I've not worked directly for those but I have personally known people who worked for Gamespot, IGN and Kotaku and none of them were the type to take money or bribes for better review scores. From what I know of the corporate culture at those places, if any of them did hear of their coworkers taking bribes, said co-workers would be out of a job immediately.
Now that's not to say PR haven't asked. Over the years I've had offers both implied and straight up direct. I can say that the same has happened to others. This is by no means the rule (and PR that have tried it end up with their game getting ignored), but I would be lying if I said no one ever made the attempt.
Now, are there bad journalists who can be bribed? Most likely. And most likely that number is a lot smaller today (given greater transparency in the industry) than it was back in the '90s. Anyone in the industry long enough will meet someone looking to take advantage of the situation any way they can. Rare, but it happens. When you do identify someone like that, you mentally make a note and just don't hire them. Word gets around and they eventually leave.
All of that is in regard to the major outlets. Once you start talking about YouTube broadcasters and "personalities" all bets are off. I've had frank discussions with PR folks who have discussed "price lists" from major online personalities just to take a look at a game or accessory. In that regard, it's much like the mobile space, where pay-to-play is common.
It's interesting in a way (at least for those of us who have been around for awhile) because a lot of these questions have been around for years. I do think that the "old guard" outlets (as it were) cleaned up their act a long time ago, but we're seeing a repeat of those same issues with the digital media counterparts.
I would suggest that anyone interested look up Alex Pham's old LA Times piece about "Playola" in games journalism. The players have changed, but much of what she writes is still relevant even if the article itself is dated.
TL;DR - Major outlets are fine. If you have true ethics concerns, you should be focusing on YouTube and mobile.
It morphed into that so quickly because the critique in the articles was nuanced, which means that it's easy to twist into something very different from what it was intended to be. Notice how pretty much every one of these articles doesn't refer to "gamers" in the title, but rather " 'gamers' " -- it puts the word in scare-quotes specifically because they aren't discussing gamers, the category of people, but rather "gamers," the term which is being presented as a concrete measure of identity. The point is that the concept of "gamers," or even moreso "real gamers," was an exclusionary and increasingly inaccurate model, and these events show that it's past its breaking point.
If there were actually an epidemic of articles claiming that all people who are active in the gaming hobby are virginal misogynists with bad hair, I'd certainly object to that, but that's not really what's been going on. Pretty much every one of those articles is written by someone who is very much, by both vocation and avocation, a gamer, or at least a person who is heavily engaged with games and gaming. These are internal critiques by people who are frustrated by the choice between tacitly supporting brutal misogyny and disassociating themselves from their hobby. The fact that so many people have perceived them as external speaks to the original issue -- the fact that these critiques were made by women has led them to be widely viewed as coming from outside, even if the people making them are dyed-in-the-wool members of the community.
This is exactly the way I understood it! I really wish Leigh's article wasn't the most famous one because it does do the terrible hasty generalization thing.
I'm sorry to dig this up from a few pages back, but it's great to see a AAA developer chiming in with his experience with the toxic culture of gamers.
I appreciate your comment and I respect that you choose not to engage with the toxic elements of video game culture. People shouldn't be forced to risk their well-being in order to convince people of their bigotry.
However, I would like to say that as a developer and as someone with influence (maybe not you, but the company or developer or executive), it does not help to simply let the toxic elements be. They will fester and be cultivated by inaction - i.e. by not addressing their toxic and bigoted behavior towards women and minorities, you automatically allow them sufficient space and time to continue harassing and excluding other people from your video game spaces.
Developers and companies with influence are able to and should do something about their fanbases. At least signal that it's not okay. The neutral majority or bystanders will then be inspired or influenced by the people they look up to (like you said yourself: the people who worship the ground you walk on) will take a stand against the ones spouting sexist, homophobic, racist, hate-filled speech and behavior towards other people.
As such, I would geniunely love if you took a note of this and tried to talk about it within your company and try to perhaps talk about a strategy on how to ensure a healthy and safe space around the culture of your products. I know you are only one guy, but bringing it up to your higher-ups or the organization itself would go a long way to making things progress little by little.
Again, this is ignoring what is going and it is equivalent to sticking your head into the sand. People are affected by the harassment. They receive all sorts of threats that they simply cannot avoid, because they have the right to exist on social media platforms. And everyone else around these people who are harassed and threatened and bullied cannot simply choose to "ignore" and "stop listening to assholes", because these bullies will still affect and harm the targeted people, especially women.
Thanks for bringing this comment back up as i missed it and it's really nice to see people in the industry who are not losing faith in the people who try to support the industry and the people in it. So thanks to ScatheZombie for saying what i think a lot of people who do support good behavior in this space need to hear. Now to your point i feel we need to fall some where in the middle of both ignoring and not putting up with the hateful actions. The reason i say that is because at some point these people are going to act very similar to trolls who just want to be noticed and get a reaction. You can't talk these people down and any hate or shaming you throw at them they will return. At this rate i do feel there is only so much you can do to effect these individuals. If it gets out of hand lets get law enforcement involved to at least try to protect people of crimes or unlawful actions.
The first group i feel are a lost case and all we can do is let be known they are not welcome. Now i do feel shaming idiots who think being a jerk under the protection of the internet is cool can work. Calling out these individuals helps weed them out and stop future harassment. But everyone has to work on helping point them out. We can't do that if everyone is pointing fingers at anything labeled gamers. We need to call out the individuals and not gamers. i also feel the same about gaming journalist. We need to point out individuals if they deserved to be pointed out, and not just pointing at all gaming journalist are corrupt. I trust them to make the best judgement for their outlet and if something is fishy it will come to light. We should not freak out and think everyone is corrupted in the field. Personally i don't care who or what they support as long as it's in the open and readers are informed. The reason being i want more game coverage not less. I don't want to see kickstarter games or crowd funded games become taboo because of red tape that does not really need to be there. We as readers can make our own judgement and choose which coverage we want to follow.
This particular article is very, very good. The author went out and actually spoke to many people who were tweeting with the #gamergate hashtag, and asked them various questions. Please, if you do nothing else before participating in this thread, read this piece.
This is exactly the way I understood it! I really wish Leigh's article wasn't the most famous one because it does do the terrible hasty generalization thing.
To me games journalism doesn't suffer from an ethics problem, but it suffers from a self promotional/sensationalist vibe that's extremely off putting to me.
Basically I see games journalism to be the equivalent of Stephen A Smith and Skip Bayless screaming Tim Teb.... Johnny Football all day, and I have lost interest in perusing most of their articles as a result. It's just that its an industry that seems so eager to pat itself on the back.
