Support NeoGAF

[Darklord]

Half of the GB crew is obnoxious and overbearing though people just enjoy their sense of humor, which may be because their actions are more acceptable as men in the eyes of their audience.

No they aren't. Most of them get on just fine. They act goofy and silly, you might think that's obnoxious and that's your opinion but when on the bombcast does one of them start yelling over everyone? Or screaming something over and over and over or constantly and repeatedly yell total nonsense? Or when the host asks one to settle down they start yelling even more? Or just cuts off a conversation to talk about other things? She was a nightmare on those E3 videos. They even gave her a second chance and she was just as bad. It's not a once off then. There are plenty of men who are annoying too. Guess what? They don't get hired either.

Dave Sniders sister is very loud and silly and everyone loves her on the site and keeps asking for her and Dave to come back. It's because she's nice and a lot of fun. But according to you everyone on that site MUST hate her for being a woman.

 

[Interfectum]

Besides the points about which a couple of people here replied to you already, you're not seriously suggesting the SJWs are actually making fake twitter accounts to to harass themselves in order to get attention.

..
I'm not going to bother with that kind of thinking much sorry, but I will say this: please, reconsider your position.

What? I've never suggested there was a conspiracy. I am suggesting the gaming press is enjoying this influx of attention they are receiving thanks to Quinn and GamersGate though.

 

[Mononoke]

Half of the GB crew is obnoxious and overbearing though people just enjoy their sense of humor, which may be because their actions are more acceptable as men in the eyes of their audience.

That's just your personal opinion. Doesn't excuse Alexander and others who work in the industry to lash out at them because women weren't hired. Expressing disappointment? Sure. Explaining WHY they think they were unfairly treated? Absolutely. Flinging shit, nope.

This again is the problem with this movement, and why it's pissed off a lot of people and alienated many. If they think they can just keep lashing out at everyone that doesn't side with their opinion, shit is going nowhere. And I say this as someone that 100% supports their ideological stances (and think this industry has a lot of issues to deal with). Again, I totally get the frustration. I get the anger. These people have to CONSTANTLY face harassment,threats and abuse. Daily, even. They are apart of an industry where they are not treated equally (both in how their opinions are heard, and the content that is made).

So I get why they are angry, and they have every right to be angry. But if your ultimate goal is change this industry, to get people to understand why these are issues, you don't lash out at them and make it an us vs. them argument. You don't say: you are either with me or against me. You either see this 100% my way, or you are a misogynistic piece of shit. That is not going to fly, and will not work. And believe it or not, you can be for their ideologies, and still disagree with specific criticisms they have (or their approach to certain aspects of these problems). It's not an all or nothing proposition. So even those that agree with them are going to be alienated.

 

[SerTapTap]

What? I've never suggested there was a conspiracy. I am suggesting the gaming press is enjoying this influx of attention they are receiving thanks to Quinn and GamersGate though.

I'm pretty sure exactly zero people other than a few trolls enjoy any part of this situation.

 

[Lalalandia]

I'm sorry but that's extremely messed up.

I have to disagree here, it is quite possible to feel shame or guilt over things you have no direct control over. That's often the reason major change happens particularly in a wider political sense, tragedy happens, report details obvious failings, folks pressure their politicians to make changes they resisted or were not vocal enough in supporting in the first place.

Would it even be possible though? Literally all you have to do to co opt such a "movement" is tweet the exact same thing with #NewHashtag instead of #GamerGate

I'd be impressed by the effort to try at least, it's a better alternative than doing a comical Ali and denying the reality of what is happening under the GG banner. This field is lost but if the battle is worth fighting it's worth trying on new ground.

 

[Mooreberg]

Really? Is there absolute evidence that it is just gamers doing this instead of those co-opting the movement? With those individuals arguably standing something to gain from this.

In phrasing it in this way, it isn't much different than how some people viewed the "gamers are over" series of stories.

That is my view on the matter as well. I have a hard time believing that people who have been aware of Jenn's output since the 1up days just randomly turned on her.

Nutcases harassing her personally seems to have started with the Al Jazeera article. People who want to go on a trolling spree see which accounts are featured in "stories" that consist largely of embedded twitter messages. The people putting those articles together are unknowingly posting a bounty board for assholes to peruse.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

When these 'others' are so successfully co-opting the GG 'movement' then you have to ask whether the movement was ever what you wanted it to be in the first place or is worth continuing to support. Honestly I do hope that those who are against what the GG label has gained infamy from do split off and form a new group leaving the trolls with the tag they have so completely co-opted.

This is what I'm thinking. The only truly useful kernel of activism in the GG movement is "gaming press should be a little more transparent about their connections" which is perfectly reasonable, but also more of a modest complaint than a valiant cause to take up arms over. It's getting overwhelmed by the vitriol because it's almost impossible to be legitimately vitriolic about shitty game reviews.

 

[ScatheZombie]

As a developer on multiple AAA MMOs, I have experienced a lot of what Leigh Alexander expressed in her article. We are required to maintain a community presence and interact on a personal level with our players. And people can be really mean. I've been called out by name, multiple times, on our own game forums, twitter, facebook, reddit, etc. Players have called for my firing, for my death, for horrible things to happen to myself and my family. I've been called countless names, repeatedly and endlessly personally attacked, and even confronted in person by individuals who probably thought they were being rather intimidating.

I've dealt with all of that, almost every day, for the past 5 years. And I will admit that female developers get it easily 10x worse (my wife is also a dev and the shit she gets is insane sometimes - including needing to seriously involve the authorities a couple times).

However, you know how we both deal with it? We don't get into pointless twitter arguments. We don't engage and try to 'teach those assholes a lesson'. We don't try to get back at them. We just fucking ignore them.

Because after 5 years, you realize something - or at least you should. Those people who say and do those things, they are an extremely vocal, extremely small minority. For every one of them, despite being as loud as 1000 others, there are 100 players who absolutely worship the ground you walk on. Who hang on your every word wanting to hear what you have to say. Who genuinely love your products and want, desperately, for you to make more of them. And they are usually very quiet and very grateful.

Those people are gamers.

And that's the problem I see with gaming journalism. They are completely focused on the bad apples, on the controversy, on what gets more hits, and on what makes them upset. Maybe they wouldn't be filled with such obvious hate and vitriol if they didn't constantly focus on the people spewing hate and vitriol?

