Wow. So not only did Quinn harass a website's worth of depressed people in the name of publicity, she might be collecting donations for research falsely? That's pretty low for any one. Still don't think we should be focusing ANY attention from GamerGate on her though.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Wow. So not only did Quinn harass a website's worth of depressed people in the name of publicity, she might be collecting donations for research falsely? That's pretty low for any one. Still don't think we should be focusing ANY attention from GamerGate on her though.
Though I would agree, it sort of shows the hipocripsy of the entire situation.
But if you can supplement more information you can post more information on the matter
Be aware, that if this thread devolves in a similar way to last thread, it'll be locked immediately and there'll be no one starting a new thread on it.
Has anyone been able to corroborate the lack of death threats made to Anita? I was trying to track it down, but couldn't
I think that's pretty big to show, if not corruption, at least the lack of journalistic integrity to fact check. Which could be just as damming as corruption.
Hrmm... apparently more information is available... someone called the SFPD asking about Anita's claims of online harassment. From the video and the transcript, Anita never filed a police report with the local authorities. If that's the case, then than means she at least filed it with the wrong authorities, or at worse, fabricated the entire the thing and NO ONE bothered to fact check it. If they willingly ignored the fact checking aspect of their jobs it would lend itself to collision between Anita and gaming journalism.
This would ruin the entire other side of the argument as that is what drove many of the articles.
Alfndrate wrote: Has anyone been able to corroborate the lack of death threats made to Anita? I was trying to track it down, but couldn't
I think that's pretty big to show, if not corruption, at least the lack of journalistic integrity to fact check. Which could be just as damming as corruption.
It is interesting if she fabricated the information, I wonder if that could be filed underneath certain laws O.o
Cali does have some strong cyber crime laws against sending death threats. I'm not sure if it matters if you sent them to yourself, just like if you fake a kidnapping of yourself you tend to get arrested anyways.
The only real question would be who could get the police to act on it, I'm not sure if "a concerned citizen" from the internet would be suffice. It could be, I don't really know.
Alfndrate wrote: Has anyone been able to corroborate the lack of death threats made to Anita? I was trying to track it down, but couldn't
I think that's pretty big to show, if not corruption, at least the lack of journalistic integrity to fact check. Which could be just as damming as corruption.
I haven't found any only what she has posted.
Even more so that she posted that "gross stuff" (I don't even like the words) on her twitter claiming it was a threat and she contacted the police. With her back peddling that means she posted it her self and blamed gamers.
Mainly about how Zoey Quinn has not donated to the websites she said she was donating to. Apparently its known she has not established contact with them.
Alfndrate wrote: Has anyone been able to corroborate the lack of death threats made to Anita?
Do we actually need to be skeptical about that? I mean, death threats aren't exactly rare in this context. A brief look around the internet will pretty clearly show that being a woman, especially a woman posting unpopular opinions, online almost guarantees that you'll get some death threats and verbal abuse. Even if the victim isn't a saint I don't see any reason to believe that this is an incredibly rare exception to the general trend.
Valion wrote: For those of us too lazy to trawl through Twitter, has either Ms. Sarkeesian or Ms. Quinn responded to the allegations against them?
Currently they are decrying one of the journalists about it and bringing up articles of the guys past. And the Journalist thus far has admitted to it openly and said many allegations. I can tell you he is quite bloody honest.
But Death threats are sent every day. I even recieve them from time to time. And I don't talk about it. I just flag it and send it an administrator to deal with. (not from this site, everyone is very kind here)
Hence why I am staying here quite often ^.^
The fact remains is that there is a lot of stuff going on. I asked one of the major figure heads (Vivan James Official Account) and they weren't answering me but they posted a whole list of gamergate articles which I have put on the main post.
I have been trying to contact dan from extra credits for a bit. Asking him his thoughts on #notyourshield.
Though Admittedly there has been no response when ever I ask questions.
Also 4chan and gamers have raised 1400$ for Suicide prevention hotline O.o
1) Have the charities in question confirmed officially that they have not received donations from Ms. Quinn? I'm not sure I put much stock in a badly-written Facebook post.
2) Why are we certain that Ms. Sarkeesian falls under San Francisco Police Department jurisdiction and not any of the other law enforcement agencies in the bay area?
Valion wrote: 1) Have the charities in question confirmed officially that they have not received donations from Ms. Quinn? I'm not sure I put much stock in a badly-written Facebook post.
And have we confirmed that the donations weren't going to be made? After all, the game was released on Steam fairly recently, so it could be nothing more than waiting until a decent chunk of money arrives to donate it all at once instead of submitting smaller donations more frequently. And "we haven't negotiated anything" is hardly convincing when donating to a charity doesn't require making special deals with them in advance. All you have to do is send a payment and the first time they'll know about it is when the money arrives in their account.
My understanding was that the donations go through her website, not through Steam, as the game is free on Steam and to the best of my knowledge Steam doesn't allow you to voluntarily overpay.
I have no trouble at all believing that a pair of professional victims are capable of lying, but the evidence in both circumstances for these specific cases seems pretty thin.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I've done a little more research on this, and near as I can tell, the following is the case:
Two separate journalists have confirmed with the SFPD that Anita Sarkeesian did not report any of the harassment she claims to have received to them at any point during August or September. They do seem as though they would be the ones with jurisdiction, as they appear to be familiar with her from similar reports that she has in fact made from March of this year. One of the reporters has filed a FOIA request with the FBI to see if she simply bypassed local police and went federal.
iFred was unable to confirm any donations made from Ms. Quinn, though Ms. Quinn has counter-claimed that she didn't make the donations under her company name (if she has one) or the name or her game, but in her own individual name. The donations total a little under $700 dating from sometime in 2013 until August 20th. The other charity hasn't said one way or the other, but Ms. Quinn reports giving them a little under $1000 in total.
Polygon has reportedly lost a sponsor in the form of Unilever. Unilever's a huge multinational, so it seems that enough complaints were made for them to just decide to stop the pittance they were paying for advertisements on the site. A small victory, but a victory nonetheless.
The reporter who seems to be doing most of the Anita Sarkeesian harassment claim digging is, unfortunately, a guy with Breitbart. I'm sympathetic to Breitbart's political views, but I'd be loathe to see gaming become another culture warrior battleground. That said, it seems the first shots are already long since fired.
The CEO and co-founder of the Escapist is apparently in the process of doing a story on this whole thing related to blackballing within the developer community due to divergent (non-progressive) political views, interviewing confirmed developers anonymously. Looks pretty interesting so far.
Valion wrote: 1) Have the charities in question confirmed officially that they have not received donations from Ms. Quinn? I'm not sure I put much stock in a badly-written Facebook post.
And have we confirmed that the donations weren't going to be made? After all, the game was released on Steam fairly recently, so it could be nothing more than waiting until a decent chunk of money arrives to donate it all at once instead of submitting smaller donations more frequently. And "we haven't negotiated anything" is hardly convincing when donating to a charity doesn't require making special deals with them in advance. All you have to do is send a payment and the first time they'll know about it is when the money arrives in their account.
And She has been accepting money to her personal paypal for Rebel game jam, which hasn't been updated, or even started, since march.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Valion wrote: My understanding was that the donations go through her website, not through Steam, as the game is free on Steam and to the best of my knowledge Steam doesn't allow you to voluntarily overpay.
I have no trouble at all believing that a pair of professional victims are capable of lying, but the evidence in both circumstances for these specific cases seems pretty thin.
And Anita already back peddled on Twitter saying she "misspoke" when it came to contacting the police.
Alfndrate wrote: Has anyone been able to corroborate the lack of death threats made to Anita?
Do we actually need to be skeptical about that? I mean, death threats aren't exactly rare in this context. A brief look around the internet will pretty clearly show that being a woman, especially a woman posting unpopular opinions, online almost guarantees that you'll get some death threats and verbal abuse. Even if the victim isn't a saint I don't see any reason to believe that this is an incredibly rare exception to the general trend.
Miss Sarkeesian is accustomed to death threats unfortunately , but the death threats that caused the alleged police report were beyond acceptable. If it comes out that she fabricated the death threats, then it gives credence to the idea that a small group of influential people within gaming journalism have been manipulating the anti-gamer narrative that spawned these "gamers are over" articles that were flying around. Pull the mysogny and feminism out of GamerGate and youre left with the claims that gaming journalism is corrupt. A narrative such as this (I.e. a well known cultural critic is being aggressively harassed due to her views on pop culture medium) would lose large amounts of credibility because if she fabricated this attack, who's to say she hasn't fabricated others?
While death threats against anyone are always inappropriate and unwarranted, but lying and fabricating death threats is just as inappropriate and unwarranted.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Crow, I know we can't post twitter posts, but I'm not seeing back peddling on Anita's twitter
Valion wrote: For those of us too lazy to trawl through Twitter, has either Ms. Sarkeesian or Ms. Quinn responded to the allegations against them?
Quinn responded with "Wowwww an MRA right wing website journo just contacted me with my phone number obtained through my doxxing about more baseless bs. Lol no."
Automatically Appended Next Post: Crow, I know we can't post twitter posts, but I'm not seeing back peddling on Anita's twitter
She is known for deleting stuff, it was there yesterday but it seems she has wiped it out preferring to stay silent instead. Unlike Zoe who has eaten both feet and asking for more, her twitter supporters are just as bat gak crazy ignorant as she is.
Valion wrote: For those of us too lazy to trawl through Twitter, has either Ms. Sarkeesian or Ms. Quinn responded to the allegations against them?
Quinn responded with "Wowwww an MRA right wing website journo just contacted me with my phone number obtained through my doxxing about more baseless bs. Lol no."
Automatically Appended Next Post: Crow, I know we can't post twitter posts, but I'm not seeing back peddling on Anita's twitter
She is known for deleting stuff, it was there yesterday but it seems she has wiped it out preferring to stay silent instead. Unlike Zoe who has eaten both feet and asking for more, her twitter supporters are just as bat gak crazy ignorant as she is.
Its funny because He said he went to her contact page if I remember correctly XD
Also There are a few articles jumping up in support of zoe quinn and not doing any fact checking.
The Guardian and Vice have as well.
Also apparently best buy, and newegg have removed advertising from kotatu and polygon.
And uses Leigh Alexander as a source, the same Leigh Alexander that has been slagging gamers this entire time and wrote one of the "gamers are dead" articles.
Jesus, and Erik Kain, the same guy who glossed over all the issues.
And uses Leigh Alexander as a source, the same Leigh Alexander that has been slagging gamers this entire time and wrote one of the "gamers are dead" articles.
Jesus, and Erik Kain, the same guy who glossed over all the issues.
Hahahaha. Well baby steps. I don't think he is aware of that.
I would necessarily call him a journalist, more of a blogger.
Also I think people like Leigh Alexander should be kicked out of the industry. She has proven she has the emotional level of a child.. Especially what has been happening here.
Or she should formulate an official apology to her readers for acting the way she did.
Kilkrazy wrote: Is the problem with journalism or with women?
Journalism
They'll go after the god of war guy, or max tempken on allegations, but when it comes to anything involving them doing shady stuff they stay far far away, or just down play it. Being gamer journalists and claiming gamers are dead, and constantly making tweets insulting them is the point we are getting at.
Its the ties of SJWs and Feminists with the journalists and how they often border into unprofessional.
For example. Matti Lesham ran a game jam last year that was admittedly (recently) nuked by Zoe Quinn and he was fired for that, She then took over for that game jam and has done nothing with it since march. In the meanwhile she and Maya Kramer attacked and shut down the fine young capitalists game jam and admitted to that all over twitter in feb. Matti lesham is thrown out of the industry and dozens of articles are written. Zoe admits to ruining game jams and nothing, we are told there is no story. Mostly because the journalists are funding her via patreon.
Then there is the events of DongleGate where a guy made a dick joke and got fired for being unprofessional, yet these people have been indicated in actual fraud, and again, nothing.
Max Tempken gets rape allegations and they run stories, Zoe Quinn admits to raping someone and again, nothing.
When called out on it there is mass censorship, there was over 22,000 deleted posts regarding Zoe Quinn on reddit and there is twitter evidence of a senior Mod on reddit talking to Zoe Quinn while it was happening.
Its the nepotism, mass censorship, agenda pushing and incestuous relationships that have pointed out the mass corruption in gaming journalism.
Kilkrazy wrote: Is the problem with journalism or with women?
Journalism is the problem, and women are the smokescreen the journos are using to deflect aggro away from themselves.
Basically ^.^ Misogyny is currently the cloak they are throwing over the entire issue, and describing it as just people wanting to harass a poor poor woman.
Its really just a campaign against A-holes. I don't care what gender, race, or space frog you are, if you're pushing an agenda of thought restriction and art censorship and act like a dick about it, you're damn right I'm going to stand up against that.
There is a considerable amount of misogyny in the games industry and associated activities including fandom as well as the Internet generally. At least at the extremes.
Reading up the stuff makes it look to me a bit like some people are using the journalism crusade to attack the two women and thereby advance the misogynist agenda.
I mean look at the storm around these two linked cases. I don't recall anything like it before except for the Jane Austen bank note incident. Why has alleged bad games journalism become such a huge issue with two women involved, and never with men involved?
Kilkrazy wrote: There is a considerable amount of misogyny in the games industry and associated activities including fandom as well as the Internet generally. At least at the extremes.
Reading up the stuff makes it look to me a bit like some people are using the journalism crusade to attack the two women and thereby advance the misogynist agenda.
I mean look at the storm around these two linked cases. I don't recall anything like it before except for the Jane Austen bank note incident. Why has alleged bad games journalism become such a huge issue with two women involved, and never with men involved?
Its been brewing for a long time
The events in order would be....
Mass Effect 3
Doritio Gate
Zoe Quinn Scandal
It just so happened to be when zoe quinn's allegations happened.
It blew up because in those two events, gamers were put down. Three strikes and your out is basically the jist.
As both times there was a vocal minority and were swiftly put down.
Kilkrazy wrote: Reading up the stuff makes it look to me a bit like some people are using the journalism crusade to attack the two women and thereby advance the misogynist agenda.
It's not. "Misogyny" is just the smoke screen a number of websites have used to deflect attention away, and the very idea that there is such a thing as a "misogynist agenda" is just laughable.
Kilkrazy wrote: Is the problem with journalism or with women?
Journalism […] Its the ties of SJWs and Feminists with the journalists and how they often border into unprofessional.
.
You need more of a point there.
Your argument is missing a few points. Sorry all points. The fact remains is there is a correlation. And it is bordering on unprofessional with silverstring media being thrown in the middle of this.
Kilkrazy wrote: Reading up the stuff makes it look to me a bit like some people are using the journalism crusade to attack the two women and thereby advance the misogynist agenda.
It's not. "Misogyny" is just the smoke screen a number of websites have used to deflect attention away, and the very idea that there is such a thing as a "misogynist agenda" is just laughable.
How do you interpret the misogyny shown via the internet that is apparent in the games industry and in other walks of life as illustrated by the Jane Austen bank notes affair.
I mean there may not be a formally organised group of misogynists lurking in a secret base, plotting the overthrow of our female oppressors, but there clearly is a lot of misogyny.
Kilkrazy wrote: There is a considerable amount of misogyny in the games industry and associated activities including fandom as well as the Internet generally. At least at the extremes.
There is a considerable amount of misogyny on the extremes of every occupation in human society, since games are just another form of cultural expression it is inevitable that the misogyny that exists in our society will also be represented in the games that are made.
Having said that, there is a considerable difference between your statement and the original articles that stated that all gamers were inherently misogynistic.
Reading up the stuff makes it look to me a bit like some people are using the journalism crusade to attack the two women and thereby advance the misogynist agenda.
I mean look at the storm around these two linked cases. I don't recall anything like it before except for the Jane Austen bank note incident. Why has alleged bad games journalism become such a huge issue with two women involved, and never with men involved?
Yes, some donkey caves have attacked the women themselves and the gaming press used those attacks as an excuse to paint all gamers as misogynistic and use that as a smoke screen to try and divert attention away from the real issue.
Also that, IMO, is why this case as blown up as much as it did, because the gaming media tried to censor and divert attention away from the true discussion.
But at least all of this publicity caused a number of true feminist gamer causes to receive more funding that they probably wouldn't have gotten otherwise, so some good has come out of it.
Kilkrazy wrote: Reading up the stuff makes it look to me a bit like some people are using the journalism crusade to attack the two women and thereby advance the misogynist agenda.
It's not. "Misogyny" is just the smoke screen a number of websites have used to deflect attention away, and the very idea that there is such a thing as a "misogynist agenda" is just laughable.
How do you interpret the misogyny shown via the internet that is apparent in the games industry and in other walks of life as illustrated by the Jane Austen bank notes affair.
I mean there may not be a formally organised group of misogynists lurking in a secret base, plotting the overthrow of our female oppressors, but there clearly is a lot of misogyny.
There is also loads of Misandry and double standards that is completely ignored. To these SJWs like Quinn, she uses Mens Rights Activist as a insult and slur.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: There is a considerable amount of misogyny in the games industry and associated activities including fandom as well as the Internet generally. At least at the extremes.
Reading up the stuff makes it look to me a bit like some people are using the journalism crusade to attack the two women and thereby advance the misogynist agenda.
That's a new one.
There has been massive harassment on both sides. Look up the "In 4 words what do gamers mean to you" and find the journalist responses.
I will call out misogyny when it is warrented, same as calling out people that are using a thinly veiled College taught dogmatic hate group with some serious cognitive dissonance and projection issues.
How do you interpret the misogyny shown via the internet that is apparent in the games industry and in other walks of life as illustrated by the Jane Austen bank notes affair.
I mean there may not be a formally organised group of misogynists lurking in a secret base, plotting the overthrow of our female oppressors, but there clearly is a lot of misogyny.
There is, but the use of the phrase "misogynist agenda" implicates a level of organization that simply doesn't exist.
Human civilization and especially western civilization has been inherently misogynistic for thousands of years, its getting better in the past few decades but its a bit naive to expect that the donkey caves that still hold those opinions will disappear in such a short time span. Especially when we still see misogyny being practised in such places as government and the workplace...
Most people with any sense treat 'MRA' as an insult and slur, not just SJW's and Quinn. The MRA movement is pretty much Storm Front except they hate women instead of non-Whites (and it's scary how much overlap you find between white power groups and the MRA movement).
There's a reason it's so easy to use misogyny as a shield in this case.
LordofHats wrote: Most people with any sense treat 'MRA' as an insult and slur, not just SJW's and Quinn. The MRA movement is pretty much Storm Front except they hate women instead of non-Whites (and it's scary how much overlap you find between white power groups and the MRA movement).
There's a reason it's so easy to use misogyny as a shield in this case.
But don't they have to prove those allegations?
Show that the majority are women haters? When that has been shown not to be the case? With notyourshield and many others?
The problem is that the journalists are just reacting and not observing.
LordofHats wrote: Most people with any sense treat 'MRA' as an insult and slur, not just SJW's and Quinn. The MRA movement is pretty much Storm Front except they hate women instead of non-Whites (and it's scare how much overlap you find between white power groups and the MRA movement).
There's a reason it's so easy to use misogyny as a shield in this case.
I never even heard of it until recently, when feminists stormed the halls of UofT in Toronto during the Canadian Association For Equality and they were holding a panel on the sexism men face. The thousands of feminists made it impossible for the presenters to speak, and even when they tried they pulled the fire alarm. That internet knows well the ring leader of that event as Big Red.
LordofHats wrote: Most people with any sense treat 'MRA' as an insult and slur, not just SJW's and Quinn. The MRA movement is pretty much Storm Front except they hate women instead of non-Whites (and it's scary how much overlap you find between white power groups and the MRA movement).
There's a reason it's so easy to use misogyny as a shield in this case.
But don't they have to prove those allegations?
Show that the majority are women haters? When that has been shown not to be the case? With notyourshield and many others?
The problem is that the journalists are just reacting and not observing.
Exactly, equality is a two way street, if you want people to listen and address the problems of one but not the other then that is a big problem.
I think you have a good point here but that point is constantly undermined by (a) how and why any of these issues about charity blew up in the first place and (b) the misogynistic language some folks keep using to characterize the issues (perhaps including this "SJW" label).
I think you have a good point here but that point is constantly undermined by (a) how and why any of these issues about charity blew up in the first place and (b) the misogynistic language some folks keep using to characterize the issues (perhaps including this "SJW" label).
I think its more of a making fun of the journalists who use misogynistic terms and insults that cater to gamers.
I mean Leigh Alexander released an article decrying gamers are dead, and started ranting about how bad gamers are.
Mechanical Crow wrote: There is also loads of Misandry and double standards that is completely ignored. To these SJWs like Quinn, she uses Mens Rights Activist as a insult and slur.
Show that the majority are women haters? When that has been shown not to be the case? With notyourshield and many others?
I'm talking about the Men's Right Movement, which is mostly a bunch of men whining about things that don't even exist in a pitiful attempt to claim women are the real power holders in society and men the oppressed masses. I've never seen an MRM advocate raise a valid point about anything.
The problem is that the journalists are just reacting and not observing.
So are the GamerGate and NotYourShield crowd. There have been plenty of questionable behaviors revealed since this started, social advocates and women being the least among them. It defeats the purpose of the movement to constantly harp on women and 'SJW' while claiming "we're not misogynists." This is the internet, not a college debate team. Words will be twisted so stop giving them words to twist.
I never even heard of it until recently, when feminists stormed the halls of UofT in Toronto during the Canadian Association For Equality and they were holding a panel on the sexism men face. The thousands of feminists made it impossible for the presenters to speak, and even when they tried they pulled the fire alarm. That internet knows well the ring leader of that event as Big Red.
When you advocate things like raping your wife isn't rape and beating her is perfectly okay because she's your wife, you can probably expect that feminists are gonna be pretty PO'd at you.
LordofHats wrote: Most people with any sense treat 'MRA' as an insult and slur, not just SJW's and Quinn. The MRA movement is pretty much Storm Front except they hate women instead of non-Whites (and it's scare how much overlap you find between white power groups and the MRA movement).
There's a reason it's so easy to use misogyny as a shield in this case.
I never even heard of it until recently, when feminists stormed the halls of UofT in Toronto during the Canadian Association For Equality and they were holding a panel on the sexism men face. The thousands of feminists made it impossible for the presenters to speak, and even when they tried they pulled the fire alarm. That internet knows well the ring leader of that event as Big Red.
LordofHats wrote: Most people with any sense treat 'MRA' as an insult and slur, not just SJW's and Quinn. The MRA movement is pretty much Storm Front except they hate women instead of non-Whites (and it's scary how much overlap you find between white power groups and the MRA movement).
There's a reason it's so easy to use misogyny as a shield in this case.
But don't they have to prove those allegations?
Show that the majority are women haters? When that has been shown not to be the case? With notyourshield and many others?
The problem is that the journalists are just reacting and not observing.
Exactly, equality is a two way street, if you want people to listen and address the problems of one but not the other then that is a big problem.
Trust me. I'm a feminist. I agree with full equality between men and women. I am able to look past the smokescreen here and see the real issue is the lack of integrity and objectivity on the part of game journos (not to mention wider corruption and backscratching between journos and some developers) and not misogyny. I belive that some misogynistic jerk weasels have, in fact, attacked Anita and Zoe because they are women, but I fully believe that the majority of gamers are not those gakholes. All that being said, MRA *is* a slur and an insult and justifiably so. So-called MRAs are misogynists claiming "sexism against men" the same way the Klan cried "reverse racism" in the 80s in an effort to get Affirmative Action repealed. They are all, horrible, horrible people. I have not met one or heard of one who wasn't an unabashedly and unashamed misongynist.
I think you have a good point here but that point is constantly undermined by (a) how and why any of these issues about charity blew up in the first place and (b) the misogynistic language some folks keep using to characterize the issues (perhaps including this "SJW" label).
I think its more of a making fun of the journalists who use misogynistic terms and insults that cater to gamers.
I mean Leigh Alexander released an article decrying gamers are dead, and started ranting about how bad gamers are.
Meanwhile her Demographic is gamers.
And what else do we call them? The intellectually dishonest? Victims of cognitive dissonance?
Mechanical Crow wrote: Ignore the part where its about fighting corruption and A-holes and focus in on the one thing that fits your agenda.
You are doing a very good job at helping me, then.
Basically saying the problem is about “SJW” is one hell of a good way to make your argument about sexism in video games and video game communities rather than about corruption.
Show that the majority are women haters? When that has been shown not to be the case? With notyourshield and many others?
I'm talking about the Men's Right Movement, which is mostly a bunch of men whining about things that don't even exist in a pitiful attempt to claim women are the real power holders in society and men the oppressed masses. I've never seen an MRM advocate raise a valid point about anything.
The problem is that the journalists are just reacting and not observing.
So are the GamerGate and NotYourShield crowd. There have been plenty of questionable behaviors revealed since this started, social advocates and women being the least among them. It defeats the purpose of the movement to constantly harp on women and 'SJW' while claiming "we're not misogynists." This is the internet, not a college debate team. Words will be twisted so stop giving them words to twist.
The problem with that thinking is that there have been many reasonable folks who have watched and have joined in.
The consumer is not obligated to do so. They can simply react.
A journalist cannot do this, that is a breach of journalism integrity and ethics.
That is the big different. Those whose job it is to report on news are given the burden of observing and reporting facts.
Otherwise they must label their news as Editorials and not News. There is a very big difference between the two.
I think you have a good point here but that point is constantly undermined by (a) how and why any of these issues about charity blew up in the first place and (b) the misogynistic language some folks keep using to characterize the issues (perhaps including this "SJW" label).
SJW just means social justice warrior. There is nothing misogynistic about it because it's a gender-neutral term
And also, let's put it this way. There are crazies on both side of the fence, however, on one side, crazies are basically getting a free pass while on the other side, crazies are somehow defining the ENTIRE population of that subset. I think that's what's pretty annoying to most people; myself included.
