• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

#GAMERGATE: The Threadening [Read the OP] -- #StopGamerGate2014

Status
Not open for further replies.
HanktheAwesome said:
Zoe asked the press not to give the FYC that chance.
Click to expand...

Can you prove this? Or is this an assumption? If the press asked Zoe about it or saw Zoe posting about it, as part of their research, and decided not to cover it, then I wouldn't describe that as biased journalism. But you're implying that the press wanted to cover it and Zoe explicitly pressured them into not doing so, which I've personally not seen any evidence of.

edit: if you're referring to this, http://apgnation.com/archives/2014/09/09/6977/truth-gaming-interview-fine-young-capitalists

TYFC isn't saying Zoe asked them not to cover it, but she may have expressed concerns with covering it. There's a big difference there in terms of corruption etc. Whether you respect Zoe or not, Zoe is a respected figure in the indie space with these sorts of topics and it's completely reasonable for someone to get her opinion. Chloi, an editor at Indie Statik, also wrote a response here: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1s9e26u

A snippet:
At GDC, I reached out to those who had publicly taken issue with TFYC because I like to get my information straight from the source when possible. I don’t like to base articles off of tweets and rumors.

The information I received from both parties was inconsistent. It was a lot of “he said she said,” general miscommunication, and so on. I struggled to get things straight, and while I sympathized with certain things on BOTH sides, it became more and more clear to me that I was getting caught up in someone else’s drama, and I wanted out.
Click to expand...
 
tranciful said:
Can you prove this? Or is this an assumption? If the press asked Zoe about it or saw Zoe posting about it, as part of their research, and decided not to cover it, then I wouldn't describe that as biased journalism. But you're implying that the press wanted to cover it and Zoe explicitly pressured them into not doing so, which I've personally not seen any evidence of.
Click to expand...

Nothing on the relevant Wikipedia page to support this. As a rule of thumb, that tends to imply an unsupported fringe claim.
 
HanktheAwesome said:
Her asking is fine. I imagine most people would ask not to be negatively covered. But I think a lot of people probably worked hard for a woman to get a chance to make a game at FYC and for their project to be... Crushed due to misinformation spread by Zoe and her loyal followers isn't fair. So they deserved a chance to set the record straight. Zoe asked the press not to give the FYC that chance. That's fine. But the press should have ignored that request. That's unbiased journalism. And it's scary because if it can happen to a good cause like the FYC then it could happen to another good cause. Or a just a cause that those with that sway don't like. That scares me.
Click to expand...

Who is 'the press'; why does FYC automatically deserve wide coverage? It's a small topic specific game jam. Tons of small events with the best of intentions get almost no coverage. I still don't get the 'scare'.
 
leigh has posted a rather good list things to be concerned about concerning ethics in the industry.

maybe someone should make an article on those things.
 
aeolist said:
their actual arguments are paranoid sexist conspiracy theories and there's no convincing them otherwise

the only real way to engage is to make them look ridiculous by pointing out actual problems and showing everyone else that they will just ignore them
Click to expand...
It makes more sense to me to point out why their arguments are nothing more but conspiracy theories than trying to deflect it on other issues. Again, it reminds me a lot of "why does sarkeesian care about sexist games and not about how women are treated in the middle east" I'm not sure how much is gained by that

gaboumafou said:
Their "arguments" have been engaged for weeks and they don't care. What's the problem with writing that article? I don't get it.
Click to expand...
I just think it's a bad way of arguing. That's what I wanted to point out.


tonysidaway said:
Actually it does. Not all opinions are worth engaging in good faith. Your head is a cactus. Do you engage me or ignore?
Click to expand...
That's not an argument, just a statement. And yeah, if there's a large amount of people claiming and explaining to me why my head is a cactus I'd point out to them why it isn't.
 
RockTurtle said:
leigh has posted a rather good list things to be concerned about concerning ethics in the industry.

maybe someone should make an article on those things.
Click to expand...