And David Auerbach's article mentions the shift we are also seeing from the developer side. The move to amateur gaming media enthusiasts - Youtube and Streamers. These people also don't focus on the hate and vitriol. They have a much better relationship with their viewers, and even with developers. It's no secret that marketing budgets have been moving away from dumping money into the gaming press machine and into funding Youtube playthroughs and Twitch streaming. (In case that was a secret, we actually pay a lot of popular streamers, youtubers, and other enthusiasts for coverage - because it's more effective than an IGN splash.)

So maybe the greater gaming press should takes notes from developers and enthusiasts and start listening to the people who actually enjoy gaming and stop listening to assholes on the internet.

 

[SerTapTap]

I have to disagree here, it is quite possible to feel shame or guilt over things you have no direct control over. That's often the reason major change happens particularly in a wider political sense, tragedy happens, report details obvious failings, folks pressure their politicians to make changes they resisted or were not vocal enough in supporting in the first place.

No, it is straight up messed up to feel guilt for stuff you do not have any form of control over because other people are telling you it's your fault. It is absolutely disgusting to try and make others feel guilty for something they haven't done too, and it's usually why people feel that way. Absolutely no one should be made to feel bad because they harmlessly enjoy a thing that harmful people have also enjoyed.

I'd be impressed by the effort to try at least, it's a better alternative than doing a comical Ali and denying the reality of what is happening under the GG banner. This field is lost but if the battle is worth fighting it's worth trying on new ground.

Pretty sure I'd just be yelled at and called a "gamergater" for doing so--I've been yelled at already for making vaguely related statement and I've never even used the hashtag (and I never bring up "corruption" either--I really do not think it's worth pushing that issue in the present context).

 

[Patryn]

And the Dan hiring is a good example of how slanted the concerns of many in the GamersGate movement are. Dan's hiring was entirely an example of the chumminess of the press and how hermetically sealed it is. When the site was gently (and it was gentle) criticized for it, the same people complaining about GamersGate were up in arms about how sacrosanct the hiring of Dan was because he was the "most qualified" when his primary qualification was that he was goofy and friends with the group already. And I shouldn't have to do this, but I'll add that I think Dan has been a great addition to the site.

I'd disagree with this to an extent. I saw some stuff that wasn't what I would call gentle. I wouldn't call it bad; By no means does it approach a lot of the vitriol we're currently seeing, but I'd give it a 4 or a 5 out of 10 on the scale of nastiness.

 

[Vice]

No they aren't. Most of them get on just fine. They act goofy and silly, you might think that's obnoxious and that's your opinion but when on the bombcast does one of them start yelling over everyone?

Jeff, Ryan and Dan all have said babble as useless as Leighs and the group dynamic ls earliy on lead to a few members, Brad and Patrick , having fewer oppurtunities to soeak without being interrupted. Eventually things smoothed over.

Or screaming something over and over and over or constantly and repeatedly yell total nonsense? Or when the host asks one to settle down they start yelling even more? Or just cuts off a conversation to talk about other things? She was a nightmare on those E3 videos. They even gave her a second chance and she was just as bad. It's not a once off then. There are plenty of men who are annoying too. Guess what? They don't get hired either.

Yes, the bombcast is filled with nonsense and is at its best when it is.

Dave Sniders sister is very loud and silly and everyone loves her on the site and keeps asking for her and Dave to come back. It's because she's nice and a lot of fun. But according to you everyone on that site MUST hate her for being a woman.

No, because she does not act in the way they expect a woman to act. There is a difference.

 

[gogosox82]

Man I really wish Jenn Franck would just leave twitter for a few days. She seems to be having some sort of mental breakdown right down and its sad and heartbreaking. Just leave for a few days or a week and then come back. I sure the trolls will be gone by then.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

Note: Leigh Alexander and the other woman who harshly criticized Giant Bomb (and received horrifying harassment for it) did not apply for the job. This came up in the last threads about this back when it happened. Somehow the idea that they were angry for not being hired was invented out of thin air to attack them. Meanwhile, women that the GB crew and audience liked (like Cara Ellison and *gasp* Zoe Quinn) who did announce their applications and publicly noted their disappointment, people seemed to assume that they never applied at all (ie in the form of "well if someone like them applied then I'd see the issue but Leigh Alexander was just whining so").

 

[FF Seraphim]

As a developer on multiple AAA MMOs, I have experienced a lot of what Leigh Alexander expressed in her article. We are required to maintain a community presence and interact on a personal level with our players. And people can be really mean. I've been called out by name, multiple times, on our own game forums, twitter, facebook, reddit, etc. Players have called for my firing, for my death, for horrible things to happen to myself and my family. I've been called countless names, repeatedly and endlessly personally attacked, and even confronted in person by individuals who probably thought they were being rather intimidating.

I've dealt with all of that, almost every day, for the past 5 years. And I will admit that female developers get it easily 10x worse (my wife is also a dev and the shit she gets is insane sometimes - including needing to seriously involve the authorities a couple times).

However, you know how we both deal with it? We don't get into pointless twitter arguments. We don't engage and try to 'teach those assholes a lesson'. We don't try to get back at them. We just fucking ignore them.

Because after 5 years, you realize something - or at least you should. Those people who say and do those things, they are an extremely vocal, extremely small minority. For every one of them, despite being as loud as 1000 others, there are 100 players who absolutely worship the ground you walk on. Who hang on your every word wanting to hear what you have to say. Who genuinely love your products and want, desperately, for you to make more of them. And they are usually very quiet and very grateful.

Those people are gamers.

And that's the problem I see with gaming journalism. They are completely focused on the bad apples, on the controversy, on what gets more hits, and on what makes them upset. Maybe they wouldn't be filled with such obvious hate and vitriol if they didn't constantly focus on the people spewing hate and vitriol?

And David Auerbach's article mentions the shift we are also seeing from the developer side. The move to amateur gaming media enthusiasts - Youtube and Streamers. These people also don't focus on the hate and vitriol. They have a much better relationship with their viewers, and even with developers. It's no secret that marketing budgets have been moving away from dumping money into the gaming press machine and into funding Youtube playthroughs and Twitch streaming. (In case that was a secret, we actually pay a lot of popular streamers, youtubers, and other enthusiasts for coverage - because it's more effective than an IGN splash.)

