Support NeoGAF

[Galactic Fork]

Well that's what I meant; she wasn't being literal of her own opinion of convention attendees right?

Eh, honestly I could see a bit of self reflection in there. From the outside, we do often obsess about stuff to buy, and games to play. I'm disturbingly excited about No Man's Sky, and I'll probably be depressed if it sucks. Objectively that's really silly.

So while I don't think she was bashing gamers in general, I think she was being somewhat honest with "it’s not even culture. It’s buying things, spackling over memes and in-jokes repeatedly, and it’s getting mad on the internet" and "Queuing passionately for hours, at events around the world, to see the things that marketers want them to see. To find out whether they should buy things or not."

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

I'm not equating Gamergate to racial violence.

I was equating it your view that being critical of an entire group, especially one tied into identity, will see the bad apples in that group suddenly change their behaviour to prove their critics wrong. This doesn't happen, and certainly hasn't happened with GG.

I'm taking this opportunity to tell you that I find all of your arguments intellectually dishonest and will no longer engage.

 

[@MUWANdo]

Well that's what I meant; she wasn't being literal of her own opinion of convention attendees right?

Why can't it be both?

 

[fallout]

Well that's what I meant; she wasn't being literal of her own opinion of convention attendees right?

I don't think anyone here can really speak for Leigh in that regard, but I think there's a lot more to take from it than: "all convention attendees are dumb" or whatever.

I see it as partly commentary on the consumerist nature of gaming culture. It's worth thinking about why we do things like stand in line to get a shirt to advertise the products we buy.

 

[Kimawolf]

Stop.

Don't even try to bring this shit into gamergate

People of my race are getting killed daily and you want to equate that to whining over videogames? fuck outta here

Im with you, and i assume you're black, so am I btw. but i've seen people call Gamergate people terrorists (someone in this thread repeatedly does it), ISIS even. Mind you having served in the military i've seen actual "terrorists", and we've all seen what ISIS have done. So yes lets stop comparing "gamergate" with other absolutely vile things going on resulting in hundreds of deaths.

And lets be honest, people are demonizing people using the harshest, most vile words they can, if this was the 40s it'll been Gamergate people are nazis, the 80s crips and bloods, the early 2000s, the taliban. Its the same tactics used by neo conservatives when demonizing the left, calling them all crazed liberals and pointing to a few nutty groups to represent millions of people. Same thing is going on now, just for a smaller group.

 

[tchocky]

Well that's what I meant; she wasn't being literal of her own opinion of convention attendees right?

I don't know about the attendees but Leigh has expressed her distaste for the big conventions E3 and especially PAX numerous times over the past few years.

 

[andymcc]

And lets be honest, people are demonizing people using the harshest, most vile words they can, if this was the 40s it'll been Gamergate people are nazis, the 80s crips and bloods, the early 2000s, the taliban. Its the same tactics used by neo conservatives when demonizing the left, calling them all crazed liberals and pointing to a few nutty groups to represent millions of people. Same thing is going on now, just for a smaller group.

Gamergate dudes are rallying against "SJWs" and feminists. They have prominent conservative personalities as their figureheads. It's not really that much work to see your equivalency as a false one dude.

 

[More_Badass]

No, she wasn't satirizing. She was expressing how narrow the view of gamers has become. What people think of "gamers". After the first few paragraphs describing "gamers" she says, "This is what the rest of the world knows about your industry."

Exactly

I still stand by what I said earliee

...because the hobby is so widespread, that its audience is so diverse and varied, that to pigeonhole some gamer demographic just hurts the industry and growth of the medium

That's why "gamer" is dead. The definition is dead, not the actual hobby. Because the medium has matured beyond any single audience. Games are for everyone.

 

[Green Biker Dude]

...Mario Kart? Sims? Animal Crossing? Portal? Minecraft? Katamari Damacy? Journey? Jetset Radio? Pac-Man? Silent Hill: Shattered Memories? Guitar Hero? DDR? Ace Attorney? Billards? Any sports game ever? A ton of other games that have reached record breaking purchases? C'mon man.

i forgot to include simulation with adventure and puzzle, but pretty much every game you cited can be included in one of those 3 categories. i suppose you could argue that puzzle and simulation are too broad, since things that tend to represent real life situations (sports, racing etc) are just simulation. still, that's the sort of design people have come up with over the last 30 years. it's not like someone is withholding the next minecraft because they have an agenda to make games violent

 

[Simply Sarah]

Seriously, why are we all still talking about Leigh? Even if it's to be granted that the tone and style of the article in question was uncalled for and out of line...so what? How does that justify the venom, the threats, the everything? One article from one woman. You say she's done other things? Well, what does that have to do with game journalism in general? That sounds like people having a Leigh Alexander problem, not an industry problem.

And yes, I know the answers to those questions. I'm just trying to wrap my mind around how this even needs to be said, though.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

Yes. Please stop. :\

I was watching Ferguson trend when suddenly the Quinnspiracy shot up and was covered with tweets of "gamers" telling some "slut" to go kill herself.

I saw what happened. I saw how awful these people were. It's not the same as another black male getting shot again for little to no reason...again.

A better example would be: "Christian fundamentalists in the Bible Belt feel persecuted or "oppressed" whenever they find someone that doesn't share their particular worldview. On closer examination of such claims, it's more commonly the case that claims of persecution are better explained as annoyance at the removal of privilege or the curtailment of their ability to force their views on others."

Honestly, this whole thing has reminded me of creationist and other fundamentalist tactics.

