We discuss this topic in depth on our lastest episode of the 8-bitbeards:
http://the8bitbeards.podbean.com/e/episode-10-egx-experiences/
http://the8bitbeards.podbean.com/e/episode-10-egx-experiences/
#GAMERGATE: The Threadening [Read the OP] -- #StopGamerGate2014
- Thread starter besada
- Start date
- Status
BobbyRobby
Member
This logic isn't totally sound. A lot of fantasy hinges on introducing a fictional element to an otherwise realistic world.
Take E.T.
It's about an alien visiting America in the 80s, a realistic setting. You could say "aliens are unrealistic, why not have molemen living underground as well?"
Because at that point, it would completely destroy the suspension of disbelief. I haven't looked into Kingdom Come, but it can be a valid artistic choice to strive for realism, even in fiction.
You've just answered your own point though, well played.
In a fantasy world, where the designers get to basically make their own culture, why include the inflammatory stuff that is only there to invoke cheap emotional reactions from the player? It boils down to bad writing. You can be provocative without resorting to lazy tropes.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
The existence of minorities shouldn't be inflammatory
Although it sadly is for many people
Although it sadly is for many people
jim-jam bongs
Member
There was already a rather interesting thread about that here, but suffice to say it's not as simple as invoking the great PC boogyman to deflect any and all criticism. Especially not when using historical accuracy as a shield.
Was there anything to suggest that this was specifically gg related, out of curiosity? Milo is a rather objectionable turd, I'd expect that there are a lot of people who might be inclined to want to rattle him.
BobbyRobby
Member
Do you honestly think the guy making Kingdom Come would be inflamed if someone else decided to make a medieval game with minoities?
Or is he inflamed by the fact people are criticizing him for what he sees is a valid artistic choice given the setting of his game?
I don't think it's correct to conflate the two things.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Good thing I didn't
His line was absolute realism, he got called out on not actually going for it fully and got angry though
MikeOfTheLivingDead
Grapetastic!
No you really can't unfortunately. The internet has so completely and cynically deconstructed music, television, film and games to the point that you cannot use any device to tell a story or express an idea without someone screaming "trope" with the most negative of connotations and then heartily patting themselves on the back over how brilliant they are for have recognized your attempt to use devices and metaphors to communicate an idea.
Lalalandia
Member
Yup minorities didn't magically show up in the colonial era, trading with North Africa and the Middle East was common throughout European history. As that blog pointed out traders could have been seen at most large regional markets and while uncommon would not have been unheard of. Vavra was wrong but chose to get stroppy about it rather than deal with his own ignorance. I have very little time for folks who play the 'historical accuracy' card while rejecting advice from folks with actual expertise on the period.
The Broken Ska Record
Member
That's what it seemed like to me. I've seen more evidence that GGers have been doing more harrasmrnt. I just wasn't sure if it was just me.
Opinionatedfish
Member
I would like a hash tag about ethics in Journalism discussion.
But #GamerGate isn't that tag.
I was thinking something like #GameEthics or #EIJP (Ethics In Journalism, Please)
Personally, I subscribe to the RTDNA standards.
However, there are a few things in those standards that people need to realize.
The first one has to do with "doxxing" and it will sound kind of horrible to some people.
There is already a precedent for major newspapers and websites in printing or posting addresses of public figures or people seeking influence or power in a field. If websites and newspapers in New York can post maps of everyone who owns a concealed carry license, than posting the address of prominent YouTube commentators is just par for the course and isn't against journalist precedent.
HOWEVER, it is against journalist ethics and both the New York press outlet and the people who posted that information should be condemned for doing this. Although it isn't illegal to post publicly available information in public, it's just irresponsible to do so.
As for people posting threats on the internet directed at someone? That's a bit iffy right there. The internet needs more formal legislation and we will find out when THIS CASE IS DECIDED. Now, there are courts that are ridiculously out of step on this. The previous precedent was United States v. Bagdasarian and the 9th District Court of Appeals. Although that was in a direct threat case. Now, posting public information in public has no precedent as "threatening speech," no matter how much Tumblr wants it to be that way.
