Did GG achieve it's goal of accountability?

The whole goal of GG, from what I can tell, is that it wanted accountability from the gaming press. Was that goal ever achieved? I mean I know some websites updated their code of conduct, but I can't say if that means misison accomplished. So did it or is the fight still on going?

IF that's what you assume GG's goal was, then yes, if only by a scorched earth policy since in gaming now, "Games journalist" is a pejorative.

Then again, I don't think that was their goal.

lol

WolvDragon:
The whole goal of GG, from what I can tell, is that it wanted accountability from the gaming press.

That assumption might be your problem right there.

It made some headway, despite tremendous resistance. Mostly just surface stuff though.
The corruption, nepotism and political bias is still present to a large degree.
I think it mainly evolved into a stronger push-back against the politics behind it.
Something positive to take from it, is that people will hopefully move forward with greater awareness and skepticism.

Obviously not, since the problem turned out to be far, far more pervasive than anyone could have anticipated. Apparently we're well and truly through the looking glass, and there's nothing to hold the media as a whole to any kind of standard anymore. This was seen in the seamless way that the "Gamergate" narrative was absorbed into the general mainstream media right from the "GameJourno" script without so much as a cursory glance at what was actually happening. As evident in the leaked email from the Guardian editor Jemima Kiss, curtly ordering her staff to refrain from any comment until Leigh Alexander herself was available to come by the office and give them their marching orders.

Which means that it's nowhere near over yet.

StatusNil:
Obviously not, since the problem turned out to be far, far more pervasive than anyone could have anticipated. Apparently we're well and truly through the looking glass, and there's nothing to hold the media as a whole to any kind of standard anymore. This was seen in the seamless way that the "Gamergate" narrative was absorbed into the general mainstream media right from the "GameJourno" script without so much as a cursory glance at what was actually happening. As evident in the leaked email from the Guardian editor Jemima Kiss, curtly ordering her staff to refrain from any comment until Leigh Alexander herself was available to come by the office and give them their marching orders.

Which means that it's nowhere near over yet.

Well that answers my question! Thank you!

Mods lock em away!

WolvDragon:

StatusNil:
Obviously not, since the problem turned out to be far, far more pervasive than anyone could have anticipated. Apparently we're well and truly through the looking glass, and there's nothing to hold the media as a whole to any kind of standard anymore. This was seen in the seamless way that the "Gamergate" narrative was absorbed into the general mainstream media right from the "GameJourno" script without so much as a cursory glance at what was actually happening. As evident in the leaked email from the Guardian editor Jemima Kiss, curtly ordering her staff to refrain from any comment until Leigh Alexander herself was available to come by the office and give them their marching orders.

Which means that it's nowhere near over yet.

Well that answers my question! Thank you!

Mods lock em away!

Just an fyi, but taking Nil's version of events regarding Gamergate is roughly the equivalent taking Nixon's "I'm not a crook" version of Watergate and the subsequent cover-up events (ie: you're going to want to take a few dump trucks worth of salt with it).

Avnger:

WolvDragon:

StatusNil:
Obviously not, since the problem turned out to be far, far more pervasive than anyone could have anticipated. Apparently we're well and truly through the looking glass, and there's nothing to hold the media as a whole to any kind of standard anymore. This was seen in the seamless way that the "Gamergate" narrative was absorbed into the general mainstream media right from the "GameJourno" script without so much as a cursory glance at what was actually happening. As evident in the leaked email from the Guardian editor Jemima Kiss, curtly ordering her staff to refrain from any comment until Leigh Alexander herself was available to come by the office and give them their marching orders.

Which means that it's nowhere near over yet.

Well that answers my question! Thank you!

Mods lock em away!

Just an fyi, but taking Nil's version of events regarding Gamergate is roughly the equivalent taking Nixon's "I'm not a crook" version of Watergate and the subsequent cover-up events (ie: you're going to want to take a few dump trucks worth of salt with it).

Do you have a bette version then?

I know it's your right to have the mods lock your threads; but is there a reason to lock this one?

