Support NeoGAF

[ShockingAlberto]

Awesome!

Can you give any sort of approximate "hopefully should be ready to launch by around ___" date, or is it all still too prep-stagey for such an estimate to have any real worth?

It was supposed to be ready to launch this past summer, but I lost my job so I couldn't focus on the kickstarter as much as I wanted. I also wanted to avoid any appearance of impropriety so people don't act like I'm using the money in a personal way. I'm hoping I'll get all my ducks in a row by 2015.

I'll probably start in the meantime by doing smaller videos on Youtube before I ask for anyone's money.

 

[APZonerunner]

I've been preparing a kickstarter on this for over a year.

Wanted to make sure I've done enough research, but life sort of got in the way. I had some people on board for interviews like Patrick Klepek and Ian Bogost, but the legwork on this sort of thing is completely and utterly insane.

As a mixed race guy who works in and around journalism and has long pondered pitching something on this issue, please do it. Think it'd be amazing. Don't let it fall to the wayside! Sounds lke you have the right idea from your other posts, anyway.

 

[Messofanego]

I'd love for someone to analyse race in games the same way Anita Sarkeesian has done it for the women issues.

Would kickstarter.

I've been preparing a kickstarter on this for over a year.

Wanted to make sure I've done enough research, but life sort of got in the way. I had some people on board for interviews like Patrick Klepek and Ian Bogost, but the legwork on this sort of thing is completely and utterly insane.

OMG YES YES

On board with mah moneyz whenever it happens

 

[MacNille]

I've been preparing a kickstarter on this for over a year.

Wanted to make sure I've done enough research, but life sort of got in the way. I had some people on board for interviews like Patrick Klepek and Ian Bogost, but the legwork on this sort of thing is completely and utterly insane.

Good if you are doing your research. Don't forget to also show your sources too.

 

[Corto]

I've been preparing a kickstarter on this for over a year.

Wanted to make sure I've done enough research, but life sort of got in the way. I had some people on board for interviews like Patrick Klepek and Ian Bogost, but the legwork on this sort of thing is completely and utterly insane.

I'll pledge for such a kickstarter. I'll pledge it hard! That's the only support I can offer besides sharing it like crazy and rooting for it.

 

[The Blue Jihad]

It was supposed to be ready to launch this past summer, but I lost my job so I couldn't focus on the kickstarter as much as I wanted. I also wanted to avoid any appearance of impropriety so people don't act like I'm using the money in a personal way. I'm hoping I'll get all my ducks in a row by 2015.

I'll probably start in the meantime by doing smaller videos on Youtube before I ask for anyone's money.

Just fair warning: I'm going to be picking your brain at some point. Being able to get your perspective on the planning process would prove invaluable...

 

[zeldablue]

As a mixed race guy who works in and around journalism and has long pondered pitching something on this issue, please do it. Think it'd be amazing. Don't let it fall to the wayside! Sounds lke you have the right idea from your other posts, anyway.

Yes! I'd donate quite a bit for that. I'd suggest doing what Anita did and get backers to post potential talking points from example games. C:

 

[_hekk05]

People keep asking me about this, so I addressed it here: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1s9dufq

I personally feel that news should be reported on, and this gamergate thing isn't probably going to die down for quite a while. The fact that someone from your website is involved in said scandal does not preclude your ability to write a piece - that's what disclosure is for afterall. Write your opinions, disclose your relationships, and let readers choose what to take from it.


In other news, you guys ran off the guy who runs @neogafshitposts. Great job guys

 

[Messofanego]

In other news, you guys ran off the guy who runs @neogafshitposts. Great job guys

I don't presume to know what mods do around here with bans, but that twitter account apparently didn't contact the mods about that stuff before ending so it's up to them.

This is off-topic, so I'll just keep quiet.

 

[Moon_frogger]

People keep asking me about this, so I addressed it here: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1s9dufq

Jason I know I'm going to get like a toooon of shit for saying this but it really seems rather chickenshit that you won't touch this story because you're afraid it will make zoe Quinn look bad. Honestly, I completely understand that you and kotaku don't want it on your conscience if a peice like this were to cause Ms. Quinn to receive any more twitter abuse or death threats and I completely support that but TFYC seem like a great bunch that could really benefit from good press by kotaku. It's really unfortunate that they've been a causuaty of all this bullshit. They could use some good press.