-An worldview based on the idea that a small group of insidious progressives with a political agenda are trying to drive you out and ban your lifestyle
-Simultaneous posturing of yourself as a massive demographic in the majority that can rise up and destroy the "oppressors" on command, and as a persecuted class that can't speak out and is the true victims
-Building off the previous point, the spinning of rebuttals and condemnation of your relatively tiny subset into "attacks" on a wider demographic ("saying that Genesis is ridiculous is an attack on all Christians!")
-A rebranding attempt that tries to distance itself from its obvious roots but is still transparent to most everyone (the infamous "cdesign proponentsism" search-and-replace gaffe when "intelligent design" was first used in a creationist context)
-Claiming that your attacks and specious arguments are just questioning the "integrity" of the field (ie, those evolutionists are all lying because they want to make money off of a scam, and I'll expose them)
-A need to push a narrative of "both sides" (especially common in creationist circles; a Ken Ham classic talking point), in the name of "fairness"
-Claiming that your viewpoints are being unfairly censored in mainstream publications because a cabal of corrupt cronies are preventing it
-A bizarre array of concepts and methodologies that are presented as "true" examples of the field, as opposed to the "false" ones currently on display; these things are utterly foreign to any trained professional. (ie, creationism's arbitrary distinction between "observational science" and "historical science", the study of "baraminology")
-An obsession with getting big names and celebrities to endorse your views, even if it's B-list actors at best (ie, Kirk Cameron's creationism campaigns... hmm. With the whole "crocoduck" thing, and Baldwin retweeing that Marxism pyramid, maybe there should be a "presents dumb image" corollary)
-An obsession with proving that your movement is composed of all kinds of "rational" people, like random people with PhDs, or fringe members of the "enemy" field
-Proudly using various degrees of moderates as warm bodies whenever polls and the like pop up, but then angrily denouncing them if they get too prominent (YECs hate any other brand of creationists who try to compromise with scientific evidence, no matter to what degree)
-A need to constantly compare yourself to the very kind of historical figures who would be disgusted with you (ie, creationists comparing themselves to Galileo because people laughed at him too!!!!)
-Rabid attempts to search through the histories of everyone who debates you in order to twist quotes out of context
-A debate strategy in which followers are encouraged to pile on non-followers with predetermined talking points and loaded questions, and to keep "asking questions" without stopping
-Constant attempts to prop themselves up as calm, traditional folk, and portray their opponents as shrill, elitist, rude, and intolerant loudmouths
-Marching orders to avoid any "enemy" territory because it could lead to mortal danger for your mind and soul
-A tendency to believe in any kind of conspiratorial thinking, as long as it can be tangentially connected back to the original ideas of the movement
-Attempt to replicate mainstream institutions in the image of the movement, often creating weird and/or subpar institutions that only exist to reiterate your talking points and come off as the products of cargo cult-like thinking
-Leading figures in the movement are overwhelmingly right wing, and despite their claims of being exemplary in the field, usually have a history of shady behavior or troubling financial indiscretions
-A belief that you're constantly on the verge of a swift "victory" and your opponents completely disgraced and discredited any day now

 

[Grut]

You list of examples of corruption reads to me like a list of things that reviews missed. Reviews can't catch everything. Reviewers are fallible. Can you point to any industry where the reviewers don't miss important elements? When a car gets recalled do we criticize reviewers for missing the defects?

The issues with your Mass Effect and Skyrim examples have to do with the fact that market forces dictate that reviews have to come out ASAP. This is caused by reader behavior not by some sort of publisher coercion.

I have no idea what Liana K means. The fact you threw a question mark after her name would suggest you aren't confident about who Liana K is or what they did. My quick Google search shows that she questioned teh Sex politics of The Witcher (which is a far from uncommon occurrence) and was the subject of an article delightfully titled "Shill Queen Liana K Censors Youtube". She seems to be a cosplayer? You're gonna need to help me more on this one.

As to stated Ethics Policies. Many sites have them. Here is Polygons for example. It's funny how Gamersgate, which is all about journalistic ethics, seems to have it in for Polygon when they have such a clear and well expressed ethics policy.

I am pretty sure that games reviewers are not anywhere near violating FTC regulations. If you can find the clauses you think they are violating, I would love to look at them.

As to the nature of reviews, to me a good reviewer is someone who is able to clearly express their experience with a game. I actually want bias, because I sure as hell have bias when I play games and I would prefer to read something from someone I can identify with. Rodger Ebert's film reviews are a great example of this. He weaves his knowledge of cinema, the action of the film, and his experience watching it into something that is far from unbiased. But I love his work and still go back to read his reviews. They have a lasting value because of their quality. And if he says something I don't agree with, it's ok because I know where he is coming from.

The wonderful thing is, if you feel that reviews aren't up to snuff, you can write your own. The thing about the type of perfectly unbiased reviews that you champion is that, by their very nature, you only need one for each game. Gamersgaters have been successful in organizing to pull major advertising off a website, so I don't see why they couldn't organize to support a new site that hews to their ideals.

I have very little time right now so I'll return tomorrow to discuss the rest of your post. I just wanted to answer your request for evidence that Gaming Journalists (and Publishers) are in areas which can result in serious legal issues.

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/payola-rules

Federal law and FCC rules require that employees of broadcast stations, program producers, program suppliers and others who, in exchange for airing material, have accepted or agreed to receive payments, services or other valuable consideration must disclose this fact. Disclosure of compensation provides broadcasters the information they need to let their audiences know if material was paid for, and by whom.

It is routine for Gaming Journalists to accept all expenses paid trips, extravagant parties, extravagant entertainment, and we hear of special items sent along with review copies with potentially high values on Ebay (Chess sets, special collector's editions, etc).

This is pretty much identical behavior to what caused the Payola laws to be written for the then young radio industry, and it is reasonable and probable that the very same kinds of laws will be implemented with gaming in the not too distant future.

From there we get into fraud discussions, which IIRC is pending in court or decided against Colonial Marines and the BBB described ME3 as being fradualent as well. I'm sure we could collectively fill a thread with fraud at this point, especially if we consider bullshots to be fraud.

 

[Orayn]

Honestly, this whole thing has reminded me of creationist and other fundamentalist tactics.

-Blaming the Jews

 

[zeldablue]

i forgot to include simulation with adventure and puzzle, but pretty much every game you cited can be included in one of those 3 categories. i suppose you could argue that puzzle and simulation are too broad, since things that tend to represent real life situations (sports, racing etc) are just simulation. still, that's the sort of design people have come up with over the last 30 years. it's not like someone is withholding the next minecraft because they have an agenda to make games violent

Hmm...Well still, the best selling games have been largely non-violent and inclusive. They relied on strong game mechanics over marketing.

