How gamergate ruined games

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

altnameJag:

You do know what an open letter is, right?

Yeah, but does anyone know what a "re/Action Zine" is? There's open and then there's "open".

Nice job avoiding the gist of the issue though.

StatusNil:

altnameJag:

You do know what an open letter is, right?

Yeah, but does anyone know what a "re/Action Zine" is? There's open and then there's "open".

Do the people that letter was written for even know what a "re/Action Zine" is? Do you?

Nice job avoiding the gist of the issue though.

Please, if she were writing about how women needed to be barred from STEM, she'd merely be a provocateur.

But you're right. Stuff like this failed crowdfunded indie magazine is much more indicative of the failings of games media than Bethesda getting an 8/10 critical rating on Metacritic for a remaster 6 year old game they released broken, but reviewers didn't know it was broken and couldn't tell anybody because they only got a copy of the game a day before launch. Incendiary words from the experimental online indie 'zine that folded almost 4 years ago and raised less than 12 grand via indiegogo is the big problem here.

Fantastic priorities there.

altnameJag:
Do the people that letter was written for even know what a "re/Action Zine" is?

Hardly relevant, as there are other avenues of communication for someone who can get their nutty ranting published on Polygon. But in any case, I suspect they just might.

Please, if she were writing about how women needed to be barred from STEM, she'd merely be a provocateur.

But you're right. Stuff like this failed crowdfunded indie magazine is much more indicative of the failings of games media than Bethesda getting an 8/10 critical rating on Metacritic for a remaster 6 year old game they released broken, but reviewers didn't know it was broken and couldn't tell anybody because they only got a copy of the game a day before launch. Incendiary words from the experimental online indie 'zine that folded almost 4 years ago and raised less than 12 grand via indiegogo is the big problem here.

Fantastic priorities there.

Yeah, as if this was about the "failure" of some 'zine, instead of the collaborative network that controls gaming websites appearing to take their marching orders from that supposedly insignificant publication. Orders to cleanse gaming of non-believer scum, just to reiterate. And here you're suggesting we should freak out about people being somehow unable to wait for reports about the remaster of a 6 year old game before rushing to buy it on the first day and having to wait for patches to fully enjoy it as a consequence of their lack of due diligence instead.

Oh, and you're very much welcome to complain about "provocateurs" writing about "barring women from STEM" once leading STEM institutions actually start implementing that policy. Or at the very least give it any consideration whatsoever.

Sneering doesn't make your comparably trivial concerns any more pressing, you know.

BeetleManiac:

Sexual Harassment Panda:
Could you explain to me why I'm the jumping off point for this?

I don't have a problem with political content in games. I have a problem with a moralising, busy-body press with contempt for it's own audience using it's platform to launch ideological witch-hunts and to try to shame artists into altering their work.

I apologize for the out-of-the-blue rant. Let me back up.

You and I both agree that getting shitty with creatives for dumb reasons is bad. That said, we're not aiming in the same direction. I see the problem not to be clueless moralizers whether they be some trustafarian douchebag who considers himself to be medically woke as fuck or a paranoid shit-talker with an axe to grind about why something or everything isn't staying the same way forever. I'm much more concerned with the direct corporate meddling in the press and the development process itself. People who don't give two tugs of a dead dog's cock about video games are calling the shots about how to make and talk about video games.

I assure you, there will never be a shortage of aggrieved individuals on the internet convinced that their moral crusade du jour is of the utmost importance. I would argue that there are much bigger targets we could be aiming at.

I appreciate the change in approach. I don't think we are pointing in different directions though. I can appreciate watching the press take a thump to the nose without thinking they're the only, or even the biggest thing hampering the creative process.

My first post in this thread was a quick brain-fart of things that were bugging me about the industry, there's a lot that bugs me. I can't exactly tell the money-men (who are they even?) what I think of their input, I can only not buy products that I believe they've cynically compromised. Which, believe me... Happens a lot. I was, on the other hand, perfectly able to tell Greg Tito directly what I thought of the content of this site under his reign.

StatusNil:
How does a honest-to-goodness purge like this compare to "Random nobodies occasionally being dicks on muh Internet!" in the "gatekeeping" stakes?

Doxxing goes beyond being dicks by a large margin. Fuck that noise off! That pretty much supported her open letter statement that some visitors in the gaming websites made the place too toxic to have more mature discussions about games.

CaitSeith:
Doxxing goes beyond being dicks by a large margin. Fuck that noise off! That pretty much supported her open letter statement that some visitors in the gaming websites made the place too toxic to have more mature discussions about games.

Who's defending dox(xxxx)ing? That is, apart from Leigh Alexander perhaps (seeing as I've certainly observed her spreading the name and contact info of someone who wrote a critical but civil e-mail to her on social media)? Obviously gaming sites ought to have, and indeed have customarily had, moderation to deal with that kind of non-legitimate crap. Beyond that and basic civility, these Safe Space Cosmonauts are the disease of exclusion they pretend to be a cure for.

Of course there are different levels of discussion to be had in regards to gaming, from "mature" identity-political censoriousness that confuses patronizing propaganda with High Art to vernacular, non-judgmental celebration of ludic pleasures and more. Which is exactly why a single clique of ideologues shouldn't be in a position to dominate so that every gaming site is pressured to fit into their rigid mold. Different strokes, etc. Allow everyone to pick their own toxin, instead of subjecting all to one Official brand.

StatusNil:

altnameJag:
Do the people that letter was written for even know what a "re/Action Zine" is?

Hardly relevant, as there are other avenues of communication for someone who can get their nutty ranting published on Polygon. But in any case, I suspect they just might.