So maybe the greater gaming press should takes notes from developers and enthusiasts and start listening to the people who actually enjoy gaming and stop listening to assholes on the internet.

Twitter is the god damn bane of this whole mess, and I personally feel the articles published just put more fuel to the fire. Whatever positive social discussion could be had now has to wait until this storm passes by.

 

[Vice]

That's just your personal opinion. Doesn't excuse Alexander and others who work in the industry to lash out at them because they weren't hired. Expressing disappointment? Sure. Explaining WHY they think they were unfairly treated? Absolutely. Flinging shit, nope.

She has explained her distaste for GB in the past and explained why.

This again is the problem with this movement, and why it's pissed off a lot of people and alienated many. If they think they can just keep lashing out at everyone that doesn't side with their opinion, shit is going nowhere. And I say this as someone that 100% supports their ideological stances (and think this industry has a lot of issues to deal with). Again, I totally get the frustration. I get the anger. These people have to CONSTANTLY face harassment,threats and abuse. Daily, even. They are apart of an industry where they are not treated equally (both in how their opinions are heard, and the content that is made).

So I get why they are angry, and they have every right to be angry. But if your ultimate goal is change this industry, to get people to understand why these are issues, you don't lash out at them and make it an us vs. them argument. You don't say: you are either with me or against me. You either see this 100% my way, or you are a misogynistic piece of shit. That is not going to fly, and will not work. And believe it or not, you can be for their ideologies, and still disagree with specific criticisms they have (or their approach to certain aspects of these problems). It's not an all or nothing proposition. So even those that agree with them are going to be alienated.

The for us or against us tactic is very useful in getting people involved in social movements though while making those opposed look outlandish because of the very vocal bad eggs.

 

[Mononoke]

Note: Leigh Alexander and the other woman who harshly criticized Giant Bomb (and received horrifying harassment for it) did not apply for the job. This came up in the last threads about this back when it happened. Somehow the idea that they were angry for not being hired was invented out of thin air to attack them. Meanwhile, women that the GB crew and audience liked (like Cara Ellison and *gasp* Zoe Quinn) who did announce their applications and publicly noted their disappointment, people seemed to assume that they never applied at all (ie in the form of "well if someone like them applied then I'd see the issue but Leigh Alexander was just whining so").

Yeah but even if they didn't apply for the job, they were shit flinging, it's still not a good approach to your criticisms. But I've edited the sentence in my post to make it correct, thanks for pointing it out (my idea wasn't based on the fact that they were angry because they didn't get hired though. Rather, I think the way they went about criticizing them is indicative of a larger problem with how this movement presents their message/argument).

 

[Phades]

I'd say if the bolded is a huge problem, you probably need to look at how much of your self-identity is wrapped up in a product.

Criticism does not need to create to justify its existence. Criticism is part of the process behind creative art. An artist puts their works out there and critics ask "why was this created this way? What was the artist trying to say? What effect does this have upon me and society?" That's how it works in other mediums.

If you wish to have your games without criticism, it's probably because to just stick to fans of the work. Even then, they'll have issues.

I enjoy James Bond a great deal. I have the entire series on Blu-Ray. This doesn't stop me from acknowledging that the franchise is deeply sexist and racist at times. I still enjoy it. It's condemnation on those grounds doesn't make me less of a person.

There is a difference between criticizing work and criticizing the consumer. It is one thing to say I hate character X because reasons. It is entirely different to state I hate (for direct references, it would be inferred due to language involving misogyny or similar reasons) people who play title Y with character X because reasons. Then to go on a rant about how damaging it is to people with no supporting evidence (we are going to relate back to violence in video games for this one), either directly (those playing the title) or indirectly (those who exist in close proximity to those who play the title).

The difference is being political with the work. Folks accept criticism all the time (some delsional few reject it, but that's another matter), especially when it is something objective (frame rate, stability, options, etc.) rather than subjective (insert your favorite thing here). Subjective things open up more discussion about some titles, but can be easily glossed over as well.

I'm not aware of any instance of you doing this specific thing

Spoiler

not that i'd deliberately want give myself a headache in doing so, should something of that nature exist as a work you put forward

. I'm merely trying to outline the divide of how it would be perceived to be different and why that reaction you are responding to exists.

Going from what he said: Someone says "James Bond is sexist at times," then he personally turns that into "You called me a sexist degenerate." The latter is a statement that was not made; instead it was manufactured wholly in the mind of the fan. If his self-identity is tied up enough that statements that aren't being said are made manifest, I'd call that a problem.

Except the bolded actually happened from more than one source, which is partially why we are still talking about this.

This is not to imply you did this.

 

[Messofanego]

This particular article is very, very good. The author went out and actually spoke to many people who were tweeting with the #gamergate hashtag, and asked them various questions. Please, if you do nothing else before participating in this thread, read this piece.

Thanks for the heads up, this was a good read about the distinction between enthusiast press and journalism. It's an important distinction to remember, and now there's space for the latter too which will involve social issues and corruption and other things that #gamergate people should want more of.

All the same, some gaming publications have, over the last several years, made a concerted effort to include more investigative journalism. You can usually distinguish it from news based on press releases by the fact that investigative journalism usually makes someone look bad. Which is how we should want it — that freedom to make someone look bad when they’ve done bad is what the codes and standards you pointed me to were written to protect. If you want that sort of coverage (and ask yourself, do I want it? — maybe you don’t) then it makes sense to insist on more traditional journalistic standards. But because this is still a relatively new approach for the gaming press, doing so is less about decrying corruption than it is about encouraging the industry to grow.

Growth will mean insisting upon the distinction between serious investigative journalism and the sort of enthusiast reporting that has traditionally passed for gaming news. If you’re promoting #GamerGate because you like the way the gaming press covered games before writers starting investigating topics like labor exploitation and the gender divide, then you may want to stop insisting on higher journalistic standards. If those standards are important to you, then you’ll have to tolerate those sorts of articles, even when you don’t like the light they case on gaming. As William Randolph Hearst famously said, “News is something somebody doesn’t want printed; all else is advertising.”

btw I counted like 4-5 typos in there

 

[sneaky77]

Yeah but even if they didn't apply for the job, they were shit flinging for people that they personally knew. It's still not a good approach to your criticisms. But I've edited the sentence in my post to make it correct, thanks for pointing it out (my idea wasn't based on the fact that they were angry because they didn't get hired though. Rather, I think the way they went about criticizing them is indicative of a larger problem with how this movement presents their message/argument).

