Watch out, trolls. It's hammer time.

The apocalypse is surely approaching, as I ready my hands for another gripping blog post — the first time this has happened all year, and my fingers are struggling a bit with this new task, like a pubescent boy fumbling with a bra strap. So bear with me if I ramble a bit; like that boy, it might take some time for me to get to the goods. It doesn’t help that it’s barely past 6:30am and my coffee cup isn’t refilling itself without the intervention of my fumbling fingers… which are writing this blog post. Duh.

Okay, so yesterday a pillar of the tech blogosphere/websiteosphere (I don’t even know what to call websites these days anymore, since most of them are blog-like), Engadget, shut down comments on its stories. As explained to VentureBeat by Editor-in-Chief, Joshua Topolsky, the decision was made because of a recent shift in the tone of comments, spurred largely by an influx of new visitors who found their way to the site because of the iPad unveiling. Now, apart from concluding that the iPad is an inherently evil device created to brainwash hipsters the world over, I’m forced to think about whether shutting these abusive commenters out entirely is really the right decision for Engadget.

See, I’ve been working in video games for a long time. There aren’t too many game-related forums out there that don’t occasionally — or regularly — devolve into sixth-grade playgrounds, with personal attacks on other users echoing through the digital air. It’s possible that my time spent trying to rehabilitate trolls — or to otherwise peacefully coexist with them — while arguing whether Fantasy Creature X could actually take down Hero Y with Feat Z and Weapon of Awesome Power +2 has desensitized me to the more vile of commenters. I’ve come to accept that anonymity, when combined with a group of idiots, tends to create some new breed of superidiot.

Topolsky’s thinking is that by turning off comments, he’s, “hoping they’ll get bored and decide to stop commenting.” That’s absolutely a possibility; these superidiots, although exceptionally gifted at spewing verbal vomit, surely have short attention spans — I liken them to those fast zombies in Dawn of the Dead, bound to be distracted by some other target that zips past their view. They’ll go complain somewhere else (via @dsilverman), they’ll go be turds on Xbox Live, harass their fellow Tauren on World of Warcraft, push over seniors at the grocery store… whatever. Or let’s say these superidiots are, like, even more advanced zombies — they’re angered by Engadget’s efforts to thwart their attempts at intelligent conversation, and feasting on commenters on other websites just won’t sate their hunger.

At some point, Engadget will turn comments back on. Apple will eventually announce the iHat (a hat I just made up that beams movies directly to your head but still has no USB port), and the superidiots will once again catch a glimpse of a shiny “Comment” link at Engadget. What then? They could come back with greater fury. I’ll agree with the Houston Chronicle’s Dwight Silverman (yes, sir, you get two links in one post!) that moderating the comments is really the only way to go from here. It requires a commitment from Engadget, either to devote internal resources to monitoring all comments or by enlisting the help of trustworthy people within the community to police the superidiots. As Topolsky said himself in that VentureBeat piece, Engadget can handle the flamewars. If it’s just a matter of cutting off outright offensive comments and personal attacks, the resources required to moderate user contributions is minimal.

We’ll see how it all plays out over the next couple of weeks. It’s possible that the trolls will move on and find a new home. In that case, Engadget looks really smart, making a bold stand against internet idiocy and ignorance. But if these particular trolls are the grudge-holding type, they’ll likely be waiting for the minute comments are turned  back on. At that point, Engadget has to decide whether to abolish comments altogether or just to start moderating them more actively.

As always, I welcome your thoughts in our comments — don’t screw with me or I’m shutting them off — via email or on Twitter! Until summer, when I write another post!

I’m hoping to extend my streak of success with awesome PC-game developers — having thoroughly loved working with CD Projekt RED (The Witcher) and Stardock (Sins of a Solar Empire, Galactic Civilizations II) — as I announce the addition of Paradox Interactive to the Evolve family of clients. Join me in welcoming these wonderful Swedes to our intentionally small roster!