To be fair, this is actually a result of reading some of the twitter escapades recently more than article reading itself.
As a few of the reaction pieces to this whole mess have said, the best possible thing to do if you support a discussion about games journalism but don't support misogynist abuse is to fight back aggressively against that misogynist abuse now, and come back to the games journalism critiques in two months when it might be possible to have a conversation just about journalism.
But refusal to take part in a legitimate discussion about the non-hateful criticisms we have just because of how it started is pointlessly dismissive.
I'll be honest, it is really hard for me to give a shit about how people feel about the numerical score that a website gave the latest Assassin's Creed or whatever while people I know or whose work I've read for years are getting threats against themselves and their families under the same hashtag, and it's pretty easy to see that many of the people with the power to change anything about games journalism feel similarly.
What about rape culture isn't real? There are far too many stories of rapists getting away with it while the victims are shamed by their community and peers.
Meanwhile, no one claimed fiction causes rape or misoginy. There have been studies, though, that shows it can strenghten certain biases that already exists, and the more you believe it doesn't affect you, the more it does.
I have heard such things in the past, but let's take what you said. I have to see the research.
Say I looked at it, and it didn't convince me. Say I don't think the theory holds any weight
and that a different variable is causing the strengthening of bias. That wouldn't make me misogynist.
I have heard such things in the past, but let's take what you said. I have to see the research.
Say I looked at it, and it didn't convince me. Say I don't think the theory holds any weight
and that a different variable is causing the strengthening of bias. That wouldn't make me misogynist.
Who's saying that playing video games with sexist tropes in them will make you a misogynist? I've heard people endlessly argue against the claim and compare Tropes vs. Women to the rantings of Jack Thompson because of it, but I can't think of a time when I've ever heard someone sincerely make that argument.
I'm sorry to dig this up from a few pages back, but it's great to see a AAA developer chiming in with his experience with the toxic culture of gamers.
I appreciate your comment and I respect that you choose not to engage with the toxic elements of video game culture. People shouldn't be forced to risk their well-being in order to convince people of their bigotry.
However, I would like to say that as a developer and as someone with influence (maybe not you, but the company or developer or executive), it does not help to simply let the toxic elements be. They will fester and be cultivated by inaction - i.e. by not addressing their toxic and bigoted behavior towards women and minorities, you automatically allow them sufficient space and time to continue harassing and excluding other people from your video game spaces.
Developers and companies with influence are able to and should do something about their fanbases. At least signal that it's not okay. The neutral majority or bystanders will then be inspired or influenced by the people they look up to (like you said yourself: the people who worship the ground you walk on) will take a stand against the ones spouting sexist, homophobic, racist, hate-filled speech and behavior towards other people.
As such, I would geniunely love if you took a note of this and tried to talk about it within your company and try to perhaps talk about a strategy on how to ensure a healthy and safe space around the culture of your products. I know you are only one guy, but bringing it up to your higher-ups or the organization itself would go a long way to making things progress little by little.
I would say it does help. Having been all over the internet since the 90s, I have seen an endless supply of trolls and one thing remains constant.... do not engage. Celebrities are told... do not engage. Politicians are told, do not engage. Athletes are told, do not engage.... etc. etc. Engaging is food for trolls, without they starve.
I am not sure why you think it is a good idea to go against what every PR person in the world would tell you is a bad idea.
Also, I am not sure why you think it is anyone's job to convince someone else of their bigotry. Once again a fools errand. You want to make a difference? Good, go make or help make the kinds of games you want to be seen. Fighting the internet is just not going to work out well for you.
Again, this is ignoring what is going and it is equivalent to sticking your head into the sand. People are affected by the harassment. They receive all sorts of threats that they simply cannot avoid, because they have the right to exist on social media platforms. And everyone else around these people who are harassed and threatened and bullied cannot simply choose to "ignore" and "stop listening to assholes", because these bullies will still affect and harm the targeted people, especially women.
No it really isn't. This is how you deal with internet trolls. Give them attention, positive or negative, and they flourish... ignore them and they go away. If you give them this HUGE media platform to shine (like a turd) then they will every. single. time.
Harassment and bullying are against just about every TOS for every social media platform I have ever been to. In most of the English speaking world harassment in also a crime. Report people and crimes, don't feed the trolls.
However, I would like to say that as a developer and as someone with influence (maybe not you, but the company or developer or executive), it does not help to simply let the toxic elements be. They will fester and be cultivated by inaction - i.e. by not addressing their toxic and bigoted behavior towards women and minorities, you automatically allow them sufficient space and time to continue harassing and excluding other people from your video game spaces.
There is no way for a video game developer to play thought police with a 14 year old jerk. I can't even understand how this is a realistic suggestion.
Giving trolls like that attention is exactly what they want. They're not there to have a dialogue. Paying attention to them gives them power they DO NOT DESERVE.
As a few of the reaction pieces to this whole mess have said, the best possible thing to do if you support a discussion about games journalism but don't support misogynist abuse is to fight back aggressively against that misogynist abuse now, and come back to the games journalism critiques in two months when it might be possible to have a conversation just about journalism.
Given the penchant some people have for seeing misogyny around every comment I think it's rather fanciful to suggest that in a couple of months it might be possible.
This is exactly the way I understood it! I really wish Leigh's article wasn't the most famous one because it does do the terrible hasty generalization thing.
'Gamers' don't have to be your audience for what? Videogames! It's clear as day to anyone who even just reads the headline that she cannot be talking about all gamers, since that wouldn't make sense!
Right, let’s say it’s a vocal minority that’s not representative of most people. Most people, from indies to industry leaders, are mortified, furious, disheartened at the direction industry conversation has taken in the past few weeks. It’s not like there are reputable outlets publishing rational articles in favor of the trolls’ ‘side’. Don’t give press to the harassers. Don’t blame an entire industry for a few bad apples.
Yet disclaiming liability is clearly no help. Game websites with huge community hubs whose fans are often associated with blunt Twitter hate mobs sort of shrug, they say things like ‘we delete the really bad stuff, what else can we do’ and ‘those people don’t represent our community’ -- but actually, those people do represent your community. That’s what your community is known for, whether you like it or not.
When you decline to create or to curate a culture in your spaces, you’re responsible for what spawns in the vacuum. That’s what’s been happening to games.
Here she directly targets the "It's a vocal minority issue". How can then can she be talking about all gamers if she CLEARLY and DIRECTLY says that it isn't a case of all but of the impact of the minority and lack of moderation that goes on that fuels them?!