 

[Green Biker Dude]

Hmm...Well still, the best selling games have been largely non-violent and inclusive. They relied on strong game mechanics over marketing.

to add to what i posted before, there are only so many simulation games the market can support. take soccer, for example. the most popular sport in the world, yet there are only fifa and pes/winning eleven. and the latter hasn't been doing well for a long time too.

as for puzzles, not only it is a lot harder to design games like that, people find it hard to justify paying much for them, like the brain training games and even portal. it's also a lot easier to copy the puzzles and put it on low budget cellphone games most of the time

some of the best selling games are non violent, but there are also plenty of violent games who sold well (the gtas, resident evils, god of wars, gears of war, halos etc). also, nintendo has sold millions of nintendogs, brain training and whatnot, but that doesn't mean there is a big console market for these games which can sustain multiple publishers selling this stuff

 

[zeldablue]

Honestly, this whole thing has reminded me of creationist and other fundamentalist tactics.

Yeah...

I still consider myself a Christian (Omnist) and a gamer...but what the heck is wrong with people. ;___;

Everything, from happiness to power is relative to your own experiences. If you suddenly felt power being taken from you, I guess having a tantrum is the way to go.

 

[Riposte]

I hope you're kidding. The best games of all time are going to be the ones that can be awesome without defaulting to the status quo. Whether it's Tetris or Portal...not all games need to rely on the same-ole same-ole to be good. New, more interesting mechanics revolve around thinking outside the norm. :\

...Mario Kart? Sims? Animal Crossing? Portal? Minecraft? Katamari Damacy? Journey? Jetset Radio? Pac-Man? Silent Hill: Shattered Memories? Guitar Hero? DDR? Ace Attorney? Billards? Any sports game ever? A ton of other games that have reached record breaking purchases? C'mon man.

Edit: the best selling games ever are 1. Tetris 2. Wii Sports and 3. Minecraft. Let that sink in when you talk about violence in games.

I'm really confused by your initial point. Are games which have "violent" mechanics suppose to be the "same-ole same-ole"? I'm sort of reading it like your vocalized sentiment against games with violent imagery shaping what you think is "outside the norm", thus the best by your own reasoning.

Also many of the examples are based around conflict and can even feature enemies you attack (Mario Kart, sports games, Jet Set Radio). Additionally, although perhaps I'm opening a can of worms, I believe the concept of "violence" is fairly limited in how it is understood in these conversations anyway. Tetris, mainly the flashier versions of the game, provides violent feedback for successful play. Violence is a display of power or intensity (putting it simply), which is naturally a fundamental appeal of interactivity (what mechanics/systems are in service of).

 

[zeldablue]

I'm really confused by your initial point. Are games which have "violent" mechanics suppose to be the "same-ole same-ole"? I'm sort of reading it like your vocalized sentiment against games with violent imagery shaping what you think is "outside the norm", thus the best by your own reasoning.

Also many of the examples are based around conflict and can even feature enemies you attack (Mario Kart, sports games, Jet Set Radio). Additionally, although perhaps opening a can of worms, I believe the concept of "violence" is fairly limited in how it is understood in these conversations anyway. Tetris, mainly the flashier versions of the game, provides violent feedback for successful play. Violence is a display of power or intensity (putting it simply), which is naturally a fundamental appeal of interactivity.

Well...All my favorite games are violent as heck. I love Zelda, Mario, Smash, Resident Evil, Silent Hill, Final Fantasy, Halo, Devil May Cry etc etc. I love violence! It's just I don't love violence ALL the time.

I'm just saying there are plenty of non-violent games that are absolutely amazing, and they don't even need conventional controls or game mechanics to achieve that level of immersion or engagement. I don't really play indie games or simulators. But I'm a huge sucker for puzzle games. (Puzzle League, Catherine, Professor Layton etc.)

I just think the notion of needing to have violence in order to be a "real game" is limiting. I like games that can balance something beyond just violent fun. If a game can be amazing without violence, then I think that's a great thing too (And it's the key to getting a mass market audience.)

 

[More_Badass]

Well...All my favorite games are violent as heck. I love Zelda, Mario, Smash, Resident Evil, Silent Hill, Final Fantasy, Halo, Devil May Cry etc etc. I love violence! It's just I don't love violence ALL the time.

I'm just saying there are plenty of non-violent games that are absolutely amazing, and they don't even need conventional controls or game mechanics to achieve that level of immersion or engagement. I don't really play indie games or simulators. But I'm a huge sucker for puzzle games. (Puzzle League, Catherine, Professor Layton etc.)

I just think the notion of needing to have violence in order to be a "real game" is limiting. I like games that can balance something beyond just violent fun. If a game can be amazing without violence, then I think that's a great thing too.

Wait, what? Violence = "real game"? Who said this? Don't make me break out my indie games list

 

[zeldablue]

Wait, what? Violence = "real game"? Who said this? Don't make me break out my indie games list

I think the idea is that games with high quality and huge budgets need more to justify a purchase. If you're going to sink so much money into a game and high quality console...then you need the extra dose of violence to validate and legitimize your purchase.

Puzzle games don't need a mega budget, they're simple games. Adventure games are always a huge risk, so they're super rare. Action, sports and racing are always going to be the safest games to make in America. They are proven to sell...even if that market is shrinking for anyone who isn't a top developer. When your the producer to a game, your job is to make sure you're game is positioned in such a way where it will definitely sell well. That's what I mean by same ole' same ole'. Risks are just too hard to do where we are right now.

It's this kind of shift that kind of ruined Resident Evil. :\

Edit: Back on topic from Zoe AMA:

Q: Why do you think so many geeks and gamers aggressively embrace reactionary stances to social issues like this? It baffles me because gaming seems to be so strongly associated with youth culture.

A: I think it's partially due to disassociation via the internet. I'd like to think that these people wouldn't say this shit in person. This is backed up by the fact that when a lot of people called my phone after I got doxxed, they immediately got apologetic and didn't know what to do when I picked up and was a real person on the other side of things.

