Support NeoGAF

[sclpls]

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.

I hope you can appreciate that for women there is basically no situation that involves the presence of men that doesn't involve the potential for harassment. It can happen on the internet, in the workplace, walking down the street, at a bar, at a park, etc.

Self care is obviously important, but considering all the potential avenues for harassment the logical end point would be turning into a shut-in, which is antithetical to a person's well being.

 

[Dragonborn]

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.

The thing is I don't think it works too well in this case. People on the internet don't really care, and that kind of extreme attitude will only serve to make people step away. Seeing stuff like #killallmen or people like Sessler insulting pretty much everyone makes me want nothing to do with what they're trying to push. It's the extremists on both sides that end up making everyone look bad.

 

[APF]

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.

We--gamers--like to think of ourselves as a community. If you've been gaming since it really was this completely foreign concept no one had heard of, to a brief fad, to a complete crash, to the slowly-brewing mainstream entertainment it is today, you'd probably feel this way too. Or if not, but being able to jump into game worlds helped you deal with going through childhood, with being different or alone, or even none of that but was just something you spent hours on to have fun. If you're posting here you probably feel it on some level. *I* at least felt that way, until recent events made me reconsider.

There's an allure to the idea that this is all about something more than just pressing a button and seeing pixels move on screen. That has to be why gamers have such passion about what goes on around it. When gamers get together and make life a little more happy for sick kids, we don't say, "well that's just paypal, it makes donating easy so of course people do it." We're glad we're a part of this group of people that can get together and add some good to the world. We're proud to be gamers.

But when gamers get together and do really shitty things, it's rare that we self-reflect. We hand responsibility off to some other community, some other people because we don't want to admit that this is also a part of us, part of what we represent. So no, it's not weird that I feel this way. I'm proud when we do good, and I'm ashamed when we do evil.

 

[Avari]

Even given that there may be an issue with games journalism I have absolutely no interest joining a movement like #gamergate which has such a troubling origin, and a questionable aim (i.e. in that it seems to focus far more on small developers then on cronyism and nepotism between larger developers, publishers, and the press).

I don't need the label 'gamer' and have no issue with the notion that the time of the 'gamer' is over. Frankly I'd rather not be associated with a label that includes people who harass and threaten other people - because I don't need the label to play and enjoy games with like minded individuals.

As others have pointed out it is telling who populates both sides of the debate. There's a significant number of respected creators, artists, and developers who have lent their support to Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian and others facing similar situations. People have rightly indicated that in some circumstances this would be an ad hominem attack - but I think they are missing the point. Pointing out who is on each side of the debate is not meant to be a critical argument, many people have already made the arguments at length in this thread. I would suggest rather that it is a caution. When you invest in an argument the primary focus should clearly be the actually subject matter of the debate, but you should also pay attention to who your opponents and supporters are. Obviously even a bigoted, racist person, or compassionless person could be right in a debate, but it would certainly make me want to look more carefully at the issues if that was who I was aligned with.

 

[Phades]

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.

That has to be something done on an individual level and then somehow adopted in tandem with other actual gamers. I personally don't have time for twitter, so I personally was never involved in GG or otherwise. If I have something to say, it might be here or in one or two other places, but that's about it. The problem for others who wish to pursue that course of action comes down to organization among a group of people who have little organization with each other collectively since most gamers are factioned and subsequently split off in various ways to begin with.

 

[TharpDaddy]

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.

I think that's a very difficult thing to ask. At the moment it's a shitstorm moving at 200mph. There's so much happening at a quick pace and vitriol being spewed that it's hard to get a clear unbiased picture of the situation. I can't even confidently say what the main issues are anymore, because it seems different people are arguing different things and it's all grouped under the same controversy umbrella. After everything dies down it will be easier to give an overview of what occured, but i don't blame journalists for staying away for the time being. It's hard to see anything in a massive shitstorm.

 

[ferr]

My usual source of this type of stuff was apparently censored, so this is the first I'm reading about stuff like the Zoe scandal (aside from a weird thread Evilore started where everyone else replied "who the hell is Zoe?"). It seems to be the root cause in getting mixed in with alleged corruption in some gaming journalism, but how in the world did it come to gamers are dead / no longer relevant?

It's been years since my hands were dusty from doritos, but I still consider myself a "gamer". If I am no longer the audience of "gaming journalism" does this mean the news I read will cease to exist? Will gamasutra stop talking about what Miyamoto ate for dinner? And will I not read that article to plan my own dinner accordingly?