 

[jschreier]

Jason I know I'm going to get like a toooon of shit for saying this but it really seems rather chickenshit that you won't touch this story because you're afraid it will make zoe Quinn look bad.

If that's your takeaway here, you really need to re-read what I wrote.

 

[Widge]

It won't help. Kotaku are seen as "bad" and anything not seen as unequivocal support of GG is taken dimly. Waiting until the flames die is the best way.

 

[Deculture]

The more opportunities that Baldwin has to prove he's a fucking nut the better. Give him a bigger microphone. Maybe they'll invite him on Fox News to talk about it. XP

Well, you did ask for it.

Watching this whole thing evolve over the past month has been fascinating. I'm surprised it hasn't blown over yet as these things tend to fizzle out within a week or two as the internet loses interest.

 

[robovanburen]

It's funny how people want reporters to be objective and independent, and then get mad at them for not mindlessly promoting their pet cause.

 

[_hekk05]

If that's your takeaway here, you really need to re-read what I wrote.

You say:

we're hesitant to A) publish an article that would encourage or facilitate more harassment of ANYONE

I say: TFYC have been harassed and had their project almost destroyed, and yet you did not want to help shed light on the subject, even though you've already had a chat? How does that sit in your conscience?

You say:

B) cover a story that heavily involves someone who had a now-very-public relationship with one of our reporters

I say: Isn't it more important to shed light on such a story, especially now that one of your reporters have been implicated? If it was just a coincidence, why not use the opportunity to correct public impression? If he was really violating journalistic ethics, then apologise and use this opportunity to establish and/or strengthen and/or publicise your ethics.

 

[Corto]

You say:


I say: TFYC have been harassed and had their project almost destroyed, and yet you did not want to help shed light on the subject, even though you've already had a chat? How does that sit in your conscience?

You say:


I say: Isn't it more important to shed light on such a story, especially now that one of your reporters have been implicated? If it was just a coincidence, why not use the opportunity to correct public impression? If he was really violating journalistic ethics, then apologise and use this opportunity to establish and/or strengthen and/or publicise your ethics.

Nathan Grayson? Totilo already addressed that.

http://kotaku.com/in-recent-days-ive-been-asked-several-times-about-a-pos-1624707346

It's a bullshit implication.

 

[MikeOfTheLivingDead]

Jason I know I'm going to get like a toooon of shit for saying this but it really seems rather chickenshit that you won't touch this story because you're afraid it will make zoe Quinn look bad. Honestly, I completely understand that you and kotaku don't want it on your conscience if a peice like this were to cause Ms. Quinn to receive any more twitter abuse or death threats and I completely support that but TFYC seem like a great bunch that could really benefit from good press by kotaku. It's really unfortunate that they've been a causuaty of all this bullshit. They could use some good press.

I think you're right but for different reasons. I'm not a fan of Jason or Kotaku for a bunch of reasons, and I think it's interesting that he's suddenly grown a conscience about this type of stuff, when he has a history of posting incendiary articles on Kotaku around this topic and digging for dirt when these situations pop off on twitter.

As for TFYC, why do it for charity? Why not actually try to build a for profit company with under represented minds in the industry? It makes no sense to me. Why go through all this effort, just to give these creators a pittance and a pat on the back, then give the rest of the money they make, if any, away. Try to build something long lasting for fuck's sake or there's no point in doing it. Calling themselves the fine young capitalists is just moronic given their plan.

 

[Moon_frogger]

If that's your takeaway here, you really need to re-read what I wrote.

No, that's not my only take away from your statement. I respect your right to publish what you want when you want and I'm not arguing with your reasoning. I can see it's a little close to home. ALSO, to be clear I'm not accusing you of bias or corruption or ethical violations or anything like that. I just feel genuinely bad for the folks at TYFC and would like to seem them get some positive press, on kotaku or elsewhere

 

[Moon_frogger]

As for TFYC, why do it for charity? Why not actually try to build a for profit company with under represented minds in the industry? It makes no sense to me. Why go through all this effort, just to give these creators a pittance and a pat on the back, then give the rest of the money they make, if any, away. Try to build something long lasting for fuck's sake or there's no point in doing it. Calling themselves the fine young capitalists is just moronic given their plan.

