Gamers Nexus alleges LMG has insufficient ethics and integrity

[jos]

After all of this how many companies will be ready to provide advertisement/sponsorship with LMG. Without that how will LMG survive? I think major portion of revenue is this. Am I wrong?

[Cavalry Canuck]

5 minutes ago, FreelancerSystem said:

That doesn't matter, GN isn't required to do it. The Artesian Builds docuseries was an example. Steve did investigative journalism, and "reaching out for comment" is different than "solving the issue behind closed doors". Those two things send very different messages. But it's also not required, he dug through videos and emails to find the evidence for what he was seeing and calling LTT out for. He's not obligated to call Linus and talk about it first.

You might not consider it required to reach out for comment. Perhaps on a whole it isn’t. However, it’s sure reeks of bias to not bother trying to get both sides of a story.

[Blademaster91]

4 hours ago, Rados said:

Totally okay for me. I like to repair my phones and refurbish consoles, but I also like practical design and I thats why I would rather buy build with “pretty cool” things instead of buliding one myself.

I understand not wanting to build a PC, as a convenience factor, or having a interesting case that you couldn't buy otherwise while building your own.

But I find it weird for Linus to say a proprietary motherboard is "pretty cool" even though it means if a USB port fails, or you want to replace the motherboard and reuse the case you can't which makes the whole system e-waste garbage.

Also there's plenty of other prebuilt brands with much better quality with standardized parts, I find the whole review weird as it's just a Dell PC with fancy gamer branding and RGB on it. At least Alienware cases used to look cool even though they were still overpriced crap.

[FreelancerSystem]

1 minute ago, Cavalry Canuck said:

You might not consider it required to reach out for comment. Perhaps on a whole it isn’t. However, it’s sure reeks of bias to not bother trying to get both sides of a story.

It's a whisleblower piece, it doesn't need the corporation being exposed to try and add some comment that would be the usual PR BS

[Cavalry Canuck]

19 minutes ago, FreelancerSystem said:

It's a whisleblower piece, it doesn't need the corporation being exposed to try and add some comment that would be the usual PR BS

Why not? Perhaps the problems are identified and just haven’t been rectified yet. PR bullshit or not, it’s provides important context to be able to offer what they had to say already or, often more damning, if they have nothing to say at all.

 

There weren’t any good reasons to not ask for comment if the honest intentions were to identify the issues and either: a) have them fixed; or b) inform the public. There were several good reasons to not ask for comment if the intention was to cause as much harm as possible to LMG’s reputation.

[FreelancerSystem]

6 minutes ago, Cavalry Canuck said:

Why not? Perhaps the problems are identified and just haven’t been rectified yet. PR bullshit or not, it’s provides important context to be able to offer what they had to say already or, often more damning, if they have nothing to say at all.

 

There weren’t any good reasons to not ask for comment if the honest intentions were to identify the issues and either: a) have them fixed; or b) inform the public. There were several good reasons to not ask for comment if the intention was to cause as much harm as possible to LMG’s reputation.

Steve put his reputation on the line, LMG is massive compared to GN and this could easily tear GN down. So it's incredibly important for GN not to look like its toning things down or hiding things just because "Steve is Linus' friend". The context should come straight from LTT, not GN. Which is the response video we got

[LTanner]

Companies are not your friends. You should judge a company not only by what they've done, but how they act after becoming aware of the issue, and what they do going forward. 

My personal beliefs are that the Billet Labs' Monoblock auction was an unfortunate oversight... which was complicated by initially being given the block to keep, but then asking for it back after the review (which they should be allowed to do). I watched the review after the pitchforks came out since I initially wasn't interested in it at the time- I would've liked to see it in action, personally. I wouldn't mind a follow up video where Linus invites Billet Labs over (all expenses paid of course) to shoot a new video together, where Linus more or less does his on camera persona but with Billet Labs showing him how they would go about setting up their product in an actual case, and then running it through its paces. An in-person apology also would go far, at least for me.