Except that, as noted in the very screenshot you posted, that nutty rambling was posted on Tumblr, because places like Polygon wouldn't touch it.

StatusNil:

Yeah, as if this was about the "failure" of some 'zine, instead of the collaborative network that controls gaming websites appearing to take their marching orders from that supposedly insignificant publication. Orders to cleanse gaming of non-believer scum, just to reiterate. And here you're suggesting we should freak out about people being somehow unable to wait for reports about the remaster of a 6 year old game before rushing to buy it on the first day and having to wait for patches to fully enjoy it as a consequence of their lack of due diligence instead.

How very pro-consumer of you. Indie dev gets a few sentences of possibly undeserved praise about a free indie game is enough to kick of a years long ranting about games journalism, AAA company blatantly manipulating games journalism to push fully paid, already released, still broken titles with DLC gets a pass because "people should just be more responsible".

An open letter once posted on a failing games site arguing we shouldn't let racists and sexists run amok in comments sections and how they should be more inclusive to minority voices isn't "marching orders to cleanse the non-believer scum". (EDIT: What, were you expecting me to not read the article?)

Oh, and you're very much welcome to complain about "provocateurs" writing about "barring women from STEM" once leading STEM institutions actually start implementing that policy. Or at the very least give it any consideration whatsoever.

Sneering doesn't make your comparably trivial concerns any more pressing, you know.

I mean, the percentage of women in computer sciences has actually dropped compared to levels decades ago, and is substantially lower than women in other STEM fields, but sure.

Sexual Harassment Panda:
I appreciate the change in approach. I don't think we are pointing in different directions though. I can appreciate watching the press take a thump to the nose without thinking they're the only, or even the biggest thing hampering the creative process.

Then why do you complain about it more?

My first post in this thread was a quick brain-fart of things that were bugging me about the industry, there's a lot that bugs me. I can't exactly tell the money-men (who are they even?) what I think of their input, I can only not buy products that I believe they've cynically compromised. Which, believe me... Happens a lot. I was, on the other hand, perfectly able to tell Greg Tito directly what I thought of the content of this site under his reign.

And what do you think this accomplishes? From where I standing, getting shitty with the people who run the press websites is a bit like farting in a moshpit.

altnameJag:
Except that, as noted in the very screenshot you posted, that nutty rambling was posted on Tumblr, because places like Polygon wouldn't touch it.

Different nutty rambling, this person has a lot of nuttiness to share. The article condemning teh genocidal hatred of Tomodachi Life and the "dark heart of Nintendo" was very much published by Polygon. And of course promoted by a whole bunch of allied sites.

How very pro-consumer of you.

It's called "the long term", as in "It's not good for consumers in the long term to support a bunch of corrupt idiots who only wish to coerce and manipulate the audience and the industry to further their agenda."

An open letter once posted on a failing games site arguing we shouldn't let racists and sexists run amok in comments sections and how they should be more inclusive to minority voices isn't "marching orders to cleanse the non-believer scum". (EDIT: What, were you expecting me to not read the article?)

Frankly, I was unsure. Evidently you read the words, but didn't read the full meaning. How can someone who openly and unapologetically "loathes" half the people in the world be the judge of "racism and sexism" in comment sections without calling for her own banning first? Nohow, that's how. It's NewSpeak, look it up in Orwell.

I mean, the percentage of women in computer sciences has actually dropped compared to levels decades ago, and is substantially lower than women in other STEM fields, but sure.

Was anyone "barred" from attending for being a woman? If not, there is nothing to get outraged about. Free adults make their own choices on which kind of education and careers to pursue.

StatusNil:
.

Did you give Reaxxion HALF this much vitriol, I have to ask?

Smithnikov:

Did you give Reaxxion HALF this much vitriol, I have to ask?

Of course not. Why should I? It's not like Reaxxion was making some kind of difference one way or another.

Can't just go around spraying precious vitriol on every damn thing just because it was a trendy target for overreaction among the easily triggered in 2014 or thereabouts.

NPC009:

Dreiko:

I think to be a fan of something is to want it to be treated as it deserves to be, to want it to do well, to want people to appreciate it, know it, all that jazz. Hence, it is natural to wish to help that along when possible and when there's little reason not to.

If an act is counter-productive to that end and if you are a logical person who can see clearly the effects of their actions, that act would simply not be taken. The things described here are so far away from anything I or anyone I know has ever done in this endeavor that I simply refuse to be likened to them even a tiny bit. The guys taking your scope and following you around? Creeps with no sense of boundaries. The guys at the game store the other person was talking about who were hitting on her? Lonely nerds who don't know how to talk to women and what place is suitable for hitting on people and what isn't. That's not at all what I'm touching on with my description above. Those acts are all in general counter-productive towards anything positive at all and are quite shameful. They are not the fans I know.

Any definition that treats basic harassment as something else simply because it entails games or geek knowledge as the method through which it acts by definition is excluded from the goal of spreading the hobby and getting more people to join, so I can't agree with that definition, irrespective of how many people choose to use it. I will, however, keep in mind that people mean harassment when they say gatekeeping, so this has been productive.

Again, gatekeeping does not mean what you think it means. It's a word that has been around for a while now. It has a meaning. We illustrated that meaning with examples. You can't just change it with long rants.

Also, who are you to decide what is the right way to enjoy something? Being a fan just means enjoying something so much you consider it something important to you. Gathering a lot of trivia is just one way to enjoy something. Other people like collecting figures or go all-out cosplaying their favourite characters. Some write fanfiction or draw fan comics.

Actually, there's a word for people who think they should dictate how others enjoy something: elitist bastard.

