Support NeoGAF

[Prax]

We do need a proper discussion about this, to separate which social norms are rational and have good reason, and which ones are just there by sheer inertia. Also, I was thinking discrimination in the sense of the social stigma you get versus other forms of games, even among "gamers".

Oh yeah, I understand that too.
It happens with all sorts of media consumption, like different types of anime, comics, novels. The list goes on!
So we agree that talk about these things are important, but it's also difficult because people get very defensive or feel vulnerable while others may have prebaked judgments. But that doesn't mean discussion shouldn't happen. It's just really unfortunate it flies over the heads of a lot of people because it's hard to accurately describe the feelings and mechanisms that sustains certain themes.

I think that it's we get that cute girls are cute, and guys desire gals, and sexy stuff turns people on, and these are pleasurable, and that's why people like them, etc. It's just that sometimes (or a lot of the time) these things are paired up with unsavory/unhealthy aspects too, and then it gets copy-pasted and becomes a trope, and then there's just so much of it that people feel exhausted, excluded, or even attacked because of it.
So maybe we have to deconstruct and uncouple some of these tropes so we don't get the same thing ad nauseam. And maybe we have to diversify all the themes so it doesn't choke out people who would otherwise be interested.

I think once more diversity and inclusiveness happens (meaning a variety of games are available for all types of people, with the bigger more popular ones trying harder to be inclusive in some way because people WANT to feel invited to wider social phenomena/fads), then it would actually lower the stigma and discrimination against certain game subsets.
There will always be kind of snooty people who want to look down on others for their choice in media, but I think their condescension will hold less teeth and the stigma will feel less severe if more people of all types feel satiated by what games have to offer.

Prax, want to start a thread for this? I'm a junior member, so I can't.

Oh man, I think there have been threads in the past ATTEMPTING in some way to discuss these issues, but they always turn into disasters because people get to reactionary or have such glib responses. It would be hard not to get it locked. xD The same kind of happens with any thread to do with feminism too, so it's always frustrating.
I have also never started a thread before! But if you're really passionate or interested about this, I wouldn't mind reading over a thread intro post and then posting it for you! My ability to curate and maintain the topic as the OP would be questionable though. lol Send me a PM if you want!

 

[Lime]

This is a really good perspective on journalism, ethics, and gamer's demand driving the bullshit we see in games journalism. Gamers want advertorials, they will threaten a reviewer if they give the next AAA game anything under 8, and so on.

Gaming journo is completely corrupt but #gamergate isn't within a million miles of why

The industry is close to the desires of customers. Utterly beholden to them, in fact, and corrupted by it completely.

AAA previews corrupt game journo utterly.

Gamers demand them, PR companies want them made. They are advertisements posing as articles.That is bad enough on its own.

However, they can only be made with the cooperation of the PR departments, which means every press outlet has to toe the line.

If you don't think a game the PR dept wants covered is worth covering, good luck covering any game.

You get a reputation for not playing ball? Your outlet doesn't get the "Exclusive Halo 5 details!"

Sure DoritosGate happened, we couldn't do anything in the end.

You can never do anything. You demand previews.

Hell, PR depts don't even need to threaten journos to score AAA games 8-10/10.

If you give Assassin's Creed VI a 6/10 as more of the same, the gamers will deluge the author with threats on their own.

lol for fucking ever that some indie making free fucking games is corrupting game journalism.

How the fuck do you "corrupt" an industry that exists to legitimize advertisements?

Gaming journalists make sub-McD burger flipper wages transcribing press releases. That is the job. That is what you do.

Do you know why there's a push to write all these articles about art critique, politics, etc?

Because the articles gamers demand, which we all fucking know you won't go without, are horrible garbage advertorials

Desperate, insane, futile hope that some gamers out there have a fucking brain and want something other than details on Halo 5

But you don't.

One of the main themes of #gamergate, besides the harassment, is "How dare anyone criticize our horrible culture"

And people say, "Well, don't the press know who pays the bills"

Of course they fucking do, how can anyone forget.

Do you know why "gamers are dead"? Because a few journalists all look at #quinnspiracy and rebelled.

And hoped maybe someone felt as sick as they did when they saw it. And at least some other journos agreed.

Nobody's trying to change gamers. They're looking for an audience that isn't dudebros.

Because dudebros, who usually are but aren't always straight white males but are almost always (wo)manchildren, are horrible

Not about "escaping writing about Halo 5" but finding someone who wants to read words that aren't "exclusive details on Halo 5"

But game journos aren't stupid. They see someone who dared to make feminist critique of games get death threats.

Good observations, imo. Gamers are all too ready to blame journalists for regurgitating crappy press releases, but it's the gamers themselves who scream and terrorizes whenever a little bit of criticism is even hinted at in their marketing-fueled AAA dreams.

On to Sarkeesian:

Anita Sarkessian is writing feminist art critique. You want games to be treated like art? This is how that works.

Her critique isn't going to take your shitty toys away.

Feminist criticism is bog-standard in art. Novels, physical art, movies, music.

Fuck, Anita Sarkessian is your ally if you want games to be art. She's taking them seriously! This is a good thing!

Feminist critique means talking about how art reflects the sexual politics of the culture that produces it, though.

And she's right, gamer culture has some problems with women

But, you know what? When Anita S is done, you're safe from it. Everyone else got the fucking message.

"We don't want to hear what's wrong with gamer culture."

"Don't bother telling us or we'll show you first hand what's wrong with it."

No. The real question is "Why does Anita Sarkessian even fucking bother at this point"

None of this is worth it.

I gave her money, and if she said, "Nope, sorry, done with this. Fuck gamers and fuck games forever, I'm out," more power to her

Games aren't art, and gamers like it better that way.

