Farewell Jim Sterling

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

Nikolaz72:
Pebkio accused a decent number of escapist users of being trolls.

I think Pebkio should edit his post in case he faces mod action =/

He didn't directly call any specific person a troll, just GG as a whole. As much as I greatly disagree with that notion as well as the idea that trying to demean, demonize, and generalize all GGers is somehow okay, he didn't really violate the Escapist's rules on calling people trolls from my understanding, since GG involves far more people than just those on the Escapist and thus his quote doesn't refer to any specific Escapist users or usergroups.

V da Mighty Taco:

Nikolaz72:
Pebkio accused a decent number of escapist users of being trolls.

I think Pebkio should edit his post in case he faces mod action =/

He didn't directly call any specific person a troll, just GG as a whole. As much as I greatly disagree with that notion as well as the idea that trying to demean, demonize, and generalize all GGers is somehow okay, he didn't really violate the Escapist's rules on calling people trolls from my understanding, since GG involves far more people than just those on the Escapist and thus his quote doesn't refer to any specific Escapist users or usergroups.

There is a GG usergroup and a lot of escapist users referring to themselves as part of the group. Calling them all trolls break the rule according to the rule itself.

I've seen people here trying to get around the personal insult rule by just insulting everyone in the group a person associates with, it didn't work then it shouldn't work now.

Its a loss to the escapist and i hope it all goes ok for jim but looking at his patron i am sure it will :P. that 2 of my favourite people gone only 2 left ..............

V da Mighty Taco:

Exley97:

V da Mighty Taco:

The issue for me personally - and by the looks of things in this forum, quite a few other people too - is not at all that he doesn't support GG or is even against it (fuck, I don't even support it anymore these days unless you're TB), but the impression I have that he actively was against the Escapist reporting on GG in a relatively unbiased manner and allowing pro-GG people to talk at all. I don't know if that's actually the case, but it certainly is the impression I have of him atm and an impression I hope is wrong.

"...relatively unbiased manner"???? Surely you jest, sir. You do realize that one of the pro-GG "developers" (and I use that term in the loosest possible manner) was man with a distinguished track record of abusive and harassing behavior online wo was literally part of the group on 4chan targeting Zoe Quinn that openly discussed ways to drive her to suicide, and that he himself talked about hacking her? The guy who plotted filing a false tax fraud case against Anita Sarkeesian? The guy that was apparently part of a plot to frame IGF and IndieCade? The guy that the Escapist let run his mouth with wild accusations against Gamasutra and GDC who innocently claimed he had been banned/censored from the site and his blog deleted for no reason (when in fact he had a history of abusive comments on the site, had been warned, and finally got banned for calling a woman a "c---" multiple times)? The guy who said in no uncertain terms that GamerGate never would have happened if Quinn "had just kept her vagina shut"?

THAT is relatively unbiased to you? If you're a GamerGate supporter, imagine how over-the-moon, frothing-with-rage angry you'd be if the male game dev roundup instead featured someone Geordie Tait and, in addition to his recent Twitter rant, he had a long track record of doxxing/hacking/harassing TotalBiscuit and other notable members of GG? Would that be fair? Would that be relatively unbiased?

EDIT: And, oh jeezus, how could I forget -- this same guy initiated a dogpile on Jim Sterling when he started to criticize GG.

How does that make it biased? Because he's an asshole? The Escapist interviewed people from both sides of the fence, even going so far as to have interviewed primarily anti-GG people in the Female Devs interviews first. The fact that one of the numerous pro-GG people interviewed is a massive prick who probably shouldn't have been interviewed in the first place doesn't change that.

If anything, the Escapist has been slightly biased against GamerGate, since there's still far more reporting on harassment caused by GGers than on harassment against people in GG, despite harassment existing in equal measure on both sides (yes, both sides are just as guilty as the other on the harassment front. There is not a better side there). In spite of both that as well as the anti-GG stance of most of this site's staff though, they still interviewed people from both camps, allow both sides to talk about it in the forums (something most other sites do not do), and have avoided flat-out demonizing either group as a whole in their news articles. That's pretty friggin' unbiased, no matter how you look at it.

EDIT: Quick clarification - I ceased being a GG-supporter a while ago, as I mentioned in my post from earlier. I have major issues with both parties, and the only people I can think of right now who I respect in regards to GG are TB and Greg Tito, with Tito having my respect because of how well he handled this shitstorm and even owned up to his mistakes despite him being very openly against GG. He had the power to shut down all pro-GG discussion and focus only on demonizing it's members as a whole, yet on sheer principle alone he did not. Any man or woman who will openly refuse to silence or demean people they strongly disagree with or maybe even hate has my respect.

I also must admit that I haven't read the male dev interviews yet. Figured it'd be similar to the female dev interviews so I couldn't be asked, especially with the problems I was (and still am) having with GG at the time. Still, I don't see how hearing out one notorious GGer in a group imterview of numerous GGers suddenly makes the site biased in favor of GG when they got done interviewing several GG critics right beforehand and have consistently reported on harassment towards known anti-GGers.

EDIT 2: One last thing, I genuinely apologize if I'm acting a bit hostile. I've been dealing with some long-standing personal issues dating back to my childhood lately, and it's left me in quite an irritable and somewhat-unhinged state of mind. This is amplified further when it comes to discussing anything remotely related to GG, as I'm horribly burnt out of it and have massive issues with both sides of the debate, leaving me with very little patience for either side's usual shenanigans.

Taco, first, I appreciate that you're dealing with personal issues and take no offense to your post. I sincerely hope you get well soon.