Well, that's nice at least. People are much nicer in real life.

 

[P.H. Perinax]

Seriously, why are we all still talking about Leigh? Even if it's to be granted that the tone and style of the article in question was uncalled for and out of line...so what? How does that justify the venom, the threats, the everything? One article from one woman. You say she's done other things? Well, what does that have to do with game journalism in general? That sounds like people having a Leigh Alexander problem, not an industry problem.

And yes, I know the answers to those questions. I'm just trying to wrap my mind around how this even needs to be said, though.

Because people seem to see this as some kind of opening salvo that show that the games press is out to get them. I've been critical of the overly confrontational writing style that seems to plague online writing in the past, but after reading the Leigh Alexander piece, I pretty much found no fault in it. She didn't even say that "gamers are dead". She did question the rationale around what people put around their hobby, basically buying things and being marketed to, and whether that audience should continue to be the ones you cater to going forward. Sadly, she might have answered her own question in doing so. The type of people who would spend hours waiting in line for something are exactly the type of people you would market to if your goal was just to make money, which is most of what the industry wants. Unfortunately (and I do not at all say this as an agreement with the #GG movement) this means that the #GG's, if they are made up of those that would wait in line for hours for a free t-shirt, are going to be catered to. However they are still worried that ones touting the "gamers are dead" issue might have an point, thus the outraged response to what is just someones opinion.

 

[SwissLion]

Hey, people who thought that the Gamers are Over articles offended them personally or were painting huge swathes of "Gamers" ANY way.

Maybe read some people doing what should be a simple reading comprehension task for you. This is usually the part everyone loses their goddamn mind over and it's ridiculous.

Here's another one of someone tackling the whole article in the wake of intel pulling out.

Here's the actual author! (P1, P2) explaining for the umpteenth time how you are so wrong, if you still don't understand.

Can we maybe get a few of these links in the OP so we can just direct people there instead of the thread getting shit up every half dozen pages?

Was the language angry? Sure was! Justifiably so. If you can't handle an angry woman with an opinion maybe question why that is before making that argument as to why it was a bad article.

 

[zeldablue]

Im with you, and i assume you're black, so am I btw. but i've seen people call Gamergate people terrorists (someone in this thread repeatedly does it), ISIS even. Mind you having served in the military i've seen actual "terrorists", and we've all seen what ISIS have done. So yes lets stop comparing "gamergate" with other absolutely vile things going on resulting in hundreds of deaths.

And lets be honest, people are demonizing people using the harshest, most vile words they can, if this was the 40s it'll been Gamergate people are nazis, the 80s crips and bloods, the early 2000s, the taliban. Its the same tactics used by neo conservatives when demonizing the left, calling them all crazed liberals and pointing to a few nutty groups to represent millions of people. Same thing is going on now, just for a smaller group.

I wish people wouldn't make that comparison. But three bomb threats over someone talking about women in games...? That is an actual felony, phoney or not. That's hopefully unrelated to GG, but that doesn't stop plenty of GG-ers from defending the harassers and saying that the threats aren't real. The best I can hope for is that the actual criminals (on both sides) are eventually stopped for screwing around with people's safety.

 

[Zen]

What's the difference between an 'anon op' and what is in that IRC chat*? Do they have a codeword? Does everyone wear special hats?

*all of which is available to anyone, so good attempt at implying the excerpts distort an otherwise civil chat about ethics.

A lot or a little largely depending on the operation, but even if they were equivalent in organization structure /activity (you will note that the gamer gate tactics have a lot of similarities) it would still not be a campaign by 4chan. Gamergate was never an Anon op, it was not organized in the actual anon IRCs, and in the beginning 4chan was removing conversation on the matter like everyone else. The 'top secret IRC' is anything but.

And I was not attempting to claim that they merely cherry picked out of an otherwise completely civil discussion, because they didn't. It runs the gamut, but the point I did make highlighted how people in that channel who did not serve the narrative were ignored, even when their own text was included as part of the very sections of the logs we hunt the mammoth posted.

Someone in this thread mentioned that when you are a minority versus the generalized opinion, you are treated as invisible, that is exactly what I was talking about with the section you quoted.

You've referred to it yourself, but with a rather novel interpretation. I'm sure the readers can make up their minds on this without further arguments about what a highly public document says.

I agree. People should read the documents, and read his statement on the matter and come to an informed conclusion. To be clear, he does not speak for me. I am merely addressing this tangent of a tangent that is only tangentially related to my post.

Jason Miller – The originator of #notyourshield:

Nobody cared who I was until I started #notyourshield. I came home last Friday to a comfy couch, my living room PC, to make a quick post about gamedev to my small but amazing followers and hopefully play some Left 4 Dead 2. With no warning or lead in I see a link on Gamasutra. A site I’ve followed since college days declaring “Gamers are Dead.” another article called “The Demise of Gamers”. I felt both articles were written so vitriolically, hatefully, if any person in any industry were to write that about their customers or people they must endure daily that person should leave for the health of the industry and their own mental health going forward.

That’s what I posted. I was immediately hit with a barrage of “why don’t you leave your basement sometime and stop leeching off mommy”. I respond “miss I have a five bedroom home” and perhaps a bit arrogantly “a surround sound and gaming PC set up likely more than your annual income”. I’m grown, I’m an audiophile, games enthusiast and I didn’t care for being spoken to like an angry child.

That’s how it started. For the days that followed chasing down a rabbit hole of hashtags, youtube videos, Adam Baldwin, deleted posts, figuring out who would and wouldn’t talk about all the weirdness that is #gamergate. I’m a mid 20’s African American originally from one of the poorest, most blighted communities in America, someone not only respected but gives back as often as I can lost my identity and became a “white fat, neckbeard dudebro manchild”.