WolvDragon:
Do you have a bette version then?

Likely one that takes the form of "Polygon and Kotaku agreed that this was in no way about games media, therefore Wikipedia agrees and everyone else plays along."

WolvDragon:

StatusNil:
Obviously not, since the problem turned out to be far, far more pervasive than anyone could have anticipated. Apparently we're well and truly through the looking glass, and there's nothing to hold the media as a whole to any kind of standard anymore. This was seen in the seamless way that the "Gamergate" narrative was absorbed into the general mainstream media right from the "GameJourno" script without so much as a cursory glance at what was actually happening. As evident in the leaked email from the Guardian editor Jemima Kiss, curtly ordering her staff to refrain from any comment until Leigh Alexander herself was available to come by the office and give them their marching orders.

Which means that it's nowhere near over yet.

Well that answers my question! Thank you!

Mods lock em away!

CaitSeith:
I know it's your right to have the mods lock your threads; but is there a reason to lock this one?

Yes, it is quite unusual to have someone start threads to have open discussion then ask to have threads closed for discussion after accepting the least accurate version of events as if that is all there is to say about it. How many other people do you see asking to have all their threads locked?

Claiming a problem is more pervasive than they anticipated and being far from over when the issue of whether it was a problem to begin with does not hold up when reviewing the actual material in question is not answering questions at all, instead it comes across as attempting to push a narrative. When you review the actual events as they unfolded and utilize basic reading comprehension skills, it is obviously apparent that the material in question was terribly misconstrued in the first place. People at temp[ting to claim that something means something it does not does not make that version reality, it either shows that something was intentionally misconstrued to suit their narrative or they lack a basic understanding and reading comprehension.

In order to better understand what is happening, you have to actually review all source material in question in it's proper context to begin with not just accept a summary of a biased narrative that omits a great deal of data that there was never consensus on in the first place as being "the answer" to any question. When the first assumption being made is not accurate, how can the further assumptions be suddenly accurate? It is better to see the material for what it is rather than to falsely assume they have some shady underlying meaning. The conclusions that were drawn and assumptions that were made were the primary issue rather than the actual materiel itself. Someone misunderstanding something they read and then claiming it is part of a wider conspiracy is paranoid delusion rather than evidence of a conspiracy. It is not based in fact and reality or even a question of ethics at that point but instead a manufactured "problem" to push a narrative. It does not help to actually grasp an expanded understanding of the subject to then accept that false narrative as "fact" and then ask for a thread to be closed to additional data on the topic. No that appears to be pushing a narrative as well.

Lil devils x:

WolvDragon:

StatusNil:
Obviously not, since the problem turned out to be far, far more pervasive than anyone could have anticipated. Apparently we're well and truly through the looking glass, and there's nothing to hold the media as a whole to any kind of standard anymore. This was seen in the seamless way that the "Gamergate" narrative was absorbed into the general mainstream media right from the "GameJourno" script without so much as a cursory glance at what was actually happening. As evident in the leaked email from the Guardian editor Jemima Kiss, curtly ordering her staff to refrain from any comment until Leigh Alexander herself was available to come by the office and give them their marching orders.

Which means that it's nowhere near over yet.

Well that answers my question! Thank you!

Mods lock em away!

CaitSeith:
I know it's your right to have the mods lock your threads; but is there a reason to lock this one?

Yes, it is quite unusual to have someone start threads to have open discussion then ask to have threads closed for discussion after accepting the least accurate version of events as if that is all there is to say about it. How many other people do you see asking to have all their threads locked?

Claiming a problem is more pervasive than they anticipated and being far from over when the issue of whether it was a problem to begin with does not hold up when reviewing the actual material in question is not answering questions at all, instead it comes across as attempting to push a narrative. When you review the actual events as they unfolded and utilize basic reading comprehension skills, it is obviously apparent that the material in question was terribly misconstrued in the first place. People at temp[ting to claim that something means something it does not does not make that version reality, it either shows that something was intentionally misconstrued to suit their narrative or they lack a basic understanding and reading comprehension.

