Support NeoGAF

[Gestault]

You may want to edit that, if I'm understanding what you meant to say.

Edit: aww yiss

 

[JABEE]

We (the royal we, literally everyone who condemns the horseshit tactics that GG is using) can absolutely have a real discussion about ethics in games writing & journalism. But this is not something anyone involved with GG has brought up, and in fact is a goal that GG is actively working against by trying to sever advertisers from sites that post honest reviews that they disagree with.

Hell, just last week there was an awards reception funded by games publishers to pat UK writers on the back for being their mouthpieces. Ubisoft gave a bunch of writers free tablets; later, had them review Watch_Dogs on their time. The "Press Sneak Fuck" debacle. The Rab Florence debacle. GG has said nothing about these things because they are the status quo that GG desperately is clawing onto; instead focusing on disempowering women, particularly those who make games independently.



Nobody has said this. Various criticism is saying "look, our shit is fucked up; here's how it can be less fucked up," and some critics feel that our shit is more fucked up than others. But nobody has said that every-actual-thing is a slight against minorities and women in gaming. This is the knee-jerk reaction that people have when they start to understand that there is a problem but don't want to accept that they unconsciously have had a hand in building it.

And this is an issue that I personally believe the press can simultaneously condemn if they wish to. They may not, but I have been confused by the hands-off, professional courtesy that exists within the press. I think that's how we end up with a press cycle that remains dependent on publishers. At least in this instance the press can criticize an actual institutional target that exists.

No one seems to care that Intent Media forced Rab Florence out of his job and strong-armed Eurogamer. It's business as usual for gaming outlets. That same outlet attended and enjoyed drinks and food paid for by Intent Media. Accepted awards handed out by publishers with the support of intent media. And some members of the press mocked claims of "corruption" as they enjoyed their free swag, food, and social gathering with the people they are supposed to be covering.

 

[stupei]

I think that's exactly what you did, and the sharp rhetoric was a choice you made for a reason. Giant Bomb can defend themselves, but the controversy surrounding Giant Bomb hiring a "white boy" always seemed a little cruel to me. Singling out Dan Ryckert under the crosshairs of this controversy.

There is little doubt that the games writing industry is a close-knit group of mostly white males, who are recycled at different outlets, but I don't know what Dan did to get hounded for being the prime example of institutionally racist hiring practices.

Acknowledging things that are true isn't a cruelty. Dan is a grown man, and one of the most carefree people I have ever seen. He presumably knows that he is white and he is male and so are the other people he works with. Pointing it out isn't going to cripple his self-esteem. It's not a personal attack to say that it would be nice to hear more diverse voices or to be disappointed by a hiring decision. (If anything, I think Jason was more the focus of the complaint anyway. One cis straight white guy would have been much easier to gloss over than two at once, and certainly the fact that they were already a known entity and friends with Jeff didn't help the appearance.)

I was personally disappointed, and I type that as I sit here in my Lincoln Force t-shirt. I love the site and I love what they do, but that doesn't mean I can't be disappointed by their decisions at times or be critical of things I dislike. The decision was disappointing.

The rabid defensiveness and brutal attacks from the community in response, however, were disgusting.

I'm honestly unaware of any examples of Dan being "hounded" over the decision, unless you qualify his name being involved in the discussion a particularly cruel offense. If there were personal attacks, that's awful, but having a discussion that is critical about a website that produces media you consume is not offensive. In fact, the right to criticize what we consume -- and the fact that this isn't cruel or unethical -- is actually in many ways what #Gamergate is about. Polygon isn't an unethical site because they gave Bayonetta a 7.5 and Giant Bomb users who are disappointed that the site hasn't hired a woman or person of color aren't being irrational or mean by verbalizing this disappointment.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

I think there's something worthwhile in considering who you're actually referring to in #GamerGate when you say "they".

The movement pretty clearly seems to comprise ringleaders with express anti-social justice motivations and 'useful idiots' who, I'm sure in many cases, are just a victim of their own initial gullibility and lack of fact-checking coupled with their ongoing ignorance or ego-saving selective blindness. I don't think the yolk and the white of the #GG egg would see eye to eye when it comes to how they treat silence. I'd argue that the ringleaders, those whose goal in this has always been to make outspoken feminists' lives miserable to the point of removing them altogether, aren't looking for attention unless they hit the political spin jackpot and it's outright supportive, and I don't think they expect approval. They just want the momentum of a mob, for as long as possible. 2000 accusatory tweets a day pushes a person's capacity for harassment a lot more effectively than half a dozen tweets. (Numbers pulled from my ass.)

If certain subreddit teach me something, peple that are reunited by hate and disdain for certain group or individuals tend to no see each other eye to eye.