That said, I'm not sure you want to be weighing in on this without having read those male dev interviews, or knowing the full and complete backstory to the particular dev I mentioned in my previous post (his interview has been taken offline but it's easy enough to find an archived copyy). Respectfully, plotting to doxx/hack/smear/shame/frame/ruin someone makes you a little more than an asshole in my book. And quoting/sourcing a person as an "un-biased" GG supporter when that person is ACTIVELY involved in the harassment of Quinn and is therefore part of the overall story, is absurd. The fact that he went after Jim Sterling isn't even important, really, given his track record of abusive behavior. That person should never have been interviewed for that series.

As for the Escapist being slightly anti-GG and the harassment being equal on "both sides," I couldn't disagree with you more, but that's probably a discussion best left for another thread for another time.

Strazdas:
1.

1. rights to personal liberty established by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and certain Congressional acts, especially as applied to an individual or a minority group.

Fourteenth Amendment is too complex to describe in a single sentence, however it does not talk about marriage and its purpose is to abolish racial seggregation.

So no, a right to marry between homosexuals are not a civil right by definition.

You are aware that when people challenged prop 8 they did so under the Fourteenth Amendment and it's use falls far beyond simple racial terms? "Equal protection of the law" does not just apply to criminal proceedings.

2. The proposal of the law did not spread any hate. It was proposed - and passed by majority of votes i might add, you know, the way democracy works - to allow denial of gay marriages based on religiuos purposes. Now, the Supreme Court shot it down as he should, however the support of the law was all legitimate business. everyone has a right to have an opinion - even one you dont agree with - and to support it via legal means.

No, our democracy does not allow the denial of gay marriages based on religious purposes, that's just the bullshit reason bigots use to try and justify their want to deny people their rights. And, if you see no hate in the advertisements used in prop 8, and in trying to make certain relationships lesser and unworthy of marriage, then I guess there's no point in trying to argue.

The campaign did not take peoples rights away, as it means it was ever a right to begin with, which it was not back then. As far as him being a bigoted fuck, im sure you will have plenty of evidence for this claim, or are you just posting baseless insults?

Before the proposition, the people in the state of California had the right to marry members of the same sex as them. Afterwards, they didn't. I don't see how that is anything but taking their rights away.

And I already have plenty of evidence to support that claim. Those who don't support marriage equality, especially those who cannot claim ignorance like he can, and especially those who give money to the cause of taking people's rights away are but bigots. He gave money to such a cause so that is what he is and what he remains.

V da Mighty Taco:
snip

Nikolaz72:
snip

Are either of you able to highlight where he called all GGers trolls and therefore directly insulted Escapist forum users?

So long Jim and thanks for all the fish!

Well, there goes an integral part of my Monday routine. I came to the Escapist for Yahtzee (because of the clips of his show they used to play on X-Play, one of the remaining video game related shows back on G4 before it turned into the Esquire Channel and OH MY JAYSUS I FEEL OLD!!!), and stayed for MovieBob, the LRR Crew, Lisa Foiles (what happened to her?), and of course, Jim Fuckin' Sterling, Son! Sad to hear he left, but happy he made new opportunities for himself. Thank God for you, Jim!

EDIT: Ugh, had multiple tabs open and I thought this was a GG thread you'd made this comment in. I get why this is happening considering this whole GG debacle being the impetus for Jim's decision but this is a weird place to have this debate. I didn't even realize I was posting in a threat about Jim, a wonderful contributor, leaving the site.

LifeCharacter:

Because, as we all know, making a comparison that idiots take all too literally about hobbyists is funding a hate movement and preaching bigotry. Won't someone stand up for the perpetually oppressed gamers?

... did you watch the Geordie Tait interview. The guy maintains that anyone bearing the #gamergate position should be put in concentration camps and gassed/burned/etc.

http://www.hitbox.tv/video/316600

He proceeds to defend that position for four hours. Somehow confused at why people would be shocked at that.

I'm sorry if you've decided that you know what we all are and think you are justified in your prejudice. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and give you an example of the only gamergate individual I can really speak for, myself.

My first post in this debacle was on August 19th in the original gamergate thread that lived.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.858347-Zoe-Quinn-and-the-surrounding-controversy?page=14#21282642

So, how did I enter the discussion? Did I cry like a baby that some woman had sex with five men or some other such nonsense? No. I said this:

"I would be interested in seeing a critical response on the subject. An article on what the criticism is, why any of this matters, stuff like that. Just something that sums it up and explains why it matters or why it doesn't.

Looks like information on the subject is getting redacted left and right so I'd appreciate an actual journalistic response detailing what's actually going on here rather than everyone being mum about it like it's beneath them to even acknowledge that there's a controversy afoot and to dispel the ignorance if it is such.

I don't mean the elements that are private and nitty gritty. I don't care who someone sleeps with. Just the elements that actually matter like criticisms of journalistic integrity and the claim that she fabricated attacks on herself and even got pro-feminist organizations trying to do charity work doxxed and pubicly shamed without any reasons as to why.

I went on to explain that if journalists don't speak up, then we'll only have people like the InternetAristocrat to frame the discussion. They essentially enacted the Streisand effect here. That's why everything blew up. Not because it was some girl sleeping with guys. But because any discussion of it in most places that day were scrubbed and as the noise got louder regarding the allegations of abuse of the media the silence on their part became deafening.

Most of the people typing at the time also thought the sleeping around bit was a red herring and actively tried to side step that. That's why they stopped even referring to her by name to try to actively distance the overall controversy from her because she ended up being a minor player.