As for the amount of harassment that people get and rightfully complain about? The truth is that those who engage in that activity make up a distinct minority of all video game customers and using that minority as the basis for criticism of all "gamers" is irresponsible and ignorant. Many of the editorial articles that "sparked" the fire on this hashtag's communities should have been labeled more clearly as editorial content. The entire defense from those should have been "This is editorial content and the opinions expressed therein may not be the opinions of this company." That's all that needed to be said, end of story.
Problem is that, instead of addressing those in this way, many news sites just doubled down on editorial content. Editorial Content is a part of journalism, but it's not journalism as a whole. So, many of these people demanding "ethics" in journalism are really demanding "ethics in editorials" and that is freaking ridiculous. Clearly marking editorial content isn't going to prevent people from taking editorials as reporting.. but it goes a long way in providing both justification and credibility. As for those editorials "slandering?" Um. No. Slander is spoken, libel is printed.. but only if those are directed at an individual and are not opinion editorials. So, I'm not really sure why the whole "#GamerGate" thing is even still going on. There's just emotional arguments on both sides. I mean, from a legal standpoint, here's what's happening...
1. People are saying stupid things to each other in opinion editorials, private e-mails, and on Twitter. Those stupid things are being taken seriously. Until the hearings on December 1st from the Supreme Court clarify the issue, the severity of threats on individuals made anonymously or not anonymously on the internet in a court of law just depends on the court at the time. While the "fear" is real, the definition as an actual crime is variable. The publication of public information in a public (or private) forum or print media has precedent and is (in itself) NOT a crime. The publication of private information (such as work schedules, life schedules, whereabouts in transit, cell phone numbers, unlisted phone numbers, and so forth) is not criminal in itself, but it is a civil matter and therefore up for debate. In short, I think people who are victims of that kind of "doxxing" should grab a Civil Lawyer and go to town. Although they would very likely lose in a court of law at their own expense. If you post your phone number to Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Google Services like YouTube, and others in your sign up process for those services.. your phone number is now public record. (Always read the Terms and Conditions, people.) Printing that information isn't illegal, it's just TACKY and against Journalist Ethics. If you post your location on Twitter, anyone may use that (now public) information for malicious purposes. My suggestion is to not post your location on Twitter if you are concerned about that possibility. A third party posting your location is a violation and you may want to get litigious.
2. There are people demanding full disclosure on reviews and editorial content. A review is, by it's design and nature, an opinion piece or editorial content. There is no precedent or need, from an ethics standpoint, to divulge information about the process toward a review or editorial. ONLY in reporting news. So, if I know a bunch of people at Mojang and they give me a copy of Minecraft for the Vita to review, I don't have to tell you where I got that copy of Minecraft from. Now, if I'm told about an upcoming expansion to Minecraft that adds hundreds of new animal behavior to the mix, I am obligated to state that the source of the news article I write about that upcoming expansion comes from the company. I don't need to give names though. There is no legal reason for me to do so and disclosure of that information requires an interested party filing paperwork to that regard.
3. When someone is a victim of a crime, we should get their statement and no longer press the issue. A news reporter is not there to be a victim's friend or enemy. We are not their advocates, detractors, or jury in that moment. Just report the facts. You can be an advocate, detractor, or jury in an editorial opinion piece later. I had a friend murdered by a drunk driver, when talking about it in a news article, I have to report it the police report views it. I can editorialize on it in an opinion piece later. I don't have to be "unbiased" in editorial opinion pieces and anyone expecting me to not be unbiased in an opinion piece is an idiot. In a news report, yes. I will do my best to not show bias. But in an opinion piece, all gloves are off. There is no legal reason for a Journalist to behave otherwise. However, if an editorial has the ability to poison a potential jury opinion, than we should not post it and it may be a civil violation to do so. By civil violation, I mean that posting the editorial may incur liability on the author if exposure to the editorial may cause jury selection disruption. It is highly unlikely that this would happen though.
TL;DR: There is a difference between editorials, reviews, and news reports. Not all publication of information is a crime, nor affected by sworn Ethics Codes. We'll find out in December on what constitutes a criminal threat on the internet in the United States of America.
But #GamerGate isn't that tag.
I was thinking something like #GameEthics or #EIJP (Ethics In Journalism, Please)
Personally, I subscribe to the RTDNA standards.