But it’s unstoppable. A new generation of fans and creators is finally aiming to instate a healthy cultural vocabulary, a language of community that was missing in the days of “gamer pride” and special interest groups led by a product-guide approach to conversation with a single presumed demographic.
Here she references gamers again! But this time talks about the positive, the new generation who are looking for something better.
The fact that people are angry about Leigh Alexander's piece is completely baffling to me. Like I don't think they possible could have read it it, because no one who manages to live everyday and not get confused would be able to get the idea that she was criticising all gamers in that piece.
This is exactly the way I understood it! I really wish Leigh's article wasn't the most famous one because it does do the terrible hasty generalization thing.
Yeah, I'm not the most excited about Leigh's article because of the way it starts out -- it's clearly born of pent-up frustration but like a lot of things born of frustration it exaggerates in a way that obscures rather than informs. Is people going out of their way to be advertised to unique to gaming? Not particularly.
The actual reaction it engendered still has a heavy element of "the lady doth protest too much" though. There's not much to take serious offense about in there unless someone selectively puts themselves into the group of socially incompetent and mean-spirited individuals she's discussing.
Giving trolls like that attention is exactly what they want. They're not there to have a dialogue. Paying attention to them gives them power they DO NOT DESERVE.
"Don't feed the trolls" is a very common piece of advice, but neither practical nor particularly effective in many of the situations where people try to apply it. When you have a transient situation where someone without much power is trying to get your attention through inappropriate behavior -- like, say, you're watching a three-year-old -- then yes, your best bet is to ignore it.
When your situation is ongoing, when the people have power (either because they're authority figures or because they simply have the ability to effectively destroy and ruin things you care about), or their behavior goes past inappropriate and into horrible or dangerous (like all the tweeted death threats accompanying personal information), that strategy is not appropriate or effective.
The actual best strategy involves concrete resistance. There's a different article n this I couldn't dig up at the moment, but this one covers the argument adequately.
Given the penchant some people have for seeing misogyny around every comment I think it's rather fanciful to suggest that in a couple of months it might be possible.
If people are going to seriously bring up developers' sex lives every time the topic comes up then we would all be safe to conclude that this topic can't be discussed without misogynistic garbage.
As a few of the reaction pieces to this whole mess have said, the best possible thing to do if you support a discussion about games journalism but don't support misogynist abuse is to fight back aggressively against that misogynist abuse now, and come back to the games journalism critiques in two months when it might be possible to have a conversation just about journalism.
I'll be honest, it is really hard for me to give a shit about how people feel about the numerical score that a website gave the latest Assassin's Creed or whatever while people I know or whose work I've read for years are getting threats against themselves and their families under the same hashtag, and it's pretty easy to see that many of the people with the power to change anything about games journalism feel similarly.
i don't think we can. or i don't think that it's a topic or issue that everyone puts at the top of their list.
and i don't know how receptive people are when you say things "this thing is bad, i think you should drop that other bad thing you are concerned about and concentrate on this one. and once that's done THEN you can do something about the bad thing you cared about".
what's important for you may not be important to me. and i guess that's a crux of this whole thing. as mentioned in the forbes article, gaming media has seemed to take on a hard left lean and is applying their concerns as the basis for a lot of conversations. not to say they aren't entitled to those beliefs and their pushing of it. but you can't force people into your boat, or deride them when they don't jump in both feet willing or with enthusiasm.
specially when you start, again, using STRONG words like misogyny or sexism to describe subjective things.
The Leigh Alexander piece is insulting and unnecessary whether you interpret it to be a broadside against everyone who plays games or against everyone who self-identifies as a gamer or against the stereotypical nerd subset of self-identified gamers.
i don't think we can. or i don't think that it's a topic or issue that everyone puts at the top of their list.
and i don't know how receptive people are when you say things "this thing is bad, i think you should drop that other bad thing you are concerned about and concentrate on this one. and once that's done THEN you can do something about the bad thing you cared about".
what's important for you may not be important to me. and i guess that's a crux of this whole thing. as mentioned in the forbes article, gaming media has seemed to take on a hard left lean and is applying their concerns as the basis for a lot of conversations. not to say they aren't entitled to those beliefs and their pushing of it. but you can't force people into your boat, or deride them when they don't jump in both feet willing or with enthusiasm.
specially when you start, again, using STRONG words like misogyny or sexism to describe subjective things.
If people are going to seriously bring up developers' sex lives every time the topic comes up then we would all be safe to conclude that this topic can't be discussed without misogynistic garbage.
Maybe I'm reading the thread wrong, but I've seen a lot more people complaining that we shouldn't be discussing people's personal lives than people discussion people's personal lives. Really, I've seen barely (if at all) any discussion on this subject here. And I'm not arguing against that. But I'm trying to say that people here are clearly interested in other aspects of this issue. So it can be discussed without misogynistic garbage.
'Gamers' don't have to be your audience for what? Videogames! It's clear as day to anyone who even just reads the headline that she cannot be talking about all gamers, since that wouldn't make sense!
Here she directly targets the "It's a vocal minority issue". How can then can she be talking about all gamers if she CLEARLY and DIRECTLY says that it isn't a case of all but of the impact of the minority and lack of moderation that goes on that fuels them?!
Here she references gamers again! But this time talks about the positive, the new generation who are looking for something better.
The fact that people are angry about Leigh Alexander's piece is completely baffling to me. Like I don't think they possible could have read it it, because no one who manages to live everyday and not get confused would be able to get the idea that she was criticising all gamers in that piece.
I agree with you, that she was talking about 'gamer' as the niche, closeted identity many 'gamers' think should be vs the fact that the audience of 'gamer' has drastically changed to more mainstream, but let's face it, the way Leigh wrote it is easy to misinterpret. And I am sorry to say a lot of people just won't read things for comprehension. Not to mention that she is being judgmental to things like buying merchandise and not dressing well when there is nothing expressly wrong with doing so.
and i don't know how receptive people are when you say things "this thing is bad, i think you should drop that other bad thing you are concerned about and concentrate on this one. and once that's done THEN you can do something about the bad thing you cared about".
Just to be crystal-clear, what's happening here isn't the "oh look, there's this other unrelated issue that's more important," it's people trying to deal with the problems that are fundamental to how this current discussion started.
Let me get metaphorical again. A gang of arsonists start a fire and start dancing around giddily outside the blaze, laughing at what they've accomplished and high-fiving as each new building catches flame. Some rescue workers show up to put out that fire. If you pick that moment to step in front of them and say, "I know you're here to deal with this fire, but I have a stuck window across the street and I simply must insist you deal with that first before you get back to fighting this fire," you're definitely not going to get your window fixed --and if you actively get in their way you're probably going to get arrested.