She linked to articles that DID write about it. Those articles didn't get attention because gamers care more about feminism than they do corruption.
 
Kinyou said:
And yeah, if there's a large amount of people claiming and explaining to me why my head is a cactus I'd point out to them why it isn't.
Click to expand...

Yeah, like I'd trust you... We all know you're corrupted as fuck by the cacti, always pushing your disgusting pro-cactus agenda. I can't stand all of you CHWs (cactus head warriors).
 
Kinyou said:
It makes more sense to me to point out why their arguments are nothing more but conspiracy theories than trying to deflect it on other issues. Again, it reminds me a lot of "why does sarkeesian care about sexist games and not about how women are treated in the middle east" I'm not sure how much is gained by that
Click to expand...
people have been doing this for the last month. nobody listens, it's pointless.

That's not an argument, just a statement. And yeah, if there's a large amount of people claiming and explaining to me why my head is a cactus I'd point out to them why it isn't.
Click to expand...
what if it was an organized horde doing it for weeks despite your constant rebuttals? how long would you keep it up?
 
tranciful said:
She linked to articles that DID write about it. Those articles didn't get attention because gamers care more about feminism than they do corruption.
Click to expand...

well i was kinda hoping those issues got the same amount tract on website lately as the latest japanese game daring to have cleavage in it or the next AAA game character not having X gender/ethnicity, but ok.

i get it

just realize that people's attention aren't all garnered the same.

"this company is treating its customers bad" oh wow EA sure is a dick. i will consider not buying their games. doesn't necessarily affect me personally but ok.

"if you play this game you might be a sexist/misogynist' WOAH WOAH WOAH WHAT?!? now it's personal!
 
RockTurtle said:
"if you play this game you might be a sexist/misogynist' WOAH WOAH WOAH WHAT?!? now it's personal!
Click to expand...

I've seen people bend over backwards to infer this but I've never actually seen an article of video making this claim.

"I think there's [bad content] in this thing and I consider that bad." =/= "Everyone who likes this thing is a bad person who supports [bad content]."
 
RockTurtle said:
"if you play this game you might be a sexist/misogynist' WOAH WOAH WOAH WHAT?!? now it's personal!
Click to expand...

No one is saying that and that's you projecting something onto the argument being made. And we, including Sarkeesian, have been clarifying that a thousand times, but people must be so insecure that they still don't get that it's okay to enjoy something problematic without approving of the content despite being told otherwise over and over and over again.
 
RockTurtle said:
well i was kinda hoping those issues got the same amount tract on website lately as the latest japanese game daring to have cleavage in it or the next AAA game character not having X gender/ethnicity, but ok.

[...]

"if you play this game you might be a sexist/misogynist' WOAH WOAH WOAH WHAT?!? now it's personal!
Click to expand...

What gaming websites are you reading exactly?
 
He's referring to articles that make fun of people that like Dragon's Crown. Yeah, they're rare -- but some do make assertions about the people who consume that media.

RockTurtle said:
well i was kinda hoping those issues got the same amount tract on website lately as the latest japanese game daring to have cleavage in it or the next AAA game character not having X gender/ethnicity, but ok.

i get it

just realize that people's attention aren't all garnered the same.

"this company is treating its customers bad" oh wow EA sure is a dick. i will consider not buying their games. doesn't necessarily affect me personally but ok.

"if you play this game you might be a sexist/misogynist' WOAH WOAH WOAH WHAT?!? now it's personal!
Click to expand...

Whether or not an issue blows up depends more on the readers than the outlets, no? I mean, if gamers didn't care about cleavage, wouldn't the articles get ignored? They're talked about because there's enough people on both sides to keep the debate alive. Hot topics are more likely to get more coverage.

Capitalism.
 
Kinyou said:
And yeah, if there's a large amount of people claiming and explaining to me why my head is a cactus I'd point out to them why it isn't.
Click to expand...