Also, there has been some pretty convincing allegations thrown around with little to no rebuttal from one side. There is nothing being done to address these allegations and yet people want to go 'but this is just a crusade started by some random misogynists' and throw out everything brought up from those revelations. Even if the facts themselves seem perfectly serviceable. This is basically throwing out the baby with the bathwater type behavior
Trust me. I'm a feminist. I agree with full equality between men and women. I am able to look past the smokescreen here and see the real issue is the lack of integrity and objectivity on the part of game journos (not to mention wider corruption and backscratching between journos and some developers) and not misogyny. I belive that some misogynistic jerk weasels have, in fact, attacked Anita and Zoe because they are women, but I fully believe that the majority of gamers are not those gakholes. All that being said, MRA *is* a slur and an insult and justifiably so. So-called MRAs are misogynists claiming "sexism against men" the same way the Klan cried "reverse racism" in the 80s in an effort to get Affirmative Action repealed. They are all, horrible, horrible people. I have not met one or heard of one who wasn't an unabashedly and unashamed misongynist.
Oh I don't disagree with that at all, people are using gamergate to attack Anita and Zoe without evidence, they don't deserve harassment, they deserve to be looked into for matters of fraud however.
And I will be honest I haven't looked that much into MRAs, the first time I heard of it was when CAFE did the seminar on the sexism that men face, and it was the feminists screaming about it. Seemed odd for them to attack an association dedicated to equality.
Mechanical Crow wrote: Max Tempken gets rape allegations and they run stories, Zoe Quinn admits to raping someone and again, nothing.
If she's admitted to raping someone, why haven't you contacted the police? If she's as horrid a person as you keep on suggesting, surely you'd leap at the chance to get her imprisoned?
A couple of questions anyway:
1) People keep on mentioning Mass Effect 3 as some massive gaming journalism scandal; what actually happened? The only controversy I can find is about the ending.
2) What's the end-game here? Keep on causing the loss of sponsors until these places shut down?i see people making criticisms all the time, but I can't see any suggestions of solutions.
I think you have a good point here but that point is constantly undermined by (a) how and why any of these issues about charity blew up in the first place and (b) the misogynistic language some folks keep using to characterize the issues (perhaps including this "SJW" label).
SJW just means social justice warrior. There is nothing misogynistic about it because it's a gender-neutral term
And also, let's put it this way. There are crazies on both side of the fence, however, on one side, crazies are basically getting a free pass while on the other side, crazies are somehow defining the ENTIRE population of that subset. I think that's what's pretty annoying to most people; myself included.
Also, there has been some pretty convincing allegations thrown around with little to no rebuttal from one side. There is nothing being done to address these allegations and yet people want to go 'but this is just a crusade started by some random misogynists' and throw out everything brought up from those revelations. Even if the facts themselves seem perfectly serviceable. This is basically throwing out the baby with the bathwater type behavior
Leigh Alexander is really guilty of this, she will bash people all day and turn around and block them or worse.
LordofHats wrote: So are the GamerGate and NotYourShield crowd. There have been plenty of questionable behaviors revealed since this started, social advocates and women being the least among them. It defeats the purpose of the movement to constantly harp on women and 'SJW' while claiming "we're not misogynists." This is the internet, not a college debate team. Words will be twisted so stop giving them words to twist.
I have seen no harping on women within the "movement." There has been harping on about (mostly) two individual women, but if we're going to call any and all criticism of a female misogyny, we might as well all go home now. Neither woman is a stranger to controversy, neither woman has acted, by all appearances, entirely above board, and both are full game for valid criticism whether people like that or not.
I have seen harping on SJWs. It seems a large swathe of the gaming public doesn't want its specialist media pushing a progressive social agenda. I'm not sure why that's controversial.
Regarding 2) I think in the end, at the very least, the writers who wrote the articles decrying gamers are dead/toxic should write a public apology for lumping in everyone together and insulting basically a huge portion of their audience.
She's not actually raped someone, she's only done something she describes as being akin to rape. As some point she claimed that having illicit sex with someone else while in a relationship and then going back to the original partner and not telling them what you've been doing, is akin to rape because they wouldn't consent knowing what you'd been doing. Now that's of interest if she did indeed cheat five times on her ex.
Goliath wrote: 1) People keep on mentioning Mass Effect 3 as some massive gaming journalism scandal; what actually happened? The only controversy I can find is about the ending.
ME3 was a very bad moment for gamers. I've said several times "yes the ending sucked but you guys are frothing at the mouth crazy throwing around claims of false advertising, strong arming journalists, etc" with regards to ME3. Basically the ending was dreadful and everyone quickly forgot the rest of the game was pretty damn good because the ending was just that bad and the whole thing exploded into this drama fest. EDIT: Most reviewers criticized the ending too.
As a whole, ME3's scores matched the game imo, and in the end 16 different endings that differ only slightly is still 16 different endings as far as advertising laws are concerned. It's not like the game was DA2 where reviews were quite clearly bought, or Aliens:Colonial Marines where there was clear false advertising (including accusations that journalists knew that the final product wasn't anything like the advertised product before release and said nothing to warn consumers).
Mechanical Crow wrote: Max Tempken gets rape allegations and they run stories, Zoe Quinn admits to raping someone and again, nothing.
If she's admitted to raping someone, why haven't you contacted the police? If she's as horrid a person as you keep on suggesting, surely you'd leap at the chance to get her imprisoned?
A couple of questions anyway:
1) People keep on mentioning Mass Effect 3 as some massive gaming journalism scandal; what actually happened? The only controversy I can find is about the ending.
2) What's the end-game here? Keep on causing the loss of sponsors until these places shut down?i see people making criticisms all the time, but I can't see any suggestions of solutions.
The main issue was that gamers were seen in a negative light by the gaming press.
They had opposing views on the matter of mass effect 3. And this caused some distrust between the two groups.
Goliath wrote: If she's admitted to raping someone, why haven't you contacted the police? If she's as horrid a person as you keep on suggesting, surely you'd leap at the chance to get her imprisoned?
A couple of questions anyway:
1) People keep on mentioning Mass Effect 3 as some massive gaming journalism scandal; what actually happened? The only controversy I can find is about the ending.
2) What's the end-game here? Keep on causing the loss of sponsors until these places shut down?i see people making criticisms all the time, but I can't see any suggestions of solutions.
I don't know what the Mass Effect 3 scandal is, either, unless people are referring to the backlash of "you're all whiny crybabies" articles that a lot of major sites ran when ME3 players started complaining about the ending.
As for the end-game? I don't know. I personally would certainly like to see some of the larger, more worthless sites go down; an end to Kotaku, Polygon, and Rock Paper Shotgun wouldn't make the gaming landscape a worse place.
Mostly I think people just want the gaming media at large to stop its incestuous old boys' club network shenanigans with itself and with developers and publishers, and to stop pushing pet political agendas. I have a degree, I had to sit through a Gender Studies class, I really don't need Nathan Grayson to write more, "Tropes In Chess: How Sacrificing The Queen To Save The King Is Misogynistic" articles.
I'd love more diverse articles among the sites myself so that reviews read more like they're written by people with different viewpoints or likes instead of being told 'heres whats good about the game, write about that'. Everyone likes all the AAA titles, everyone likes all the AA titles, it seems like everyone likes the same games or close enough that their scores are very similar.
Sining wrote: SJW just means social justice warrior. There is nothing misogynistic about it because it's a gender-neutral term
I realize that a so-called SJW can be a man or a woman. What I mean is, it is a derogatory label for one "side" of this discussion, the side that claims to women are under attack at least partly because of misogyny.
Mechanical Crow wrote: Max Tempken gets rape allegations and they run stories, Zoe Quinn admits to raping someone and again, nothing.
If she's admitted to raping someone, why haven't you contacted the police? If she's as horrid a person as you keep on suggesting, surely you'd leap at the chance to get her imprisoned?
A couple of questions anyway:
1) People keep on mentioning Mass Effect 3 as some massive gaming journalism scandal; what actually happened? The only controversy I can find is about the ending.
2) What's the end-game here? Keep on causing the loss of sponsors until these places shut down?i see people making criticisms all the time, but I can't see any suggestions of solutions.
Its because the rape was against her boyfriend and was sex under false pretenses, which SJW and feminists have been arguing heatedly counts as rape. That and its against a man, which some how doesn't count, and police never take seriously, but that is another issue.
As for the other points,
1) IIRC it had to do with DLCs and the super positive reviews that were essentially bought. And the journalists attacking people that called them out.
2) Most of the solutions have been suggested, for journalism all funding to people they know needs to stop or be transparent, or if they have a personal relationship they need to recuse themselves or make it abundantly clear that they know each other. For the devs, critics and silverstring media that are pushing the SJW narrative, they just need to stop, I know you disagree but Art and thinking does not require a check list. If I want to make a game about a man as the main character I shouldn't have to worry about making sure there is playable female characters and that trans people are represented and that Jesus is posted in a positive light. Think of it this way, if I made a historical game about the Civil war, would I need to have a trans soldier, a female soldier and a lesbian Marxist soldier? No. Because that isn't the target audience, to complain those weren't included is intellectually dishonest.
SJWs have gotten into other things and ran the same game, look up the paper on "why gravity is sexist".
Its a backwards restrictive way of thinking that just leads to bland amorphous people, which seems like the point of the extreme political correctness.
I actually got into a brief (Very much so) exchange with Zoe on Twitter, I did not get any sort of frothing at the mouth "Gamers are evil misogynistic pigs!", and I actually called her game bad.
That in and of itself proves (Can't post tweets, but I'll go grab them off twitter anyway).
Slarg232 wrote:Zoe, I disagree with how the game turned out, but I want you to know thanks for trying with Depression Quest. I've had that
Slarg232 wrote:Battle
Lord Zoldemort wrote:I can totally respect that. I hope it's getting easier on you at least
My point is, it's all about how you approach people.
Is misogyny a problem in the gaming industry? Define industry. There are hundreds of million people playing games, so it’s very likely, that some of them are going to be stupid donkey-caves. But saying that the industry is misogynist, because some idiot wrote something on Twitter is absurd, and I strongly believe that it’s used as a distraction so they don’t have to talk about the real problem here. When you are accused of something, accuse your opponent of something much worse. When somebody writes hysterical, aggressive, manipulative articles calling people ‘basement neckbeard troll scum’, he should know what’s gonna come. I was attacked on the Internet many, many times, because I often tend to say stuff people don’t like, but I never ever had a need to whine about it in a magazine and play a victim. When stuff gets serious and somebody really is doing some ugly gak, the best thing you can do is call the police and not tweet about it. And there is also another very important thing. A large sum of gamers are teenage boys, who kinda naturally tend to do stupid things and are often quick on conclusions and insults. So no, the industry is not misogynist. Stupid people are misogynist.
Also this is after he talks about how he worked with quite a few women in his 15 years in the gaming industry. Women who can apparently BE in the gaming industry, BE bosses or developers or coders without all the intense drama certain other women tend to bring.
LordofHats wrote: So are the GamerGate and NotYourShield crowd. There have been plenty of questionable behaviors revealed since this started, social advocates and women being the least among them. It defeats the purpose of the movement to constantly harp on women and 'SJW' while claiming "we're not misogynists." This is the internet, not a college debate team. Words will be twisted so stop giving them words to twist.
I have seen no harping on women within the "movement." There has been harping on about (mostly) two individual women, but if we're going to call any and all criticism of a female misogyny, we might as well all go home now. Neither woman is a stranger to controversy, neither woman has acted, by all appearances, entirely above board, and both are full game for valid criticism whether people like that or not.
I have seen harping on SJWs. It seems a large swathe of the gaming public doesn't want its specialist media pushing a progressive social agenda. I'm not sure why that's controversial.
Its mainly from echo chambers and the tumblr hug box, they represent a small number of questionable customers that are super loud. Like in 40k, there is the loud detractors, the loud supporters, and the masses of everyone else that doesn't have a clue. I mentioned gamergate to some of my gaming friends and they had no clue it was even happening, they didn't even know who Kotaku was. SJWs are attacking geek culture on all fronts and don't seem to be interested in supporting it or its future, unless of course its there version.
It's basically bullying but the more socially accepted, politically correct type of bullying now. Be the totally PC way I think you should be or else...
Back in the early and mid 90's, an SJW was a type of internet troll. Someone who would sideline existing threads, topics, and chat room discussions to harp about social issues and to insult the participants already engaged in a separate discussion.
Now most sites have rules against being off topic (they didn't if you can believe that, back in ye olde interweb), so this kind of troll doesn't exist much anymore, but the term is still thrown around at bloggers and others in a derogatory manner, as if people think that even mentioning social issues is in itself trolling.
Back in the early and mid 90's, an SJW was a type of internet troll. Someone who would sideline existing threads, topics, and chat room discussions to harp about social issues and to insult the participants already engaged in a separate discussion.
Now most sites have rules against being off topic (they didn't if you can believe that, back in ye olde interweb), so this kind of troll doesn't exist much anymore, but the term is still thrown around at bloggers and others in a derogatory manner, as if people think that even mentioning social issues is in itself trolling.
It's a very stupid phrase.
Would you say that is more or less stupid than saying an entire group of people hate women because they like to play video games?
SJW is the same as Keyboard Warrior. Use whatever definition you want or feel more comfortable with. Anita / Quinn aren't SJW, they are desperately seeking for attention.
PhantomViper wrote: Would you say that is more or less stupid than saying an entire group of people hate women because they like to play video games?
Both are pretty stupid. Issue is that the people playing games are making it really easy for the other side to hurl insults at them by harping on and on about 'SJWs.' If that phrase were completely dropped from this debate, it wouldn't really change anything but it would make the GamerGate crowd a lot harder to attack.
Sining wrote: Their derogatory term for the other side is misogynist. I somehow think that's a lot worse than being called a SJW
It depends on what SJW comes to signify. If it is anything like what Sarkeesian and Quinn have been called, it is pretty terrible.
I associate with people that are easily offended, focus narrowly on one thing, do little to no research, derail and muddy anything that doesn't fit the narrative or agenda. We've seen it here on dakka, and all over the net. And the behaviour patterns are the same as if it was taught, so using Social Justice Warrior is a lot better then the alternatives. I can use racists, sexists, intellectually immoral, fraudulent victims, or just hypocrites.
Misogynist is hatred of distrust of women. I love women, especially independent, career orientated and intellectual women. So calling me a misogynist is pretty offensive. What Im against is corrupt A-holes (especially at the corporate and government level) that spread dishonest ideology and practice, and SJWs fit that bill pretty well, I have only run into this kind of wilful ignorance a few other times in my life 1) was arguing religion with a creationist 2) was with a racist and supporter of shark finning and 3) is SJWs. The difference is that religion and racists didn't storm their way into things I enjoy and start demanding things to fit their agendas, but some how extreme political correctness gets a pass because they use gender and perceived victimhood as constant defence.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sigvatr wrote: SJW is the same as Keyboard Warrior. Use whatever definition you want or feel more comfortable with. Anita / Quinn aren't SJW, they are
I assume you meant feminist at the end of that. And Quinn is pretty bad for it, a lot of the logs from the Zoe Post show quite the opposite of what she claims to be. Anita is a sex negative feminist, which is basically the fun police of feminists normally.
No, that's not what I said. Please PM Manchu and ask him what I said.
And no, they aren't feminists. They aren't fighting for a cause, they are looking for attention. Actual feminists do not only complain, they are looking for constructive solutions to a problem. Especially Quinn is a considerable positive sexist as she abuses her gender to make false claims and blame people as misognists where in reality, there's no actual misogny involved.
Sigvatr wrote: No, that's not what I said. Please PM Manchu and ask him what I said.
And no, they aren't feminists. They aren't fighting for a cause, they are looking for attention. Actual feminists do not only complain, they are looking for constructive solutions to a problem. Especially Quinn is a considerable positive sexist as she abuses her gender to make false claims and blame people as misognists where in reality, there's no actual misogny involved.
Mechanical Crow wrote: using Social Justice Warrior is a lot better then the alternatives
One alternative is not using a label at all and that is probably the best way.
True, either way it does dehumanize. Its just easier then saying long winded "person whos views differ then mine in the opposite direction" that and I dislike using "they" that's just a pet peeve though.
A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation.[...]
Perfectly fits to Zoe Quinn.
I don't think that it fully applies to Sarkeesian, however, as she was mainly interested in cash and then pretty much went under the radar after the first impact, being rather quiet about most issues.
I like him, thanks for the link.
This quote has some relevance to what I have been thinking in these discussions:
" The biggest problem we have is, that there is a group of people that think they know what’s right and what’s wrong and that they have a mission to make the world a better place and protect the oppressed by any means. They don’t even care what the “oppressed” people think. They censor any feedback they don’t like. They try to censor Twitter. They think that they are better than the rest. It’s funny that they are absolutely unable to have any discussion or provide solid arguments. Have you ever seen any of them in direct confrontation with their opponents? I guess you didn’t, because they only know how to bark at others from behind the fence and then how to play victims when somebody barks back.
And they will never be happy. If you don’t have a gay character in your game, you are homophobic, if you do have gay character in your game, you are homophobic, because they don’t like the character. If women in your game look good, you are sexist, if they look bad, you are sexist, if you can fight with them, you are misogynistic, if you can’t fight with them, you are using them as objects, if you don’t have any women, because there is no correct way how to have them, you are misogynistic.
It’s a witch hunt and it’s affecting my artistic freedom." - Daniel Vavra
I have felt that no matter what opinion or view expressed by me: "it is wrong and is the typical opinion of the unenlightened" when faced by those with "an iron in the fire".
Unless I am a woman, gay, an ethnic minority, an internet celebrity or an endangered species what I have to say is not relevant because I am not one of the oppressed. I, like others have a part to play in all this: to behave myself, give good people a fair shake and keep my mind open.
I have found exposure to both ends of the spectrum of the #Gamergate scandal has narrowed my mind wonderfully (against my mentioned keeping an open mind):
I have no patience for those who feel entitled to their opinion but will not allow or acknowledge mine.
I like him, thanks for the link.
This quote has some relevance to what I have been thinking in these discussions:
" The biggest problem we have is, that there is a group of people that think they know what’s right and what’s wrong and that they have a mission to make the world a better place and protect the oppressed by any means. They don’t even care what the “oppressed” people think. They censor any feedback they don’t like. They try to censor Twitter. They think that they are better than the rest. It’s funny that they are absolutely unable to have any discussion or provide solid arguments. Have you ever seen any of them in direct confrontation with their opponents? I guess you didn’t, because they only know how to bark at others from behind the fence and then how to play victims when somebody barks back.
And they will never be happy. If you don’t have a gay character in your game, you are homophobic, if you do have gay character in your game, you are homophobic, because they don’t like the character. If women in your game look good, you are sexist, if they look bad, you are sexist, if you can fight with them, you are misogynistic, if you can’t fight with them, you are using them as objects, if you don’t have any women, because there is no correct way how to have them, you are misogynistic.
It’s a witch hunt and it’s affecting my artistic freedom." - Daniel Vavra
I have felt that no matter what opinion or view expressed by me: "it is wrong and is the typical opinion of the unenlightened" when faced by those with "an iron in the fire".
Unless I am a woman, gay, an ethnic minority, an internet celebrity or an endangered species what I have to say is not relevant because I am not one of the oppressed. I, like others have a part to play in all this: to behave myself, give good people a fair shake and keep my mind open.
I have found exposure to both ends of the spectrum of the #Gamergate scandal has narrowed my mind wonderfully (against my mentioned keeping an open mind):
I have no patience for those who feel entitled to their opinion but will not allow or acknowledge mine.
I've been reading that and it is extremely true.
I am fully on Daniel's side.
The enitre point of censoring the world is kind off crazy.
It also conveys an inherent arrogance to assume to censor others.
If I don't like what someone writes, I take it up with them.
We discuss and come to an understanding.
If the understanding is that the person will remain offensive to me: I will not seek out their postings and possibly actively block them from me.
To try to stop the person from communicating to others rarely is thought of (unless some "scam" where protection from "harm" may be needed). This is pretty much it.
It also conveys an inherent arrogance to assume to censor others.
If I don't like what someone writes, I take it up with them. We discuss and come to an understanding. If the understanding is that the person will remain offensive to me: I will not seek out their postings and possibly actively block them from me. To try to stop the person from communicating to others rarely is thought of (unless some "scam" where protection from "harm" may be needed). This is pretty much it.
I think the only time you should censor someone is if they are actively harrassing, bullying, and threatening to you.
Criticism are often confused to be harassment which is really sad.
I remember I criticized one of my friends and they took it as me being rude, they gave me a paper to mark up and edit. They told me to be upfront and honest.
I was upfront and honest, and criticized all parts of their work. And even the message. I gave examples of what to do and how to do it. That is something I would expect in turn. But do not talk to me while you are editting the piece, the entire point of editting someone's work is to see it from the perspective of a new reader on the piece and do not know anything about me. That is how criticize the work. You approach it as a reader and with cyncism, You take things as they are, and if they have metaphors or hidden messages you address it. IF they do things correctly you congratulate them, but you help them make that message even stronger or more entertaining or more meaningful.
But people often confuse harassment and criticism, they are often times confused as negative. Criticism is not always negative, it is meant to enable the writer, to learn from their mistakes and improve their writing. But harassment is completely negative. That is sending gargle and hate towards people.
I think this silencing of the critics is something shameful to do as a journalist. That is like what my friend did. After that, she no longer gave me her paper to mark up and look over. All she wanted was to have gratification to be told that her work is good.
As many people here know. I am a writer, and a novelist in training. I will keep writing and I will keep submitting my work to get criticism, I want to be criticized. If some critics my work, I will listen, but I will not listen to harassment. As a person and a writer, it is up to me to know the difference between a critic, and a harasser.
That is something you must take to heart. If you do not. You have no place in the media or writing.
These articles though on Gamers are Dead, Gamers are Sexists, Gamers are Evil, Those articles as critic are completely out of place...
You do not write those types of articles. You do not decry an entire community what you do do. Is raise awareness by saying. Harassment in Gaming.
And not generalize, you say the minority in gaming, or you raise awareness of the problem within it.
The point of Journalism is to report, to give facts.
IF they are attacking the community they say they are representing, then they are no longer fit to call themselves representing the best interests of gamers. They have the responsibility to represent the gaming community. Not the journalists pockets or money thoughts, but the best interest of the community.
They told me to give an honest opinion and to edit their work.
I think the two work hand in hand.
Criticism and Editting are both processes to understand and work with.
When I posted my Piece called Black Inked. It was panned. People said it was far too confusing and too lovely dovey. A few months ago, I revisited it, and rewrote it accordingly. I reread it and went through processes, but I will probably not post it up until I deem it ready for viewing till, I am satisfied with my work.
But the thing is that these writers/journalists actively avoid criticism, and silence them.
They told me to give an honest opinion and to edit their work.
I think the two work hand in hand.
Criticism and Editting are both processes to understand and work with.
When I posted my Piece called Black Inked. It was panned. People said it was far too confusing and too lovely dovey. A few months ago, I revisited it, and rewrote it accordingly. I reread it and went through processes, but I will probably not post it up until I deem it ready for viewing till, I am satisfied with my work.
But the thing is that these writers/journalists actively avoid criticism, and silence them.
Critiquing something is recognising mistakes and the good points of something. Changing anything is up to the author's discretion at this point.
Editing is the act of changing something. A few words in the right place can change the tone of a whole article. It can be likened to censorship in some cases.
One usually happens after the other. They are not mutually inclusive.
One can wish to avoid people editing their work without wishing to avoid criticism.
They told me to give an honest opinion and to edit their work.
I think the two work hand in hand.
Criticism and Editting are both processes to understand and work with.
When I posted my Piece called Black Inked. It was panned. People said it was far too confusing and too lovely dovey. A few months ago, I revisited it, and rewrote it accordingly. I reread it and went through processes, but I will probably not post it up until I deem it ready for viewing till, I am satisfied with my work.
But the thing is that these writers/journalists actively avoid criticism, and silence them.
Critiquing something is recognising mistakes and the good points of something. Changing anything is up to the author's discretion at this point. Editing is the act of changing something. A few words in the right place can change the tone of a whole article. It can be likened to censorship in some cases. One usually happens after the other. They are not mutually inclusive. One can wish to avoid people editing their work without wishing to avoid criticism.
True.
But both are extremely useful. I am not saying that one cannot happen without the other it just really helps the the writing process more.
But anyway... .Back on topic.
There has been no updates as of yet. Other than the whole Antia and Zoe Quinn situations.
Then it is a pity that the campaign to defeat the games media should concentrate on bashing a woman developer and a woman journalist, because that makes it look misogynistic.
Kilkrazy wrote: Then it is a pity that the campaign to defeat the games media should concentrate on bashing a woman developer and a woman journalist, because that makes it look misogynistic.
Thats not what is going on. XD
Please refer to the links.
There are currently many things going on. Mainly the radical elements of journalists Phil Fish and Many journalists from polygon have been getting targeted for saying certain things and for writing a few articles.
Leigh Alexander is a big time reporter and has often threatened quite a few people by saying such things as. "Feeding on the tears of gamers." And "Ruining the dreams of others."
She is not being targeted because she is a woman, she is being targeted for what she has written and for the corruption she has created. By having personal relations and for donating to multiple developers and giving them good reviews due to their relations.
The main issue has always been integrity, transparency, and corruption in gaming media.
People just have been talking about quin because she is adding fuel on the fire. And has made wild claims.
She is mainly in it to gain attention. She is an attention seeker and is known for doing many bad things. I think The Fine Young Captialists have talked about her in detail and their dealings with her.
I mean if you have read the information given and the information in this thread the main backlash has been because of the mass censorship of the event.
Oh please. The games journalism industry is already corrupt. She didn't spread it or start it.
The FYC thing was just atrocious frankly.