#gamergate is about making sure games are nothing but machine-extruded game-shaped product, $59.99 a pop.

Fuck the context, the culture. No, we need exclusive details on Halo 5, and if you don't like it, here's pictures of your house

On indies:

Oh, it's about the indie industry all right. It's about telling anyone who makes games that aren't "fun" to die.

"Games can be about something other than escapism? Fuck you and die, cunt"

They're allowed to make shiny platformers. Not games about illness, or politics, or despair.

And only allowed to make shiny platformers as long as they don't get all uppity about politics.

Oh. The #gamergate mob made its message to indies quite clear.

 

[r1chard]

This is a really good perspective on journalism, ethics, and gamer's demand driving the bullshit we see in games journalism. Gamers want advertorials, they will threaten a reviewer if they give the next AAA game anything under 8, and so on.

Good observations, imo

Yep! Though your quote missed the end which was quite poignant, and started with "So, yes. Fuck gamers. And fuck you. And fuck me, too, I'm just as bad." which I can relate to as well.

 

[More_Badass]

This is a really good perspective on journalism, ethics, and gamer's demand driving the bullshit we see in games journalism. Gamers want advertorials, they will threaten a reviewer if they give the next AAA game anything under 8, and so on.



Good observations, imo. Gamers are all too ready to blame journalists for regurgitating crappy press releases, but it's the gamers themselves who scream and terrorizes whenever a little bit of criticism is even hinted at in their marketing-fueled AAA dreams.

On to Sarkeesian:



On indies:

I always dislike statements like that. I'd like to think that it's vocal minority who goes fucking insane over stuff like that, not that extremely broad generalized category of "Gamers"

I play games, so I'm a gamer. I've never cursed out a journalist in comments or sent death threats because of something as ridiculously trivial as a review score. I can't stand to see people like me, who actually have an interest in the hobby and the medium beyond what the next big overhyped AAA title is, lumped in with those who just like abusing their anonymonity to insult and rant and "scream and terrorize"

 

[Lime]

I always dislike statements like that. I'd like to think that it's vocal minority who goes fucking insane over stuff like that, not that extremely broad generalized category of "Gamers"

I play games, so I'm a gamer. I've never cursed out a journalist in comments or sent death threats because of something as ridiculously trivial as a review score. I can't stand to see people like me, who actually have an interest in the hobby and the medium beyond what the next big overhyped AAA title is, lumped in with those who just like abusing their anonymonity to insult and rant and "scream and terrorize"

Then you're not the type of person being referred to when talking about "gamers" in the context of Gamergate and immature yet harmful behavior.

 

[More_Badass]

Then you're not the type of person being referred to when talking about "gamers" in the context of Gamergate and immature yet harmful behavior.

But that's the thing. The term "gamer" has been given this absolute toxic connotation thanks to these recent and not so recent events. When it really shouldn't. It's not some black and white thing like a lot of those recent articles have been stating, the ones who equate "gamer" with the juvenile internet mob mentality and seem to ignore everyone else who enjoys the medium

 

[Lime]

But that's the thing. The term "gamer" has been given this absolute toxic connotation thanks to these recent and not so recent events. When it really shouldn't. It's not some black and white thing like a lot of those recent articles have been stating, the ones who equate "gamer" with the juvenile internet mob mentality and seem to ignore everyone else who enjoys the medium

You should be mad at the ones constantly affirming those toxic connotations, not the ones calling their behavior out.

 

[cpooi]

You should be mad at the ones constantly affirming those toxic connotations, not the ones calling their behavior out.

Can't we be mad at the ones constantly affirming those toxic connotations, and at the ones who call them out but put the label gamer on them, instead of just labeling them as the immature mob they are.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

This provided me with a good chuckle

I was gonna say, that's uncalled for, and --

keep in mind that they are talking about this guy:

...Nevermind. Holy shit, this guy. -_- Keep digging, fuckwit.

 

[More_Badass]

You should be mad at the ones constantly affirming those toxic connotations, not the ones calling their behavior out.

I am. I'm mad at the assholes who do those things. But I'm also frustrated with the journalists who paint everyone who enjoys the medium as those kind of individuals. "Gamers are dead" and yet those articles and opinions basically equate the minority who performs such hateful behavior as the majority

I'm not saying journalists shoudn't call that behavior out; they absolutely should. But don't make it seem like those assholes represent the vast and varied audience that participates in the medium and enjoys the hobby

 

[Eidan]

Must every article about GamerGate include a throwaway sentence at the end saying "It's not all gamers"?

 

[MaximoffZero]

But that's the thing. The term "gamer" has been given this absolute toxic connotation thanks to these recent and not so recent events. When it really shouldn't. It's not some black and white thing like a lot of those recent articles have been stating, the ones who equate "gamer" with the juvenile internet mob mentality and seem to ignore everyone else who enjoys the medium

I think it would help if we gave a new label to "gamers" who harass people, send death threats, etc. something beyond simply "assholes" I mean, something specific. That way we could more easily differentiate ourselves in an argument.

 

[More_Badass]

Must every article about GamerGate include a throwaway sentence at the end saying "It's not all gamers"?

Unfortunately I don't think that would do much

Do you know what schema theory is? It's one of the foundations of cognitive psychology. A schema is essentially a mental framework for information. You have a schema for how to act at work, for what is a mammal, for driving, and so on. Information received is placed in the proper schema; this forms the basis for biases, racism, etc. as information that doesn't fit within the framework of a schema is either ignored or twisted to fit that framework.

I imagine that many journalists have dealt with so much of that kind of internet shit for so long that their schema on what a gamer is was influenced and formed by that behavior. It's an unfortunate cycle, as the Internet mob menality and all this Gamergate nonense only strengthens those biases

 

[deathkiller]

I think it would help if we gave a new label to "gamers" who harass people, send death threats, etc. something beyond simply "assholes" I mean, something specific. That way we could more easily differentiate ourselves in an argument.

