How does GG pick its targets?

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

inmunitas:

At no point have I stated 'synonym' means "the exact same thing", implied as such, or even used synonyms in such a manner.

I believe a popular dictionary defines synonyms as words in one language, with an identical or near-identical meaning. Aforementioned words can, in some cases, all be used to describe a particular group, but I'd say their meaning is too diverse by far to consider them synonymous. For instance I did so far believe GamerGate (as in, gators, collectively) to be an internet-based popular movement, which means this:

inmunitas:

Ugicywapih:
Gators (as in gamergate supporters) are people that exist, yes?

I don't believe so, at least not in the sense where such a proclamation is in any way meaningful.

leaves me rather baffled. I recall a whole lot of people coming out with proverbial torches and pitchforks against a number of - usually lesser known - internet personalities. If those were not gators, what were they?

If you are saying that now that the situation has died down, the term has lost all meaning, I'll concede that while I don't necessarily agree, I understand how we misunderstood each other and clarify that I'm perfectly fine with a statement from a former gator.

You might also tell me the stance I describe as "gator" was the only natural and right one to take (something both sides labeled as GG and aGG seemed fond of, as a rhetorical technique) to which, given overwhelming evidence to the contrary in the form of countless threads exhibiting heated discussion on both sides, I would also be forced to disagree: however, for the sake of discussion, let us say that within this particular paradigm I am simply seeking a statement of a normal, unaffiliated person.

Of course I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth, so those are merely my musings on what you might've meant given the rather laconic manner you've displayed thus far on the subject. I would very much like to see - in detail - what your opinion on the matter is. I do hope it won't turn out I've been fed LSD for a prolonged period of time and this was all a fever dream :D.

Ugicywapih:
Thank you, could you point me to any place where it's actually been answered?

To my knowledge, I have never once seen a Gator or one of their various apologists give a straight answer to that question.

Ugicywapih:

inmunitas:

At no point have I stated 'synonym' means "the exact same thing", implied as such, or even used synonyms in such a manner.

I believe a popular dictionary defines synonyms as words in one language, with an identical or near-identical meaning. Aforementioned words can, in some cases, all be used to describe a particular group, but I'd say their meaning is too diverse by far to consider them synonymous. For instance I did so far believe GamerGate (as in, gators, collectively) to be an internet-based popular movement, which means this:

inmunitas:

Ugicywapih:
Gators (as in gamergate supporters) are people that exist, yes?

I don't believe so, at least not in the sense where such a proclamation is in any way meaningful.

leaves me rather baffled. I recall a whole lot of people coming out with proverbial torches and pitchforks against a number of - usually lesser known - internet personalities. If those were not gators, what were they?

If you are saying that now that the situation has died down, the term has lost all meaning, I'll concede that while I don't necessarily agree, I understand how we misunderstood each other and clarify that I'm perfectly fine with a statement from a former gator.

You might also tell me the stance I describe as "gator" was the only natural and right one to take (something both sides labeled as GG and aGG seemed fond of, as a rhetorical technique) to which, given overwhelming evidence to the contrary in the form of countless threads exhibiting heated discussion on both sides, I would also be forced to disagree: however, for the sake of discussion, let us say that within this particular paradigm I am simply seeking a statement of a normal, unaffiliated person.

Of course I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth, so those are merely my musings on what you might've meant given the rather laconic manner you've displayed thus far on the subject. I would very much like to see - in detail - what your opinion on the matter is. I do hope it won't turn out I've been fed LSD for a prolonged period of time and this was all a fever dream :D.

There was the scandal(s) and the pursuing controversy regarding it, and yes that usually took form as heated discussion between people on social media platforms. For instance, on Twitter the '#gamergate' hashtag became a popular label used to identify the topic of discussion (simply due to someone famous coining it, most likely), which resulted in the hashtag being used elsewhere too, hence how the controversy became known as the 'Gamergate controversy'.

So when you say "gamergate supporter", you mean what exactly? That they are in support of controversy? Wouldn't that therefore include all participants, no? Not just one of the supposed sides.

edit: Added clarity to end

Ugicywapih:

BeetleManiac:
[quote="Ugicywapih" post="663.980773.24041792"]Is it popular perception that the corruption unearthed in the GG scandal was so severe, that Quinn, a lone dev with no financial backing to speak of and without support of many specialized departments that a company has on hand, such as legal and marketing, was posing a much more dire threat to gaming journalism than general corporate meddling?

Thank you, could you point me to any place where it's actually been answered?

KiA, 8Chan, and Deepfreeze could offer you answers.

Anyway, by all accounts, Quinn was just the tip of an iceberg that would've been forgotten about in about a week when Destiny launched. Instead though, what you got were a number of websites and forums downright clamping down on any and all discussion of it. Mass post deletions, shadow bannings, even freaking 4Chan got in on it, which was what got a number of people noticing something was up. That ended up kicking off the Streisand effect, and got people sniffing around more.

While a fair number of people stayed on the Quinn thing simply by virtue of her being an absolute train wreck of a human being and introducing a great many people to the horrors that come from people with BPD, others focused more on the journos themselves and found a great number of things that quite frankly you don't want to see in ANY branch of journalism. Most apparent was the Game Journo Pros mailing list. If you want to know why THAT'S such a big deal, check this out, it sums it up better than I can. http://www.deepfreeze.it/article.php?a=gjp

Basically, the events involving Quinn was a straw that broke the camel's back, and serves as a nice summation of just about everything GG was talking about when it comes to what they're arguing about with games journalism. Quinn herself maintained a subject of focus primarily by being, to steal a standard SJW descriptor, a garbage human being.

Metalix Knightmare:
While a fair number of people stayed on the Quinn thing simply by virtue of her being an absolute train wreck of a human being and introducing a great many people to the horrors that come from people with BPD,

Wow. Quinn may be a damaged individual, but shaming people with mental illness is not exactly the way to give yourself the moral high ground. Also, the people who obsessively pursued Quinn were not doing this out of altruistic motives. They wanted to destroy her.

Most apparent was the Game Journo Pros mailing list. If you want to know why THAT'S such a big deal, check this out, it sums it up better than I can. http://www.deepfreeze.it/article.php?a=gjp

I remember when GGers were first shocked to discover that mailing lists were a thing. This kicking off the trend of Gamergate pretending they were the world's foremost experts in both game design and journalism. That claim can be debunked just by listening to them talk for any stretch of time.

No mention naturally about how you guys lined up behind unethical, immoral people like Milo Yiannalammadingdong, Mike Cernovich, Christina Hoff Summers, Adam Baldwin, Sargon of Akkad and the usual suspects of right-wing shills and assholes.

Quinn herself maintained a subject of focus primarily by being, to steal a standard SJW descriptor, a garbage human being.

First off, that's a damned lie and you know it. GG went after Quinn because she was a woman who stood up to them when they attacked her over false accusations.

Second, since when was that a standard descriptor?

Aside, do you want to take a shot at answering dude's question? Do you really believe that Quinn and Sarkeesian are bigger threats to games and games journalism than shady corporate meddling?

Metalix Knightmare:
Anyway, by all accounts, Quinn was just the tip of an iceberg that would've been forgotten about in about a week when Destiny launched. Instead though, what you got were a number of websites and forums downright clamping down on any and all discussion of it. Mass post deletions, shadow bannings, even freaking 4Chan got in on it, which was what got a number of people noticing something was up. That ended up kicking off the Streisand effect, and got people sniffing around more.

Basically, the events involving Quinn was a straw that broke the camel's back, and serves as a nice summation of just about everything GG was talking about when it comes to what they're arguing about with games journalism. Quinn herself maintained a subject of focus primarily by being, to steal a standard SJW descriptor, a garbage human being.

It just shows how immature gaming really is. Who gives a fuck if there's collusion in game journalism? There's always going to be collusion in a business where both sides need each other; marketing needs coverage of their game and game sites need exclusives and previews. It's assumed shady shit goes on and to take things with a grain of salt. It's not like you can't find out about games that actually do interest you with little work on your end regardless if they are AAA or not. There's paid off/fake movie reviewers, which has been a thing forever, noboby cares.

@Phoenixmgs: Just because corruption and collusion is the way things are, doesn't mean that's the way things should be.

Corruption, in all forms, needs to be purged. At all costs.

American Tanker:
@Phoenixmgs: Just because corruption and collusion is the way things are, doesn't mean that's the way things should be.

Corruption, in all forms, needs to be purged. At all costs.