I was the enemy. My history was attacked, I was never raised by a single grandmother and worked for my games with calloused hands, I was “privileged”. I don’t understand my own day-to-day struggles anymore or what I’m offended by, others would speak for me. I was in “deep denial”. “Shhhhh…” they’d actually say. There’s a name for what some of them are implying I was and I won’t say it, but it’s the subject of a famous Malcom X speech along with being defined for modern audiences in Django Unchained, played amazingly by Samuel L Jackson. I’ve even seen one with the gall to use it against the entire gaming community.

I had attempted to reach out to other indie devs and people in the industry with no avail. It’s been either you’re with us, against us, or silence. Twitter is the only place I’ve seen open speech. Now I’m going to take back a part of my history for a moment to tell you a bit about myself. On the block I grew up, to about every young man that came across her path my Grandmother was known as “The Law”. She didn’t care how big you were, how many people you had with you, if you were doing wrong she let you know and stopped you. She did everything she could to raise me as a man everyday of her life, taught me to stand up for people, pick them up, pick myself back up and got me here today so the next time someone wants to throw out misogynist know there was nobody in my life that taught me “patriarchy” only right, wrong and when to stand for what was right. I might have been a nerd but I’ve never been a coward. She was a straight shooter and so am I.

So as I’m looking through all of this I see a woman who made a parody piece on certain gaming personalities who was then harassed, doxxed, threatened to tears. Now that sort of thing lights a fire in me. I know I can’t go and punch every person behind a screen but the one thing I can do is say “not in my name”. If you want to hate, go ahead, insult people, ignore the people you claim to represent but do not claim you do it in the name of “justice”. What followed I’m not really proud of myself I was arguing, fighting, sunk down to their level in a lot of ways. But in some ways I am proud, I was able to throw myself, my work and everything on the table for a human being I had never met. While all the super-progressive people that were supposed to have our “best interests” stood by and laughed.

It wasn’t until one night I saw the other marginalized people fighting too I thought “there should be a hashtag. Something like “#NotYourShield”. I don’t have a huge following or a field of influencers to say “make it so” to around me, just some guys that like mobile games and weird experiments. I didn’t expect it would connect and resonate with others that well, the following, articles or videos it was a casual idea, many turned great.

Then came the allegations, it was either 4chan’s idea or I’m in collusion with 4chan whatever. None of that has a hint of truth. I don’t mind them using the hashtag because looking at Alexa they have more women there than most of the gaming sites and personalities we’re rallied against. They have an active lgbt board and users and each one of them deserves a voice. I’d rather not see sockpuppets because that hurts the rest of us.

Full disclosure: I have gone to 4chan since these events began and at least when I look I don’t see plans for harassment of individuals. Rowdy voices get snuffed out. That might be recent maybe with us joined in. In my opinion calling whats happening harassment is like a criminal calling it harassment when presented with evidence of wrongdoing. All of these different people who don’t know each other and wouldn’t work together 7 days ago, reading their history some of these sites were at each others necks months ago, didn’t band up just to mess up one or two small-name big-ego peoples days and sustain it for a full week. People are jeopardizing careers and livelihoods, taking a side while others are working day and night to call out corruption everything else can sit in the back seat.

We were “weaponized minorities”, at a better time I might intend to make an fps about that but for right now if anything is being weaponized it is the gaming industry and press vs it’s customers. They performed a set of actions that caused harm also caused us to band together, indie devs, youtubers, twitters(…tweeters?) redditors, tumblrs, bloggers and yes even 4channers in a way that might render them all but obsolete. If there’s a war for people to be imperialized the so-called Social Justice Warriors are the ones singing the White Man’s Burden.

We “don’t know what’s best for ourselves” because of course we can only legitimately participate in a movement when it fits their world view. The condescension is amazing. The fact that another indie dev who will not be named tweeted that 4chan screenshot, then removed and blocked me for coming with evidence. It was my doing only proves how far these people will go to spin whatever facts come up and I can’t abide that. I know what’s best for myself, my future and it’s not with you.

I am really truly sorry in my heart for whatever happened online, in games, to you, your friends and loved ones that made you so…hateful. But I and the thousands and thousands of people are #notyourshield to hide behind.

I'm not sure how many moderates are even still attached to the movement? It seems like the extremists are all that's left, the group who believe that "journalism ethics" means "don't inject discussion of social issues into gaming" and "journalists should not be allowed to send emails to each other."

I don't know the answer to your question, except to say that it is probably more than you think.

Again these people do not speak for me. I am highlighting that these people exist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYqBdCmDR0M

From essentially the start people have been claiming 'it's all extremists/misogynists/whathaveyou'. It wasn't valid then and I doubt it is valid now, their numbers are up over last month largely because (even if you do believe that they are simply a harassment campaign) they tapped into fairly universal concerns in gaming (Journalism ethics) off the back of terrible articles and mass suppression of discussion that only fed into the appearance of conspiracy.

Even if we accept the idea that all of Gamergate is a harassment campaign started by people to further that end, it means jack shit to solving the problem or in what the current demographic make up is. Just do a twit search and you can see that there are people who are most likely moderates using it and not anywhere near an insubstantial amount.

And Twitter tweets using it are much much larger in volume than whatever gets posted by people on Kotaku in Action or whatnot.

The question is not 'where did it start' but 'what did it become' and 'how can we work on resolving this?'. I reject the notion that continuing to demonize large groups of people is an effective mean, I support the idea that focusing on empowering people who care about issues that have common support are the way to go while simultaneously building across the isle consensus speaking out against all harassment and threats. It will remove cover for harassers.

If you simply demonize everyone those same toxic people will still be using it to spread toxicity, People will radicalize and moderates will still be using it on the back of the appeal of fairly wide held and publicly espoused issues like 'games journalism'.

How do you even begin to help them understand (especially when so many of them are more interested in destroying the sites they don't like than trying to come to an understanding)?

I would argue that complaining to sponsors is one of the only forms of expression consumers can really do in this situation. It's not surprising that this only started happening (as an organized tactic) relatively recently.

 

[SwissLion]

People being shielded and supported by Gamergate have absolutely Terrorised people into having to leave their homes, or into leaving the industry, and who knows how many people into silence.