Am I missing the point or what.

 

[Nymphae]

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.

Is it totally irrelevant though? I'm reminded of the Orson Scott Card thing, didn't a shitload of people boycott his stuff because of his views on homosexuality? His work stands alone, but I'm not sure I blame people for not wanting to support his career further after they learned about his views. For what it's worth, I felt similarly about hearing about the Quinn stuff. I didn't get up in arms and rant all over the net about it, but I thought to myself, I will not support someone who behaves like that to a loved one. I don't think its entirely irrelevant.

 

[Mononoke]

My usual source of this type of stuff was apparently censored, so this is the first I'm reading about stuff like the Zoe scandal (aside from a weird thread Evilore started where everyone else replied "who the hell is Zoe?"). It seems to be the root cause in getting mixed in with alleged corruption in some gaming journalism, but how in the world did it come to gamers are dead / no longer relevant?

It's been years since my hands were dusty from doritos, but I still consider myself a "gamer". If I am no longer the audience of "gaming journalism" does this mean the news I read will cease to exist? Will gamasutra stop talking about what Miyamoto ate for dinner? And will I not read that article to plan my own dinner accordingly?

Am I missing the point or what.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=128535608&postcount=154

The gamer identity is dead was a very botched message, and was a reaction to extremists waging war on journalists/activists/female's in the industry. It was not aimed at all gamers, but it was still a poorly worded message and was in a way arrogant. It assumed that only a small amount of people cared about the gamer identity, and because extremists cling to this identity, it was time to get rid of said identity. However, deciding for people what they should or shouldn't identify with was a bad move. And it only further alienated people and pushed them away.

It's an example of bad messaging and miscommunication.

 

[Dimmle]

It's already been said, but so much of this is due to a universally-prevalent misunderstanding of feminism,

that misunderstanding due to an apprehensive, vocal subset of people nurtured by internet culture to yell instead of read,

the only solution being to ask them to read and evaluate material existing outside of the video game subculture,

that solution being hopeless given that we have people launching poorly formulated tirades at journalists when they don't cover "gameplay."

These are broken human beings and nothing on the internet can save them. That they have influential proponents in the form of a frightening amount of popular Youtubers is terrifying.

 

[Xtra]

I think ScatheZombie really hits the nail on the head here.

Take a look at how large hollywood celebrities deal with the dung flinging from the internet, the either do no engage or turn it into something hilarious like Jimmy Kimmel's Mean Tweets (NFSW *language*).

There is a lesson in that, and what Scathezombie has posted, and it is a lesson everyone who has been on the internet for more than a month should know. DO NOT ENGAGE THE TROLLS.

This ENTIRE spectacle just shows how immature the gaming press is.

 

[Glass Shark]

This article that just came out today isn't about #GamerGate per se, but it is an example of the kind of thing that infuriates me and has flipped my opinion on the whole thing: http://venturebeat.com/2014/09/05/t...mes-reveals-the-coming-death-of-the-consoles/

You don't have to read the whole article, but the basic premise is that mobile games are taking over and console games are going to die. This, of course, ignores the fact that the new consoles are selling very well, and the PS4 especially is selling far more than anyone expected.

Why is it that games writers so often don't seem to understand gamers and games culture? This whole debacle is a misunderstanding of who gamers are. There are often misunderstandings of what gamers want. Remember resolutiongate? I didn't hear a single games writer arguing that yes, resolution is actually important, when that's clearly what gamers were saying. Instead we got vitriol and mocking like "gamers only care about the p's! they need more p's!"

For a group of people who purport to care so much about inclusion, games writers often exclude the very people who have the potential to be most interested in what they have to say. It's ridiculous how petulant they can be about their audience.

 

[Lalalandia]

Is it totally irrelevant though? I'm reminded of the Orson Scott Card thing, didn't a shitload of people boycott his stuff because of his views on homosexuality? His work stands alone, but I'm not sure I blame people for not wanting to support his career further after they learned about his views. For what it's worth, I felt similarly about hearing about the Quinn stuff. I didn't get up in arms and rant all over the net about it, but I thought to myself, I will not support someone who behaves like that to a loved one. I don't think its entirely irrelevant.

I see where you're coming from, I don't own a copy of 'Let It Snow' for example, but I don't see how discussing such gossip on here adds anything. The allegations are out there and if folks want to they can find them it's not hard, what is there for us to discuss here? If it's the wider issues allegedly brought up by them that's what this thread is for and we should focus on that specifically.