So, honestly, why would you assume that our only possible motivation is somehow to keep women out of the club house? How bigoted and prejudiced is it to stereotype any group in a way that fits your narrative without allowing for the possibility that we are a diverse group of multiple backgrounds and mentalities here.

Are there baddies in our group that pursue injustice an inequality? Sure, there are those in the anti-gg group too and that there are looters in a protest doesn't make the purpose of the protest somehow illegitimate. I'm sure Gandhi's sit ins saw some pickpockets working the crowd. Didn't make the cause more or less deserving. So why do you think it's appropriate for you to decide that we're all pickpockets to use that analogy?

Here's a fun fact. I believe in feminism. I believe in equality. I believe that a woman's dollar as a consumer should count for the same as a man's dollar being spent as a consumer. And yet, somehow your prejudiced opinion would have anyone who is taking issue with the corruption in journalism be anti-feminist? That's really bad. This kind of knee jerk reaction behavior is a blight on mankind. It's the reason things like racism and sexism breed so easily. Because humans are so very shitty at seeing two sides of an argument.

Now, I would say the biggest area of confusion here is over the term "SJW". As it turns out, this word means something different to whoever is saying it. Perhaps you think of SJW as merely anyone who believes in equality and social justice. Most of us have no problem with that. However, what most of the GG mean when they say SJW aren't those people who are pushing for justice or equality. They're the people who are advocating for equality by inequality. The people who would force the belief that all men are just one bad decision from being a rapist and that we have all somehow contributed to sexism just by being born with dicks. We aren't talking about people who want equal and fair treatment, we're talking about people who want to put one group down and another group up. Sexism or racism on the other side rather than equality.

Likewise, the term can also be used to refer to individuals who see money to be made in the social justice arena and are merely saying what they think people want to hear to exploit legitimate feminist or social causes to line their pockets.

Most of your side would dislike those types of people, probably.

So these semantics are really causing a lot of confusion. When you hear someone say something negative about SJWs forcing their agenda through media nepotism and cronyism you're hearing someone complain about social justice while the person complaining isn't talking about actual social justice, they're talking about anything but. They're complaining about people trying to force some kind of bogus guilt down their throats for things they've never done. As sexist as the sexism they're purporting to decry.

So tell me, what kind of sexist goal do you think we're working towards? What kind of actual bigotry are you attributing to us?

I just saw this now.

...I actually only have one sentence that I can definitely say connected to this: "Well, fuck."

OK, discussion time, I think: I first came to this site because of MovieBob (a friend of mine showed me one of his movie reviews fairly early this year and, while I wasn't impressed with it, I did agree to give him a fair go...well, up until his review of TMNT, by which point, I stopped watching all of his stuff because I had grown sick of him!), but Jimquisition got my interest very quickly when I decided to give it a watch. Since then, every time a new Jimquisition came up, I watched it and found them really interesting (heck, I've even referenced some of the stuff Jim talked about in my own blog stuff every now and then, although only when appropriate to what I'm discussing). Zero Punctuation was (and still is) very enjoyable, but the thing which I was always looking forward was always Jimquisition, with the only video that I didn't like much being the purely objective review one (and, even then, it was more because I thought the joke ran on for too long and resulted in a dull video than because I had any real issue with it).

So, seeing Jim has left is honestly quite a shock for me, as it leaves me wondering whether I'm still going to be hanging around here after only recently re-finding my love for gaming after so long focusing on my love of music. I've never been one to use forums on the sites I visit (nothing personal, I'm just not a guy who likes using forums much) and I've gone off MovieBob completely in recent times (with a lot of his most recent behaviour on Twitter only making me more determined not to watch anything he produces ever again), so the only reason I'm going to be around now is just for Zero Punctuation...and, as much as I like Yahtzee's style of reviewing, that's not really enough to justify me coming back to this site every day, like I have been for the past few months.

But that's in the future. For now, I wish Jim luck for the future, will continue to follow his stuff (with the intention of supporting him on Patreon when I can afford to do it) and hope that The Escapist can find someone capable to filling Jim's large shoes.

V da Mighty Taco:
The issue for me personally - and by the looks of things in this forum, quite a few other people too - is not at all that he doesn't support GG or is even against it (fuck, I don't even support it anymore these days unless you're TB), but the impression I have that he actively was against the Escapist reporting on GG in a relatively unbiased manner and allowing pro-GG people to talk at all. I don't know if that's actually the case, but it certainly is the impression I have of him atm and an impression I hope is wrong.

I get the feeling that the answers will come Monday when the first non-Escapist Jimquisition comes out, as I think that it'll be tied into whatever lead him to drop the Escapist and go solo in the first place. Let's just hope it really is because he wanted to get away from the business models and restrictions of mainstream game's journalism as he says it is on his Patreon, and not because he wants to encourage one-sided discussion and reporting when it comes to GG.

That was the impression I got as well. And if he left because The Escapist gave people the ability to have a voice that he doesn't like, well, fuck him. I don't go to the other sites because they actively shut down ANY kind of discussion, rational or otherwise, or they're a bunch of lunatics from both sides of the fence shrieking like howler monkeys. Here, I've actually found at least some modicum of rational discussion, and if Jim doesn't like it, and wants The Escapist to take a hardline "gamers are dead, bring back bullying" stance, then...bye. Have fun making videos for Gawker, Jim.

Exley97:

Taco, first, I appreciate that you're dealing with personal issues and take no offense to your post. I sincerely hope you get well soon.