Something like Hooligan compared to sport fan? I understand that the dislike of the term gamer originates of some people saying things like "you are not a gamer" to people that like games like Depression Quest but I wonder how frequently has that happened.

 

[MaximoffZero]

Something like Hooligan compared to sport fan?

Exactly. In fact, I'm going to go with "Hooligamers".

 

[poorlonelycomputer]

Must every article about GamerGate include a throwaway sentence at the end saying "It's not all gamers"?

Sadly, yes. People are STILL up in arms about that Leigh Alexander piece.

 

[Lime]

These are also really good observations, I think - stating that Gamergate is basically tribalism and that is has been ongoing for a long time and that their assertion of power is needless because everyone already knows they already possess the power to harass and exclude and silence people:

So #gamergate has taught me something about itself recently. It's about sexism, but it also isn't about sexism.

#gamergate started with shitting up the life of a woman some gamers didn't like very much.

Not only was that pretty sexist (for a variety of reasons), but it's also pretty sexist to be joining #gamergate when it started that way.

But a lot of people are saying, in good faith, that they didn't join #gamergate because they hate women. And they're right!

#gamergate is also about tribalism. For many people, only about tribalism.

#gamergate is about grudgefucking anyone who said anything mean about gamers, gamer culture, or #gamergate itself.

It's part of why there was so much willingness to attack Quinn; DQ isn't a real game, how dare you criticize our white male industry, etc.

Those are all reasons for #gamergate to hate Quinn that aren't that she's a woman.

It's why Phil Fish was such an obvious target for #gamergate, too. He doesn't like gamer culture, and was outspoken early on defending Quinn

"Gamers are worse than ISIS"? #gamergate would not put up with this slight, no sir!

Fish was on #gamergate's radar for defending Quinn, but the outrage was that he criticized gamer culture.

Same for the "gamers are dead" articles #gamergate is so mad about. That's naked tribalism.

#gamergate: "How dare they say anything mean about our horrible culture!"

#notyourshield is another example of this tribalism. It has no politics other than shielding #gamergate from criticism.

Similarly, people in #gamergate are somehow concerned about developers being blacklisted, or games censored or changed.

This essential #gamergate fear that someone, somewhere, somehow is going to take their toys away.

It leads to this idea that outsiders are somehow plotting to do this. Women who talk about sexism or sexist depictions are one common target

But not the only one. Gamers have always been suspicious of game journalism, with good reason. That's older than #gamergate.

Game journalism has problems. I don't think #gamergate is going to fix them, or that it can.

But even if you have no idea or a wrong idea about what the problems are, it's received wisdom that they're there.

Accusations of payola - collusion with publishers - are so common as to be assumed fact.

They aren't factual, in the vast majority of cases, but few who don't work in game publishing or game journalism believe that.

Game journalism does not have the trust of its readers. So it's very easy for #gamergate to believe accusations of conspiracy or collusion.

You have in #gamergate an audience already willing to believe that game journalism was trying to trick them.

This #gamergate suspicion isn't sexist, although sexists will cheerfully bandwagon onto it to attack Jenn Frank or Leigh Alexander.

But by and large it's a core #gamergate idea that gamers are under attack by journalists, who want to manipulate them somehow.

#gamergate's targets and agenda is set entirely by this need to defending gaming and gamers from enemies

You see people in #gamergate use "enemies" and "winning" all the time. What does victory look like? Nobody knows.

#gamergate doesn't have any goals, any core, or anyone leading it. People are right when they say it isn't a 4chan conspiracy.

It wasn't, even before #gamergate was banned from 4chan. (Which is still the funniest damned thing.)

#gamergate is directionless anger at the idea that gamers are under attack. A persecution complex with no persecutor.

#gamergate has enemies but it can't win over them. Not because it's losing, but rather because it already won.

Gamers, as a vague, terrifying mass, have the power to ruin the lives of anyone in the game industry, and everyone knows it.

Everyone but the gamers themselves, it seems. Hence, #gamergate. A "movement" to assert power nobody questioned in the first place.

#gamergate can't enact any change because the change has already been enacted. There is no "or else."

I saw this most clearly with #gamergate demanding that mailing list be released. Or else what?

#gamergate harass everyone involved and boycott their sites? Already happening.

Nobody in #gamergate has the power to make that stop.

It's already obvious that some people in #gamergate saying "we don't endorse harassment" won't stop harassment.

So everyone battens down the hatches. #gamergate's a brewin'.

Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it.

So now my mentions are exploding, and plenty of people in #gamergate are all making sure they RT and fav all of the terribly witty retorts.

That's winning, right? We sure showed that guy. Gotta beat those shills, doing it for free or whatever.

https://storify.com/a_man_in_black/gamergate-sexism-and-tribalism

 

[SwissLion]

Do we just need to change the title of this thread to "They weren't actually talking about all gamers, most of them are gamers, reread the articles. GAMERGATE?" at this point?

Because seriously this was covered so many times.

In the articles where the differentiation was not made explicitly, the writers were relying on the incredibly apparent context to do so for them.

The people doing a lot of this awful stuff are doing it largely because of their insanely strong grip on the identity of Gamer.

By now, or very soon in the future, those who play games will become so ubiquitous that the label will lose most of its meaning, and I think Jeff Gerstmann said it best when he said that at this point he considers it like people who call themselves foodies, it's kinda dumb, nobody is saying you're a terrible person for it, but a lot of people are going to think you're kinda weird.

It is not the Games media's fault for awful people spoiling your identity with their apparently constant focus on bad behaviour. Ignoring it would be worse.