I may be missing something, but I don't think Leigh criticism that giantbomb is a bunch of thirty something white guys has anything to do with #gg did she go about it the wrong way, maybe.. but they are allowed to criticize.. and they should have the right to say their piece about it.

 

[FF Seraphim]

Man I really wish Jenn Franck would just leave twitter for a few days. She seems to be having some sort of mental breakdown right down and its sad and heartbreaking. Just leave for a few days or a week and then come back. I sure the trolls will be gone by then.

Holy shit... she is literally having a mental breakdown on twitter. She needs to step back and get away from the trolls. Like for a day. Seriously.
Most of the trolls will be gone by then, but she is just feeding them now.

 

[Darklord]

No, because she does not act in the way they expect a woman to act. There is a difference.

That's you jumping to conclusions and basically lumping everyone on that site as sexist or immature. Not liking someone for being a rude dickhead has nothing to do with gender. Look at Patrick, a lot of people hated him at the start. Is that because he's not acting like they expect a man to? No, I bet not. Karen is a woman and I know plenty of women who act like her or similar. There isn't a "way to act" and if there was then it DEFINITELY isn't like Leigh Alexander.

 

[Mononoke]

I may be missing something, but I don't think Leigh criticism that giantbomb is a bunch of thirty something white guys has anything to do with #gg did she go about it the wrong way, maybe.. but they are allowed to criticize.. and they should have the right to say their piece about it.

I never said they shouldn't criticize. In fact, I think the criticism was needed, and I agree with them. But the WAY they deliver this criticism and messaging was wrong. And it continues to be a problem with their movement/and even on the media side of things. I'm not saying this is 100% their fault either. There are clearly extremists that will never listen, who will always attack them. There is going to be regular gamers, who are just in denial and don't want to believe these problem exist.

But until they change their way of delivering their message, I really think this movement isn't going to go anywhere. And in fact, I think they are going to continue to drive the people they need away. I actually think a BIG reason you are seeing a bunch of regular gamers being lumped into gamergate with the extremists, is because of how they have poorly handled their message (the alienation I was talking about).

 

[Lalalandia]

No, it is straight up messed up to feel guilt for stuff you do not have any form of control over because other people are telling you it's your fault. It is absolutely disgusting to try and make others feel guilty for something they haven't done too, and it's usually why people feel that way. Absolutely no one should be made to feel bad because they harmlessly enjoy a thing that harmful people have also enjoyed.

To be clear I'm not talking 'OMG what have I done' guilt here rather the 'Did I do enough?' kind of guilt that people can often feel. Sorry to diverge from the topic here but I'm going to use an IRL example specifically the death of Savita Halappanavar in 2012 and how it forced change in my country the Republic of Ireland. It's a case that touches on a whole bunch of topics that are so far off centre of this discussion I'm going to spoiler box them and I don't think you or I want to discuss the specifics of the case I just want to illustrate that collective guilt is a thing and it does drive change.

Spoiler

Savita died because of sepsis that set in after her baby died in utero and she was denied medical treatment on the grounds that it would be a de facto abortion which are illegal in Ireland. Our constitution is a giant muddled mess that values both the life of the mother and the life of the unborn leaving Doctors confused as to what stage they can intervene. In 1992 the Supreme Court ruled that we needed to pass laws that would clarify under what grounds terminations were permissible to save the life of a mother. For 20 years Irish politicians had avoided implementing this Supreme Court ruling because as in so many other countries abortion is a hugely divisive topic and as a nation we were too busy enjoying the Celtic Tiger to want to spoil the party. It took the death of a young mother to shock Irish public opinion into caring that our laws left women in mortal danger. Without that guilty impulse we would still not have implemented any laws to give clarity to Doctors when they can intervene to save the life of a mother.

 

[Vice]

Holy shit... she is literally having a mental breakdown on twitter. She needs to step back and get away from the trolls. Like for a day. Seriously.
Most of the trolls will be gone by then, but she is just feeding them now.

It's probably due to her not knowing what to do when hundreds of people are trying to make her life worse. It's no fault of hers, thatbisn't a common life experience people prepare for.

 

[Mononoke]

It's probably due to her not knowing what to do when hundreds of people are trying to make her life worse. It's no fault of hers, thatbisn't a common life experience people prepare for.

That and, the issue isn't her engaging them, it's the people harassing and attacking her. While we can sit back and say, she should just walk away and not continue to engage them (since that is causing her pain and suffering), it's kind of crazy to put that on the victim. Like, the victim should really just stop. No, the assholes victimizing her should stop.

 

[SerTapTap]

So maybe the greater gaming press should takes notes from developers and enthusiasts and start listening to the people who actually enjoy gaming and stop listening to assholes on the internet.

I honestly think about the best thing that can be done on the harassment front is to bring more positivity to the fore. That's why I loved #WeLoveGameDevs and thought it was a great solution. I tried to slightly revive it a bit today. Positivity is too often quiet, and I think it needs to be more vocal. That's part of the point of my youtube channel; I really don't like dwelling on the negative, so I try to show games I think are cool, need attention, whatever.

And personally as a content creator seeing positivity about my work makes me feel so much better--better than the (dismal) add earnings, and it really evens out the fortunately rare hatred and trolls. If I only saw the trolls and none of the positives, I honestly might have given up long before I had viewer counts high enough to keep me going on their own (positive comments still matter more than 10k views to me, though)

Harassment should certainly be clearly inappropriate, but beyond that, what is there really to do? Should I regularly yell at my followers and say "hey don't be assholes you guys!" I mean, if I KNEW they were assholes somehow I'd have blocked them and they wouldn't be my followers anymore. I try to cultivate a reasonable audience--and honestly more devs than "normal" gamers follow me on the twitternet anyway, most of my audience is Youtube only, twitter I really use more to learn about games from devs.