However, there are a few things in those standards that people need to realize.
The first one has to do with "doxxing" and it will sound kind of horrible to some people.
There is already a precedent for major newspapers and websites in printing or posting addresses of public figures or people seeking influence or power in a field. If websites and newspapers in New York can post maps of everyone who owns a concealed carry license, than posting the address of prominent YouTube commentators is just par for the course and isn't against journalist precedent.
HOWEVER, it is against journalist ethics and both the New York press outlet and the people who posted that information should be condemned for doing this. Although it isn't illegal to post publicly available information in public, it's just irresponsible to do so.
As for people posting threats on the internet directed at someone? That's a bit iffy right there. The internet needs more formal legislation and we will find out when THIS CASE IS DECIDED. Now, there are courts that are ridiculously out of step on this. The previous precedent was United States v. Bagdasarian and the 9th District Court of Appeals. Although that was in a direct threat case. Now, posting public information in public has no precedent as "threatening speech," no matter how much Tumblr wants it to be that way.
As for the amount of harassment that people get and rightfully complain about? The truth is that those who engage in that activity make up a distinct minority of all video game customers and using that minority as the basis for criticism of all "gamers" is irresponsible and ignorant. Many of the editorial articles that "sparked" the fire on this hashtag's communities should have been labeled more clearly as editorial content. The entire defense from those should have been "This is editorial content and the opinions expressed therein may not be the opinions of this company." That's all that needed to be said, end of story.
Problem is that, instead of addressing those in this way, many news sites just doubled down on editorial content. Editorial Content is a part of journalism, but it's not journalism as a whole. So, many of these people demanding "ethics" in journalism are really demanding "ethics in editorials" and that is freaking ridiculous. Clearly marking editorial content isn't going to prevent people from taking editorials as reporting.. but it goes a long way in providing both justification and credibility. As for those editorials "slandering?" Um. No. Slander is spoken, libel is printed.. but only if those are directed at an individual and are not opinion editorials. So, I'm not really sure why the whole "#GamerGate" thing is even still going on. There's just emotional arguments on both sides. I mean, from a legal standpoint, here's what's happening...
1. People are saying stupid things to each other in opinion editorials, private e-mails, and on Twitter. Those stupid things are being taken seriously. Until the hearings on December 1st from the Supreme Court clarify the issue, the severity of threats on individuals made anonymously or not anonymously on the internet in a court of law just depends on the court at the time. While the "fear" is real, the definition as an actual crime is variable. The publication of public information in a public (or private) forum or print media has precedent and is (in itself) NOT a crime. The publication of private information (such as work schedules, life schedules, whereabouts in transit, cell phone numbers, unlisted phone numbers, and so forth) is not criminal in itself, but it is a civil matter and therefore up for debate. In short, I think people who are victims of that kind of "doxxing" should grab a Civil Lawyer and go to town. Although they would very likely lose in a court of law at their own expense. If you post your phone number to Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Google Services like YouTube, and others in your sign up process for those services.. your phone number is now public record. (Always read the Terms and Conditions, people.) Printing that information isn't illegal, it's just TACKY and against Journalist Ethics. If you post your location on Twitter, anyone may use that (now public) information for malicious purposes. My suggestion is to not post your location on Twitter if you are concerned about that possibility. A third party posting your location is a violation and you may want to get litigious.
2. There are people demanding full disclosure on reviews and editorial content. A review is, by it's design and nature, an opinion piece or editorial content. There is no precedent or need, from an ethics standpoint, to divulge information about the process toward a review or editorial. ONLY in reporting news. So, if I know a bunch of people at Mojang and they give me a copy of Minecraft for the Vita to review, I don't have to tell you where I got that copy of Minecraft from. Now, if I'm told about an upcoming expansion to Minecraft that adds hundreds of new animal behavior to the mix, I am obligated to state that the source of the news article I write about that upcoming expansion comes from the company. I don't need to give names though. There is no legal reason for me to do so and disclosure of that information requires an interested party filing paperwork to that regard.