In order to better understand what is happening, you have to actually review all source material in question in it's proper context to begin with not just accept a summary of a biased narrative that omits a great deal of data that there was never consensus on in the first place as being "the answer" to any question. When the first assumption being made is not accurate, how can the further assumptions be suddenly accurate? It is better to see the material for what it is rather than to falsely assume they have some shady underlying meaning. The conclusions that were drawn and assumptions that were made were the primary issue rather than the actual materiel itself. Someone misunderstanding something they read and then claiming it is part of a wider conspiracy is paranoid delusion rather than evidence of a conspiracy. It is not based in fact and reality or even a question of ethics at that point but instead a manufactured "problem" to push a narrative. It does not help to actually grasp an expanded understanding of the subject to then accept that false narrative as "fact" and then ask for a thread to be closed to additional data on the topic. No that appears to be pushing a narrative as well.

Simple I just wanted a question answered about if gamergate accomplished their goals. Maybe a thread prob wasn't the right one. Plus I don't want to turn this into a flame war between pro and anti gamergaters.

WolvDragon:

Lil devils x:

WolvDragon:

Well that answers my question! Thank you!

Mods lock em away!

CaitSeith:
I know it's your right to have the mods lock your threads; but is there a reason to lock this one?

Yes, it is quite unusual to have someone start threads to have open discussion then ask to have threads closed for discussion after accepting the least accurate version of events as if that is all there is to say about it. How many other people do you see asking to have all their threads locked?

Claiming a problem is more pervasive than they anticipated and being far from over when the issue of whether it was a problem to begin with does not hold up when reviewing the actual material in question is not answering questions at all, instead it comes across as attempting to push a narrative. When you review the actual events as they unfolded and utilize basic reading comprehension skills, it is obviously apparent that the material in question was terribly misconstrued in the first place. People at temp[ting to claim that something means something it does not does not make that version reality, it either shows that something was intentionally misconstrued to suit their narrative or they lack a basic understanding and reading comprehension.

In order to better understand what is happening, you have to actually review all source material in question in it's proper context to begin with not just accept a summary of a biased narrative that omits a great deal of data that there was never consensus on in the first place as being "the answer" to any question. When the first assumption being made is not accurate, how can the further assumptions be suddenly accurate? It is better to see the material for what it is rather than to falsely assume they have some shady underlying meaning. The conclusions that were drawn and assumptions that were made were the primary issue rather than the actual materiel itself. Someone misunderstanding something they read and then claiming it is part of a wider conspiracy is paranoid delusion rather than evidence of a conspiracy. It is not based in fact and reality or even a question of ethics at that point but instead a manufactured "problem" to push a narrative. It does not help to actually grasp an expanded understanding of the subject to then accept that false narrative as "fact" and then ask for a thread to be closed to additional data on the topic. No that appears to be pushing a narrative as well.

Simple I just wanted a question answered about if gamergate accomplished their goals. Maybe a thread prob wasn't the right one. Plus I don't want to turn this into a flame war between pro and anti gamergaters.

That is just the thing, the whole idea of " anti gamergaters" was also an issue at the time, because anyone who questioned their interpretation or narrative of data or even pointed out inaccuracies was deemed to be an "anti gamergater" and were actively conspiring against them as a group. As someone who watched this all unfold on this site I watched as people who just asked questions to clarify accuracy were then dogpiled by the mob. To even refer to someone as "anti gamergate" in the first place is not even necessarily accurate due to the whole "if your not with us then your against us" mentality of Gamergate itself.

No, it is not that simple because you did not actually get an answer from gamergate, as the people who started Gamer gate never had such goals, those were people who tried to jump on their band wagon and change the narrative. Their goal was to destroy Zoe Quinn and make her pay for upsetting Eron and make anyone else "pay" that attempted to stand in their way. To be anti gamergate, is to be one of the people who stood in their way and attempted to stop them from slut shaming her.