I haven't really seen any useful "negative" solution to abuse. Yelling back at harassers doesn't help. If anything it makes them angrier, while just blocking they seem to go away--though I admit most people who have harassed me are just driveby idiots, nothing on par with the extremes. Yelling at them does no good. Reporting and blocknig them is fine. I really don't see anything else to do towards those ends, and I definitely don't think spreading guilt for their harassment to innocent gamers helps anyone ever. You don't prevent harassers by making non-harassing gamers feel like shit because of their hobby.

 

[FF Seraphim]

It's probably due to her not knowing what to do when hundreds of people are trying to make her life worse. It's no fault of hers, thatbisn't a common life experience people prepare for.

Common life experience or not, she needs to get yourself away from all the negativity that is surrounding her twitter feed or someone needs to shut her internet off for the day for her own well being.

 

[Nephrahim]

That and, the issue isn't her engaging them, it's the people harassing and attacking her. While we can sit back and say, she should just walk away and not continue to engage them (since that is causing her pain and suffering), it's kind of crazy to put that on the victim. Like, the victim should really just stop. No, the assholes victimizing her should stop.

You gotta learn how to walk away.

You're right, it's not at all her fault, she shouldn't have to deal with this, but the internet is full of spiteful trolls (Especially on twitter, but I'm sure email and other services as well) and will be for the foreseeable future. There's no way around it.

 

[Vice]

That's you jumping to conclusions and basically lumping everyone on that site as sexist or immature. Not liking someone for being a rude dickhead has nothing to do with gender. Look at Patrick, a lot of people hated him at the start. Is that because he's not acting like they expect a man to? No, I bet not. Karen is a woman and I know plenty of women who act like her or similar. There isn't a "way to act" and if there was then it DEFINITELY isn't like Leigh Alexander.

I never said there was a way to act. The many gendered insults toward her suggest that she did not live up to some expectation for womrn many of her detractors had.

I am sorry that you feel I am lumping everyone together, saying. " they" as opposed to "Leigh Alexander's detractors on GB and in social media" saves time.

And Patrick is constantly called out for his youthful, boyosh, apperance and his gravitation toward more social issues in writing by those who critique him.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

I never said they shouldn't criticize. In fact, I think the criticism was needed, and I agree with them. But the WAY they deliver this criticism and messaging was wrong. And it continues to be a problem with their movement/and even on the media side of things. I'm not saying this is 100% their fault either. There are clearly extremists that will never listen, who will always attack them. There is going to be regular gamers, who are just in denial and don't want to believe these problem exist.

But until they change their way of delivering their message, I really think this movement isn't going to go anywhere. And in fact, I think they are going to continue to drive the people they need away. I actually think a BIG reason you are seeing a bunch of regular gamers being lumped into gamergate with the extremists, is because of how they have poorly handled their message (the alienation I was talking about).

So if everyone in favor of equality would just be nice and not say anything that could anyway be misconstrued as mean, rash or irrational they'd be recieved perfectly well by everyone who isn't an outright troll?

You gotta learn how to walk away.

You're right, it's not at all her fault, she shouldn't have to deal with this, but the internet is full of spiteful trolls (Especially on twitter, but I'm sure email and other services as well) and will be for the foreseeable future. There's no way around it.

I don't know what it's like for Jenn, but for me the internet is essentially my primary place for social interaction of any value. If I felt like I was being bullied off of some of the social media I hold dearest I'd be crushed and wouldn't
just "walk away".

 

[Mononoke]

You gotta learn how to walk away.

You're right, it's not at all her fault, she shouldn't have to deal with this, but the internet is full of spiteful trolls (Especially on twitter, but I'm sure email and other services as well) and will be for the foreseeable future. There's no way around it.

I guess. I dunno. I just see this as a complex thing. Not everyone deals with these things the same way. So it's kind of hard to analyze a victim and say they should do this and that.

So if everyone in favor of equality would just be nice and not say anything that could anyway be misconstrued as mean, rash or irrational they'd be recieved perfectly well by everyone who isn't an outright troll?

Nope, it's a long battle that will take time and effort. But the strategy they are imploring now is a losing one. It just alienates those that aren't informed or who haven't made up their mind yet. It just fuels the extremists. And just validates the regular gamers who are in denial and are already irrationally suspicious of those delivering the criticisms.

And yes, even if they approached this differently, extremists will always attack them. That's sadly a factor that won't go away. But I look at the bigger picture here, and I don't think their approach is the right one. Just to be clear, I don't think they should even have to do this. But it's the reality of things. It's sad that we even have to change peoples minds on these issues. You would think basic common sense/human empathy would make it pretty clear that these are issues.

 

[Vice]

Common life experience or not, she needs to get yourself away from all the negativity that is surrounding her twitter feed or someone needs to shut her internet off for the day for her own well being.

It's easy to say that but it's somethibg few people can do on their own or allow other to do for them.

Going quiet is like giving up to a lot of people and she probably doesn't want to let them think they beat her.

 

[Delusibeta]

To be clear I'm not talking 'OMG what have I done' guilt here rather the 'Did I do enough?' kind of guilt that people can often feel. Sorry to diverge from the topic here but I'm going to use an IRL example specifically the death of Savita Halappanavar in 2012 and how it forced change in my country the Republic of Ireland. It's a case that touches on a whole bunch of topics that are so far off centre of this discussion I'm going to spoiler box them and I don't think you or I want to discuss the specifics of the case I just want to illustrate that collective guilt is a thing and it does drive change.

Spoiler

Savita died because of sepsis that set in after her baby died in utero and she was denied medical treatment on the grounds that it would be a de facto abortion which are illegal in Ireland. Our constitution is a giant muddled mess that values both the life of the mother and the life of the unborn leaving Doctors confused as to what stage they can intervene. In 1992 the Supreme Court ruled that we needed to pass laws that would clarify under what grounds terminations were permissible to save the life of a mother. For 20 years Irish politicians had avoided implementing this Supreme Court ruling because as in so many other countries abortion is a hugely divisive topic and as a nation we were too busy enjoying the Celtic Tiger to want to spoil the party. It took the death of a young mother to shock Irish public opinion into caring that our laws left women in mortal danger. Without that guilty impulse we would still not have implemented any laws to give clarity to Doctors when they can intervene to save the life of a mother.