 

[JABEE]

That has zero to do with GamerGate and everything to do with Polygon's shift in direction and focus.

Yep. It's a very transparent change in philosophy too.

 

[Lalalandia]

I think ScatheZombie really hits the nail on the head here.

Take a look at how large hollywood celebrities deal with the dung flinging from the internet, the either do no engage or turn it into something hilarious like Jimmy Kimmel's Mean Tweets (NFSW *language*).

There is a lesson in that, and what Scathezombie has posted, and it is a lesson everyone who has been on the internet for more than a month should know. DO NOT ENGAGE THE TROLLS.

This ENTIRE spectacle just shows how immature the gaming press is.

Except every one of those individuals is a multi-millionaire who can afford personal security details or elaborate home security.

 

[Glass Shark]

That has zero to do with GamerGate and everything to do with Polygon's shift in direction and focus.

I guess the BuzzFeed headlines are working.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

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).

So what's the big problem with the "gamer identity" piece? That it stirred up conflict?

Every time Anita posts one of her videos (which abide by your rules) enormous & hostile debates pop up as well.

I've heard similar arguments about how Anita's counterproductive for various reasons. (use of words, bad arguments, "lying/being deceitful" ... wearing make-up)

I'm not sure what tactic is "effective" enough not to be deemed bad.

 

[John Rabbit]

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.

what exactly is there to discuss regarding Zoe Quinn's personal life? what scandal are you referring to? please elaborate.

oh and "she had sex with a guy" does not qualify as a valid answer to either of those questions.

 

[scoobidoo112]

It's already been said, but so much of this is due to a universally-prevalent misunderstanding of feminism

Honest question here, is it a misunderstanding of feminism or a misrepresentation of feminism? Because the most extreme, rude and loud feminists (who go around painting gamers as basement-dwelling pigs and posting #killallmen as a "joke") seem to be garnering a lot more attention than the calm, rational, intelligent feminist. At least that is my observation. In fact, several feminist (and gamer) friends of mine have also complained to me that these loud voices are taking over the moment. I would like to hear your opinion on this...

 

[thatmariolover]

How are so many journalists still having a hard time understanding basic ethical tenets? It's like they're using the sexism slant to avoid facing legitimate criticism.

The relationship between many gaming journalists and the industry they cover has become more and more incestuous the last 10 years. There's a huge conflict of interest. Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is advertising. You can't pander to the industry you cover.

 

[Dimmle]

Why is it that games writers so often don't seem to understand gamers and games culture?

Games writers are supposed to ignore emerging game industry trends in favor of what, exactly?

 

[soultron]

I think ScatheZombie really hits the nail on the head here.

Take a look at how large hollywood celebrities deal with the dung flinging from the internet, the either do no engage or turn it into something hilarious like Jimmy Kimmel's Mean Tweets (NFSW *language*).

There is a lesson in that, and what Scathezombie has posted, and it is a lesson everyone who has been on the internet for more than a month should know. DO NOT ENGAGE THE TROLLS.

This ENTIRE spectacle just shows how immature the gaming press is.

The video games enthusiast press is not a single entity. There have been several people who've been silent, several who've expressed their opinions on the matter respectfully, and then there's been some who've written with (understandable) frustration. You can't paint them all with one brush.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

How are so many journalists still having a hard time understanding basic ethical tenets? It's like they're using the sexism slant to avoid facing legitimate criticism.

The relationship between many gaming journalists and the industry they cover has become more and more incestuous the last 10 years. There's a huge conflict of interest. Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is advertising. You can't pander to the industry you cover.

Wanna be specific what instances you're talking about?

 

[ferr]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=128535608&postcount=154

The gamer identity is dead was a very botched message, and was a reaction to extremists waging war on journalists/activists/female's in the industry. It was not aimed at all gamers, but it was still a poorly worded message and was in a way arrogant. It assumed that only a small amount of people cared about the gamer identity, and because extremists cling to this identity, it was time to get rid of said identity. However, deciding for people what they should or shouldn't identify with was a bad move. And it only further alienated people and pushed them away.

It's an example of bad messaging and miscommunication.

Thanks for the summary. I read the gamasutra article prior to understanding what was going on with this and it definitely came off as arrogant and alienating.