This project will once again allow me to flex my community-outreach muscle (eww, gross), as it’s no standard “here, promote this full-priced boxed game” deal — I’m working on two community-driven projects aimed squarely at the company’s devoted fanbase of strategy gamers. For the Glory and Arsenal of Democracy are uber-mods for Europa Universalis II (yes, II, not III) and Hearts of Iron II, respectively, that Paradox is going to publish through their GamersGate service. I love to see devs and publishers supporting their communities like this, and I hope that I can help the games succeed.

It’s also a fun opportunity to work alongside some other PR folk at TriplePoint, as well as Simon Callaghan, with whom I worked on Neverwinter Nights way back in the day. Anyway, keep an eye on this site and on games sites everywhere for more info! And, of course, if you’re a journalist interested in talking to the devs or getting more info, just let me know.

“Fortunately, iTunes allows you to see other reviews posted by the same reviewer. So, we clicked on the reviewer “Vegas Bound” (iTunes link) and started to look at his reviews. He reviewed 7 applications, and gave each one of them 5 stars. Each review was short and sweet, and extremely positive. These reviews represented 6 different developers. A quick Google search revealed an infuriating truth: every single one of these developers was a client of one PR firm: Reverb Communications.”

The evidence looks pretty damning, but ultimately Reverb denies any wrongdoing in a response that states its ” interns and employees write their reviews based on their own game play experience, after having purchased the game by themselves, a practice not uncommon by anyone selling games or apps and hardly unethical.” This is where things get a bit fuzzy, of course. Have I given games I’ve worked on 10-out-of-10 reviews on sites where I had the ability? Yeah, it happens. But hey, guys, I also review other games and give them high scores if they’re deserving. I’ve given games I worked on mediocre reviews if I didn’t like them (well… nothing lower than an 8, of course, or I’d give them no review at all ). So maybe these interns just need to wisen up a bit and start reviewing other stuff. Only kidding. Of course that wouldn’t get to the root of the problem and would probably just make it a little bit worse.

MobileCrunch point out an excerpt from a pitch doc provided by a developer, alleged to be from Reverb, in which it’s stated that it “…employs a small team of interns who are focused on managing online message boards, writing influential game reviews, and keeping a gauge on the online communities.” Seems that their interns may also be going around to message boards and hyping their clients’ products. To me, that’s just as upsetting — at least if they’re doing it under some pseudonym and trying avoid being outed as PR reps.

I was in a situation a few years ago when I was working for an agency on the NVIDIA community account, as we were accused of essentially shilling, paying shills or planting shills for the video-card manufacturer. I don’t know where the NDAs and such stop, so go ahead and read the statement we (I) sent to Shacknews back in the day. I still stand by it and am sure that we weren’t acting unethically. You’ll have to trust me on that, I guess, but even so, it was already getting too close to OMG VIRAL MARKETER territory for my liking at the time. Now, though, I see that our practices of just working really, really closely with the community — talking and interacting with them on a very personal level (IM, phone and whatnot), hoping that they’ll appreciate our clients and us even more — is what we do on a wider scale now thanks to Twitter, Facebook, etc.

After all, the fans are out there. They like reviewing games. Games they like will probably earn at least a 4 rating, unless the player is holding onto his stars as if they were a rare commodity; so why even bother putting your own reviews up? For one game quoted in the MobileCrunch article, HydroTilt XL, there were over 300 5-star reviews (of 900-something total) — clearly any cover shilling tactics need not be employed here. Ah yes, the quality factor. Well, I think that any sensible person in this industry realizes that, especially these days, if you offer a quality product, people will buy it. With the rise of social networking, we have a huge connected audience that wants to share its love of games or music or movies or plywood manufacturers. Give them something they want to talk about.

I should finish off by saying that we really don’t know if Reverb has done anything wrong. It may just be unfortunate levels of zeal on the behalf of its interns, who really did love the game they were working on — and as it may have been their first experience with the iPhone App Store, their first review inevitably raising questions about the motivations. I do hope it’s not true — being accused of being greasy when you think you’re being clean sucks, and the people I do know at Reverb are good, honest people.