Nobody likes those guys.

I don't decide it, it's a quest we all collectively are participating in. Elitists are the ones who are in it for their ego or to have some kind of status in their community. Fans just care about the welfare of the fandom and of their favorite series.

If someone has a different opinion about what is the right way to enjoy something, I believe that's where a proper discussion is in order, and then we can see where that leaves us. I'm very much a live and let live type person but at the same time if I can learn something from someone or avail them of a facet of the fandom they were not aware of I consider that a great thing.

To give you an example; I'm big with competitive 2D fighting games, and in that context, you have what you'd consider "expert opinions" which are the opinions of skilled and successful players. These opinions have in them the weight that comes with success and when someone tells you something is done right this or that way, you can either listen or disagree and show why they are wrong by playing the game. Even the most expert person will instantly adjust their view if you show them to be wrong, and while a lot of people will claim there's no "playing the game wrong", they also can be shown wrong in the same exact fashion. When that happens, you can either accept it and learn or choose to be ignorant and continue to suffer with sub optimal tech which will eventually end up in making you quit the game due to stagnation. So yeah, this is my context, I enjoy mentoring people who are interested in what I am in both the competitive context and the more general fandom context, so if I can offer my best idea for how to best enjoy something and then either convince someone of it or be shown an even better way of enjoying what I already enjoy, well that's about the coolest thing ever! :D

BeetleManiac:

Then why do you complain about it more?

Excuse me? I do? Who are you? Are you watching me always? Or do you just mean "you" as in I represent all of GG or something fucking stupid like that? My involvement goes as far as taking interest at the start, thinking certain things were stupid and certain things were funny. I don't social media or... Write letters or any of this shit.

And what do you think this accomplishes? From where I standing, getting shitty with the people who run the press websites is a bit like farting in a moshpit.

Again, there's no concerted effort here or anything.

Tito oversaw a website that I liked turning into something that I really did not like. I conversed a little with him and Archon(and noone else in the business), IIRC, and that was that. Do you remember how many "x, confirmed bigot(ed) based on tenuous bullshit!" articles we got back in the day? That shit was fucking me off well before GG happened. It struck me as irresponsible and grotesque.

StatusNil:

Smithnikov:

Did you give Reaxxion HALF this much vitriol, I have to ask?

Of course not. Why should I? It's not like Reaxxion was making some kind of difference one way or another.

Can't just go around spraying precious vitriol on every damn thing just because it was a trendy target for overreaction among the easily triggered in 2014 or thereabouts.

That tells me all I need to know.

Thank you.

Sexual Harassment Panda:
Excuse me? I do? Who are you? Are you watching me always? Or do you just mean "you" as in I represent all of GG or something fucking stupid like that? My involvement goes as far as taking interest at the start, thinking certain things were stupid and certain things were funny. I don't social media or... Write letters or any of this shit.

Jesus, touched a nerve.

Do you remember how many "x, confirmed bigot(ed) based on tenuous bullshit!" articles we got back in the day?

No. I sincerely do not.

BeetleManiac:

Jesus, touched a nerve.

Nice deflection, kid.

Sexual Harassment Panda:
Nice deflection, kid.

Not so much a deflection as the decision not to pursue that thread of conversation any further since it's clearly a sensitive one. That's more trouble than I want or need. And for the record, I'm in my 30's. The proper condescending pejorative would be "old man."

Shall I assume that you're not going to link me to any of these articles from back in the day that are supposed to validate your grievances?

BeetleManiac:

Sexual Harassment Panda:
Nice deflection, kid.

Not so much a deflection as the decision not to pursue that thread of conversation any further since it's clearly a sensitive one. That's more trouble than I want or need. And for the record, I'm in my 30's. The proper condescending pejorative would be "old man."

*Gives fellow old-guy salute*

That's funny, I was feeling the "can't be arsed with this guy" thing too.

I don't wanna be rude, but I just assumed you were a kid because your behaviour seems weird to me if you're not. You make me representative of something I had mild interest in for about 2 weeks, about 3 years ago and give me the "u mad, bro?" shit when I question you on it. Can you blame me for assuming I'm being baited at that point?(Yeh yeh, rules... infraction. Hit me with it if you must) I wasn't "touchy" at any point, I just type how I talk, and when I talk I swear casually and often. I was actually trying to make light of it(I know you're not always watching me, in case you wondered), because responding to something so silly in any other way seemed like a bad idea.

Shall I assume that you're not going to link me to any of these articles from back in the day that are supposed to validate your grievances?

So domineering... Look at you go!

Yeh, mate. I'll be sure to get right on that. I'm not actually trying to convince you of a damn thing, I have no idea where you got that impression.

Sexual Harassment Panda:
Do you remember how many "x, confirmed bigot(ed) based on tenuous bullshit!" articles we got back in the day?

Not really. I skipped any article I didn't care about and didn't bother to keep track of them at all. Also as a rule of thumb I avoided tumblr and blogs back then (I don't count them as articles; just as opinion pieces).

CaitSeith:

Sexual Harassment Panda:
Do you remember how many "x, confirmed bigot(ed) based on tenuous bullshit!" articles we got back in the day?

Not really. I skipped any article I didn't care about and didn't bother to keep track of them at all. Also as a rule of thumb I avoided tumblr and blogs back then (I don't count them as articles; just as opinion pieces).

The front-page articles at the time became the talk of the forums directly(the attached threads were monsters) and by inspiring similiar threads. I don't really think it was easy to hide from what was trending. When things trended here, they trended hard.

Sexual Harassment Panda:
Yeh, mate. I'll be sure to get right on that. I'm not actually trying to convince you of a damn thing, I have no idea where you got that impression.