 

I wouldn't mind a follow up video to that one, which would be a water-cooling roundup using the same parts and then a full suite of tests to measure frequency, boosts, temperatures, power usage, etc. It would both be a good way for them to flex LTT Labs' testing methodology, while also serving to show Billet Labs' products in the best light possible. As someone who is curious in water-cooling but afraid to ruin my components, I'd also like to see ease of use and what cases they'd fit in, as well as a total cost for the water-cooling components. Of course, there should also be a baseline reading on just air cooling for power consumption, temperatures, frequencies, etc.

 

I'm saddened by the recent sexual harassment allegations towards Linus Media Group, but at the same time, I do feel slightly better by how serious it is being taken. It will be nice to see how upper management deals with this; I hope to see integrity, and I hope that anyone who may have engaged in such vile actions are dealt with accordingly. I know we're supposed to go by innocent until proven guilty, but I do believe Madison.

 

I don't think Linus is a monster; I think he misread the monoblock situation and made a mistake. If I had known more about the Billet Labs situation when the news first broke, the auction would've been an unfortunate event, but I'd hope for a follow up review of the monoblock in the best situation possible. We already knew that the team members wanted more time to work on videos; they said so themselves by the video uploaded to YouTube. However, if out of all of this, LMG becomes a better company, then I'll be very happy indeed. I think that the best thing we can do is sit back and allow everyone involved time to reorganize and improve their processes.

[Arneun]

5 minutes ago, FreelancerSystem said:

The context should come straight from LTT, not GN. Which is the response video we got

Depends. Context for mistakes made during production, yes. (there is also a claim to be made that GN also failed to do so properly when they misrepresented LTT stance on warranties (earlier) when they advertised their shop in the process, and I think they didn't include segment on WAN when Linus speaks how the mouse issue was dealt with)

 

But when they are publishing something based only on their sources, well... reaching out for comment when they stopped writing script for video seems like no brainer.

 

They didn't even properly checked if Billet was lying to them, or if they are withholding the information from him (and either Steve is malicious actor here or he didn't get some of that information, I'm choosing to assume incompetence instead of malice).

The information about arrangements for sending back prototype was... let;s say unconfirmed. They are running with one side of the story without even contacting the other side and checking if details add up.

 

Let's just say that in my opinion if Billet had lied, it would destroy their whole piece. It would be seen as nothing but malicious hit piece, and they should consider themself lucky they only get away with inaccurate information.

And keep in mind they could just ask LTT "hey, Billet lab reached to us, they claim you promised to sell the prototype but auctioned it instead, can you give us some context". Now telling them about rest of the video they are planning to do.

 

That being said I'm little bit concerned that we don't even know how even looked conversation between Billet and GN, and who started it. Steve usually leads such comments with "we've been contacted by", but their don't even do it that way this time (at least from what I've caught).

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, Cavalry Canuck said:

Why not? Perhaps the problems are identified and just haven’t been rectified yet. PR bullshit or not, it’s provides important context to be able to offer what they had to say already or, often more damning, if they have nothing to say at all.

 

There weren’t any good reasons to not ask for comment if the honest intentions were to identify the issues and either: a) have them fixed; or b) inform the public. There were several good reasons to not ask for comment if the intention was to cause as much harm as possible to LMG’s reputation.

 

If an article/content is reporting on factual information that is already in the public domain, then not contacting someone is fairly standard. 

 

Really you contact people to get new information - you don't reach out to a source if they have nothing new to give you.

 

In this case GN was reporting on information that LTT had already published in the public domain. 

 

Ergo there is nothing Linus could say to change the *basic facts* about the misinformation and bad data that GN reported about - because it was there - for all to see.

 

LMG’s reputation was harmed by nothing other than LMG’s actions. 

 

All you are doing now is trying to shoot the messenger. 

 

[DarkKratoz]

55 minutes ago, Cavalry Canuck said:

You might not consider it required to reach out for comment. Perhaps on a whole it isn’t. However, it’s sure reeks of bias to not bother trying to get both sides of a story.

I feel like the only thing reeking of bias here are posts about how not reaching out to Linus prior to publishing the story is bad.

 

If GN had reached out prior to publishing, there's no guarantee that LMG wouldn't have scrambled to post some preface or counter-smear to undermine GN's credibility. It's very common for public figures and corporations to be blindsided by journalistic investigations, and to be reached for comment after. It happens all the time. It's about as common as reaching out for comment prior to publishing.