Its inherent links to tribalism, gatekeeping and elitism, aside from anything else, mean it's probably doing more harm than good at the moment.

 

[Lowlander2]

Alright, I've spent a lot of time away from this topic and board, but I just want to pop in to ask an honest question. Is it wrong that I don't feel any investment or sympathy towards Gamasutra by way of Intel pulling their ads?

Aside from the obvious counterpoints of relying on ad revenue for continued employment being a relatively risky endeavour to build an entire structure around, as well as the more pragmatic questions of Gamasutra and/or its writers finding other sponsors, of all the victims Gamergate has claimed, and the list is growing, I just cannot find it in my heart to say that Leigh Alexander finding her media job in jeopardy is something I'm willing to stick my neck out for given she has performed some actions that would, and should, have earned other people in media roles severe repercussions, most damningly when she received an email from a random guy lamenting her decision to turn off comments in an article (I do not believe it was the "Gamers are over" piece), showing off a picture of the email, leaving their contact details in the picture, drawing attention to the fact that she had left the contact details in the picture and told her followers to "have a good weekend". If I did that, I'd be fucking fired.

I thought for a while over whether I can truly resent someone who I've never met and have had no tangible communication with, but when I realised that she has a job in media, whereas I've studied this for three and a half years with nothing to show for it while she gets to flout basic journalistic etiquette with no repercussions, I realised that I totally can. It might not be the most dignified or respectable thing to do, but it sure feels cathartic. So really, she'd be a hypocrite if she opposed me on this.

Now, some of the obvious counterpoints are obviously that if Gamasutra goes down, there are more people whose livelihoods are at risk than just Alexander's and it would be irresponsible to make that sort of trade, or that Gamergate's poster child of a good journalist, Milo Yiannapoulos, is just as bad a journalist as Alexander, if not far more so. I acknowledge and agree with all of these points, but I don't feel like they invalidate mine so much as they just put them in perspective, which I can accept.

 

[Lime]

I'm not saying journalists shoudn't call that behavior out; they absolutely should. But don't make it seem like those assholes represent the vast and varied audience that participates in the medium and enjoys the hobby

That was the entire point of Leigh Alexander's piece! She was basically saying "video games are for a vast and varied audience, and not only the misogynistic, self-centred manchildren who scream and whine if they aren't especially catered to."

 

[partyphone]

Right, purity is important to gamergate. If you do anything wrong you deserve all the bad things. You see this a lot with conservative and libertarian political groups. It's sad.



edit: oh is this what you're talking about? ROLLING MY EYES

 

[BrittonPeele]

But that's the thing. The term "gamer" has been given this absolute toxic connotation thanks to these recent and not so recent events. When it really shouldn't. It's not some black and white thing like a lot of those recent articles have been stating, the ones who equate "gamer" with the juvenile internet mob mentality and seem to ignore everyone else who enjoys the medium

I'm a gamer. I'm happy to call myself that.

I'm also a Christian. I'm happy to call myself that, too.

Some gamers really, really suck. They make me embarrassed to call myself a gamer.

Some Christians really, really suck. They make me embarrassed to call myself a Christian.

Because there are sucky gamers and sucky Christians, I acknowledge the need for people to sometimes say, "Gamers/Christians need to clean up their act." Because they do! I can proudly be part of a culture while also acknowledging that it has big problems that need to be addressed, especially when those problems are sometimes all the outside world sees.

Another thing to remember: It goes both ways. In a month you might read a headline that reads, "Gamers raise millions of dollars for Extra Life charity." That's lumping all gamers together, both good and bad. Some people who play games may be extremely selfish and hate charity, but that doesn't change the fact that the headline just says "gamers." It's not meant to address every single individual.

And this isn't exclusive to gamers or Christians. You'll see people (and headlines) talking about "Texans," "Americans," "Scientists," "Millennials," "Students," Parents" ... The list goes on and on. I've seen a handful of people get irritated at one headline or another for painting a headline with such a broad brush, ("Not ALL ISD parents support this book ban!") but I've never seen a reaction this strong to a statement that might not even apply to the people who are getting offended.

 

[tchocky]

Alright, I've spent a lot of time away from this topic and board, but I just want to pop in to ask an honest question. Is it wrong that I don't feel any investment or sympathy towards Gamasutra by way of Intel pulling their ads?

Aside from the obvious counterpoints of relying on ad revenue for continued employment being a relatively risky endeavour to build an entire structure around, as well as the more pragmatic questions of Gamasutra and/or its writers finding other sponsors, of all the victims Gamergate has claimed, and the list is growing, I just cannot find it in my heart to say that Leigh Alexander finding her media job in jeopardy is something I'm willing to stick my neck out for given she has performed some actions that would, and should, have earned other people in media roles severe repercussions, most damningly when she received an email from a random guy lamenting her decision to turn off comments in an article (I do not believe it was the "Gamers are over" piece), showing off a picture of the email, leaving their contact details in the picture, drawing attention to the fact that she had left the contact details in the picture and told her followers to "have a good weekend". If I did that, I'd be fucking fired.

I thought for a while over whether I can truly resent someone who I've never met and have had no tangible communication with, but when I realised that she has a job in media, whereas I've studied this for three and a half years with nothing to show for it while she gets to flout basic journalistic etiquette with no repercussions, I realised that I totally can. It might not be the most dignified or respectable thing to do, but it sure feels cathartic. So really, she'd be a hypocrite if she opposed me on this.

Now, some of the obvious counterpoints are obviously that if Gamasutra goes down, there are more people whose livelihoods are at risk than just Alexander's and it would be irresponsible to make that sort of trade, or that Gamergate's poster child of a good journalist, Milo Yiannapoulos, is just as bad a journalist as Alexander, if not far more so. I acknowledge and agree with all of these points, but I don't feel like they invalidate mine so much as they just put them in perspective, which I can accept.