I mean, you can whine to other people nearby your window if you really want to, but it's going to turn people who would normally sympathize against you, because it just demonstrates such a lack of perspective.
specially when you start, again, using STRONG words like misogyny or sexism to describe subjective things.
Misogyny is an accurate, unexaggerated descriptor of what has been happening over the last week, with targeted campaigns of violent harassment against outspoken women in the industry. Talking about it any other way is whitewashing the abhorrent behavior that people have been displaying.
Maybe I'm reading the thread wrong, but I've seen a lot more people complaining that we shouldn't be discussing people's personal lives than people discussion people's personal lives.
Here, yes, that certainly has been the trend. It's taken some effort but we've actually managed to create a space here on GAF to have these conversations, I think. We don't operate in a vacuum, though, and many of the other places people are engaging with this topic are far, far worse about it.
I want to note, my original position was that we probably could have this discussion in a few months. My one caveat is that if someone like Kadayi is concerned that next time such a conversation starts, someone will mention misogyny, the only way to avoid that is for everyone involved in the conversation to not be misogynist. A real conversation can't happen, point-blank, as long as invasive discussions of people's personal lives are part of the picture.
Maybe I'm reading the thread wrong, but I've seen a lot more people complaining that we shouldn't be discussing people's personal lives than people discussion people's personal lives. Really, I've seen barely (if at all) any discussion on this subject here. And I'm not arguing against that. But I'm trying to say that people here are clearly interested in other aspects of this issue. So it can be discussed without misogynistic garbage.
Because people now here, unlike on Twitter, they'll actually get punished. And also, most of the people were already banned in the previous topics on this subject.
I'm dating myself a bit, I guess. Print media did this, mostly magazines & newspapers.
No gaming websites have done it because open communication has been championed up to now. Everyone had a voice. Participation and being a valued voice on a website encouraged more frequent visits/web traffic.
CNN's website has, at least temporarily, put an end to comments. I wouldn't mind seeing others follow suit. Keep the focus on the content and, if consumers feel strongly enough about said content, let them take to social media, message boards, blogs, and the other avenues that the Internet affords them to get their reactions out.
To me, a "Letters to the Editor" approach still enables some communication/reaction between content creators and consumers, but in a much more closely moderated fashion. Well-written, thoughtful, respectful reactions can be promoted while offensive, rude, and/or disrespectful reactions that detract from the content can be eliminated before they create toxicity.
EDIT:
Imru al-Qays;128644601 said:
The Leigh Alexander piece is insulting and unnecessary whether you interpret it to be a broadside against everyone who plays games or against everyone who self-identifies as a gamer or against the stereotypical nerd subset of self-identified gamers.
If people are going to seriously bring up developers' sex lives every time the topic comes up then we would all be safe to conclude that this topic can't be discussed without misogynistic garbage.
To me, a "Letters to the Editor" approach still enables some communication/reaction between content creators and consumers, but in a much more closely moderated fashion. Well-written, thoughtful, respectful reactions can be promoted while offensive, rude, and/or disrespectful reactions that detract from the content can be eliminated before they create toxicity.
It's a noble idea, I'm just not that sure that the equal mindedness of expression is there in the gaming press, versus the cultivation of the echochamber.
I agree with you, that she was talking about 'gamer' as the niche, closeted identity many 'gamers' think should be vs the fact that the audience of 'gamer' has drastically changed to more mainstream, but let's face it, the way Leigh wrote it is easy to misinterpret. And I am sorry to say a lot of people just won't read things for comprehension. Not to mention that she is being judgmental to things like buying merchandise and not dressing well when there is nothing expressly wrong with doing so.
I really don't think the following passages need to be "misinterpreted" to cause offense:
Game culture as we know it is kind of embarrassing -- its not even culture. Its buying things, spackling over memes and in-jokes repeatedly, and its getting mad on the internet.
Its young men queuing with plush mushroom hats and backpacks and jutting promo poster rolls. 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. They dont know how to dress or behave. Television cameras pan across these listless queues, and often catch the expressions of people who dont quite know why they themselves are standing there.
Games culture is a petri dish of people who know so little about how human social interaction and professional life works that they can concoct online wars about social justice or game journalism ethics, straight-faced, and cause genuine human consequences. Because of video games.
Can we wait, I don't know, a month until no women are driven from the industry, before focusing on whether or not somebody in the games press might've given an 8.0 to a game that really deserved a 7.5?
Let me get metaphorical again. A gang of arsonists start a fire and start dancing around giddily outside the blaze, laughing at what they've accomplished and high-fiving as each new building catches flame. Some rescue workers show up to put out that fire. If you pick that moment to step in front of them and say, "I know you're here to deal with this fire, but I have a stuck window across the street and I simply must insist you deal with that first before you get back to fighting this fire," you're definitely not going to get your window fixed --and if you actively get in their way you're probably going to get arrested.
I mean, you can whine to other people nearby your window if you really want to, but it's going to turn people who would normally sympathize against you, because it just demonstrates such a lack of perspective.
But in this situation we don't have rescue services.
If I phoned in a death threat, or wrote a letter with a death threat, the police would be on me quicker than a gamer running to an Oculus Rift development kit. On Twitter/Facebook/etc people are far too easily able to run hate campaigns without anyone dealing with them.
It's kinda like living in a town without rescue services, seeing arsonists going around torching buildings, moaning about it a lot online but not actually doing anything concrete to stop it happening.
Can we wait, I don't know, a month until no women are driven from the industry, before focusing on whether or not somebody in the games press might've given an 8.0 to a game that really deserved a 7.5?
The problem with how you've framed it, as though anyone opposed isn't in their right mind, is problematic because it let's you excuse or dismiss all of the people who do say this as though they're crazy, when clearly they are not. Maybe it's worth acknowledging that there is a significant number of people who hold these views and that should be discussed instead of dismissing them as crazy people.
If you keep "feeding the trolls" for lack of a better term, you're doing nothing but legitimatizing them. I wasn't dismissing them as crazy, I was dismissing them as non-important. We know that people who don't want an equal industry are toxic, none of this is news to me. I'm saying you shouldn't give a fuck about a vocal minority if you claim to want change. Everyone doesn't have to 100% agree with each other for things to improve, it takes the percentage who is willing to enact the change.
With everything you linked, I can guarantee that that isn't a significant number of people who participate in playing games and they arent even equivalent to 10% of the people who want a better industry. It's really easy to point in on the bad when they make themselves easy to find.