That's a very odd point to attack them on. Why do it for charity? Because they are a non profit organization? Because their goals are educational in scope? As far as giving the creators a 'pat on the back' they get 8 percent of the profit, get to keep all own all concept art from the project AND the rest of the money goes to a charity of THEIR choice. not too shabby if you ask me. Not to mention the invaluable exposure they would otherwise not get, the valuable experience working on a project like this they would not have, Etc etc. I really don't understand how a non profit organization like this can get criticism for wanting to give money to charity and help woman get experience in game development. I really just don't see any downsides to this.

 

[_hekk05]

Nathan Grayson? Totilo already addressed that.

http://kotaku.com/in-recent-days-ive-been-asked-several-times-about-a-pos-1624707346

It's a bullshit implication.

Okay. So Kotaku says its bullshit. And then they parade said bullshit implication as one of the reasons to not publish an article on the TFYC, because they're implicated and things are complicated? I presume?

You can't blame me for thinking something doesn't really add up...

 

[Moon_frogger]

Okay. So Kotaku says its bullshit. And then they parade said bullshit implication as one of the reasons to not publish an article on the TFYC, because they're implicated and things are complicated? I presume?

You can't blame me for thinking something doesn't really add up...

He never said that publishing an article about TFYC would be an admission of guilt. How exactly do you think it would? Or why do you think that was said/implied?

 

[chrominance]

Okay. So Kotaku says its bullshit. And then they parade said bullshit implication as one of the reasons to not publish an article on the TFYC, because they're implicated and things are complicated? I presume?

You can't blame me for thinking something doesn't really add up...

I don't work from Kotaku but my guess as to reasoning is this:

1) Kotaku looked into the allegations that Zoe Quinn's relationship with Nathan Grayson influenced their coverage of Zoe Quinn's games. They decided that it did not, for multiple reasons (for example, the relationship occurred after said coverage).

2) Publishing an article on TFYC vs. Zoe Quinn could be incendiary because, based on the previous relationship between Zoe Quinn and Nathan Grayson, Kotaku could be accused of bias, which they would want to avoid. This is independent of any previous incidents. They could probably publish an unbiased article anyways, since a) Nathan Grayson would probably be recused from any discussion or editing/writing of the article, and b) I think? the relationship is over, but because of all the allegations of corruption and perceived wrongdoing it would be easier to stay away and let other media outlets handle the story.

I don't see why this would immediately reflect badly on Kotaku unless you're already inclined to think Kotaku is corrupt.

 

[_hekk05]

He never said that publishing an article about TFYC would be an admission of guilt. How exactly do you think it would? Or why do you think that was said/implied?

B) cover a story that heavily involves someone who had a now-very-public relationship with one of our reporters

One of your colleagues is implicated by others in a scandal. Investigation occurs, implications proven to be BS. Meanwhile TFYC is in a terrible spot and you have the information needed to provide information to the public and help a charity project.

Oh noes we shouldn't write an article about said scandal because my poor friend was implicated but he's totally innocent and it was a relationship that strictly did not affect his journalistic integrity but no no we shouldn't write an article about said scandal because he was in a relationship with the woman integral to said article but no no said relationship has no bearing on journalism at kotaku but we shouldn't write said article because my friend used to date that woman and that has nothing to do with me because I'm a journalist and I have integrity and I can and will report on important issues and if there are any conflicts of interest obviously I would write a disclaimer and disclose my relationship to this kotaku journalist who used to date this woman but I shouldn't because he's a fellow colleague and our friendship might cloud my judgement.

OK...


Write the article, disclose your relationships, let the readers make up their minds. If you write a biased article, you will be called out. If you write a fair and reasoned article, even though you might have conflicts of interest, you will have disclosed them and people will listen to your arguments, instead of looking at who you are and who you are writing about.

Also everyone who hates kotaku pobably won't read the article on kotaku anyway.

 

[jetjevons]

I've been preparing a kickstarter on this for over a year.

Wanted to make sure I've done enough research, but life sort of got in the way. I had some people on board for interviews like Patrick Klepek and Ian Bogost, but the legwork on this sort of thing is completely and utterly insane.

I would kickstart the shit out of this if you did. i) Because of the incredibly relevant subject matter and ii) because it's you, ShockingAlberto.