You asked me if I remembered them. I said I sincerely don't. I find that most people need to be prodded gently or otherwise to remember their citations or volunteer pertinent information. I've been under a lot of stress lately so I apologize for the hastiness.

Now, could you show me some examples of these headlines/articles because I've never seen them.

Sexual Harassment Panda:

CaitSeith:

Sexual Harassment Panda:
Do you remember how many "x, confirmed bigot(ed) based on tenuous bullshit!" articles we got back in the day?

Not really. I skipped any article I didn't care about and didn't bother to keep track of them at all. Also as a rule of thumb I avoided tumblr and blogs back then (I don't count them as articles; just as opinion pieces).

The front-page articles at the time became the talk of the forums directly(the attached threads were monsters) and by inspiring similiar threads. I don't really think it was easy to hide from what was trending. When things trended here, they trended hard.

I'll dig on it later. Sorry, I joined the site not long before gamergate started, so I wasn't familiar enough with the site to know when the long threads were supposedly to be normal and when they weren't.

BeetleManiac:

Sexual Harassment Panda:
Yeh, mate. I'll be sure to get right on that. I'm not actually trying to convince you of a damn thing, I have no idea where you got that impression.

You asked me if I remembered them. I said I sincerely don't. I find that most people need to be prodded gently or otherwise to remember their citations or volunteer pertinent information. I've been under a lot of stress lately so I apologize for the hastiness.

Now, could you show me some examples of these headlines/articles because I've never seen them.

This place really is nuts...

You're going to be disappointed. Even if I didn't spend today travel-sick, anxiety-ridden and pre-occupied by something that's going wrong with my body, I still wouldn't want to spend my night trawling through articles from 3-5 years ago(which is where I'd estimate things changing around here) to appease you, nor is it some kind of requirement to have an opinion based on recollection on this site(and I accept that's what it is).

CaitSeith:

Sexual Harassment Panda:

CaitSeith:

Not really. I skipped any article I didn't care about and didn't bother to keep track of them at all. Also as a rule of thumb I avoided tumblr and blogs back then (I don't count them as articles; just as opinion pieces).

The front-page articles at the time became the talk of the forums directly(the attached threads were monsters) and by inspiring similiar threads. I don't really think it was easy to hide from what was trending. When things trended here, they trended hard.

I'll dig on it later. Sorry, I joined the site not long before gamergate started, so I wasn't familiar enough with the site to know when the long threads were supposedly to be normal and when they weren't.

I'm not saying this is perfect recollection or anything, this is just me having been on this for a long ass time and telling you how I remember it.

Sexual Harassment Panda:
You're going to be disappointed. Even if I didn't spend today travel-sick, anxiety-ridden and pre-occupied by something that's going wrong with my body, I still wouldn't want to spend my night trawling through articles from 3-5 years ago(which is where I'd estimate things changing around here) to appease you, nor is it some kind of requirement to have an opinion based on recollection on this site(and I accept that's what it is).

Alright then. Just so long as we're clear that, "Pics or it didn't happen," is nothing personal against you, it's just a policy I've adopted out of experience.

Sexual Harassment Panda:
You're going to be disappointed. Even if I didn't spend today travel-sick, anxiety-ridden and pre-occupied by something that's going wrong with my body, I still wouldn't want to spend my night trawling through articles from 3-5 years ago(which is where I'd estimate things changing around here) to appease you, nor is it some kind of requirement to have an opinion based on recollection on this site(and I accept that's what it is).

If you're not willing to source near libelous claims, why should any of us bother with anything you post? You referenced specific events that form the basis of your argument. Asking you to provide proof isn't exactly an onerous and unfair request. We've all seen enough "LOOK AT WUT THE SJWS DID THIS TIME!!!" threads/posts on this forum that turned out to be utter nonsense that our tolerance for ridiculous claims without evidence is rather low.

BeetleManiac:

Sexual Harassment Panda:
You're going to be disappointed. Even if I didn't spend today travel-sick, anxiety-ridden and pre-occupied by something that's going wrong with my body, I still wouldn't want to spend my night trawling through articles from 3-5 years ago(which is where I'd estimate things changing around here) to appease you, nor is it some kind of requirement to have an opinion based on recollection on this site(and I accept that's what it is).

Alright then. Just so long as we're clear that, "Pics or it didn't happen," is nothing personal against you, it's just a policy I've adopted out of experience.

Fair enough.

I get the impression that you'd be pleasant enough to talk to in a relaxed setting, away from community watch and all the bullshit that having an audience brings(and that's probably true for a lot of seemingly aggressive people here). The way things are around here is straight-up poison.

Avnger:

If you're not willing to source near libelous claims, why should any of us bother with anything you post? You referenced specific events that form the basis of your argument. Asking you to provide proof isn't exactly an onerous and unfair request.

Libel? Are you shitting me? My feeling that Tito oversaw the site turning to shit isn't libel...

IIRC, Tito admitted to taking Quinn's word on a harassment claim that was then reported as fact. Not only is that stupid in-and-of-itself(something his boss seemed to agree with), but it actively put a community of depressives (with a suicide hotline on their forum page) in the line of fire.

"But to explain is not to excuse. Our editor-in-chief, Greg Tito, having reviewed the facts at hand, concluded we ourselves have been imperfect in maintaining journalistic standards. A particularly problematic article, the one which generated his review, was about the alleged harassment of an indie developer by a forum community which denied the allegations but was itself victimized as a result of them. The article failed to cite the harassment as alleged, failed to give the forum community an opportunity present its point of view, and did not verify the claims or secure other sources. Mr. Tito has personally updated the article and spoken to all our editors about the importance of adhering to standards that will prevent such bad incidents from happening again. We, as a team, apologize for this error, both to our readers and to the forum community that suffered as a result. I, personally, apologize for this error, as well."