In the e-mail the guy said he wanted to have a discussion so Leigh published it to let people have a discussion with him. She did ask her followers to be polite but it was still immature and she shouldn't have done it, but hey her e-mail address is out in the public domain and I imagine her inbox has been full of so much harassment even before this idiocy started.

But you do realise that Leigh doesn't even work at Gamasutra full time anymore right. I am sure if Gamasutra does go under Leigh will be fine, she can still publish her Lo-Fi lets plays at RPS, articles at Vice and other outlets she has worked at in recent months as well as her self published and well received books. The ironic thing about GamerGate is they want to run Leigh out of the industry but they have probably helped her career more than anything because she has been featured at Time and Grantland because of this nonsense The people who would suffer the most are the developers who host blogs on Gamasutra and get a chance to do interviews beyond how many hours is your game.

 

[Lowlander2]

Right, purity is important to gamergate.

Okay. I abandoned Gamergate from the get-go, because I saw it was going to a bastion of mob mentality from day one. It's akin to the reason I'm not into the "social justice <character class>" meme. I'm beholden to the concept, but I'll interpret it using my own integrity. If that's not good enough, that's fine; it's called natural skepticism, but I would ask everyone else not to turn it around on me. But more importantly...

If you do anything wrong you deserve all the bad things.

There are plenty of people who I disagree with or find a bit incendiary in the social justice and games criticism crossover, but they're never worth more than a mute in Twitter. This action, however, goes beyond that, because every case study I took in media ethics and media law classes demonstrated that actions that compromise the personal safety of any subject you report on or reference that hasn't been given explicit permission to be done is grounds for repercussions. Again, if I did what she did, I would be fired. Why wasn't she fired? And although this is the most roundabout way of doing it, and other people are dragged along for the ride, I can only consider Leigh Alexander losing her media role karma.

Consider the fact that I have this opinion to be tied to the fact that I have a Bachelor of Arts with a major in journalism and nothing to show for it, and you'll see why my motivations for holding this opinion have fuck all to do with Gamergate.

But you do realise that Leigh doesn't even work at Gamasutra full time anymore right.

That doesn't mean I also wouldn't be disavowed and would have trouble finding work in the field for a good few years if I did this.

 

[kick51]

This provided me with a good chuckle

keep in mind that they are talking about this guy:

whoa dude, you're still conquering broke indie devs and small to medium sized gaming sites...gotta work your way up slowly to the US government.

 

[SwissLion]

To answer your honest question that didn't really need all that additional detail..

No, it's not necessarily wrong that you don't feel too bad for Intel pulling ads for Gamasutra.

It was a pretty pointless addition to the discussion though.

"I have this very strangely specific problem with Leigh Alexander that has nothing to do with this current situation. I just figured you guys should know what a bad person she is."

EDIT:

This action, however, goes beyond that, because every case study I took in media ethics and media law classes demonstrated that actions that compromise the personal safety of any subject you report on or reference that hasn't been given explicit permission to be done is grounds for repercussions. Again, if I did what she did, I would be fired. Why wasn't she fired? And although this is the most roundabout way of doing it, and other people are dragged along for the ride, I can only consider Leigh Alexander losing her media role karma.

Importantly here, your beef as explained isn't even accurate. This guy was not a source, or a subject of the report. I very much doubt you've studied many case studies on random dudes filling your inbox with complaints about you shutting down comments on your web article because "Waaah, Freedom of speech."

It had nothing to do with journalistic ethics breaches and everything to do with maybe compromising an annoying person's easily replaceable email account.

 

[Lowlander2]

It was a pretty pointless addition to the discussion though.

"I have this very strangely specific problem with Leigh Alexander that has nothing to do with this current situation. I just figured you guys should know what a bad person she is."

I disagree it was strangely specific, but you're right. I'm not going to pretend I have much a dog in this fight beyond bitter resentment. As I said, it wasn't a very dignified or respectable way of brandishing those thoughts, but it was cathartic.

 

[partyphone]

Okay. I abandoned Gamergate from the get-go, because I saw it was going to a bastion of mob mentality from day one. It's akin to the reason I'm not into the "social justice <character class>" meme. I'm beholden to the concept, but I'll interpret it using my own integrity. If that's not good enough, that's fine; it's called natural skepticism, but I would ask everyone else not to turn it around on me. But more importantly...



There are plenty of people who I disagree with or find a bit incendiary in the social justice and games criticism crossover, but they're never worth more than a mute in Twitter. This action, however, goes beyond that, because every case study I took in media ethics and media law classes demonstrated that actions that compromise the personal safety of any subject you report on or reference that hasn't been given explicit permission to be done is grounds for repercussions. Again, if I did what she did, I would be fired. Why wasn't she fired? And although this is the most roundabout way of doing it, and other people are dragged along for the ride, I can only consider Leigh Alexander losing her media role karma.

Consider the fact that I have this opinion to be tied to the fact that I have a Bachelor of Arts with a major in journalism and nothing to show for it, and you'll see why my motivations for holding this opinion have fuck all to do with Gamergate.



That doesn't mean I also wouldn't be disavowed and would have trouble finding work in the field for a good few years if I did this.

I think you're blowing what she's done way out proportion. you seem to have an unhealthy personal grudge for whatever reason so you're reading way more malice into her actions than actually exists. like the email thing. it's nothing. i don't know why you're mad about it.

 

[BrittonPeele]

That doesn't mean I also wouldn't be disavowed and would have trouble finding work in the field for a good few years if I did this.

I understand where you're coming from. There are writers out there that I don't like for one reason or another, and while I don't exactly wish them to be unemployed and homeless, I admit that I probably wouldn't lose sleep if they suddenly didn't have a job. I don't know if I'm proud of feeling that way sometimes, but I get it.

