Matt Maguire & Gameplanet refuse to blame GamerGate for witch hunting of BioWare animator

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

runic knight:

inmunitas:

runic knight:
As a loose collective, they have no central governing body or leadership, so trends within the group are distinguishable largely by how the majority of the collective respond. With regard to Ralph, the majority dropped his dumb ass long, long ago.

The majority of whom exactly? How can you claim majority when you don't even have a rough idea of the size of the group you're supposedly dealing with?

The group size has been cited roughly. And while that makes it harder to learn exact percentages on various issues, it doesn't make it impossible to get general trends, especially on topics that are stronger of opinion.

Umm... cited where exactly? Also, how does one go about analysing these trends?

inmunitas:

runic knight:

inmunitas:

The majority of whom exactly? How can you claim majority when you don't even have a rough idea of the size of the group you're supposedly dealing with?

The group size has been cited roughly. And while that makes it harder to learn exact percentages on various issues, it doesn't make it impossible to get general trends, especially on topics that are stronger of opinion.

Umm... cited where exactly? Also, how does one go about analysing these trends?

Sources such as this I suppose. Hard to find anything really reliable about actual size it seems, so breakdowns like this at least shows a reasonable way how they are examining stuff.

http://www.crimeandfederalism.com/2015/05/how-many-people-in-gamergate.html

That breaks down general numbers based on how vocal supporters stand on the stance affected things such as growth of followers. Not the only example, of course. Many lesser-known channels can cite large growth in response to gamergate as well. But a good place to start, as the sudden influx of supporters to a large degree once supporting gamergate begins does suggest it is related because they too support gamergate's view on the topic.

Things like this, like the subscription numbers of hangouts like KotakuInAction, and simple activity in the hashtag all help give general numbers to work with. Considering the controversial nature of the topic of gamergate and the fierce divide on it, and to say nothing about the open disdain toward tolerating differing opinions demonstrated by anti-gamergate thanks to their embracing of blockbots and the like, it is a decently reliable way to get some general numbers of support to work with. Even taking into account crossover between various hubs and the few who would tolerate following those hubs for the sake of keeping an eye on the enemy, you can still judge support for gamergate through those lenses.

Furthermore, looking at those same sources that determine general amount can also help determine general trends. What are majority of people talking about issue-wise? What topics and posts are favorited and supported? What is promoted among the people the most? Those actively involved and participating in discussions is an even more reliable metric of determining supporters.

This is another problem with a disorganized loosely associated group though, membership is fluid and not centralized in the first place. How many various "gamergate hubs" are there? Even those opposed to it will cite 4chan, 8chan, reddit, twitter, and even here as various hubs of gamergate activity. People can start or stop supporting gamergate on a whim, and most of the rest of the collective whole don't realize it.

So I would guess comparing overall trends seen in each hub to each other would be a start. Look at ongoing conversations and judge which way those supporting gamergate lean overall in each area. See how things are supported, called out, or debated. Places like twitter or reddit are especially east to see the responses people get as the replies can build up fast.

If you are looking for easy answers overall though, sort of hard. Best way would probably be to participate within the conversations at those hubs in the first place. If you want to talk generally about it, taking into account those various hubs reveals just general trends there. If you want to try to make damning claims about members of the group based on just specific individuals (many that are not even tied to nor supported by the group i nthe first place), then you are just being irrational.

Netscape:

undeadsuitor:
How can someone be estranged from a hashtag?

And if gg can condemn this why couldn't they condemn earlier harassment?

What makes you think we didn't? Are you unfamiliar with the GamerGate Harassment Patrol? Not to mention four different reports show that virtually zero harassment has come from GamerGate.

A look at a few studies:
WAM Study: https://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2015/05/gamergate-isnt-a-harassment-campaign-states-wam-report/

You really need to stop claiming that the WAM study showed little harassment coming from GamerGate. It did nothing of the sort. The WAM study cannot be used to make any claim about the percentage of GamerGaters involved in harassment, because it was not possible to pull that sort of data from what was collected. They even clarified this. See https://civic.mit.edu/blog/natematias/common-questions-about-our-online-harassment-report

TechRaptor Study: https://techraptor.net/content/gamergate-really-analysis-twitter-hashtag

A pro-GamerGate publication uses data from a GamerGate supporter and finds that GamerGate did nothing wrong? I'll sit this one out.

FBI Report on GamerGate: http://www.oneangrygamer.net/2016/12/fbi-closed-gamergate-case-due-to-no-actionable-leads-evidence/18282/

The FBI were not looking at the amount of harassment that came from GamerGate. They investigated a very small number of reported cases.