Acknowledging things that are true isn't a cruelty. Dan is a grown man, and one of the most carefree people I have ever seen. He presumably knows that he is white and he is male and so are the other people he works with. Pointing it out isn't going to cripple his self-esteem. It's not a personal attack to say that it would be nice to hear more diverse voices or to be disappointed by a hiring decision. (If anything, I think Jason was more the focus of the complaint anyway. One cis straight white guy would have been much easier to gloss over than two at once, and certainly the fact that they were already a known entity and friends with Jeff didn't help the appearance.)

I was personally disappointed, and I type that as I sit here in my Lincoln Force t-shirt. I love the site and I love what they do, but that doesn't mean I can't be disappointed by their decisions at times or be critical of things I dislike. The decision was disappointing.

The rabid defensiveness and brutal attacks from the community in response, however, were disgusting.

I'm honestly unaware of any examples of Dan being "hounded" over the decision, unless you qualify his name being involved in the discussion a particularly cruel offense. If there were personal attacks, that's awful, but having a discussion that is critical about a website that produces media you consume is not offensive. In fact, the right to criticize what we consume -- and the fact that this isn't cruel or unethical -- is actually in many ways what #Gamergate is about. Polygon isn't an unethical site because they gave Bayonetta a 7.5 and Giant Bomb users who are disappointed that the site hasn't hired a woman or person of color aren't being irrational or mean by verbalizing this disappointment.

I'm sorry, this is part where you lost me. Yes, they need do more to made clear what they stances are

Spoiler

In my opinion, it was always clear for the people paying attention but there is so much you can do, I mean, someone really thought that Ryan would be ProGG

but labeling people as a 'whole is not an anwser to me. The GB is hardly a GG or even MRA one and their beginning were far less than toxic.

Yes, I think the GG are assholes and indefensible but I'm not thrilled when people want to do revisionism with Leigh because one needs to be "in the right".

 

[Prax]

I think you are right. But outside of the tinfoil "PAIDREVIEWSFEMNAZI" there is a genuine feeling of mistrust in many gaming related sites. Even 4chan decided to be stricter (they were since a while ago in certain boards, being fair...but it was weird)

It was probably just a general message of "omg this is stupid, shut up" because most outsiders who aren't major gamers or had a stake/opportunity in thie thing (anti-feminists and jerks) would probably roll their eyes at this being an issue worthy of discussion.

But I understand.
Some people were feeling alienated because they weren't able to air grievances freely and identified so strongly with being a gamer that all threats, maybe especially "mysterious" ones like how relationships could encourage unethical behaviour and some kind of distrust in women in general.. There's a lot of mess in those feelings, I think.

So while I could see myself sympathizing with the confusion and alienation felt, I also don't tolerate tantrum behaviours, as people were basically behaving like children. And they wanted to be coddled. And I suppose some sites and boards didn't want to do that and it led to a bigger tantrum where people just latched onto the people and places who did give them attention--people with really unhealthy views that just egged them on, actually.

I don't know what the solution should be for wounded entitled fans/gamers. Anything said would probably come off as condescending. I think a lot of sites thought they were doing them a FAVOUR to keep everything at arm's length and not coddle them and hope it would just resolve itself.. but no. The latching more tightly onto toxic personalities happened and then the rest is laid before us now.

Do we encourage platforms and sites to treat the seemingly angry and wounded more gently and acquiescently and tell them things will be okay and better (but is it their job to nurture their egos?), or should we expect some gamers to grow up a little and understand that not everything gets to go their way and they have to share with the supposed girls with cooties? Maybe a bit of both? Maybe a heavy guiding hand was needed by these sites and forums (seems like they don't like being told what to do, but they really do want and need to be told what to do!)

Maybe this whole thing was an unfortunate necessity.
But hopefully it means that gaming culture and the industry is growing up.

 

[Gestault]

Acknowledging things that are true isn't a cruelty. Dan is a grown man, and one of the most carefree people I have ever seen. He presumably knows that he is white and he is male and so are the other people he works with. Pointing it out isn't going to cripple his self-esteem. It's not a personal attack to say that it would be nice to hear more diverse voices or to be disappointed by a hiring decision. (If anything, I think Jason was more the focus of the complaint anyway. One cis straight white guy would have been much easier to gloss over than two at once, and certainly the fact that they were already a known entity and friends with Jeff didn't help the appearance.)

I was personally disappointed, and I type that as I sit here in my Lincoln Force t-shirt. I love the site and I love what they do, but that doesn't mean I can't be disappointed by their decisions at times or be critical of things I dislike. The decision was disappointing.

The rabid defensiveness and brutal attacks from the community in response, however, were disgusting.