The problem with your example: their solution was to mirror the law from Northern Ireland (i.e. abortions are only permitted if they're deemed medically necessary) and there's already a case where they dawdled on determining whether it was medically necessary that they called off the abortion due to the baby being too developed.

In other words, there wasn't a lot of change as a result.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

Nope, it's a long battle that will take time and effort. But the strategy they are imploring now is a losing one. It just alienates those that aren't informed or who haven't made a side yet. It just fuels the extremists. And just validates the regular gamers who are in denial.

Would you consider someone like Anita too aggressive/applying this "wrong" strategy?

 

[gogosox82]

That and, the issue isn't her engaging them, it's the people harassing and attacking her. While we can sit back and say, she should just walk away and not continue to engage them (since that is causing her pain and suffering), it's kind of crazy to put that on the victim. Like, the victim should really just stop. No, the assholes victimizing her should stop.

This is true but twitter seems to have such a hands off approach when it comes to harassment. In a perfect world, twitter would ban people who are harassing and attacking her constantly but twitter seems to be slow to ban the people who constantly harassing her and many others. So for her mental well being, I just think she should disengage for a few days.

 

[Lalalandia]

The problem with your example: their solution was to mirror the law from Northern Ireland (i.e. abortions are only permitted if they're deemed medically necessary) and there's already a case where they dawdled on determining whether it was medically necessary that they called off the abortion due to the baby being too developed.

In other words, there wasn't a lot of change as a result.

Lets not do this, it's too messy. The point was that for 20 years doing nothing was an acceptable response to most of the Irish electorate and almost all of our politicians. It took the death of a young mother and our collective guilt and outrage to change that.

 

[Patryn]

Yeah but even if they didn't apply for the job, they were shit flinging, it's still not a good approach to your criticisms. But I've edited the sentence in my post to make it correct, thanks for pointing it out (my idea wasn't based on the fact that they were angry because they didn't get hired though. Rather, I think the way they went about criticizing them is indicative of a larger problem with how this movement presents their message/argument).

Leigh has had prior issues with the Giant Bomb community, and unfortunately, even as a Giant Bomb community member I'll freely admit that she has been subject to quite a bit of unwarranted harassment from it. All of which was underlying a lot of the venom she was spouting towards them.

 

[Mononoke]

Would you consider someone like Anita too aggressive/applying this "wrong" strategy?

No. I think she's providing her opinion, and content to back up her opinions (ie. examples). You can disagree with her, and think that she's wrong. You can say her examples are bad, or that her conclusions are off base. That perfectly fine. But nothing she's saying is lashing out at people and telling them you are either with me or against me. You either 100% agree with what I'm saying, or you are a misogynistic piece of shit. Unless you can provide me with examples of her doing this? She's giving her views of the problems this industry has (which are opinions).

Leigh has had prior issues with the Giant Bomb community, and unfortunately, even as a Giant Bomb community member I'll freely admit that she has been subject to quite a bit of unwarranted harassment from it.

Well that's fine. But it really doesn't excuse that type of criticisms if that is the kind of message you want others to accept (or criticisms you want people to understand). But you are right that, you can't look at her reaction in a microscope without the full picture. As I said, I understand why they are angry. I get why they are frustrated. They are having to deal with abuse/threats on a daily basis. If she had an issue with GB and their community with harassment (and GB's staff not dealing with it), that should have been included in the criticisms rather than the shit flinging tactic. Then others on the outside could understand where they were coming from.

Because what an outsider see's is "oh god they hired a white guy" "what if the white guy happened to be the most qualified" "Fuck off". etc. etc. There needs to be context to their disappointment and criticisms. There needs to be an engagement in conversation when someone questions their criticisms (because not everyone understands on a surface level). Then again, this goes back to twitter being a shit platform as it really doesn't leave room for discussion.

To be clear, my issue with their messaging isn't just twitter reactions. I haven't been a fan of how the media/activist have presented their ideas in a larger sense. But yeah, Twitter is not really the kind of place to go for any of this anyways.

 

[PjotrStroganov]

Never mind

 

[Dragonborn]

It's probably due to her not knowing what to do when hundreds of people are trying to make her life worse. It's no fault of hers, thatbisn't a common life experience people prepare for.

You close twitter and go back to real life while it cools down. Just ignore the trolls for a while and they'll go away.

 

[Cybit]

Welp, managed to miss all of this while at PAX Prime, so that was sort of nice.

I think the Slate article is good, as is the fair-minded gamergate article.

I can see both points. On one hand, the demographics of who plays video games has changed. We've become mainstream. Victory is finally ours, in a way. (I'm all about that corruption of non-gamers into gamers, boss). Games have already been evolving with the aging of the initial male demographic (part of the rise of indie gaming & story gaming in the last few years, since our reflexes are going to hell in a handbasket); so it makes sense that it will evolve to accommodate more women playing games, more older adults, etc. The nature of the criticism of games will also change as the people reviewing it change (wait about 5 years when we are all grumpy about games that require ridiculous reflexes, because we're old and can't keep up) and the people playing them change. Just like there are movies made for women (Hi Magic Mike!) there will be games made for different demographics. Magic Mike being a movie doesn't make me upset. As demographics change, games will change, and that's not a bad thing; it's just different.

On the other hand, there are a whole lot of people who are using gaming as their battleground for their politics; and that I resent immensely. For every 50 jennfrank and folks who do critiques of video games that include some valid criticism about how the game represents certain groups of people, there is someone who is looking through games only to find their soapbox to stand on. Breitbart is freaking involved at this point. I'm pretty sure any actual connection to "gaming" in this argument were discarded long ago. Both sides have switched into "us vs them" mode (which, lets be honest, as gamers, we're REALLY good at, and both sides here are most certainly gamers for the most part), and are no longer even attempting to have a conversation.

Social critique of anything mainstream is expected; we need to get over the fact that games may be (rightfully) called to task on such things now that we are mainstream. But it can't be the only thing people write about yet; gaming is not THAT big to make that a viable niche. Most normal people want to read a review of the entire game, not just the writer's social agenda. It's the same thing that bugs me when reviews of a game on GAF end up devolving into 1080p/60 FPS fests. Sure, resolution and framerate are part of a game. But it's not the only part of a game that matters.