 

[psylah]

Is it totally irrelevant though? I'm reminded of the Orson Scott Card thing, didn't a shitload of people boycott his stuff because of his views on homosexuality? His work stands alone, but I'm not sure I blame people for not wanting to support his career further after they learned about his views.

OSC's social and political views certainly are reflected in his works, moreso as you read further into his career. I can't see how they could not have done so.

 

[MHWilliams]

Honest question here, is it a misunderstanding of feminism or a misrepresentation of feminism? Because the most extreme, rude and loud feminists (who go around painting gamers as basement-dwelling pigs and posting #killallmen as a "joke") seem to be garnering a lot more attention than the calm, rational, intelligent feminist. At least that is my observation. In fact, several feminist (and gamer) friends of mine have also complained to me that these loud voices are taking over the moment. I would like to hear your opinion on this...

This is true of gamers are well.

Either the extreme parts of the group, aren't actually a part of the group or they are. You can't say "bad actors have tainted feminism" while arguing against that statement for something else.

As I just wrote, this is the problem with any broad label.

How are so many journalists still having a hard time understanding basic ethical tenets? It's like they're using the sexism slant to avoid facing legitimate criticism.

The relationship between many gaming journalists and the industry they cover has become more and more incestuous the last 10 years. There's a huge conflict of interest. Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is advertising. You can't pander to the industry you cover.

Like? I'm talking about specifics.

 

[Mononoke]

So what's the big problem with the "gamer identity" piece? That it stirred up conflict?

Every time Anita posts one of her videos (which abide by your rules) enormous & hostile debates pop up as well.

I've heard similar arguments about how Anita's counterproductive for various reasons. (use of words, bad arguments, "lying/being deceitful" ... wearing make-up)

I'm not sure what tactic is "effective" enough not to be deemed bad.

Well for one, a lot of people identify themselves with the gamer label. A lot of people that they want on their side. A lot of people that aren't extremists. No one should be able declare a label/identity is over. And no one should tell people what they should or shouldn't identify with. While the piece is aimed at the extremists, the messaging came across as lashing out beyond them and to the gamer on the whole. To be clear, I'm saying people misunderstood the piece. Not that they were wrong.

No one should be arguing that Anita is counter-productive, unless she's lashing out at people and telling them to 100% agree with her and if they don't they are misogynistic. Again, can you give me an example of this? Anyone criticizing her are I. an extremist II. A regular gamer in denial of the issues their hobby has. III. Or someone that is reasonable, and doesn't agree with all her examples/criticisms (yes, you can disagree with someone without being a terrible person). Anyone saying she's being counter-productive have nothing to stand on (or at least I haven't seen a valid argument for this).

A valid strategy is to explain to people the issues that are in the industry rather than beat them over the head with it. Provide examples and experiences. Telling people that these are 100% issues and if you don't accept it, you are misogynistic is not the way to go about it. Telling people that they have to 100% agree with their view point, or they are the enemy is not the way to go about it (even those that agree with them, don't always agree on the specifics). Anything that is combative or antagonistic is not going to help anyone. Again, it only fuels extremists. It only validates the gamers in denial. And it only alienates those that haven't made up their mind on things yet.

 

[jschreier]

How are so many journalists still having a hard time understanding basic ethical tenets? It's like they're using the sexism slant to avoid facing legitimate criticism.

1) It is difficult to find much real criticism in this hateful campaign.

2) Much of the criticism proposed by #GamerGate has been addressed in this piece, which you should read in its entirety: https://medium.com/@upstreamism/to-fair-minded-proponents-of-gamergate-7f3ce77301bb

3) Many journalists are constantly thinking and talking about these ethical issues, often behind the scenes. At Kotaku we talk about this sort of thing all the time. I always invite and encourage criticism, but to act like we don't take our jobs and our ethics seriously is rude and patronizing.

 

[Glass Shark]

Games writers are supposed to ignore emerging game industry trends in favor of what, exactly?

This is a total tangent that's really not at all my point, but the article conflates the rise of mobile games with the death of consoles, which is completely myopic. It's not a zero-sum game. Mobile and consoles can both succeed in their own way.

 

[APF]

Take a look at how large hollywood celebrities deal with the dung flinging from the internet, the either do no engage or turn it into something hilarious like Jimmy Kimmel's Mean Tweets (NFSW *language*).

Tim Schafer did something along these lines on twitter. The problem is, when people do things like that on social media (highlighting posts they disagree with / are insulting / etc) they get accused of trying to push their followers against that person.

