Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Edit: Nope, not walking into this trap again.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Ocam's Razor. It is far more likely, given Hybrid's track record with "jokes" and "humour", that Hybrid is simply unaware of how Dakka's word filter works.

Jokes? What are those?
I know how the filter works: it gets you banned if you do misspell, intentionally or not, any of the filtered word, that is how it works .
But yeah, since I do not usually use this word, I did not know that witch was censored as witch. Which is a weird insult to use, and a weird replacement too. Because if anyone used the literal sense of the original word, the result will sound… very strange.
Apparently, the male equivalent dick is not censored, and I blame Richard for that.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
However, unless I've missed it, she hasn't clarified her article since publishing it. Which would be nice considering an argument can be made about its intent in either direction.

At the same time, can you blame her for just wanting to drop it because at this point, she doesn't see continued talk about as improving anything with much of anyone?

... which is kind of why gamergate is doing more harm than good to ethics in game journalism right now.

 Melissia wrote:
... which is kind of why gamergate is doing more harm than good to ethics in game journalism right now.

Why “right now”? Was it ever different?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
... which is kind of why gamergate is doing more harm than good to ethics in game journalism right now.

Why “right now”?

Because I'm trying to assume good faith in this discussion.

 Melissia wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
... which is kind of why gamergate is doing more harm than good to ethics in game journalism right now.

Why “right now”?

Because I'm trying to assume good faith in this discussion.

For once, you've surprised me.

 Melissia wrote:
At the same time, can you blame her for just wanting to drop it because at this point, she doesn't see continued talk about as improving anything with much of anyone?

... which is kind of why gamergate is doing more harm than good to ethics in game journalism right now.

Yeah, I've suspected that myself and do have some sympathy for her, but the problem is we're left with an article where we can't agree on the meaning of. Which is fair enough.

I don't see how GG is harming ethics in game journalism, a lot of undisclosed conflicts of interest have turned up, and pretending they don't exist won't make them go away. If this leads to actual disclosing of conflicts of interest in future, as seems to be happening, I'll be a happy camper. Too many game journalists are acting like children with lightsabers.

It also looks like this has become a thread about Bayonetta

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
I don't see how GG is harming ethics in game journalism, ...

Because #GG is all about them soggy knees.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
I don't see how GG is harming ethics in game journalism

By attacking any game journalist that says something they don't like, no matter how unrelated to ethics that thing is, thus causing game journalists to become less responsive and less likely to listen to input to begin with.

This is something that's actually happened, unfortunately-- I'm not assuming you personally did it, only that a substantial number of very loud people did it, in #gamergate's name. Which is why so many people are distancing themselves from the movement.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
It also looks like this has become a thread about Bayonetta

 Melissia wrote:

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
I don't see how GG is harming ethics in game journalism

By attacking any game journalist that says something they don't like, no matter how unrelated to ethics that thing is, thus causing game journalists to become less responsive and less likely to listen to input to begin with.

Really? I wasn't aware they ever listened to input to begin with.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Really? I wasn't aware they ever listened to input to begin with.

And that is part of the problem, I believe.

The vitriol of the internet leaves people less and less willing to listen to any random person.

Thus my statement of how gamergate is only doing more harm, by adding more vitrol to a system already chock full of it.

I don't know, I think a lot of GG/antiGG is arguing at cross purposes.

GG wants professional standards from games journalists, with a small section wanting women out of gaming. I won't argue there isn't. Every movement has its witches.

AntiGG wants (I think) better standards in online multiplayer conduct, and. . . stuff?

So this will never end, because both sides are arguing about different things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
It also looks like this has become a thread about Bayonetta

Bayonetta is a witch, or sorcière (thanks google translate!)

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
GG wants professional standards from games journalists, with a small section wanting women out of gaming.

Unfortunately, the most noticeable and loudest portion are the latter, and we may be in disagreement on just how big that section actually is.

And for the former, I haven't seen a real agreement over what exactly "professional standards" actually are. Because a lot of gamergaters get upset when someone IS professional and looks critically at a game they love-- which is antithetical to professional standards in video game journalism. In actual journalism, you need people to be critical of things, even things you love.

ESPECIALLY things you love.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
AntiGG wants (I think) better standards in online multiplayer conduct, and. . . stuff?

I think most of them would like the harassment to stop. Both in game and out of game. Especially the rape threats and sexual harassment delivered towards women gamers and women game journalists.

Unfortunately, again, many people who are part of the #gamergate movement see those two things as valid tools to get what they want, even though both of them are antithetical to their supposed purpose.

On the subject of harassment...

" SJW's " have apparently doxxed a female blogger and got her fired from her job with Pleb Comics by sending her "pornographic emails".

http://abbysucks.tumblr.com/post/104685167595/raydelblau-abbysucks-thanks-tumblr-for



The "SJW" side is every bit as vitriolic as GamerGate supposedly is.


Quoted the blog post below so certain people don't have the excuse of ignoring it because they refuse to watch Youtube videos.






Charming...

 Melissia wrote:
And for the former, I haven't seen a real agreement over what exactly "professional standards" actually are. Because a lot of gamergaters get upset when someone IS professional and looks critically at a game they love-- which is antithetical to professional standards in video game journalism. In actual journalism, you need people to be critical of things, even things you love.

A number of GG agree on the journalistic standards set out by the SPJ code of Ethics:

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

I'm mainly concerned about Conflicts of Interest, particularly Patreon. A reviewer getting paid by the reviewee should set off alarm bells, and these keep coming up. I don't mind if a reviewer or journo doesn't like what I like, but I might be in the minority on that one.

I think most of them would like the harassment to stop. Both in game and out of game. Especially the rape threats and sexual harassment delivered towards women gamers and women game journalists.

Unfortunately GG and anti-GG of both genders are both being harassed to blazes. Too many people are passionate about their cross purposes.

It might be naïve, but I'm hopeful that positive things will come out of it all.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
SJW's

A nebulous term that, at this point, is devoid of any real meaning. The presence of the term in a person's post often indicates that the discussion is devolving in to something not worth reading to begin with.

It's unfortunate what happened to her, and I think that the people who did that shouldn't get away with it. But I also dispute your assertion that "both sides are just as bad", that is an unproven assertion. Centrism for centrism's sake is not in and of itself anything resembling wisdom.

And I also assert that claiming, without any evidence, that "both sides are just as bad" is a very big part of the reason why people CAN get away with things like this, because it is an inherently dismissive claim, a claim that makes it appear as if the speaker thinks there is no solution because everyone does it.

At this point it seems like GG is all about defending GG. Anti-GG seems to just hate GG or gamers. Honestly some times it hard to tell which with some comments.

In theory this could be considered off topic, but realistically this is all about the same topic.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
I'm mainly concerned about Conflicts of Interest, particularly Patreon. A reviewer getting paid by the reviewee should set off alarm bells, and these keep coming up.
I don't mind if a reviewer or journo doesn't like what I like, but I might be in the minority on that one.

Unfortunately, this is not really a thing that is discussed amongst gamergate very often. More often, they are upset that game reviewers say anything remotely resembling feminism, and that is the core of what the movement's backlash has targeted thus far.

I believe strongly that you can't have professional game journalism without having space for feminist or racial minority critiques of video games. And, throughout the entirety of its history from its sordid beginnings, gamergate as a general whole has set out to attack and eliminate that space. And equally unfortunately, that's been the core of what it has accomplished, as well.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
Unfortunately GG and anti-GG of both genders are both being harassed to blazes.

Yes, but it's not in equal amounts. Gamergate was a movement formed around sexual harassment towards women; whether or not you think it has redeemed itself of that, its members do a massive amount of it, and it is heavily documented. It has been the norm, for the movement, not the exception.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
It might be naïve, but I'm hopeful that positive things will come out of it all.