That is terrorism. Only fuckwits are actually equating them with murderous armies, but that doesn't make the terrorists descriptor any less apt.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Sounds like Jason puts his identity as a gamer ahead of his identity as a person, which is a shame.

 

[Riposte]

Sounds like Jason puts his identity as a gamer ahead of his identity as a person, which is a shame.

What makes you say that?

 

[zeldablue]

Did Jason know about all the craziness that was happening before those articles came out? Without context they are just hate articles. (With context they are still hate articles, but the meaning is more obvious) I also feel as though sexism and racism are very different. No one bats an eye when something sexist happens, but racism is much easier to notice and object to. I mean, I've had people threaten my life for the color of my skin, and I was offended. But even I rarely understand how to react to sexism/sexual harassment. I just find it odd that people would team up so adamantly to attack a "slut" without realizing why that would be a bad thing to do.

People don't hate women. People love women! They just hate women who fall out of line. It's not that anyone here hates women. We just hate women who: are loud, are fake, are uppity, are sluts, are opinionated, are disagreeable, are assertive, are entitled, are ungrateful, are victims, are mean, are bullies, are attention seekers, are ugly, are too pretty, are manipulators, won't put out, won't listen, won't play nice, won't get the joke, won't do as I say. There's a line that women have to stay behind, and I've done a good job staying behind that line. But if or when we cross that line, (Or are perceived to have crossed the line) men and women across the world will joyously join up to make sure that person is pushed to silence or suicide. This happens all the time, every year at school even, and it can only be described as misogyny. We only do it because we've learned to do this many many years ago, and we can't stop pouring our anger onto people who we choose to represent evil. This also goes for misandry, but I suppose that discussion is for another day.

Sounds like Jason puts his identity as a gamer ahead of his identity as a person, which is a shame.

:\

 

[boogie2988]

I find it interesting Boogie's video is unlisted, it's not on his main page.

a few reasons for that:

1) I don't want the rare few to say "he's doing it for the views". if I don't ship it to 2 million subs, they can't claim that.

2) this is for people involved, and who are using the hashtag, and those they are focusing on. No reason to bother moderates with this one as its not addressing them. I'll address them on some of these issues but in other ways.

3) I was kind of hoping I could decompress without it showing up in this thread. I was wrong. Now I have to watch it like a hawk to prevent more "Look at this one stupid thing he said way back when clearly he hates women" shit cropping up again.

 

[boogie2988]

Oh come on dude. Really?

I stand by this. Once gamergate is gone, people will still attack each other. I'll still be getting attacked every day. I'll get doxxed again (Hopefully this time NOT by shit reddit says). that's the status quo.

when the gamergate hashtag dies down, you won't have it to blame for it any more. You'll just have to eventually accept that there are crazy people out there with or without the hashtag.

 

[boogie2988]

One of many reasons why I wonder if he got hacked.



Can we stop this both sides nonsense? It is enough if this Twitter Account is using it.

I blamed shit reddit says because the pastebin my doxx appeared in said it was from shit reddit says. I have no other reason to think it was them and no reason to not think that.

do you need a screencap? I don't have one handy but i'm sure twitter can find it.

 

[boogie2988]

edit: That Boogie quote makes me hope the dude takes a crash course in logical fallacies some day soon.

already have, actually. was a large portion of my education during debate and extemporaneous speaking during highschool.

 

[boogie2988]

found the doxx file where it clearly says its srs.

i have no reason to believe its anyone else that did it, other than the people claiming they did it in the file.

if you have substantial evidence to the contrary i'd love to see it, i'll gladly change my tune.

https://i.imgur.com/BNlLKcn.jpg

 

[boogie2988]

Do you want my honest assessment? People often react to their perception of an event before truly understanding an argument. And to be clear: this applies to many, many people on either side of an issue.

boogie for instance clearly reacted to the controversy and not the substance before firing up his camera and making his first YouTube video on the topic. Here he is here 9 days after Alexander's piece hit the web:



It doesn't matter how good one's intentions are when it's patently clear that they are not abreast about even the basics of what is fueling this controversy. And I mention him because he's been one of the more prolific moderate voices from the start.

I am not very good with names. Of course I was aware that the original article that was spread across 13 articles was written by a person, but the person that wrote it and their name was of little consequence to me. I was simply reacting to try to respond to me being attacked for enjoying video games as a hobby.

I now quite well know who Leigh Alexander is and while I'm really sad for the terrible things she's endured, my opinion on her article remains the same. It was awful and It hurt me badly.

I had of course read that article and the 13 or so reports on it by the time I posted that I didn't know her name, but I didn't memorize the names of people that wrote it. I wasn't even aware for a long time that the person who originated that sentiment was female. It didn't matter to me. Still doesn't, other than the fact that I know it matters to others.

 

[charlequin]

Again these people do not speak for me. I am highlighting that these people exist.

It takes about two minutes to look through Jason's Youtube and see a video accusing Anita Sarkeesian of being a liar, with conspiracy diagrams and SJW enemy hit lists peppered therein. It takes maybe five minutes to look through some of the twitters in the linked video and see the posters accusing Brianna of inventing her threats for attention.

Holding these people up as a defense solely because of their identity, while obfuscating that they're performing the exact behavior we've criticized gamergate for in general, is a questionable choice at very best. Using it as part of an argument where you use individual exemplars ("this one guy in IRC didn't want to harass anyone!") to distract from a broader critique of group behavior is straightforwardly disingenuous.

 

[boogie2988]

Maybe Boogie, if you want people to dismiss it as "just crazy people" you should stop following the popular GG people that claim pretty much every instance of harrassment or death threats as false flags and conspiracy theories. Gamergate is going to get blamed for this type of stuff when their loudest voices dismiss everything as fake or being too dramatic. When all of this stuff is a conspiracy, attention whoring, or evil feminists tricking the public, you welcome the crazies into your backyard. If Gamers hold up Adam Baldwin or theralphretort and implications the death threats were fake, what do you expect? Gamers in the movement dismiss the seriousness of these types of things. It may be just a couple crazies doing the threat, but it's hundreds, if not thousands, hand waving it away.