Phil Fish should learn no one cares what he thinks anymore/ever. The man has quit twice for pete's sake.
Asherian Command wrote: She is not being targeted because she is a woman, she is being targeted for what she has written and for the corruption she has created. By having personal relations and for donating to multiple developers and giving them good reviews due to their relations.
If she isn't targeted because she's a woman then why is she singled out for criticism while her male colleagues are pretty much ignored? It's not like corruption in gaming journalism is anything new, we've known for years (or even decades!) that game reviews constantly give inflated scores to mediocre products, and the close relationship between the media and the businesses they report on ensures that it stays that way. The surprising thing here isn't that the reviewers are corrupt, it's that there are still people in 2014 who are surprised by this fact.
The main issue has always been integrity, transparency, and corruption in gaming media.
Really? Because if that's the main issue then "your" side needs to learn how to communicate properly. Because right now all I see is the same old whining about "social justice warriors" and "feminism ruins everything". If there are any legitimate points about the gaming media buried somewhere in that mess they aren't being presented very well.
purplefood wrote: Oh please. The games journalism industry is already corrupt. She didn't spread it or start it. The FYC thing was just atrocious frankly. Phil Fish should learn no one cares what he thinks anymore/ever. The man has quit twice for pete's sake.
Wait how was it Atrocious? The FYC?
I mean they have a lot of good intentions. And have stayed pretty level headed through out this.
I mean its not like its been a secret that games journalism has not been corrupt. I don't think it ever has not been corrupt.
I've always assumed it to be corrupt, but now it is time to change that. To make journalism better. The consumers want it, and they shall have it.
Really? Because if that's the main issue then "your" side needs to learn how to communicate properly. Because right now all I see is the same old whining about "social justice warriors" and "feminism ruins everything". If there are any legitimate points about the gaming media buried somewhere in that mess they aren't being presented very well.
I don't know about you but I find that kind of funny. I do support gamersgate, and I have lended my voice to it and, I have decried any harasser or anyone causing trouble.
Zoe Quinn I have stopped caring about. But she keeps bringing her head out and keeps trying to bring it back to her.
Please check the other thread for more information.
If she isn't targeted because she's a woman then why is she singled out for criticism while her male colleagues are pretty much ignored? It's not like corruption in gaming journalism is anything new, we've known for years (or even decades!) that game reviews constantly give inflated scores to mediocre products, and the close relationship between the media and the businesses they report on ensures that it stays that way. The surprising thing here isn't that the reviewers are corrupt, it's that there are still people in 2014 who are surprised by this fact.
That is not what is being raised.
What is being raised is that journalists are not disclosing their relationships. That certain organizations in the indie scene are giving awards to their own company and have finanicially invested money into. And they win more money from those who have submitted into the competition. There is this whole idea that indie scene has been getting away with things. That journalists are not writting what the customer wants. That the journalists are going in with an agenda. That they have been writing hype pieces.
And you are saying like this happening is a bad thing how is this bad?
This is the consumers standing up for themselves, and refused to be labeled things by the media.
Read the sources. And please refrain from commenting on this thread. Until you have been fully read on the situation. This situation is more complicated than you think, do not come on here without reading ALL associated sources.
Asherian Command wrote: She is not being targeted because she is a woman, she is being targeted for what she has written and for the corruption she has created. By having personal relations and for donating to multiple developers and giving them good reviews due to their relations.
If she isn't targeted because she's a woman then why is she singled out for criticism while her male colleagues are pretty much ignored?
Like Phil Fish or the "journalists" getting fired?
She's getting targetted because she WANTS to get negative attention.
purplefood wrote: Oh please. The games journalism industry is already corrupt. She didn't spread it or start it.
The FYC thing was just atrocious frankly.
Phil Fish should learn no one cares what he thinks anymore/ever. The man has quit twice for pete's sake.
Wait how was it Atrocious? The FYC?
I mean they have a lot of good intentions. And have stayed pretty level headed through out this.
I mean its not like its been a secret that games journalism has not been corrupt. I don't think it ever has not been corrupt.
I've always assumed it to be corrupt, but now it is time to change that. To make journalism better. The consumers want it, and they shall have it.
No I mean what happened to the FYC. I agree, given what happened i'd expect them to be a bit more crazy about it but they've been (from what I can see) universally positive about what happened and the subsequent boost they got because of it.
purplefood wrote: Oh please. The games journalism industry is already corrupt. She didn't spread it or start it.
The FYC thing was just atrocious frankly.
Phil Fish should learn no one cares what he thinks anymore/ever. The man has quit twice for pete's sake.
Wait how was it Atrocious? The FYC?
I mean they have a lot of good intentions. And have stayed pretty level headed through out this.
I mean its not like its been a secret that games journalism has not been corrupt. I don't think it ever has not been corrupt.
I've always assumed it to be corrupt, but now it is time to change that. To make journalism better. The consumers want it, and they shall have it.
No I mean what happened to the FYC. I agree, given what happened i'd expect them to be a bit more crazy about it but they've been (from what I can see) universally positive about what happened and the subsequent boost they got because of it.
So I have a hard time seeing gammergate as being about games journalism because of where is started. It didn't spring from one of the many reminders that gamers journalism is kind of just advertising for the big publishers. It started with a woman who had some sex.
If you really wanted to have a talk about how bad games journalism is, It would have been a smart idea to wait till latter. Then you would be able to do it without this really creepy shadow kind of marking the whole idea.
nomotog wrote: So I have a hard time seeing gammergate as being about games journalism because of where is started. It didn't spring from one of the many reminders that gamers journalism is kind of just advertising for the big publishers. It started with a woman who had some sex.
If you really wanted to have a talk about how bad games journalism is, It would have been a smart idea to wait till latter. Then you would be able to do it without this really creepy shadow kind of marking the whole idea.
It sprung out because she had sex with a journalist. And this journalist was on an awards board that gave her game an award. So there was bias there and has put journalism integrity on the line. This question was raised. And was silenced at reddit that started the movement.
Gamergate was started by Adam Baldwin after the reddit mod deleted the 22,000 comments on the matter. And the reaction of the media decrying gamers as dead.
Asherian Command wrote: What is being raised is that journalists are not disclosing their relationships.
Again, how is any of that new? This has been going on for years/decades, so why is it suddenly a major problem?
That journalists are not writting what the customer wants. That the journalists are going in with an agenda. That they have been writing hype pieces.
And they've been doing that for as long as there's been gaming journalism. Everybody knows that media reviews are absolutely worthless, and that "independent journalists" are just short of paid employees of the game industry. They haven't been providing what their customers want, and their customers have been voting with their wallets. And they've been content to just stop spending money on a product they aren't interested in, without turning this into some kind of pro-gamer crusade against the evils of the industry.
And you are saying like this happening is a bad thing how is this bad?
It's bad because I don't believe for one moment that this is legitimate outrage that would be happening (or at least happening to the same degree) if the people at the center of it were men. The corruption involved has been an ongoing problem for a very long time, and the response previously has simply been to stop wasting money on gaming magazines. But now suddenly it's time to take a stand, when the only thing that has changed is the gender of the people involved in the corruption?
This is the consumers standing up for themselves, and refused to be labeled things by the media.
Sorry, but the labels are accurate. The gaming community as a whole has major issues, and the various TFG stereotypes exist for very good reasons. The only "change" in the recent past is that people have started criticizing those elements publicly instead of just quietly ignoring it while large parts of the gaming community play the same games but constantly say "but I'm not that kind of gamer".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asherian Command wrote: It sprung out because she had sex with a journalist. And this journalist was on an awards board that gave her game an award. So there was bias there and has put journalism integrity on the line. This question was raised. And was silenced at reddit that started the movement.
Again, how is any of this new? How is this incident any different from every other incident of the industry buying awards and positive reviews that has happened over the past 10+ years? Ever since the internet became popular everyone in the gaming hobby has known perfectly well that "journalistic integrity" is a joke in the game media.
And the reaction of the media decrying gamers as dead.
Sorry if it's the uncomfortable truth, but gamers are dead, of self-inflicted wounds. The industry is quite happy to focus on the very profitable market of people who play Call of Battlefield 9 and Football 2014 on their console, but don't define themselves as gamers. Meanwhile there are plenty of people playing "serious" games that reject the "gamer" identity because they don't want to be associated with the TFG stereotypes. And every time the community turns into an angry mob screaming about "social justice warriors" they do a little more to ensure that they stay dead.
Asherian Command wrote: What is being raised is that journalists are not disclosing their relationships.
Again, how is any of that new? This has been going on for years/decades, so why is it suddenly a major problem?
That journalists are not writting what the customer wants. That the journalists are going in with an agenda. That they have been writing hype pieces.
And they've been doing that for as long as there's been gaming journalism. Everybody knows that media reviews are absolutely worthless, and that "independent journalists" are just short of paid employees of the game industry. They haven't been providing what their customers want, and their customers have been voting with their wallets. And they've been content to just stop spending money on a product they aren't interested in, without turning this into some kind of pro-gamer crusade against the evils of the industry.
And you are saying like this happening is a bad thing how is this bad?
It's bad because I don't believe for one moment that this is legitimate outrage that would be happening (or at least happening to the same degree) if the people at the center of it were men. The corruption involved has been an ongoing problem for a very long time, and the response previously has simply been to stop wasting money on gaming magazines. But now suddenly it's time to take a stand, when the only thing that has changed is the gender of the people involved in the corruption?
This is the consumers standing up for themselves, and refused to be labeled things by the media.
Sorry, but the labels are accurate. The gaming community as a whole has major issues, and the various TFG stereotypes exist for very good reasons. The only "change" in the recent past is that people have started criticizing those elements publicly instead of just quietly ignoring it while large parts of the gaming community play the same games but constantly say "but I'm not that kind of gamer".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asherian Command wrote: It sprung out because she had sex with a journalist. And this journalist was on an awards board that gave her game an award. So there was bias there and has put journalism integrity on the line. This question was raised. And was silenced at reddit that started the movement.
Again, how is any of this new? How is this incident any different from every other incident of the industry buying awards and positive reviews that has happened over the past 10+ years? Ever since the internet became popular everyone in the gaming hobby has known perfectly well that "journalistic integrity" is a joke in the game media.
And the reaction of the media decrying gamers as dead.
Sorry if it's the uncomfortable truth, but gamers are dead, of self-inflicted wounds. The industry is quite happy to focus on the very profitable market of people who play Call of Battlefield 9 and Football 2014 on their console, but don't define themselves as gamers. Meanwhile there are plenty of people playing "serious" games that reject the "gamer" identity because they don't want to be associated with the TFG stereotypes. And every time the community turns into an angry mob screaming about "social justice warriors" they do a little more to ensure that they stay dead.
You and I will probably tussle with this for years to come about this.
First this has not been happening in a decade. Because the internet has not been as promninent. There has not been as many hype pieces. The industry scene was non-existant a decade ago. There were very few indie games back in 2000.
Being involved in the industry I can tell as a designer we are kind of sick and tired of the hype pieces written by IGN, Polygon and Kotatku.
You keep saying blah blah this has been happening blah blah this has been happening.
To be honest it has not been happening as frequently. Look at how many hype pieces there are. How many games have been disappointing or down right ignored. Where some games are praised where others had done a better job.
This is a legitmate crusade. And you have voluntary ignored and nitpicked all to high hell my arguments. The main thing that is happening is the consumers are outraged that this Indie Developer has had so many dealings with the press, and they have decryed every gamer as dead.
You are completely wrong. They would wither and die if it was only call of duty. This is a banner for all gamers. REGARDLESS of what games you play and no matter what console.
You have approached this like. "Yeah right."
Yet you refuse to the see the consumer side.
Sorry, but the labels are accurate. The gaming community as a whole has major issues, and the various TFG stereotypes exist for very good reasons. The only "change" in the recent past is that people have started criticizing those elements publicly instead of just quietly ignoring it while large parts of the gaming community play the same games but constantly say "but I'm not that kind of gamer".
It has been changing. Let me ask who is the average video game player. Its the casual. Not the hardcore gamer. The person who sits down and plays candy crush and/or a web browser is a gamer.
You cannot say they are not part of the gaming community.
Sorry if it's the uncomfortable truth, but gamers are dead, of self-inflicted wounds. The industry is quite happy to focus on the very profitable market of people who play Call of Battlefield 9 and Football 2014 on their console, but don't define themselves as gamers. Meanwhile there are plenty of people playing "serious" games that reject the "gamer" identity because they don't want to be associated with the TFG stereotypes. And every time the community turns into an angry mob screaming about "social justice warriors" they do a little more to ensure that they stay dead.
Get out. This agrument has been debated to death. You have provided me no evidence to support the matter. All those articles. Called Gamers are dead are just falisities and wild fantasies in the perfect world without need of a consumer. With just that crowd. Gaming would cease to exist.
IT would be books without its readers.
What makes the gaming industry so great is its community. NOT its journalists, who have been a poison in the industry.
A true journalist seperates their work into two groups editorials or news. Editorials are opinion pieces. News is hard facts. They are not opinion pieces. That has not been happening in this industry. And is unique to our industry.
So get off your high horse. And get out of this thread for your argument has no place in this thread with baseless attacks on gamers, and decrying gamers as dead is as pig headed and wrong as humanly possible.
This is criticism not harassment.
Your argument is completely flawed.
This is a reaction again to journalism losing its intergrity and to falling into the standards of a teenager. Where it only can insult and defend itself like an injured angry child. This is its tantrum.
Where Zoe quinn only tries to bring attention to herself. Stop saying this is about her. It isn't.
That is only the journalists saying it is. It has never been about her. it is about her relationship with a journalist. And always has been.
nomotog wrote: So I have a hard time seeing gammergate as being about games journalism because of where is started. It didn't spring from one of the many reminders that gamers journalism is kind of just advertising for the big publishers. It started with a woman who had some sex.
If you really wanted to have a talk about how bad games journalism is, It would have been a smart idea to wait till latter. Then you would be able to do it without this really creepy shadow kind of marking the whole idea.
It sprung out because she had sex with a journalist. And this journalist was on an awards board that gave her game an award. So there was bias there and has put journalism integrity on the line. This question was raised. And was silenced at reddit that started the movement.
Gamergate was started by Adam Baldwin after the reddit mod deleted the 22,000 comments on the matter. And the reaction of the media decrying gamers as dead.
This could have been so much cleaner if happened as a result of a different scandal. Like anyone recall that Cain and lynch thing. Why couldn't gammer gate have happened after that. Timing is everything and is bad timing.
You know, in a truly journalistic games press, you would see a lot more stories about gamers being dead. What is that old saying. If it doesn't make someone angry it's just advertising. Something like that. That is kind of a thing that relates to the side of gammers gate I deal with most. I have had people talk to me as if gammergate is a way to like purge gammeing of the feminist and the arty game makers, but that sentiment kind of flies right in the face the other part. In a free press, you would see a lot more stuff like that not less.
It's like you have several forces all puling in counter directions and that actually makes a lot of sense giving it's from the internet.
nomotog wrote: So I have a hard time seeing gammergate as being about games journalism because of where is started. It didn't spring from one of the many reminders that gamers journalism is kind of just advertising for the big publishers. It started with a woman who had some sex.
If you really wanted to have a talk about how bad games journalism is, It would have been a smart idea to wait till latter. Then you would be able to do it without this really creepy shadow kind of marking the whole idea.
It sprung out because she had sex with a journalist. And this journalist was on an awards board that gave her game an award. So there was bias there and has put journalism integrity on the line. This question was raised. And was silenced at reddit that started the movement.
Gamergate was started by Adam Baldwin after the reddit mod deleted the 22,000 comments on the matter. And the reaction of the media decrying gamers as dead.
This could have been so much cleaner if happened as a result of a different scandal. Like anyone recall that Cain and lynch thing. Why couldn't gammer gate have happened after that. Timing is everything and is bad timing.
You know, in a truly journalistic games press, you would see a lot more stories about gamers being dead. What is that old saying. If it doesn't make someone angry it's just advertising. Something like that. That is kind of a thing that relates to the side of gammers gate I deal with most. I have had people talk to me as if gammergate is a way to like purge gammeing of the feminist and the arty game makers, but that sentiment kind of flies right in the face the other part. In a free press, you would see a lot more stuff like that not less.
It's like you have several forces all puling in counter directions and that actually makes a lot of sense giving it's from the internet.
Art game makers. will always be apart of the industry. That is not why this is happening.
May I ask where have you been reading this?
And no you wouldn't those would be more editorals and not actual news.
Asherian Command wrote: First this has not been happening in a decade. Because the internet has not been as promninent. There has not been as many hype pieces. The industry scene was non-existant a decade ago. There were very few indie games back in 2000.
...
Yes, it has been happening for a decade. The internet certainly existed in 2004, and I can remember complaints about corruption and game publishers buying favorable reviews in all but name. Anyone who thinks media corruption is a new thing in the gaming industry is clearly just too young to remember anything from that far back.
Being involved in the industry I can tell as a designer we are kind of sick and tired of the hype pieces written by IGN, Polygon and Kotatku.
And back in 2000 you'd be sick of the hype pieces written by gaming magazines.
To be honest it has not been happening as frequently. Look at how many hype pieces there are. How many games have been disappointing or down right ignored. Where some games are praised where others had done a better job.
I am looking at it, and I see the exact same things that have been happening for the entire time I've been playing games. Major new releases get positive reviews no matter how mediocre (or even broken) they are. Problems are barely mentioned, and the review is full of pretty pictures and talk about how awesome its good parts are. And just like when I first started playing games I ignore the shiny pictures and constant 95+/100 scores for every new release and either pirate a copy to test it or make my decision based on what my friends and online communities have to say about it.
The main thing that is happening is the consumers are outraged that this Indie Developer has had so many dealings with the press, and they have decryed every gamer as dead.
And the point you keep ignoring is that this is not new. If you had told me back in 2010 that a developer would be caught having sex with a reviewer in exchange for positive reviews I would have shrugged and said "yep, that's how it works".
They would wither and die if it was only call of duty.
The sales numbers say otherwise. The real situation here is that the ability to milk the CoD/sports cash cow every year is what allows game developers to even consider taking risks on anything new. Take away all the other games and profits would go down, but the cash cow would still be profitable.
It has been changing. Let me ask who is the average video game player. Its the casual. Not the hardcore gamer. The person who sits down and plays candy crush and/or a web browser is a gamer.
You cannot say they are not part of the gaming community.
Yes, and that's exactly the point being made by "gamers are dead". The stereotypical hardcore self-identified gamer is becoming less and less relevant, and is being replaced by people who play games but don't make them their identity.
Get out.
No.
This agrument has been debated to death. You have provided me no evidence to support the matter.
I don't need to, the "gamer" community speaks for itself. Even if you ignore the latest embarrassing displays of misogyny the stereotype is pretty obvious. How many times have you encountered the FPS player who spends the entire match screaming racist and/or homophobic insults at everyone? How many times have you seen anecdotes from 40k players about how they had to convince their wives/girlfriends that they're not like all the TFGs at the local GW store? Saying "I play games, but I'm not one of those people" is a cliche at this point.
A true journalist seperates their work into two groups editorials or news. Editorials are opinion pieces. News is hard facts. They are not opinion pieces. That has not been happening in this industry. And is unique to our industry.
Yes, and you're missing the point here. I'm not defending gaming journalism in any way. It's obviously corrupt, it has been for a long time, and few people would shed any tears if it all went bankrupt and disappeared. But it's simply ridiculous to act like this is some new revelation that should inspire a crusade against the evils of the industry. The gaming community has spent plenty of years being mostly apathetic and voting with their wallets, the only thing that has changed here is the gender of the person responsible for the specific incident of corruption. And that's why it's a problem.
A true journalist seperates their work into two groups editorials or news. Editorials are opinion pieces. News is hard facts. They are not opinion pieces. That has not been happening in this industry. And is unique to our industry.
Yes, and you're missing the point here. I'm not defending gaming journalism in any way. It's obviously corrupt, it has been for a long time, and few people would shed any tears if it all went bankrupt and disappeared. But it's simply ridiculous to act like this is some new revelation that should inspire a crusade against the evils of the industry. The gaming community has spent plenty of years being mostly apathetic and voting with their wallets, the only thing that has changed here is the gender of the person responsible for the specific incident of corruption. And that's why it's a problem.
Can I just say. I don't care what gender Zoey quinn is. She could of been a dude and this still would of happened.
And you know what people are doing good deeds. And you aren't helping the case.
First your argument crumbles when I said there has been more and more hype pieces. I've said that twice thus far in this thread.
Hype pieces have begun more and more apart of gaming. Instead of journalism
You keep saying its nothing new. But not at this scale. Not at this monumentus scale. Where the journalists have gotten to the point where its a pretty big issue and is beyond what it was before.
They hold power and it is time for the gamers to take it back.
This gamers are dead speech you are throwing out is ridicilious.
Hardcore gamers yes they are leaving the scene as the dominant form. They are being replaced by casual players. And thats good. But they still identify as gamers.
The gaming community is huge. If you attack gaming you are attacking every gamer.
Also on call of duty.
Call of duty sales have been falling. The game is getting less and less popular. Currently there is a shift in gaming, and you fail to see it.
The money makers right now are free to play games. Which have made more money than call of duty has.
I don't think that it fully applies to Sarkeesian, however, as she was mainly interested in cash and then pretty much went under the radar after the first impact, being rather quiet about most issues.
Just out of curiousity, where do people find out about everyone's motivations from?
I don't think that it fully applies to Sarkeesian, however, as she was mainly interested in cash and then pretty much went under the radar after the first impact, being rather quiet about most issues.
Just out of curiousity, where do people find out about everyone's motivations from?
Read her twitter. You can see it is kind of funny really
I don't think that it fully applies to Sarkeesian, however, as she was mainly interested in cash and then pretty much went under the radar after the first impact, being rather quiet about most issues.
Just out of curiousity, where do people find out about everyone's motivations from?
Read her twitter. You can see it is kind of funny really
Can you toss me a linky?
Preferably for both Quinn and Sarkeesian.
I'd preferably see this for myself before I post anything further on the subject.
I don't think that it fully applies to Sarkeesian, however, as she was mainly interested in cash and then pretty much went under the radar after the first impact, being rather quiet about most issues.
Just out of curiousity, where do people find out about everyone's motivations from?
Read her twitter. You can see it is kind of funny really
Can you toss me a linky?
Preferably for both Quinn and Sarkeesian.
I'd preferably see this for myself before I post anything further on the subject.
(Deleted by Request)
Also apparently doublefine got doxxed.
She was for a while seeking attention and going on newsites talking about her misfortune. :/
Though personally I can sympthasiese. But I really stopped caring a while ago about her. Antia or Frem frequency, I won't touch with a 300 meter stick.
I don't think that it fully applies to Sarkeesian, however, as she was mainly interested in cash and then pretty much went under the radar after the first impact, being rather quiet about most issues.
Just out of curiousity, where do people find out about everyone's motivations from?
Read her twitter. You can see it is kind of funny really
Can you toss me a linky?
Preferably for both Quinn and Sarkeesian.
I'd preferably see this for myself before I post anything further on the subject.
She was for a while seeking attention and going on newsites talking about her misfortune. :/
Though personally I can sympthasiese. But I really stopped caring a while ago about her. Antia or Frem frequency, I won't touch with a 300 meter stick.
I see.
A shame about Sarkeesian. I'd very much like to see some cold hard proof in either direction regarding her intentions before I provide my own opinion.
Asherian Command wrote: Can I just say. I don't care what gender Zoey quinn is. She could of been a dude and this still would of happened.
The evidence is pretty overwhelming that it would not have happened, because it didn't happen. For a long time the game review business has operated under a simple rule: you get copies of games before everyone else so that you have an audience, you return the favor by always giving a favorable review. Everyone with any serious interest in gaming knew perfectly well that "journalistic integrity" was a joke, and they just shrugged and moved on with life. The ONLY thing that has changed in this incident is the gender of the person accused of corruption.
First your argument crumbles when I said there has been more and more hype pieces.
Except there haven't been more hype pieces, unless you consider a bunch of people copy/pasting the same "review" to be a legitimate increase. The prominence of those hype pieces hasn't really changed. They've always been around, and they've always dominated "mainstream" gaming journalism.
You keep saying its nothing new. But not at this scale. Not at this monumentus scale. Where the journalists have gotten to the point where its a pretty big issue and is beyond what it was before.
I really fail to see how anything about this is more "monumentus" than the previous years/decades of game publishers buying favorable reviews for their products. If you think anything about this is new then you really weren't paying attention in the past.
They hold power and it is time for the gamers to take it back.
So why is it time now, when it wasn't 5 or 10 or 15 years ago? If this isn't about the gender of the people involved then why are you suddenly outraged about something you've been quietly putting up with and/or ignoring for years?
They are being replaced by casual players. And thats good. But they still identify as gamers.
Except they don't identify in the same way. There's a difference between being a person who plays games, and a person who defines who they are around their gaming.
The gaming community is huge. If you attack gaming you are attacking every gamer.
Not true. I don't feel at all attacked by any of this, and I play games.
Not true. I don't feel at all attacked by any of this, and I play games.
Agreed!
Also, Quinn's webpage won't load for me, so no gold there. I looked around at her twitter and I could not find anything that made her look like such a bad person.
What happened to your "no twitter" rule you tried to make in your OP?
I'm talking about individual tweets. Someone asked for a link. I gave them a link. If you wish me to I will delete that link then.
Unfortunately, your link does not say much. Quinn has made almost 50k tweets, I won't look through all those for whatever evidence you are referring to.
What happened to your "no twitter" rule you tried to make in your OP?
I'm talking about individual tweets. Someone asked for a link. I gave them a link. If you wish me to I will delete that link then.
Unfortunately, your link does not say much. Quinn has made almost 50k tweets, I won't look through all those for whatever evidence you are referring to.