That said, I'm not sure you want to be weighing in on this without having read those male dev interviews, or knowing the full and complete backstory to the particular dev I mentioned in my previous post (his interview has been taken offline but it's easy enough to find an archived copyy). Respectfully, plotting to doxx/hack/smear/shame/frame/ruin someone makes you a little more than an asshole in my book. And quoting/sourcing a person as an "un-biased" GG supporter when that person is ACTIVELY involved in the harassment of Quinn and is therefore part of the overall story, is absurd. The fact that he went after Jim Sterling isn't even important, really, given his track record of abusive behavior. That person should never have been interviewed for that series.

As for the Escapist being slightly anti-GG and the harassment being equal on "both sides," I couldn't disagree with you more, but that's probably a discussion best left for another thread for another time.

I'll agree with you that, if what I've heard about that dev is true, then he should never have been interviewed. That was quite a massive mistake on the Escapist's part.

However, even if that is indeed the case, I fail to see how any of the points I made earlier are debunked by that one mistake. Can you explain to me how interviewing one wrong person retroacts the female dev interviews, the allowance of discussion from both sides in the forums, the reporting and condemnation of harassment / threats towards known anti-GGers such as Felicia Day and Anita Sarkessian, and finally the open disapproval of GG by the site's Editor-in-Chief himself?

As for the "harassment is equal on both sides" bit.... well, I'll agree that's a discussion for another time, preferably when I'm more level-headed and able to discuss it with you civilly. Thanks for the well-wishes, btw. :)

faeshadow:

V da Mighty Taco:
The issue for me personally - and by the looks of things in this forum, quite a few other people too - is not at all that he doesn't support GG or is even against it (fuck, I don't even support it anymore these days unless you're TB), but the impression I have that he actively was against the Escapist reporting on GG in a relatively unbiased manner and allowing pro-GG people to talk at all. I don't know if that's actually the case, but it certainly is the impression I have of him atm and an impression I hope is wrong.

I get the feeling that the answers will come Monday when the first non-Escapist Jimquisition comes out, as I think that it'll be tied into whatever lead him to drop the Escapist and go solo in the first place. Let's just hope it really is because he wanted to get away from the business models and restrictions of mainstream game's journalism as he says it is on his Patreon, and not because he wants to encourage one-sided discussion and reporting when it comes to GG.

That was the impression I got as well. And if he left because The Escapist gave people the ability to have a voice that he doesn't like, well, fuck him. I don't go to the other sites because they actively shut down ANY kind of discussion, rational or otherwise, or they're a bunch of lunatics from both sides of the fence shrieking like howler monkeys. Here, I've actually found at least some modicum of rational discussion, and if Jim doesn't like it, and wants The Escapist to take a hardline "gamers are dead, bring back bullying" stance, then...bye. Have fun making videos for Gawker, Jim.

This narrative that he left because the Escapist was "too unbiased" has come out quite a bit, but I really don't think that there is evidence to support it beyond "I feel like he doesn't like my group". Sure, it was clear that the Escapist's approach ruffled his feathers, particularly in one case where they failed to do their research before deciding whether or not to give someone a platform. But if it was related to freedom of speech, it is much more reasonable to suggest that he felt that HE couldn't say what he wanted (especially regarding corporate/advertising dealings) within the confines of the job rather than it being that he couldn't stand others having a space to say what they want.

As you have both said, there are plenty of places that don't approach the debate in an even-handed manner. If his motivation had been "Oooooh bias yummm", it is reasonable to suggest that he would have gone to one of those place: I have a feeling that any gaming-related site would give a pretty massive golden hello to such a figure as Jim. It would be a way lower risk than his current course of action.

I get that you feel that he "isn't on your side", but given that his recent actions and proposed platform have been completely in line with what many GGers have been preaching (independence, the death of traditional game journalism, transparency of revenue streams + access to review copies etc.), I feel like he deserves more of a chance than you are giving him. Sure, you both left room for doubt in your interpretation of events, but it seems like you both want to believe the worst: that this is because he can't stand civil conversation. But the evidence really doesn't support this idea.

Let's see what he has to say for himself in the coming weeks.

well there goes the only content besides zp i watched here, not much else besides the forums now. i look forward to watching jim quisition on his youtube channel though

Wait, what?! Why? Jim's videos on here were always a great highlight to my Monday routines. Oh man, sad news indeed. :C

LifeCharacter:

I get what you're saying, and I agree that it'd be wrong to make that argument, but I didn't think my argument would come across that way. The difference isn't really in the opinion, but rather it's in the method. As far as I'm aware, there was no organized campaign to contact the advertisers for each of those incidents I responded to. The fact that one set are related to bigotry while the other is a tantrum over people criticizing your movement just puts the proportionality of responses into perspective.

People did organise over the Firefox incident. I can't speak to the others off sheer memory, but people did organise. And, for the record, I was not one of them. I didn't threaten to boycott Firefox, I didn't change browsers, etc. I do find the contribution he made to a single anti-gay cause troubling, but not enough to demand he be fired or step down.

Now, I am totally fine with the notion that people did find it troubling enough. Different people have different priorities and thresholds. I won't actively boycott Orson Scott Card, but neither am I likely to financially support him. Incodentally, I mostly used him as an example so I could bring up the bit where he accused gays of "bullying" him, which I think is both hilarious given what he was trying to do) and telling of the whole situation. People have a way of seeing themselves as the wounded parties, and their causes as just.

Which is why it's just easier to go through life with an attitude of "I will support your right to protest. I reserve the right to think it's fucking stupid."

MarsAtlas:

I feel like mentioning there's a difference between vocally not giving a company your patronage because of something they do/did (boycott), and spamming the inbox of advertisers relentlessly with sockpuppets lying about how "corrupt" the sites they are advertising on are in the hopes that the frustration of dealing with what would be properly defined as harassment were they not being paid to slog through it so that the advertisers pull out just so that they don't have to deal with the bullshit of a bunch of twelve-year olds.

I agree that this was founded on lies, but the thrust of Gamergate's ordeal was founded on boycott, wasn't it? While they may have lied about journalists and companies "disrespecting" them (or simply didn't read what they were offended by, which is probably just as likely), I thought the thrust of this was still "we're irrationally upset by these things that grown-ups would handle in stride and we're not going to give you money while you support them!"

But even if that's not the case, I have to point out that the reaction to Brandon Eich and Mozilla could be considered the same, with Eich's single donation to a cause that I am most definitely against getting turned into a vocal crusade to stamp out homosexuals everywhere, which if not the same level of hyperbole employed by Gamerhate, it at least approaches it.

I don't enjoy defending a movement that has sent me and mine death threats for opposing them (though it totally wasn't GGers because NO TRUE SCOTSMAN), but as far as the protest in question goes....is it really much different?

V da Mighty Taco:

Exley97:

Taco, first, I appreciate that you're dealing with personal issues and take no offense to your post. I sincerely hope you get well soon.

That said, I'm not sure you want to be weighing in on this without having read those male dev interviews, or knowing the full and complete backstory to the particular dev I mentioned in my previous post (his interview has been taken offline but it's easy enough to find an archived copyy). Respectfully, plotting to doxx/hack/smear/shame/frame/ruin someone makes you a little more than an asshole in my book. And quoting/sourcing a person as an "un-biased" GG supporter when that person is ACTIVELY involved in the harassment of Quinn and is therefore part of the overall story, is absurd. The fact that he went after Jim Sterling isn't even important, really, given his track record of abusive behavior. That person should never have been interviewed for that series.

As for the Escapist being slightly anti-GG and the harassment being equal on "both sides," I couldn't disagree with you more, but that's probably a discussion best left for another thread for another time.

I'll agree with you that, if what I've heard about that dev is true, then he should never have been interviewed. That was quite a massive mistake on the Escapist's part.

However, even if that is indeed the case, I fail to see how any of the points I made earlier are debunked by that one mistake. Can you explain to me how interviewing one wrong person retroacts the female dev interviews, the allowance of discussion from both sides in the forums, the reporting and condemnation of harassment / threats towards known anti-GGers such as Felicia Day and Anita Sarkessian, and finally the open disapproval of GG by the site's Editor-in-Chief himself?

As for the "harassment is equal on both sides" bit.... well, I'll agree that's a discussion for another time, preferably when I'm more level-headed and able to discuss it with you civilly. Thanks for the well-wishes, btw. :)

Well, first, it wasn't just the one dev that made that interview series problematic for a lot of people, Sterling included. Just look at the piece and the number of editor's notes -- there was another developer with a history of harassing behavior, plus the original headline of the piece was "What *Game Developers* Think of #GamerGate" -- minus the "Male" part.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/features/12383-Game-Developer-GamerGate-Interviews-Shed-Light-on-Women-in-Games

And I credit the Escapist for correcting the problems and for keeping them on the record. It was absolutely the right thing to do. But like I said, never should have happened in the first place. I actually thought the idea of getting developer opinions on GG was a great idea, but....you can't include people that are actively involved in the worst elements of GG. You just can't.

Lightknight:
Most of the people typing at the time also thought the sleeping around bit was a red herring and actively tried to side step that. That's why they stopped even referring to her by name to try to actively distance the overall controversy from her because she ended up being a minor player.

Here's the thing, making up a cute nickname for someone does not mean that you've stopped talking about them. Every mention of Literally Who is a mention of Zoe Quinn and pretending otherwise is little more than a lie.

So, honestly, why would you assume that our only possible motivation is somehow to keep women out of the club house? How bigoted and prejudiced is it to stereotype any group in a way that fits your narrative without allowing for the possibility that we are a diverse group of multiple backgrounds and mentalities here.

And where did I say any of this? I didn't say it was about keeping women out of the clubhouse or that that was the only reason. I've said elsewhere so I'll say it again here, I don't think GamerGate is a hate movement or a whatever, because that's too easy for people to wiggle out of and pretend it's not because they can attribute every bad thing that's been done to some nebulous other who isn't really GamerGate. That said, I will describe GamerGate as a movement to expel differing opinions (notable of the "we care about social issues in games" variety) from the industry, as well as a movement of intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy, because that's what they are.

Here's a fun fact. I believe in feminism. I believe in equality. I believe that a woman's dollar as a consumer should count for the same as a man's dollar being spent as a consumer. And yet, somehow your prejudiced opinion would have anyone who is taking issue with the corruption in journalism be anti-feminist? That's really bad. This kind of knee jerk reaction behavior is a blight on mankind. It's the reason things like racism and sexism breed so easily. Because humans are so very shitty at seeing two sides of an argument.

It's only bad if you actually believe GamerGate is about corruption in journalism. I don't. I'm sure there's plenty of people in GamerGate who care about it and I'm sure there's lots more who say they care about it, but when they spend so much time going after things that are decidedly not corruption instead of actual corruption, you'll forgive me for doubting your sincerity. This isn't a knee jerk reaction, this is an opinion based on observing the little tantrum that erupted out of slander and illiteracy.

Now, I would say the biggest area of confusion here is over the term "SJW". As it turns out, this word means something different to whoever is saying it. Perhaps you think of SJW as merely anyone who believes in equality and social justice. Most of us have no problem with that. However, what most of the GG mean when they say SJW aren't those people who are pushing for justice or equality. They're the people who are advocating for equality by inequality. The people who would force the belief that all men are just one bad decision from being a rapist and that we have all somehow contributed to sexism just by being born with dicks. We aren't talking about people who want equal and fair treatment, we're talking about people who want to put one group down and another group up. Sexism or racism on the other side rather than equality.

You know what, if people actually used SJW in that way there wouldn't be a problem. But they don't. They don't just refer to the weird, obscure blogs on tumblr that you have to go well out of your way to find when they say "SJW," they seem to be referring to pretty much anyone who criticizes anything for racism or sexism or homophobia or whatever. You can believe it only means the weird thing, but not everyone's you and I'm not familiar enough with your posting history to judge your own sincerity. SJW means what people have used it to mean, and they've used it far more broadly than you, so there's no miscommunication, you just seem to be using the word incorrectly.

Likewise, the term can also be used to refer to individuals who see money to be made in the social justice arena and are merely saying what they think people want to hear to exploit legitimate feminist or social causes to line their pockets.

And unless you actually have proof that this is how it is, it comes across as little more than a bullshit way of criticizing someone without actually putting intellectual effort in.

So tell me, what kind of sexist goal do you think we're working towards? What kind of actual bigotry are you attributing to us?

As I said, not much. I mean you use minorities and women as a shield of any criticism of sexism or racism, which is pathetic, but I don't think you have any overtly racist or sexist goals. Just anti-intellectual and hypocritical goals to censor anyone who says something you dislike, or who you think said something you dislike.

Zachary Amaranth:
Which is why it's just easier to go through life with an attitude of "I will support your right to protest. I reserve the right to think it's fucking stupid."

While I still think that simply boycotting something and spamming advertisers with misinformation aren't really on the same level, I do see your point. And I didn't really recall any organization for the Eich thing in a way similar to GamerGate, but if there was one, then I learned something. If people spammed advertisers with misinformation over it, I'd say they were wrong to do so, but the things I noticed about it at the time pretty much amounted to people informing others, criticizing Mozilla, and using Chrome or whatever instead.

All the best on your new path, Jim. Can't say I liked your show when you first got on board with The Escapist, but over time the definite, undeniable refinement put into your work drew me in to the point that I started looking forward to Mondays. Thank you for all the good laughs and valuable insights over the years - I'm looking forward to a lot more. Thank God for you!

It's a real shame that Jim is leaving. Aside from the LRR/Feed Dump/Unskippable crew, he was really the only contributor that I went out of my way to watch.

LifeCharacter:

Zachary Amaranth:
Which is why it's just easier to go through life with an attitude of "I will support your right to protest. I reserve the right to think it's fucking stupid."

While I still think that simply boycotting something and spamming advertisers with misinformation aren't really on the same level, I do see your point. And I didn't really recall any organization for the Eich thing in a way similar to GamerGate, but if there was one, then I learned something. If people spammed advertisers with misinformation over it, I'd say they were wrong to do so, but the things I noticed about it at the time pretty much amounted to people informing others, criticizing Mozilla, and using Chrome or whatever instead.

i just want to point out we even had websites urging us to boycott. That's on top of individuals organising and developers pulling support from Mozilla.

Zachary Amaranth:
i just want to point out we even had websites urging us to boycott. That's on top of individuals organising and developers pulling support from Mozilla.

That I knew, but organizing a boycott doesn't seem the same as organizing a campaign of contacting advertisers with misinformation. If GamerGate just said "Don't go to these sites" or the people boycotting Mozilla said "contact these advertisers" I'd consider them the same methods, but I don't believe that's the case at the moment.

LifeCharacter:

You know what, if people actually used SJW in that way there wouldn't be a problem. But they don't. They don't just refer to the weird, obscure blogs on tumblr that you have to go well out of your way to find when they say "SJW," they seem to be referring to pretty much anyone who criticizes anything for racism or sexism or homophobia or whatever. You can believe it only means the weird thing, but not everyone's you and I'm not familiar enough with your posting history to judge your own sincerity. SJW means what people have used it to mean, and they've used it far more broadly than you, so there's no miscommunication, you just seem to be using the word incorrectly.

I'd just point out that a lot of people define it in the same way LightKnight uses it, then use it in a much broader sense. To that end, he might see other people defining it this way and feel justified That he is using it appropriately. Of course, this further brings up the divide between definition and word use. I can say "Social Justice Warrior" is used for, say, extremists, but if I start saying it to everyone who disagrees with me, I clearly have a breakdown somewhere in the process.

To that end, I've seen SJW defined as someone who doesn't care about whats actually involved, and is just crusading to crusade. This has theen been turned around on LGBT activists who are actually LGBT.

Exley97:

Well, first, it wasn't just the one dev that made that interview series problematic for a lot of people, Sterling included. Just look at the piece and the number of editor's notes -- there was another developer with a history of harassing behavior, plus the original headline of the piece was "What *Game Developers* Think of #GamerGate" -- minus the "Male" part.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/features/12383-Game-Developer-GamerGate-Interviews-Shed-Light-on-Women-in-Games

And I credit the Escapist for correcting the problems and for keeping them on the record. It was absolutely the right thing to do. But like I said, never should have happened in the first place. I actually thought the idea of getting developer opinions on GG was a great idea, but....you can't include people that are actively involved in the worst elements of GG. You just can't.

After doing an admittedly very quick glance, I'm seeing interviews of both people for, against, and even neutral to GG there, with some of the interviewees openly damning GG. That alone tells me that this isn't a case of bias at all - especially not in favor of GG - but of a case of Hanlon's Razor in action, with the (admittedly hilarious amount of) Editor's Note's leaning credence to that.

To be biased would mean that they're favoring one side over the other, which simply isn't the case when they interviewed people from all spectrums of GG in those interviews. It takes more than hearing out a few harassers to constitute something as biased, and the rest of those interviews as well as everything I mentioned earlier give a much stronger impression of the Escapist trying to report on GG in an unbiased manner via telling all sides of the story, as opposed to trying to back a particular side.

EDIT: One last point is on that original title you mentioned - "What Game Developers Think of #GamerGate". That title itself comes across as click-baity as fuck, but I fail to see how it's a biased title in any way. How does the exclusion of the word "Male" inherently make it a biased, pro-GG title?

Good luck Jim! And best hurry out before any of the Escapist's new Ethics Code gets on ya!

V da Mighty Taco:

Exley97:

Well, first, it wasn't just the one dev that made that interview series problematic for a lot of people, Sterling included. Just look at the piece and the number of editor's notes -- there was another developer with a history of harassing behavior, plus the original headline of the piece was "What *Game Developers* Think of #GamerGate" -- minus the "Male" part.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/features/12383-Game-Developer-GamerGate-Interviews-Shed-Light-on-Women-in-Games

And I credit the Escapist for correcting the problems and for keeping them on the record. It was absolutely the right thing to do. But like I said, never should have happened in the first place. I actually thought the idea of getting developer opinions on GG was a great idea, but....you can't include people that are actively involved in the worst elements of GG. You just can't.

After doing an admittedly very quick glance, I'm seeing interviews of both people for, against, and even neutral to GG there, with some of the interviewees openly damning GG. That alone tells me that this isn't a case of bias at all - especially not in favor of GG - but of a case of Hanlon's Razor in action, with the (admittedly hilarious amount of) Editor's Note's leaning credence to that.

To be biased would mean that they're favoring one side over the other, which simply isn't the case when they interviewed people from all spectrums of GG in those interviews. It takes more than hearing out a few harassers to constitute something as biased, and the rest of those interviews as well as everything I mentioned earlier give a much stronger impression of the Escapist trying to report on GG in an unbiased manner via telling all sides of the story, as opposed to trying to back a particular side.

EDIT: One last point is on that original title you mentioned - "What Game Developers Think of #GamerGate". That title itself comes across as click-baity as fuck, but I fail to see how it's a biased title in any way. How does the exclusion of the word "Male" inherently make it a biased, pro-GG title?

Taco, I'll put it to you this way -- as a journalist myself and someone who's worked in the profession for more than 15 years, if you're collecting un-biased opinions on a topic, it helps to not include people who are directly involved in said topic. In other words, the two developers who were active participants in GG should not have been allowed to offer their opinion on GG under the guise that they were just "male game developers." If you want to interview those two clowns and then title it "What GamerGate members think of GamerGate," then by all means, have at it. But again, to include those two individuals -- and to make no mention that they were active participants in the group -- and present them as just your average male game developers with no ax to grind and no stake is the ground (when they CLEARLY did) was patently absurd. In fact, the only reason you knows these developers were active in GG "ops" is because I told you. The RogueStar interview, for example, simply described him as "an independent game developer" and a "a 7-year veteran of the Marine Corps" -- not, you know, an active member of the Burgers & Fries IRC channel targeting Zoe Quinn. Not exactly un-biased, or transparent, right?

Also, what other interviewees said about GG doesn't matter. It's not a zero sum game. If you're looking for a true sample of opinion, you don't go into the interview search saying "Well, we need to have 4 pro-GG people, and 4 against." That's not how journalism works.

Wait, WHAT?!

This guy is on of the greatest contributors to video game philosophy and ethics in the world right now!
Why in blazes is he leaving?!

I am gonna miss him so freaking much... :(

thedailylunatic:
As the series goes on Yahtzee makes passing jokes about GG, having fun, and you can really hear the building weariness/angst in Jim's voice. By the last two episodes it feels like Jim is bitter as f*** and phoning it in. The contrast is especially stark during their Sleeping Dogs video, with Yahtzee joking playfully and Jim painfully suppressing his deep desire to whinge.

Why? Because The Escapist was the only major gaming site to give GG a fair shake? Because Jim has a beef with RogueStar? Because Archon didn't want to permaban everyone with an unpopular opinion on the forums like every other bloody site did? Because all of his Social Justice Treehouse speshul snowfwake fwiends got their tumblies in a bunch because their GAMER audience didn't respond to their "OMG GAMERZ R DEAD 4 SUPR SERIOUS" articles with fawning praise?

Or maybe it's because Jim was branded by Gamergate as The Enemy right from the very start for being a feminist. I don't have the list in front of me but I remember seeing it; there was this big list of people who worked at gaming sites who were considered acceptable targets; he and MovieBob were both on it. I'm pretty sure it came out right near the beginning before any of them even had a chance to come out for or against "the movement", although he may have weighed in on the Zoe Quinn debacle that kicked it off. It would not surprise me if he were one of the people who's been getting harrassed by them, and it's been wearing on him.

Screw this he was the only reason I became a member of their publisher club. Consider that cancelled now, and I swear if Yahtzee ever leaves this site I am done gone and out of here.