How are so many journalists still having a hard time understanding basic ethical tenets? It's like they're using the sexism slant to avoid facing legitimate criticism.

So one of the key concerns being raised was over disclosure of patreon backing. Here's the Guardian's take, that Jenn Frank had to literally hound them into adding onto one of her pieces:

<<
The following footnote was appended on 5 September 2014: An earlier footnote, appended on 1 September, made clear that Jenn Frank had purchased and is a supporter of Zoë Quinn&#8217;s work, although this is the first article she has written on the developer and that Frank has also briefly met Anita Sarkeesian. These facts had been included as a footnote by Jenn Frank when she filed her copy before publication but removed by editors because they did not fulfil the criteria for a &#8220;significant connection&#8221; in line with the Guardian&#8217;s editorial guidelines. However, the Guardian wishes to make clear that it was an editorial decision originally to remove the original disclosure, not one made by the author, and we are happy to have restored it in the interests of full disclosure.
>>

It's not about journalistic integrity (both Kotaku and Polygon either changed or clarified their disclosure policies *early* into this). It's about pushing women and social liberals out of commentary.

 

[Phades]

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

This would fall under I don't like X style of commentary regardless of descriptive terminology used.

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

When you stop making observations and begin demanding actions being taken by any source. Gamers or games/game industry is [insert label] and therefore must change style tilts are inherently political. This is different from stating you personally had any kind of issue with a title and therefore came to different conclusions than another reviewer.

Again to restate, I used "you", but did not mean you personally do/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.

The reason for bringing that up, is that it is more common to see the relationship between product being veiwed as [insert problem] and therefore the consumer has [insert problem] creating ______ trend. If it was only the observation and nothing more, a portion of the bad things being thrown around and getting attention from parties who have nothing to do with gaming and becoming involved with something that I would like to think that most gamers have no want or desire to see any part of.

This is central to at least one issue related to origins of the GG hashtag in the first place.

I'm sorry that I can't articulate this in a better way in order to convey a better understanding of where I am coming from or why others may react in that manner. Continuing to imply that I, or others, have a problem because there is causality involved in this I think isn't helping anything.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

No one should be arguing that Anita is counter-productive, unless she's lashing out at people and telling them to 100% agree with her and if they don't they are misogynistic. Again, can you give me an example of this? Anyone criticizing her are I. an extremist II. A regular game in denial of the issues their hobby has. Anyone saying she's being counter-productive have nothing to stand on.

Quite a few people would consider you "an extremist" for this standpoint, you realise that right?

Claiming anyone who disagrees with her on a more ethical level is either extreme or delusional would to many people that consider themselves to be reasonable be "extreme and unproductive".

 

[Patryn]

How are so many journalists still having a hard time understanding basic ethical tenets? It's like they're using the sexism slant to avoid facing legitimate criticism.

The relationship between many gaming journalists and the industry they cover has become more and more incestuous the last 10 years. There's a huge conflict of interest. Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is advertising. You can't pander to the industry you cover.

Can you explain how the relationship between gaming journalists and developers is different than that of political reporters and politicians?

 

[Mononoke]

Quite a few people would consider you "an extremist" for this standpoint, you realise that right?

Claiming anyone who disagrees with her on a more ethical level is either extreme or delusional would to many people that consider themselves to be reasonable be "extreme and unproductive".

Then so be it. But I don't understand how it's an extremist view to be for someone having a criticism/opinion and explaining these positions with examples. I'm not saying you have to agree with them. Hell, you can 100% disagree with every single thing Anita has to say. But how is it being counter-productive for someone to have an opinion and try to explain it?

She does more to explain her positions (even if you don't agree with it), then some people saying journalism is corrupt, and something something nepotism. Not saying there isn't legitimate criticisms of the media. Not saying there shouldn't be a debate about the media and how they function. But if we are going to argue she's being counter productive...well lol.

 

[ferr]

So what is #GamerGate attempting to achieve? Seems the articles were misunderstood in that the term "gamers" was used way too loosely. Do they want the articles to be re-written?

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Coming from a academic background: Is it now a bad thing that people want to discuss her ideas and theories?

To me it is great if something like that results in actual discussion. I wish people would discuss so much about the papers I write.

My experience with the Sarkeesian threads here is that there's some very good discussion of her videos. It's just that that discussion tends to get swamped by two groups of posters who aren't really interested in talking about the videos at all: 1) people who are upset that she's criticizing games and 2) people who view her as an ideological ally and don't understand the concept of criticizing the methodology of someone you agree with.