I have said this at the beginning of the thread. I will not post individual tweets.
You can use google and search it up yourself or hit ctrl F to find criteria or read her replies.
She is not really a target, and nor do I condone anything happening to her.
I am more worried about journalists and their lack of integrity.
What happened to your "no twitter" rule you tried to make in your OP?
I'm talking about individual tweets. Someone asked for a link. I gave them a link. If you wish me to I will delete that link then.
Unfortunately, your link does not say much. Quinn has made almost 50k tweets, I won't look through all those for whatever evidence you are referring to.
I have said this at the beginning of the thread. I will not post individual tweets.
You can use google and search it up yourself or hit ctrl F to find criteria or read her replies.
She is not really a target, and nor do I condone anything happening to her.
I am more worried about journalists and their lack of integrity.
They took women with no skills in coding or game design but had an idea for a game. They helped them develop these into a pitch that people would then vote on and back. The winner gets their game made, some of it goes to charity and they get some of the money. It was something to help the view of women in games development.
She decided this was oppressing women by forcing them into slave labour. (It is important to note, these games had 0 chance of being made. The people with these ideas could not make the games and it'd be a cold day in hell before a studio would pick them up.) So she decided to crash the entire thing.
To top it all off, you know who came to their rescue? fething 4chan. 4chan helped raise somewhere around $25,000 for a project to help the view of women in game development.
Now do you think she's a bad person? Her reading comprehension seems to leave a lot to be desired.
Asherian Command wrote: It has been changing. Let me ask who is the average video game player. Its the casual. Not the hardcore gamer. The person who sits down and plays candy crush and/or a web browser is a gamer.
You cannot say they are not part of the gaming community.
Why is it that when figures are used that say that women make up more than half of gamers, they don't count because they're only playing Candy Crush, then? I mean, it's happened on this very forum; the figures are trotted out, and the response is that no, changes with regards to the portrayal of women shouldn't be made because those figures are flawed because they count anyone who plays candy crush as a gamer, and those people don't count.
Which is it? Casual gamers are gamers and should therefore have their voice heard, but they're gamers so you can't say gaming is dead? Or casual gamers aren't gamers, so gender issues aren't a problem because there aren't enough female gamers for it to be an issue?
This, again, brings up the same problem as with google. You're pointing me at a 38 page thread and saying that there's my evidence.
But I'd prefer something concise. Or is there really no way to obtain some kind of proof for the claim on Quinn's and Sarkeesian's motivations without digging through countless posts or google results?
I am not making any claims about Quinn or Sarkeesian's motivations, so this time the burden of proof is not actually on me. I don't remember if you have, either, so I am not singling you out for proof, but I'd very much like to see some evidence provided by those who argue this before I continue.
Asherian Command wrote: It has been changing. Let me ask who is the average video game player. Its the casual. Not the hardcore gamer. The person who sits down and plays candy crush and/or a web browser is a gamer.
You cannot say they are not part of the gaming community.
Why is it that when figures are used that say that women make up more than half of gamers, they don't count because they're only playing Candy Crush, then? I mean, it's happened on this very forum; the figures are trotted out, and the response is that no, changes with regards to the portrayal of women shouldn't be made because those figures are flawed because they count anyone who plays candy crush as a gamer, and those people don't count.
Which is it? Casual gamers are gamers and should therefore have their voice heard, but they're gamers so you can't say gaming is dead? Or casual gamers aren't gamers, so gender issues aren't a problem because there aren't enough female gamers for it to be an issue?
I have made that argument and many times has my point been shot down.
Women make up 2% of senior staff in the game industry.
48% make up games in general.
I will always count casual gamers as they are the most important and most vital part of the games industry. And that sect will continue to grow and grow.
Asherian Command, I would like your opinion on this statement:
Mechanical Crow wrote: SJWs are attacking geek culture on all fronts and don't seem to be interested in supporting it or its future, unless of course its there version.
- Do you think that there is some kind of attack on geek culture?
- Do you feel that geek culture, or video games, are actually threatened by “SJW”?
- Do you think this is what Gamergates is about? Or what Gamergates should be about?
- Do you think that the main part of video game journalism corruption is linked to “SJW”?
Because personally, I think the answer to all those questions is no, and I think Mechanical Crow is doing a huge disservice to fighting against corruption in video game journalism by making it look like this is all about “SJW”. And he can say I am cherry-picking all he wants, but I would be hard pressed to find any of his message where he rants over game companies, and I can find tons where he rants about SJW. So if you do think, like me, that corruption is mostly about big companies rather than “SJW”, you should see how he is actually derailing from the real problem.
Let me provides some more quote.
Mechanical Crow wrote: Its the ties of SJWs and Feminists with the journalists and how they often border into unprofessional.
Why are ties with SJW and feminists mentioned but not ties with big companies? Is it not giving the impression that this whole campaign is, at least for Mechanical Crow, about fighting a trend toward more feminists/PC/SJW/inclusive (choose your favorite depending on the connotations you wish) games rather than about fighting, you know, actual “I give you money/services if you give my game a good review” corruption?
Mechanical Crow wrote: 2) Most of the solutions have been suggested, for journalism all funding to people they know needs to stop or be transparent, or if they have a personal relationship they need to recuse themselves or make it abundantly clear that they know each other. For the devs, critics and silverstring media that are pushing the SJW narrative, they just need to stop, I know you disagree but Art and thinking does not require a check list. If I want to make a game about a man as the main character I shouldn't have to worry about making sure there is playable female characters and that trans people are represented and that Jesus is posted in a positive light. Think of it this way, if I made a historical game about the Civil war, would I need to have a trans soldier, a female soldier and a lesbian Marxist soldier? No. Because that isn't the target audience, to complain those weren't included is intellectually dishonest.
SJWs have gotten into other things and ran the same game, look up the paper on "why gravity is sexist".
Its a backwards restrictive way of thinking that just leads to bland amorphous people, which seems like the point of the extreme political correctness.
Does that make it sound like the problem is game publishers giving money to get better review, or does it make it sound like if this is actually all about social issues, again? I mean, certainly if we read only the first sentence, it applies for actual, usual, expected corruption. But then, everything else is on “SJW”. Everything. Does that make it look like when Mechanical Crow speaks about corruption, he only means “journalists that listen to/agree with “SJW”” ? Yes it does, at least to me. That is why if I had only heard him, every time you would speak about “game journalists corruption”, I would assume you mean “game journalists that care about “SJW” stuff”, hence the cry of misogyny.
They took women with no skills in coding or game design but had an idea for a game. They helped them develop these into a pitch that people would then vote on and back. The winner gets their game made, some of it goes to charity and they get some of the money. It was something to help the view of women in games development.
She decided this was oppressing women by forcing them into slave labour. (It is important to note, these games had 0 chance of being made. The people with these ideas could not make the games and it'd be a cold day in hell before a studio would pick them up.) So she decided to crash the entire thing.
To top it all off, you know who came to their rescue? fething 4chan. 4chan helped raise somewhere around $25,000 for a project to help the view of women in game development.
Now do you think she's a bad person? Her reading comprehension seems to leave a lot to be desired.
She is quite despicable. I don't really care how many people she sleeps with anyone claiming I dislike her because she is a woman. Which is clearly not what the movement is about. Anyone with half a brain could figure that out. :.
Ashiraya wrote: Or is there really no way to obtain some kind of proof for the claim on Quinn's and Sarkeesian's motivations without digging through countless posts or google results?
You will not find anything worthwhile for Sarkeesian, it all basically amounts to people not liking her deciding she must be a bad person. For Quinn, apparently she did some pretty bad stuff to the Fine Young Capitalists, that I have some sympathy for. They made some interview in which they speak a bit about it, Asherian Command posted about it, maybe he still have the link around.
Asherian Command wrote: It has been changing. Let me ask who is the average video game player. Its the casual. Not the hardcore gamer. The person who sits down and plays candy crush and/or a web browser is a gamer.
You cannot say they are not part of the gaming community.
Why is it that when figures are used that say that women make up more than half of gamers, they don't count because they're only playing Candy Crush, then? I mean, it's happened on this very forum; the figures are trotted out, and the response is that no, changes with regards to the portrayal of women shouldn't be made because those figures are flawed because they count anyone who plays candy crush as a gamer, and those people don't count.
Which is it? Casual gamers are gamers and should therefore have their voice heard, but they're gamers so you can't say gaming is dead? Or casual gamers aren't gamers, so gender issues aren't a problem because there aren't enough female gamers for it to be an issue?
I have made that argument and many times has my point been shot down.
Women make up 2% of senior staff in the game industry.
48% make up games in general.
I will always count casual gamers as they are the most important and most vital part of the games industry. And that sect will continue to grow and grow.
Fair doos I apologise if that came off as too confrontational, I'm kinda sleepy at the moment, I was just curious about your opinion, because there seems to be a massive dichotomy of people insisting that casual gamers aren't real gamers, which strikes me as absolutely absurd.
I will agree that the gender splits are awful (fearful though I am of being labelled an SJW for expressing such an opinion), but I think that a large part of that issue is that there is still the outside perception of gaming (be it video, war, board or CCG) that it's a boy's club, and that does make it difficult for non-males to get involved. I'd say it's probably a bit easier for people to get involved with video games, due to their presence in almost every shop, but online communities still strike me as a very hostile place (see: 'get back to the kitchen', various rape jokes, a general air of homophobia on most gaming communities, the internet in general), so I think there's still a ways to go.
ITT: people keep trying to make this about zoe and anita, as if they haven't read any of the previous articles. Seriously, no one brought them up before someone else tried to derail the thread by claiming this is all about the women. It IS possible to dislike people who happen to be female without being a misogynist
Ashiraya wrote: Or is there really no way to obtain some kind of proof for the claim on Quinn's and Sarkeesian's motivations without digging through countless posts or google results?
You will not find anything worthwhile for Sarkeesian, it all basically amounts to people not liking her deciding she must be a bad person.
For Quinn, apparently she did some pretty bad stuff to the Fine Young Capitalists, that I have some sympathy for. They made some interview in which they speak a bit about it, Asherian Command posted about it, maybe he still have the link around.
If this thing about TFYC is true, then I highly disagree with this action of Quinn's.
But that is not what I was referring to; I was politely requesting evidence for the motivations of Quinn's general involvement in this commotion.
Mechanical Crow wrote: SJWs are attacking geek culture on all fronts and don't seem to be interested in supporting it or its future, unless of course its there version.
- Do you think that there is some kind of attack on geek culture? - Do you feel that geek culture, or video games, are actually threatened by “SJW”? - Do you think this is what Gamergates is about? Or what Gamergates should be about? - Do you think that the main part of video game journalism corruption is linked to “SJW”?
Because personally, I think the answer to all those questions is no, and I think Mechanical Crow is doing a huge disservice to fighting against corruption in video game journalism by making it look like this is all about “SJW”. And he can say I am cherry-picking all he wants, but I would be hard pressed to find any of his message where he rants over game companies, and I can find tons where he rants about SJW. So if you do think, like me, that corruption is mostly about big companies rather than “SJW”, you should see how he is actually derailing from the real problem. Let me provides some more quote.
Mechanical Crow wrote: Its the ties of SJWs and Feminists with the journalists and how they often border into unprofessional.
Why are ties with SJW and feminists mentioned but not ties with big companies? Is it not giving the impression that this whole campaign is, at least for Mechanical Crow, about fighting a trend toward more feminists/PC/SJW/inclusive (choose your favorite depending on the connotations you wish) games rather than about fighting, you know, actual “I give you money/services if you give my game a good review” corruption?
Mechanical Crow wrote: 2) Most of the solutions have been suggested, for journalism all funding to people they know needs to stop or be transparent, or if they have a personal relationship they need to recuse themselves or make it abundantly clear that they know each other. For the devs, critics and silverstring media that are pushing the SJW narrative, they just need to stop, I know you disagree but Art and thinking does not require a check list. If I want to make a game about a man as the main character I shouldn't have to worry about making sure there is playable female characters and that trans people are represented and that Jesus is posted in a positive light. Think of it this way, if I made a historical game about the Civil war, would I need to have a trans soldier, a female soldier and a lesbian Marxist soldier? No. Because that isn't the target audience, to complain those weren't included is intellectually dishonest.
SJWs have gotten into other things and ran the same game, look up the paper on "why gravity is sexist".
Its a backwards restrictive way of thinking that just leads to bland amorphous people, which seems like the point of the extreme political correctness.
Does that make it sound like the problem is game publishers giving money to get better review, or does it make it sound like if this is actually all about social issues, again? I mean, certainly if we read only the first sentence, it applies for actual, usual, expected corruption. But then, everything else is on “SJW”. Everything. Does that make it look like when Mechanical Crow speaks about corruption, he only means “journalists that listen to/agree with “SJW”” ? Yes it does, at least to me. That is why if I had only heard him, every time you would speak about “game journalists corruption”, I would assume you mean “game journalists that care about “SJW” stuff”, hence the cry of misogyny.
My comments on this are. SJWs are not the enemy. Journalists are with a political agenda or relationship and/or affilation to any movement are. They are constantly attacking young designers for their depictation of young women.
A few weeks ago. I knew a designer who was attacked because he didn't have a female in his game. He was forced by a group of women to put a female character in.
For the purposes of this discussion, I will not mention my colleague, but this is a common thing.
I do think people who act like SJWs are indeed a problem and they are among the radicals of the journalists push back.
But overall I think SJWs are both men and women who are only pushing their political agendas and because they think women are being oppressed and froth at the mouths pretty badly.
The main issue I have is that they are the minority, both sides have a stupid minority group that are trying to do stupid things and harass each other. Now the ones who should be condemning the operations of the radical segments are the journalists. They have an obligation to their consumers. They should deal with it, but they haven't they have had a media black out on it.
Designers are being targeted because of what they are making. See gaming is an art,and the designer has the right and the freedom to make anything he/she wants. As long as it is not propaganda. (Which has happened)
- Do you think that there is some kind of attack on geek culture? No. I think there is an anti-gamer movement going on by journalists though. That is mostly related to them being a dog backed into a corner with nowhere to go but to try and bite back. - Do you feel that geek culture, or video games, are actually threatened by “SJW”? Maybe. If they start their engines and they start coming in by the droves. - Do you think this is what Gamergates is about? Or what Gamergates should be about? No. It is not. Gamer Gate has always been about corruption in Video Games and the need for transparency in the Games Media. Also the fact remains that there is censorship of critics.
- Do you think that the main part of video game journalism corruption is linked to “SJW”?
Partially. I think it is mainly with the writing and not disclosing of personal biases.
Sining wrote: ITT: people keep trying to make this about zoe and anita, as if they haven't read any of the previous articles. Seriously, no one brought them up before someone else tried to derail the thread by claiming this is all about the women. It IS possible to dislike people who happen to be female without being a misogynist
Yes it is. If you accept women as just people. And argue that they are just people. And people are stupid.
But I disagree with Antia on many things. And I have shown my disdain for her, and her not answering a few of my questions.
And then for a feminist started to attack me after I suggested damsels in distress is not only unique to females in gaming.
We all agree the games journalism industry is corrupt as all hell. The shouts of SJW probably arise from the claims of misogyny etc etc from various people saying it wouldn't have happened if it had been a guy.
The whole thing arose from a man posting how his girlfriend cheated on him. Which frankly is pretty crappy even if you do leave out the STI risk. But that's a personal thing which i really do not care about.
The FYC thing makes me angry but mostly because of how unfair it was.
Asherian Command wrote: Journalists are with a political agenda or relationship and/or affilation to any movement are.
What is the difference between a journalist with an opinion and a journalist with a political agenda? More precisely, suppose a journalist shares my opinion that women are way too often and too much sexualized in games and that we should get more women that are not sexualized, for instance women in actual heavy armor. If said journalist writes a review about a game in which every female character are sexualized to the highest degree, while none of the male are, and he raise this point as a bad thing about the game. Is it “pushing a political agenda”, and is it bad?
Asherian Command wrote: A few weeks ago. I knew a designer who was attacked because he didn't have a female in his game. He was forced by a group of women to put a female character in.
How the hell did they do that?
Asherian Command wrote: See gaming is an art,and the designer has the right and the freedom to make anything he/she wants.
Well, live the life of Picasso (i.e. quite poor and miserable) and you will get the artistic freedom of Picasso (i.e. all of it!). Work for a billion-dollar entertainment company, and you will get very few artistic freedom. I am not saying it is a good thing, but of course there is going to be pressure put on you, just like there is in other art forms. Yes, there is pressure on what to do and not to do on other art forms, and there has always been. You can always says you want to break the rules anyway, but it is not an easy choice.
Asherian Command wrote: Partially. I think it is mainly with the writing and not disclosing of personal biases.
If by bias, you mean “SJW-like opinions”, then they seem pretty open about it. If you mean it is about, for instance, giving a review of one's partner/family member/friend, I have a hard time imagining it happening a lot, especially compared to what the big companies could leverage for their million dollar games.
Asherian Command wrote: It has been changing. Let me ask who is the average video game player. Its the casual. Not the hardcore gamer. The person who sits down and plays candy crush and/or a web browser is a gamer.
You cannot say they are not part of the gaming community.
Why is it that when figures are used that say that women make up more than half of gamers, they don't count because they're only playing Candy Crush, then? I mean, it's happened on this very forum; the figures are trotted out, and the response is that no, changes with regards to the portrayal of women shouldn't be made because those figures are flawed because they count anyone who plays candy crush as a gamer, and those people don't count.
Which is it? Casual gamers are gamers and should therefore have their voice heard, but they're gamers so you can't say gaming is dead? Or casual gamers aren't gamers, so gender issues aren't a problem because there aren't enough female gamers for it to be an issue?
I have made that argument and many times has my point been shot down.
Women make up 2% of senior staff in the game industry.
48% make up games in general.
I will always count casual gamers as they are the most important and most vital part of the games industry. And that sect will continue to grow and grow.
Fair doos I apologise if that came off as too confrontational, I'm kinda sleepy at the moment, I was just curious about your opinion, because there seems to be a massive dichotomy of people insisting that casual gamers aren't real gamers, which strikes me as absolutely absurd.
I will agree that the gender splits are awful (fearful though I am of being labelled an SJW for expressing such an opinion), but I think that a large part of that issue is that there is still the outside perception of gaming (be it video, war, board or CCG) that it's a boy's club, and that does make it difficult for non-males to get involved. I'd say it's probably a bit easier for people to get involved with video games, due to their presence in almost every shop, but online communities still strike me as a very hostile place (see: 'get back to the kitchen', various rape jokes, a general air of homophobia on most gaming communities, the internet in general), so I think there's still a ways to go.
Anyone saying Gaming is a Boy's only discussion are idiots.
I am saying that as a designer and a gamer.
If you think its only for boys look around.
But yes I agree with your discussion. Actually I have usually found that in a lot of online games that the minority.
Hybrid does have a point. No one can force an artist into doing anything but you can pressure them pretty well apparently. EA seems really good at that.
The artist always has a choice however, so maybe we should hope that we start seeing devs with more backbone instead. Oh and one or two of the big publishers coming crashing down would be nice, it'd be a bit hectic for a while but game publishers shouldn't get too big. They get weird when they do that...
purplefood wrote: Hybrid does have a point. No one can force an artist into doing anything but you can pressure them pretty well apparently. EA seems really good at that. The artist always has a choice however, so maybe we should hope that we start seeing devs with more backbone instead. Oh and one or two of the big publishers coming crashing down would be nice, it'd be a bit hectic for a while but game publishers shouldn't get too big. They get weird when they do that...
Here's a hint Funding
He was being funded by a group of people. He had to compromise or else they would pull all of his funding.
Asherian Command wrote: Journalists are with a political agenda or relationship and/or affilation to any movement are.
What is the difference between a journalist with an opinion and a journalist with a political agenda? More precisely, suppose a journalist shares my opinion that women are way too often and too much sexualized in games and that we should get more women that are not sexualized, for instance women in actual heavy armor. If said journalist writes a review about a game in which every female character are sexualized to the highest degree, while none of the male are, and he raise this point as a bad thing about the game. Is it “pushing a political agenda”, and is it bad?
Asherian Command wrote: A few weeks ago. I knew a designer who was attacked because he didn't have a female in his game. He was forced by a group of women to put a female character in.
How the hell did they do that?
Asherian Command wrote: See gaming is an art,and the designer has the right and the freedom to make anything he/she wants.
Well, live the life of Picasso (i.e. quite poor and miserable) and you will get the artistic freedom of Picasso (i.e. all of it!). Work for a billion-dollar entertainment company, and you will get very few artistic freedom. I am not saying it is a good thing, but of course there is going to be pressure put on you, just like there is in other art forms. Yes, there is pressure on what to do and not to do on other art forms, and there has always been. You can always says you want to break the rules anyway, but it is not an easy choice.
Asherian Command wrote: Partially. I think it is mainly with the writing and not disclosing of personal biases.
If by bias, you mean “SJW-like opinions”, then they seem pretty open about it. If you mean it is about, for instance, giving a review of one's partner/family member/friend, I have a hard time imagining it happening a lot, especially compared to what the big companies could leverage for their million dollar games.
A political agenda is association with a major corporation such as EA, Triarch, or any major gaming company. If you have gone to their jams and are paid to go their events you must disclose that you have.
Personal biases such as donating to the organization, or being friends with the designer.
The journalists must also disclose whether it is an editorial or if it is a news piece. If it is an editorial it must be marked. If it is not then they are not following journalist ethics.
If FOX news can do that. IGN and kotatku should as well.
purplefood wrote: Hybrid does have a point. No one can force an artist into doing anything but you can pressure them pretty well apparently. EA seems really good at that.
The artist always has a choice however, so maybe we should hope that we start seeing devs with more backbone instead. Oh and one or two of the big publishers coming crashing down would be nice, it'd be a bit hectic for a while but game publishers shouldn't get too big. They get weird when they do that...
Here's a hint Funding
He was being funded by a group of people. He had to compromise or else they would pull all of his funding.
Well then he should have told them to stuff it and taken his gak home. I don't understand why developers allow publishers to push them around. They might have the money but they need your game to make more of it.
Developers are usually far more plugged into the community (Looking at you Molyneux!!) than publishers are. Developers can also use that as a strength.
Games do not need to be fancy or super magic awesome time, they can use tricks, graphical styles sneaky gameplay mechanics. When they made Silent Hill the draw distance was crap because they wanted better graphics, hence the fog and that friggen rocked it made the game scarier and made it look better.
Developers have the power not the publishers.
purplefood wrote: Hybrid does have a point. No one can force an artist into doing anything but you can pressure them pretty well apparently. EA seems really good at that.
The artist always has a choice however, so maybe we should hope that we start seeing devs with more backbone instead. Oh and one or two of the big publishers coming crashing down would be nice, it'd be a bit hectic for a while but game publishers shouldn't get too big. They get weird when they do that...
It happens quite often. I would also Point at this game
purplefood wrote: Hybrid does have a point. No one can force an artist into doing anything but you can pressure them pretty well apparently. EA seems really good at that.
The artist always has a choice however, so maybe we should hope that we start seeing devs with more backbone instead. Oh and one or two of the big publishers coming crashing down would be nice, it'd be a bit hectic for a while but game publishers shouldn't get too big. They get weird when they do that...
Here's a hint Funding
He was being funded by a group of people. He had to compromise or else they would pull all of his funding.
Well then he should have told them to stuff it and taken his gak home. I don't understand why developers allow publishers to push them around. They might have the money but they need your game to make more of it.
Developers are usually far more plugged into the community (Looking at you Molyneux!!) than publishers are. Developers can also use that as a strength.
Games do not need to be fancy or super magic awesome time, they can use tricks, graphical styles sneaky gameplay mechanics. When they made Silent Hill the draw distance was crap because they wanted better graphics, hence the fog and that friggen rocked it made the game scarier and made it look better.
Developers have the power not the publishers.
He need the money for liscenes
And yeah they are pretty expensive. In order to make a game I need a liscense for engines and programs in order to use it for my own purposes of selling it.
He was being funded by a group of people. He had to compromise or else they would pull all of his funding.
Do you know what happened when Disney, who was funding Insane Clown Posse, tried to censor them? They left and got funding somewhere else. Other bands have complied. This is standard pressure in the music industry, and the movie industry too. Funders put pressure to get the product they want rather than the product the artist wants. Sad truth, but why expect video game to be in any way different?
So, in my precise example, you would not say the journalist is pushing a political agenda? Good. However, I am pretty sure Mechanical Crow would say it is (he is welcome to confirm or deny), so when you both post on a thread, if you both speak about it makes what both of you are saying less clear. Also, the use of “political” really make it seem more like it is about social issues than about favoring a company that gave you advantages, so I think you would be better understand if you stop using it.
He was being funded by a group of people. He had to compromise or else they would pull all of his funding.
Do you know what happened when Disney, who was funding Insane Clown Posse, tried to censor them? They left and got funding somewhere else. Other bands have complied. This is standard pressure in the music industry, and the movie industry too. Funders put pressure to get the product they want rather than the product the artist wants.
So, in my precise example, you would not say the journalist is pushing a political agenda? Good. However, I am pretty sure Mechanical Crow would say it is (he is welcome to confirm or deny), so when you both post on a thread, if you both speak about it makes what both of you are saying less clear. Also, the use of “political” really make it seem more like it is about social issues than about favoring a company that gave you advantages, so I think you would be better understand if you stop using it.
In this industry political means many things.
I can see the confusion. Political in this industry is either leaning left or right, or are affilated with a corporation or 'the man'
I actually disagree with bits and pieces of crows argument. Mostly due to my bias of being a designer.
He lost funding because he said he wouldn't put a woman in his game, he said "Thats not what I was going for this is about something else, its a personal story."
Well if he can't do it alone and he can't get it crowdfunded he can only debate and reason with those people. Hell he could even start his own ad campaign to get people to show they agree with him rather than what his funders say. At the end of the day he's either willing to make a compromise in his work or he isn't. The line is how far you let them push it.