I'm honestly unaware of any examples of Dan being "hounded" over the decision, unless you qualify his name being involved in the discussion a particularly cruel offense. If there were personal attacks, that's awful, but having a discussion that is critical about a website that produces media you consume is not offensive. In fact, the right to criticize what we consume -- and the fact that this isn't cruel or unethical -- is actually in many ways what #Gamergate is about. Polygon isn't an unethical site because they gave Bayonetta a 7.5 and Giant Bomb users who are disappointed that the site hasn't hired a woman or person of color aren't being irrational or mean by verbalizing this disappointment.

Even ignoring the less sightly reactions, presuming that someone in a situation like this was primarily hired because of their race, gender or orientation is insulting. It shows the ignorance of the person making that statement, considering the background of the person selected. Yes, it is irrational to say that a non-specific person, because of being a different gender or race, would have been a better choice than the actual person chosen.

 

[JABEE]

Acknowledging things that are true isn't a cruelty. Dan is a grown man, and one of the most carefree people I have ever seen. He presumably knows that he is white and he is male and so are the other people he works with. Pointing it out isn't going to cripple his self-esteem. It's not a personal attack to say that it would be nice to hear more diverse voices or to be disappointed by a hiring decision. (If anything, I think Jason was more the focus of the complaint anyway. One cis straight white guy would have been much easier to gloss over than two at once, and certainly the fact that they were already a known entity and friends with Jeff didn't help the appearance.)

I was personally disappointed, and I type that as I sit here in my Lincoln Force t-shirt. I love the site and I love what they do, but that doesn't mean I can't be disappointed by their decisions at times or be critical of things I dislike. The decision was disappointing.

The rabid defensiveness and brutal attacks from the community in response, however, were disgusting.

I'm honestly unaware of any examples of Dan being "hounded" over the decision, unless you qualify his name being involved in the discussion a particularly cruel offense. If there were personal attacks, that's awful, but having a discussion that is critical about a website that produces media you consume is not offensive. In fact, the right to criticize what we consume -- and the fact that this isn't cruel or unethical -- is actually in many ways what #Gamergate is about. Polygon isn't an unethical site because they gave Bayonetta a 7.5 and Giant Bomb users who are disappointed that the site hasn't hired a woman or person of color aren't being irrational or mean by verbalizing this disappointment.

You are right that it is good to have a discussion about hiring practices. Giant Bomb's openness gave people an opportunity to poke at and criticize how people are often hired in many profession. Because you know someone or have been seen doing the job before you get hired for the job.

Dan may not have been hounded, but I think there's a way to have a discussion about Dan and Jason being hired without making it so personal, especially when you have people citing candidates and there is an inference that certain people were hired because of their gender and ethnicity.

I know I have made comments in the past about other writers like Kuchera being part of the recycled old boys club. I think my comments are just me catching myself in making so personal and potentially harmful statements about real people who have real feelings, but my statements were mostly based on what I perceived as the quality of their work rather than the fact that Kuchera is white and male. It makes it easier to get carried away when you can name people that are overtly cruel or condescending on Twitter and other places. I never had that kind of reaction to Dan.

I don't think people are necessarily hounding him, but the implication that he got his job because he is a "white boy" is kind of messed up when he seems to be pretty qualified in his own right.

Also, Lime, I didn't see your admission until after the other post. I know I can sometimes get carried away with my characterization of certain people, but I guess that's part of feeling strongly about something. I try my best to be objective and process the arguments being made.

 

[Toparaman]

People saying GB should've talked sooner need to remember just how convoluted and baffling GamerGate is. I'm sure many Gaffers who also frequent /v/ (the breeding ground for GamerGate) have known that GamerGate has been an anti-feminist movement since Day 1, but to this day there are a large number of GamerGate supporters who think that the anti-feminist element is a fringe part of the movement.

Given that GB's staff is largely made up of guys in their 30s, I really doubt that they could even comprehend GamerGate until very recently, Patrick aside.

I myself stayed way the hell away from this issue because it just seemed like typical fake-drama from /v/, but this time around they have cleverly managed to make their issues presentable to a wider audience.

To the GG supporters reading this: I realize you are probably against the death threats that have been happening. But ask yourself why a movement that ultimately revolves around a pastime and a hobby is taking itself as seriously as a political movement. And then ask yourself whether a movement that has NOTHING to do with actual gameplay is really worth your time and effort.

 

[Gestault]

Given that GB's staff is largely made up of guys in their 30s, I really doubt that they could even comprehend GamerGate until very recently, Patrick aside.

This strikes me as tasteless and baseless.

 

[Curufinwe]

People saying GB should've talked sooner need to remember just how convoluted and baffling GamerGate is. I'm sure many Gaffers who also frequent /v/ (the breeding ground for GamerGate) have known that GamerGate has been an anti-feminist movement since Day 1, but to this day there are a large number of GamerGate supporters who think that the anti-feminist element is a fringe part of the movement.

Given that GB's staff is largely made up of guys in their 30s, I really doubt that they could even comprehend GamerGate until very recently, Patrick aside.