People tend to suck, but contrary to what edgy teens will tell you, it isn't all or even most of them.
If games in the franchise are independent, why would it be shit to ask for more representation in the next game? Because let me be clear, people have argued against that too.
Simply because the game and series is already established. Coming into an established series attempting to mold it to your liking, when the people who made it are simply enacting a vision, isn't going to to help anything except for personal reasons. If they changed it to whatever suited a sect of player, there is no guarantee it would sell more, which is all they give a fuck about up top(not as in heaven or whatever you believe in, like the corporate top).
What we need(and I'm sure you have heard this before, but it's true) is new brands that are FOUNDED in values of equality and the promotion of a better industry. That doesn't happen overnight, it takes time. But there is a generation of girls, PoC, w/e out there that love games and want to make them with this values instilled in them, and hopefully they will be great, but that is the way its going to change: with time.
Shoving things down peoples throats isn't the way, I promise you. Forcing it is just going to make people feel, well, forced. Make it a natural process. Gaming journalism started to do this but, again, tried forcing it down throats through the "are you with us or are you a mysoginist?". In an all most McCartney esque fashion, gaming journalists have been obsessed with pointing fingers at gamers or even industry devs. Look at the whole David Jaffe incident a while back. . That isn't helping anything for the better. Everyone just needs to take a step back and have empathy for others. "Gamers are dead" and "gamers are mysognist" isn't breeding any positive yields to the industry as a whole. The same for verbally(or twitterly) harassing people, it's just fucked up. We are spinning this as a war when it really shouldn't be. No side in a conflict is 100% in the right, but neither are trying to understand each other in this case. Just fighting based off values.
If games in the franchise are independent, why would it be shit to ask for more representation in the next game? Because let me be clear, people have argued against that too. And you know what? Almost nothing does cater to me already, so saying it like that, as though it's an entitled demand instead of a request to not be ignored, is pretty fucking depressing. If people can demand that games not have DLC or day one patches or always online, do I really get no day in what I want?
No one is ignoring you. A character's race or gender not being the focal point of a game doesn't make you or your race unfavorable. Shit, people cried about AC4 having no female representation until they introduced that one female Templar that was there all along rendering that whole debacle silly.
Who I play as is nothing more than who I play as. Race, gender, orientation, it's what the developer's chose to do, and I can respect that. If there was a chance for me to make or play as a black guy in a game it would be cool, but it wouldn't feed some hole inside me of having played games full of white guys and plumbers for years. It would be cool like the first time I see it, then I would just be playing a game. The emphasis on representation is something that definitely needs to be discussed more.
It NEVER comes as a request, by the way. That is an incredibly polite way to put it. It becomes vitriol, petitions, slander, and boycotts of products. The industry has seen it time and time again.
Yeah, I'm not the most excited about Leigh's article because of the way it starts out -- it's clearly born of pent-up frustration but like a lot of things born of frustration it exaggerates in a way that obscures rather than informs. Is people going out of their way to be advertised to unique to gaming? Not particularly.
The actual reaction it engendered still has a heavy element of "the lady doth protest too much" though. There's not much to take serious offense about in there unless someone selectively puts themselves into the group of socially incompetent and mean-spirited individuals she's discussing.
"Don't feed the trolls" is a very common piece of advice, but neither practical nor particularly effective in many of the situations where people try to apply it. When you have a transient situation where someone without much power is trying to get your attention through inappropriate behavior -- like, say, you're watching a three-year-old -- then yes, your best bet is to ignore it.
When your situation is ongoing, when the people have power (either because they're authority figures or because they simply have the ability to effectively destroy and ruin things you care about), or their behavior goes past inappropriate and into horrible or dangerous (like all the tweeted death threats accompanying personal information), that strategy is not appropriate or effective.
The actual best strategy involves concrete resistance. There's a different article n this I couldn't dig up at the moment, but this one covers the argument adequately.
If people are going to seriously bring up developers' sex lives every time the topic comes up then we would all be safe to conclude that this topic can't be discussed without misogynistic garbage.
No it doesn't. Trolls are easily weeded out of moderated communities. The funniest thing about the article is how immature it is. It calls for back-seat moderation and engaging trolls. It is the exact opposite of how you maintain a community... an appeal to vigilantism.
"Don't feed the trolls" is a statement appealing to maturity. It is a plea to not engage the angry teenager and allow the authorities (whether it be forum moderation, system admins, or in the case of threats.. the police) to do their job.
To think you are going to "fix" this mindset over the internet is just... well wrong.
Want to make a difference? Inspire... it is others job to punish.
Like I said, I'd like to think it's possible. But the only way no one's going to say that someone else is being misogynist is if nobody else is misogynist. You're the one who said that people mentioning misogyny was going to be a dealbreaker, not me.
I think the abuse of everyone is absolutely disgraceful, people like Zoe Quinn, Leigh Alexander, Anita Sarkeesian should not be run out by mob rule, their actions should be fairly reported by the gaming media and things should happen within the civil framework of public opinion and law, not each side (and it is each side) having elements within them determined to break the law to achieve a short term victory in a despicable way.
However all this shit is bound to happen because we do not have a games media that is fair, open, willing the self criticize (with exceptions) and not by selective in the news they report. In the same way that traditional news has, through its own biases, given rise to blogging and online news, games medias own issues have helped give rise to to popularity of forums in lieu of, youtubers, and other means and methods.
And sometimes in an even more unregulated environment, you get good people and sources and you get bad people and sources.
Absolutely women are being harassed, I hope each and every person doing it gets caught; there are a couple factors at play here that have allowed this to escalate so profoundly, and part of that is legitimate frustrations over double standards.
But we aren't going to talk about all the other people that consistently receive death threats, or death threats are flying freely between both sides.
Why would no one in the gaming press take on the story of The Fine Young Capitalists whose entire woman game jam was being maligned by people like Zoe Quinn over complete falsehoods? Because allegedly games journalism didn't want to step on the toes of one of their pals and given the history that would seem likely behavior.
Why was no one up in arms when DJWheat had to cancel a Starcraft event do to a family emergency and received death threats on twitter and people saying they hoped his son was dead? Because it did not fit the narrative. Everyone wants to frame the death threats and harassment against women as something that just popped up, while it is a part of the toxic element of the internet that has been going on (somewhat indiscriminately) for some time.