Source: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/editorials/12223-The-Escapist-Publisher-Issues-Public-Statement-on-Gamergate.4

"Hello everyone,

The Escapist ran a story about Quinn's harassment in late 2013 with little evidence other than her word. We will always default towards helping out people who are the subject of harassment on the internet. I do not support behavior of that kind and will strive to protect those who are feeling the effects of it. We will signal-boost those incidents because I think it's important to create change, and will only choose not to post such stories if I decide they will do more harm to the situation.

I continue to ask that you consider whether your actions in crafting a false narrative are helping anything. How will arguing about this situation on this forum make the world a better place? It just doesn't make sense to me why it's so important that this person is tried before a jury of the internet and found guilty of her alleged crimes. The parties directly involved have already resolved any personal issue they had, or I hope they are at least working towards it now. That is all that's important.

What you think is happening just isn't true. There is no conspiracy. There is no breach in ethics. There is nothing wrong except that a small group of posters on the internet think there is.

Contrary to your claims, harassment and abuse on the internet are very real things that cause actual harm to people. It's important for you to see how participating in crafting this story contributes to harmful actions and deeds. Please respect all people going forward."

- Tito (I'd say) making a tit of himself in the GG thread. It carries on from there.

Source: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.858347-Zoe-Quinn-and-the-surrounding-controversy?page=31

Irresponsible? I'd say so. He described it as part of his "agenda of kindness".

No, I'm not going to go looking for every example of coverage possible. The forum is for everyone, not just those with exorbitant amounts of spare time(I got lucky with a couple of google searches there, and I'm off to the doctor's office in a minute). I also don't really care if you're satiated, sorry.

We've all seen enough "LOOK AT WUT THE SJWS DID THIS TIME!!!" threads/posts on this forum that turned out to be utter nonsense that our tolerance for ridiculous claims without evidence is rather low.

The chip on your shoulder has been duly noted and filed under "I" for "inconsequential".

Avnger:

Sexual Harassment Panda:
You're going to be disappointed. Even if I didn't spend today travel-sick, anxiety-ridden and pre-occupied by something that's going wrong with my body, I still wouldn't want to spend my night trawling through articles from 3-5 years ago(which is where I'd estimate things changing around here) to appease you, nor is it some kind of requirement to have an opinion based on recollection on this site(and I accept that's what it is).

If you're not willing to source near libelous claims, why should any of us bother with anything you post? You referenced specific events that form the basis of your argument. Asking you to provide proof isn't exactly an onerous and unfair request. We've all seen enough "LOOK AT WUT THE SJWS DID THIS TIME!!!" threads/posts on this forum that turned out to be utter nonsense that our tolerance for ridiculous claims without evidence is rather low.

"Libelous claims"? At no point has libel been anywhere close. In fact, your "near libelous claims" comment is far closer to libel than anything else that has been said.

Regarding Panda's claims, there was an uptick in articles calling various developers (white males) out for not being aligned with a liberal ideology. Like making female characters that are sexy or not having a female protagonist and such. These are all articles that can be googled and tracked but I doubt you've really avoided seeing them.

You'd see stuff like a female developer getting fired for publicly shaming coworkers online and they'd be turned into some kind of martyr like what they did wasn't wrong.

https://www.theverge.com/2014/3/19/5526574/github-sexism-scandal-julie-ann-horvath

(in that scenario, Julie was fired for her public shaming of coworkers who had made an inappropriate sex joke while she was in hearing range. The coworkers were fired first for their inappropriate comments)

Or people like Anita Sarkeesian getting heavy traffic for saying that video games where you get to save someone are evil because apparently women aren't allowed to be victims. People questioning her logic got routinely torn to shreds for doing so to the point where she was avoided in open dialogue by developers because of it being a lose/lose.

Some of the articles shone a light on legitimate problems in culture and in the industry and that was great, but others were petty and grounded in militant ideology with little facts. Like shaming companies for having a handful of female developers when in reality they'd only had a handful of qualified females apply because males still comprise the majority of developers. When it started crossing the threshold of demanding gamers stop liking games they like because 1's and 0's are arranged attractively or whatever, they started brewing a problem of resentment because they were told they're being bad by being who they are and wanting what they want.

It is somewhat disingenuous to claim this didn't happen. It was a fairly explicit agenda of several journalists to the point where many of them acknowledged that their goal was to make a more accepting culture with a more diverse workforce behind the industry. That isn't a bad agenda by any means. But the way they went about it was to shame their consumer base and demand they change core components of their being. Nothing was so bad as August of 2014 but it certainly created a pressure buildup that was waiting to burst.

nomotog:
You can't debate about content anymore. OK mean you can it's just not all that enjoyable/useful anymore because any debate about a games content seems to evolve/devolve into a debate about if your allowed to have that kind of debate. When gamergate poped as a backlash to feminism/sjws/whatever they didn't really take the position that feminism was wrong. OK some did, but feminism is cancer was never going to gain traction as a mainstream view. What did get traction was the idea that you shouldn't be allowed to criticize games at all. It's the idea that you shouldn't try to influence or pressure games in anyway because that is wrong. Something something self censorship. (Now that I am thinking about this I don't know if I have read an argument to why it is wrong to put pressure on a game to have it changed. If anyone has one just toss it out.)