 

[ibyea]

I've been preparing a kickstarter on this for over a year.

Wanted to make sure I've done enough research, but life sort of got in the way. I had some people on board for interviews like Patrick Klepek and Ian Bogost, but the legwork on this sort of thing is completely and utterly insane.

Sounds like a great idea!

 

[bootski]

I've been preparing a kickstarter on this for over a year.

Wanted to make sure I've done enough research, but life sort of got in the way. I had some people on board for interviews like Patrick Klepek and Ian Bogost, but the legwork on this sort of thing is completely and utterly insane.

it'd be an interesting topic for sure. i'd like to see some more details but it sounds like something i can get behind.

 

[timetokill]

I've been preparing a kickstarter on this for over a year.

Wanted to make sure I've done enough research, but life sort of got in the way. I had some people on board for interviews like Patrick Klepek and Ian Bogost, but the legwork on this sort of thing is completely and utterly insane.

Good stuff. I'd been thinking about doing it myself. I'm sure you'll do a great job.

 

[JDSN]

I've been preparing a kickstarter on this for over a year.

Wanted to make sure I've done enough research, but life sort of got in the way. I had some people on board for interviews like Patrick Klepek and Ian Bogost, but the legwork on this sort of thing is completely and utterly insane.

Ill throw $50, no joke.

 

[Noaloha]

Jenn Frank blogs about "giving [herself] permission to do something else with [her] life." --

In 2012 I explained to L. Rhodes the reasoning behind my weird-ass writing: “I didn’t like what came up when you googled my name, and instead of shrinking away, I wanted to take more ownership of the kind of writing I do. To take back my byline, basically.”
It is amazing to me that, after years of exerting some intellectual effort toward this end, I am back at Square One.
[...]
As #GamerGate took off—initially, it was a movement, organized mainly on 4chan, denouncing the mainstream games press for its lack of coverage of Ms. Quinn’s apparently salacious sex life—I, too, had to wonder at the press’s imperious silence. I gritted my teeth. No one’s going to say something? Sure, fine, I’ll do it.
And oh, man, what a sucky feeling, to intuit that taking a hard-assed stance opposing abuse (of all things!) is going to somehow put you through the wringer.
I knew I wasn’t the one for the job; rather, I was the last person for the job, precisely because I subscribe to Ms. Quinn’s Patreon.
[...]
It’s almost ugly to say, but I’m actually grateful to GamerGate. All this time, I’ve felt beholden to video games, and to the people who make them or play them or read and write about them. Maybe it really is a conflict of interests: my own. It’s conflicts all the way down.
And really, my God, I don’t have to do this. I’ve been given permission to move on to another audience. I have faith in my abilities to do something, anything else, without feeling inhibited or limited by my hobby.

 

[freddy]

Seems like Kotaku has lost a sponsor over this. Maybe Jason can confirm if this is true.

Edit: Nvm about answering this, seems like a lot of toxic stuff still going on, cherry picking, talking past one another from both sides. Gonna unsub the thread.

I've been preparing a kickstarter on this for over a year.

I'd throw money in depending on the presentation.

 

[Fari]

Fine Young Capitalists posted something on their Twitter which I'm too afraid to link to.

 

[freddy]

Edit: not my business

 

[marrec]

Fine Young Capitalists posted something on their Twitter which I'm too afraid to link to.

I saw it, it's kind of unrelated and shitty of TFYCs to post that as if it's to do with anything but registration woes.

Makes me think less of TFYCs.

 

[Usobuko]

I've been preparing a kickstarter on this for over a year.

Wanted to make sure I've done enough research, but life sort of got in the way. I had some people on board for interviews like Patrick Klepek and Ian Bogost, but the legwork on this sort of thing is completely and utterly insane.

If you could do it, I'll put down some money too.

 

[skullmuffins]

One of your colleagues is implicated by others in a scandal. Investigation occurs, implications proven to be BS. Meanwhile TFYC is in a terrible spot and you have the information needed to provide information to the public and help a charity project.

