backbone. But I’m not going to keep buttering you up. Subreddit moderators of both /r/leagueoflegends and /r/globaloffensive can do a better job. As luck would have it, the weakness of /r/lol tends to be the strength of /r/csgo and vice versa. /r/lol has very strict relevance requirements that tend to weed out content that may be relevant or important to LoL-esports in a general or “meta” way (like this article) but are not directly related to the game “League of Legends.” But /r/lol mods are also quick to respond to and shut down personal attacks and baseless rumor milling. On the other hand, /r/csgo is very inclusive as all content event remotely related to csgo esports tends to be allowed. But under-moderation in that subreddit tends to allow comments go by that range from slanderous to outright character attacks.

There’s a fine balance. And I don’t think it’s one that anyone trying to herd in hundreds of thousands of people a day will ever fully achieve. But it’s always about the journey. What I will say is this: the excuse of “go make another subreddit” needs to stop. The other day I saw this comment from picflute, a moderator (perhaps head moderator now, though I’m not sure) on /r/leagueoflegends:

I agree with the general sentiment: no one should have special protection from the rules as they are made. However I take issue with the second, hi-lighted sentence. The rationale I tend to see for this “we can do what we want and aren’t responsible for whether people find success because of us” mentality (AKA “not my problem”) by moderators is that they in effect “own” the subreddit. If someone wants different rules for a different forum/community, they’re more than free to make their own. And people have tried. But we’re all aware that practically speaking we’re far too down the rabbit hole to turn back now. Overwatch fans took a hint early on and segmented the community into /r/overwatch for cool plays, patch discussions, fan art, etc. and /r/competitiveoverwatch for esports-centric discussions. But the League of Legends (and Global Offensive) communities are far past that discussion, and that should be self-evident.

I will agree (for the most part) that moderators in-effect “own” their subreddits, and can do as they wish without feeling responsible for what happens. But I believe that is an incredibly selfish and careless mentality to have for someone put in a position of oversight of a community and platform so large. There’s a really annoying body of property law called “nuisance” law. Without boring you to death, the basic premise is that even while we have control over the things we own, those things may inevitably affect the rights and interests of things other people own. For example, I can’t freely turn my suburban home into a pig farm if the smell of that farm would unreasonably burden my neighbors, people who bought their properties expecting to be surrounded by other normal suburban homes. No I’m not saying subreddit moderators should be legally responsible when videos or articles get less traffic than they could because they’ve been removed under overly-strict rules. That’s not the point. But when you are given responsibility over something as large as a 914k subscriber subreddit (almost a million, Jesus…), with that comes the understanding that what you do can make waves in the greater industry. It’s not a duty or obligation to act responsibly or bend to the whims of creators/journalists; at least not one that can be imposed on you. It’s simply a recognition that in the interests of teams, players, journalists, and “random redditors”, many of whom helped grow this subreddit from its inception to now, cooperation and a fair shake for all involved are both fair and beneficial.

So what specific advice do I have? It’s odd really, because at times it seems like the mods are damned if they do or if they don’t. A while ago I suggested that the mods move away from these hard-and-fast, in-or-out rules on content, and instead develop flexible factors. In other words, “Content would be more likely to be found relevant if it has X, Y, and Z qualities.” Hard-and-fast rules tend to sound great on paper, but in practice require exception after exception to be workable. But specifically as it relates to this article — a discussion about discussion — I would like to see “meta” commentary brought back into the main subreddit. I like the segmented /r/leagueofmeta for notifications of removals and discussion of rule changes; that’s great. But I believe there is room for content that addresses the /r/leagueoflegends community regarding topics that, while not necessarily focused on the game, are important discussions to have regarding it and will ultimately make the community healthier in the long run.

But above all else, really own the subreddit if you want to own it. Take responsibility for the kinds of discussions that happen, especially those that can perpetuate the dangerous dialogues I’ve talked about here. To your credit, you’ve defended “Sources says” reports almost wholesale. But more can be done to curb the vitriolic anti-journalism discourse on all esports subreddits. It starts with recognizing slander for what it is. Comments claiming stupidity without proof should be removed. But that of course starts with reporting. It’s a nasty cycle that begins and ends with redditors themselves taking responsibility for the collective consciousness of the whole.