>>323467
Sitting on this for a while, got a few different thoughts in mind.
First:
I still don't understand Thunderclap's purpose, but if it works for you, okay.
Second:
Your three objectives seem like they piggyback off other useful ideas had that are long term.
>awareness of corruption
>alternative outlets with better ethical policies that are also content rich
>get new blood to deal with concerns of gaming journalism's ethical issues
Content is what drives sites, not policy. The second point has been a failure in some instances so far because we ignore the importance of that; it's why nichegamer's done well and why others haven't done much. Any alternative needs to be an actual alternative, not a compromise of sub-par information. People need to know what true alternatives exist and what sites trying to become alternatives are around. You want to hype up new press, so it needs to be known what's new and what their strong points are.
For the third point, I would also look to the other two as key points. Example: sites that have had major ethical reform. This is somewhat related to #2 and is a good point of conversation for #3. Take IGN: Everyone knows about them, everyone understands that they are with some level of corporate corruption inside. At the same time the policy written here has many excellent points:
www.ign.com/wikis/ign/Standards_and_Practices
>IGN's editorial and sales teams work independently of one another.
>no member of the editorial team is ever aware of the details of a sponsorship or advertising, including amount spent, the type of advertisement, or even the identity of the sponsor.
>Our reviewers, news writers, and editors see the ads when they go up on the site, same as our readers.
>IGN reimburses staff who pay out of pocket for any business-related travel expenses, including picking up the check when we meet with publishers.
>In the case of review events, we do not accept travel or accommodation. If we have to attend a review event, IGN pays for the appropriate critic to cover said event.
>No one on the IGN content team is permitted to accept any personal gift from a publisher, developer, or PR agency in excess of $60, the cost of an average game. Gifts over $60 are the property of IGN
>To guard against those investments influencing an editor's coverage, staffers must immediately disclose to their managers when they donate more to a project than it would cost to purchase the product when or if it becomes available (eg. the cost of a pre-order). In those cases, that editor will either be taken off of any coverage IGN chooses to do, or that investment will be disclosed as part of whatever coverage we do.
>If someone at IGN develops a relationship with an industry contact that extends beyond a professional friendship, he or she must disclose that to the editorial managers, who will determine whether or not that employee should be permitted to cover their friend's projects. If we determine that employee can still cover the project fairly, that personal relationship will be disclosed to our users.
Just how strictly that policy is enforced is a question I can't answer. But on how good it is, that's worth talking about and bringing up in reference to other sites. We know this is a policy that works on the biggest site, so what can smaller ones do? Where do other big sites fail?
Overall I like what you're doing here as #1 and #2 are active, ongoing efforts already, especially #2. The first has fallen a bit to the side so it's a good reminder that Deep Freeze, now a few days over 1 year old, still exists and is still active. #3 has been the most difficult point we've had and if this helps, great. Most importantly, I just don't want you to be stuck frozen in place because of a thunderclap.