I'd probably just let them make fools of themselves. I'm not saying you'd be wrong to engage them, but I think Leigh Alexander's oblique strategy is more effective and has the benefit of drawing attention to actual problems the Gamergate nonsense is distracting from.
 
RockTurtle said:
"if you play this game you might be a sexist/misogynist' WOAH WOAH WOAH WHAT?!? now it's personal!
Click to expand...

If Sarkeesian said that, I'd agree. But actually she says "it's both possible, and sometimes even necessary, to enjoy a media product while simultaneously recognising its more problematic aspects " (my close paraphrase from her first video in the series, often repeated in introducing other episodes).
 
aeolist said:
i remember one article that made fun of the creator, and i remember that the author subsequently apologized
Click to expand...

I vaguely remember one talking about the people playing, but I can't find it now. I mean, I give them the benefit of the doubt that there's at least one out there somewhere for some game. They're definitely rare, though -- most are as others have described here and just talk about the content, rather than belittling people who enjoy the content.

edit:
gaboumafou said:
A lot of people have trouble making the distinction. Just look at all the backlash on the Feminist Frequency videos.
Click to expand...

100% agreed
 
tranciful said:
I vaguely remember one talking about the people playing, but I can't find it now. I mean, I give them the benefit of the doubt that there's at least one out there somewhere for some game. They're definitely rare, though -- most are as others have described here and just talk about the content, rather than belittling people who enjoy the content.
Click to expand...

A lot of people have trouble making the distinction. Just look at all the backlash on the Feminist Frequency videos.
 
Lime said:
Fuck yeah, GitHub bans their Gamergate repository for using it as a central point to organize harassment campaigns:

ckjklw.png
Click to expand...


If what github said is true it was a good idea for them to do that.What were people doing that made github do this anyway?What they wrote on their backup site looked kinda peaceful.
 
gaboumafou said:
A lot of people have trouble making the distinction. Just look at all the backlash on the Feminist Frequency videos.
Click to expand...

It's because people over-identify with what they consume so that attacks on the product feel like attacks on themselves.
Happens in most "fandom"y things like comics, electronics brand, teams. Etc.

That this particular fandom of games has a large overlap with self-identifying "nerds"/ self-professed "smart people" who may or may not also have trouble with socializing/fitting in and instead use self-righteousness/entitlement as a defence-mechanism just makes their rabidity all the worse.
 
aeolist said:
people have been doing this for the last month. nobody listens, it's pointless.


what if it was an organized horde doing it for weeks despite your constant rebuttals? how long would you keep it up?
Click to expand...
But isn't it working? The gamergate riot seems to have toned down quite a lot, and I like to think that it was because of some of the better articles out there.
 
Kinyou said:
It actually doesn't matter if you or me think that there's actual problem.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does. We, meaning rational thinking people, need to have some sort of standard for what is an actual thing to care about even one iota and what is baseless paranoid bigoted unfounded insane tabloid-trash bullshit. If not, then literally anything presented by anybody in the world is worthy of equal consideration and attention on some level. It means that concerns about our military industrial policy are on the same level as claims by 9/11 truthers. It takes the bizarre fetishizing of "objectivity" to the level of nihilism because everything might be true so nothing can be false. Foregoing discussion of one in favor of the other is not "deflecting", it's using your brain to identify the signal from the noise. Of course, to the people who believe in the baseless paranoid bigoted unfounded insane tabloid-trash bullshit, it looks like an awful lot like deflection because they are operating from the starting assumption that their claims are signal and not noise. They are wrong.

The Gamergate guys obviously think there is. Her way of arguing is "those here are real problems, stop caring about that other stuff."
Click to expand...
Her argument is not "You should instead focus on this other stuff," it's "If you were truly interested in what you say this movement is about, you would already know about and be focusing on this other stuff because it's so clearly a much larger and more insidious form of corruption that is demonstrably infecting the industry in far more pernicious ways by every conceivable metric -- amount of money spent, number of employees and companies affected, types of projects greenlit, decisions made by companies, marketing strategies used, number of consumers targeted -- all far, far more affected by these issues raised by Alexander than whatever nonsensical master plans they've convinced themselves Zoe Quinn's magical vagina and her legions of evil women's studies professors in academia are doing."