3. When someone is a victim of a crime, we should get their statement and no longer press the issue. A news reporter is not there to be a victim's friend or enemy. We are not their advocates, detractors, or jury in that moment. Just report the facts. You can be an advocate, detractor, or jury in an editorial opinion piece later. I had a friend murdered by a drunk driver, when talking about it in a news article, I have to report it the police report views it. I can editorialize on it in an opinion piece later. I don't have to be "unbiased" in editorial opinion pieces and anyone expecting me to not be unbiased in an opinion piece is an idiot. In a news report, yes. I will do my best to not show bias. But in an opinion piece, all gloves are off. There is no legal reason for a Journalist to behave otherwise. However, if an editorial has the ability to poison a potential jury opinion, than we should not post it and it may be a civil violation to do so. By civil violation, I mean that posting the editorial may incur liability on the author if exposure to the editorial may cause jury selection disruption. It is highly unlikely that this would happen though.
TL;DR: There is a difference between editorials, reviews, and news reports. Not all publication of information is a crime, nor affected by sworn Ethics Codes. We'll find out in December on what constitutes a criminal threat on the internet in the United States of America.
ultratruman
Banned
I wish I had an article written about me everytime someone threatens to kill me over the internet.
BobbyRobby
Member
Ok, so maybe he was mistaken, and should have a few arab traders in the market district if there is one in this game. There's also this to consider from the dailydot article on this controversey I just read,
Found out this was a kickstarted game also. Seems like an odd game to single out considering the scale of the project.
Not including minorities because you are mistaken about their representation in medieval Europe is a far cry from doing so out of spite, or actually insulting them.
Are snarky digs at the guy going to make him more likely to include minorities, or will it make him more likely to retaliate by wearing a snarky T-shirt?
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
How often are you receiving death threats? Have you contacted police?
Lalalandia
Member
How many dozen have you received today? Grow up man if you think you've had 1% of the abuse Sarkeesian, Wu, Quin or any of the others have had.
ultratruman
Banned
I've been posting on message boards for over a decade now, I'm resigned to the fact that losers + anonymity = trolling, but I understand that it might be scary for people who don't know how the internet works.
Galactic Fork
A little fluff between the ears never did any harm...
So those anonymous people have your home address and tell you so, then send you pictures of your head on top of a corpse's body?
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
There are several games writers active on Gaf and In this thread, so If you provide some screen caps of the threats, and maybe some background on what you do in the industry, why people are harassing you, etc. maybe someone can shed some light on your situation.
Lalalandia
Member
No one was sniping at him though it was a rarely frequented blog that said 'There weren't many but there were some so he's wrong there'. It was Vavra that chose to take this as some kind of attack on him. His overly defensive response generated far more coverage, it's not hard to say 'Oh guess I was wrong about that' but he preferred to climb up on a cross of his own making. Worse he has felt so offended he's now latching onto way more toxic movements for support.
Kingdom Come looks like a great game but man is Vavra doing his best to get in the way.
Then it's not the victims who need to change, it's how the Internet works that needs to change.
TyrantGuardian
Member
Why would you wish that?
Opinionatedfish
Member
I run a website that used to run a feature called "Viral Speak" that was just curated feedback from a form e-mailer script. In the hayday of the site, I would get upwardly of 1,000+ anonymous (except for an IP address) e-mails from that script to a private e-mail address to cull through. Most of the time, I would delete short comments, uninteresting comments, or abusive comments. Sometimes, I would get about 200 or so "abusive" e-mails that were either directed at me or at other people who were in previous Viral Speak feedback articles a day. I would say that there's a good chance that -given the math and the daily nature of the article over several years- I have gotten upwardly of 400,000 "threats" that ranged from photoshopped pictures to general "kill yourself" comments. I filter a lot of it out on YouTube and I've become fairly dead inside toward such comments over the years. I kept some of the more egregious stuff on old CD-ROMS as back up. So, I'll have to hunt those down sometime. I've also been the target of sexual harassment offline, I am a rape victim, and I've suffered physical assaults from bullying as well. But none of those offline problems are related to online activity. I do think that the internet today is just as brazen as it was back in the late 1990's and early 2000's. However, the spread of social outlets has led to a magnification of the problem. The problem did not become more severe, it just gets reported more often than it used to be. The fact that we have more confirmed and reported cases is good because we're finally seeing the problems the internet has in the light of day. This increased exposure can lead to positive action if we finally act on removing and dealing with the issue.