This is all down to a few things
1) Worsening divide between gaming press and gamers
2) Suppression/hypocrisy
2) Bully culture
3) Victim culture
So first off, I am going to say in addressing the fairly fluid nature of allegations that have encompassed this story from 5 guys breaking to what is going on now. No shit, or course they are fluid and the accuracy of prior (proven or disproven allegations) in now way delegitimizes the issue. Because at the heart of it, this is not about one person it is about long term frustration with the inherently protectorate, incestuous, and corrupt relationships within games media.
So of course some people would look at details of that five guys thing and jump to conclusions, or even ask questions. And this it where a terminal failure occurred, both on the part of games journalism and on the part of reddit and places like Neogaf. Instead of moderating the discussion and attempting to reach clarity, they tried to shut down all discussion on the topic period.
Threads deleted, mass bans, no explanations, or explanations that did not cover the full extent of the prejudice shown, initially.
This triggered the streisand effect.
The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet.
But also resulted in worsening the dialogue through ruining clarity and the ability to discuss the information and allegations presented. So when outright suppression did not work, you had Evilore posting the real life names of people asking to talk about the subject with no consent from them, you had 10 or so articles all going up at the same time (ish) with a very similar tone, saying 'gamers' are dead and whatnot. None of that was productive to the dialogue and it only made things worse and the activities on the part of most major sites was flagrantly irresponsible.
As was the complete demonization and reductive assessment of 4chans participation in the conflict as it pertained to their activities in supporting the fine young capitalists.
If anyone is interested in hearing from 4channers about that situation, I suggest these two posts
Hoo boy. I hate coming out of lurking but some of these comments, while you are free to make them, are honestly embarrassing and frustrating.
I am a regular browser of 4chan. I frequent multiple boards, /v/ included. I am also a woman. While I can't speak for /v/ as a whole, I'd like to throw in my two cents.
/v/ never needed to "make" a woman to agree with their message. We're out there. The shouting has just gotten so loud that we are being ignored and dismissed too. Please consider that before you contribute to this toxic "us vs. them" behavior.
When journalists, bloggers, or otherwise try to paint broad strokes over /v/ and gamers as a whole, it's very disappointing. What's going on right here and right now is hurting everyone in the industry, and not just the "enemy". We shouldn't be censoring opinions, namecalling, turning people who love games against each other; we should be having discussion. On a whole, this wedge being driven into the industry is more damaging than it is helpful. You will change a lot of hearts and minds with discussion over accusation.
When 4chan chose to support TFYC, Mattie~senpai held a very long Q&A on Twitch. He shared his views as a feminist, the situation at hand, how he felt being supported by 4chan. While some anons didn't agree with him, there were also quite a few that acknowledged that maybe some of what he was saying wasn't so bad. Over the past week, I've seen a lot of anons saying that they don't care who makes a good game, or who or what was the main protagonist of a good game is. They just want more good games.
For the sake of this campaign, some anons have accepted that their once venomous, scary, secret club might be changed forever. That's really something.
For those who are unaware:
It was found that TFYC's IDGG was killed in the cradle with misinformation and the clever use of a twitter following.
Note: One of the five women will have her game design developed by Autobotika, and the art, rights, and 8% of the funds go to her. The rest goes to charity. Because /v/ was their sole supporter at one point, they were given the choice of where the money would go. /v/ screamed at each other for a while then chose to "chemo butthurt," I'm not sure what's going on with the shirt's charity situation. Probably more screaming.
A lot of anons were really skeptical about donating at first. After hearing that the head of TFYC was doxxed, the site was knocked offline by the sheer influx of people who went to their site, and they lost all contact with game journalists after one person with a large following denounced it, there was a lot of agreement that they were dealt a crap hand. The donation flood began in spite of some dissenters, we've been spreading the word about it as much as possible, and we are going in deep 'til the end. Honestly, a lot of /v/ really wants Ghost Empire. I do too. It looks really cute.
Since /v/ has chosen to support it, the TFYC IDGG has been hijacked and taken down twice. This has been ignored by almost everyone outside of /v/ and TFYC. /v/ has reported many of these death threats and hackings/crackings to the proper authorities. As a whole, /v/ don't know who's doing it either, and doesn't want anyone undermining the message.
By the way, Vivian is grumpy because she doesn't get enough sleep. She doesn't get enough sleep because she plays games all the time. Please don't look into it so hard, I personally don't think /v/ as a collective group can into character design that well.
Similar /v/ lurker here, also an indie dev for whom that may matter (also apologize in advance for the typos and errors, english ain't my first language)
Not really wanted to come out as such, but as this thread is still standing, and hoping I don't get banned for this opinion, I'd like to adress a few things regarding the whole creation of Vivian and mostly the resentment of Zoe Quinn.
Some people have tried to also paint /v/ as doing this only "out of spite". That, due to our contrarian nature alone, we helped create a mascot, spread the word for a feminist initiative to whom we also donated thousands of dollars collectively.
You don't just do this out of spite. It was also for the support of an idea that /v/ was actually, very clumsily, trying to get out for very long but couldn't due to of course poor organisation and communication and anonymity:
-That most of 'em don't care about feminism or social justice, they care about the game, whoever wants to make it, as long as they want to make good games and encourage others to make good games, they'll support it.
The reasoning behind this is: The general opinion of /v/ these past few years is that part of indie and big studios development and the journalism related to it has been "corrupted" by a form of nepotism which favours status symbol, political agendas as well as marketing from both triple A studios (paid reviews, dewritos and stuff) but also indies who try to bolster publicity through repeated advertorials and exploiting popular modern issues to avoid discussion on their games.
Now that is an opinion, you might agree or disagree, that's fine, but i'm explaining ONE of the more "general reasonings" behind /v/'s action (and bitterness). That is how I see it at least, I might be corrected either here or on the numerous threads that are going on at the moment, and I'd be happy to correct myself but I think that is the gist of it (again, /v/ is far from being one person but I do this analysis after spending numerous days in these threads).
The fact that it all ties-in to Zoe Quinn is not because she had sex with five dudes (I can't say five guys, I keep getting hungry), but that she embodies these problems so much by being dishonest, having actually harassed fake targets to bolster her popularity (blaming Wizardchan, for example, who ironically is majorly filled with people who suffer from depression and anxiety, they have a suicide hotline hotlinked on the forums for crying out loud), trying to take down said campaign for reasons that seem dubious at best (see the tweets she had about it, I think they were posted before) and the general non-coverage of journalists who are willingly ignoring all this, but would gladly make speculative articles about innocent people like Brad Wardwell, who as targeted by Kotaku, also got death threats, had his children bullied at school for it. Yet no one bats an eye because it doesn't full in the overall "narrative".