The GB staff have way more experience with internet harassment including death threats than people like you.

 

[jbw]

I'm not sure this is the place but where should I go to understand what #gamergate actually is?

It is nothing. It is the fruit of this age: activism for the sake of activism, people fulfilling their own need to feel like they are doing something.

Google "Ebola Equality Act" to see just how out of hand it's gotten.

 

[Fjordson]

Seems like a good letter to me. Unsurprising since Jeff = one of the best people in the industry.

Such a shame all this Gamer Gate idiocy is still going on. Over video games of all things. What a waste of energy. Feel horrible for all the people still being harassed by them.

People saying GB should've talked sooner need to remember just how convoluted and baffling GamerGate is. I'm sure many Gaffers who also frequent /v/ (the breeding ground for GamerGate) have known that GamerGate has been an anti-feminist movement since Day 1, but to this day there are a large number of GamerGate supporters who think that the anti-feminist element is a fringe part of the movement.

Given that GB's staff is largely made up of guys in their 30s, I really doubt that they could even comprehend GamerGate until very recently, Patrick aside.

Giant Bomb probably knows all too well what internet hate can do to someone. They've been doing this for a long time (especially Jeff and Brad). I couldn't even begin to count all the times I read some sort of variation of "Jeff Gerstmann should die" on the internet after he dared to give Twilight Princess an 8.8.

 

[Tinfoilhatsron]

Maybe I wasn't clear, so let me try and restate, but less rambling - if people want to discuss ethics in games writing and journalism, they must do so without any ties to GG because NOT ONLY is GG a hate movement that harasses and threatens people, BUT ALSO because they have ZERO credibility because they have not at any point addressed any actual ethical concern in games writing and journalism. The examples I gave were all things that GG has never addressed and many of their more identifiable members have ALSO never addressed, choosing instead to harass Anita Sarkeesian for the better part of years because THAT is the only thing they're interested in.

I do believe that there is always a discussion to be had about how games writing/journalism can be more ethical and serve its readers better, but (analogy incoming) GG doesn't deserve a seat at that table or any other, because they can't even identify a seat or a table. Better?



Their going after Polygon for Gies' review is their most recent "action" with regards to what they interpret as "ethics".

I do believe they ALSO went after websites for posting articles they did not like, but that is not an example of their most recent action. Further, if you read any of those pieces, not a one said "all straight white male gamers are racist and sexist assholes". They all pretty much said "assholes are assholes, maybe you shouldn't identify as an asshole if you're not an asshole."

Sorry I think I was being unclear, I agree with you completely. But, I do enjoy seeing the backslash from passionate game devs and gamers against the movement, and supporting equality. It feels like it is just fueling the fire of the GG.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

It was probably just a general message of "omg this is stupid, shut up" because most outsiders who aren't major gamers or had a stake/opportunity in thie thing (anti-feminists and jerks) would probably roll their eyes at this being an issue worthy of discussion.

But I understand.
Some people were feeling alienated because they weren't able to air grievances freely and identified so strongly with being a gamer that all threats, maybe especially "mysterious" ones like how relationships could encourage unethical behaviour and some kind of distrust in women in general.. There's a lot of mess in those feelings, I think.

So while I could see myself sympathizing with the confusion and alienation felt, I also don't tolerate tantrum behaviours, as people were basically behaving like children. And they wanted to be coddled. And I suppose some sites and boards didn't want to do that and it led to a bigger tantrum where people just latched onto the people and places who did give them attention--people with really unhealthy views that just egged them on, actually.

I don't know what the solution should be for wounded entitled fans/gamers. Anything said would probably come off as condescending. I think a lot of sites thought they were doing them a FAVOUR to keep everything at arm's length and not coddle them and hope it would just resolve itself.. but no. The latching more tightly onto toxic personalities happened and then the rest is laid before us now.

Do we encourage platforms and sites to treat the seemingly angry and wounded more gently and acquiescently and tell them things will be okay and better (but is it their job to nurture their egos?), or should we expect some gamers to grow up a little and understand that not everything gets to go their way and they have to share with the supposed girls with cooties? Maybe a bit of both? Maybe a heavy guiding hand was needed by these sites and forums (seems like they don't like being told what to do, but they really do want and need to be told what to do!)

Maybe this whole thing was an unfortunate necessity.
But hopefully it means that gaming culture and the industry is growing up.

I hope so too. Is not a easy issue I really dislike the "boys club house" comparasion because it rings hollow, even when there is a lot of legit points. I like video games but they never made friends for me, I like Mario but Nintendo games never defined my childhood, when I was a kid I disliked play a game as girl character but letter I realized it didn't make real difference to me. But for someone, even if minor, they do difference in certains aspects and society and culture has a direct and retroactive influence in video games that should be taken in account.

 

[Toparaman]

This strikes me as tasteless and baseless.

Baseless sure. Tasteless? I wasn't insulting their intelligence. I'm just saying that at their age they probably don't have the patience or time-investment for internet drama. The rabbit hole goes too deep. And good for them, because this shit is a massive waste of time.

Giant Bomb probably knows all too well what internet hate can do to someone. They've been doing this for a long time (especially Jeff and Brad). I couldn't even begin to count all the times I read some sort of variation of "Jeff Gerstmann should die" on the internet after he dared to give Twilight Princess an 8.8.

I'm aware of that. It's just that GG has been operating under the guise of being about journalism ethics, and about "gamers" being under attack.

 

[jon bones]

Appreciated reply from Giantbomb, good to see they aren't crazy people.

You make me weigh up how much I want to keep my GAF account. Seriously.

No one's forcing you, b.

So people are just that stupid? How can one be against feminism? It blows my mind.

I agree, I'm not sure how this hobby has attracted such a toxic and misogynistic group of man-children.

 

[stupei]

Going to respond to the smallest one to quote, but this applies to what several people said. (I hope I didn't miss any major points?)

Even ignoring the less sightly reactions, presuming that someone in a situation like this was primarily hired because of their race, gender or orientation is insulting. It shows the ignorance of the person making that statement, considering the background of the person selected. Yes, it is irrational to say that a non-specific person, because of being a different gender or race, would have been a better choice than the actual person chosen.

I didn't really see much implication that he got his job because he was a white boy, though maybe I wasn't looking in the right place to see it.

He got the job because he is talented at what he does, certainly, but also because he is a friend of several people on the site. That helped a lot. They already knew how good he was and how well they'd work together, because they are friends.

The fact that a lot of people are social friends with people who look like them is a contributing factor to a degree, yes. The people you socialize with often have much in common with you, and this can be class, gender, sexuality, and race. If you hire exclusively from within your circle of friends, your work place will often look very uniform. (This is a huge problem in the entertainment industry as a whole, where projects are costly and the work is very demanding. The constant fear of hiring anyone you are less familiar with is a huge obstacle for entry for most people. A solid resume simply isn't enough in many work places.) Obviously this wasn't their intent. I don't believe for a moment that anyone at Giant Bomb sat down with the plan to just hire another white guy they already knew, but circumstances definitely pointed them in that direction.

Did Dan turn out to be a great addition to Giant Bomb? Yes. Absolutely. But I don't think the criticism is unwarranted, and I do hope that in the future it will help them be more mindful when the next round of hiring comes around. They are in a particularly tricky situation of having to hire on air talent that gels well, but even searching for a woman or any person of color to fill one of the background technical roles who occasionally have an on air presence -- but don't necessarily need to blend with the group right away -- would be a huge step toward more representation. It's very easy to not notice these things when you are in the midst of the hiring process -- I work in TV, and we're currently doing just that -- but it's good to keep these things in mind. The conversation isn't inherently hurtful. It's definitely possible that some people stepped over the line (which sometimes feels inevitable on the internet, unfortunately), but I'm still glad the dialogue happened.

And for people saying they didn't notice anything particularly cruel from the community, I too hope that the gross transphobia and misogyny was coming from people who had latched onto it as an "issue" and don't actually belong to the site.

 

[Shingro]

A few things that suck, but suck less then the overarching battle.


The idea that people don't have *permission* to have/not have an emotional response to an issue is pretty toxic as an idea. Pretty much all psycological science would look very sternly at someone saying such a thing to someone. Emotional responses are fully a human being's own, doesn't matter if it's social videogame activism or Ragnorok itself.



"Post your opinion about gamersgate!" "alright, here's my opinion." "That's not the RIGHT opinion!"

This is the harassment Jeff will never say a word about, but if you read behind the lines of the letter, you know this is coming. People have clearly been pestering him about putting GB on the map, and since his support has an asterisk on it, the fanatic 2% of anti-gate *will* go after him for it. Ironically as GG is also pounding him from the other side. I'd implore people, if you like what jeff said, let him know somehow.


Other then that early swerve, I think the discussion is pretty levelheaded around here. Or at least it's trending towards the levelheaded middle. Good show.

 

[Devolution]

I disagree with this part. I sincerely think that, as a group, they want attention much more than they want approval, and silence is an attempt to deprive them of that attention.

Disagreed.

The more vocal people are, the more a united front is seen as completely against what's going on.

 

[Gestault]

Disagreed.

The more vocal people are, the more a united front is seen as completely against what's going on.

Do you think people deliberately taking both illegal and anti-social actions will respond to a slightly more stern community reaction?

 

[The Bookerman]

I would go a step further and state that if they *really* cared about women in games, maybe they'd hire or signal boost them instead of their exclusive white boys' club.

It would make it easier for them to recognize and be able to perceive issues they normally aren't exposed to. But perhaps that's another topic for another day.