To me that's deflection since it doesn't engage their actual arguments.
Click to expand...
That's because they have no actual arguments. None. They have baseless speculation and unfounded accusations and crazy Machiavellian conspiracy theories with no discernible purpose or endgame and all of which, when they bothered to make some sort of verifiable allegation, turned out to be provably false. They throw lots of names and accusations and completely bizarre inferences that are indistinguishable from tea-leaf reading at the individual persons they've decided to set their crosshairs on for some inexplicable reason, unleashing untold amounts of vitriol, hatred, and harassment on these individuals who were in no way prepared for it, and if they can't find anything, and they don't, they move on to another target and repeat. This is not "debate" or "presenting an argument" or "good-faith discussion." It is harassment, pure and simple. There is nothing there to engage.
 
gaboumafou said:
A lot of people have trouble making the distinction. Just look at all the backlash on the Feminist Frequency videos.
Click to expand...

gaboumafou said:
A lot of people have trouble making the distinction. Just look at all the backlash on the Feminist Frequency videos.
Click to expand...

Why is it so hard for some people to enjoy something but still be able to point out faults or problematic things it may contain? I just read five of Frank Herberts Dune books. Did I like them enough to read five in a row? Yes. Did I have problems with the crazy amounts of sexism and homophobia in them? Yes. Do I get offended and shout out in anger if someone comes along and calls Herbert a sexist douchbag? Of course not. I also like HP Lovecraft. I have no problem with anyone calling him or his stories racist. I do not get offended and project that as being accused of racism myself.

Now why is it when it comes to games people have such a hard time carrying this same type of attitude? There is nothing wrong with saying Dragons Crown might have sexist elements. No one is saying you shouldn't enjoy the game, they are criticising the game in a way that every other entertainment medium gets criticised. You often hear that movies and tv shows and books don't get criticised for sexism so why should games get called out. Not being aware of it doesn't mean that criticism doesn't exist. It exists in far greater numbers then it does in game criticism.

Some people just need to take a step back, take a breath and realise that criticism is a healthy thing and it is not a personal attack against you just because you are a big fan of that product. Have some perspective for fucks sake. As with so many things with all this nonsense the truth is the exact opposite. Those calling out others for being easily offended are always the actual ones getting offended at the drop of a hat. Getting offended because someone said something you don't agree with about a game you like. I'll type it again because it is so ridiculous. Getting offended because someone said something you don't agree with about a game you like.
 
aeolist said:
reporters can and do determine for themselves whether they should post stories, blaming that on quinn's shadowy machinations is just puerile.

also TFYC has never stopped trashing her in interviews, and i've seen them repeat plenty of things that simply aren't true. in addition it's kind of a shitty project to begin with if your purpose is to get women into game development because all of the actual development is being contracted out. the woman will be left with a sliver of profits that may not exist and "i had an idea" on her resume which nobody will care about because everyone has ideas and the development/follow-through are the important parts that people care about.
Click to expand...

I believe Zoe Quinn started insulting their project/spreading the misinformation about them first. Not a great excuse for the FYC to consistently bash her. But. There it is. As for stuff that's not true, I don't know. I'd have to know about specifics. But I'm also lacking specifics are the moment so we'll have to settle for he said she said right now on that front.

As far as whether or not it's a good project or not, I know I'd kill to get one of my ideas made into a video game. That's because I can't code for shit, and I'd never be able to be a part of the game industry (not the game press or like PR or something) any other way. I have ideas, but not skills. I think that's the type of woman that was sending their ideas to the FYC. Because if the woman can code, she's already got what she needs to put on the her resume. This type of project wouldn't help her. Right? Right. So forget it. It's not FOR her. It's for girls that like vidya games. They wanted to show girls had good ideas for video games. "Check it out a girl thought this up, maybe think about hiring some next time, eh? EH!?" It's not going to change the world but I can't. I just CAN'T. See how it's harmful to anyone.