When you look at the actual original black list itself as who they were boycotting, you will plainly see that it was originally constructed with Zoe Quinn, her friends, supporters, guys she may or may have not slept with, and sites that would not allow them to discuss this as their primary targets. They then started listing anyone who said anything they disagreed with later. In what way is ignoring the actual data here answering the question when they never actually addressed the goals of actual gamergate itself, its blacklist, or their original intentions?

When you read the Zoe post, the posts from the people who originally brought this to this very website, what the person who tells us Gamergate started in their living room had to say, in what way would what was stated here be an answer to your question? You have to address the issues and people who started gamergate to get that answer, not people who tried to change the narrative to justify it later.

A "flame war" consists of angry or abusive messages, not a clarification of facts. Clarification of facts is instead a discussion. You do not "preemptively strike" a thread before the discussion has had a chance to take place due to fear of something that has not yet occurred otherwise why start a thread in the first place? Mods determine when that is appropriate to do, otherwise we would have every thread locked in the forums before a discussion can even take place.

What it achieved is that very few people trust game journalists now.

Schadrach:

WolvDragon:
Do you have a bette version then?

Likely one that takes the form of "Polygon and Kotaku agreed that this was in no way about games media, therefore Wikipedia agrees and everyone else plays along."

Oh hun, are you really that scared?

Vanilla ISIS:
What it achieved is that very few people trust game journalists now.

By which do you mean Gamergate the event, or the "ultra-organized and well-funded (probably by Russia) terrorist hate group consisting entirely of neckbearded incel sockpuppet bots in their parents basements" bogeyman?

If the former, agreed. Otherwise... I'd love to take credit for that, but I do believe in giving it where it is due: game "journalists" did it all by themselves.

Vanilla ISIS:
What it achieved is that very few people trust game journalists now.

The question is, "why did people trust games journalists to begin with"? Damn near every site started as an in-house pr group, and those that didn't rely heavily on corporations for funding and access. There's a reason that the minimum score for AAA releases is a freaking 7/10.

But no, let's have a knock-down-drag-out fight over petty indie shit. Never mind that the indie side of games journalism is exactly the same as any other indie publication about movies or music or anything else. Or to put it another way: I don't give the slightest fuck if some journalist put money in a kickstarter or bought a sandwich for a dev or were friendly with devs on twitter or whatever. Half of that is journos being gamers too and the other half is basic human networking. Did Zoe Quinn sleep with journos for "positive [strike]reviews[/] coverage"? Maybe. Considering that said coverage consisted of a paragraph in two articles, one of which was a listing of 50 games on Steam that probably 6 people read before it became a "thing", I'm not inclined to give much of a shit. Did her ex rally up a Chan mob because he just wanted her to get help"? Also yes, but that's a shitty ex thing, not something that should've blown up into a multi-year thing, but here we are, the worst and stupidest timeline. If only we'd've followed SA's example and laughed him off, we might've cared more about shit like EA giving access to and veto power over YouTubers previewing Shadow of Mordor, but apparently indie cliches and (((social justice))) were more important.

I'm just glad nobody died, SWAT attempts notwithstanding.

Ogoid:
or the "ultra-organized and well-funded (probably by Russia) terrorist hate group consisting entirely of neckbearded incel sockpuppet bots in their parents basements" bogeyman?

It's good to see that your conspiracy theories aren't leading to harassment and death threats to female game devs (because "journalism" kek) anymore. The disconnect from reality about your theories and the "enemies" they contain seems to have grown though. I'm worried for you mate.

That's like asking if OJ achieved his goal of "Finding the real killer".
No, because it was never aboot journalistic integrity, and you're deluding yourself if you think it was anything beyond a harassment campaign.

Avnger:

It's good to see that your conspiracy theories aren't leading to harassment and death threats to female game devs (because "journalism" kek) anymore. The disconnect from reality about your theories and the "enemies" they contain seems to have grown though. I'm worried for you mate.

I appreciate your concern, but I'm just fine.

That's not my theory, you see.

WolvDragon:

StatusNil:

Well that answers my question! Thank you!

Mods lock em away!

If you insist.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked