Jimquisition: Pressing The Issues

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Pressing The Issues

What role does the games media play in the problem of harassment in the games industry? Should it have a role? And what happens when the media oversteps its bounds?

Watch Video

Truthfully I'd be more worried if the press stopped covering that shit because it would mean that it had become so common place and expected that it ceased to be newsworthy.

Yes Jim. Yes you should be on the Daily Show presenting your book.

So, why is Jimmy wearing a blue tie? Is it because he don't wanna look like the goons in Rwby?

Completely off topic, and completely pointless, but I just wanted to mention how interesting the lighting looked in this episode. Quite... vibrant. Having the lights on the side of your set gives everything a cool degree of depth.

Bke:
Completely off topic, and completely pointless, but I just wanted to mention how interesting the lighting looked in this episode. Quite... vibrant. Having the lights on the side of your set gives everything a cool degree of depth.

I was sick of how washed out everything look so I focused the lights a bit differently. Was worried it would look unlit, but the final version is a bit better than normal.

Planning to get some new lights anyway. Really trying to make things look marginally less shite.

I fully understand this, however I have to state two points:

1: This invalidates any dismissal of the Don't Feed The Trolls rule, as we are (and have always been) feeding the trolls. I agree that complete silence of something like with Depression Quest isn't going to solve anything, but in these cases the trolls are given all the attention and validation they want.

2: News Media at this point is mainly about getting as much viewers as possible, so of course its going to cover something regardless of the wishes of the victims. It isn't about doing something to solve the underlying issues as much as generating a bandwagon to get attention and viewers.

Though from a moral standpoint, I'm mostly in agreement with you on this one. So no suprise there.

This show is a constant source of mild misery for me. Because part of me watches and thinks, "Wait, there are people who NEED to be told this?"

A blue tie! What sorcery is this?

Pretty low of Kotaku. Although I'm not surprised.

Wouldn't there be some kind of legal avenue to get the story pulled in a situation like that? Or at the very least get the person's social media details taken off? Heck, I bet people have sued for less.

Okay, but what if the status of the "victim" being harassed is more controversial?

Caveat first:I don't think anyone deserves the kind of harassment that has become all too common in the wired age, much less some of the more high-profile cases of such who were being targeted largely for having the audacity not to fit into certain narrow-minded people's ideas of who should be making games or commenting on them.

But not everyone is getting this kind of scrutiny just for being female, or gay, or transgender. I'm thinking in particular of Penny Arcade's little intercession with the Avenger Controller, or the response to the Redner Group threatening to blacklist reviewers.

Now, again, I'm not for a moment suggesting either of these people, as questionable as their actions were, deserved to be the subject of death threats. I'm not condoning the actions of the public or the relevant fanbases in response to the revelation of their activities.

But as far as the media goes, was there a responsibility to protect them and their feelings? To attempt to predict the kind of firestorm likely to result from revealing that information?

Even if the media outlet doesn't reveal Twitter information, it's become increasingly easy for interested parties to find that kind of information for themselves, and there's nothing to say such parties wouldn't choose to take matters into their own hands even if the journalists were more discrete.

Is there some absolute line there? If the "victim" is in the spotlight for "bad behavior", do the same standards apply? And who gets to define what is sanctionable behavior in that case?

I appreciate that you continue to acknowledge the immense flak us transfolk receive Jim. Thanks for speaking up for me and those like me.

that blue tie makes you looks slimmer, Jim.

ron1n:
A blue tie! What sorcery is this?

Pretty low of Kotaku. Although I'm not surprised.

Wouldn't there be some kind of legal avenue to get the story pulled in a situation like that? Or at the very least get the person's social media details taken off? Heck, I bet people have sued for less.

The twitter account and social media details were all eventually pulled from the story, but the story remained. Gawker media is pretty awful, and pulls some really terrible stuff sometimes. That said, Kotaku is not nearly as bad as some people make it out to be. Jason Schreier and Steve Totillo also write for the NY Times, and are pretty decent journalists all-round. Particularly Schreier's investigations into sexual harassment at Trendy Entertainment and Lucas Arts are worth reading.

The first step toward solving a problem is to admit that there is one. This problem is particularly vile and must be dragged into the light.

Great ending.

More on topic, social media sights really need to be designed with trolls in mind. There should be a way to mute a troll so you never hear what they say and if enough people mute someone, they are muted for all. Not three strikes and you are out, but if 30% of the people you talk to mute you, then you lose the right to use that service to talk to others.

This is the kinder of my two solutions to the matter.

templar1138a:
This show is a constant source of mild misery for me. Because part of me watches and thinks, "Wait, there are people who NEED to be told this?"

The really depressing thing is that the people who need to be told this need to be told repeatedly because apparently they don't listen.

llagrok:
More white knighting from the soapbox.

No offense, but why is it every male+overweight gamer's schtick to stand up against falsely construed arugment whenever a female game critic/developer is involved?