I have the view that it is perfectly OK to criticize, influence or pressure games to change them into something you like, and that it is also OK for other people to do the same thing. This doesn't mean I agree with everyone though, I just simply draw my lines around what your trying to push a game into. Want to push the new metro into a more open world structure, I agree. Want to push every game to being multiplayer focused, I do not agree. It's about what your trying to change not that you are trying to change.

The idealistic goal was that reviewers shouldn't be trying to ram an agenda down their consumers throat. It's okay to be passionate about a topic you want to bring to your readers but your readers still need to get the product they're there for.

An example about this would be a review demonizing a game for having sexy females in it. So what? Some consumers like sexy characters, that is a need being met in the market place. So don't demonize the consumer base for liking what they are biologically programmed to like. It would be like demonizing a gay guy for being turned on by guys. That's not something you can just turn on or off.

Consider that some games were being reviewed lower because they did not meet the political agenda of the reviewer (such as women having to be a certain way for the reviewer). That's letting bias get a little out of hand.

So I guess what people wanted was to reserve the more agenda driven pieces for opinion journalism rather than review work.

But who knows? Gamergate was all over the place.

Smithnikov:

runic knight:
So a reaction to terribly unethical and unprofessional journalism, that demanded changes to improve the industry so that it would do its actual responsibility in informing the public about news that was relevant to them, somehow ruined the games?

Nope.

But when that same reaction began Long Knifing anyone who wasn't singing along to the right wing nationalist anthems, THAT'S when the culture got cut.

First, as you've been corrected on multiple times, no, no matter how much you wish it so, gamergate is not some right-wing political movement, and no, they weren't singling out anyone who wasn't right wing. I am sorry you seem completely unable to deal with your personal vendetta against a few insults from shitposters to the point out outright manufacturing falsehoods and making dishonest accusations at entire groups of people based off of very poorly cherry picked examples that support it, but no, your attempted misrepresentation of reality doesn't make the actual motivations and goals of gamergate change to fit your reality. It just showcases you have no actual reasoning or argument behind your claims and stance, it is purely an emotionally justified reply on your part that disregards facts, reasoning, and the countless times you have had this explained to you exactly how and why you are wrong.

Gamergate was a consumer backlash against the gaming media that occurred across all political spectrums and multiple sites. The fact that the people gamergate called out all shared a political uniformity is not indicative that the backlash was opposing that ideology itself, especially when multiple studies demonstrated that gamergate as a majority was overall sharing that same political lean on the individual level as the media itself, even if the overall had no such political lean in its direction itself (or, in short, most gamergaters were liberals themselves, like the media, but gamergate overall didn't concern itself with liberal political party issues, it instead worried about what actions and behavior the media was doing in the name of their political ideals). The media and their allies being a borderline ideological cult of gatekeepers and manufacturers of outrage all sharing a uniform political lean was called out because that caused open bias and directly affected their ability to do their job properly. It affected their ability to do their job (and thus affected the customers they were meant to serve the interests of) when they put their own personal political causes ahead of their responsibility to informing the public what would be relevant and factual to the public, and they were putting their political cause ahead of their duty to be ethical and responsible in the position of authority that their profession enjoys. The fact you are were personally peeved because people called you mean names, likely in response to these sorts of openly intentionally dishonest arguments, also does not demonstrate your claim in the least, and actually harms it as that sort of chip on your shoulder merely showcases why you are being dishonest in your representations of the group in the exact same way a racist will justify their racism.

Also, was anyone even "Long knifed" in a service industry where they weren't doing their jobs right and were getting customers angry? That is like pretending someone smearing shit on the wall at a restaurant to write "kill all conservatives" being called out by the customers trying to have a meal is another "night of long knives" because you happen to agree with the feces-written political statement and want to pretend that people not wanting to see employees smearing their shit on the walls is a grand political statement in itself. If any situation would be comparable, it would have been the media's attempt to demonize and attack those openly vocally opposed to them (you know, abusing privledge and position of authority in order to "kill off" dissenting opinions because of political ideology). The death threats, harassment and attempts to remove people from their jobs that weren't related to serving the public or their not fulfilling the responsibility and duty of the profession. That would be a lot more akin to the night of long knives, since it was actually politically motivated, involved an over-extension of authority and an abuse of privledge and power in order to satisfy personal interests.

Calling the way the gaming media responded to gamergate the night of long knives though, I could see that argument made, though wouldn't make it seriously myself. I try to avoid resorting to cartoonist implying my opponents are nazi, it is a rather worthless tactic. And while a lot of the behavior by the media and the personalities they support would be right at home with an authoritarian socialist regime that used force to maintain ideological purity, that should be argued in a case by case basis. Only relevant way would be when the comparison has a point that extends beyond "they are nazi" where just calling them evil would suffice to show it is purely emotional, or just saying you think people should punch them for disagreeing with you.

Sexual Harassment Panda:
I get the impression that you'd be pleasant enough to talk to in a relaxed setting, away from community watch and all the bullshit that having an audience brings(and that's probably true for a lot of seemingly aggressive people here). The way things are around here is straight-up poison.

I can be very pleasant, even charming, when I'm not about to meltdown out of fear of whether or not I can pay rent this month. That said, I do confess that I'm not especially good at suffering foolishness in others gladly. One of the reasons why my ignore list has grown so much over the last couple of months. The fleeting sensation of triumph over intellectually bankrupt sophistry isn't worth the headaches that come from having to argue with gatekeepers, political hacks and other sundry randos with an ax to grind.

Really, the whole clusterfuck that is Gamergate taught me I was right to not take anonymous people online at their word. The amount of dishonesty, venom, suspicion and general abrasiveness tossed my way for not immediately joining the crusade or even for espousing an opinion that was deemed "SJW" in nature got to the point where it became indistinguishable from barking dogs.