There's definitely an audience for a more developed critique than what Sarkeesian has offered to date. Interested parties should get in touch with The Blue Jihad.

 

[Patryn]

So what is #GamerGate attempting to achieve? Seems the articles were misunderstood in that the term "gamers" was used way too loosely. Do they want the articles to be re-written?

For insight into that, read the Rhodes article in the OP.

 

[Kadayi]

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.

It's garbage: -

A few nights ago, I spent several hours on Twitter asking questions and patiently reading the answers from a dozen so of your fellow gamers.

Twitter is a terrible platform for expression of a complex issue given the character limit of 140 characters.

Firstly because of the constraint people are going to short cut their answers versus be expansive, and that invariably results in a less cohesive response.

Secondly because not everyone uses twitter.

If the same question was posted here, people wouldn't be far more expansive and inclined to get into the complexities of things versus simple catchwords.

There's nothing 'fair minded' about it at all. All there is, is a lot of hollow dismissal.

 

[Mononoke]

So what is #GamerGate attempting to achieve? Seems the articles were misunderstood in that the term "gamers" was used way too loosely. Do they want the articles to be re-written?

There is no goal. Because it's a mish-mash of various people coming together for various things. It started out as an outlet for misogynistic gamers to attack those in the industry that keep being critical of it. And then spiraled into a much bigger thing about supposed corruption in the industry. Because of this, there is no goal. There is nothing that can be achieved.

It's just a bunch of in fighting. A toxic environment that is only making the divide greater. And in the end no one wins. Women in the industry don't win. People that have actual criticism of the media don't win. I guess the extremists kind of win? Because it ultimately has gotten people to quit. And it's really allowed for these attacks to be validated under the guise of a campaign. Or at least, it's given it an outlet to carry things out. Notice how, a lot of people think that the harassment/doxxing is tied to people being fed up with corruption. Yeah, that's how this worked.

 

[Vice]

How are so many journalists still having a hard time understanding basic ethical tenets? It's like they're using the sexism slant to avoid facing legitimate criticism.

The relationship between many gaming journalists and the industry they cover has become more and more incestuous the last 10 years. There's a huge conflict of interest. Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is advertising. You can't pander to the industry you cover.

Journalism is about news. News can be something people want out or not. The idea that true journalism is all about publishing what people don't want out is an unachievable standard. There many times where companies, and politicians, do what information out and it is important information that people should know.

There's also the fact that people who leak information may benefit from a person(s) damaged reputation.

And all coverage of entertainment involves pandering to a degree. It's superfluous coverage that everyone wants to do as a result journalists have less room to negotiate since 900 other websites will run with the publisher. It requires a lot of relationships. Even straight political reporting is based around building up relationships with sources which often involves writing "fluff" pieces to gain trust.

 

[APF]

So what is #GamerGate attempting to achieve?

This:

https://twitter.com/jennatar/status/507930763191275520

Congratulations #gamergate!

 

[Curufinwe]

1) It is difficult to find much real criticism in this hateful campaign.

2) Much of the criticism proposed by #GamerGate has been addressed in this piece, which you should read in its entirety: https://medium.com/@upstreamism/to-fair-minded-proponents-of-gamergate-7f3ce77301bb

3) Many journalists are constantly thinking and talking about these ethical issues, often behind the scenes. At Kotaku we talk about this sort of thing all the time. I always invite and encourage criticism, but to act like we don't take our jobs and our ethics seriously is rude and patronizing.

Speaking of hateful campaigns, what did you think of Frank Cifaldi blaming Kotaku in part for what happened to Jenn Frank?

@frankcifaldi 28m
Remember how pissed a lot of us were that Kotaku caved to these idiots and changed its Patreon policy instead of standing up to bullies?

@frankcifaldi 28m
How a lot of us saw this as an admission of guilt that gave these people ammo?

@frankcifaldi 27m
Well last night @jennatar was harassed to the point of leaving video games behind because she gives money to @TheQuinnspiracy's Patreon

@frankcifaldi 26m
She happened to name Zoe in an article to The Guardian, and DISCLOSED THAT to them. http://infinitelives.net/2014/09/01/...-latest-piece/

@frankcifaldi 27m
It was THE GUARDIAN that cut that information out of the article. And still, pretending this is about "ethics," she was made to feel unsafe.