I don't see anything good coming out of it.

 Melissia wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
SJW's

A nebulous term that, at this point, is devoid of any real meaning.

Sounds a lot like how you and others refer to GamerGate.

"Someone said something nasty to a Feminist, despite not identifying themself as GamerGate? MUST BE GAMERGATE.

The presence of the term in a person's post often indicates that the discussion is devolving in to something not worth reading to begin with.

I meant to insert quote "marks" round it. "SJW " because thats how the author of the video (MundaneMatt) addressed them as. Which you can see I did later on in the comment. (The "SJW" side).

Also, your habit of nit picking a single term of phrase in a post and then saying "You said X! Ergo all your opinions are stupid and not worth reading!" is getting old and quite irritating, frankly.

It's unfortunate what happened to her, and I think that the people who did that shouldn't get away with it.

Oh how magnanimous of you. Do you remember what Zoe Quinn did to The Fine Young Capitalists? Would you say that she got away with it?

Besides, this is what the vast majority of GamerGate says whenever someone is harassed, but you always ignore it. Some members of the movement even attempt to police themselves by calling out harassment.

But I also dispute your assertion that "both sides are just as bad", that is an unproven assertion.

I dispute your assertion that the vocal minority of trolls who label themselves "GamerGate" are anywhere near as large as you claim it is. That too is an unproven assertion.

Centrism for centrism's sake is not in and of itself anything resembling wisdom.

Good thing I'm not pretending to be a Centrist then.

The "SJW" side is every bit as vitriolic as GamerGate supposedly is.

And I also assert that claiming, without any evidence,

Huh. Perhaps you should look in a mirror on occasion?

that "both sides are just as bad" is a very big part of the reason why people CAN get away with things like this, because it is an inherently dismissive claim,

But people DO get away it. Zoe Quinn got away with sabotaging The Fine Young Capitalists. Jim Sterling gets away with using sexist, misogynistic language as insults when he abuses his critics. Anita Sarkeesian gets away with lying about the games she covers. Journalists get away with labeling gamers ""worse than ISIS". Developers get away with denying games and crowd funding benefits to their backers if they're part of GamerGate.

a claim that makes it appear as if the speaker thinks there is no solution because everyone does it.

But I DO think there is a solution. Stop injecting social justice politics into video games and fighting gender wars that are only divisive. Stop these Feminist witch hunts. The video gaming industry is already changing, naturally and organically, to respond to market pressures as demographics change with ever more women becoming gamers.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
And for the former, I haven't seen a real agreement over what exactly "professional standards" actually are. Because a lot of gamergaters get upset when someone IS professional and looks critically at a game they love-- which is antithetical to professional standards in video game journalism. In actual journalism, you need people to be critical of things, even things you love.

A number of GG agree on the journalistic standards set out by the SPJ code of Ethics:

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

I'm mainly concerned about Conflicts of Interest, particularly Patreon. A reviewer getting paid by the reviewee should set off alarm bells, and these keep coming up. I don't mind if a reviewer or journo doesn't like what I like, but I might be in the minority on that one.

I think most of them would like the harassment to stop. Both in game and out of game. Especially the rape threats and sexual harassment delivered towards women gamers and women game journalists.

Unfortunately GG and anti-GG of both genders are both being harassed to blazes. Too many people are passionate about their cross purposes.

It might be naïve, but I'm hopeful that positive things will come out of it all.

Honestly I liked the SPJ code standards. Nice to see Escapist work on it a bit. That aside, honestly, it's a bit unrelated, but I really think that if metacritic scores at large went down the industry would be far better. Not only does it not cheat people out of money (Obsidian) but it'd probably kill a lot of the flip outs when it comes to customers becoming upset with a specific score that a game gets.

