It's been several months now since the Gerstman firing, and the subsequent fiasco that followed. In that time, a couple of other notable staff members have followed. Things have been very very quiet around these parts.

It's really very depressing: several very active members of GS have withdrawn "in protest" and several others have just evaporated without warning. Those who have replaced them aren't doing us any favors (in fact, several of my favorite boards have been near-overrun by inexperienced posters who feel insulting is preferable to debating).

And now, this week, a union, which I have tried to be a productive and active member of for the past few months, despite the apathy of several of its original members, must be dismantled. The reason? Its leader (whom I will not mention by name, nor will I name the union: the remnants wish to make a clean start, without any negative feelings) will not pass leadership to another, on the grounds that GS's users condone the firing of Gerstman, and the use of this leader's "brainchild" is no longer appropriate.

Let's put this in perspective, just so there is no misunderstanding: I am not, nor was I ever, here for Jeff. I could care less what happened, and since it's done and over with, I see no real reason to dwell on it. While I am perfectly willing to move on, and accept a fresh start, I feel I need to say something more on the subject.

I'm not here for Jeff, or Alex, or any of the GS staff; I'm here to discuss games and game-related topics with like-minded individuals. I stay, in short, for the community. There are a lot more people in this community who's opinions I care about much more than I ever did the reviewers'.

To me, community is much bigger than one man. If the person is perceived as bigger than the whole, then there's a problem... especially when it's not even clear why the person was dismissed.

...and that presents its own set of mysteries. Since CNET is barred by law from commenting, and Gerstman himself won't talk, everything bandied about is pure speculation. If he was fired for one bad review, given the microscope many current members have put on tracking his every move we should have heard something: a lawsuit for unlawful dismissal, a rant on another website... anything.

If he was fired for other reasons, however, I would expect exactly what we've heard: nothing. Nada. Zero.

And, for fun's sake, let's entertain a third possibility: that he engineered his own firing to accomplish exactly what has happened: a divided community, a lot of unwarranted dislocation... and, when his newest venture is revealed, an increased readership, stolen from his old employer. (Machiavelli isn't just for college political science majors, people.)

So what's the real truth? No one but CNET and Gerstman know; more than likely, no one will ever know outside of those involved. As a community, however, we should (MUST) move beyond it. It's time to start talking video games again, friends and neighbors. It is called "GameSpot", after all. It's time to let the community be bigger than one person again.

**********************************************************************

A couple of things of interest, in case you're interested:

1. No matter what the truth is about the now-infamous review, I sincerely doubt it could have saved "Kane and Lynch." A recent issue of Games for Windows magazine rated it even lower; in fact, if you go to metacritic.com's list of reviews for K&L you'll see that the review is right in line with other reviewers.

(In a funny-yet-ironic turn, I was at Target yesterday with our oldest son, looking for a microphone for a school project. We were poking through the clearance merchandise, and there, buried under a dozen or so copies of "The Golden Compass" PC game were 3 copies of "K&L" (PC version) priced at $12.50. That says more about it than I can put in words.)

2. As to advertising dollars affecting reviews: the same magazine ran several double-page ads for "Universe at War" (which I still feel got a second-rate treatment from GS) and an advertorial (a mix of advertisement and editorial), both of which must have cost Sega some serious cash... and it didn't stop GFW from handing UaW a 7 out of 10.