Lightknight:
So I guess what people wanted was to reserve the more agenda driven pieces for opinion journalism rather than review work.

Which is all the more baffling because reviews are opinions.

Lightknight:

nomotog:
You can't debate about content anymore. OK mean you can it's just not all that enjoyable/useful anymore because any debate about a games content seems to evolve/devolve into a debate about if your allowed to have that kind of debate. When gamergate poped as a backlash to feminism/sjws/whatever they didn't really take the position that feminism was wrong. OK some did, but feminism is cancer was never going to gain traction as a mainstream view. What did get traction was the idea that you shouldn't be allowed to criticize games at all. It's the idea that you shouldn't try to influence or pressure games in anyway because that is wrong. Something something self censorship. (Now that I am thinking about this I don't know if I have read an argument to why it is wrong to put pressure on a game to have it changed. If anyone has one just toss it out.)

I have the view that it is perfectly OK to criticize, influence or pressure games to change them into something you like, and that it is also OK for other people to do the same thing. This doesn't mean I agree with everyone though, I just simply draw my lines around what your trying to push a game into. Want to push the new metro into a more open world structure, I agree. Want to push every game to being multiplayer focused, I do not agree. It's about what your trying to change not that you are trying to change.

The idealistic goal was that reviewers shouldn't be trying to ram an agenda down their consumers throat. It's okay to be passionate about a topic you want to bring to your readers but your readers still need to get the product they're there for.

An example about this would be a review demonizing a game for having sexy females in it. So what? Some consumers like sexy characters, that is a need being met in the market place. So don't demonize the consumer base for liking what they are biologically programmed to like. It would be like demonizing a gay guy for being turned on by guys. That's not something you can just turn on or off.

Consider that some games were being reviewed lower because they did not meet the political agenda of the reviewer (such as women having to be a certain way for the reviewer). That's letting bias get a little out of hand.

So I guess what people wanted was to reserve the more agenda driven pieces for opinion journalism rather than review work.

But who knows? Gamergate was all over the place.

The focus should be more on what the agenda is if there is one. There are agenda's for most things. Even the most generic reviews of a game will be pushing the no bugs agenda. The one that demands all games to be released with minimal to no bugs... Or to be published by Bethesda.

Also it was never about reviews. I often found GG complaining about non review content.

BeetleManiac:

Sexual Harassment Panda:
I get the impression that you'd be pleasant enough to talk to in a relaxed setting, away from community watch and all the bullshit that having an audience brings(and that's probably true for a lot of seemingly aggressive people here). The way things are around here is straight-up poison.

I can be very pleasant, even charming, when I'm not about to meltdown out of fear of whether or not I can pay rent this month.

Just as a helpful off topic bit of advice, I would recommend selling plasma in a particularly rough spot. I had a time in college where my employer stuck me with a large bill (before fleeing the country) because I was still a n00b at life and let him share a phone plan with me that he stopped paying on. I got by with plasma donations twice a week until the bill was paid.

BeetleManiac:

Lightknight:
So I guess what people wanted was to reserve the more agenda driven pieces for opinion journalism rather than review work.

Which is all the more baffling because reviews are opinions.

Yes, saying that reviews shouldn't include opinions is a bad way for them to put it. But how can you easily convey the nuance between opinion and agenda fronting? Where is the difference between mere preference and ideological bias and how can the desire to be okay with the former but not the latter be reinforced?

In a lot of ways, people want the game to be based on its own merits. But we all know reviewers that hate rogue-likes and such. A compromise is generally to disclose your bias by saying something like, "I hate rogue-likes" but even then if someone were to say something like, "I don't like this game because it depicts women in sexy clothing" then it tends to cross the line (socially) into moral policing which no side enjoys.

I get what is wanted but the exact line is blurred. Perhaps they just want people to stop politicizing/social championing games? That's a nice, easy but very vague way to put it. If a game is well constructed and the story is well told then you should be able to appreciate it even if it doesn't align with your own morals/philosophies.

I'll give an example, I think Ayn Rand's philosophies were monstrous. Total garbage meant to rationalize the one percent trampling everyone else. However, I love "The Fountainhead". Hell, that book even included rape by the protagonist and I still loved the way the overall story was told (did not like Atlas Shrugged. The Story suffered significantly at the points where she forced doctrine into it). So I could give The Fountainhead very high marks despite despising rape (even if the character believed he knew her so well as to know she didn't actually mean "no") and hating the doctrine.

There is a significant amount of purity in being able to set aside your bias and evaluate something on its own. It is also okay to then acknowledge parts you didn't like as part of the review as long as you make it clear that this is your personal bias.

The idea that anyone doesn't have bias in some way is just silly.

nomotog:
So I guess what people wanted was to reserve the more agenda driven pieces for opinion journalism rather than review work. The focus should be more on what the agenda is if there is one. There are agenda's for most things. Even the most generic reviews of a game will be pushing the no bugs agenda. The one that demands all games to be released with minimal to no bugs... Or to be published by Bethesda.

The agendas they were complaining about were more-so politicizing gaming to support certain personal ideologies rather than reviewing the game based on its own merits. A game that is buggy is factually buggy and merely being disrespectful to Native Americans or something.

Also it was never about reviews. I often found GG complaining about non review content.

I think saying it was "never about reviews" is a little to hyperbolic. I agree with you that the majority seemed to be about gaming journalism in general being hyper-focused on social issues in a way that frequently belittled and dismissed the consumers but they certainly included reviews as well. I remember a lot of discussion around that time over some kind of side-scrolling action game.