@frankcifaldi 26m
At this point I consider any video game website that is not directly combating this idiocy to be complacent in it.

@frankcifaldi 25m
Jenn quit video games because she felt like it wasn't a safe environment to have a child in. Think about that. That's crazy.

@frankcifaldi 24m
And the harassment that led to this could have been curtailed if gaming sites had the courage to show volatile readers the door.

@frankcifaldi 23m
There is no excuse for what is happening. None. This is all happening because "gamers" won't accept outsiders into their hobby.

@frankcifaldi 22m
So they started using "ethics" as this weak-ass excuse to harass people. Journalistic ethical concerns that THE GUARDIAN FOUND IRRELEVANT.

@frankcifaldi 23m
THE GUARDIAN.

@frankcifaldi 21m
Video game sites need to step the fuck up and say something. Now. This is only getting worse.

@frankcifaldi 20m
The only thing you have to lose are the volatile readers that hate you anyway. Close your god damned Omniture reports and stand up to this.

@frankcifaldi 17m
These internet harassers and bullies have convinced major media to report on "#GamerGate" because video game websites have been silent.

@frankcifaldi 16m
Al Jazeera reported on this yesterday. And there was hardly a dissenting voice because gaming websites are hoping this all just goes away.

 

[Dimmle]

Honest question here, is it a misunderstanding of feminism or a misrepresentation of feminism? Because the most extreme, rude and loud feminists (who go around painting gamers as basement-dwelling pigs and posting #killallmen as a "joke") seem to be garnering a lot more attention than the calm, rational, intelligent feminist. At least that is my observation. In fact, several feminist (and gamer) friends of mine have also complained to me that these loud voices are taking over the moment. I would like to hear your opinion on this...

I think we're reaching a chicken/egg scenario with this question. Misrepresentation takes place on both sides, definitely, but the misrepresentation of feminism by people who demonstrate their misunderstanding by using terms like "SJW" seems to have created the most actual victims. Their willful ire earns abrasive responses from those who disagree and the whole thing is perpetuated because no one likes to be yelled at and most people on the internet tend to escalate matters when challenged.

This is just my observation of a conflict which is honestly way too broad in scope to sum up in a nutshell. I'm not even sure if we're arguing about harassment against women or screen resolution at this point.

 

[jschreier]

Speaking of hateful campaigns, what did you think of Frank Cifaldi blaming Kotaku in part for what happened to Jenn Frank?

I can certainly see his perspective, though I'm not sure it's fair to connect the two. I agree with everything Stephen wrote here: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1s85v81

 

[Neoriceisgood]

Then so be it. But I don't understand how it's an extremist to be for someone having a criticism/opinion and explaining these positions with examples. I'm not saying you have to agree with them. Hell, you can 100% disagree with every single thing Anita has to say. But how is it being counter-productive for someone to have an opinion and try to explain it?

This is why I personally don't like any argument that comes down to "Don't be extreme" / "there will always be extremists".

I actually don't think Anita is extreme at all, in any way shape or form; but I've found that the term "extreme" is absolutely counterproductive in this discussion as everyone and their mother has their own mental image of who these "extreme" people are.

Plenty of people who have gone for the #voiceofreason argument proudly boast about how skeptical they are of Anita because they went digging in her past to discredit her. Then they rant and rave about how we should all have a reasonable debate "without focussing on the extremes".

Extremes can mean many things to many people:

1. anyone who ever at any point used a curse word/was rude.
2. people who dig into people's past to stalker-ish degrees to discredit them
3.people who don't communicate their point well
4. people who are okay with Anita's message despite [insert the forbidden list on any gaf thread)
5. insert any zoe quinn related opinion here, sigh.


You've been arguing from "extremes" a lot but to me it's an entirely empty word because I've literally had the exact same discussion with people who would have easily put you in the "extreme" camp.

You're making a lot of arguments about miscommunication clearly being a "wrong" thing to do, I don't see how a generalized condemnation of "extremes" doesn't qualify.

(keep in mind that before I started questions I literally could not tell if Anita would've been included within your definition of extreme.)

 

[ab.aeterno]

End corruption but stay the same? People are tired of "social justice warriors" who are colluding with certain devs to push an agenda.

Which developers? What agenda? Be specific.

 

[Xtra]

The video games enthusiast press is not a single entity. There have been several people who've been silent, several who've expressed their opinions on the matter respectfully, and then there's been some who've written with (understandable) frustration. You can't paint them all with one brush.