Oh noes we shouldn't write an article about said scandal because my poor friend was implicated but he's totally innocent and it was a relationship that strictly did not affect his journalistic integrity but no no we shouldn't write an article about said scandal because he was in a relationship with the woman integral to said article but no no said relationship has no bearing on journalism at kotaku but we shouldn't write said article because my friend used to date that woman and that has nothing to do with me because I'm a journalist and I have integrity and I can and will report on important issues and if there are any conflicts of interest obviously I would write a disclaimer and disclose my relationship to this kotaku journalist who used to date this woman but I shouldn't because he's a fellow colleague and our friendship might cloud my judgement.

OK...


Write the article, disclose your relationships, let the readers make up their minds. If you write a biased article, you will be called out. If you write a fair and reasoned article, even though you might have conflicts of interest, you will have disclosed them and people will listen to your arguments, instead of looking at who you are and who you are writing about.

Also everyone who hates kotaku pobably won't read the article on kotaku anyway.

If the shitheads harassing Zoe and the rest cared that much about things like "facts", this drama would have faded away a month ago.

 

[bigwinnerx]

It's funny how people want reporters to be objective and independent, and then get mad at them for not mindlessly promoting their pet cause.

This. Sooooo much this.

 

[Deitus]

Seems like Kotaku has lost a sponsor over this. Maybe Jason can confirm if this is true.

I very much doubt he could. I don't know how the business side of Kotaku is structured, but the journalists should be completely separated from the advertising department. If they weren't, that would be a problem.

 

[Noaloha]

Maddy Myers:

(short extract)
On August 16 of this year, we all watched a ship sail into port, and games journalists had absolutely no idea what to do about it. It’s not worth covering women’s personal lives, especially since no laws were broken, not even allegedly, but could it be worth pointing out that we don’t think people should receive death threats? Should we all take a firm stance against death and rape threats and harassment? That seems fair … but, hey now, we don’t want anybody to think we’re biased, so maybe we better just write up a quick policy about how “ethics” matter and, uh, does that seem like we’re capitulating to the death threats? Probably not, who cares, it’s fine.

Men I don’t know have been telling me for years now that I should be raped and/or killed for playing games, writing about games, and even for applying to get jobs and/or promotions within games journalism. Have they ever been “right”? Have they “made good points,” in between insults? Sure. Plenty of times, my detractors have made some good points. They often point out some error, some typo, some factual inconsistency … but then they extrapolate that to mean that I don’t deserve to be here, on this planet, alive. Does that mean I believe I should never be criticized? No. It’s a question of scale. And, you know, the whole bit where it doesn’t happen to my male colleagues. There’s that, too.

Some of my fellow colleagues in the field of games criticism and design decided to hang up their hats this week for a variety of reasons. They all happen to be women. I’ve seen a lot of passive voice used in response to these departures—“we’ve lost a great voice,” for example, as though this were about losing the rights to the usage of a mascot. As though being a “great voice”—underpaid, underappreciated, and thoroughly unsupported—would be enough on its own. As though the design and coverage of games is done by talking heads on a roster of colorful characters.

It’s easy to blame harassment campaigns on the literal harassers, to take a firm stance against harassment—a stance no one could ever argue against, by the way. Institutions have failed, as well. Twitter has failed, by continuing to not give a crap about how many burner accounts 4chan sends down its pipeline. Local police forces have failed, by not yet knowing how to deal with online harassment and threats. Games journalism failed, too, as it has continued to fail, by responding to accusations of “corruption” and “bias” by promising to be even more objective, as objective as possible, in the future.


============================

Somewhat related to that last quote point, Critical Distance won't be appearing on The Escapist, one has to assume as a direct result of this shitshow.

I'm not certain whether an official reason has been given. I'm seeing conflicting claims of CD opting out due to The Escapist's new ethics policy / perceived capitulation to increased objectivity, and other claims that The Escapist itself doesn't want CD on the site given all the current reshuffling. I'd be wary of believing either side until some sort of statement is offered.

For those unaware, Critical Distance describe themselves thusly:
Back in 2009, Critical Distance was founded to answer the question: “Where is all the good writing about games?”

Now in our fifth year of operation, we’ve seen the proliferation of thoughtful, incisive criticism, commentary and analysis across dozens of sites and publications. However, our goal remains the same: to bring together and highlight the most interesting, provocative and robust writing, video and discussion on games from across the web.

In addition to providing our readers with a consistent level of quality and critical insight, we want Critical Distance to be as inclusive as possible, to accommodate as many different perspectives and unique voices as we can. It’s our belief that a diverse pool of writers and thinkers produces a much more interesting conversation than the alternative.