 Melissia wrote:

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
I'm mainly concerned about Conflicts of Interest, particularly Patreon. A reviewer getting paid by the reviewee should set off alarm bells, and these keep coming up.
I don't mind if a reviewer or journo doesn't like what I like, but I might be in the minority on that one.

Unfortunately, this is not really a thing that is discussed amongst gamergate very often. More often, they are upset that game reviewers say anything remotely resembling feminism, and that is the core of what the movement's backlash has targeted thus far.

I believe strongly that you can't have professional game journalism without having space for feminist or racial minority critiques of video games. And, throughout the entirety of its history from its sordid beginnings, gamergate as a general whole has set out to attack and eliminate that space. And equally unfortunately, that's been the core of what it has accomplished, as well.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Stop injecting social justice politics into video games and fighting gender wars that are only divisive. Stop these Feminist witch hunts.

Flame baiting is not welcome, motyak

Arguing that things are fine the way they are and that nothing should change isn't avoiding politics, it's advocating politics.

Regardless, games have always been political. Sometimes unintentionally so, sometimes quite intentionally so. Refusing to talk about it doesn't really make it go away, and being angry at those who talk about it doesn't make it go away, either.

 Melissia wrote:
Arguing that things are fine the way they are and that nothing should change isn't avoiding politics, it's advocating politics.

Regardless, games have always been political. Sometimes unintentionally so, sometimes quite intentionally so. Refusing to talk about it doesn't really make it go away, and being angry at those who talk about it doesn't make it go away, either.

No, I'm angry when those talking about those political issues employ double standards, lie, and engage in witch hunts that cost people - women no less - their jobs.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
No, I'm angry when those talking about those political issues employ double standards, lie, and engage in witch hunts that cost people - women no less - their jobs.

Gamergate is massively political, and has done exactly that. Yet you have shown no anger towards gamergate.

Perhaps you should be angry at yourself, for advocating politics yet engaging in double standards while doing so. Because... you are.

I must say, watching this argument, with no particular leaning either way, has been kind of interesting.

 Melissia wrote:
I believe strongly that you can't have professional game journalism without having space for feminist or racial minority critiques of video games. And, throughout the entirety of its history from its sordid beginnings, gamergate as a general whole has set out to attack and eliminate that space. And equally unfortunately, that's been the core of what it has accomplished, as well.

I don't agree with that at all, and I think the popularity and promotion of #NotYourShield is proof of that. Patricia Henandez isn't slammed because she's female, she's slammed because she can't stop writing reviews for friends or people that have paid her money, without disclosing that.

I agree that there is a space for feminism or racial minority critiques of video games - its a shame such websites don't currently exist.

Yes, but it's not in equal amounts. Gamergate was a movement formed around sexual harassment towards women; whether or not you think it has redeemed itself of that, its members do a massive amount of it, and it is heavily documented. It has been the norm, for the movement, not the exception.

GG, as a movement, formed out of the censorship in the wake of the Quinnspiracy. It wasn't the crime, it was the cover up which gave it wings. The GG harassment patrol has been tireless in reporting harassment on twitter, unfortunately there has been very little of that sort of policing on the Anti-GG side.

If Nathan Grayson had been suspended for two weeks in August, I don't think we'd be having this conversation.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
I agree that there is a space for feminism or racial minority critiques of video games - its a shame such websites don't currently exist.

There are plenty of such places. GeekFeminism, TheMarySue, etc.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
Quinnspiracy.

Man, I'm trying my hardest to take this seriously, but I don't know if I can take "quinnspiracy" with a straight face.

 Melissia wrote:
There are plenty of such places. GeekFeminism, TheMarySue, etc.

Oh god, for a moment I thought you were going to say Kotaku.

Man, I'm trying my hardest to take this seriously, but I don't know if I can take "quinnspiracy" with a straight face.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
Quinnspiracy.

Man, I'm trying my hardest to take this seriously, but I don't know if I can take "quinnspiracy" with a straight face.