But disclosing which things?
Again, this conversation didn't start with a question of buying or receiving review copies but with the propriety of a writer covering a developer whose work he had previously paid for. That seems like a very unusual disclosure to require, and I'm trying to tease out what makes it necessary in this case.

He didn't pay for the work, because the game is free. He donated money. This was unnecessary to covering the person in question.

So if the reviewer bought the physical collector's edition with the fancy doodad, they should inform the customer? If they bought the digital copy, but spent $10 more than was necessary because it gave them a fancy flappy velvet cape in-game, they should inform the customer?

The facetious and verbose review preface I gave up there seems to be more and more relevant. It is amazing that every review doesn't start with a lawyerised tome's worth of prefaces just in case the penny that the reviewer once used to unscrew a drain ends up in the hands of the developer.

Really starting to regret getting into this while on my phone. Not a platform conducive to quick back-and-forth.

And would the reviewer not mention the fancy doodad or fancy flappy cape? Seems like a strange omission if they felt it worth the increased cost. Even then, they bought it like everyone else and it's probably not a big enough deal to mandate a disclosure. But hey, taking everything I say and blowing it up into bizarre hypotheticals is lots of fun. Especially since we already covered how most reviewers don't actually buy the games they cover.

No one ever claimed that it was necessary, I'm just not sure why it's ethically problematic. Must a writer always disclose that they have previously purchased a product (not one under review) from the subject of a story?

This seems like it's just a straightforward abandonment of your position?

The same reason it's ethically problematic for reporters to donate money to politicians. While it's unavoidable that reviewers obtain the games they review by either buying them or receiving a copy gifted to them for review purposes, they should still strive to avoid supporting public figures they may have to cover, and if they support them anyway, the least anyone could ask for is a disclosure or for someone else to write the story. It's dishonest to write about someone you have a preexisting relationship with, monetary or otherwise, without telling the reader about that relationship. I don't understand why this is such a bizarre thing to expect from someone claiming to be a journalist.

You already asked that, and I already answered.

Expected and default on the part of consumers because that's how most people buy games, which is why I pointed out the Steam reviews where consumers often point out when they receive a review copy (example). Buying games is considered the ordinary way for most people to obtain them because not everyone is a reviewer, so it's considered ethical to point out when one uses review copies.

Except I said that it probably wouldn't be worth a disclosure. I just think it'd be strange to pay extra money for something and not mention the things you got for that extra money. Are you actually reading my replies, or just automatically responding based on one or two words you see?

I don't know about ethics, but it would be a crime against humor to not disclose that.

(And you know you can just not accept review copies, right? That's a thing. I've done it. It's fun.)

A "preexisting relationship" in the sense of purchasing a product is pretty tenuous. How many sports reporters wear Nike or Adidas shoes without disclosing it in stories about those companies' sponsored leagues/teams/athletes? Can stock analysts make a "buy" recommendation on Coca-Cola without mentioning the beverage they had with lunch? Must automotive writers include the make of their current car in every article? How about their past cars?

I'm curious if you see different ethical features in these situations. I see them as essentially the same, and also the same as writing about someone to whose work you have a subscription.
"...I wouldn't think it's something that needs to be disclosed unless they felt that their experience with said game impacted (or could be perceived by readers as having impacted) their ability to fairly interpret whatever they're writing about."
So if Kuchera didn't feel that his Patreon subscription impacted his ability to be impartial, he was under no obligation to disclose it?

We should all thank Vain for derrailing the thread with a dubious accusation.

I am not sure, but if I were Trump I would not have paid to be called a fuckface by a Super Sayan.

Honestly, I don't think Briebart got paid at all. I think they decided to write in favor of Trump to spite SJWs, Louder with Crowder wrote good things about him without the need of pay.

And the source is not a credible one. I mean, it is BuzzFeed, a tabloid that thrives on lies and celebrity nonsense.

You realize we've been discussing the ethical obligations of video game journalists, right? Not Trump at all?