EU Report on GamerGate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1ZaMnyAK48

That was not a "EU report into GamerGate". That is not even close to accurate. With that said, it made no claims about whether or not GamerGate was involved in harassment, beyond taking as an assumption that supporters were. Their study, as you stated, did not look into harassment. So I have no idea why you feel it is an example that shows "virtually zero harassment has come from GamerGate".

Misrepresenting studies to make claims that they were not even investigating is not a good way forward.

* Do you believe that Mr. Maguire was ethical and honest in his reporting?

Sure. If Ralph contributed to the harassment of people working on Mass Effect Andromeda this should be pointed out, as well as it's not entirely unimportant that he used to associated with GamerGate. Just as it's important to point out that he isn't any more.

* Why do you think Polygon and Bleeding Cool blamed GamerGate for the alleged witch hunt, despite Ralph having been so long estranged from the movement and virtually everyone in GamerGate condemning the witch hunt?

Because both of those publications had a very lacking understanding of GamerGate in the first place. It was never that organized movement to harass video game journalists and developers, it was a bunch of people rallying behind a name for a pretty stupid reasons with goals that were sometimes noble, sometimes based on a big misunderstanding and sometimes blatantly manipulative. It was, overall, not a force of good but it wasn't the hateful mob, wielding torches and pitchforks many people seem to think it was.

* Do you believe that the condemnation of the witch hunt by virtually everyone involved in GamerGate means anything?

Who even is that, at that point? Back in my days GamerGate was represented by, quite frankly, the worst scum of humanity. Folks like Yiannopoulos and Sargon and InternetAristocrat, all of those fringe right sleazebags. Which is the reason why I grew so disillusioned with it in the first place.

* If GamerGate condemning Mr. Ralph and the witch hunt "isn't enough" or "doesn't mean anything," then what would you want?

It'd be nice if people weren't harassed anymore. Don't get me wrong, Andromeda looks like a pretty atrocious games but, by all means, just don't buy it.

* Do you believe that journalist Ian Miles Cheong's assertion that he doesn't know a single GamerGate supporter that supports the witch hunt?

I believe that Ian Miles Cheong wouldn't be able to find his own ass, even if he used both hands to look for it, much less a GamerGate supporter in favour of harassment. But those have always existed and I'm willing to believe they still do.

* Do you believe that Maguire's comment that Ralph is a "hateful troll" is accurate?

Absolutely. A hateful troll and an utter imbecile.

* Would you like to see more neutral journalists report on GamerGate in a fair and honest manner?

Yes. Three years ago. Now... what does it matter? GamerGate has become such a fringe phenomenon that I hardly see a reason to report on it at all anymore.

runic knight:

inmunitas:

runic knight:

The group size has been cited roughly. And while that makes it harder to learn exact percentages on various issues, it doesn't make it impossible to get general trends, especially on topics that are stronger of opinion.

Umm... cited where exactly? Also, how does one go about analysing these trends?

Sources such as this I suppose. Hard to find anything really reliable about actual size it seems, so breakdowns like this at least shows a reasonable way how they are examining stuff.

http://www.crimeandfederalism.com/2015/05/how-many-people-in-gamergate.html

That breaks down general numbers based on how vocal supporters stand on the stance affected things such as growth of followers. Not the only example, of course. Many lesser-known channels can cite large growth in response to gamergate as well. But a good place to start, as the sudden influx of supporters to a large degree once supporting gamergate begins does suggest it is related because they too support gamergate's view on the topic.

Wait, so you're basing your idea of the size of this group on the number of Twitter followers Mike Cernovich has? So could we then deduce that given @Netscape has only amassed roughly 1500 Twitter followers and around 2000 subscribers on YouTube in a time frame of about 2 years, that Netscape and/or Netscape's views are not supported by this majority you speak of?

inmunitas:

runic knight:

inmunitas:

Umm... cited where exactly? Also, how does one go about analysing these trends?

Sources such as this I suppose. Hard to find anything really reliable about actual size it seems, so breakdowns like this at least shows a reasonable way how they are examining stuff.

http://www.crimeandfederalism.com/2015/05/how-many-people-in-gamergate.html

That breaks down general numbers based on how vocal supporters stand on the stance affected things such as growth of followers. Not the only example, of course. Many lesser-known channels can cite large growth in response to gamergate as well. But a good place to start, as the sudden influx of supporters to a large degree once supporting gamergate begins does suggest it is related because they too support gamergate's view on the topic.