Incidentally the 6 Day in Fallujah thing was the publisher pulling out because they're a wimpy arsehole. Media storms about games are always laughable. That being said this scandal isn't even about games...
Asherian Command wrote: He lost funding because he said he wouldn't put a woman in his game, he said "Thats not what I was going for this is about something else, its a personal story."
Stuff like that happens. I mean, just look at movies: even big director only get to use their “director's cut” on the DVD, because the guy with the money says he want the movie cut that way and not this way. And look at what happens when a band come out of the underground and start signing with a major record company .
Oh christ yeah...
You look at a list of films/tv shows that were simply one persons nod from going ahead. People had spent thousands just preparing for it and it gets canceled.
purplefood wrote: Well if he can't do it alone and he can't get it crowdfunded he can only debate and reason with those people. Hell he could even start his own ad campaign to get people to show they agree with him rather than what his funders say. At the end of the day he's either willing to make a compromise in his work or he isn't. The line is how far you let them push it.
Incidentally the 6 Day in Fallujah thing was the publisher pulling out because they're a wimpy arsehole. Media storms about games are always laughable. That being said this scandal isn't even about games...
Much to late with that. :(
But 6 days of Fallujah is a sad story. Its a historical game basically sharing the stories of Fullajah which the average person knows nothing about.
Stuff like that happens. I mean, just look at movies: even big director only get to use their “director's cut” on the DVD, because the guy with the money says he want the movie cut that way and not this way. And look at what happens when a band come out of the underground and start signing with a major record company .
I can see that. It happens often.
I am currently at a game jam.
And I will be able to answer questions for 12 more hours. *sigh*
1) People keep on mentioning Mass Effect 3 as some massive gaming journalism scandal; what actually happened? The only controversy I can find is about the ending.
1) IIRC it had to do with DLCs and the super positive reviews that were essentially bought. And the journalists attacking people that called them out.
It was mostly due to the ending. For a very long time the people at Bioware had been extolling the virtues of their third game and telling everyone how the decisions they had made throughout all three games would impact the ending. They even specifically said that the ending wouldn't be a "Pick A, B or C" ending.
And what was the ending to Mass Effect 3? An A, B or C ending, where the main difference was a colour filter over the ending cutscene (blue, red or green).
When people complained about this games journalism stepped in and started accusing gamers or being the problem, talked about artistic integrity and how "entitled" everyone was. And what happened with this latest kerfuffle? The games websites came out in a 48-hour spree of articles declaring "gamers are dead".
And still people still think this is about Zoe/misogyny.
Yes, I can personally attest that I didn't really start caring until after all that. I assumed this would be another flash in a pan thing, the media guys would act sheepish and it would all blow over, back to the status quo. But the "gak on everyone who allow us to do this job" tactic they went with irritated me.
That, and 'sexist' not being bad enough anymore so the rhetoric has embraced 'misogynist' as the new buzzword. That also annoys me.
1) People keep on mentioning Mass Effect 3 as some massive gaming journalism scandal; what actually happened? The only controversy I can find is about the ending.
1) IIRC it had to do with DLCs and the super positive reviews that were essentially bought. And the journalists attacking people that called them out.
It was mostly due to the ending. For a very long time the people at Bioware had been extolling the virtues of their third game and telling everyone how the decisions they had made throughout all three games would impact the ending. They even specifically said that the ending wouldn't be a "Pick A, B or C" ending.
And what was the ending to Mass Effect 3? An A, B or C ending, where the main difference was a colour filter over the ending cutscene (blue, red or green).
When people complained about this games journalism stepped in and started accusing gamers or being the problem, talked about artistic integrity and how "entitled" everyone was. And what happened with this latest kerfuffle? The games websites came out in a 48-hour spree of articles declaring "gamers are dead".
And still people still think this is about Zoe/misogyny.
The reason for that is because so much of the comment is focussed on Quinn, who isn't a journalist or a big time developer, and Sarkeesian, who isn't a reviewer, whose crime is to criticise the depiction of women in games. Attacks on Sarkeesian started months before Gamergate.
Therefore every time the focus of criticism is put on these women it looks as if the focus is on the women because they are women. Why pick on them especially? It certainly looks like misogyny.
You yourself said that Anita attracted criticism way before this started so please explain how this even supports your assumption that this is about them specifically and misogyny? Let's be honest here, Anita wasn't even part of this issue until she started talking about how she got death threats she claimed to have reported but never did. Zoe was out of this until she posted pictures of what she claimed was 4chan irc logs conspiring against her. These people keep trying to milk the drama for all its worth and constantly try to push themselves into the spot light and you wonder why people seem to be criticising them?
Also your statement again is misguided at best. Are people picking on them? Probably, but as someone said they're also picking on Phil fish and Ben kuchera and no one is crying misandry over that. Are people not supposed to criticise the behaviour of people who happen to be women now
Automatically Appended Next Post: To be honest I don't want to talk about zoe or Anita at all. I don't agree with their actions but they're so irrelevant now except for the people who think they are; their defenders and themselves.
So honestly you can keep thinking this is about misogyny, that those two are poor defenceless victims or you can read the previous articles linked about what developers, bloggers or game reviewers think about the whole issue. If you keep thinking it's about misogyny after that, then fair enough, we probably can't change your mind and frankly I'm not inclined to bother trying because that might suddenly lead to this thread being shut down again due to derailment
Kilkrazy wrote: The reason for that is because so much of the comment is focussed on Quinn, who isn't a journalist or a big time developer,
Incorrect. Much of the commentary isn't focused on Quinn. Much of the commentary is focused around collusion between various developers, journalists and a PR firm. Most of the commentary is about the inherent mistrust people have for "gaming journalism" and the way that gaming journalists mistread and strawman their readership, claiming that "gamers are over", and how everyone talking about corruption is just a misogynist.
Kilkrazy wrote: ...and Sarkeesian, who isn't a reviewer, whose crime is to criticise the depiction of women in games.
Her "crime" wasn't to criticise the depiction of women in games. The criticism of her work is the way she cherry-picks examples, presents examples without context and misrepresents the games she's arguing against.
Kilkrazy wrote: Attacks on Sarkeesian started months before Gamergate.
And have nothing to do with this event.
Kilkrazy wrote: Therefore every time the focus of criticism is put on these women it looks as if the focus is on the women because they are women. Why pick on them especially? It certainly looks like misogyny.
Again, incorrect. This isn't about them. Zoe was the catalyst for this event, but that is all. It has moved so far beyond her in the past three weeks that she's hardly worth mentioning. As far as Anita goes, well she has nothing to do with it.
Sining wrote: You yourself said that Anita attracted criticism way before this started so please explain how this even supports your assumption that this is about them specifically and misogyny? Let's be honest here, Anita wasn't even part of this issue until she started talking about how she got death threats she claimed to have reported but never did. Zoe was out of this until she posted pictures of what she claimed was 4chan irc logs conspiring against her. These people keep trying to milk the drama for all its worth and constantly try to push themselves into the spot light and you wonder why people seem to be criticising them?
...
...
Sarkeesian had attracted a lot of anti-anti-misogynist attention months ago, so the current attention looks merely like a continuation, especially as she isn't a journalist or reviewer and has nothing to do with the core scandal.
As for the "death threats", why would "gamers" bother to make them an issue? They aren't anything to do with dodgy reviews of games. They are all to do with alleged "anti-anti-misogynist" pressure.
Why are you worried about women "milking the drama"?
It is completely tangential to what you claim is the real core of the matter, so harping on it makes it seem as if your primary concern is not journalistic corruption but some women's behaviour you disapprove of.
Sining wrote: You yourself said that Anita attracted criticism way before this started so please explain how this even supports your assumption that this is about them specifically and misogyny? Let's be honest here, Anita wasn't even part of this issue until she started talking about how she got death threats she claimed to have reported but never did. Zoe was out of this until she posted pictures of what she claimed was 4chan irc logs conspiring against her. These people keep trying to milk the drama for all its worth and constantly try to push themselves into the spot light and you wonder why people seem to be criticising them?
...
...
Sarkeesian had attracted a lot of anti-anti-misogynist attention months ago, so the current attention looks merely like a continuation, especially as she isn't a journalist or reviewer and has nothing to do with the core scandal.
As for the "death threats", why would "gamers" bother to make them an issue? They aren't anything to do with dodgy reviews of games. They are all to do with alleged "anti-anti-misogynist" pressure.
Why are you worried about women "milking the drama"?
It is completely tangential to what you claim is the real core of the matter, so harping on it makes it seem as if your primary concern is not journalistic corruption but some women's behaviour you disapprove of.
You are perfectly entitled to your own opinion and I wish you all the best.
Really? So this is the one case where an unpopular woman on the internet didn't receive a campaign of abuse and death threats? Claiming that there were no death threats is about as reasonable as responding to someone's claim that the sky is blue by spending the next week desperately searching for signs that it was photoshopped.
Edit: let's look at it another way. Which is the more plausible explanation here:
1) People at the center of a controversy created fake death threats to add even more controversy, in the hope that it would increase donations. Yet they did it in such a clumsy way that the brave heroes of the gaming community were able to see all the clues that it was faked and reveal to the whole world that it was a scam. And they did this knowing perfectly well that their reputations, something very important in the journalism profession, would be utterly destroyed if anyone caught them.
or
2) The same people that harass and threaten other women they don't like did what they usually do.
Death threats aren't the issue at all. Anita isn't the issue at all. She probably does receive death threats but the reason why this has even coming up is because there are allegations that she didn't make a police report like she claimed, at which point you have to wonder how much of her story about that night is true. The same story that has been parroted by gaming press and people like you. Then you have to wonder how much of a monkey show it is when people who call themselves journalists don't bother to fact check by apparently doing a simple thing and just calling the pd to check. In fact why is no one in the gaming blog press doing this? A simple yes we've checked with the pd and Anita did make a police report and here are the facts to prove it would help. Instead we get a monkey show
Peregrine wrote: Really? So this is the one case where an unpopular woman on the internet didn't receive a campaign of abuse and death threats?
Don't be dense. Of course she received abuse, but she's not unique. Abuse has been thrown constantly by both sides in this. Death threats and the Internet go hand in hand (reviewers get death threats for not giving games a certain score by the people who love the game, as one of the many petty examples of this). Death threats are nothing new on the Internet, and whilst I don't say that to excuse it (because abuse of any type is stupid) but I say it only to say that what happened to Anita is nothing different to a whole lot of other people. And, for the 80 millionth time: Anita has nothing to do with GamerGate.
Sining wrote: Death threats aren't the issue at all. Anita isn't the issue at all. She probably does receive death threats but the reason why this has even coming up is because there are allegations that she didn't make a police report like she claimed, at which point you have to wonder how much of her story about that night is true. The same story that has been parroted by gaming press and people like you. Then you have to wonder how much of a monkey show it is when people who call themselves journalists don't bother to fact check by apparently doing a simple thing and just calling the pd to check. In fact why is no one in the gaming blog press doing this? A simple yes we've checked with the pd and Anita did make a police report and here are the facts to prove it would help. Instead we get a monkey show
But why does any of this matter? Why are you so obsessed with finding out if the death threats were real or not? If it's all about the legitimacy of the game journalism industry then why not focus on the legitimate issues (like the honesty of reviews) and let the death threats incident be forgotten just like every previous incident like that?
Sining wrote: Death threats aren't the issue at all. Anita isn't the issue at all. She probably does receive death threats but the reason why this has even coming up is because there are allegations that she didn't make a police report like she claimed, at which point you have to wonder how much of her story about that night is true. The same story that has been parroted by gaming press and people like you. Then you have to wonder how much of a monkey show it is when people who call themselves journalists don't bother to fact check by apparently doing a simple thing and just calling the pd to check. In fact why is no one in the gaming blog press doing this? A simple yes we've checked with the pd and Anita did make a police report and here are the facts to prove it would help. Instead we get a monkey show
But why does any of this matter? Why are you so obsessed with finding out if the death threats were real or not? If it's all about the legitimacy of the game journalism industry then why not focus on the legitimate issues (like the honesty of reviews) and let the death threats incident be forgotten just like every previous incident like that?
Because the death threats were reported by the games industry without proper fact checking? It makes people wonder just how shoddy their work is?
The SFPD have confirmed that she didn't contact them. That's not the same thing as lying about reporting it to the authorities. She could have gone to the FBI.
Peregrine wrote: Really? Because the OP made it perfectly clear that they do consider it part of "gamergate" incident by including it in their summary of the events.
She is a convenient smokescreen, a "gotcha!" counter-argument to throw at someone whenever they try to talk about what GamerGate is actually about.
Really? So this is the one case where an unpopular woman on the internet didn't receive a campaign of abuse and death threats? Claiming that there were no death threats is about as reasonable as responding to someone's claim that the sky is blue by spending the next week desperately searching for signs that it was photoshopped.
Edit: let's look at it another way. Which is the more plausible explanation here:
1) People at the center of a controversy created fake death threats to add even more controversy, in the hope that it would increase donations. Yet they did it in such a clumsy way that the brave heroes of the gaming community were able to see all the clues that it was faked and reveal to the whole world that it was a scam. And they did this knowing perfectly well that their reputations, something very important in the journalism profession, would be utterly destroyed if anyone caught them.
or
2) The same people that harass and threaten other women they don't like did what they usually do.
I'll let you decide.
May I say this sounds like you have only listened to one side and ran with it with your head cut off?
Really? Because the OP made it perfectly clear that they do consider it part of "gamergate" incident by including it in their summary of the events.
She was dragged into the event, but she is not apart of gamer gate.
I only provided a source for her. I didn't delve into detail about her. Because she is only made a brief appearance.
The source was confirming something from the previous thread, whether or not she contacted the los angelous police department, but it does discredit her for making many people believe that she had contact LA branches police department.
She willingly used as means to gain supporters for her cause.
Though she is apart of silverstring media who are a well known feminist organization that are associated with many journalists inside the gaming media.
But I stopped caring about her for a while.
She is always used as someone's scapegoat for the gamergate issue.
Sining wrote: Because the death threats were reported by the games industry without proper fact checking?
Why do they need to do proper fact checking? Why is it so important that this claim be investigated thoroughly? Why can't we leave it at "this is a typical case of online harassment" and accept that even the details of this particular story aren't accurate the broader issue of online harassment certainly does exist?
It makes people wonder just how shoddy their work is?
We know it's garbage, and we've known it for years (or even decades!). That's the point I've been trying to make, "game journalism is a corrupt mess" is something that has been true for as long as I can remember. Everyone already knew that a major publisher could sell an empty box and the game magazines/review sites would say "interesting concept but needs a little polish, 8/10". If you're seriously outraged about any of the problems that have been suggested recently then you're either new to the hobby and not aware of anything that happened in the past, or need to give some serious thought to why an ongoing problem that nobody cared about until an unpopular woman was involved is suddenly the subject of a major crusade.
Sining wrote: Because the death threats were reported by the games industry without proper fact checking?
Why do they need to do proper fact checking? Why is it so important that this claim be investigated thoroughly? Why can't we leave it at "this is a typical case of online harassment" and accept that even the details of this particular story aren't accurate the broader issue of online harassment certainly does exist?
It makes people wonder just how shoddy their work is?
We know it's garbage, and we've known it for years (or even decades!). That's the point I've been trying to make, "game journalism is a corrupt mess" is something that has been true for as long as I can remember. Everyone already knew that a major publisher could sell an empty box and the game magazines/review sites would say "interesting concept but needs a little polish, 8/10". If you're seriously outraged about any of the problems that have been suggested recently then you're either new to the hobby and not aware of anything that happened in the past, or need to give some serious thought to why an ongoing problem that nobody cared about until an unpopular woman was involved is suddenly the subject of a major crusade.
Because if she did not properly report it and did not have any evidence other than a very suspicious activity it could be possible she used as a PR stunt.
Now please stop rattingly on about her. Your embarrassing your opinions.
Maybe people have gotten sick of it, of just accepting it. Maybe this was just the straw that broke the camels back. Oh wait, no it's much easier to blame this on misogynist. I guess all the people who think this is a valid issue is a misogynist and it's not like we have any females on our side at all. Oh wait...
Well now that you've caught onto our grand plan by the internet misogyny high council , we'll just have to come up with another one.
Or you can accept the fact that a lot of different people think this is a valid issue for very different reasons, which may not even be similar to one another
Why do journalists need to do proper fact-checking?
Hmm... good point. I dunno. Now that I think about it, you're right. Journalists don't need to check anything. It's not as if it's their job or anything. I mean, we could look to the time that The Escapist ran an article about the "abuse" that Zoe Quinn was getting from a devilish place called Wizard Chan. Escapist later admitted that they published the story without checking any of the sources, or even whether it was true: They just went with what Zoe said and nothing else.
But now that you bring it up, that sounds reasonable. I mean really, who checks facts, amirite?
Sining wrote: You yourself said that Anita attracted criticism way before this started so please explain how this even supports your assumption that this is about them specifically and misogyny? Let's be honest here, Anita wasn't even part of this issue until she started talking about how she got death threats she claimed to have reported but never did. Zoe was out of this until she posted pictures of what she claimed was 4chan irc logs conspiring against her. These people keep trying to milk the drama for all its worth and constantly try to push themselves into the spot light and you wonder why people seem to be criticising them?
...
...
Sarkeesian had attracted a lot of anti-anti-misogynist attention months ago, so the current attention looks merely like a continuation, especially as she isn't a journalist or reviewer and has nothing to do with the core scandal.
As for the "death threats", why would "gamers" bother to make them an issue? They aren't anything to do with dodgy reviews of games. They are all to do with alleged "anti-anti-misogynist" pressure.
Why are you worried about women "milking the drama"?
It is completely tangential to what you claim is the real core of the matter, so harping on it makes it seem as if your primary concern is not journalistic corruption but some women's behaviour you disapprove of.
Because a lot of high media folk attacked gamers and used it as ammo against the Gamergate peeps.
Joss Whedon and several others have used it as a reason as to why gamergate is run by misogynists.
This a rhetoric for throwing it back in their face and shedding some light that she was not the victim here and also to discredit her.
Peregrine wrote: Why do they need to do proper fact checking? Why is it so important that this claim be investigated thoroughly? Why can't we leave it at "this is a typical case of online harassment" and accept that even the details of this particular story aren't accurate the broader issue of online harassment certainly does exist?
Because if you're going to claim to be a journalist, every now and then you have to do a little journalism. I'm not sure I've ever seen someone suggest that a story that may or may not be true should be printed regardless just because it fits a general narrative.
We know it's garbage, and we've known it for years (or even decades!). That's the point I've been trying to make, "game journalism is a corrupt mess" is something that has been true for as long as I can remember. Everyone already knew that a major publisher could sell an empty box and the game magazines/review sites would say "interesting concept but needs a little polish, 8/10". If you're seriously outraged about any of the problems that have been suggested recently then you're either new to the hobby and not aware of anything that happened in the past, or need to give some serious thought to why an ongoing problem that nobody cared about until an unpopular woman was involved is suddenly the subject of a major crusade.
The whole narrative about nobody having cared before this is one of the more frustrating attempts at stopping discussion I've seen. Plenty of people cared. People weren't endlessly mocking the Dewritos Pope and the Tomb Raider journalist giveaway campaigns because they didn't care.
Asherian Command wrote: Because if she did not properly report it and did not have any evidence other than a very suspicious activity it could be possible she used as a PR stunt.
Again, who cares? The amount of attention being paid to whether or not the death threats are real is vastly disproportionate to the impact the answer to that question has on anyone here. You seriously need to ask yourself why the fact that someone claimed to have received death threats and might not be 100% honest about it is so important to you.
Why do journalists need to do proper fact-checking?
Hmm... good point. I dunno. Now that I think about it, you're right. Journalists don't need to check anything. It's not as if it's their job or anything. I mean, we could look to the time that The Escapist ran an article about the "abuse" that Zoe Quinn was getting from a devilish place called Wizard Chan. Escapist later admitted that they published the story without checking any of the sources, or even whether it was true: They just went with what Zoe said and nothing else.
But now that you bring it up, that sounds reasonable. I mean really, who checks facts, amirite?
Asherian Command wrote: Because if she did not properly report it and did not have any evidence other than a very suspicious activity it could be possible she used as a PR stunt.
Again, who cares? The amount of attention being paid to whether or not the death threats are real is vastly disproportionate to the impact the answer to that question has on anyone here. You seriously need to ask yourself why the fact that someone claimed to have received death threats and might not be 100% honest about it is so important to you.
Why do journalists need to do proper fact-checking?
Hmm... good point. I dunno. Now that I think about it, you're right. Journalists don't need to check anything. It's not as if it's their job or anything. I mean, we could look to the time that The Escapist ran an article about the "abuse" that Zoe Quinn was getting from a devilish place called Wizard Chan. Escapist later admitted that they published the story without checking any of the sources, or even whether it was true: They just went with what Zoe said and nothing else.
But now that you bring it up, that sounds reasonable. I mean really, who checks facts, amirite?
It's like totally misogyny not to take them at their word
I like how people say that we shouldn't think of Anita as a fraud just cause she collected 165k from ks to create 5 videos so far because we don't know her frame of mind at the time. But apparently they know the people who started this had misogyny on their frame of mind
Sining wrote: I like how people say that we shouldn't think of Anita as a fraud just cause she collected 165k from ks to create 5 videos so far because we don't know her frame of mind at the time.
I don't think you understand what "fraud" means. She promised videos and we're getting videos. The fact that you think she is being paid too much for making them doesn't mean that it's a fraud.
Valion wrote: I disagree. I believe it's an attempt to find object examples to show defiant journalists exactly how shoddy they're actually being. Because they do not believe there is anything at all wrong with what they do.
If that is the goal then why not go for something with more direct relevance to gaming journalism? Such as publishing ridiculously high scores for games that are obviously mediocre at best?
It takes time for movements to build steam.
This has been going on for years, if not decades. I seriously doubt that it's just taken 10-20 years for people to finally get tired of poor reviews.
Why are you so against the prospect of people finally demanding better games journalism?
Because the issue here seems to be less "game journalism needs to improve" and more of the same reflexive abuse thrown at any woman who certain people decide they don't like.
What? Sorry how. The what? Sorry but that doesn't make any sense.
O.o Have you read the articles. Yes because this is all about Zoe Quinn! Hey guys. It's zoe quinn! Yeah that game designer. Yeah. She totally is the reason why we are fight, we are totally fighting her because is the woman.
We are all sexists.
I hate women.
Oh whats that? She's slept with men! That evil wench!
What ever shall an Asexual male, such as myself do but complain. And attack everyone insight for being SJWs, because you know women are evil!
Oh yeah lets forget that most of my friends are girls. Lets forget all the supporters who are women. Because there are only white straight men in this movement. Lets completely forget my mother, and my sister. I totally hate woman. I just want to kill them all, and destroy the opposite gender.
If by now you are done with my sarcasm. Please don't call gamers misogynist. It makes misogynist look like a poorly used word. Its an insult. Not a term. You can use the word sexist. But no misgonyistic
Misogynist Means Woman hater. If you keep saying that it makes look like a poor word and a swear word.
It doesn't make you look smart, it makes you look stupid.
Peregrine wrote: If that is the goal then why not go for something with more direct relevance to gaming journalism? Such as publishing ridiculously high scores for games that are obviously mediocre at best?
That is certainly part of the conversation. It is considerably more difficult to prove that a publisher bribed journalists with advertising revenue or whatever else than it is to prove that journalists did not check their facts on a given story, however.
This has been going on for years, if not decades. I seriously doubt that it's just taken 10-20 years for people to finally get tired of poor reviews.
I have to wonder how much of this whole scene you're actually paying attention to. I get the impression that you read a few of the one-sided hit pieces sourced exclusively from Quinn, remembered gaming journalism of your youth, and waded in convinced you were fully armed with all the facts. Sites like Polygon, Kotaku, RPS..they don't exclusively do reviews. In fact, you could make an argument that those aren't even the bulk of the writing within games journalism anymore.
Because the issue here seems to be less "game journalism needs to improve" and more of the same reflexive abuse thrown at any woman who certain people decide they don't like.
Based on what? You extensive following of the hashtag and the conversations on Twitter? Or on your reading of the latest Vice article?
Oh god someone actually read that article?
I had to for the purposes of this thread. But dang was it painful.
Internet trolls harass female game designer.
Really? Really? The entire internet is out to get her? hahaha. Anonymous has not been involved in the matter yet if at all. So no.... The internet hasn't unveiled its greatest weapon.
Asherian Command wrote: O.o Have you read the articles. Yes because this is all about Zoe Quinn! Hey guys. It's zoe quinn! Yeah that game designer. Yeah. She totally is the reason why we are fight, we are totally fighting her because is the woman.
Yes, and why pick her? What has she done that is so much worse than everyone else that hasn't received anywhere near this much attention?
Rant.
Since I don't want to get banned again let's just leave it at this: you aren't doing your cause any favors by posting this kind of stuff. Whatever point you may have ever had is completely lost in the poor presentation.
Please don't call gamers misogynist.
Why? If you don't understand how certain loud and obnoxious elements of the gaming community have a problem with misogyny then I'm not really sure what to say to that, because you're obviously not living in the same world as the rest of us.
Misogynist Means Woman hater.
And "hate" is a pretty good description.
Image complaining about how there's no sexism in gaming.
And I'll take this as your concession that the real issues are "social justice warriors" and "feminism ruins everything", not honesty in gaming journalism. If this is really about corrupt reviewers giving out favorable reviews when they shouldn't then nothing in that picture should be even remotely relevant and you wouldn't post it.
(And of course everything in that image is just laughably wrong.)
Asherian Command wrote: O.o Have you read the articles. Yes because this is all about Zoe Quinn! Hey guys. It's zoe quinn! Yeah that game designer. Yeah. She totally is the reason why we are fight, we are totally fighting her because is the woman.