Exley97:

Taco, I'll put it to you this way -- as a journalist myself and someone who's worked in the profession for more than 15 years, if you're collecting un-biased opinions on a topic, it helps to not include people who are directly involved in said topic. In other words, the two developers who were active participants in GG should not have been allowed to offer their opinion on GG under the guise that they were just "male game developers." If you want to interview those two clowns and then title it "What GamerGate members think of GamerGate," then by all means, have at it. But again, to include those two individuals -- and to make no mention that they were active participants in the group -- and present them as just your average male game developers with no ax to grind and no stake is the ground (when they CLEARLY did) was patently absurd. In fact, the only reason you knows these developers were active in GG "ops" is because I told you. The RogueStar interview, for example, simply described him as "an independent game developer" and a "a 7-year veteran of the Marine Corps" -- not, you know, an active member of the Burgers & Fries IRC channel targeting Zoe Quinn. Not exactly un-biased, or transparent, right?

Also, what other interviewees said about GG doesn't matter. It's not a zero sum game. If you're looking for a true sample of opinion, you don't go into the interview search saying "Well, we need to have 4 pro-GG people, and 4 against." That's not how journalism works.

Once again, I'm attributing it to Hanlon's Razor here. It's much more likely that they did not realize who they were interviewing rather than some malicious attempt at promoting GG, especially with the retractions of those specific interviews and the Editor's Notes in mind. Those interviews might point at journalistic incompetence, but not some sort of pro-GG bias.

I'm also going to say that who else they interview does greatly matter on whether or not the site is being biased as a whole, as well as everything else the site and it's staff are doing. Those two interviews don't exist in a vacuum, and the rest of the Escapist's actions both inside and outside of those interviews need to be accounted for before one can accuse the site of having a pro-GG bias. As it stands, just about everything the Escapist has done in regards to GG - especially with all the interviews with people from all camps (something sorely lacking on just about every other major gaming website) - do not give credence to the idea that they have a pro-GG bias. In fact, I cannot think of another gaming journalism site that has been less biased in regards to GG than the Escapist, though that's a discussion probably best saved for another time and thread.

jimthepocket:
Huh, I mostly just come here for Jim, Yahtzee, and Bob. The Escapist just became 33% less awesome.

If i had to lose Jim, Yahtzee or Bob. Bob would be the first to go. Not that I don't like Movie bob but I just like the other two more.

Jim is one of the few balanced people with the whole gamer gate thing and everything that is around it. Jim's videos on gender issues were really spot on.

Anyway sad to see him go but I will be following Jim wherever he goes.

Corran006:
Jim is one of the few balanced people with the whole gamer gate thing and everything that is around it.

No, he really isn't. He is here, in his vids on the Escapist, but outside of these confines? No, he really isn't balanced. He's very much Anti-#GG.

Jim's videos on gender issues were really spot on.

Admittedly, yes, yes they were. I'll miss his vids here, but I won't be following him.

So he's finally negotiated all the rights to the Jimquisition back to him, so he owns it all now, and he now just wants to run it all himself without having to answer to anybody so he can chuck up whatever he wants without having to run it by others first.
That's it really.

Nikolaz72:

I've seen people here trying to get around the personal insult rule by just insulting everyone in the group a person associates with, it didn't work then it shouldn't work now.

It seems to work perfectly well when the target of those attacks is "SJWs" or "liberals" or "feminists." Those posts, not matter how insulting, never seem to get taken down.

And you can even see in this thread people using the tactic of saying "Now, if I were less of a nice person (nudge, nudge, wink, wink), I'd say that XXX are a bunch morons. Of course, am a nice person and would never say that (wink)."

There is far too much nastiness in these threads, both of a personal variety and more generalised nastiness. Unfortunately, too many people seem to be getting away with it under the bullshit excuse of "Freedom of Speech." Sorry, you are not entitled to the forums, this is not the government suppressing your speech. It's a matter of maintaining decorum and standards. You are not being censored just because your nastiness is not welcome.

Unfortunately, The Escapist seems to have bowed so much to the pressure of Gamergate that they are just letting people be total dicks and ruin the forums, allowing trolls and bigots free rein, driving out anyone who wants to have reasonable discourse. Funny how when Jim did his Adblock episode, people were being suspended left, right and centre for pretty damn civil statements, while outright abusive and hateful posts seem perfectly fine post-Gamergate.

And the notion that The Escapist is somehow "neutral" or "balanced" on the issue is absurd. Alexander Macris, someone involved on the business side, came in and directly interfered with the editorial side - praising Gamergate as having "noble goals." He then wrote some highly biased and misleading interviews, but instead of publishing them under his own name, published them with the byline "The Escapist Staff."

That was some highly unethical games "journalism" by Macris, and it's hilarious to see it being praised by people as being somehow balanced by people who self-identify as being against corruption in games journalism. He violated a lot of journalistic ethics rules with that piece.

Of course, we are never going to see any disclosures here about Macris or his agenda. I never knew who the guy was until well after those interviews were published. I naively believed that he was simply misled by the Gamergaters, and it was an innocent mistake on his behalf. It was not until I did more research that I found out he is an active Gamergate supporter, with a right-wing agenda. I was not even aware that he was the one who conducted the "male game developers" interviews until after the fact, because he hid it under the "Escapist Staff" byline. Knowing that now, it all makes so much sense why those interviews contained such weird leading questions, and equated gamers in general with Gamergate supporters, and the "anti-Gamergate" side as being anti-gamer.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 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