I dunno about other places, but game companies in quebec will usually hire women first even if a guy is more qualified.

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

I disagree with this part. I sincerely think that, as a group, they want attention much more than they want approval, and silence is an attempt to deprive them of that attention.

Exactly.

 

[Devolution]

Do you think people deliberately taking both illegal and anti-social actions will respond to a slightly more stern community reaction?

I think when everyone is in agreement actions are deplorable but a significant portion remain silent it undermines that very idea.

The more people who come out and admonish the behavior it takes a lot of weight off the few. That's how social change happens.

 

[moondoggerr]

Something that I think gets forgotten about this situation is that at it's inception, at its heart it was about slut-shaming Zoe Quinn. It was about getting the message out about Zoe Quinn and all her (fictional) misdeeds that were NONE OF OUR BUSINESS.

"Calling that out" puts people in a tricky spot, because as soon as you call it out, a whole bunch of people who weren't aware of it, say "explain what this is about, again?" and then the initial calumnies get rolled out to yet more people.

If you disliked intensely the campaign against Zoe and Anita but also were uncomfortable about keeping the hoop spinning by responding to it, this put you in an awkward situation.
Calling out the lies also helps perpetuate the lies. It's akin to the John Kerry Swiftboat story.

I know its hard to believe that there are many people who don't know what this is all about, but a quick look on this very thread should disabuse one of that notion.

At a certain point, (and again, like the swiftboat thing) , when people realize that the wildfire has grown beyond their capacity to starve it of oxygen, they also realize that sometimes a more explicit message needs to be sent.

That's what is going on here.

 

[Gestault]

I think when everyone is in agreement actions are deplorable but a significant portion remain silent it undermines that very idea.

The more people who come out and admonish the behavior it takes a lot of weight off the few. That's how social change happens.

I can dig it. My outlook is still different because of what I think I understand about the motivations of the people behind it (the 4chan-like communities and the social "currency" in those circles), but I don't disagree with your reasoning.

 

[stupei]

I think some of the misunderstanding that silence is somehow helpful in making trolls go away is that it does work when what they're upset about is you gave a game they like a bad review, or something equally ridiculous. When the reason you're being targeted is something so simple and silly that it will be forgotten after a while, leaving them to shout into the void alone will help to tire them out.

When the thing the trolls are targeting you for is your gender, race, or sexuality, silence is less likely to help because it is not your words that they object to. It's your very existence. Even when silent, you are still you, and it is your identity they can't stand. These types of people are only satisfied once they drive out those who aren't like them.

But as others have said, I really don't want to believe that the majority of people supporting #gamergate are like that. I think their most vocal leaders are, certainly. But I want to believe there are good people swept up in what they think is a tide of positive change, refusing to acknowledge the truth of the behavior happening all around them. Silence allows those people to remain in denial.

 

[Devolution]

I can dig it. My outlook is still different because of what I think I understand about the motivations of the people behind it (the 4chan offshoot groups and a deliberately toxic culture), but I don't disagree with your reasoning.

Some might to continue to do it because they don't give a shit to the highest order but the numbers drop off as soon as more people see admonishing or consequences. Or even someone they admire/respect saying "this is messed up cut it out."

I guess my reasoning comes from work. If you're against bullying and that's how someone gets attention, then you're not really solving the problem by remaining silent, you're just letting the bullying occur and ignoring it for your own sake. So you can go on pretending it's not happening.

 

[Gestault]

But as others have said, I really don't want to believe that the majority of people supporting #gamergate are like that. I think their most vocal leaders are, certainly. But I want to believe there are good people swept up in what they think is a tide of positive change, refusing to acknowledge the truth of the behavior happening all around them. Silence allows those people to remain in denial.

Now to be clear, I think that characterizing the ideas behind this editorial, and really the responses by most of the industry as "silence" is a simplistic fallacy. People have been responding and reporting on the events critically right from the start, it's just that some aren't willing to join in as often in defeatist or alarmist outlooks that really do reward the people behind Gamergate with their intended outcome.

 

[Spaghetti]

this thread has taught me that there's probably no way of coming out of this thing clean.

 

[Corto]

Do you think people deliberately taking both illegal and anti-social actions will respond to a slightly more stern community reaction?

It can have an effect in diminishing the recruitment of more "bodies" to shield those. Or even lessen their current numbers. That I do believe.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

I think when everyone is in agreement actions are deplorable but a significant portion remain silent it undermines that very idea.

The more people who come out and admonish the behavior it takes a lot of weight off the few. That's how social change happens.

Social Change in the Internet era should be treated in its own terms and contexts. Trolls are going to troll when there is little accountability. Trolling is an anti social behavior regardless, with damaging effects, but should be dealt in its context. Real life and social life become interconnected but the problem becomes more complex, not simplier,

 

[Gestault]

It can have an effect in diminishing the recruitment of more "bodies" to shield those. Or even lessen their current numbers. That I do believe.