Yes, and why pick her? What has she done that is so much worse than everyone else that hasn't received anywhere near this much attention?
I think this kind of says it all. That either you can't recognise sarcasm or you're just willing to get ammo for your argument anyway you can even if you have to twist words and intention. To which I say good day sir/ma'am and good bye
H.B.M.C. wrote: And still people still think this is about Zoe/misogyny.
I am not saying it is for everybody, but after reading those quotes from Mechanical Crow, do you not agree that for him, the problem seems to be about social issues (whether this is misogyny or not, I will leave at one's appreciation, but when you whole stick is “I think journalists should shut up about the whole issue of women representation because the current status quo is perfectly fine with me”, you should expect this kind of reaction.) rather than about corruption?
Valion wrote: And like it or not, Sarkeesian and Quinn are perfectly legitimate targets of criticism. What's strange is the amount of protection they appear to get from a media more interested in pushing their agenda than getting a good story.
Zoe Quinn, maybe. Anita Sarkeesian? If you want to make this about social issues, and you disagree with her on those social issues, yes. But then give up the act that this is about video game journalism corruption. Because she is not linked to any kind of video game journalism corruption.
Is it just me, or is point 4 giving the finger to point 1 and 2? How the hell is this supposed to tell us this is not about social issues but about corruption when one point affirms so, but EVERY. OTHER. POINT. are about social issues?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Zoe Quinn, maybe. Anita Sarkeesian? If you want to make this about social issues, and you disagree with her on those social issues, yes. But then give up the act that this is about video game journalism corruption. Because she is not linked to any kind of video game journalism corruption.
Context is key (something Anita always manages to forget and/or remove). He's not saying Anita is a valid target of criticism as she relates to journalistic integrity, just that she's a valid target of criticism, period.
So, H.B.M.C., do you think that Gamergate is about video game journalist corruption, or about journalists mentioning social issues in their review, along with criticism of the medium such as Anita Sarkesiaan's ?
You're doing that thing again Hybrid where you talk as if you're clueless as to what this is about. But, to humour you, I'll answer your question, even though I am 99% sure you already know the answer:
"[D]o you think that Gamergate is about video game journalist corruption, or about journalists mentioning social issues in their review, along with criticism of the medium such as Anita Sarkesiaan's?"
GamerGate is about journalistic integrity. Many articles fighting back against GamerGate, including the infamous 10 or so articles that all sprung up on the "usual suspect" websites (Polygon, Kotaku, etc.) within the space of 48 hours use "social equality" as a way of smearing those that support GamerGate to change it from "people who want journalistic integrity" to "sweaty misogonerds". It's also where the #notyourshield tag came from, as various minority groups (of all descriptions) pushed back against various media outlets, developers and those against GamerGate that were continuing to use them as an excuse to bash the supporters of GamerGate.
Mechanical Crow would say it is about journalistic integrity too, but his idea of a lack of journalistic integrity really seems to be all about “criticizing the way female character are displayed”, and not at all about giving unfairly good review to game from certain companies. I am not asking you to quote someone else's word. I am asking for your own opinion. Pretending that everyone who consider himself part of the Gamergate movement all have the same idea about what this is about is obviously false. So, do you personally believe the problem is about video game journalists giving unfairly good review to game from certain companies? And if so, how about giving us examples rather than lambasting irrelevant “SJW”?
Exactly. This kind of thing. This is exactly what I was speaking about. How about we switch to speaking only about these kind of things? No more “the portrayal of female character in video games is perfectly fine”-like stuff, only “look at this conflict of interest”-like stuff.
Sining wrote: I like how people say that we shouldn't think of Anita as a fraud just cause she collected 165k from ks to create 5 videos so far because we don't know her frame of mind at the time.
I don't think you understand what "fraud" means. She promised videos and we're getting videos. The fact that you think she is being paid too much for making them doesn't mean that it's a fraud.
Since you brought it up, she claims it's a non profit charity, where did the money go? If you donated to a charity to find out the founded was keeping all the money, wouldn't you think the charity was a fraud and a scam?
Don't you find it odd, that people don't want to talk about her, yet you keep bringing her up. You are keeping the focus on her, just like the journalists are doing.
But there is some new information on that post. Instead of focusing on my confusion what about you read those articles to continue the discussion and not take this thread off topic.
An idiot Designer who created fez. He is well known for being rude to a ton of people.
You have got to be joking. Tim is part of double fine. You don't know who tim shafer is?
Sorry I get the two confused sometimes they act very similar on twitter
My bad!
If you are getting people confused like that, it maybe time to get off twitter. Twitter isn't really a good place to get a impression of people and who they are. Misunderstanding happen in 140 characters of less.
I do not understand how this still needs to be up for discussion.
Clearly there is a huge issue in gaming journalism with regards to journalistic integrity.
Clearly journalists feel that whatever abuse Zoe and Anita have claimed to experience is more important than real unbiased gaming news. They'd rather harp on making gamers look bad, demonizing them than focusing on things that matter, like actual gaming. Perhaps woman who have made great and positive contributions to the world of gaming http://i.imgur.com/m2dYABf.png
It's obvious that Zoe Quinn has lied about many aspects of this whole controversy including donations to charity.
So why the focus on who she slept with? I don't care about that. I care about her using all this attention to further her own agenda which seems to be painting male gamers in a negative light (emphasis on Anita here). As sexist creatures who couldn't possibly have any care for women because of the games they play that portray women in a negative light.
This is the crux of the issue. Journalists holding Zoe's word over anyone else because she is female and any claim she feels can be made is "clearly" genuine, fair and balanced.
This "victimization" is henceforth capitalized on by both news outlet parties and Zoe herself. SJW's feel they need to rush to her cause to defend this poor innocent woman without looking at the broader picture that she's gaining money from all this. Money she claimed several times to have donated but did not.
What if a man faced the same amount of discrimination or death threats? Or complained about half naked strong but dumb male characters that have been portrayed in gaming? What if he claimed he was raped? Would anyone care as much? The short answer would be a straight forward and direct resounding "no".
CatharsisX wrote: I do not understand how this still needs to be up for discussion.
Clearly there is a huge issue in gaming journalism with regards to journalistic integrity.
Clearly journalists feel that whatever abuse Zoe and Anita have claimed to experience is more important than real unbiased gaming news. They'd rather harp on making gamers look bad, demonizing them than focusing on things that matter, like actual gaming. Perhaps woman who have made great and positive contributions to the world of gaming http://i.imgur.com/m2dYABf.png
It's obvious that Zoe Quinn has lied about many aspects of this whole controversy including donations to charity.
So why the focus on who she slept with? I don't care about that. I care about her using all this attention to further her own agenda which seems to be painting male gamers in a negative light (emphasis on Anita here). As sexist creatures who couldn't possibly have any care for women because of the games they play that portray women in a negative light.
This is the crux of the issue. Journalists holding Zoe's word over anyone else because she is female and any claim she feels can be made is "clearly" genuine, fair and balanced.
This "victimization" is henceforth capitalized on by both news outlet parties and Zoe herself. SJW's feel they need to rush to her cause to defend this poor innocent woman without looking at the broader picture that she's gaining money from all this. Money she claimed several times to have donated but did not.
What if a man faced the same amount of discrimination or death threats? Or complained about half naked strong but dumb male characters that have been portrayed in gaming? What if he claimed he was raped? Would anyone care as much? The short answer would be a straight forward and direct resounding "no".
If you have read this thread, many posters feel like it is about misgogny and mainly think that the issue is as described as because we hate zoe quinn. And think that is the main reason this happened. (Gamer gate that is)
Personally I think that is quite out of place, it may have been the catalyst, but it is not the main reasoning, it is that she won an award from one of the people she was sleeping with. I think that is a lack of journalistic ethics.
If you have read this thread, many posters feel like it is about misgogny and mainly think that the issue is as described as because we hate zoe quinn.
Because that fits their narrative. They would back a rapist, fraud and charlatan and defend her regardless of evidence , just 'cause its a her. What does that say about them? Don't see them jumping to Phil Fishes or the other guys side. Its typical SJW behaviour, call everyone else sexist when they are guiltiest for it.
CatharsisX wrote: I do not understand how this still needs to be up for discussion.
Clearly there is a huge issue in gaming journalism with regards to journalistic integrity.
Clearly journalists feel that whatever abuse Zoe and Anita have claimed to experience is more important than real unbiased gaming news. They'd rather harp on making gamers look bad, demonizing them than focusing on things that matter, like actual gaming. Perhaps woman who have made great and positive contributions to the world of gaming http://i.imgur.com/m2dYABf.png
It's obvious that Zoe Quinn has lied about many aspects of this whole controversy including donations to charity.
So why the focus on who she slept with? I don't care about that. I care about her using all this attention to further her own agenda which seems to be painting male gamers in a negative light (emphasis on Anita here). As sexist creatures who couldn't possibly have any care for women because of the games they play that portray women in a negative light.
This is the crux of the issue. Journalists holding Zoe's word over anyone else because she is female and any claim she feels can be made is "clearly" genuine, fair and balanced.
This "victimization" is henceforth capitalized on by both news outlet parties and Zoe herself. SJW's feel they need to rush to her cause to defend this poor innocent woman without looking at the broader picture that she's gaining money from all this. Money she claimed several times to have donated but did not.
What if a man faced the same amount of discrimination or death threats? Or complained about half naked strong but dumb male characters that have been portrayed in gaming? What if he claimed he was raped? Would anyone care as much? The short answer would be a straight forward and direct resounding "no".
And had a good laugh at this:
Obviously not all villians are men, but there is a lot.
The side that sides with those women has been unable to bring up a single argument supporting their cause so instead of trying to come up with one, they keep re-firing the same strawman. Rule of thumb: if you see someone arguing that this is about misogny, that person does not know anything about the entire issue and can safely be ignored for the discussion at hand.
At this point I don't even engage in conversations with anyone that tries muddying the water with that junk. They just want you to keep repeating yourself so it validates their insanity. If they keep saying it enough they believe it.
Its the cognitive dissonance they suffer from.
Plus there is #Notyourshield and the SJWs claiming they are sock puppet accounts. They will ignore everything that challenges their narrative.
Mechanical Crow wrote: At this point I don't even engage in conversations with anyone that tries muddying the water with that junk. They just want you to keep repeating yourself so it validates their insanity. If they keep saying it enough they believe it.
Its the cognitive dissonance they suffer from.
Plus there is #Notyourshield and the SJWs claiming they are sock puppet accounts. They will ignore everything that challenges their narrative.
Exactly.
Their narratives are driving them ever onwards. Ignoring the festering weeds that sprout in their gardens on high
Mechanical Crow wrote: At this point I don't even engage in conversations with anyone that tries muddying the water with that junk.
Does that mean you will have to stop engaging conversation with yourself? Oh, groovy.
Because you sure do not look interested by any corruption in video games that is not directly linked to “SJW”.
Mechanical Crow wrote: At this point I don't even engage in conversations with anyone that tries muddying the water with that junk.
Does that mean you will have to stop engaging conversation with yourself? Oh, groovy.
Because you sure do not look interested by any corruption in video games that is not directly linked to “SJW”.
Huh. That adds so much to this conversation with are all having
CatharsisX wrote: I do not understand how this still needs to be up for discussion.
Clearly there is a huge issue in gaming journalism with regards to journalistic integrity.
Clearly journalists feel that whatever abuse Zoe and Anita have claimed to experience is more important than real unbiased gaming news. They'd rather harp on making gamers look bad, demonizing them than focusing on things that matter, like actual gaming. Perhaps woman who have made great and positive contributions to the world of gaming http://i.imgur.com/m2dYABf.png
It's obvious that Zoe Quinn has lied about many aspects of this whole controversy including donations to charity.
So why the focus on who she slept with? I don't care about that. I care about her using all this attention to further her own agenda which seems to be painting male gamers in a negative light (emphasis on Anita here). As sexist creatures who couldn't possibly have any care for women because of the games they play that portray women in a negative light.
This is the crux of the issue. Journalists holding Zoe's word over anyone else because she is female and any claim she feels can be made is "clearly" genuine, fair and balanced.
This "victimization" is henceforth capitalized on by both news outlet parties and Zoe herself. SJW's feel they need to rush to her cause to defend this poor innocent woman without looking at the broader picture that she's gaining money from all this. Money she claimed several times to have donated but did not.
What if a man faced the same amount of discrimination or death threats? Or complained about half naked strong but dumb male characters that have been portrayed in gaming? What if he claimed he was raped? Would anyone care as much? The short answer would be a straight forward and direct resounding "no".
And clearly people in this very thread keep banging on about how it isn't about Quin and Sarkeesian except that the constant banging on about them is justified because they are being defended because they are women who are not being attacked and there isn't any misogynism in the games industry so the defence is unfair.
Can people not see how circular the argument is? Can people not see how irrelevant it is to what people claim to be the key issue?
We all know there is a nasty amount of misogynism in the games industry and on the internet in general. If people want to people to take the games journalism complaint seriously, drop any mention of Quin and Sarkeesian, and concentrate on actually relevant journalistic issues.
Every time people attack games journalists for defending Quin and Sarkeesian, they make me think they are a misogynist.
CatharsisX wrote: I do not understand how this still needs to be up for discussion.
Clearly there is a huge issue in gaming journalism with regards to journalistic integrity.
Clearly journalists feel that whatever abuse Zoe and Anita have claimed to experience is more important than real unbiased gaming news. They'd rather harp on making gamers look bad, demonizing them than focusing on things that matter, like actual gaming. Perhaps woman who have made great and positive contributions to the world of gaming http://i.imgur.com/m2dYABf.png
It's obvious that Zoe Quinn has lied about many aspects of this whole controversy including donations to charity.
So why the focus on who she slept with? I don't care about that. I care about her using all this attention to further her own agenda which seems to be painting male gamers in a negative light (emphasis on Anita here). As sexist creatures who couldn't possibly have any care for women because of the games they play that portray women in a negative light.
This is the crux of the issue. Journalists holding Zoe's word over anyone else because she is female and any claim she feels can be made is "clearly" genuine, fair and balanced.
This "victimization" is henceforth capitalized on by both news outlet parties and Zoe herself. SJW's feel they need to rush to her cause to defend this poor innocent woman without looking at the broader picture that she's gaining money from all this. Money she claimed several times to have donated but did not.
What if a man faced the same amount of discrimination or death threats? Or complained about half naked strong but dumb male characters that have been portrayed in gaming? What if he claimed he was raped? Would anyone care as much? The short answer would be a straight forward and direct resounding "no".
And clearly people in this very thread keep banging on about how it isn't about Quin and Sarkeesian except that the constant banging on about them is justified because they are being defended because they are women who are not being attacked and there isn't any misogynism in the games industry so the defence is unfair.
Can people not see how circular the argument is? Can people not see how irrelevant it is to what people claim to be the key issue?
We all know there is a nasty amount of misogynism in the games industry and on the internet in general. If people want to people to take the games journalism complaint seriously, drop any mention of Quin and Sarkeesian, and concentrate on actually relevant journalistic issues.
Every time people attack games journalists for defending Quin and Sarkeesian, they make me think they are a misogynist.
CatharsisX wrote: I do not understand how this still needs to be up for discussion.
Clearly there is a huge issue in gaming journalism with regards to journalistic integrity.
Clearly journalists feel that whatever abuse Zoe and Anita have claimed to experience is more important than real unbiased gaming news. They'd rather harp on making gamers look bad, demonizing them than focusing on things that matter, like actual gaming. Perhaps woman who have made great and positive contributions to the world of gaming http://i.imgur.com/m2dYABf.png
It's obvious that Zoe Quinn has lied about many aspects of this whole controversy including donations to charity.
So why the focus on who she slept with? I don't care about that. I care about her using all this attention to further her own agenda which seems to be painting male gamers in a negative light (emphasis on Anita here). As sexist creatures who couldn't possibly have any care for women because of the games they play that portray women in a negative light.
This is the crux of the issue. Journalists holding Zoe's word over anyone else because she is female and any claim she feels can be made is "clearly" genuine, fair and balanced.
This "victimization" is henceforth capitalized on by both news outlet parties and Zoe herself. SJW's feel they need to rush to her cause to defend this poor innocent woman without looking at the broader picture that she's gaining money from all this. Money she claimed several times to have donated but did not.
What if a man faced the same amount of discrimination or death threats? Or complained about half naked strong but dumb male characters that have been portrayed in gaming? What if he claimed he was raped? Would anyone care as much? The short answer would be a straight forward and direct resounding "no".
And clearly people in this very thread keep banging on about how it isn't about Quin and Sarkeesian except that the constant banging on about them is justified because they are being defended because they are women who are not being attacked and there isn't any misogynism in the games industry so the defence is unfair.
Can people not see how circular the argument is? Can people not see how irrelevant it is to what people claim to be the key issue?
We all know there is a nasty amount of misogynism in the games industry and on the internet in general. If people want to people to take the games journalism complaint seriously, drop any mention of Quin and Sarkeesian, and concentrate on actually relevant journalistic issues.
Every time people attack games journalists for defending Quin and Sarkeesian, they make me think they are a misogynist.
So, as a woman who is doing the same, does this make me a misogynist?
CatharsisX wrote: I do not understand how this still needs to be up for discussion.
Clearly there is a huge issue in gaming journalism with regards to journalistic integrity.
Clearly journalists feel that whatever abuse Zoe and Anita have claimed to experience is more important than real unbiased gaming news. They'd rather harp on making gamers look bad, demonizing them than focusing on things that matter, like actual gaming. Perhaps woman who have made great and positive contributions to the world of gaming http://i.imgur.com/m2dYABf.png
It's obvious that Zoe Quinn has lied about many aspects of this whole controversy including donations to charity.
So why the focus on who she slept with? I don't care about that. I care about her using all this attention to further her own agenda which seems to be painting male gamers in a negative light (emphasis on Anita here). As sexist creatures who couldn't possibly have any care for women because of the games they play that portray women in a negative light.
This is the crux of the issue. Journalists holding Zoe's word over anyone else because she is female and any claim she feels can be made is "clearly" genuine, fair and balanced.
This "victimization" is henceforth capitalized on by both news outlet parties and Zoe herself. SJW's feel they need to rush to her cause to defend this poor innocent woman without looking at the broader picture that she's gaining money from all this. Money she claimed several times to have donated but did not.
What if a man faced the same amount of discrimination or death threats? Or complained about half naked strong but dumb male characters that have been portrayed in gaming? What if he claimed he was raped? Would anyone care as much? The short answer would be a straight forward and direct resounding "no".
And clearly people in this very thread keep banging on about how it isn't about Quin and Sarkeesian except that the constant banging on about them is justified because they are being defended because they are women who are not being attacked and there isn't any misogynism in the games industry so the defence is unfair.
Can people not see how circular the argument is? Can people not see how irrelevant it is to what people claim to be the key issue?
We all know there is a nasty amount of misogynism in the games industry and on the internet in general. If people want to people to take the games journalism complaint seriously, drop any mention of Quin and Sarkeesian, and concentrate on actually relevant journalistic issues.
Every time people attack games journalists for defending Quin and Sarkeesian, they make me think they are a misogynist.
So, as a woman who is doing the same, does this make me a misogynist?
Hahaha. Oh god. I am sorry, but I can't help but laugh.
That is the logic of the journalist right now. "Your a misogynist!"
As a woman who is not a misogynist, as you may seem to paint everyone who shares my views, I'll continue to fight for what I feel is correct.
Zoe Quinn admitted to crashing Matti Leshams game jam, she admitted to hacking TFYC because she has a disagreement with her, she is responsible for mass censorship, she has been accepting money into her personal paypal account for a game jam she hasn't updated since march.
You don't think that maybe the journalists should be writing a story on this rather then protecting her? How about Phil Fish? The racketeering and fraud of FEZ that netted numerous journalists, judges and devs thousands of dollars? How about Devin Faraci who doxxes women who say anything to him on twitter and calls gamers terrorists who then is backed by Anita Sarkeesian. Isn't this more important than all this idiotic witch hunt?
Do you think people that call gamers "gak" should be writing for gaming journalism? Do you think a person that writes nasty things about gamers then closes her comments and throws threats out should be writing articles that gamers are dead while months ago got a massive payout from racketeering?
You cannot pretend her gender is not what is causing SJW to defend her and the gak gaming journalists are spewing forth. Even down to the rape she committed, as I previously mentioned, would be a crime if the gender situation was flipped.
Defend Zoe if you want, but know the issues at hand and the more important things that should be reported on.
CatharsisX wrote: As a woman who is not a misogynist, as you may seem to paint everyone who shares my views, I'll continue to fight for what I feel is correct.
Zoe Quinn admitted to crashing Matti Leshams game jam, she admitted to hacking TFYC because she has a disagreement with her, she is responsible for mass censorship, she has been accepting money into her personal paypal account for a game jam she hasn't updated since march.
You don't think that maybe the journalists should be writing a story on this rather then protecting her? How about Phil Fish? The racketeering and fraud of FEZ that netted numerous journalists, judges and devs thousands of dollars? How about Devin Faraci who doxxes women who say anything to him on twitter and calls gamers terrorists who then is backed by Anita Sarkeesian. Isn't this more important than all this idiotic witch hunt?
Do you think people that call gamers "gak" should be writing for gaming journalism? Do you think a person that writes nasty things about gamers then closes her comments and throws threats out should be writing articles that gamers are dead while months ago got a massive payout from racketeering?
You cannot pretend her gender is not what is causing SJW to defend her and the gak gaming journalists are spewing forth. Even down to the rape she committed, as I previously mentioned, would be a crime if the gender situation was flipped.
Defend Zoe if you want, but know the issues at hand and the more important things that should be reported on.
Agreed. If it was a dude. They would not be jumping to his defense. In this case it is good ole sexism.
Not Misogyny.
And are you talking to Killkrazy
Because I agree completely, hell I support gamersgate.
Every time people attack games journalists for defending Quin and Sarkeesian, they make me think they are a misogynist.
That says more about you than about those doing so.
Maybe so but the point is there is a degree of serious misogyny in games, so it is perfectly natural to see it in the actions of people who keep referring to tangential matters that involve some of the few women who are prominent in games.
The argument is circular. People feel it is legitimate to attack these women because they are being defended by games journalists (the spawn of Satan) who are defending them indefensibly because they are women. Or else it is an attack on journalists who defend women in games.
Either way it seems misogynist. Aren't there some real examples of corrupt games journalism to attack?
People attack these people because they made up stories and continously provoke others on purpose while hiding behind the mask of misogny victims. If anything, they are the ones spreading sexism by using their gender as a defense mechanism and mean to diffamate others with legimitate claims.
How many other women in gaming have received so much hate?
They get offended because they hit a bee hive with a stick and then try to falsely victimize themselves.
This isn't about misogny, at all. Are there misognists out there who use the entire thing as a reason to lash out at them? Sure. But if you claim that misogny is a part of Gamergate, then you do not understand the issue.
People are attacking these women on the grounds that they defended themselves falsely against attacks on them as women. Then people attack journalists who defend these women against such attacks. None of it is about games journalism. All of it is centered around the identity of the women as women.
What if people would just ignore them and take up the cudgels against some other targets in games journalism?
Mechanical Crow wrote: They would back a rapist, fraud and charlatan and defend her regardless of evidence , just 'cause its a her. What does that say about them? Don't see them jumping to Phil Fishes or the other guys side. Its typical SJW behaviour, call everyone else sexist when they are guiltiest for it.
I don't think you understand something very important here: it is possible for both sides to be wrong. Pointing out the problems with how someone is being treated does NOT mean defending everything that they have done. It is entirely possible for someone to be both a victim of misogynistic attitudes and a corrupt .
And had a good laugh at this:
Obviously not all villians are men, but there is a lot.
And this just continues to prove that it isn't really about honesty in gaming journalism. Every time you post stuff about how "SJWs and feminists ruin everything" you make it obvious that honesty in journalism is nothing more than a flimsy pretense to hide behind.
(And of course, like every other "feminists ruin everything" argument presented so far, this one is laughably wrong. But I doubt there's any point in trying to explain why to you, since you'll just complain and label me a "SJW" as if that's a proper substitute for a real argument.)
Every time people attack games journalists for defending Quin and Sarkeesian, they make me think they are a misogynist.
That says more about you than about those doing so.
Maybe so but the point is there is a degree of serious misogyny in games, so it is perfectly natural to see it in the actions of people who keep referring to tangential matters that involve some of the few women who are prominent in games.
The argument is circular. People feel it is legitimate to attack these women because they are being defended by games journalists (the spawn of Satan) who are defending them indefensibly because they are women. Or else it is an attack on journalists who defend women in games.
Either way it seems misogynist. Aren't there some real examples of corrupt games journalism to attack?
I'm sorry, what? All the allegations against Zoe have nothing to do with her gender. Now yes, this blowout started from the whole cheating thing that got out. But that rapidly led to people finding out about stuff that has nothing to do with her gender. These allegations would be just as valid were she a man or anything in between, fraud is still fraud if you're a woman.
I don't see how the argument is circular either, people have found lot's of proof of these people commiting fraud and worse, journalists defending this aren't being attacked because they are defending a woman, they are being attacked because they are defending out right corruption that they themselves appear to be part of.
Just because there is a vocal minority being genuinely misogynistic doesn't mean that's what's actually going on here. Because by that logic religious extremists would also be regarded as representatives of their faith.
The other problem is that they have been slinging around completely generalised insults. Calling ALL gamers Terrorists, Nazi's, women haters, racists etc. is not appreciated.
Soladrin wrote: I'm sorry, what? All the allegations against Zoe have nothing to do with her gender.
That is quite interesting. Now explain to me how the allegation about Anita are linked to corrupt journalism?
Soladrin wrote: The other problem is that they have been slinging around completely generalised insults. Calling ALL gamers Terrorists, Nazi's, women haters, racists etc. is not appreciated.