Other than that, I'm pretty much with Azula's posts.

 

[Entryhazard]

i read that on the twitter tho and decided not to leave my home in fear.

For a reason I said "if taken seriously", I was just rectifying the legal distinction you made by saying that formally death treats are a crime while inciting people to killing a group is not.

Obviously I'm not taking seriously that hashtag, I was just nitpicking on a technicality you made.

 

[paperboywriter]

so just had a long discussion with a friend about this.

first of all: I think it's wrong to not allow a discussion about personal Zoe Quinns life. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the reasoning behind blocking threads here on GAF was that her personal life does not qualify for a discussion on a gaming forum. I don't think thats a good enough reason and also I don't think it's the real reason. Too me it looks like it's all about damage control and how poisonous a discussion might have become. But in my mind you could have had a discussion with solid moderation about this topic.
The damage to neogafs image is bigger this way in my opinion. Zoe Quinn is a person of public interest - a scandal surrounding her, true or not, should be open for discussion and appropriate moderation could have done the job.


Now, neogaf stands as a forum board that censored this discussion.

Also, the allegations are multifaceted but since when are scandals only allowed to be discussed with

Spoiler

hard/any

evidence?

second: It's a huge disappointment that you have to read about this on none gaming websites to get a summary of the events. I get why you might be affraid as a gaming journalist to write about this, but thats your job. A neutral summary of the events should have been posted on every gaming website

Spoiler

and neogaf

.

well I'm done for now, maybe I get banned for this, I'm not quite sure anymore.

 

[machemachete]

As a developer on multiple AAA MMOs, I have experienced a lot of what Leigh Alexander expressed in her article. We are required to maintain a community presence and interact on a personal level with our players. And people can be really mean. I've been called out by name, multiple times, on our own game forums, twitter, facebook, reddit, etc. Players have called for my firing, for my death, for horrible things to happen to myself and my family. I've been called countless names, repeatedly and endlessly personally attacked, and even confronted in person by individuals who probably thought they were being rather intimidating.

I've dealt with all of that, almost every day, for the past 5 years. And I will admit that female developers get it easily 10x worse (my wife is also a dev and the shit she gets is insane sometimes - including needing to seriously involve the authorities a couple times).

However, you know how we both deal with it? We don't get into pointless twitter arguments. We don't engage and try to 'teach those assholes a lesson'. We don't try to get back at them. We just fucking ignore them.

Because after 5 years, you realize something - or at least you should. Those people who say and do those things, they are an extremely vocal, extremely small minority. For every one of them, despite being as loud as 1000 others, there are 100 players who absolutely worship the ground you walk on. Who hang on your every word wanting to hear what you have to say. Who genuinely love your products and want, desperately, for you to make more of them. And they are usually very quiet and very grateful.

Those people are gamers.

And that's the problem I see with gaming journalism. They are completely focused on the bad apples, on the controversy, on what gets more hits, and on what makes them upset. Maybe they wouldn't be filled with such obvious hate and vitriol if they didn't constantly focus on the people spewing hate and vitriol?

And David Auerbach's article mentions the shift we are also seeing from the developer side. The move to amateur gaming media enthusiasts - Youtube and Streamers. These people also don't focus on the hate and vitriol. They have a much better relationship with their viewers, and even with developers. It's no secret that marketing budgets have been moving away from dumping money into the gaming press machine and into funding Youtube playthroughs and Twitch streaming. (In case that was a secret, we actually pay a lot of popular streamers, youtubers, and other enthusiasts for coverage - because it's more effective than an IGN splash.)

So maybe the greater gaming press should takes notes from developers and enthusiasts and start listening to the people who actually enjoy gaming and stop listening to assholes on the internet.

I think this is the core of the problem, nowadays is very common to see journalist writting negative articles about a lot of issues and giving fuel to them instead of talking about the good stuff in this industry, and the reason is because the controversy always gives them clicks. If they stopped to give flashlights to assholes (there are a lot of assholes in all industries known to mankind) and puting them into a group (in this case the gamers, i always thought that gamers were people who like to play videogames) this would be a much better place.

I know that there are a lot of issues in the industry that must be openly critiziced but it doesnt have to be like this, these journalists did a mistake; "gamer" will be now a word with a negative connotation and it doesnt have to be like that.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

No. I think she's providing her opinion, and content to back up her opinions (ie. examples). You can disagree with her, and think that she's wrong. That perfectly fine. But nothing she's saying is lashing out at people and telling them you are either with me or against me. You either 100% agree with what I'm saying, or you are a misogynistic piece of shit. Unless you can provide me with examples of her doing this?

Considering she's one of the most visible and most hated "feminists" in gaming I was just curious if you'd attribute it to her strategy not being effective/too meanspirited as well.


You seem to talk about an ineffective overal strategy and your posts sound like you're holding the entire feminist/sj movement responsible for adhering to it.
I was curious how Anita and how people react to her fit in the picture you're describing.

P.S. that tweet about GB people posted: that's not Leigh Alexander.

 

[Deitus]

The for us or against us tactic is very useful in getting people involved in social movements though while making those opposed look outlandish because of the very vocal bad eggs.

The for us or against us tactic is in fact very useful. It has been used for the entirety of human history as a rallying cry to battle. It's a great way to convince people who already agree with you (or don't want to be seen as disagreeing with you) to publicly show support for your cause. It's a great way to get them to attack the opposing side without a shred of remorse or empathy. It's how you convince people to go to war. It's how you root out communists and dissenters in your midst.

What it is terrible for is trying to have a civil and nuanced debate. In fact, it is the death of discourse. The other side is the enemy, what could you possibly have to discuss with them? If they had opinions worth listening to, they wouldn't be the bad guys.

 

[MHWilliams]

There is a difference between criticizing work and criticizing the consumer. It is one thing to say I hate character X because reasons. It is entirely different to state I hate (for direct references, it would be inferred due to language involving misogyny or similar reasons) people who play title Y with character X because reasons. Then to go on a rant about how damaging it is to people with no supporting evidence (we are going to relate back to violence in video games for this one), either directly (those playing the title) or indirectly (those who exist in close proximity to those who play the title).