But Alexander's job isn't really "in jeopardy" right now, nor do I think it will be any time soon. That's not because certain GamerGate folks are "failing" or anything, it's just that she's entrenched herself well as a freelancer and will probably always be able to find work.

I mean, heck, we live in a world where a guy can plagiarize more than 40 times and then get a job at one of the places he plagiarized from.

So while I understand the feeling of catharsis one might get for seeing a writer they dislike hit some bumps in the road, any actual fallout that might come from hitting Gamasutra won't hurt the writer in question as much as it would hurt "innocent bystanders."

 

[SwissLion]

Also, if I were you I would be prepared for a lot of people to doubt your supposed non-alignment with Gamergate.

I'm not saying you are, I think it's certainly possible you have this months-old grudge that has suddenly become relevant, but when literally every reference to the tweet is from some variety of weird fucking Gamergate resource for compiling supposedly incriminating Leigh Alexander tweets, well...

Just figured you should be aware.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

I mean, heck, we live in a world where a guy can plagiarize more than 40 times and then get a job at one of the places he plagiarized from.

For some reason I was expecting Rob Liefeld..

 

[Lowlander2]

It had nothing to do with journalistic ethics breaches and everything to do with maybe compromising an annoying person's easily replaceable email account.

Yeah, perhaps "journalism" ethics is a bridge too far, but it's still a big media no-no. Adam Orth was let go for actions not too dissimilar.

I think you're blowing what she's done way out proportion. you seem to have an unhealthy personal grudge for whatever reason so you're reading way more malice into her actions than actually exists. like the email thing. it's nothing. i don't know why you're mad about it.

I hold media ethics and esteem close to my heart. Certainly more than anyone in Gamergate would have you believe they do. Why wouldn't I? I only devoted three and a half years of my life to it. Which is why I was initially very interested in Kotaku's and Polygon's policy on Patreon dismissal and disclosure, and also why I hate that people think they can just add "-gate" as a suffix to anything, regardless of actual gravitas. But I digress.

So, yes, when someone flouts a standard tenet of media ethics and etiquette, and not even a very complex one at that, I tend to take notice. I HAVE held onto that action from two-three months ago this whole time, just like how the failure of Re/Action magazine, which is over a year old by now, will likely taint my view of the social justice and games criticism crossover for some time. Sometimes, it's the most mundane appearing actions that have the greatest effects on one's viewpoint. This isn't particularly phenomenal.

Also, if I were you I would be prepared for a lot of people to doubt your supposed non-alignment with Gamergate.

I'm not saying you are, I think it's certainly possible you have this months-old grudge that has suddenly become relevant, but when literally every reference to the tweet is from some variety of weird fucking Gamergate resource for compiling supposedly incriminating Leigh Alexander tweets, well...

Just figured you should be aware.

It seems trite to say, but if the fact that I once said "(Zoe Quinn) won a lot of respect from me today" in this topic, alongside the fact that I've just kept quiet about the topic in general on Twitter, doesn't convince anyone, then it's unlikely there is anything I could say or do, even "fuck Gamergate and all the nothing it stands for", that could convince them.

 

[aeolist]

Yeah, perhaps "journalism" ethics is a bridge too far, but it's still a big media no-no. Adam Orth was let go for actions not too dissimilar.

the fuck? adam orth was let go for essentially leaking unannounced details of the xbox one and doing so in such a way that he caused one of the biggest PR shitstorms i've ever seen

So, yes, when someone flouts a standard tenet of media ethics and etiquette, and not even a very complex one at that, I tend to take notice. I HAVE held onto that action from two-three months ago this whole time, just like how the failure of Re/Action magazine, which is over a year old by now, will likely taint my view of the social justice and games criticism crossover for some time. Sometimes, it's the most mundane appearing actions that have the greatest effects on one's viewpoint. This isn't particularly phenomenal.

show me where any standard of media ethics says that if someone annoying emails you to complain about not allowing them to have a public debate under your article you can't post their contact info in your twitter feed

 

[Lime]

A capitalistic take on what this basically is: Right-winged people who are symptomatic of structural powers, while the ones most responsible by virtue of their power position in the games industry. I've highlighted some of the key points, but there's more at the link.

In Defense of Gamers - Don’t blame gamers for the sins of capitalism

It’s impossible to dispute that gaming has become a completely mainstream, mass-culture phenomenon in purely economic terms: consumer spending on games now rivals or exceeds spending on music and movies. And yet these gamers cling to an identity as marginalized underdogs, even as they defend the game industry’s existing practices of sexism, racism, and class exploitation.

Part of this has to do with the lag between economic and cultural acceptance. Games may be mainstream as an industry, but they have not yet achieved cultural parity with other media and other art forms. So we still get great film critics writing bumbling rants about why video games can’t be art, and the New York Times expressing wonderment at the notion that competitive sports can be mediated by computers.

Some gamers would like it both ways: they want everyone to take their medium seriously, but they don’t want anyone to challenge their political assumptions or call into question the way games treat people who don’t look and think like them. They hate and fear a world where games are truly made by and for everyone, where women make up a majority of the gaming audience, where a trans woman dominates one of the world’s great eSports.

It’s important to call these people what they are: not just anti-social jerks and not only misogynists, but as Liz Ryerson says, overall the right wing of people involved in games. No surprise, then, that they resemble conservatives who resentfully bemoan the liberal bias of Hollywood or the condescension of elite college professors. This isn’t a problem with gamer culture. It’s a problem with our entire culture, and specifically with the attitudes and behavior of a rightist, predominantly white and male section of that culture.