Well, white knighting is a falsely constructed arguement meant to shut down anything indicating there is a problem when you don't think there is, isn't it?

I would say "no offense", but I sincerely doubt you meant it.

llagrok:
More white knighting from the soapbox.

No offense, but why is it every male+overweight gamer's schtick to stand up against falsely construed arugment whenever a female game critic/developer is involved?

I dunno, why is it the schtick of everybody who uses "white knighting" as a term without irony to stand up for being a total fucking asshole?

Edit for general sentiment: What terrifies me, is that a show like mine, which is generally very centrist and looks at multiple sides of an argument, is often called extreme feminism, white knighting, or otherwise radical in its approach to issues. If THIS show is radical to you, I think it says a lot more about your own deeply seeded extremism.

I'm not sure really.

I think to a degree, there's an element of being a bit too sensitive about such things.

I'm gay (Probably?), I'm also a "Furry" whatever that means.

I occasionally get shit for it, the occasional sly remark, that kind of thing.

But, I really don't care. I'm not defined by these things, I don't feel offended by some random guy insulting a small aspect of my personality.

Perhaps I just have a thick skin, but, even if you are offended by things. What's so wrong with being offended? What's wrong with people having views so radically different from your own?

Do you not insult that these people are being "Narrow minded" and "Idiots" for having the polar opposite view of your own?

I guess in my case, if people are to be homophobic towards me, fine. Have that view. I don't care if you feel the need to insult others over it, nothing I can say or do about it is suddenly going to stop this person from being homophobic, so, why get offended?

My opinion of people whom are homophobic would probably be insulting to somebody who is homophobic, why are my views somehow more "Right" than the opposites?

Because more people agree with them?

That's not to say I agree with people hating on transsexuals or whatever, but, I guess I draw a thick line between random shit people say and actual action.

I think if you open yourself up to the world on a social level, you have to be aware what that brings. Social media is never going to be an echo-chamber, there is always going to be people that disagree, people that send messages that you deem insulting, and likewise, you're probably equally as guilty of sending messages some small group finds offensive too.

Doesn't bring me much joy to see people get insulted, but, it's foolish to get all up in arms about a minority of people holding an opinion you don't like, regardless of how much that opinion clashes with the norm.

Barbas:
The first step toward solving a problem is to admit that there is one. This problem is particularly vile and must be dragged into the light.

Second that.

There's always someone saying "we shouldn't talk about the problem" in the (nominal) hope it'll go away, because they (consciously or not) see the problem as people talking about someone else's problems.

Going to post this again:

"I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

Jimothy Sterling:

llagrok:
More white knighting from the soapbox.

No offense, but why is it every male+overweight gamer's schtick to stand up against falsely construed arugment whenever a female game critic/developer is involved?

I dunno, why is it the schtick of everybody who uses "white knighting" as a term without irony to stand up for being a total fucking asshole?

As a general rule? Assuming "White Knighting" still refers to the old (in internet terms) idea of people only being nice to a woman because they might get sex out of it?

It ties in with the whole "Nice Guy" and "friendzoning" bullshit - some people on the internet fail to realize that, gasp, women are people too! And they exist as people, with lives and personalities! No, these wailing manchildren on the internet only see the value of women in the sexual gratification they can derive from them. So, when they see someone interacting with them in any sort of positive way, their mind leaps to the conclusion that, since the only reason THEY'D do that is to get sex as a 'reward,' that must be the other person's reasoning too.

It's projecting one's shitty patterns of thinking and behaviour onto others. It's a similar phenomenon to how rapists interpret jokes about rape - it validates their own line of thinking on the subject and reinforces the idea in their heads that EVERYONE ELSE is just like them.

They're awful human beings so they can only interpret the actions of others through the viewpoint of an awful human being, basically.

As usual, we see that websites like Kotaku care far more about money than they do about genuine social justice.

llagrok:
More white knighting from the soapbox.

No offense, but why is it every male+overweight gamer's schtick to stand up against falsely construed arugment whenever a female game critic/developer is involved?

Um, you're wrong on 3 things (at least)
1.Jim (unlike Bob) had never ventured into whiteknighting territory
2.He wasn't talking about females specifically, but about role of media in harassing. If you fail to see this maybe you should watch episode again. From the very start. And till the end. And with eyes open. And with earplugs pulled out. Also this time put brain back in (it is kinda important for understanding things).
3.Second example wasn't about female. You failed even in understanding that.

Ryan Hughes:

ron1n:

Pretty low of Kotaku. Although I'm not surprised.

Gawker media is pretty awful, and pulls some really terrible stuff sometimes.

What was that Critical Miss comic's take on Gawker Media's secret to success? "Step 2: Sacrifice another goat?"


Seems rather apt now that I think about it. I actually frequent Gawker network sites, but I've rarely been exposed to the more controversial aspects of their editorial policy, to be honest. The last fracas I remember actually following was the iPhone 4 leak, and that hardly pegged my scumbag-meter.