And I pointed out that I'm an indie dev at the beginning because, from what I see here, this is legitimately scary. This means there IS a clique of people going around who decide "who gets in and who doesn't" based on an agenda, and with only a few tweets could destroy a career if they find that someone doesn't fit their world view. You can see the situation with JonTron for example, who's maybe only crime is to have poorly worded something or having been disinformed or slightly ignorant, and is now being attacked by Tim Schaefer's fan because the latter ousted him on twitter. (EDIT: Adding the quote from shackles to bring context though, "(...) Schafer tweeted the Tropes video saying everyone should watch it, JonTron tweeted at him with a strawman about being a "savage", and all Schafer said back was "That last one made me sad. From a guy with 1.2M YouTube subscribers." I wouldn't say Schafer ousted him".)
Now for the record, I hate the harassment that Anita Sarkeesian got, I don't like this "SJW Hitlist". I fully support women in video games, I actually actively try to get female friends into game dev, I want more trans, gays, blacks, female who are well written into games.
But I also want to express my contempt over Quinn's actions, as many on /v/ want to now, and in the current climate this is very, very hard to do without being called out as a hater or an MRA sympathiser. And as a dev, this can be even career breaking. I am sometimes fucking terrified to just use twitter because I fear some more popular blogger or journalist might decide to bring the axe to my head. And I don't like this kind of climate
Sorry for the long post, but I thought it was important for me to get it out, mostly because articles like the Vice one are now becoming common and I think are misguided. I'm totally open for discussion even if you disagree
So to be clear, I am not in violation of any of the forum rules
Some ground rules:
1. If you're not seriously interested in discussing the issue, don't post. This is a general rule, but it will be moderated sternly in this thread.
2. Don't drop a link and say, "That's how I feel!" If you can't be bothered to put your opinions into your own words, don't post.
3. Don't post enormous crazy-person image files of 800 tweets in the same image. That's not convincing, unless you're trying to convince people you're not entirely there.
4. Substantiate your claims. If you claim there's a conspiracy, you better have evidence. And not "Ah, but they all started writing about this at the same time!" circumstantial evidence, but actual evidence of collusion and impropriety.
5. Don't link to stuff you aren't willing to support. If you post it, you posted it. If it contains something that would get a ban, you're going to take that ban.
6. Attempt to be kind to one another. If you can't manage that, be civil.
None of this is true, as anyone who actually read the article, which reported straight up on a lawsuit and gave Wardell/Stardock 24 hours to offer comment, would know.
It's laughable that people are calling for better journalistic ethics while simultaneously denouncing real reporting.
Man did I make a huge mistake tweeting something with #GamerGate and Brad Wardell in it
That whole Wardell/Stardock saga was some of the saddest shit I've ever seen, in particular the stuff he posted in that forum. It was absolutely crazy.
None of this is true, as anyone who actually read the article, which reported straight up on a lawsuit and gave Wardell/Stardock 24 hours to offer comment, would know.
It's laughable that people are calling for better journalistic ethics while simultaneously denouncing real reporting.
I did a search, do you mind providing a link? It would have been legally inadvisable for him to make public statements of anything though, and he already made a public statement on the stardoc forum am I missing some data? I am not defending his reaction as such, his frustration and lashing out is no different than what we have seen with other people who have gone through the same things. I was more so posting it to illustrate that this kind of stuff is happening everywhere.
I seriously hope that I don't come back banned for a misconception.
It seems like NeoGAF among other communities I frequent do an excellent job of weeding people out through:
Delayed membership active moderation
IP bans (I know, not horribly effective against the determined)
TBH, I didn't know why your username was red. I do not pretend that the job of the authority is easy.
I stand by my points though.
1) being trolled doesn't make you a victim in the traditional sense (sticks and stones and all)
2) Responding to, or as one poster has... immortalizing trolls only reinforces them.
3) Back-seat moderation and vigilantism (both themes of that article) is not helpful.
4) Dealing with these types is best left to the authorities (but please report them)
Twitter can be bucket of feces, as is 4chan. They are highly non-modderated and in the case of 4 chan, highly anonymous. Breeding grounds for trolls, not reflections of society at-large, and not places that you are going to "fix" anyone. IF you kick a bucket of **** don't be surprised if you get some on you.
I did a search, do you mind providing a link? It would have been legally inadvisable for him to make public statements of anything though, and he already made a public statement on the stardoc forum am I missing some data?
Like I said, I'd like to think it's possible. But the only way no one's going to say that someone else is being misogynist is if nobody else is misogynist. You're the one who said that people mentioning misogyny was going to be a dealbreaker, not me.
The term misogynist is bandied about at this point though, one can be called a misogynist merely for disagreeing on the topic at hand in this politicized climate. You appear to be saying that the label being applied to somebody means it is true with your remark here, when a major point of this whole thing and the forbes article has been how left leaning and biased the media has become.
So who will be the arbiter's of this discussion? What body will determine who is a misogynist?
I did a search, do you mind providing a link? It would have been legally inadvisable for him to make public statements of anything though, and he already made a public statement on the stardoc forum am I missing some data? I am not defending his reaction as such, his frustration and lashing out is no different than what we have seen with other people who have gone through the same things. I was more so posting it to illustrate that this kind of stuff is happening everywhere.
I seriously hope that I don't come back banned for a misconception.
None of this is true, as anyone who actually read the article, which reported straight up on a lawsuit and gave Wardell/Stardock 24 hours to offer comment, would know.
It's laughable that people are calling for better journalistic ethics while simultaneously denouncing real reporting.
Like I said, I'd like to think it's possible. But the only way no one's going to say that someone else is being misogynist is if nobody else is misogynist. You're the one who said that people mentioning misogyny was going to be a dealbreaker, not me.
But not everything has to do with misogyny. How many posters is that? About 50 tweets give or take? Certainly a lot of hate there for sure(no denying that), and no denying those are definitely dyed in the wool misogynists. But the actual extent of the problem is another matter entirely.
If we take those tweets as representative of a % of the 600K views that have been made by viewers of the latest feminist frequency video, they represent less than 0.00833 recurring % of all viewers, or to put it another way: 1 person in every 12 thousand. By any measure that's not a lot as far as metrics go, and if we're to believe the gaming press, Anita is Enemy No 1 for all red blooded misogynists, so her hate group should be pretty high in terms of responses.
Is misogyny a problem? Yes. Are the vast majority of gamers accountable for it? Not likely if the above is anywhere near indicative of the scale of the problem. It is reasonable to hold the gaming community accountable for the actions of these misanthropes or be wholesale bundled in with them? I'm not entirely convinced on that front.