At our heart, Critical Distance is not here to create a canon of “best” works. Instead, we want to facilitate dialogue.

And you can find their contributions to The Escapist here.

=======================================

EDIT:

To ensure posting that here doesn't just add to the noise levels, further clarification:

 

[Oersted]

I don't presume to know what mods do around here with bans, but that twitter account apparently didn't contact the mods about that stuff before ending so it's up to them.



This is off-topic, so I'll just keep quiet.

I wonder whats with the other example. But yeah, offtopic.

 

[marrec]

Alright, after my Twitter interactions with TFYCs, I'm very glad that Zoe shut them down originally. Whoever's tweeting for them is kind of a giant asshole who just wants to continue stoking the fires against specific sites instead of communicate.

 

[Lowlander2]

Maddy Myers:

That seems fair … but, hey now, we don’t want anybody to think we’re biased, so maybe we better just write up a quick policy about how “ethics” matter and, uh, does that seem like we’re capitulating to the death threats? Probably not, who cares, it’s fine.

Yeah, because that's 100% fair. People can't multitask or anything. People can't sift through the crap and see the more reasoned arguments for what they are and act upon them.

Okay, yes, the death threats are a far more pressing matter, but I feel that goes without saying. What doesn't go without saying, and what I want to bring up, is that Myers traded in the right to ask everyone to examine their own actions in regards to the downward spiral of games criticism when she, alongside everyone else who was involved, didn't have the critical capacity or humility to fathom the idea that the reason Re/Action failed was not intrinsically tied to the cruel hand of fate when similar movements succeeded that same year.

What Myers fails, or refuses, to understand is that it's entirely possible for people to hold themselves and their institutions to strict ethical standards, both in and outside the bounds of journalism as Gamergate once touted to stand for, while using their own discretion in doing so. Indeed, that's what Kotaku did. They quelled the dumbass accusations against Grayson BEFORE they changed their standpoint on Patreon, to put everything in perspective and shut down the haters beforehand. Can't say it worked, but I couldn't have asked them to reasonably do anything else.

 

[Nymphae]

I don't presume to know what mods do around here with bans, but that twitter account apparently didn't contact the mods about that stuff before ending so it's up to them.



This is off-topic, so I'll just keep quiet.

I was unaware of this, and find those bans a little troubling.

 

[gogoud]

Alright, after my Twitter interactions with TFYCs, I'm very glad that Zoe shut them down originally. Whoever's tweeting for them is kind of a giant asshole who just wants to continue stoking the fires against specific sites instead of communicate.

Well... Could be that they had to endure undeserved twitter hate for a long while now... You know...

Zoe shutting them down was undeserved. The aftermath was undeserved. Getting blacklisted was undeserved. One person running their twitter is not their whole group. Don't forget that. Also, they are trying to do some good.

 

[marrec]

Well... Could be that they had to endure undeserved twitter hate for a long while now... You know...

Zoe shutting them down was undeserved. The aftermath was undeserved. Getting blacklisted was undeserved. One person running their twitter is not their whole group. Don't forget that. Also, they are trying to do some good.

The twitter account isn't trying to do good, they're trying to stoke the flames of what I see as an anti-progressive gaming movement without earnestly talking to anyone except those who agree with them.

And don't give me 'One person running their twitter is not their whole group' when this entire farce of a hashtag movement is about attacking anyone who agrees with the less than a dozen people who they see as having a destructive impact on gaming. Literally all "SJWs" or journalists or devs are a part of their hate campaign if they can be in any way connected back to the original people this 'movement' was started to target.

Not only that, but singular tweets taken completely out of context are added to giant imgur pictures as 'proof' of some kind of abuse campaign or collusion or corruption.

So going by the standards of the movement that TFYCs openly supports, yes, they're all represented by the multiple tweets that they've put out and yes, I will not be supporting or donating to their cause now or in the future unless they sufficiently explain themselves.

 

[zeldablue]

Ech...

This is starting to make me feel sick. Is there a chance all of this will go to court? Like, at what point can someone actually step in and say what needs to be done?