Moving back on topic, I agree that games journalists should not bring attention to cases of harassment where the victim is unwilling to discuss it for fear of additional harassment. But we have to remember that nowadays, especially in the less-old-media formats of blogs, comments sections and forums, that members of an online community have in and of themselves become a source of news and gossip. How, then, should the sites treat such user-generated content?

I am not talking about out-and-out harassment (which should of course be dispatched with prejudice), but more what would happen if a user decided to post something that aimed to condemn harassment, without first considering the negative attention it may attract to the victim. What should be the response of the owners, contributors or moderators of the site that it was posted on? Do we delete the post? Give the user a warning? Use it as a starting point to investigate more deeply into the matter? Where do you draw this line in terms of intervention?

Jimothy Sterling:

Bke:
Completely off topic, and completely pointless, but I just wanted to mention how interesting the lighting looked in this episode. Quite... vibrant. Having the lights on the side of your set gives everything a cool degree of depth.

I was sick of how washed out everything look so I focused the lights a bit differently. Was worried it would look unlit, but the final version is a bit better than normal.

Planning to get some new lights anyway. Really trying to make things look marginally less shite.

You did look refreshed. If you have the equipment, maybe experiment with warm light from above and cold light from beneath. Set a mood to a thema.

Oh Kotaku, you keep surprising me with how horrible a website you are!

templar1138a:
This show is a constant source of mild misery for me. Because part of me watches and thinks, "Wait, there are people who NEED to be told this?"

Well, one way of looking at it.

OTOH, this show proves that there are people that don't need to be told[1]. As long as the person talking about the terrible things happening says it's terrible, there's hope yet.

So, yeah, we can thank god for that.

[1] Well, so much, nobody is perfect, everyone needs to be called out every so often

Hjortkayre:

It ties in with the whole "Nice Guy" and "friendzoning" bullshit - some people on the internet fail to realize that, gasp, women are people too! And they exist as people, with lives and personalities!

And most people realise that other people are bunch of arseholes, at least they have the decency not to discriminate other than the fact that human may not be nice.

I've always supported the view that such harassment should be 100% ignored and this episode hasn't really convinced me otherwise.

Several other things:

- I find it really hard to consider any game media outlets are running these kind of articles for altruistic reasons. See, it's become a very common thing in news in general to run outrage articles to attract not just the people who are outraged, but the people who are outraged at the outrage. Look at the explosion of articles about Michael Sam. These articles are not just for people who think gays should be able to play football, but are secretly courting those who HATE gays as well! Then they can fight it out in the comments which you rack up the clicks.

Same thing is going on every time the game media runs these harassment articles.

- The thing with Laura....if she didn't want her harassment to be "shared" with the world, why are you posting about it on Twitter, a global facing platform? I swear, people need to stop telling everyone about their lives then get indignant when people spread that information.

- Everyone needs to stop harassing people. Stop it.

Huh... a jimquisition show that i completly agree with... thats.. odd.

What jim said thought... the "press" should be tactfull and listen to the victims wishes before they make a huge deal out of it.

And blowing a story up for easy add revenue is not helping anyone.. it makes the journalist look bad, it hurts the victims and everyone all around has a bad day.

Jimothy Sterling:

Bke:
Completely off topic, and completely pointless, but I just wanted to mention how interesting the lighting looked in this episode. Quite... vibrant. Having the lights on the side of your set gives everything a cool degree of depth.

I was sick of how washed out everything look so I focused the lights a bit differently. Was worried it would look unlit, but the final version is a bit better than normal.

Planning to get some new lights anyway. Really trying to make things look marginally less shite.

That right there is the story of human civilization, innit? People making half-hearted attempts at getting something to look/work marginally less shite.

Jimothy Sterling:

llagrok:
More white knighting from the soapbox.

No offense, but why is it every male+overweight gamer's schtick to stand up against falsely construed arugment whenever a female game critic/developer is involved?

I dunno, why is it the schtick of everybody who uses "white knighting" as a term without irony to stand up for being a total fucking asshole?

Edit for general sentiment: What terrifies me, is that a show like mine, which is generally very centrist and looks at multiple sides of an argument, is often called extreme feminism, white knighting, or otherwise radical in its approach to issues. If THIS show is radical to you, I think it says a lot more about your own deeply seeded extremism.

I chalk it up to people becoming so jaded by the constant "LOOK AT WHAT HORRIBLE TROLLS ARE DOING" headlines that ANY exposure of the harassment (regardless of severity) is seen as a cynical grab for attention.

Sometime they are right. Others, like this person now, are in the wrong.

Thanatos2k:
I've always supported the view that such harassment should be 100% ignored and this episode hasn't really convinced me otherwise.

...

- Everyone needs to stop harassing people. Stop it.

Ignoring harassment doesn't make it go away. It has to be talked about if we are to get people to stop doing it (so much).

Basically, people use extreme political correctness as means to spout their sensationalist garbage and turn a non-issue into a full blown crisis. It's insanity. And I fear for society when so many people are so emotionally weak.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here