I'm not trying to "Dissmiss" or "defend" anyone. I'm glad to admit that there is tons of harassing going around, including people harassing me. Why would I want to defend that?

I'm just trying to defend the people who are NOT doing that.

And yes I follow lots of people involved in gamergate. Its a topic of interest. I don't personally LIKE everyone I follow. do you? But I follow them to remain informed.

and I'm not 'hand waving' it away. I condemn it every step. case in point:

why aren't we discussing and screencapping that tweet?

oh wait, how about all of the other gamergate hashtag users who also debated it. why aren't we rallying to their side for standing up against hate instead of hand waving.

I honestly don't fucking know whats even going on any more but its killing me inside that I'm some fucking monster because I continue to see the point both sides are making. I wish one of you (or even some crazed gamergater) would have the decency to just fucking make good on your threats and ACTUALLY FUCKING KILL ME so i could get a moments rest and get away from this fucking agony.

 

[zeldablue]

found the doxx file where it clearly says its srs.

i have no reason to believe its anyone else that did it, other than the people claiming they did it in the file.

if you have substantial evidence to the contrary i'd love to see it, i'll gladly change my tune.

https://i.imgur.com/BNlLKcn.jpg

I wish we didn't have people denying stuff in this thread. That is exactly the kind of behavior we're trying to get rid of. I hope you and you're family feels safe and I hope that anyone who tries to disturb your safety gets handled by the authorities.

I realize youtubers are targeted relentlessly with abusive comments, and I wish that that wasn't the case. But Boogie, do you feel as though those comments are okay? Do you think it's right for everyone to just grow a thicker skin?

I think after this settles down, there will be many many more discussions on how to handle this better. The abuse has gotten much bigger and much worse ever since it blew up a few months ago for many people. A lot of people, big and small don't feel safe.

I am also very clearly aware that people who were harassed who aren't Zoe/Anita/Brianna/etc are going unnoticed, and I am sorry for that too. No one, absolutely no one "deserves" anything like this.

 

[boogie2988]

I realize youtubers are targeted relentlessly with abusive comments, and I wish that that wasn't the case. But Boogie, do you feel as though those comments are okay? Do you think it's right for everyone to just grow a thicker skin?
.

I think that the harsh truth of the situation is that we as people have to learn to dismiss and rise above lunatics, idiots, and people who would destroy us. I think that maybe in the distant future one day the work we are all doing to make this place we live in better will create lasting change. I believe that today is not that day and I also believe I'll not live to see that day.

My only advice is to say that until we fix this problem, if you want to help me try to fix it, you'll have to first learn to endure it.

I hate that this is true, but it is.

 

[BlastProcessing]

I have very little time right now so I'll return tomorrow to discuss the rest of your post. I just wanted to answer your request for evidence that Gaming Journalists (and Publishers) are in areas which can result in serious legal issues.

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/payola-rules



It is routine for Gaming Journalists to accept all expenses paid trips, extravagant parties, extravagant entertainment, and we hear of special items sent along with review copies with potentially high values on Ebay (Chess sets, special collector's editions, etc).

This is pretty much identical behavior to what caused the Payola laws to be written for the then young radio industry, and it is reasonable and probable that the very same kinds of laws will be implemented with gaming in the not too distant future.

From there we get into fraud discussions, which IIRC is pending in court or decided against Colonial Marines and the BBB described ME3 as being fradualent as well. I'm sure we could collectively fill a thread with fraud at this point, especially if we consider bullshots to be fraud.

The FCC link is actually really clear:

These rules apply to all kinds of program material aired over broadcast radio and television stations. Some of the rules also may apply to cablecasts.

The FCC has no payola rules that apply to the internet. And no, they aren't going to be coming anytime soon. The FCC wouldn't even have the power to legislate that without Congress. Most of the FCC's power comes from the fact that the people own the airwaves. Spectrum is leased out to broadcasters in government auctions, but the taxpayers still own the air so the FCC can regulate it.

If any new rules came up they would fall under the jurisdiction of the FTC. It's more of a trade issue than a communication issue. The FTC recently strengthened their disclosure rules to crack down on Mommy bloggers. And when they did so they very specifically only targeted bloggers. The regulations are incredibly narrow. Games Journalists are absolutely exempt from these rules.

 

[boogie2988]

I would also like to add that the shit I read here in this thread discussed in my absence hurts me more than the shit I read on 4-chan about how I was an 'oppurtunistic schill' who wanted to 'count his shekels' and was only involved so that I could 'profiteer like a war baron'.

Instead coming here to find that my years of work trying to support diversity in gaming is not only unappreciated but entirely dismissed because I can also defend gamers at the same fucking time.

good stuff.

again, I'm begging you, to have the fucking decency to end me.

 

[vcc]

a few reasons for that:

1) I don't want the rare few to say "he's doing it for the views". if I don't ship it to 2 million subs, they can't claim that.

2) this is for people involved, and who are using the hashtag, and those they are focusing on. No reason to bother moderates with this one as its not addressing them. I'll address them on some of these issues but in other ways.

3) I was kind of hoping I could decompress without it showing up in this thread. I was wrong. Now I have to watch it like a hawk to prevent more "Look at this one stupid thing he said way back when clearly he hates women" shit cropping up again.

It's not the hashtag it's that specific group of people and SRS is also inconsequential as is #GG. However the people in #GG will continue to be toxic assholes. They are the same MRA/TRP/TiA people who were always assholes on reddit.

There is nothing to gain with the association boogie, it just makes you look bad. The whole thing means nothing and people just get hurt.

 

[boogie2988]

It's not the hashtag it's that specific group of people and SRS is also inconsequential as is #GG. However the people in #GG will continue to be toxic assholes. They are the same MRA/TRP/TiA people who were always assholes on reddit.

There is nothing to gain with the association boogie, it just makes you look bad. The whole thing means nothing and people just get hurt.

I disagree wtih you entirely.

Some people at SRS are awful. most are not. I read that website on the daily and I quite often agree the things they outline are pretty shitty things that were said.