You are 100% correct. Unfortunately the gaming press is represented by the larger sites, just as traditional press is represented by the larger organizations. I made the mistake in assuming that by writing "gaming press" that would be the connotation rather than what you got from that statement, and I apologize for that. I can see how this is similar to how "SJW" and "misogonerd" get thrown around.

Except every one of those individuals is a multi-millionaire who can afford personal security details or elaborate home security.

I think you might have missed the forest for the trees here. The point of the post, and the assertion that was made by the prior poster, was to IGNORE the trolls.

When you give the trolls attention (like tweeting and talking about insults/threats) they multiply and diversify. You make the situation worse. This is a universal truth in media and the internet.

Ignore insults and get the authorities involved in threats, don't give them power. Trolls get off on the attention.

 

[Vice]

Which developers? What agenda? Be specific.

The biggest examples would be Zoe Quinn and a few people some journalists donated to on Patreon, don't remember their names, the agenda is feminism in gaming and "ending gamer culture."

 

[Mononoke]

This is why I personally don't like any argument that comes down to "Don't be extreme" / "there will always be extremists".

I actually don't think Anita is extreme at all, in any way shape or form; but I've found that the term "extreme" is absolutely counterproductive in this discussion as everyone and their mother has their own mental image of who these "extreme" people are.

Plenty of people who have gone for the #voiceofreason argument proudly boast about how skeptical they are of Anita because they went digging in her past to discredit her. Then they rant and rave about how we should all have a reasonable debate "without focussing on the extremes".

Extremes can mean many things to many people:

1. anyone who ever at any point used a curse word/was rude.
2. people who dig into people's past to stalker-ish degrees to discredit them
3.people who don't communicate their point well
4. people who are okay with Anita's message despite [insert the forbidden list on any gaf thread)
5. insert any zoe quinn related opinion here, sigh.


You've been arguing from "extremes" a lot but to me it's an entirely empty word because I've literally had the exact same discussion with people who would have easily put you in the "extreme" camp.

You're making a lot of arguments about miscommunication clearly being a "wrong" thing to do, I don't see how a generalized condemnation of "extremes" doesn't qualify.

(keep in mind that before I started questions I literally could not tell if Anita would've been included within your definition of extreme.)

I'm only using extremists to describe the folks that are doxxing/harassing/sending threats (whether physical or sexual). Those people are IMO fitting of the label.

I didn't ever once say the media/activist were extreme. No idea what you are talking about me arguing extremes. Nor do I have an issue with the media/activist condemning extremists. All I ever argued what that I've found the overall messaging of these issues to not be very welcoming to a lot of people that they need to win over. If you don't agree with that, then that's totally fine.

But at least to me, I think this is a very important thing moving forward. Because I do not think this movement will go anywhere if we have pieces like the "Gamer Identity is over" or the kind of reactions people had on twitter to Giant Bomb hiring another white male (the criticism was fine, the way it delivered was not).

 

[MHWilliams]

This would fall under I don't like X style of commentary regardless of descriptive terminology used.

Most things do fall under that commentary. I'm unsure what the problem here is.

When you stop making observations and begin demanding actions being taken by any source. Gamers or games/game industry is [insert label] and therefore must change style tilts are inherently political. This is different from stating you personally had any kind of issue with a title and therefore came to different conclusions than another reviewer.

That's no more political than asking a developer to focus on single-player instead of multiplayer. That is the essence of feedback and criticism. You can and should say to a creator, I would prefer that you do X for X reason. The creator can then choose to listen to you or not. This extends to every part of a game, be it aesthetics or mechanics.

The "creative vision" does not stop at the art or story. The entire game is a series of specific choices by a developer or studio. To say you cannot ask for changes in anything is foolhardy.

The reason for bringing that up, is that it is more common to see the relationship between product being viewed as [insert problem] and therefore the consumer has [insert problem] creating ______ trend. If it was only the observation and nothing more, a portion of the bad things being thrown around and getting attention from parties who have nothing to do with gaming and becoming involved with something that I would like to think that most gamers have no want or desire to see any part of.

We're all a part of the industry in some fashion and yes, there are calls to work together to change things. This is largely because society and entertainment are an endless feedback loop. Society creates entertainment, which feeds back into society. Part of the push for diverse representation in entertainment is due to the normalizing effect of entertainment.