 

Besides, what are the two sides of the story? Side a) LMG auctioned a part that didn't belong to them (video evidence), did a review where they mishandled the product (video evidence), published a video of said review with the conclusion based on their faulty analysis (video evidence), and commented on their decision to do so afterwards (video evidence), and many videos posted over the last year of "Labs data" that was incredibly incorrect, but had not been caught in production (of which, there is of course, video evidence). Side b) How Linus feels about all of the above? What really could have been added or clarified, since Linus has already commented on these points on the WAN Show before, other than the auctioning of the waterblock?

[MercuryRain]

5 minutes ago, DarkKratoz said:

I feel like the only thing reeking of bias here are posts about how not reaching out to Linus prior to publishing the story is bad.

 

If GN had reached out prior to publishing, there's no guarantee that LMG wouldn't have scrambled to post some preface or counter-smear to undermine GN's credibility. It's very common for public figures and corporations to be blindsided by journalistic investigations, and to be reached for comment after. It happens all the time. It's about as common as reaching out for comment prior to publishing.

 

Besides, what are the two sides of the story? Side a) LMG auctioned a part that didn't belong to them (video evidence), did a review where they mishandled the product (video evidence), published a video of said review with the conclusion based on their faulty analysis (video evidence), and commented on their decision to do so afterwards (video evidence), and many videos posted over the last year of "Labs data" that was incredibly incorrect, but had not been caught in production (of which, there is of course, video evidence). Side b) How Linus feels about all of the above? What really could have been added or clarified, since Linus has already commented on these points on the WAN Show before, other than the auctioning of the waterblock?

First off, you're already missing important information.

 

The block was given to LTT initially under the understanding that it would be kept. Period.

 

They later asked for it back after a negative review, which is an eventuality they should have expected might happen when they initially sent it in.

 

Steve claims that Linus took the block, auctioned it off without caring despite there being an initial understanding that it wasn't his and it being a vitally important piece of Bullet Labs' business, and it's just Linus trying to destroy some poor startup.

 

This is a pretty massive take to be had without having the details of the situation correct.

 

Also, trying to defend Billet Labs is stupid. They sent what they are now claiming was their only working version of their product to Linus with, apparently, the expectation that doing so would get them a review of 'yep, they're better than something that can be had for a quarter of the price. Go buy these guys!'.

 

And again, they're selling that product - which they can't reliably reproduce - for $800.

 

That's not some poor startup that is being unfairly judged.  Were they correctly evaluated? No.

 

But their business model is straight up scummy and imagine what Linus' video commentary would look like if he actually had ordered one himself to review? Because he does that from time to time. 

 

How many years do you think it's going to take for him to get a monoblock? For a last gen card?

[Godlygamer23]

1 hour ago, FreelancerSystem said:

So Steve did the appropriate thing and showed there were a lot of things LTT needs to figure out and change before they even think about comparing Labs to the quality of GN testing.

And this is what started it all. They made themselves seem like the gold standard, and called out other reviewers. If they just said "this is our intent, we're working through issues still", then this wouldn't have blown up like it has. 

[Arneun]

15 minutes ago, fragglepop said:

 

 

In this case GN was reporting on information that LTT had already published in the public domain.

Ergo there is nothing Linus could say to change the *basic facts* about the misinformation and bad data that GN reported about - because it was there - for all to see.

Information that LTT promised sending prototype back to Billet Labs wasn't public knowledge.

The same goes for information that technically the prototype wasn't Billet property when they asked for it back, and they actually asked for their gift back.

The same goes for information that they weren't in contact since August 10/11.

The same goes for information that LTT reached out to Billet Labs later, and how looked the conversation.

 

I've seen Linus being accused of lying, and thievery based on that information, and that's GN's fault

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Arneun said:

Information that LTT promised sending prototype back to Billet Labs wasn't public knowledge.

The same goes for information that technically the prototype wasn't Billet property when they asked for it back, and they actually asked for their gift back.

The same goes for information that they weren't in contact since August 10/11.

The same goes for information that LTT reached out to Billet Labs later, and how looked the conversation.

 

I've seen Linus being accused of lying, and thievery based on that information, and that's GN's fault

The Billet labs thing where Linus said "I didn't sell it - I auctioned it" and "We could have tested it properly - but that was impossible"  and the classic (paraphrasing) "I'm not paying to test something properly" .