Part of dealing with it is using Civil Litigation. Yelling about it on Twitter or other social media won't have the effect that Civil Litigation would have. Twitter only creates an echo chamber or safety blanket that works only to ease the victim but not truly punish the attacker. I just have old IP addresses from years upon years ago. Those would be useless in Civil Litigation and I spend very little time considering it for what I deal with these days. Eventually, the majority of them have given up. I still get comments from Atari-Age forum dwellers from time to time about a video from two or so years ago that tell me to kill myself. I just delete it and move onto the next thing in my spam filter. Those are just isolated examples now.
In short, it gets better. I think it would benefit people like Zoe Quinn or Anita S. to just go about what they are doing. Many of these people want to know that they "got to you" and that encourages them to continue. When you put out another game or another video as if they don't exist.. they eventually realize that you're not bendable.
It's tough.. but it does get better. Surround yourself with people who are positive and don't dwell on those people. It gets better. It comes to pass. It only inhabits your mind as long as you let it live there.
ultratruman
Banned
losers will do anything to get under your skin... but that's all it is. swatting and stuff like that are obviously different.
How? Disallow anonymity? You know as well as I do that that'll cause much, much more harm than good.
No, it's people that need to change, people that respond badly to be granted anonymity. This would be as much a psychological debate as much as a free speech debate.
Opinionatedfish
Member
Swatting is an interesting evolution of the old "pizza delivery" prank. It's also a bad abuse of the system for police reports. Maybe if we had a corroboration clause before dispatching in a suburban environment, the instances of this could be reduced.
Also, there should be more severe penalties for false reports.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
People's families and kids are being threatened too. Don't think that should just be brushed off.
Opinionatedfish
Member
This is why Elonis v. United States is an important piece of legislation to watch in the US Supreme Court. The decision in that case will set precedent for the USA and may become a basis for similar legal matters in other countries.
Very well said. Most of the harassment seems to be stemming from all the publicity it gets. It attracts more attention though media outcry every time someone gets harassed. It's a vicious cycle that can only ever be ended by either the victims stopping to publicize the harassment and instead turn to admins and legal institutions, or an overall betterment of the medium in question (most of the harassment posted by victims on twitter comes from twitter)
Not going to just handwave and say "get over it you crybabies" because I don't think that's fair and 'enough' given the severity of the potential personal safety intrusions, but essentially that's wouldn't be the worst way to tackle it.
Didn't say that, didn't mean that.
But one of the two attracts imitators, the other does not.
Lalalandia
Member
That's an awful experience to deal with and I commend you for your strength. Were you ever doxxed during this time? For me that's the really toxic part of this. I've had my share of hateful internet messages but I usually was able to laugh it off as 'internet tough' horseshit because it never represented that much of a risk as they didn't know any personal details about me. I think that it's the doxxing, swattings and bomb threats are what elevate it above the usual internet abuse for me.
Lalalandia
Member
I guess it just doesn't seem that these people need encouragement beyond what they're generating amongst themselves. Copycat is definitely a thing though and it's always hard to find that balance between stating 'This is a thing that is happening and it' wrong' and signal boosting an awful campaign. The silence was tried for weeks and honestly seemed to be working until Intel poured fuel onto the flames by apparently siding with GG. They mostly clarified that they're cowards but hey the damage was done.
I find it disheartening that being called out for one's lack of inclusion of people of color in your crowdfunded video game pushed Vavra to be more stubborn and entrenched in homogeneous worldview and exclusion of other people who aren't White.
Also, don't forget the amount of threats and hate that Medieval People of Color received for calling out the fallacy of the "we're just adhering to historical realism" argument (i.e. White-washing history).
Also, don't forget the amount of threats and hate that Medieval People of Color received for calling out the fallacy of the "we're just adhering to historical realism" argument (i.e. White-washing history).
Opinionatedfish
Member
If by doxxing, you mean harassing phone calls on my cell phone or a picture of my current house at the time. Yeah. But it wasn't called doxxing back then. I had to look up what swatting was. I'm getting too old for the ever evolving terminology, I think.