I also don't think the "idea person" for a video game should be paid a ton unless they're creating a Mass Effect level of lore and shit. I think most of that money should go to the game makers/tech people.Also I thought that it was tiny % to the woman, rest of it to charity. Wasn't that the case? Again. You might not like that. Zoe might not like that. That's fine. Doesn't make it wrong. Or harmful.

tonysidaway said:
There were legitimate doubts about The Fine Young Capitalists. In particular because of the way it's set up it's a rather foolish way to run a jam if your aim is to help women to a career in game development. It's a quite inexpensive way to get publicity and funds for a start up, though. Zoe Quinn cannot have been the only person who thought this sounded hokey.

If you really want to help women into gaming development, you could do worse than fund scholarships, as Girls Make Games do. Women in gaming ought to be among the key players, not the ball.
Click to expand...

I don't know what else I can say about this. I've written and deleted like 3 paragraphs in response to this. I just don't know what else to say. I don't think the FYC did something bad. That's all I can say at this point.

tranciful said:
Can you prove this? Or is this an assumption? If the press asked Zoe about it or saw Zoe posting about it, as part of their research, and decided not to cover it, then I wouldn't describe that as biased journalism. But you're implying that the press wanted to cover it and Zoe explicitly pressured them into not doing so, which I've personally not seen any evidence of.

edit: if you're referring to this, http://apgnation.com/archives/2014/09/09/6977/truth-gaming-interview-fine-young-capitalists

TYFC isn't saying Zoe asked them not to cover it, but she may have expressed concerns with covering it. There's a big difference there in terms of corruption etc. Whether you respect Zoe or not, Zoe is a respected figure in the indie space with these sorts of topics and it's completely reasonable for someone to get her opinion. Chloi, an editor at Indie Statik, also wrote a response here: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1s9e26u

A snippet:
Click to expand...

That's not what I was referring to, again, I'm sorry but you have me at a disadvantage, I'm unable to get to what I'd point to as evidence right now, I can come back and show you in maybe like a day?

vcc said:
Who is 'the press'; why does FYC automatically deserve wide coverage? It's a small topic specific game jam. Tons of small events with the best of intentions get almost no coverage. I still don't get the 'scare'.
Click to expand...

Ok. Then you don't get it. We can't convince each other.
 
HanktheAwesome said:
I believe Zoe Quinn started insulting their project/spreading the misinformation about them first. Not a great excuse for the FYC to consistently bash her. But. There it is. As for stuff that's not true, I don't know. I'd have to know about specifics. But I'm also lacking specifics are the moment so we'll have to settle for he said she said right now on that front.
Click to expand...
i think the fact that it's hearsay is the biggest problem, but ultimately it means that there's really nothing to talk about. doesn't stop GG though.

As far as whether or not it's a good project or not, I know I'd kill to get one of my ideas made into a video game. That's because I can't code for shit, and I'd never be able to be a part of the game industry (not the game press or like PR or something) any other way. I have ideas, but not skills. I think that's the type of woman that was sending their ideas to the FYC. Because if the woman can code, she's already got what she needs to put on the her resume. This type of project wouldn't help her. Right? Right. So forget it. It's not FOR her. It's for girls that like vidya games. They wanted to show girls had good ideas for video games. "Check it out a girl thought this up, maybe think about hiring some next time, eh? EH!?" It's not going to change the world but I can't. I just CAN'T. See how it's harmful to anyone.

I also don't think the "idea person" for a video game should be paid a ton unless they're creating a Mass Effect level of lore and shit. I think most of that money should go to the game makers/tech people.Also I thought that it was tiny % to the woman, rest of it to charity. Wasn't that the case? Again. You might not like that. Zoe might not like that. That's fine. Doesn't make it wrong. Or harmful.
Click to expand...
on the surface i don't think it's necessarily wrong or harmful, i just think it's deceptive. they are marketing it as "get women into game dev" when it definitely does not do that.

i've heard some people make other accusations against it but i haven't looked myself so i won't try to talk about it. i just think it's a shitty idea and people should feel free to call it such. again, criticism isn't censorship and they're not being censored in any way.
 