 

I mean - die on that hill if you like...

 

What about LGM consistently publishing incorrect data? Is that GN's fault too? 

 

[Arneun]

3 minutes ago, fragglepop said:

The Billet labs thing where Linus said "I didn't sell it - I auctioned it" and "We could have tested it properly - but that was impossible"  and the classic (paraphrasing) "I'm not paying to test something properly" .

Hey, that were massive fuck-ups. I'm not saying Linus isn't at fault.

I'm saying, that maybe, maybe he would be his better self if GN choose to not publish allegations as facts.

[harls]

1 hour ago, FreelancerSystem said:

It's a whisleblower piece, it doesn't need the corporation being exposed to try and add some comment that would be the usual PR BS

and facts be damned.  Just so happens that taking down LMG is a boost For GN

[mMontana]

1 hour ago, FreelancerSystem said:

It's a whisleblower piece, it doesn't need the corporation being exposed to try and add some comment that would be the usual PR BS

... not really?

Except for dialogues with Billet Labs, GN reported... what was already public.

• LTX visit to the labs
• LTX landscape with the waterblock for the auction
• All errors on video published by LMG

No whistleblower here... Unless some person forwarded info to GN team. Which currently has not be stated.

So i cannot exclude, but also... cannot be presumed until alleged.

[Blademaster91]

24 minutes ago, Arneun said:

Information that LTT promised sending prototype back to Billet Labs wasn't public knowledge.

The same goes for information that technically the prototype wasn't Billet property when they asked for it back, and they actually asked for their gift back.

The same goes for information that they weren't in contact since August 10/11.

The same goes for information that LTT reached out to Billet Labs later, and how looked the conversation.

 

I've seen Linus being accused of lying, and thievery based on that information, and that's GN's fault

LTT saying they planned on sending the prototype back isn't the same as promising and telling Billet they would send back the monoblock.

 

Except we don't know if Billet had some sort of contract with the block, and the important part to note is Billet said they could keep the block as long as LTT would do more videos with it. Linus said the block was crap, refused to do any more testing with it, so of course Billet labs wanted their one off prototype back as any company should with a valuable product when a reviewer refuses to give it a fair and objective review.

 

There was no contact for several days because LTT screwed up the email, that isn't Billet lab's fault.

 

And LTT only reached out to Billet labs after GN made their video, the conversation on LTT's side doesn't look good given Linus was arrogant and childish refusing to correctly test the product, LTT decided to auction it off and Linus said it wasn't sold it was auctioned, then LMG sent and email saying something along the lines of "at least it wasn't sitting on a shelf" so the fact LTT screwed up so badly doesn't look good with their treatment towards a small company.

 

It does seem like lying and thievery when the product wasn't tested properly, Linus trying to brush off that the product was wrongly sold, and the fact that the block wasn't returned when Billet labs asked for it back. All the fault is on LTT, GN only reported on what happened.

52 minutes ago, Theeeengineer said:

 Gamer Suckus when they have several flaws in the past.

You're trying to throw shade at people for their grammar here, yet you say that? Please try harder.

Also could you point any flaws GN has in their video of pointing out LMG's mistakes?

Everyone makes mistakes, yet mistakes should be learned from, which LMG didn't seem to care about for a while now as they decided to prioritize rushing videos out over correcting mistakes which shouldn't have made it past their editing team.

[Cooldoe]

1 hour ago, FreelancerSystem said:

Steve put his reputation on the line, LMG is massive compared to GN and this could easily tear GN down. So it's incredibly important for GN not to look like its toning things down or hiding things just because "Steve is Linus' friend". The context should come straight from LTT, not GN. Which is the response video we got

Except Steve know that Linus would not tear down other creator.

 

The issue of not contacting and not disclosing important information reflect badly on Steve credibility as he is not even upholding the same ethic he require to Linus.

 

I have said multiple time, the video need to be made but Steve decision not to publish the other side of the story and omitting some information reflect very badly on Steve ethics. If he want to be harbinger of ethics then he should put on proper information.

He can create a informative critics that is ethical or just skip talking about ethics, but he choose to talk about ethic and being unethical in the same time. That is Steve choice and he should be criticized for that point.