Right-wing gamers project an overweening sense of superiority and entitlement, while at the same time constructing an identity based on marginality and victimization. In this, though, they aren’t really that different from many revanchist movements in capitalist societies. They’re much like the Tea Party right, which laments the disappearance of the America it recognizes — that is, the America where straight white men are systematically advantaged.

The attacks on people like Anita Sarkeesian should be understood as collective political acts, and the reactionaries who carry them out should be understood as ideological representatives of a specific political tendency among those who create and play games, rather than waved off with moralizing Adbusters-ish rhetoric as a bunch of consumer dupes.

What threatens these gamers is both the notion that gaming does not exist exclusively to reassure their misogynist preconceptions, and that those preconceptions can be challenged. For not only is the culture of games broadening, but the big-budget commercial segment that most caters to their backward fantasies is contracting relative to indie, mobile, and web games.

So this is not just a story about gamers. And within the boundaries of the games world, it is also not merely a story about a “toxic culture” among game fans, but rather about an industry that is structurally and systematically reactionary, and cultivates the same values among a segment of its consumers. It’s not just 4chan mobs terrorizing writers and game designers, it’s a games business that pushes out workers who don’t conform to its political assumptions and demographic stereotypes.

Famous game designers and studio owners won’t openly endorse the threats and terror of anonymous trolls, but those trolls are the shock troops that help keep the existing elite in power. The respectable men in suits will continue to hire the same boy’s club while making excuses for why women just don’t fit in as programmers or game designers or journalists. But the fascistic street-fighting tactics of the troll brigade function to maintain the industry status quo.

The existence of a vociferously hostile vigilante squad shutting down dissenting speech makes it easier for studio heads to hire nothing but the same white men and then work them to death, for forum administrators to claim free speech and shrug at the hatred spewed on their pages, and for the industry to claim that they’re only satisfying “the audience” when they reproduce the same narrow and bigoted tropes year after year. Meanwhile the “good” geeks get distracted from the main event as they tussle with the trolls, like SHARPs and Nazi skinheads brawling at a basement show.

 

[aeolist]

#gamergate isn't about abuse guys: https://twitter.com/AbusiveMen

trigger warning for abusive language and imagery

 

[Lime]

It seems trite to say, but if the fact that I once said "(Zoe Quinn) won a lot of respect from me today" in this topic, alongside the fact that I've just kept quiet about the topic in general on Twitter, doesn't convince anyone, then it's unlikely there is anything I could say or do, even "fuck Gamergate and all the nothing it stands for", that could convince them.

Swisslion's point is that the context in which you bring up this problem with Leigh Alexander is Gamergate, i.e. you automatically insert your criticism of Alexander into a discussion characterized by unjustified and irrational hate towards people like Alexander.

 

[Lowlander2]

Swisslion's point is that the context in which you bring up this problem with Leigh Alexander is Gamergate, i.e. you automatically insert your criticism of Alexander into a discussion characterized by unjustified and irrational hate towards people like Alexander.

True, but it's not as if there is another effective launching pad for my qualm besides, well, the time of the qualm itself, which proved ineffectual even then. I would have hoped the fact that I've demonstrated with some consistency that my motives for such are driven entirely by my character (that is, my education, which I am very proud of) would be enough to dissuade the idea that I have any sort of alignment with Gamergate, but alas, I realise the circumstances make that difficult. Of course, I'm not exactly sure what I can do in response.

I'm the sure the ideal idea would be to "let it go", but that's unlikely to happen.

 

[stupei]

I think it would help if we gave a new label to "gamers" who harass people, send death threats, etc. something beyond simply "assholes" I mean, something specific. That way we could more easily differentiate ourselves in an argument.

The problem here is that nobody that falls into that category appears to be self-aware enough that they would realize it meant them.

You would have to hope that one day the reasonable people would figure out when "gamers" does not refer to them and their own behavior, but apparently quite a few people are too insecure in themselves to be confident with their own understanding of their own behavior and how it is not at fault. They need it reaffirmed in every single article they read. Because somehow the most important take away isn't the horrible actions or the people suffering from them; it's whether or not someone you've never met and who knows nothing about you or your opinions and intent might be suggesting that maybe you would do something you already know that you wouldn't do. That's the real outrage.

It's the kind of comparison that gets used over and over, but it's really apt so here goes, but if someone is running near a pool and the lifeguard says, "No running," every single person who was not running probably doesn't feel the need to say, "Hey, we weren't all running, only that guy was running, next time say 'that guy there in the blue trunks, stop running,' people might have thought I was running, I wasn't running," and in the meantime the guy who was still running because the conversation got diverted away from him fell and cracked his head. And then probably some innocent bystanders slipped in the blood and drowned in the pool, I don't know, this metaphor got off track.

The one about "no talking" in class was probably better.

 

[MHWilliams]

This is a really good perspective on journalism, ethics, and gamer's demand driving the bullshit we see in games journalism. Gamers want advertorials, they will threaten a reviewer if they give the next AAA game anything under 8, and

Good, solid observations.

Can't we be mad at the ones constantly affirming those toxic connotations, and at the ones who call them out but put the label gamer on them, instead of just labeling them as the immature mob they are.

But you're getting into "No Try Scotsman" territory here. If they self-identify as gamers, they are doing wrong things, and a number of other self-identified gamers either go along or remain silent, then what's the gamer label really mean?

Of course not all gamers are that way, but the situation above doesn't paint a pretty picture.

Unfortunately I don't think that would do much

Do you know what schema theory is? It's one of the foundations of cognitive psychology. A schema is essentially a mental framework for information. You have a schema for how to act at work, for what is a mammal, for driving, and so on. Information received is placed in the proper schema; this forms the basis for biases, racism, etc. as information that doesn't fit within the framework of a schema is either ignored or twisted to fit that framework.