Why did I not care about that? I surely am a gamer, and yet I did not care.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: That is quite interesting. Now explain to me how the allegation about Anita are linked to corrupt journalism?
They're not. She has nothing to do with GamerGate outside of the fact that a number of the 10 articles (ie. those that came out within a 48 hour period attacking gamers directly) used Anita as a shield.
If games journalists are using attacks on Sarkeesian to hold up a shield of misogynism that defends against other alleged shenanigans, would it not be rather clever to stop attacking Sarkeesian, thus depriving these journalists of their shield?
This would also have the benefit of not seeming to be misogynist.
Kilkrazy wrote: If games journalists are using attacks on Sarkeesian to hold up a shield of misogynism that defends against other alleged shenanigans, would it not be rather clever to stop attacking Sarkeesian, thus depriving these journalists of their shield?
This would also have the benefit of not seeming to be misogynist.
Funnily enough that is happening on other forums. A certain someone is called Literally Who 1, and another certain someone is called Literally Who 2.
Kilkrazy wrote: If games journalists are using attacks on Sarkeesian to hold up a shield of misogynism that defends against other alleged shenanigans, would it not be rather clever to stop attacking Sarkeesian, thus depriving these journalists of their shield?
This would also have the benefit of not seeming to be misogynist.
Offcourse it would be, and if I was supreme overlord of the internet I would make that terrible vocal minority drop dead for doing it. Sadly, there is no such thing as controlling everyone on the internet and vocal minorities will always be a thing. This is not me excusing misogyny but just sharing a little fact about the internet and people being dickholes.
The industry side keeps drawing the misogyny thing into this debate, not the other way around. They are seperate and should be looked at that way. I don't think I've ever condoned it but you seem pretty adamant that we are all women haters in this topic.
We can criticize what they do, but that does not make us misogynists
Its like if Critic twilight, I am attacking her work, her abilities, her thoughts, her actions and her ideals, but not her specifically.
Just because it may seem that way does not mean i a misogynist
The whole idea is that people think we are attacking them because they are woman. I am not, I am merely saying they are hypocrites and attack us without warning and use others as a shield, and their gender as one.
That is deplorable and against everything this industry stands for.
Soladrin wrote: The industry side keeps drawing the misogyny thing into this debate, not the other way around.
Mechanical Crow and all the others that keeps bringing everything back to “SJW” must be part of the industry then. I mean, I tried to get this topic about corruption, I really did (see here and here). Did I say anything about misogyny when the article quoted was criticizing a woman? No. Nor did anyone else. Did the Gamergate people follow my advice and start talking only about real corruption? No, of course not. They wanted to talk about how the journalists insulted them (that is not corruption), about how “SJW” were terrible (still not corruption), and tons of other stuff that had nothing to do with corruption. Is corruption so boring to talk about, or what?
But really, Mechanical Crow is certainly the worse offender, he makes it so obvious he does not care about corruption on the slightest and only social issues matter to him, yet all of you keep pretending you do not notice it and only the journalists push social issues. Damn. Makes you look bad.
no matter what we do there always be someone attacking them.
Also on Antia
I criticize her ideas and her thesis. Using her very bias thesis is not extremely fair to any of the movement.
Mechanical Crow and all the others that keeps bringing everything back to “SJW” must be part of the industry then. I mean, I tried to get this topic about corruption, I really did (see here and here). Did I say anything about misogyny when the article quoted was criticizing a woman? No. Nor did anyone else. Did the Gamergate people follow my advice and start talking only about real corruption? No, of course not. They wanted to talk about how the journalists insulted them (that is not corruption), about how “SJW” were terrible (still not corruption), and tons of other stuff that had nothing to do with corruption. Is corruption so boring to talk about, or what?
But really, Mechanical Crow is certainly the worse offender, he makes it so obvious he does not care about corruption on the slightest and only social issues matter to him, yet all of you keep pretending you do not notice it and only the journalists push social issues. Damn. Makes you look bad.
Personally there are lots of problems in the movement. I think the SJWS have only come to the defense, and I simply ignore them and I am annoyed by it.
But I target the journalists and their corruption on both sides.
Where a journalist can threaten someones entire career, and she is also a SJW. She has specifically said she will destroy someones career and I find that deplorable and she should be removed from the industry. Her unprofessional ism is a poison to the community.
I think attacking a large community is stupid.
I think that using minorities as a shield is dumb.
I thin antia taking over the situation and just happened to post her video the same week that these events blew up was no conicendence, as she is an adviser to several SEVERAL articles and journalists.
I think Zoe Quinns actions are dumb,
I think posting someones information all over the internet is horrible. And the Journalists have been doing this. From attacking youtubers, to attacking the public for speaking out.
I think blocking people because they disagree with you is beyond stupid.
I think the out right censoring and harassment of those who speak out is deplorable and should not be allowed in this industry.
There are so many things wrong in this situation.
There is corruption and then there is immaturity. Where a writer in the games media can write their thoughts with expanding on their biases, without clearly saying this is an editorial or this is news.
I think a news reporter should not go in with an agenda in an interview.
Like that blizzard interview. I think attacking an artistic view is stupid. Oh but she is wearing revealing clothing yeah yeah. Kill La Kill all the characters wear revealing clothing and no one really raised a fuss and SJWs didn't attack it for having women in revealing clothing.
As long as it is equal on both sides for having revealing clothing for both genders, it is fine.
But saying that there are more women killed in video games or used as shock value more than male counterparts clearly shows their ignorance of video games.
There are so many examples of sexism in games that you aren't picking the right fight. Now representation of female characters, I can get behind that, where females are shown to be weak and just there.
I want strong female characters. Not some white badass guy with a gun.
I think that we have gotten to the point in games where there has to change. And so does the media, the media has to grow up. And review a game like a book, disect everything, look at it for its own merits and not to compare it to other games, unless otherwise notted to be a sequel to a game.
So far the media has gotten to the point where it attacks anyone it thinks as bad, and is over protective of females. But I think that is sexist. What you don't think this woman can defend herself. You don't think she can handle it herself.
Do you really think she needs your help? You are just making yourself look like fools.
The entire idea of calling us misogynists is false. We are not misogynists. They are. They defend this woman but attack their consumer base, which is multicultural and multicolored, and consist of many faces and genders. Just because some are bad cookies, does not mean you can attack them all and generalize them all into this one particular group. You cannot decry an entire group of people because of a few people, that is wrong, and that is so wrong. Just because one is bad doesn't mean they can all burn.
They are not there to fit your narrative. It is time for them to get off their high horse. And anyone in this thread. You are not higher or better than me, or anyone else.
You may write articles and this may be your passion, but it is our passion to play games that drives us forward. Whether you write an article on how good a game does not stop me from playing games that you rated as bad. Just because this game lacks a single feature that is among other games does not make it any worse that other games. Just because my game does not have fancy graphics or multiplayer does not mean it is worse than your game.
These articles should get rid of this stupid rating system, and just replace it with recommendations. Because what does a point scale tell us? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. If a game is good, and receives a 4/10 on igns scale because it does not have good graphics, or multiplayer. Does that make the game worse? No. It doesn't it is up to the artist and aesthic of the game.
I am tired of them ratting always on either only one thing and not multiple things. Be fair to these games, and balance your review, you can just focus on one thing. Because if you do the game will suffer because of that.
That is the same reason why people hated diablo 3, because they all focused on a single few things and it made the experience horrible for them. And yet that doesn't mean its a bad game, it was just hated because people only looked a certain number of things.
Look at the bigger picture instead of narrowing your mind. To an open mind, all doors remain unlatched. A close mind, these doors are locked.
So, what about Mechanical Crow. Is he helping expose corruption, or is he pushing his own agenda? If he is diverting attention away from corruption, why not acknowledge that?
Asherian Command wrote: I thin antia taking over the situation and just happened to post her video the same week that these events blew up was no conicendence, as she is an adviser to several SEVERAL articles and journalists.
Conspiracy much? Anita said she would release a series of video about tropes on women in video game. That is exactly what she did. Whether or not you agree with her is something else entirely, but she has been totally honest about it up front, and is not linked in any way to journalists corruption.
Also will you tell me next that journalists are the only one that keeps talking about Anita? Because sure as hell I did not mention her, yet you decided to talk about her.
Asherian Command wrote: I think a news reporter should not go in with an agenda in an interview.
Like that blizzard interview. I think attacking an artistic view is stupid. Oh but she is wearing revealing clothing yeah yeah. Kill La Kill all the characters wear revealing clothing and no one really raised a fuss and SJWs didn't attack it for having women in revealing clothing.
As long as it is equal on both sides for having revealing clothing for both genders, it is fine.
I think that question was great. I think trying to defend an artist's choice to adhere to the common trend of the time and present this as if you were fighting for the right of artists to be subversive is hilariously misplaced. And I think even pretending that the clothing for male and female character are on par in HotS is abysmally wrong, and could certainly not have been stated in good faith. I also think this is totally about social issues and not at all about corruption. I think we do have a thread dedicated to female representation in video game and that you should post your concerns over there. Because I am pretty sure that journalist did not ask those questions because he was corrupted by someone else paying him to ask this question, but because he had his own opinions and wanted to make them heard. Which is not corruption.
How often did I call you, or other Gamergater, misogynists? For reference, I would like to know. Is this number above 0?
Asherian Command wrote: Whether you write an article on how good a game does not stop me from playing games that you rated as bad.
So why do you care so much?
Asherian Command wrote: Just because this game lacks a single feature that is among other games does not make it any worse that other games. Just because my game does not have fancy graphics or multiplayer does not mean it is worse than your game.
These articles should get rid of this stupid rating system, and just replace it with recommendations. Because what does a point scale tell us? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. If a game is good, and receives a 4/10 on igns scale because it does not have good graphics, or multiplayer. Does that make the game worse? No. It doesn't it is up to the artist and aesthic of the game.
I am tired of them ratting always on either only one thing and not multiple things. Be fair to these games, and balance your review, you can just focus on one thing. Because if you do the game will suffer because of that.
Okay, you realize nothing of this has any link to journalist corruption, and it all boils down to personal preference?
So, what about Mechanical Crow. Is he helping expose corruption, or is he pushing his own agenda? If he is diverting attention away from corruption, why not acknowledge that?
Asherian Command wrote: I thin antia taking over the situation and just happened to post her video the same week that these events blew up was no conicendence, as she is an adviser to several SEVERAL articles and journalists.
Conspiracy much? Anita said she would release a series of video about tropes on women in video game. That is exactly what she did. Whether or not you agree with her is something else entirely, but she has been totally honest about it up front, and is not linked in any way to journalists corruption.
Also will you tell me next that journalists are the only one that keeps talking about Anita? Because sure as hell I did not mention her, yet you decided to talk about her.
Asherian Command wrote: I think a news reporter should not go in with an agenda in an interview.
Like that blizzard interview. I think attacking an artistic view is stupid. Oh but she is wearing revealing clothing yeah yeah. Kill La Kill all the characters wear revealing clothing and no one really raised a fuss and SJWs didn't attack it for having women in revealing clothing.
As long as it is equal on both sides for having revealing clothing for both genders, it is fine.
I think that question was great. I think trying to defend an artist's choice to adhere to the common trend of the time and present this as if you were fighting for the right of artists to be subversive is hilariously misplaced. And I think even pretending that the clothing for male and female character are on par in HotS is abysmally wrong, and could certainly not have been stated in good faith. I also think this is totally about social issues and not at all about corruption. I think we do have a thread dedicated to female representation in video game and that you should post your concerns over there. Because I am pretty sure that journalist did not ask those questions because he was corrupted by someone else paying him to ask this question, but because he had his own opinions and wanted to make them heard. Which is not corruption.
How often did I call you, or other Gamergater, misogynists? For reference, I would like to know. Is this number above 0?
Asherian Command wrote: Whether you write an article on how good a game does not stop me from playing games that you rated as bad.
So why do you care so much?
Asherian Command wrote: Just because this game lacks a single feature that is among other games does not make it any worse that other games. Just because my game does not have fancy graphics or multiplayer does not mean it is worse than your game.
These articles should get rid of this stupid rating system, and just replace it with recommendations. Because what does a point scale tell us? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. If a game is good, and receives a 4/10 on igns scale because it does not have good graphics, or multiplayer. Does that make the game worse? No. It doesn't it is up to the artist and aesthic of the game.
I am tired of them ratting always on either only one thing and not multiple things. Be fair to these games, and balance your review, you can just focus on one thing. Because if you do the game will suffer because of that.
Okay, you realize nothing of this has any link to journalist corruption, and it all boils down to personal preference?
I swear everytime you comment you miss the point.
I think you need to read your statements. But I will do that for you.
Conspiracy much? Anita said she would release a series of video about tropes on women in video game. That is exactly what she did. Whether or not you agree with her is something else entirely, but she has been totally honest about it up front, and is not linked in any way to journalists corruption.
Also will you tell me next that journalists are the only one that keeps talking about Anita? Because sure as hell I did not mention her, yet you decided to talk about her.
I think releasing a video during a big scandal is a bit suspicious. It may of been suspicious.
I think that question was great. I think trying to defend an artist's choice to adhere to the common trend of the time and present this as if you were fighting for the right of artists to be subversive is hilariously misplaced. And I think even pretending that the clothing for male and female character are on par in HotS is abysmally wrong, and could certainly not have been stated in good faith. I also think this is totally about social issues and not at all about corruption. I think we do have a thread dedicated to female representation in video game and that you should post your concerns over there. Because I am pretty sure that journalist did not ask those questions because he was corrupted by someone else paying him to ask this question, but because he had his own opinions and wanted to make them heard. Which is not corruption.
Its an interview yes, but why the hell are you asking those questions. The interviewer literally had an agenda the whole time, they wanted to hear it, but it doesn't relate in the slightest about the game they are there for.
I do not think it is corruption but it is unethical as a journalist do that if you are reporting on news. If you do not label the interview as an editorial then you cannot make those statements. If it is an editorial YOU CAN.
LEARN THE DIFFERENCE.
How often did I call you, or other Gamergater, misogynists? For reference, I would like to know. Is this number above 0?
Who says you are? Lots of people on twitter have been calling me one.
You need to read and not assert your dumb opinion in. Because so far your statement makes no sense, do you think I was talking to you? I quoted you, but I wasn't necessarily talking directly to you. I was addressing everyone here.
So why do you care so much?
Because I am a video game designer. I will have to deal with this clowns. So do not think I will not have to and I do not care. I will have to work with these peoples.
Okay, you realize nothing of this has any link to journalist corruption, and it all boils down to personal preference?
No It is because this media is using its powers to stop certain games from publishing because of sexy outfits, or because they don't have as many things as they want.
And they actually do a lot to damage a game's credibility. This media does have a leash on the game developers if it is a small company.
Both sides seem flawed. One side for using misogyny as a shield, and the other side for fueling the fire with 'SJW' and similar.
I disagree.
There are many heads of GamerGate, there is the anti-corruption and anti-idiot media and then there are the ant-sjws. The anti-corruption peeps, like me, really don't care about the SJW's we don't blame them for the whole mess we see the bigger picture.
WE are not using gamergate to further our careers.
Asherian Command wrote: I think releasing a video during a big scandal is a bit suspicious. It may of been suspicious.
Why? How does it change anything about anything? She does not even use ads iirc!
Asherian Command wrote: Its an interview yes, but why the hell are you asking those questions.
Why, because he cares about the answer.
Asherian Command wrote: The interviewer literally had an agenda the whole time, they wanted to hear it, but it doesn't relate in the slightest about the game they are there for.
Whether or not the female character will be sexualized in Heroes of the Storm does not relate in the slightest about Heroes of the Storm?
For instance, Strife does not sexualize its female characters nearly as much as Heroes of Newerth do, and this is one of the many reasons why I like the former more than the latter. Please do note the “one among many”. So I would personally be interested in hearing if Blizzard was planning to sexualize its female characters or not. Now I know.
Asherian Command wrote: I do not think it is corruption but it is unethical as a journalist do that if you are reporting on news. If you do not label the interview as an editorial then you cannot make those statements. If it is an editorial YOU CAN.
LEARN THE DIFFERENCE.
Damn, applying your definition of “interview” to political interview would be quite horrible . He was asking questions about the game, it was an interview. An interview about the game.
Asherian Command wrote: Who says you are? Lots of people on twitter have been calling me one.
Are you hiding behind their cries to misogyny to dismiss my criticism? Are they your shield ?
Asherian Command wrote: No It is because this media is using its powers to stop certain games from publishing because of sexy outfits, or because they don't have as many things as they want.
It is about you not being happy with how critics rate your work. Damn. Deal with it, seriously.
Asherian Command wrote: This media does have a leash on the game developers if it is a small company.
And if it is a big company, it is the other way around.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, for the record, you did start the conversation on Anita, and you started the conversation on skimpy outfits too. This is pretty important to note.
Are you hiding behind their cries to misogyny to dismiss my criticism? Are they your shield ?
With that single line you have completely lost your credibility and arguments in the matter. That argument is so flawed I cannot believe it was even said.
It is about you not being happy with how critics rate your work. Damn. Deal with it, seriously.
So, you think only one side has flaws?
No both sides are flawed
Also, for the record, you did start the conversation on Anita, and you started the conversation on skimpy outfits too. This is pretty important to note.
I was merely giving examples. If you don't see them as examples then thats your own fault.
These examples are very flimsy because they are the only things I could think at the time. but at the same time they are not flimsy they are relatively strong.
They show a few things.
One they show an agenda, and they show that there might be a connection how you refuse to see that connection i don't know at all.
Okay, let us focus on that. When learning about a new moba, there are many things that will either make me enjoy it or not enjoy it. Sexualization of the female characters is one of them. I am therefore interested in learning about that. This journalist is getting information for me (and his or her other reader) on this new moba. Why, why on earth should he not ask this question?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Okay, let us focus on that. When learning about a new moba, there are many things that will either make me enjoy it or not enjoy it. Sexualization of the female characters is one of them. I am therefore interested in learning about that. This journalist is getting information for me (and his or her other reader) on this new moba. Why, why on earth should he not ask this question?
So instead of what changes it and makes it a different moba you are focused on aesthics? Instead of I don't know what changes it and makes it look different from other mobas?
That is extremely flawed.
If really want my thoughts on that. Sexualization is bad, but so is the same thing over and over again. In fact it is even worse. That is stagnation and that dries up the scene and makes it inhospitable.
I swear you have one mode and that is stay offended and not moving away from the argument and only focusing on gender misrepresentation and ignoring all counter arguments to your statements *sigh*
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: For instance, Strife does not sexualize its female characters nearly as much as Heroes of Newerth do, and this is one of the many reasons why I like the former more than the latter. Please do note the “one among many”.
Regardless of the issue of those who continue to misconstrue the argument. It does seem like at the time advertisers are pulling out of several websites.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Regardless of the issue of those who continue to misconstrue the argument. It does seem like at the time advertisers are pulling out of several websites.
I've been seeing that. Looks like mass emails are starting to work extremely well.
This is some discussion you started, and it is completely on-topic. It is about the issues you have about game journalism. I wanted to know about many aspects of the game, including the sexualization of female character aspect. Why was the journalist wrong for asking that information that was one of (as in not the only one) the things I wanted to know?
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Regardless of the issue of those who continue to misconstrue the argument. It does seem like at the time advertisers are pulling out of several websites.
I've been seeing that. Looks like mass emails are starting to work extremely well.
Its that and the massive decline in views on those sites. As vocal as they are, the people against GamerGate represent a very small portion of the interest in gaming. Plus when your demographic is gamers that buy games, not tumblr hug boxes that might buy games, it seems kind of stupid to tell the majority they are gakky people and they are dying. Its like having a warhammer page that says warhammer players are gross misogynists and they are a dying breed, how idiotic is that?
And of course, like every other "feminists ruin everything" argument presented so far, this one is laughably wrong. But I doubt there's any point in trying to explain why to you, since you'll just complain and label me a "SJW" as if that's a proper substitute for a real argument.
Right back at you. You're defending fraud, rape, racketeering, corruption, conflicts of interest, unethical practices, mass censorship, and the pushing of the agenda that would stagnate art and police thought under the misguided guise of what? White Knighting third wave feminism? You're backing something that looks more like a misandry movement and resembles a hate group with the same built in fallacies and selection bias's rather then a group interested in equality.
Im asking to stop with the intellectually dishonest articles and people profiteering from nepotism, corruption and incestuous relationships. Im also against the hypocrisy of the social justice warriors that many of the journalists claim to be or are employees for, any group that can spout racism and sexism in the same breath as calling someone else those same things doesn't deserve to be listened to.
Soladrin wrote: I'm sorry, what? All the allegations against Zoe have nothing to do with her gender.
That is quite interesting. Now explain to me how the allegation about Anita are linked to corrupt journalism?.
The quick version to your question: Anita is heavily promoted by gaming journalists, Anita jumps in on Zoe post with false death threats, gets massive attention for her new video that was faultering, Journalists run story as if death threats are real and ignore the evidence they were false nor post anything afterward the are proven false, Anita is employed by a PR company with some of those same journalists and has heavy connections to every journalist. PR company proudly shows that it pushed the "gamers are dead" articles (who use Anita as a shield) right on their website.
It shows they wont report on anything that will hurt their personal investments or relationships, or are told they will be fired if they do by people that have personal investments or relationships.
I would also like to know how rape got included in gamergate?
? Good question. Also those twitter pages. I have promptly reported ^.^
Where is the rape allegation?
Vile like this exists,
But to assume and group everyone together and call them all sexist is wrong to decry the few and know these peoples names and report them as harassers and support the one who was harassed is fine.
I do not agree with Femfrequency Aka Antia and her beliefs. I see her thesis's and I disagree completely, but me being lumped in with abusers, threats, and attackers. That is pushing it far too much.
You cannot attack an entire group of people.
Now Antia if you come across this. I am an Egilitarian, an asexual as well. I see all walks of life as equal. But this is vileness, do not associate an entire movement based on a bad cookie. Otherwise many movements such as the woman's movement of rights where women did terrible things to prove their rights, or another terrible events that happened in the name of justice or what is right would of been thrown away.
I am asking you to keep an open mind to critiques from those who are responsible.
I might write up some stuff on this whole gamer gate issue and I will address both sides as equals. Sexism does exist, but some criticize you for your opinions, not for you being you.
This is a trigger warning though. It is harsh to believe these people truly exist, but it happens everyday. I've recieved threats against my life. But I do not acknowledge them. I do not give them the attention. These types of people feed on this attention. This gives them self worth to their meanlingless lives.
In closing.... Learn the difference between a Critic and a Harasser.
If you people think I am being sexist go ahead call me it, but if you know the full picture on what is going on currently maybe you might understand.
This is a culture war. The right side is winning, at great cost. At great personal costs to people like Anita Sarkeesian, Leigh Alexander, Zoe Quinn and even Jennifer Lawrence, and countless others who are on the frontlines of creating new worlds for women, for girls, for everyone who believes that stories matter and there are too many still untold. We are winning. We are winning because we are more resourceful, more compassionate, more culturally aware. We’re winning because we know what it’s like to fight through adversity, through shame and pain and constant reminders of our own worthlessness, and come up punching. We know we’re winning because the terrified rage of a million mouthbreathing manchild misogynists is thick as nerve gas in the air right now.
Us Social Justice Warriors – this is me, stealing that word in order to use it against my enemies- are winning the culture war by tearing up the rulebook, and there’s nothing the sad, mad little boys who hate women and queers and people of colour can do about it. Nothing, at least, that doesn’t sabotage their strategy, because they can win their game from day to day, but they’re losing the war. They can punish me for writing this, and I’m sure they will, but that will only prove my point. I’m not afraid anymore.
Every time they make an example of one of us, ten more stand up in outrage to hold her up or take her place.
We are stronger, smarter and more numerous than anyone imagined, and we are not to be fethed with.
Mechanical Crow wrote: Right back at you. You're defending fraud, rape, racketeering, corruption, conflicts of interest, unethical practices, mass censorship, and the pushing of the agenda that would stagnate art and police thought under the misguided guise of what? White Knighting third wave feminism? You're backing something that looks more like a misandry movement and resembles a hate group with the same built in fallacies and selection bias's rather then a group interested in equality.
...
So you managed to find something to quote, but you somehow failed to read just a few lines up in the same post where I said this:
I don't think you understand something very important here: it is possible for both sides to be wrong. Pointing out the problems with how someone is being treated does NOT mean defending everything that they have done. It is entirely possible for someone to be both a victim of misogynistic attitudes and a corrupt .
Also, I'll note that you pulled that quote out of my objection to an argument about how women are presented in video games, not any of the journalism issues or how people are being treated. The dishonesty of that move is just amazing.
Asherian Command wrote: ? Good question. Also those twitter pages. I have promptly reported ^.^
You: DEATH THREATS ARE A LIE
Them: Look, here's some death threats.
You: *reports post*
You: LOOK, NO DEATH THREATS!!!!
If you want to have a constructive discussion of the subject then it is going to involve posting offensive twitter statements as evidence. If you want to keep those messages out of the discussion then you need to do the honest thing and drop the "death threats were fake" argument since nobody can respond to it effectively without getting their posts reported.
You cannot attack an entire group of people.
Sure you can, because this kind of behavior is entirely typical of the gaming community. Things like "FPS player screaming racist abuse for an entire match" or "I play games, but I'm not one of those unwashed TFGs you see at the local store" are cliches for a reason. The fact that some gamers are decent people does not negate the fact that the community as a whole has problems.
Also, if you feel attacked then you should consider why you feel attacked. I don't feel attacked by this because I know I'm not guilty of the things that are being criticized.
Mechanical Crow wrote: Right back at you. You're defending fraud, rape, racketeering, corruption, conflicts of interest, unethical practices, mass censorship, and the pushing of the agenda that would stagnate art and police thought under the misguided guise of what? White Knighting third wave feminism? You're backing something that looks more like a misandry movement and resembles a hate group with the same built in fallacies and selection bias's rather then a group interested in equality.