[CameronP90]

14 hours ago, MercuryRain said:

See? 

This is proper criticism for LMG, take notes @mikaelus 

 

I handily agree with you on that front, when it comes to how much LMG has embraced the jank.  It drives me insane, as someone who likes to do things properly and use the right tool for the right job.

 

However, I also know that the reason a lot of people WATCH LTT in the first place is because watching them embrace the jank is entertaining.

That last part is partly true with me too. I love to see whole room watercooling but that's that, and this "jank" is them just being completely stupid.

[starsmine]

8 hours ago, Goriss said:

So yet another joke from LTT I thought so. The first "apology" video was a joke so why not make another joke. But who is laughing?

FROM LTT?
bro its from a comedian who has no association with LMG.

[bandainamcofan]

3 hours ago, Cavalry Canuck said:

You might not consider it required to reach out for comment. Perhaps on a whole it isn’t. However, it’s sure reeks of bias to not bother trying to get both sides of a story.

Not if it could be considered an ethical violation in and of itself. Since Steve knows Linus, it could be viewed as giving the subject of a story preferential treatment, which is also a huge problem. 

[Loopers]

2 hours ago, fragglepop said:

I mean - die on that hill if you like...

May want to look in the mirror, bud.

 

Did you comprehend what you read from @Arneun or is it easier to deflect with unrelated points. Go read his\her post again and respond without deflection.

2 hours ago, fragglepop said:

What about LGM consistently publishing incorrect data? Is that GN's fault too? 

 

See above as that is being obtuse and among the most disingenuous points of view I've seen yet.

When you light a company on fire with incendiary statements due to lazy reporting because "I didn't need to reach out," GN (Steve) is guilty of the very ethical lazy reporting he accused LMG of. Keep your emotion out of your commentary and unless you can respond objectively, why bother?

Linus' statement about a 10 million dollar lab, go ahead and have at that. I called him out for assuming money will make them better. It won't and GN or HU are proof you don't need to toss $10 million at the wall for accuracy. You want to have at LMG for typical cooperate bullshit, have at it but also acknowledge the guy stepped down because it was overwhelming. I assume he felt overwhelmed and hired a seasoned CEO to handle the business.

 

Billet withheld pertinent information when communicating with Steve or Steve didn't do his homework and looked foolish reporting on potential theft when that would have been answered had he done what he accused LMG of; put some effort in to reach out for comment and seen proof of an email (albeit didn't cc Billet) was in the process of being sent back, albeit late.

 

That said, this was a courtesy return. LMG owned the hardware. It was given to them and Billet changed their mind after the shitty "review" and the bad-mouthing had Linus done. I'd want my hardware back as well or at least hope they would return it despite knowing I gave it to them. They gambled by sending it to the largest outlet when no offense to LMG, GN would have been the better option and I don't think anyone would disagree with that. All three parties involved share a form of blame in one way or the other.

[Cooldoe]

18 minutes ago, bandainamcofan said:

Not if it could be considered an ethical violation in and of itself. Since Steve knows Linus, it could be viewed as giving the subject of a story preferential treatment, which is also a huge problem. 

Nope. Giving both side of the story is the ethical thing to do regardless Steve relationship with Linus.

He is not giving Linus preferential treatment seeing that he do ask Newegg and Asus their side of the story. So doing the same to Linus is not a preferential treatment at all

[Majestic12]

11 minutes ago, Loopers said:

That said, this was a courtesy return. LMG owned the hardware. It was given to them and Billet changed their mind after the shitty "review" and bad mouthing Linus did. I'd want my hardware back as well or at least hope they would return it despite my giving it to them. They gambled by sending it to the largest outlet when no offense to LMG, GN would have been the better option and I don't think anyone would disagree with that. All three parties involved share a form of blame in one way or the other.

You want to know the ironic kicker? GN would have absolutely destroyed Billet Lab's cooler in their tests. This is part of what bothers me - GN now acts as if they're the saviour of Billet Labs but there's no channel as critical and unyielding as GN when it comes to bad or overpriced tech.

 

I would LOVE for Billet Labs to make a new prototype and send it to GN because that would put Steve in a really bad spot. Shame it would never happen.