I imagine that many journalists have dealt with so much of that kind of internet shit for so long that their schema on what a gamer is was influenced and formed by that behavior. It's an unfortunate cycle, as the Internet mob menality and all this Gamergate nonense only strengthens those biases

I can tell you that journalists do spend a good deal of time dealing with the worst of gamer culture. My site is small enough that our community has less of that, but there's still the occasional "how dare you give game A that score! You don't understand it. It's not for you. You're an idiot." That's the low-level compared to what some get, when delivered civilly I just take it as feedback.

Something like Hooligan compared to sport fan? I understand that the dislike of the term gamer originates of some people saying things like "you are not a gamer" to people that like games like Depression Quest but I wonder how frequently has that happened.

I enjoy the Hooligamer idea.

Okay. I abandoned Gamergate from the get-go, because I saw it was going to a bastion of mob mentality from day one. It's akin to the reason I'm not into the "social justice <character class>" meme. I'm beholden to the concept, but I'll interpret it using my own integrity. If that's not good enough, that's fine; it's called natural skepticism, but I would ask everyone else not to turn it around on me. But more importantly...

There are plenty of people who I disagree with or find a bit incendiary in the social justice and games criticism crossover, but they're never worth more than a mute in Twitter. This action, however, goes beyond that, because every case study I took in media ethics and media law classes demonstrated that actions that compromise the personal safety of any subject you report on or reference that hasn't been given explicit permission to be done is grounds for repercussions. Again, if I did what she did, I would be fired. Why wasn't she fired? And although this is the most roundabout way of doing it, and other people are dragged along for the ride, I can only consider Leigh Alexander losing her media role karma.

Consider the fact that I have this opinion to be tied to the fact that I have a Bachelor of Arts with a major in journalism and nothing to show for it, and you'll see why my motivations for holding this opinion have fuck all to do with Gamergate.

That doesn't mean I also wouldn't be disavowed and would have trouble finding work in the field for a good few years if I did this.

She didn't lose anything. Someone else will place ads with Gamasutra. She still has a position there. She even ended up with a Time article due to all of this. So, she kind of made out.

And there does seem to be some salt there. Understandably, as it's hard to make it within this field, so seeing someone do what you consider wrong and continue to thrive would be frustrating.

 

[Fari]

In Defense of Gamers - Don&#8217;t blame gamers for the sins of capitalism

The trolls may sometimes get out of control, just as the Republican establishment sometimes loses control of the Tea Party, or the industrial capitalists sometimes lose control of the Nazi brownshirts.

Hell of a sentence right there.

Always with the fucking Nazis.

 

[May16]

My-side-is-always-ready-to-talk-anytime-anywhere.jpg

Oh man, that's the Sea Lions right there.

 

[More_Badass]

I can tell you that journalists do spend a good deal of time dealing with the worst of gamer culture. My site is small enough that our community has less of that, but there's still the occasional "how dare you give game A that score! You don't understand it. It's not for you. You're an idiot." That's the low-level compared to what some get, when delivered civilly I just take it as feedback.

I enjoy the Hooligamer idea.

Kind of off topic here, but I had written an opinion piece on my blog last year about how I feel scores and rankings hinder far more than help. Not only do they diminish a game's worth and a developer's effort, by reducing artistry and the subjective nature of an experience to mere arbitrary values, but it opens the door for those kinds of reactions. I always found it ridiculous to see comments where people compare games in two totally different genres simply because they have the same score or one was given a better score.

"You scored that FPS an 8!? But you gave that puzzle platformer a 9! [Insert typical insult here]" Etc.

And I agree. Hooligamer is clever and effective

 

[docbon]

#gamergate isn't about abuse guys: https://twitter.com/AbusiveMen

trigger warning for abusive language and imagery

I guess some of those are the tweets VanOrd was talking about, but didn't specifically mention.

 

[jstripes]

And I agree. Hooligamer is clever and effective

Hooligamer sounds to dynamic and exciting.

 

[Canucked]

Hooligamer sounds kinda cool. It would probably be embraced.

I wanna be a hooligamer.

 

[RockTurtle]

Hooligamer sounds kinda cool. It would probably be embraced.

I wanna be a hooligamer.

it does roll off the tongue

 

[tonysidaway]

Gamergater will do. That tag deservedly has a very bad name already.

 

[Xscapist]

Sadly, yes. People are STILL up in arms about that Leigh Alexander piece.

What I don't get is why they focus so much on the Leigh Alexander piece over all the other articles that were posted that same day:

08/28 3:20AM CST: The End Of Gamers (Dan Golding)

08/28 3:29PM CST: Gaming Is Leaving "Gamers" Behind (Buzzfeed)

08/28 7:00PM CST: The Death Of "Gamers" And The Women Who "Killed" Them (Ars Technica)

08/28 8:00PM CST: We Might Be Witnessing The "Death Of An Identity" (Kotaku)

Maybe people are just assuming that Leigh Alexander started it and the later articles reacted to her? But note that Dan Golding tweeted out his article at 3AM, 7 hours before Leigh Alexander's article went up. The Buzzfeed article mentions his article, but makes no mention of Leigh Alexander's. Yet everyone focuses on hers?

 

[jstripes]

What I don't get is why they focus so much on the Leigh Alexander piece over all the other articles that were posted that same day

Because:

1) Most of the other articles were written by men.
2) Hers probably had the most "colourful" writing.
3) They already had a hard-on for hating her.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

Maybe people are just assuming that Leigh Alexander started it and the later articles reacted to her? But note that Dan Golding tweeted out his article at 3AM, 7 hours before Leigh Alexander's article went up. The Buzzfeed article mentions his article, but makes no mention of Leigh Alexander's. Yet everyone focuses on hers?

We all know the reason why, don't we?