Wait, so you're basing your idea of the size of this group on the number of Twitter followers Mike Cernovich has? So could we then deduce that given @Netscape has only amassed roughly 1500 Twitter followers and around 2000 subscribers on YouTube in a time frame of about 2 years, that Netscape and/or Netscape's views are not supported by this majority you speak of?

You are mistaking using growth to try to determine total amount of gamergate's size with acceptance of specific narrower-focused opinions or ideas by the group as a whole. Two different aspects here. The first can rely on growth because you are checking against the same general stances that defines gamergate as a group (opposition to the game journalists, support of the hashtag itself, voluntarily joining with the "group"). These are the broadest aspects that defined what gamergate was and were the polarizing stances that separated it from those opposed to gamergate or who were neutral overall. As such growth of channels or account followers in relation to that can be used to help determine size of the total group. This is especially possible because those opposed to gamergate have resoundingly promoted, endorsed and even mandated unfollowing those who agree with gamergate, isolating themselves behind blockbots and locked forums, and even attacking any of their own who dared to talk with gamergaters, so the growth seen in channel followers would very heavily be based on those supporting gamergate in contrast to those unfollowing being opposed. Net gain would mean more supporters than opposing, and large net gains would be able to be used to indicate actual size of the group as a whole in each of the various hubs of activity. Not all growth would be identical as well, with some channels growing far more than others. These largest growing ones would be the best bet to look at to determine total size of the overall group since the wider range would demonstrate closer to the true total. This is especially true for accounts that grew that had no other likely source of growth behind them besides their stance on gamergate.

Now do note this is not solely on the size of followers one individual has, but the change in followers across multiple accounts on multiple sites in relation to the controversial topic of gamergate. The example given of mike was showing how that could be done, not the end-all, be-all example itself, nor the sole example to use.

With regard to netscape, while change in follower count can be used to help determine size of the group on the overall topic, it is less useful to determine group support on narrower stances overall, especially when looking at a channel or account that has not grown to the extend of the larger channels or voices on the topic and is thus still only a small sample size of the whole there. While overall growth can help indicate membership of the group, not all growth is the same percentage of growth. A channel that gained a couple hundred people because it supported gamergate shows that at least those couple hundred people support that stance on gamergate, however it is less and less reliable to infer deeper than that. At best, you might be able to look at larger channels that grew due to support of gamergate and than shrank in response to a specific stance to make cases that gamergate doesn't support something. Cases like KoP come to mind there. Looking at a channel that didn't grow much overall though, doesn't demonstrate much about majority opinion on their specific positions. Can be used in conjunction with multiple other smaller accounts to argue a specific overall trend though, if you wish to do it that way. Would require a pretty wide amount of data points to do that honestly though.

You are looking at overall growth to indicate group stance on specific issues on accounts that haven't grown large enough to demonstrate the majority opinion accurately. You are doing the same flaw as before in looking at singular examples instead of overall trends, only now instead of specific examples that support one view, you are looking at specific examples to argue a lack of support. The reasoning is still the same flawed sort it was before.

Thus netscape could well still represent majority opinion. You would have to compare his stance with others that are known and accepted gamergaters and use the responses their stance has to get the overall trend.

Phasmal:

Netscape:
but we have largely achieved our goals in staving off the social justice threat to gaming.

image

Have you though? I can't say I've seen any noticeable difference in the complaining about SJW's ruining gaming somehow.
In fact, the only noticeable difference post-GG I've observed is just a more divided gaming community so if that was the goal then gratz I guess.

I don't see the division. I think that a lot of good stuff has happened in the last few years. Now, you can't credit any specific amount of it to GG or anything else, but I am in general very pleased with the direction gaming is headed towards. Even games which get branded as being poster-children for SJWs in some questionable articles such as Horizon end up being actually good games and since that's all the community ought to care for, I see no trouble.

Sure, you may have some people bicker about insignificant issues here and there, but it's still mostly great stuff. What has happened is less that the SJW style approach was beaten and more that it was made visible so now for example people know to make an Asian-English release of Summer Lessons for the west, as opposed to outright refusing to bring the game over which was the position initially taken about it. While in the past there was a climate of censorship, now there's a climate of bypassing the whiny people and getting the games in the hands of gamers and more and more companies seem to have figured out how to do this so I can't see anything wrong with it. Even nintendo finally realized systems should be region free with the Switch, which is all I could ever ask of them.

Dreiko:
SNIP.

I'll agree to disagree regarding the community, dude.
I had more to say but then I remembered this shit just turns into essay flinging and the whole topic is so dead who can even be bothered any more.

 Pages PREV 1 2

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