I did a search, do you mind providing a link? It would have been legally inadvisable for him to make public statements of anything though, and he already made a public statement on the stardoc forum am I missing some data? I am not defending his reaction as such, his frustration and lashing out is no different than what we have seen with other people who have gone through the same things. I was more so posting it to illustrate that this kind of stuff is happening everywhere.
I seriously hope that I don't come back banned for a misconception.
It morphed into that so quickly because the critique in the articles was nuanced, which means that it's easy to twist into something very different from what it was intended to be. Notice how pretty much every one of these articles doesn't refer to "gamers" in the title, but rather " 'gamers' " -- it puts the word in scare-quotes specifically because they aren't discussing gamers, the category of people, but rather "gamers," the term which is being presented as a concrete measure of identity. The point is that the concept of "gamers," or even moreso "real gamers," was an exclusionary and increasingly inaccurate model, and these events show that it's past its breaking point.
If there were actually an epidemic of articles claiming that all people who are active in the gaming hobby are virginal misogynists with bad hair, I'd certainly object to that, but that's not really what's been going on. Pretty much every one of those articles is written by someone who is very much, by both vocation and avocation, a gamer, or at least a person who is heavily engaged with games and gaming. These are internal critiques by people who are frustrated by the choice between tacitly supporting brutal misogyny and disassociating themselves from their hobby. The fact that so many people have perceived them as external speaks to the original issue -- the fact that these critiques were made by women has led them to be widely viewed as coming from outside, even if the people making them are dyed-in-the-wool members of the community.
I'm sorry, but this would not fly in any other context. Literally, substitute "gamers" with any other broad category of people and think about how you feel about someone making shotgun insults about them.
Best of all, if the press really doesn't mean to purposefully insult all gamers, there are other prepackaged words that they could have used.
The point is that the concept of "gamers," or even moreso "real gamers," was an exclusionary and increasingly inaccurate model, and these events show that it's past its breaking point.
Oh, you mean like HARDCORE gamers? CORE gamers?
Like these labels that exist purely to disassociate from the increasingly more inclusive blanket term of "gamers?" I absolutely love how we aren't recognizing the existence of these already nuanced words when we talk about how nuanced and acceptable these blunt, widely insulting articles are supposed to be.
Alexander literally described gamers as stupid, ugly, socially retarded bigots. I have no idea why anyone feels the need to defend this. Even if you think she had a point buried in there worth talking about, there is no need to endorse every word she said. We should all be able to agree that if you absolutely have to paint a disgusting, shaming picture of a particular group of people
(but then, why would you ever NEED to do this in a conversation of any kind of merit?)
, you shouldn't use a word that an entire community of people that you don't mean to bully associates with. Those arguing about how the community needs to be more inclusive and mature, of all people, should not have to be told this.
Ok a little confused because I read all this before. I apologize for putting in that the kotaku article presumed guilt before innocence. One of my friends told me that he had been referencing an opinion piece on kotaku that I could not find and it was irresponsible of me to make that claim without independently verifying. I will adjust the post.
I would respond to this though by saying that the stuff linked is worth looking at. The suppression of nuance in this conversation from both sides is deplorable.
None of this is true, as anyone who actually read the article, which reported straight up on a lawsuit and gave Wardell/Stardock 24 hours to offer comment, would know.
Indeed, googling up the article is quite easy, and reading it shows that it's taken almost entirely from court records, without significant editorializing and with an explicit effort to include Wardell's side even when he refused to comment directly.
Who kicked a bucket of shit, exactly? Was it Jenn Frank, who wrote an extremely inoffensive piece for the Guardian and was immediately deluged with threats and harassment? Any of the other women who were rolled into the absurd conspiracy charts and attacked on twitter just for knowing other people who are vaguely involved? It can't possibly be a justifiable position to say that people can avoid 4chan's wrath by not "kicking the bucket of shit" if you define that as "saying anything 4chan doesn't like anywhere on the internet."
I know I'm skipping over most of what you said, but it's hard to engage with this when your premise is that harassment is actually meaningless, and that if someone's getting harassed we can tell that it's their fault because it would stop if they ignored it. I don't accept this premise and I think recognizing the effect and dynamics of online harassment is important to actually draw conclusions about this subject.
I'm the editor-in-chief of a large gaming site with millions of readers. I consider myself a reporter. How else do I define myself? I'm a gamer. I don't mind the term. If you do, that doesn't bother me. I'm confident in who I am. If you're a gamer who harasses? Who sends rape threats or stalks Twitter feeds or terrorizes people from their home or gloats at others' struggles? Find a new hobby. If you're a gamer who wants better games reporting? Be specific about what you dislike. Please seek, support and celebrate those whose work you do like. And, importantly, if you're a gamer who wants to talk about the games that excite them? Me too. That's most of what we do here.
Gaming is better when it's diverse, when it lets marginalized people find their creative voice or their escapist outlet or a social circle that welcomes them. It's a marvelous mechanism for empowering those who feel pushed out of society to push forward as game makers and gamers. Gaming sites are best when they're inclusive, too, which is why I always strive to make sure that Kotaku feels inclusive for gamers of all types.
Alexander literally described gamers as stupid, ugly, socially retarded bigots. I have no idea why anyone feels the need to defend this. Even if you think she had a point buried in there worth talking about, there is no need to endorse every word she said. We should all be able to agree that if you absolutely have to paint a disgusting, shaming picture of a particular group of people
(but then, why would you ever NEED to do this in a conversation of any kind of merit?)
, you shouldn't use a word that an entire community of people that you don't mean to bully associates with. Those arguing about how the community needs to be more inclusive and mature, of all people, should not have to be told this.
I think you're bringing way too much baggage and projection into your "interpretation" of Alexander's piece. If in doubt, read what Moral Panic just wrote above.
I don't accept this premise and I think recognizing the effect and dynamics of online harassment is important to actually draw conclusions about this subject.
But where is the evidence that anything other then moderation can fix online harassment? You are describing sentiment, and I agree you dont go telling Jenn that it is her fault that she is getting hate tweets. But do you honestly think people responding to a lot of these nutto's actually help's and if so what can you point to in any substantial way of it helping?
Who kicked a bucket of shit, exactly? Was it Jenn Frank, who wrote an extremely inoffensive piece for the Guardian and was immediately deluged with threats and harassment?
I just want to add on to this--she didn't just get threatened and harassed. She literally got emotionally tortured by trolls to the point where she essentially broke down and quit the industry, fearing for her ability to continue on while wanting to raise a family, for doing absolutely nothing wrong.