...
So you managed to find something to quote, but you somehow failed to read just a few lines up in the same post where I said this:
I don't think you understand something very important here: it is possible for both sides to be wrong. Pointing out the problems with how someone is being treated does NOT mean defending everything that they have done. It is entirely possible for someone to be both a victim of misogynistic attitudes and a corrupt .
Also, I'll note that you pulled that quote out of my objection to an argument about how women are presented in video games, not any of the journalism issues or how people are being treated. The dishonesty of that move is just amazing.
Asherian Command wrote: ? Good question. Also those twitter pages. I have promptly reported ^.^
You: DEATH THREATS ARE A LIE
Them: Look, here's some death threats.
You: *reports post*
You: LOOK, NO DEATH THREATS!!!!
If you want to have a constructive discussion of the subject then it is going to involve posting offensive twitter statements as evidence. If you want to keep those messages out of the discussion then you need to do the honest thing and drop the "death threats were fake" argument since nobody can respond to it effectively without getting their posts reported.
You cannot attack an entire group of people.
Sure you can, because this kind of behavior is entirely typical of the gaming community. Things like "FPS player screaming racist abuse for an entire match" or "I play games, but I'm not one of those unwashed TFGs you see at the local store" are cliches for a reason. The fact that some gamers are decent people does not negate the fact that the community as a whole has problems.
Also, if you feel attacked then you should consider why you feel attacked. I don't feel attacked by this because I know I'm not guilty of the things that are being criticized.
Peregrine. What the hell is the matter with you. I reported those posts to silence and help this woman. Not because I want to hide them.
Leave this thread because you just suggested I condone harassment. I will not have someone insult me in such a way!
Asherian Command wrote: Leave this thread because you just suggested I condone harassment. I will not have someone insult me in such a way!
I suggested no such thing. I accused you of suppressing evidence that disagrees with your position, not condoning harassment. Perhaps you should take a step back and think about what everyone is saying? Because right now it looks like you're feeling like you're under siege as a self-defined "gamer", and lashing out emotionally at everything that looks like the "enemy".
Kilkrazy wrote: If games journalists are using attacks on Sarkeesian to hold up a shield of misogynism that defends against other alleged shenanigans, would it not be rather clever to stop attacking Sarkeesian, thus depriving these journalists of their shield?
This would also have the benefit of not seeming to be misogynist.
The problem with that...is that Gamers are not a hive mind.
There are genuine critics who disagree with Anita's views and "research methods" (guffaw) and try to challenge them in a respectful reasonable way (Mundane Matt, etc).
And then there are other people who genuinely are misogynists who hate women*, who send abusive messages and death threats, or people who simply aren't articulate enough to express their disagreement with her views in a reasonable way.
Guess which of the two groups Anita, Zoe Quinn and the mainstream media love to focus on, and which group they ignore?
*Misogyny gets thrown around a lot these days when it really shouldn't...You can be sexist, without being misogynist. Misogyny requires active hatred of women.
This is a culture war. The right side is winning, at great cost. At great personal costs to people like Anita Sarkeesian, Leigh Alexander, Zoe Quinn and even Jennifer Lawrence, and countless others who are on the frontlines of creating new worlds for women, for girls, for everyone who believes that stories matter and there are too many still untold. We are winning. We are winning because we are more resourceful, more compassionate, more culturally aware. We’re winning because we know what it’s like to fight through adversity, through shame and pain and constant reminders of our own worthlessness, and come up punching. We know we’re winning because the terrified rage of a million mouthbreathing manchild misogynists is thick as nerve gas in the air right now.
Us Social Justice Warriors – this is me, stealing that word in order to use it against my enemies- are winning the culture war by tearing up the rulebook, and there’s nothing the sad, mad little boys who hate women and queers and people of colour can do about it. Nothing, at least, that doesn’t sabotage their strategy, because they can win their game from day to day, but they’re losing the war. They can punish me for writing this, and I’m sure they will, but that will only prove my point. I’m not afraid anymore.
Every time they make an example of one of us, ten more stand up in outrage to hold her up or take her place.
We are stronger, smarter and more numerous than anyone imagined, and we are not to be fethed with.
Okay.
This is where I draw the line. You can make a point.
But to decry millions of people as man children. is a gross exaggeration. Antia, Game’s Media please listen to these words.
Please. Do. Not. Generalize.
Do not lump a bunch of people under a single group. This makes your argument fall at it’s seems. Where all this idea of an unified gaming community is thrown against the wall because your argument is false. Vile like this is why people are hating your movement. This is not what gaming is for. It is the most accepting community I have ever seen. Where you could be a social outcast, and come onto a game of halo or warcraft 3, or starcraft or any online game, and people would support you.
Lets ignore the fact that 4chan does stupid gak. Do you know how much good they do? Do you know how many gamers donate to charities? Do you know of the multidudes of women in gaming?
Representation admittedly in gaming is a problem. And it has been for a while. And I go all for that. But calling us man-children and cry babies, mouthbreathing Misogynists…. Is one of the worst things you can say to us. I am insulted by these very words. I am not a Misogynist. I am an asexual egalitarian. What the hell… I am as far left as you can go. I am a socialist reformist communist egalitarian kantian! So please enlighten me as to why I hate women!
You know lets ignore #notyourshield. Or the hundreds of thousands of people are defending gaming, lets ignore those women, the minorities. Lets just go with the smaller minority. White men. Guess who makes up 48% of the gamer population? Women. That makes up 52% are male. Using mathematics, where the majority of the worlds population is infact, Asian lets also count it up and use the rough estimation of lets say 20% is the representation of the white men dominance. Thats not alot.
STop attacking gaming and calling us names, that is not getting you anywhere. That only proves your insecurities as a human being and that you are just a child who can’t argue a point.
You say these things but they are just words that are trying to use to attack people who criticize you.
This movement Gamergate is about the corruption of the media, this idea that we want transparency in the media. We want games to continue to be art, but we want an equal representation of the ideals of gamers by the games media.
So far we have seen articles about how gamers are dead. Do you really think that would assist you? By calling and generalizing gamers and calling us misgoynist or worse than ISIS? Or calling us terrorists?
Do you really think insults helps your cause?
There might be bad eggs in this movement but that happens in every movement that has happened. Either they be for peace, gay marriage, or hell for a cookie drive to raise money for homeless people. There always be a minority who’s goal is to hurt other people.
It happens. At the end of the day we are human beings. And I suggest you start treating us all like one. And we will treat you like we have been treating you, like a human being. I am speaking for gamers, designers, and everyone.
Do no dictate what an artist can and cannot do. That is wrong. Its like censoring the great roman statues of goddesses because they showed breasts. And somehow that is demeaning. ITs the human body, is that demeaning? No. Its not. The representation of women is a problem where they are shown to be weak.
That is a major issue.
And I leave it at that.
Sure you can, because this kind of behavior is entirely typical of the gaming community. Things like "FPS player screaming racist abuse for an entire match" or "I play games, but I'm not one of those unwashed TFGs you see at the local store" are cliches for a reason. The fact that some gamers are decent people does not negate the fact that the community as a whole has problems.
Also, if you feel attacked then you should consider why you feel attacked. I don't feel attacked by this because I know I'm not guilty of the things that are being criticized.
I have no idea who you have been playing with but that is not my experience. There are some bad apples. But Toxicity in the environment is actually not that common. You are completely false. Extra Credits actually did an episode on this quite a while ago and found it to be opposite.
There are certain posters who will seek to provoke vitriol to get the thread closed, just like previous threads. Don't feed the trolls*, don't p*** off the mods.
There are certain posters who will seek to provoke vitriol to get the thread closed, just like previous threads. Don't feed the trolls*, don't p*** off the mods.
(*And no, I don't mean you Peregrine).
Will do.
But I will discuss the issue further, but I will not take insults.
AdeptSister wrote: Um, I watched Extra Credits, and they agreed that Toxicity was a rampant issue. That is why they talked about it.
But on gaming journalist corruption, I remember the Gamespot Kane and Lynch fiasco. Ugh.
Question: How did movie criticism become more independent? How can gaming follow it's example?
Well they need to do what siskel and ebert did. They are invited to watch movies and openly criticize the movies.
A great way to do this is to have so that the company or journalist group is paid by the movie to review it, but it necessarily it doesn't have to be an inspiring piece that bows down before the publisher and their money so they can get money from it.
There is a certain episode where james talks about how most people on Xbox live turn off their microphones nowadays. There is less toxicity in games because people downright ignore those people. That minority list is getting smaller and smaller, but there is still the vocal community who hate change and yadayada.
Wasn't the term 'gamer' originally a marketing term used to remove the stigma of sitting inside all day playing video games? Seems odd to me that people self-identify as such.
OldSkoolGoff wrote: Wasn't the term 'gamer' originally a marketing term used to remove the stigma of sitting inside all day playing video games? Seems odd to me that people self-identify as such.
Its because people like the term.
I mean I call certain people that like certain things by the stigma name. But i don't see it is bad thing to self identify as a gamer.
It means you belong to the community.
If people attack that stigma I am not going to redefine myself because of that criticism unless it is very well much needed. (like if all of a sudden a bunch of gamers in the name of gamers attacked and killed everyone at EA, I would distance myself and rename myself as something else.)
AdeptSister wrote: Question: How did movie criticism become more independent?
IMO it has to do with who has the power in each situation. And there seem to be two main differences:
1) Movie reviews are based heavily in "traditional" media, where there's a much smaller number of options in a given area. If you live in an average city you might have one, maybe two newspapers to choose from. This gives the newspaper a lot of power to maintain its independence since the movie industry can't simply go elsewhere to get their marketing. Game reviews, especially now, tend to be online where there's a huge diversity of sources. If one reviewer doesn't want to cooperate and give favorable reviews a game company can always find someone else who will.
2) Movie reviews are rarely an entire business. A newspaper that does a page of movie reviews once a week has very little to lose by dropping them, since the main thing that sells their product is the rest of the news. Game reviewers, on the other hand, tend to be purely focused on gaming and losing the cooperation of the game publishers would be a death sentence for their business. A side effect of this is that the newspaper has more of a reputation to protect. Publishing corrupt movie reviews would reflect badly on the rest of the paper, and it's not worth taking that risk for a minor side business.
So the end result is that you have a very different balance of power:
A newspaper has lots of power over the movie industry. The movie industry wants to get their product advertised, but the newspaper doesn't really care. So if the movie industry says "write a good review or we'll take away your early access to our movies" the newspaper can easily respond with "ok, fine, we're not reviewing your product anymore" and the movie industry will suffer much more of a loss than the newspaper. So the movie industry just has to accept that bad reviews are just part of doing business.
A game reviewer has very little power over the game industry. The game industry has lots of options to get its reviews and publicity, while the reviewer depends on having the game industry cooperate with them and give them early access to their products. If the game industry says "give us a good review or your early access is gone" the reviewer can either agree or go out of business. And so it's almost guaranteed that even mediocre games will get favorable reviews.
How can gaming follow it's example?
By deciding to publish accurate reviews. But that's not the interesting question. The "how" is easy, the hard part is the "why". Right now there's an arrangement that benefits both the reviewers and the industry, and neither side has any incentive to change. The only way anything will ever change is if they lose too many customers (or clicks and ad revenue) and they're forced to change. But given the fact that reviews have been known to be corrupt for years/decades and every outrage-generating incident has been quickly forgotten I don't think we're going to see any real change. Take away the arguments over misogyny and this incident would probably have been forgotten within a week and we'd be right back to business as usual.
Peregrine. What the hell is the matter with you. I reported those posts to silence and help this woman. Not because I want to hide them.
Leave this thread because you just suggested I condone harassment. I will not have someone insult me in such a way!
While I don't think anyone should be leaving this thread because eh, censorship, there are obviously quite a few people in here I wouldn't bother replying to either because a) they're trolly, b) they just want to provoke arguments or c) their minds are made up and they have very circular logic. P-------- and H----- are 2 very obvious examples.
Also, twitter is funny because it seems to attract the lowest of the low and yet does nothing about them. I mean, apparently ISIS has members who actively tweet on twitter and nothing seems to be done about their accounts. Wth
I have gotten death threats too and I'm just some random person who kills whatever that happens to pop in front of my gun/dildo.
Both Anita and Zoe deceit others, lie and are corrupted pos so I don't see why people are surpriced that these people garner some hate? Nothing of value would be lost if these people died after eating all that gak.
illuknisaa wrote: Both Anita and Zoe deceit others, lie and corrupted pos so I don't see why people are surpriced that these people garner some hate? Nothing of value would be lost if these people died after eating all that gak.
I have gotten death threats too and I'm just some random person who kills whatever that happens to pop in front of my gun/dildo.
Both Anita and Zoe deceit others, lie and corrupted pos so I don't see why people are surpriced that these people garner some hate? Nothing of value would be lost if these people died after eating all that gak.
My question is this - since it's apparently the done thing to dismiss the entire gamergate thing because death threats have happened... where is that tipping point?
If one person in an ill defined group such as 'gamers' makes a death threat, I think we can all reasonably assume that his views aren't representative and thus that individual can be written off.
If every single person in a group makes a death threat, then we can all reasonably assume that that opinion is representative.
So where in the middle is the point at which you can just say "Nah, anything you say is bad and wrong because you guys are monsters, so I'm not even listening."
I personally don't think that the pro gamer side of this has gone anywhere near that. There's vitriol, but this is the internet - there is always going to be vitriol so long as people can spew it anonymously. I mean, just look how many people are complete A-Holes in person.
And it's not like the anti-gamer side has been a bastion of calm, polite commentary. Every reasonable individual involved has been against threatening people with violence or wishing them personal harm. So why can the anti gamer crowd not see past that at all? It seems pretty clear that many of them don't want to see past it and actually seriously debate with anyone. Meanwhile you have to admit that at least some of the pro gamer folks are at least trying to start some sort of dialogue, free of threats and whatever. And they are ignored, baited or dismissed.
I'm not going to flippantly say "both sides are wrong so call it a wash" as Peregrine has, because both sides have done things that are wrong, but the goals of the anti gamer side will be met with the fullness of time - more women will be involved in the industry, more games will be made to suit them and so on. It's a process that has been happening and will continue to happen, even if no one forces it. On the other hand, games media have not been growing more honest. Many of them just seem confused that people have a problem with their way of doing business, which to many average folks bears a striking similarity to fraud and corruption. To them it's the status quo. Not to mention that I am sure half of them just see their friends getting crapped on and hit back, even if they themselves may have never done anything seriously skeevy.
I'd like to see a nicer online community, where threats aren't a thing. We all would. But we aren't going to get there by trying to out-ahole the a-holes you disagree with.
Bromsy wrote: My question is this - since it's apparently the done thing to dismiss the entire gamergate thing because death threats have happened... where is that tipping point?
If one person in an ill defined group such as 'gamers' makes a death threat, I think we can all reasonably assume that his views aren't representative and thus that individual can be written off. If every single person in a group makes a death threat, then we can all reasonably assume that that opinion is representative.
So where in the middle is the point at which you can just say "Nah, anything you say is bad and wrong because you guys are monsters, so I'm not even listening."
I personally don't think that the pro gamer side of this has gone anywhere near that. There's vitriol, but this is the internet - there is always going to be vitriol so long as people can spew it anonymously. I mean, just look how many people are complete A-Holes in person. And it's not like the anti-gamer side has been a bastion of calm, polite commentary. Every reasonable individual involved has been against threatening people with violence or wishing them personal harm. So why can the anti gamer crowd not see past that at all? It seems pretty clear that many of them don't want to see past it and actually seriously debate with anyone. Meanwhile you have to admit that at least some of the pro gamer folks are at least trying to start some sort of dialogue, free of threats and whatever. And they are ignored, baited or dismissed.
I'm not going to flippantly say "both sides are wrong so call it a wash" as Peregrine has, because both sides have done things that are wrong, but the goals of the anti gamer side will be met with the fullness of time - more women will be involved in the industry, more games will be made to suit them and so on. It's a process that has been happening and will continue to happen, even if no one forces it. On the other hand, games media have not been growing more honest. Many of them just seem confused that people have a problem with their way of doing business, which to many average folks bears a striking similarity to fraud and corruption. To them it's the status quo. Not to mention that I am sure half of them just see their friends getting crapped on and hit back, even if they themselves may have never done anything seriously skeevy.
I'd like to see a nicer online community, where threats aren't a thing. We all would. But we aren't going to get there by trying to out-ahole the a-holes you disagree with.
I agree. I think that has been my argument the entire time.
Both sides have problems.
But the minority does not represent the majority.
I think there are lots of points that have been brought up by the gamer gate issue. It is still in use and the use of it has grown exponentially.
Also a timeline if anyone is interested ( Taken from reddit)
PREVIOUSLY I.E. HISTORICAL / RELEVANT INFORMATION Zoe Quinn helps create a Startup, Dames Make Games in Toronto Zoe Quinn Creates Depression Quest in 2012, using Twine, with Patrick Lindsey (Writing/Editing) and Isaac Shankler (music) Word of mouth comments on metafilter, 4chan’s /r9k/, and /r/IndieGaming about the game Depression Quest on Launch, February 14th, 2013. limited attention is received. Zoe Attends Indiecade Nightgames festival with Depression Quest Zoe Quinn Decides to pull Depression Quest from Steam Greenlight Program after receiving harassment, threats and attacks, pointing to Wizardchan. December 13th 2013. Allegations against Wizardchan are debunked, Collected 'dox' phone and addresses are proven to be false. 2 weeks after removing the game, Resubmits into Greenlight Program to be approved on January 7th 2014 Yasmeena “Maya” Felix Kramer, who works as SilverString Media’s PR, attacks TheFineYoungCapitalist's (TFYC) site, obtains and posts information about the organisers of the competition, while in contact with Zoe Quinn on facebook. Zoe Breaks up with Eron Gjoni, though the breakup is perturbed by Zoe’s disclosed Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) with evident depressive and suicidal, and manipulative episodes throughout the post. Depression Quest is approved, just after news of Robin Willam's suicide, Zoe Debates if she should release the game on twitter and Tumblr posts. Asks for donations to go to iFred as acknowledgement. Depression Quest is released on Steam. ZOEPOST Eron Gjoni 's breakup post with Zoe Quinn Other Forums pick up Eron’s post . The “internet hate machine” taking notice of Zoe Quinn again. timeline here Matt / SillySladar of The Fine Young Capitalists comments in a reddit post (thread since deleted) that his site has been DDOS attacked and ‘doxxed’ by Zoe Quinn (Maya Kramer) over libellous comments she made and misunderstood about the competition in March this year. In the same thread, people from Wizardchan had collected logs of chat at the time that Zoe Quinn accused them of harassing her. A youtube DMCA takedown of a Video repost of Eron’s post by MundaneMatt, coming from 'zoe quinn' TotalBiscuit replying to the use of the DMCA to take down video content. Several (9) Forums having threads and posts censored. The most prolific being reddit, which is still banning users based on keywords in the Games and Gaming subreddits. THEN (EVENTS OF THE 19TH AUGUST TO 30TH AUGUST), Calls to blogs, games news sites and others for coverage Phil Fish starts to abuse people on twitter, cancels Fez 2, Projects Polytron Dropbox is hacked, business files are stolen Phil Fish abuses person that accuses Zoe Quinn of abusing him at Phil Fish’s wedding on twitter, abuses TotalBiscuit Phil Fish announces closing and sale of Polytron Stephen Totillo of Kotaku debunks claim of Nathan Grayson writing about Zoe Quinn after relationship. Does not seem to be aware that the window of time is 1 day from the article being posted, to the relationship starting. Lordkat, JonTron discuss the issue on their games video blog sites. Donations to TFYC reach the point where they can choose an avatar, Vivian James is selected by /v/. Eron Gjoni posts AMA on reddit /r/Drama. replies regarding Zoe Quinn, Maya Kramer are brought up. Anita Sarkeesian releases 7th video in kickstarter funded Tropes of Women in Video Games series, on Hitman Absolution. Joss Whedon tweets to femfreq / Anita Sarkeesian giving his support Adam Baldwin tweets a video link, starting #GamerGate Patreon Account of Zoe Quinn, gains over 500 supporters. TFYC IndieGoGo site is hacked, closed, and then reopened. JonTron replies to TimSchafer saying he didn’t like the message of Anita Sarkeesian’s video, is attacked by Tim Schafer of DoubleFine, Appears on co-optional podcast later that day. #IStandwithJonTron tag is hijacked on twitter, allegedly organised on SomethingAwful forums. Anita Sarkeesian receives Death threats via twitter, Asks for donations to FemFreq. forced to leave home for safety. Zoe Quinn responds to Adam Baldwin on twitter. Patricia Hernandez of kotaku revises her articles disclosing relationship with the game developer she had a relationship with, according to their new policy. 14 Similar Stories about misogynistic gamers appear on multiple sites on the same day. Games news sites start to comment on Gamer Culture / Reactions Various Petitions come out ‘For’ gamers, ‘For’ women, ‘For’ ethical Standards. Ex staff member of Silverstring talks about Maya Felix Kramer’s behavior on Eron's AMA Zoe Quinn, Maya Kramer Attend PAX Prime PAX discussion comes under fire when people talk about bloggers in the panel instead of journalists or press. September Other tags appear, #NotAllWomen and #NotYourShield. Donations start to come in to the TheFineYoungCapitalists Developer program, including $6000+ from 4chan, to create Vivian James (Vidya Games), A caricature female gamer or Moe Chan / gijinka (ie a ‘cute’ anthropomorphism/mascot, e.g. OS-tan). Christina Hoff Summers, of AEI talks publicly for gamers, links to breitbart article & the economist, is called out by Adam Weinstein of Gawker. Jayd3Fox produces a mock video "Professional Victims vs Gaming Communites", is harassed online. TheFineYoungCapitalists discuss a truce with Zoe Quinn and Silverstring Media, who represent Zoe Quinn about the TFYC program, the agreement falls through. Allegations of the IGF chairman Brandon Boyer and judges for the IGF competition, being friends with and linked to SilverString Media when Zoe Quinn’s ‘Depression Quest’ and ‘Papers, Please’ won awards. IGF discusses the judging process 3 days later in response to questions about how the process works. Zoe Quinn Posts IRC logs of 4chan, declares #GameOverGate with storify link of Alleged harassment and organisation. a new hastag #GamerGateau about game themed cakes. Allegations of racketeering and Indiecade/IGF awards for Fez/Polytron funding Chris Grant of Polygon, admits to blocking 1800 twitter users from his twitter feed, including other journalists. Then removes the list within hours. Storify content is debunked by MundaneMatt and others as disingenuous and implausible, showing out of context screenshots. Examiner article notes that Tyler Malka (NeoGAF) supports the hashtag #GameEthics, to be a spillover from #GamerGate, proposed to remove '4chan involvement' from issues of integrity and independence in games journalism, with limited success. Tyler Malka, Owner of NeoGAF then proceeds to abuse someone on twitter the same day. #writeakotakuarticle hashtag is started. Nathan Grayson interview with Blizzard goes off track discussing women in their MoBA game, Gets pulled into #gamergate discussion in social media. Zoe Quinn links to an article on wikipediocracy, where they discusss people editing Zoe Quinn’s Wikipedia page, the article names all of the editors individually, citing photos, discussion of the editor’s reddit posting history, analysing their posting history, including the discussion of a transgender minor, and the high school they attend. Zoe Quinn seeks to mediate discussion using a new tag, #OpenTheGates, with limited success. TFYC IndieGoGo is fully financed at $65,000 Vivian James Platformer Prototype is created and playable online. TheNerdist releases a video about GamerGate, gets called out by MundaneMatt. Journalists investigate Anita Sarkeesian’s police report, assumptions are that it's missing due to the FBI being involved from a former photoshopped CP used in earlier online harassment. Jennifer Hale (voice actor for Bioware, Mass Effect & ~300 Games/TV Shows) talks about this issue on Marketplace Tech Report on ‘Internet Slowdown Day’ for Net Neutrality awareness. zoe responds in /r/SRSGaming thread about hearing this interview. Joe Rogan wants to interview Adam Baldwin on their podcast.
Hard to take those threats seriously imo. Anyone who has ever played CoD could claim to have been subject to the same stuff. The number of times I've been called the N word and threatened with rape. Of course I laughed it off because I'm not an absolute muppet.
OldSkoolGoff wrote: Hard to take those threats seriously imo. Anyone who has ever played CoD could claim to have been subject to the same stuff. The number of times I've been called the N word and threatened with rape. Of course I laughed it off because I'm not an absolute muppet.
Agreed to a certain extent but still, it is stupid to do.
But the things they say are terrible.
But that is a known issue, that is not a surprise on the internet.
Julian Assange was on Reddit. A comment from a shadowbanned user (ShaskaOtselot) went through somehow asking his opinion on Gamergate, Julian answered, someone pointed out the user had been banned. . .
Awkward thing to happen in front of an anti-censorship advocate.
Sining wrote:I don't think most people should be getting death threats period.
Neither do I but if we made a list of "100 thing that should be changed" I doubt ""death""threaths" would even make the cut.
Peregrine wrote:
illuknisaa wrote: Both Anita and Zoe deceit others, lie and corrupted pos so I don't see why people are surpriced that these people garner some hate? Nothing of value would be lost if these people died after eating all that gak.
Julian Assange was on Reddit. A comment from a shadowbanned user (ShaskaOtselot) went through somehow asking his opinion on Gamergate, Julian answered, someone pointed out the user had been banned. . .
Awkward thing to happen in front of an anti-censorship advocate.
The person was banned before that comment was made. He was shadow banned for a good reason. Though the peeps at reddit allowed him to come back ask her a question.
It was actually a good thing the mods allowed him to comment on the thread.
.
.