Sorry, missed this edit while I was on my phone. Prefacing this again with this just being my take on ethics and how they apply to the medium (and others in GG may disagree with me entirely on this), I'd only say that it comes down to the intent behind disclosing things: if you're spending 10 more dollars than the normal price, most people wouldn't consider that any more of an issue than someone picking up a game while it's on sale. If there's a super-mega-10,000-dollar special edition and they buy that one, then obviously that should be brought up. Kickstarter can be donated to in small or large amounts, so I feel that clarification on that point is necessitated by the subsequent uncertainty so that the reader knows where the writer is coming from.

Again, he didn't purchase a product from the individual he was covering. He was donating money in a way that had nothing to do with his job.

You're comparing my responses to different situations as though they're equal to others; if he had merely bought and/or played a game from said individual in the past, disclosure becomes a judgment call based on whether or not he feels he can be impartial (and again, ideally he would pass on the story to someone else, but let's assume for the sake of argument there's no one else on the planet who can write this story and it's important enough to not just pass up on). Donating money to someone outside of what's required for his job, however, is personal support that occurs outside of the context of his job. Donating money is showing a vested interest in the success of that person, so the objectivity is gone and they need to disclose this for their readers to understand where the writer is coming from. Not disclosing in this situation is pretending to be objective when you aren't.

You keep saying buying games "outside of what's required for his job" is ethically dubious, but that's awfully limiting. People work in the enthusiast press because they love the medium they write about. It's only natural that they purchase and consume a great deal of it outside of their professional obligations, and through a variety of channels.
Patreon is way to pay for, among other things, games and games writing. It isn't like a donation to a political candidate; it's a subscription to someone's work, and it buys early access, exclusive versions, things a games enthusiast might enjoy. It no more implies a personal vested interest than, as I keep repeating, a subscription to an MMO. If any and all recreational expenditures on games are suspect, then, well, good luck convincing anyone who actually likes games to write about them.

Are we going to get into which definition of "patron" the site's name is based off of next? I have to say, it's amusing that we're possibly among the first to consider these relatively new online places and how they fit in to journalistic ethics. At any rate, the site explicitly mentions being designed to "support" creators, but that's probably splitting hairs. More to the point, the SPJ code of ethics outright states that journalists should "avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived" and "disclose unavoidable conflicts."

However you want to spin Patreon, it's clearly a perceived conflict of interest and should then at the very least be disclosed. But yes, journalists have to be careful about what they support; someone covering a political race can't put signs endorsing a candidate in their front yard, for example. Being a journalist means forgoing some of the stuff that they'd probably like to engage in, but that isn't befitting of those in the profession.

As always there is a question of extent. I doubt anyone is going to claim a Kickstarter conflict of interest of a journalist paying for the "copy of the game" tier. But if that same journalist is contributing to the $500 tier and that game is being reviewed, that journalist shouldn't be involved in that story because they are obviously biased.

As to Patreon accounts, that is a person who has already been giving money to the developer. That is a bias. That person should not be writing reviews for that person's game because that person cannot be trusted to be objective about it.

This is how it's supposed to work in journalism. When writing a story for publication, biases and conflicts of interest should be avoided whenever possible. Someone contributing to a developer's Patreon account shouldn't be writing about or reviewing that work if at all possible. If there is no one else qualified to write a particular story (no one else is knowledgeable enough about the subject matter or whatever), then that person is expected to disclose any conflicts of interest they have. If that person worked with a relative, had a minor role on the political campaign. They are expected to explain any biases they might have so that the reader can fairly judge what is written.

For Ben Kuchera to be providing money on Patreon and then writing an article about this person and something that just happened, don't you think it's important to know about this? Can you not see how contributing to Zoe Quinn's Patreon and then writing an article about Gamergate is a conflict of interest? That by contributing to that Patreon, one of perceived to have taken sides? That the article is not being written by an unbiased objective journalist?
It should also be noted that many game reviews these days include how the game was obtained and whether it was gifted, a pre-release, a beta copy or whether they paid for it.

I thought you were still discussing about that. I did not notice when the topic shifted.