This is a very good point.

Some might to continue to do it because they don't give a shit to the highest order but the numbers drop off as soon as more people see admonishing or consequences. Or even someone they admire/respect saying "this is messed up cut it out."

I guess my reasoning comes from work. If you're against bullying and that's how someone gets attention, then you're not really solving the problem by remaining silent, you're just letting the bullying occur and ignoring it for your own sake. So you can go on pretending it's not happening.

A positive element to all this is that the more concerted harassment will drop off as numbers of engaged people fall. It'll be a negative feedback loop as the people "performing" have less and less of an audience.

I do think your teacher analogy is a good one, in a broader sense if not here. The challenge in the Gamergate harassment is that over something like the internet, there are no voices of authority akin to that of a teacher. No one is empowered to stop what's happening outside of law enforcement. Even if we think more prominent sites' editorial voices have meaning, that's not true outside of those editorial niches. When people are seeking out conflict, panic and fear, having more and more people riled up trying to stop it is desirable. If anything, those doing the harassment may grasp the "rules" of remote interaction better than most. In a school setting, a rising volume of students noticing a fight will eventually lead to a staffer stopping the situation. We don't have an equivalent parallel here.

The reason women are targeted is because in a cultural sense, they're among the "lowest hanging fruit" for mockery. It's a sobering reflection of our issues with sexism, but sexism isn't the motivation for these people as much as it is wanting the power of an easy-to-use vocabulary for getting an emotional reaction from people, even without a physical presence.

 

[Devolution]

Social Change in the Internet era should be treated in its own terms and contexts. Trolls are going to troll when there is little accountability. Trolling is an anti social behavior regardless, with damaging effects, but should be dealt in its context. Real life and social life become interconnected but the problem becomes more complex, not simplier,

I really wish "trolling" as a label for this was eradicated and this shit was just called what it really is: bullying, just on another medium.

Bullying doesn't stop just because a woman, minority or whatever doesn't air their threats to the world, they just suffer in silence.

 

[Clefargle]

Good, Jeff has the same level of involvement in this I have had. I can understand his statement and how useful the clarification can be to those that want to know his positioning. But he doesn't seem to be advancing an agenda of his own or endorsing either side. Good.

 

[FStop7]

Does it only count as "Giant Bomb" when it comes from Jeff? Because Patrick has been very vocal with his criticism of the #GG loons for a long time and he's part of Giant Bomb.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

I really wish "trolling" as a label for this was eradicated and this shit was just called what it really is: bullying, just on another medium.

Bullying doesn't stop just because a woman, minority or whatever doesn't air their threats to the world, they just suffer in silence.

Oh, I agree that Bullying and Trollling are not that different. But, as someone that was bullied all my life (and never was silent about it, neither without autothority figures helping me), I understand that there is a Cycle of Bullying

 

[Corto]

Does it only count as "Giant Bomb" when it comes from Jeff? Because Patrick has been very vocal with his criticism of the #GG loons for a long time and he's part of Giant Bomb.

This was an editorial stand. It's Jeff writing it but it's Giant Bomb position very clearly stated in this letter. No ambiguity possible now. Some could use the lack of this statement as a sign that some members of Giant Bomb team were pro-GG, or at least neutral. This removes any doubt.

 

[stupei]

Now to be clear, I think that characterizing the ideas behind this editorial, and really the responses by most of the industry as "silence" is a simplistic fallacy. People have been responding and reporting on the events critically right from the start, it's just that some aren't willing to join in as often in defeatist or alarmist outlooks that really do reward the people behind Gamergate with their intended outcome.

I'm not characterizing anything; I'm responding to the part where Jeff literally says "silence isn't complicity."I am engaging with his own use of the word. If you believe that to be a mischaracterization, you'll have to take that up with Jeff.

edit: Sorry if that sounded snide, I just don't see how there is any room for this kind of semantic debate when it's the language Jeff chose in his own editorial statement.

 

[Devolution]

Oh, I agree that Bullying and Trollling are not that different. But, as someone that was bullied all my life (and never was silent about it, neither without autothority figures helping me), I understand that there is a Cycle of Bullying

Which is what?

I'm not understanding your point.

Mine is pretty clear, these people are going to be targeted, harassed, stalked and bullied regardless of whether they announce it to the world or not. I'd rather they announce it, it allows for transparency, solidarity and exposure.

Silence does none of that, it just makes the people who don't have to deal with it feel better.

 

[7DollarHagane]

Geez, people really get upset. I hope I haven't hurt anyone by suggesting that diversifying would be a good idea - if I did, I'm sorry.

Look, it's cool that GB and others *finally* speak up about this and to some extent condemn Gamergate. I appreciate what they are doing. Thanks a lot.