Saying a character is sexist, racist, or whatever isn't even always a condemnation of the creator, so I'm unsure how you can take on the idea that it condemns fans. You can criticize a work by saying "hey, that's a bit sexist" and the creator can go, "oh, I totally didn't notice that, thanks for the input." You can see that at work here:

The behavior of characters in the Redshirt world depends on sliders that players can edit if they choose, including a "bigotry" slider. Male characters with high bigotry are likely to persistently harass Asrion women, sometimes with sexual undertones, even if the player selected to play a character who is only interested in other women.

Late last year, this element upset a player who wrote that she felt triggered by the unwelcome attention of characters in the Redshirt universe, and especially by the fact she'd lose points for refusing to interact with them, and had no option to "block" them as she could on real Facebook. The player posted about her negative experience, and Khandaker quickly replied.

She apologized for the player's troubling experience, and explained her design decisions -- not in self-defense, but to explain how the player and others in her circumstance could switch off the "bigotry" sliders in order to ensure the game characters wouldn't perform the harassing behavior.

Essentially, the the thread connecting direct criticism of the game, to judgment upon yourself is complete inferred by you. Again, you can enjoy work that has a problems and issues of that nature. It happens quite frequently.

The difference is being political with the work. Folks accept criticism all the time (some delsional few reject it, but that's another matter), especially when it is something objective (frame rate, stability, options, etc.) rather than subjective (insert your favorite thing here). Subjective things open up more discussion about some titles, but can be easily glossed over as well.

I'm not even sure where to start with this. What is "being political".

I'm black, if I bring up something race-related in a review, it's because that topic actually effected my experience, in part because of my viewpoint. In the end, that's what a review is: a retelling of a reviewers ultimate experience with a title. It is why you can hand the same game to five different people and get five different reviews.

That's not political. That's called honesty.

Except the bolded actually happened from more than one source, which is partially why we are still talking about this.

This is not to imply you did this.

And if it did, rock out in the condemnation. But my point still stands: saying "Game A is sexist" is not saying "you are sexist for enjoy Game A". Those are two different situations that sometimes happen side-by-side, but conflating the two is wrong. To make that leap requires a very, very close relationship with the content or product.

That is my view on the matter as well. I have a hard time believing that people who have been aware of Jenn's output since the 1up days just randomly turned on her.

Nutcases harassing her personally seems to have started with the Al Jazeera article. People who want to go on a trolling spree see which accounts are featured in "stories" that consist largely of embedded twitter messages. The people putting those articles together are unknowingly posting a bounty board for assholes to peruse.

This is part of the problem with wide labels like gamer and feminist. The nutcases are either an hidden outside influence or an extreme fringe of your actual movement, either way, they are counted as the group. Frankly, many do this just based on group social dynamics. It's called the out-group homogeneity effect.

The out-group homogeneity effect is one's perception of out-group members as more similar to one another than are in-group members, e.g. "they are alike; we are diverse".

 

[Lalalandia]

so just had a long discussion with a friend about this.

first of all: I think it's wrong to not allow a discussion about personal Zoe Quinns life............

Nope, nope, nope. All of that is pure scandal trash and utterly irrelevant to anything, the only possible avenue for corruption was discounted fairly quickly so it was and is the airing of dirty laundry by an ex which is unworthy of discussion here. Whether you like an individual is kind of irrelevant to appreciating their art, to use an extreme example Bing Crosby used to beat his family regularly yet 'Let It Snow' is still a holiday staple. Nothing in any of that ex-bfs crap rose to the level of that so it's even less worthy of comment.

 

[Mooreberg]

That's just your personal opinion. Doesn't excuse Alexander and others who work in the industry to lash out at them because women weren't hired. Expressing disappointment? Sure. Explaining WHY they think they were unfairly treated? Absolutely. Flinging shit, nope.

This again is the problem with this movement, and why it's pissed off a lot of people and alienated many. If they think they can just keep lashing out at everyone that doesn't side with their opinion, shit is going nowhere.

This is why "#gamergate" has exploded. The amount of vitriol directed towards people who have never wronged anyone is ludicrous. A lot of the "#notyourshield" participants are women and racial minorities who never said a damn thing about Zoe Quinn, Patreon or anything else.

An argument that was previously confined to people who can actually tell you the name of an "indie game" went thermonuclear and hit the mainstream. Now you have people who said nothing contentious being harassed because regular press outlets would rather embed tweets than actually write anything. Save for Slate and Forbes at least.

People at the less than lucrative fringes of gaming coverage got thrown into a shitstorm because people with tall soapboxes do not know how to respond to controversy like adults. Gamasutra is the gaming press equivalent of Sideshow Bob walking around a rake factory.

 

[Mononoke]

Considering she's one of the most visible and most hated "feminists" in gaming I was just curious if you'd attribute it to her strategy not being effective/too meanspirited as well.


You seem to talk about an ineffective overal strategy and your posts sound like you're holding the entire feminist/sj movement responsible for adhering to it.
I was curious how Anita and how people react to her fit in the picture you're describing.

To be clear, I'm not saying every single person has done this. I'm just stepping back and looking at the overall picture (I guess my issue is more on the press side of things, and how they have handled the messaging of the issues. The us vs them mentality. The you either agree with me, or you are my enemy. The botched Gamer identity piece that was a collective message by the entire press, was just another example of this poor messaging).

What Anita does is perfectly fine, and is actually what I think everyone should be doing. You have an opinion. You talk it out. You give examples of why you have said opinion. People can then discuss with you if they agree or disagree. The problem is, you always have extremists that are going to attack you no matter what you do, because they will not tolerate ANY criticisms of their hobby. But then you have the regular gamers who are in denial. Instead of hearing out the criticisms, they tried to focus solely on Anita, and questioning her motives.

Even if Anita was doing this for money, or some ulterior motive, it doesn't change the fact that these are legitimate issues in the industry. She's presenting them. If you want to disagree with her, disagree with the facts (but explain why you disagree), stop focusing on her. But I have zero issues with Anita. And even if you don't think she does good work, you should have zero issue with her in a larger sense (why would anyone be against someone having an opinion/criticism and presenting examples for why they think that way?)