I don't think some of those people need encouragement, but the increased volume of these attacks happening in the wake of the media making another attack public certainly doesnt help reducing the volume of attacks one little bit. It raises awareness, yes, but awareness is inflationary at this point, we need to counter act harassment, not only decry it. Empty threats and yelling about it is only having the opposite effect of strenghtening the hate. If we used half the energy we use to speak out against it to actually attempt to work with companies (for example and most prevalently twitter) to find a solution. But that requires more effort than just saying "I think whats happening is terrible and should be persecuted [by someone]".
Be it anita sarkeesian posting her almost bi-weekly "I am getting more harassment than ever" tweet or another new person(-ality) getting harassment and speaking out against it, followed by hundreds of people sometimes viciously attacking whoever isn't immediately on their side (everything from "GG is like ISIS" to "All ggers should die") these things only feed the vile individuals that abuse their anonimity.
ultratruman
Banned
You're right, and with the increasing militarisation of US law enforcement you'd like to hope they'd adjust their response protocols if this 'joke' continues to be popular.
Lalalandia
Member
Ugh that's just awful and yup pictures of your home fits my own personal definition of doxxing.
ultratruman
Banned
unfortunately i think it's just natural for some people to act like animals when you can communicate with a minimum distance of anonymity. You'd have to scrub that anonymity to really change things.
More_Badass
Member
Great piece from John Walker of RockPaperShotgun
http://botherer.org/2014/10/12/a-thing-about-gamergate/
http://botherer.org/2014/10/12/a-thing-about-gamergate/
Lalalandia
Member
I have yet to see any evidence that Twitter is willing to even try and curb the abuse that it's systems make possible. For example 3rd party reports of threats are not possible so as a victim of abuse I have to personally notify twitter about each abuser. It works if I'm being harassed by a handful of folk but the workload is grossly unreasona blue for the hundreds and thousands that LA, ZQ, etc have to deal with.
Twitter has no vested interest in fixing this issue, the modding here is fantastic but is very time intensive. Twitter us terrified of the cost of even trying a looser version of GAF posting standards because machine reading is shit at understanding context and nuance. Thus you're back to hiring a legion of mods and Twitter is only barely profitable now.
Opinionatedfish
Member
This worries me so much because it just causes an arms raise. We're going back to "They put one of yours in a stretcher, you put one of theirs in the morgue" mentality and exceedingly few people are Eliot Ness.
Talk about preaching to the choir; I know you're just venting but this isn't helping anyone, you made this exact point a million times. Throughout the thread. No offense.
Fine, I removed it. It's just so frustrating and infuriating to read about the personal experiences people have because they have an opinion about representation or respect when it comes to "non-default" people in video games. Like, how much more embarrassing and insipid can you get by getting angry over a luxury hobby like video games being criticized somewhere by a person on the Internet for its lack of equality. Are people really this bigoted and privileged that they can't handle some criticism on some blog or site or youtube video, that they have to resort to death and rape threats to push out non-default people or anyone questioning the status quo?
Can anyone inform me what "imagined article" he is talking about here? I feel a bit out of the loop when it comes to GG's claims against RPS's "lack of integrity" or whatever they accuse them of.
He's probably referring to the imaginary positive reviews for Depression Quest that people are somehow still claiming are totally real.
Sad times. It's like a never ending cycle now. Someone speaks up and then becomes a target. Death threats from anonymous individuals. News site reports the death threats and victim goes into hiding. They see that the death threat tactic is working and typical internet trolls will continue to do it. There's no end to this
See this stuff? This is what I'm taking issue with.
How renowned a psychologist are you? How many in-depth surveys have you done on what drives these people?
Unless I'm sorely mistaken on my guesses on those fronts you're largely talking out your ass about what victims of abuse should be doing.
Are you trying to assert that it would be better for them to say nothing about it? I can't really tell because you seem to be saying pretty convoluted things in order to avoid the big ugly victim blaming hole you must be aware you're skirting.
And I don't know what you were even trying to say with the anti-GG statements there? Aside from the fact that nobody who isn't a crazy person has ever said all Gamergaters should die, No someone speaking out about the abuse they're facing isn't anything like saying anything like that.
- Status