• crab@monero.town
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    imo this is an extreme reaction when the story has barely matured and we dont know whats true. I feel like the reactions by people at lmg have been decent so far, but time will tell what becomes of it. hopefully for everyones sake they fix their problems like they seem to be on track to doing.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t think the reactions by people at LMG have been decent, but I also think “never” is a bit of a strong word. I’m waiting to see details, and until then, I’m going to believe Madison, especially given the revelations by Gamer’s Nexus about focus on profit (i.e. video quantity) over quality. The culture there just seems to be wrong.

      That said, I’d love LMG to prove with actual facts that things aren’t as bad as this article makes it out to be.

      • crab@monero.town
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Out of curiosity, what do you think LMG should do differently? I think the sponsor jokes are not appropriate but I’m curious what else people have issues with.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That’s a pretty broad question, so I’ll refer you to the Gamer’s Nexus video. It’s kind of long @ 44 min, so here’s a rough summary:

          • give employees more time to ensure videos are high quality
          • take down inaccurate videos until the issue is resolved
          • provide text summaries of highly technical videos, with strikeouts for any corrections so a history of changes is preserved; this helps with referencing them later on platforms like Reddit, Twitch, and Lemmy (i.e. I can quickly quote sections)

          And specifically as it relates to Madison’s post, make a serious response that addresses each point, ideally pointing to some internal code of conduct and what processes they follow when similar things happen. If there are gaps, highlight those and explain what exactly is going to change, if anything. Just saying the equivalent of “she’s full of crap, but we’re hiring a third party just in case” isn’t the right approach. Even if the case ends up being nonsense, it at least shows a level of transparency to viewers and employees.