Is corruption in gaming making you buy games you don't like or causing you to not find the games you do like? Because I doubt that's the case. How did people not think there was corruption in gaming journalism? You actually think nearly 100 people could ever ALL like anything so much that it would garner an average score of 90+?

I hate to do the whole "First world problems" thing but why don't all the Gamergate people put all this effort into a cause that does have actual effects on people like say actual how piss-poor actual journalism is? Gaming journalism or movie journalism isn't actually screwing anyone over.

American Tanker:
@Phoenixmgs: Just because corruption and collusion is the way things are, doesn't mean that's the way things should be.

Corruption, in all forms, needs to be purged. At all costs.

As loudly and mis-targeted as possible, starting with the smallest and least objectionable targets.

Remember, the Shadows of Mordor things came and went. Lasted about a week. Bethesda not doing release day reviews made all the impact of a baby's fist. But boy howdy, we can still argue over some maybe-a-little-more-than-she-deserved press for a free indie game!

BeetleManiac:

Metalix Knightmare:
While a fair number of people stayed on the Quinn thing simply by virtue of her being an absolute train wreck of a human being and introducing a great many people to the horrors that come from people with BPD,

Wow. Quinn may be a damaged individual, but shaming people with mental illness is not exactly the way to give yourself the moral high ground. Also, the people who obsessively pursued Quinn were not doing this out of altruistic motives. They wanted to destroy her.

Aside, do you want to take a shot at answering dude's question? Do you really believe that Quinn and Sarkeesian are bigger threats to games and games journalism than shady corporate meddling?

I don't shame her for having a mental illness, I shame her for not doing anything for it by all accounts. There's treatments and therapy for Borderline Personality Disorder, but from what I've seen of her, she hasn't done anything to actually treat it.

As to answer the question, I've never seen a game journalist invited to speak at the UN.

Metalix Knightmare:
I don't shame her for having a mental illness, I shame her for not doing anything for it by all accounts. There's treatments and therapy for Borderline Personality Disorder, but from what I've seen of her, she hasn't done anything to actually treat it.

That's not what you said. You said, "the horrors that come from people with BPD," and did not qualify the statement.

As to answer the question, I've never seen a game journalist invited to speak at the UN.

That's a bullshit non sequitur and an obvious attempt to deflect the question. Effectively, you have just admitted that yes, you do believe that Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian are bigger threats to the integrity of games and the gaming press than shady corporate meddling is.

You would have been better served just giving a straight answer, no matter how damning, than trying to pass off this kind of sophistry as a good-faith answer. Have some courage in your convictions.

altnameJag:
As loudly and mis-targeted as possible, starting with the smallest and least objectionable targets.

Remember, the Shadows of Mordor things came and went. Lasted about a week. Bethesda not doing release day reviews made all the impact of a baby's fist. But boy howdy, we can still argue over some maybe-a-little-more-than-she-deserved press for a free indie game!

Practically the entire field of "games journalism" is hardly "the smallest and least objectionable target". Why oh why do I have to keep stating the obvious, i.e. that it's not about "some free indie game", but the ubiquitous pattern of abusing these platforms to act as gatekeepers in favor of a cultish narrative in support of the same gaggle of cronies and banging buddies?

As for various Big Bad Corporate shenanigans, well, that's a big part of the job those "journos" are supposed to be for, instead of playing Content Police and propping up talent-free socialites.

Metalix Knightmare:

As to answer the question, I've never seen a game journalist invited to speak at the UN.

What does being invited to a UN subcommittee to speak on experiences with online harassment during a subpanel on gender based online harassment as part of a greater project linked to both the women's rights report and the yearly Broadband Commission Report have to do with Games Journalism?

Looking on the UN site their interview was only a tiny fraction of the number of topics covered by that commission, Jim Sterling exerts more pressure on the games journalism industry with a single Youtube video than anything that came out of a topic that abstractly related to video games in general, and almost completely divorced from the topic of journalism.

Also, they have done panels directly on video games and invited speakers related to the games industry in the past, including an entire series of research projects presented by UNESCO on using video games to convey messages or their political impact, so not sure why you are pretending this is some super special honor that only Anita or Zoe has ever gotten, the UN has invited celebrity chefs and reality TV stars to speak in the past, hell they have directly paid celebrities and beauty models to rep for them as "goodwill ambassadors".