A lot of it is how you frame it. Before any of this blew up, Zoe Quinn criticized over twitter some of the policies that TYFC had. Other people did the same.

So do you frame this as Zoe Quinn, a bad person, insulting & sabotaging a completely innocent & perfect project for some nefarious reason? Or do you frame it as Zoe Quinn, concerned indie dev who works in the arena of games & women, expressing genuine issues with a possibly questionable project? Or is it somewhere in between, maybe Zoe Quinn interpreted some things incorrectly, maybe TYFC had some ambiguous policies that needed clarifying?

In the end, it really feels blown out of proportion.
 
Kinyou said:
It actually doesn't matter if you or me think that there's actual problem. The Gamergate guys obviously think there is. Her way of arguing is "those here are real problems, stop caring about that other stuff." To me that's deflection since it doesn't engage their actual arguments.


Well they say it's about the integrity of videogame news sites, just saying "but those issues are more important" seems like a deflective argument.
Click to expand...

Gamergates "arguments" have been debunked over and over and over and over. There is no room for deflection.
 
faceless007 said:
That's because they have no actual arguments. None. They have baseless speculation and unfounded accusations and crazy Machiavellian conspiracy theories with no discernible purpose or endgame and all of which, when they bothered to make some sort of verifiable allegation, turned out to be provably false. They throw lots of names and accusations and completely bizarre inferences that are indistinguishable from tea-leaf reading at the individual persons they've decided to set their crosshairs on for some inexplicable reason, unleashing untold amounts of vitriol, hatred, and harassment on these individuals who were in no way prepared for it, and if they can't find anything, and they don't, they move on to another target and repeat. This is not "debate" or "presenting an argument" or "good-faith discussion." It is harassment, pure and simple. There is nothing there to engage.
Click to expand...
That seems to dismiss the complains of the gamergate side a bit too much (unless I'm completely mistaken about what they're saying)
I liked Jason Schreiers take on it where he explains, that deep down, there actually is a valid point.

But anyone who dismisses the concerns brought up by The Gamers because they are The Gamers--because so many of their points are buried in sloppy, misleading imgur compilations and nasty YouTube videos--is also doing a disservice to video game culture. There are ethical concerns being ignored or dismissed because they are smothered by misogynistic rhetoric. There are some reasonable points among the grime. Some of those points--that games reporters loathe their audience; that games reporters are too close to the people they cover; that games reporters are too unwilling to see multiple angles of an issue--are valid, critical, and worth plenty of scrutiny.
Click to expand...

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1s71k8k
 
tonysidaway said:
If Sarkeesian said that, I'd agree. But actually she says "it's both possible, and sometimes even necessary, to enjoy a media product while simultaneously recognising its more problematic aspects " (my close paraphrase from her first video in the series, often repeated in introducing other episodes).
Click to expand...

This has me scratching my head. Not your post, but the sort of hearsay you're talking about. What is the whole #NotYourShield thing even supposed to be in response to? Do they think that they're fighting Jack Thompson?

Criticisms of gaming cliches, criticisms of gaming culture, and criticisms of the gaming industry are not necessarily criticisms of people who like video games. There's definitely this bizarre process wherein people are reading criticisms not directed at them, confuse themselves into thinking that they're being accused of radicalism, then associate with radicals to prove the perceived accusations wrong.

Purple_Tentacle said:
Purposefully supporting, no.

Naively, unintentionally condoning, yes.
Click to expand...

Yep. Corporations look out for their own interests. Some people benefit from this and others do not.
 
Kinyou said:
That seems to dismiss the complains of the gamergate side a bit too much (unless I'm completely mistaken about what they're saying)
I liked Jason Schreiers take on it where he explains, that deep down, there actually is a valid point.