Take for example the argument over Polygon's review of Dragon's Crown (a game I did not play nor do I care about):

https://www.polygon.com/2013/7/31/4553958/dragons-crown-review-heavy-metal

The author drones on and on about how some females in the game were depicted. In short, the author sits in judgment of people who enjoy that kind of artwork. Danielle makes the focus of the article be about her personal taste in how women should be depicted and not how the game functions. See how it steps outside of being mere review and becomes more about her beliefs in this instance?

Anyways, this article came up frequently as one of the precursors to the GG debacle. An example of belittling guys' natural appreciation of sexuality and also the incredibly inane premise that we shouldn't enjoy saving a damsel from a villain. I'm still a bit miffed on journalism taking a stance against damsel rescuing. The entire idea is that women shouldn't be kidnapped and do deserve agency and so if anyone sees a person in that position and has the power to free them they should. People were literally complaining about teaching people to save others.

runic knight:

First, as you've been corrected on multiple times, no, no matter how much you wish it so, gamergate is not some right-wing political movement, and no, they weren't singling out anyone who wasn't right wing.

All I've gotten out of you is "Nuh Uh's"

Not a single, solitary, explanation, for why a supposedly non right wing movement gave a complete pass to right wing anti-gaming interests, and happily used right wing spokespeople and celebrated them.

I am sorry you seem completely unable to deal with your personal vendetta against a few insults from shitposters

The irony in that statement is palpable.

to the point out outright manufacturing falsehoods and making dishonest accusations at entire groups of people based off of very poorly cherry picked examples that support it, but no, your attempted misrepresentation of reality doesn't make the actual motivations and goals of gamergate change to fit your reality.

And neither does your apologetics, jack. I know who slapped the SJW label on me. I know who said I wasn't a real gamer and declared me an enemy. I know who complained about being called sexist one week and the next week trotted out Milo, RooshV, Vox Day, and Matt Forney without a hint of awareness. I know who said this fight was about taking down The Jews. I know who bought it hook line and sinker when the right put on dad jeans and tried to make themselves out as gaming's eternal friends.

You got mad when the journos used accusations of sexism as a shield, and I supported you.

But what did you do not long after? You put out shit like "How Women Have Destroyed Video Games".

Gamergate was a consumer backlash against the gaming media that occurred across all political spectrums and multiple sites. The fact that the people gamergate called out all shared a political uniformity is not indicative that the backlash was opposing that ideology itself, especially when multiple studies demonstrated that gamergate as a majority was overall sharing that same political lean on the individual level as the media itself

/pol/ was left wing leaning? And you call ME delusional....

even if the overall had no such political lean in its direction itself (or, in short, most gamergaters were liberals themselves, like the media, but gamergate overall didn't concern itself with liberal political party issues, it instead worried about what actions and behavior the media was doing in the name of their political ideals). The media and their allies being a borderline ideological cult of gatekeepers and manufacturers of outrage all sharing a uniform political lean was called out because that caused open bias and directly affected their ability to do their job properly. It affected their ability to do their job (and thus affected the customers they were meant to serve the interests of) when they put their own personal political causes ahead of their responsibility to informing the public what would be relevant and factual to the public, and they were putting their political cause ahead of their duty to be ethical and responsible in the position of authority that their profession enjoys. The fact you are were personally peeved because people called you mean names, likely in response to these sorts of openly intentionally dishonest arguments, also does not demonstrate your claim in the least, and actually harms it as that sort of chip on your shoulder merely showcases why you are being dishonest in your representations of the group in the exact same way a racist will justify their racism.

You know what my "intentionally dishonest arguments" that got me labelled everything from a Jew to a cuckold to a communist?

Know what it was?

I questioned someone saying that State of Decay was 'SJW trash'.

That was my great intellectually dishonest sin.

You likely don't believe me. I could care less.

That is like pretending someone smearing shit on the wall at a restaurant to write "kill all conservatives" being called out by the customers trying to have a meal is another "night of long knives" because you happen to agree with the feces-written political statement and want to pretend that people not wanting to see employees smearing their shit on the walls is a grand political statement in itself. If any situation would be comparable, it would have been the media's attempt to demonize and attack those openly vocally opposed to them (you know, abusing privledge and position of authority in order to "kill off" dissenting opinions because of political ideology). [/qutoe]

You know what this reminds me of, come to think of it? The garbage left wing definition of "racism".

The notion that non-whites cannot be racist because they aren't in power.

The fact that I got slammed and insulted by my own subculture is fine and dandy, because they weren't journos or "people in power"

For the same reasons those left wing apologists of anti white racism can fuck off, I say the same to this notion.

I am not acceptable losses because the media acted like shitheels.

The death threats, harassment and attempts to remove people from their jobs that weren't related to serving the public or their not fulfilling the responsibility and duty of the profession. That would be a lot more akin to the night of long knives, since it was actually politically motivated, involved an over-extension of authority and an abuse of privledge and power in order to satisfy personal interests.

[quote] And while a lot of the behavior by the media and the personalities they support would be right at home with an authoritarian socialist regime that used force to maintain ideological purity

As opposed to the authoritarian facist regime that's trying to impose idealogical purity (helicopter rides, anyone?)

[quote]that should be argued in a case by case basis. Only relevant way would be when the comparison has a point that extends beyond "they are nazi" where just calling them evil would suffice to show it is purely emotional, or just saying you think people should punch them for disagreeing with you.[/quoete]

Which doesn't help your case when you advocate for tossing people from helicopters for being a communist.

Or, as I've seen lately, gassing people for being a Jew or a "Normie".

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 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