Of course I'm biased, because I'm a woman who would love to be closer to the industry. But for me, this looks like a very strong hate campaign to prevent women from ever having a voice. It means people endorsing and perpetuating verbal abuse and scare tactics to get girls and women out of the industry. It means if you are in the industry, you have to shut up and never say anything about women ever again. That's sickening. More people in the industry need to stand up and say how awful and disgusting this is.

 

[gogoud]

The twitter account isn't trying to do good, they're trying to stoke the flames of what I see as an anti-progressive gaming movement without earnestly talking to anyone except those who agree with them.

And don't give me 'One person running their twitter is not their whole group' when this entire farce of a hashtag movement is about attacking anyone who agrees with the less than a dozen people who they see as having a destructive impact on gaming. Literally all "SJWs" or journalists or devs are a part of their hate campaign if they can be in any way connected back to the original people this 'movement' was started to target.

Not only that, but singular tweets taken completely out of context are added to giant imgur pictures as 'proof' of some kind of abuse campaign or collusion or corruption.

So going by the standards of the movement that TFYCs openly supports, yes, they're all represented by the multiple tweets that they've put out and yes, I will not be supporting or donating to their cause now or in the future unless they sufficiently explain themselves.

This whole thing became a major mess. People fucked it up. The people who tried to clean it fucked it up even more. There's no side now worth fighting for. Saying one is right and one isn't is bullshit. Cherry picking articles to prove a point is bs. Cherry picking tweets is bs. Cherry picking chat logs is bs. What happened is disgusting. It's getting worse. Movement stopped having any value since there's attacks from both sides. Can't side with anyone anymore. It's too clouded. I stand for both sides because both sides are equally tarnished. Nothing good will come of this. Just baseless hatred from now on and idiotic conspiracy campaigns about a niche industry. It will blow over hopefully.

I do agree that tfyc is going overboard. But it seems that they are fed up. It's not helping them or their cause. But you shouldn't blame them for trying to salvage whatever they have. They are going at it the wrong way obviously. But my opinion is that they unwillingly fallen into this pool of shit and now are drowning whilst splashing everyone with the shit water. Because they can't do any better.

Hopefully it'll blow over and their campaign is funded and we get some good stuff out of it and finally forget about this mess.

Everything else can just rot in hell. Too much hate. Won't do any thing anymore. I just hope major sites don't pursue this any further and ignore all the batshit bullshit crazy and continue putting out good pieces.

 

[Yrael]

Alright, after my Twitter interactions with TFYCs, I'm very glad that Zoe shut them down originally. Whoever's tweeting for them is kind of a giant asshole who just wants to continue stoking the fires against specific sites instead of communicate.

I just took a look at their Twitter...it looks like they challenged you to a debate (but may have accidentally addressed someone else).

 

[jschreier]

Sharing this conversation I tweeted because I think it's pretty important: https://storify.com/jasonschreier/gamergate

How many of the people "fighting for better journalism" even know what that actually means?

 

[Cybit]

Ech...

This is starting to make me feel sick. Is there a chance all of this will go to court? Like, at what point can someone actually step in and say what needs to be done?

Of course I'm biased, because I'm a woman who would love to be closer to the industry. But for me, this looks like a very strong hate campaign to prevent women from ever having a voice. It means people endorsing and perpetuating verbal abuse and scare tactics to get girls and women out of the industry. It means if you are in the industry, you have to shut up and never say anything about women ever again. That's sickening. More people in the industry need to stand up and say how awful and disgusting this is.

Based on the last couple of days and last few pages of posts; I don't think it is a woman thing (any more at least), I think it is a "people who disagree with us" thing. Pretty sure besada got threatened to get doxxed, and I don't think Phil Fish qualifies as a woman. Anyone they think it will work on who is not on their side will be targeted with the death threats and the harassment and etc.

Alas, the law side of our society has not figured out how to adapt to the internet as a whole yet; since you don't necessarily have a single country of origin, and thus, jurisdiction, our laws have not caught up with cybercrime at all. See; online harassment, hacking attacks on major institutions, etc. :/

 

[Marcel]

Sharing this conversation I tweeted because I think it's pretty important: https://storify.com/jasonschreier/gamergate

How many of the people "fighting for better journalism" even know what that actually means?

I used to tangle with you a lot on the subject of the enthusiast press but after this Gamergate business, the game truthers deserve whatever boogeyman they've come up with to scare themselves.