Maybe I am missing the point, but I fail to see how that makes either of them more influential than the actual movers and shakers of the games journalism industry, or the corporations (both games publishers and the main journalism sites) that dump more money and influence into the industry in weeks than the entire UN has even attempted to in regards to video games over the entire course of the organizations existence. It just seems like an answer that justifies the criticism that the actual relation to games journalism was an ancillary concern.

StatusNil:
As for various Big Bad Corporate shenanigans, well, that's a big part of the job those "journos" are supposed to be for, instead of playing Content Police and propping up talent-free socialites.

Isn't this kind of admitting that you can't be bothered to do it yourself? That GG really isn't all that interested in doing something about this? Is that because the publishers have way more money and lawyers than you do?

Metalix Knightmare:
I don't shame her for having a mental illness, I shame her for not doing anything for it by all accounts. There's treatments and therapy for Borderline Personality Disorder, but from what I've seen of her, she hasn't done anything to actually treat it.

The internet (or, more specifically, GamerGate) diagnosed someone as suffering from a mental illness, and then you get upset because you see no evidence that the person who you claim is suffering from the mental illness is seeking treatment for the disorder you just decided to ascribe to her?

You don't even know if she is, or is not, suffering from BPD, much less is having treatment. Even if someone is suffering from the disorder - which is not something I'm willing to entertain based solely on the thoughts of anonymous and presumably unqualified commentators - we can have no idea if someone is seeking treatment or not. These accusations of mental illness are part of the ongoing harassment. It is sad to see it continued here.

EternallyBored:

Metalix Knightmare:

As to answer the question, I've never seen a game journalist invited to speak at the UN.

What does being invited to a UN subcommittee to speak on experiences with online harassment during a subpanel on gender based online harassment as part of a greater project linked to both the women's rights report and the yearly Broadband Commission Report have to do with Games Journalism?

Looking on the UN site their interview was only a tiny fraction of the number of topics covered by that commission, Jim Sterling exerts more pressure on the games journalism industry with a single Youtube video than anything that came out of a topic that abstractly related to video games in general, and almost completely divorced from the topic of journalism.

Also, they have done panels directly on video games and invited speakers related to the games industry in the past, including an entire series of research projects presented by UNESCO on using video games to convey messages or their political impact, so not sure why you are pretending this is some super special honor that only Anita or Zoe has ever gotten, the UN has invited celebrity chefs and reality TV stars to speak in the past, hell they have directly paid celebrities and beauty models to rep for them as "goodwill ambassadors".

Maybe I am missing the point, but I fail to see how that makes either of them more influential than the actual movers and shakers of the games journalism industry, or the corporations (both games publishers and the main journalism sites) that dump more money and influence into the industry in weeks than the entire UN has even attempted to in regards to video games over the entire course of the organizations existence. It just seems like an answer that justifies the criticism that the actual relation to games journalism was an ancillary concern.

Well, for further reading, here's a thread on the Escapist discussing a petition going around that the time to get Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn arrested for violating the Logan Act over it.

StatusNil:

altnameJag:
As loudly and mis-targeted as possible, starting with the smallest and least objectionable targets.

Remember, the Shadows of Mordor things came and went. Lasted about a week. Bethesda not doing release day reviews made all the impact of a baby's fist. But boy howdy, we can still argue over some maybe-a-little-more-than-she-deserved press for a free indie game!

Practically the entire field of "games journalism" is hardly "the smallest and least objectionable target". Why oh why do I have to keep stating the obvious, i.e. that it's not about "some free indie game", but the ubiquitous pattern of abusing these platforms to act as gatekeepers in favor of a cultish narrative in support of the same gaggle of cronies and banging buddies?

As for various Big Bad Corporate shenanigans, well, that's a big part of the job those "journos" are supposed to be for, instead of playing Content Police and propping up talent-free socialites.

"Look, we're going to keep complaining about the small fries ad nauseum, actual corporate influence isn't Ethics in Games Journalism"

BeetleManiac:

StatusNil:
As for various Big Bad Corporate shenanigans, well, that's a big part of the job those "journos" are supposed to be for, instead of playing Content Police and propping up talent-free socialites.

Isn't this kind of admitting that you can't be bothered to do it yourself? That GG really isn't all that interested in doing something about this? Is that because the publishers have way more money and lawyers than you do?

Kotaku in Action cheered when Bethesda announced they weren't going to give reviews more than a day to play a game and review it before launch. You know, because they're so pro-consumer like that.

 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