like I said, you're on something! You heard some things I didn't hear.
He was trying to pin Jim Sterling for being UNFAIR in his criticisms, he wasn't complaining about criticisms as a whole. He spent a good 10 minutes trying to probe Jim for whether ANYTHING about
Slaughtering Grounds wasn't "shit" to see if Jim would be consistent in his statement that he would say if something was good in a game, but that whole discussion was lost upon both of them.
The major issue with that "interview" was that there was no mediation. Both parties were stuck in their own worlds. If you listened to it like I did, and if you could plot out where each of them was coming from, you could see what they were saying, and you'd notice how they somehow lost each other repeatedly, from topic to topic. The guy tried to make a case (a silly one, granted) that Jim was a "leech" and Jim IMMEDIATELY- despite definitely know what he was trying to say -became facetious and sarcastic and citing only definitions of the organism, not the terms contextual meaning with regards to behaviors. That was completely unnecessary of him. Yeah, it was a BIG stretch to call Jim a leech, but that didn't warrant Jim's reaction to belittle him in that manner. All over the damn "interview", the same thing kept happening. One or both would just keep missing the point and somehow dance around looking at the situation for what it was.
Jim's not a bad person, he's just growing increasingly cocky, and seemingly disregarding many things. When he was pinned for falsely promoting untruths, he danced around it without owning up to his lack of source verification. He tried to make it up to being "due diligence", but at the end of the day, he stated untruths, and he simply refused to own up to that. That and his unnecessary laughter at really inappropriate times were the things that bothered me the most about Jim Sterling's behavior throughout the "interview".
Hearing the Digital Homicide guy stress, repeatedly, how much all he cared about were the facts and not the opinions just struck a powerful chord with me. So maybe I was won over by saying something so near and dear to me. But he made a whole lot of sense all across the board. As I already said, yes, he flubbed plenty, but you could tell he was flustered throughout the entire thing. He spent all this time NOT addressing an individual directly who's been the primary source of much frustration and harassment he's had to deal with this past year, and now he put himself out there, publicly, hashing it out with Jim Sterling one on one. Those will ALWAYS make you uncomfortable if you don't make a career out of these sorts of discussions. So naturally he plain screwed up and he even lost his train of thought a couple times. But I could track where he was going several times, and he wasn't wrong most of the time.
Like I said, the major takeaway I got from that was that unlike what I'd thought would happen, the "interview" was a MAJOR humanizing source of "PR" for the Digital Homicide guy. It was a good thing, and by all accounts he did very well. If I was the person next to him he was asking how he did at the end of it, I would've said, "You did good. Not excellent, cause you made this and this mistake. But overall, you did okay."