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1s71k8k
Click to expand...

When have they ever taken the issue to the groups actually involved in these real ethical concerns? If it was so important it wouldn't be buried down deep.
Also... why the flying heck do you expect people dig their way through piles of crap or in the hopes of finding a shiny quarter? And the shiny quarter that may be inside doesn't make the pile of crap less crappy. So the only really reasonable course of action is to clean up the crap.
 
yeah. it's corporate speak. on the surface it seems like they're saying the right thing but what they're really saying is "shut up fuck you".
 
partyphone said:
yeah. it's corporate speak. on the surface it seems like they're saying the right thing but what they're really saying is "shut up fuck you".
Click to expand...

"We're sorry if we offended anyone" just means "while we recognize we offended some people, we still don't think we did anything wrong."

The upside is that this whole brouhaha makes other companies less likely to pull advertising based on Gamergate demands. It would've been better for Intel if they'd just ignored the complaints.
 
The very fact that they pulled the ad in response to gamergate complaints makes them complicit. Their statement means absolutely nothing.

If they truly wanted to come off as "neutral", they would have continued the already purchased ad buys.

Yet, they pull the ads in response to a misogynist group's demands, then issue a statement about how they support inclusion? That's pretty much how gamergate acts to a T.
 
Hey, this thread and the 'Games Journalism!' thread post outbreak are getting close to breaking the post count from Anita's Kickstarter thread and the first episode thread. Math using 100ppp:

The thread about Anita's kickstarter: 45 pages or +4400 posts.

Thread after Anita's first episode releases: 76 pages or +7500 posts.

So 121 pages total.

This thread is 84 pages and the ''Games Journalism!' thread went another 25 pages after August, for 109 pages. But there were tons of little gamergate threads so they've probably eclipsed the 121 number by now anyway.

Not sure whether that says more about the reaction to Anita or Gamergate.
 
FoneBone said:
"We're sorry if we offended anyone" just means "while we recognize we offended some people, we still don't think we did anything wrong."

The upside is that this whole brouhaha makes other companies less likely to pull advertising based on Gamergate demands. It would've been better for Intel if they'd just ignored the complaints.
Click to expand...

When shit like this happened, you contact your advertiser and said "we sorry we dragged you into this, we understand if you don't want to be involved, let's do business some other times."

You don't turn around and bite the hand that feed you, that's bad business AND bad PR. Of course other company would not pull advertising now, but they would have to think twice about getting involved (ie. buying ads) in the future. That is way more important. The GG crowd succeeded in poisoning the well.
 
sedaku said:
When shit like this happened, you contact your advertiser and said "we sorry we dragged you into this, we understand if you don't want to be involved, let's do business some other times."

You don't turn around and bite the hand that feed you, that's bad business AND bad PR. Of course other company would not pull advertising now, but they would have to think twice about getting involved (ie. buying ads) in the future. That is way more important. The GG crowd succeeded in poisoning the well.
Click to expand...

I really doubt this. Running ads is the default. It's normal business. It's expected. As long as they don't go out and say "we are starting to run ads to poke #GG in the eye" I don't think they have anything to worry about.

#GG doesn't think the companies advertising there are evil. They just want to hurt Gamasutra, Polygon, et al.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

NeoGAF Digital Key Giveaway Thread - Read Instructions in OP
Staff  15 16 17 18 19
901
17K
GreenAlien replied
No Rest for the Wicked Together | Co-op | Official Trailer
2
52
1K
Spyxos replied
Army of Two: The 40th Day director says the co-op game is the “gayest game ever made”
2
75
946
DonkeyPunchJr replied
No Rest for the Wicked Together | Co-op | update is live + Free weekend
4
199
DavidGzz replied
  • Locked
Marathon: Introducing OP tasks, where people are paid to post positive things about the game (Update: Screenshots Faked)
Drama  2
83
164
Loomy replied
Top Bottom