Some poeple in GG are toxic. Most are not. I read their tweets daily and while a few things they say are pretty awful, the majority are making a pretty good fucking point.

Once you put on the blinders that "Gamergate is all about attacking women" then sure. you won't see it. If you're willing to actually LOOK WITH YOUR EYES, you'll see their point. I promise.

its the same point I've been making for SEVEN YEARS.

This industry needs to be reshaped and soon. Not just for women, not just for diverse people, not just for gaming journalists, but the entire thing needs an overhaul. If you can't agree with that you're not paying attention.

 

[vcc]

I would also like to add that the shit I read here in this thread discussed in my absence hurts me more than the shit I read on 4-chan about how I was an 'oppurtunistic schill' who wanted to 'count his shekels' and was only involved so that I could 'profiteer like a war baron'.

Instead coming here to find that my years of work trying to support diversity in gaming is not only unappreciated but entirely dismissed because I can also defend gamers at the same fucking time.

good stuff.

again, I'm begging you, to have the fucking decency to end me.

Those aren't gamers, notice one of their paragons is Milo Yiannopoulos who wrote a click bait article looking down on gamers. The issues was never about gamers. It was always about politics. Really boogie, it's best to find a different interest.

You're not defending a gamer movement, you're defending a bunch of assholes who make gamers look bad. They aren't even a tiny fraction of gamers. They certainly don't represent me and I've been gaming since the 80's.

 

[boogie2988]

Those aren't gamers, notice one of their paragons is Milo Yiannopoulos who wrote a click bait article looking down on gamers. The issues was never about gamers. It was always about politics. Really boogie, it's best to find a different interest.

You're not defending a gamer movement, you're defending a bunch of assholes who make gamers look bad. They aren't even a tiny fraction of gamers. They certainly don't represent me and I've been gaming since the 80's.

I'm not just defending gamergate, though. I'm defending myself. I'm defending you. I'm defending Leigh Alexander. I'm defending Zoe. I'm defending Anita. I'm even defending Milo as shitty as he's been.

I'm defending every single person to ever pick up sticks. If you think I'm abandoning you just because we disagree on this, or I'm abandoning Anita because I don't like the way she addresses issues, you don't know me at all.

 

[vcc]

I disagree wtih you entirely.

Some people at SRS are awful. most are not. I read that website on the daily and I quite often agree the things they outline are pretty shitty things that were said.

Some poeple in GG are toxic. Most are not. I read their tweets daily and while a few things they say are pretty awful, the majority are making a pretty good fucking point.

Once you put on the blinders that "Gamergate is all about attacking women" then sure. you won't see it. If you're willing to actually LOOK WITH YOUR EYES, you'll see their point. I promise.

its the same point I've been making for SEVEN YEARS.

This industry needs to be reshaped and soon. Not just for women, not just for diverse people, not just for gaming journalists, but the entire thing needs an overhaul. If you can't agree with that you're not paying attention.

The majority of #GG is toxic. The vast majority. Go visit /r/kotakuinaction; it's a fucking cult of people who get outraged by leftwing ideas. It's a pointless group with the only aim to shout down women and espouse far right wing politics.

#GG is toxic, and pointless. None of their concerns mean anything at all.

 

[boogie2988]

The majority of #GG is toxic. The vast majority. Go visit /r/kotakuinaction; it's a fucking cult of people who get outraged by leftwing ideas. It's a pointless group with the only aim to shout down women and espouse far right wing politics.

#GG is toxic, and pointless. None of their concerns mean anything at all.

this is your opinion, and I have mine. Maybe neither of us are right. its likely closer to the middle.

But you can have your opinion and I'll have mine. I don't fault you for yours and I'm really saddened to see you fault me for mine. But I'm getting used to that kind of thing. <3

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

What makes you say that?

The excerpt up there

 

[vcc]

I'm not just defending gamergate, though. I'm defending myself. I'm defending you. I'm defending Leigh Alexander. I'm defending Zoe. I'm defending Anita. I'm even defending Milo as shitty as he's been.

I'm defending every single person to ever pick up sticks. If you think I'm abandoning you just because we disagree on this, or I'm abandoning Anita because I don't like the way she addresses issues, you don't know me at all.

You aren't boogie. Not defending me, not defending games, or even milo. The whole thing is utterly meaningless. Their concerns are trivial. Their passion misplaced. And the things they do make them the pariahs of the internet.

 

[BlastProcessing]

I'm not just defending gamergate, though. I'm defending myself. I'm defending you. I'm defending Leigh Alexander. I'm defending Zoe. I'm defending Anita. I'm even defending Milo as shitty as he's been.

I'm defending every single person to ever pick up sticks. If you think I'm abandoning you just because we disagree on this, or I'm abandoning Anita because I don't like the way she addresses issues, you don't know me at all.

I hear this a lot. What should she be doing differently? What is she doing that is hurting gamers? What is she doing that is unethical? What should she change?

 

[libregkd]

I would also like to add that the shit I read here in this thread discussed in my absence hurts me more than the shit I read on 4-chan about how I was an 'oppurtunistic schill' who wanted to 'count his shekels' and was only involved so that I could 'profiteer like a war baron'.

Instead coming here to find that my years of work trying to support diversity in gaming is not only unappreciated but entirely dismissed because I can also defend gamers at the same fucking time.

good stuff.

again, I'm begging you, to have the fucking decency to end me.

I like you Boogie, but I cannot in good conscious agree with what you are saying regarding gamergate. And just because I am disagreeing with your views on this particular topic does not mean I don't appreciate everything else you have done. Quite frankly I am a bit insulted that you would suggest that. I do not, and should not, have to agree with everything you say. And me disagreeing with you on this issue does not make me less of a fan of the work you have done beforehand.

Gamergate has time and time again proved to be an incredibly toxic movement whose only accomplishments are driving people out of this industry, and even worse, driving people out of their homes. It was created out of harassment and it remains that way. That is not to say everyone who is participating in gamergate is a harasser and some horrible monster, but that doesn't change what the movement itself was and continues to be. It is not a positive movement and it's certainly not one I want to be representing me.