But my posts in this thread are suggestions on how it could be better and how they could improve themselves in the future. These are:

1. Please condemn hate campaigns within your culture sooner. I can't believe it had to be on the frontcover of NYT before the games media got off their asses. Comparatively, as soon as the release date of the next AAA game is released, the news spread like wildfire.

2. Being silent does not help or improve a situation where people are victims of harassment. Making a stand in a space where you have power and influence can do a ton of good for everyone!

3. In case you want to make video games coverage more diverse and have different viewpoints, then signal boost, include or even hire different people with different backgrounds and different experiences. Remaining stagnant and being homogenous can result in cases where you dont notice or are aware of specific aspects. Relinquish some of your power and give platform to people usually marginalized in the games industry and culture.

The above are the things I am saying. I fail to see why they should be so controversial.

The part where you called them a "white boys club" was where you lost people among your other good points.

While I love Dan and think he was a perfect choice for giant bombs content I do hope to see a woman on staff at some point soon. They don't staff up regularly though so it may be a while.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

Which is what?

I'm not understanding your point.

Mine is pretty clear, these people are going to be targeted, harassed, stalked and bullied regardless of whether they announce it to the world or not. I'd rather they announce it, it allows for transparency, solidarity and exposure.

Silence does none of that, it just makes the people who don't have to deal with it feel better.

Bullied people can become a Bully

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Does it only count as "Giant Bomb" when it comes from Jeff? Because Patrick has been very vocal with his criticism of the #GG loons for a long time and he's part of Giant Bomb.

The idea is that it's an official statement from a united Giant Bomb. Individual members can say something without representing the group as Patrick often does.

 

[7DollarHagane]

You know what would be a really interesting response to this nonsense is if we could get major publishers to replace their loading screens that typically show gameplay tips with "don't harass women" type messages for a certain amount of time.

A variety of messages reminding players to treat other people like human beings. Not forever, but maybe they would flip them all on for a month or something to highlight the message.

Imagine if while waiting for a call of duty match all of december there were messages like "remember, every person you play with is another human who deserves respect and should be treated as such"

 

[Devolution]

Bullied people can become a Bully

I don't see the relevancy or point at all.

 

[Corto]

Which is what?

I'm not understanding your point.

Mine is pretty clear, these people are going to be targeted, harassed, stalked and bullied regardless of whether they announce it to the world or not. I'd rather they announce it, it allows for transparency, solidarity and exposure.

Silence does none of that, it just makes the people who don't have to deal with it feel better.

And there's an intrinsic perversity in the silence. The main objective of this campaign is to silence these women, these sites, or any discording voice. Scream "NO. ENOUGH." is showing that they're powerless and can't really silence anyone or everyone else. The more join the "NO.ENOUGH." scream the more difficult it is for them to achieve that objective.

 

[Gestault]

I'm not characterizing anything; I'm responding to the part where Jeff literally says "silence isn't complicity."I am engaging with his own use of the word. If you believe that to be a mischaracterization, you'll have to take that up with Jeff.

It seemed like you thought the call-to-action from the editorial was that people should remain silent on harassment. This is more of the surrounding text from what you quoted:

As those people get more frantic, they also damage the message they're trying to express. Silence isn't complicity. Silence might also be not letting a campaign of hate and chaos be taken seriously by not giving it a place at the table. Now, from a distance, this whole topic looks like every other politicized media conspiracy, with two sides full of extremists and a bunch of people in the middle looking disillusioned by the whole debacle. Continued success in the face of adversity is the best defense against those that would seek to derail you and mire you in endless arguments that they control, that they frame, and that they aren't actually trying to win.

You simply quoted and respond to the italicized text. I do think you mischaracterize it, or at least misunderstand it. My impression was that this piece promotes a position that isn't in any way neutral, but also doesn't engage those orchestrating the harassment in the terms they've chosen. No more than we'd engage a child having a tantrum.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

I don't see the relevancy or point at all.

That is a shame.

 

[Gestault]

I don't see the relevancy or point at all.

That's unfortunate.

 

[Devolution]

And there's an intrinsic perversity in the silence. The main objective of this campaign is to silence these women, these sites, or any discording voice. Scream "NO. ENOUGH." is showing that they're powerless and can't really silence anyone or everyone else. The more join the "NO.ENOUGH." scream the more difficult it is for them to achieve that objective.

This is also true, if they want women to shut up, telling them to shut up because they're giving their trolls attention is actually assisting the bullies, not really supporting the victims.

That is a shame.

That's unfortunate.

He hasn't expanded at all about what he meant. Am I just supposed to guess?

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Ignore him, he's been doing the same bankrupt, pseudo-philosophical shit in the main GG thread.

On the Giant Bomb "statement," as one of the larger outlets failure to express unequivocal support for their industry colleagues who are under attack is a huge disappointment.