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.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
I remember hearing anita sarkesian (or however her last name is spelled) supposedly never even played a video game or at least not before throwing out her opinions. At least that's what i've heard. So you know some of your leaders are also not terribly involved but they sure as hell want to throw their opinions around.

Except that
a) that is just what you heard, get some real info.
b) she started speaking about video games the way she does long before the start of Gamergate and was involved in it just because she was constantly attacked by GamerGater.
c) even if we forget a) and b), anti-Gamergate is NOT a group identity like Gamergate. Anti-Gamergate is just, as the name imply, anyone who disagree with Gamergate. Gamergate though, with its esoteric name and its mascot and everything, is completely a group identity. That is why people cannot even agree on what this is about. It is pretty much like saying you are pro-Nazi or anti-Nazi: if you are pro-Nazi, it makes perfect sense to reproach you the atrocities committed under Hitler's command, but if you are anti-Nazi it does not make you responsible or complicit in any way, shape or form of the atrocities of Stalin's USSR, even though they fought the Nazis too. I point Godwinned.

I just find it a little odd the gamersgate thing was originally about the whole zoe quinn person and supposedly about how critics can be bought and suddenly i heard anita sarkesian enter into the fray and bam we have the freaking sjw's vs gg groups.

Honestly i'm really curious about the whole sjw's side of things for that one 4chan character being created. I've heard gamersgate people say a group actually tried to make and fund a game with female protaganists and zoe quinn wrote some horrible things to the developers and got it shut down. Supposedly they tried raising money and allowed some donors a chance at making a character and 4chan helped for a donation for butt cancer or something (i don't remember but it's 4chan so expect something fitting for them) and that kept getting shut down. Anyway 4chan made a character called vivian james iirc that was supposed to represent 4chan in a sense. Supposedly for whatever reason the fund-raiser for this kept getting shut down and so far i've heard no real adequate reason as to why.

@hybrid: What would you consider real info? Hopefully it's more than just detailed events on the supposed sjw side of things.

Also though anti-GG isn't a group the SJW's seem to sorta be.

Personally i've seen opinionated, insulting jerks on both sides.

For me i think the major difference between the two groups is gamersgate people can be a little offensive but also aren't easily offended whereas sjw's tend to be easily offended and mindful of anything that might be offensive to others. Not sure if i worded that well enough but i'm sure others would word it worse since this is the off-topic forum.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
They being several media outlets who decided during the story outlet to paint the Sad Puppies as being a gamergate organizational offshoot rather then it's own group that has been around for longer.

Uh huh. So you ask for proof, I provide it, and then you simply don't reply to my post and then just go back to repeating your claim that there's no connection. That's a pretty gakky way to go about discussing an issue, don't you think?

 .Mikes. wrote:
Connie Willis has now turned down an invitation to present an award at the Hugos this year.

And if anyone needs reminding again how petulent the sad puppies are being:

But then Vox Day and his followers made it impossible for me to remain silent , keep calm, and carry on. Not content with just using dirty tricks to get on the ballot, they’re now demanding they win, too, or they’ll destroy the Hugos altogether. When a commenter on File 770 suggested people fight back by voting for “No Award,” Vox Day wrote: “If No Award takes a fiction category, you will likely never see another award given in that category again. The sword cuts both ways, Lois. We are prepared for all eventualities.”

I assume that means they intend to use the same bloc-voting technique to block anyone but their nominees from winning in future years. Or, in other words, “If you ever want to see your precious award again, do exactly as I say.” It’s a threat, pure and simple. Everyone who votes has been ordered (under the threat of violence being done to something we love) to let their stories–stories which got on the ballot dishonestly–win.

You don't even realise Vox Day isn't part of sad puppies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
I remember hearing anita sarkesian (or however her last name is spelled) supposedly never even played a video game or at least not before throwing out her opinions. At least that's what i've heard. So you know some of your leaders are also not terribly involved but they sure as hell want to throw their opinions around.

Except that
a) that is just what you heard, get some real info.
b) she started speaking about video games the way she does long before the start of Gamergate and was involved in it just because she was constantly attacked by GamerGater.
c) even if we forget a) and b), anti-Gamergate is NOT a group identity like Gamergate. Anti-Gamergate is just, as the name imply, anyone who disagree with Gamergate. Gamergate though, with its esoteric name and its mascot and everything, is completely a group identity. That is why people cannot even agree on what this is about. It is pretty much like saying you are pro-Nazi or anti-Nazi: if you are pro-Nazi, it makes perfect sense to reproach you the atrocities committed under Hitler's command, but if you are anti-Nazi it does not make you responsible or complicit in any way, shape or form of the atrocities of Stalin's USSR, even though they fought the Nazis too. I point Godwinned.

Remember, GG is like Nazis. Exactly like Hybrid says. There is no collusion among people here. Never mind that certain people share the same tweets and signal boost each other. Never mind that several 'news' sites came out with identical articles lambasting SP3 for being sexist, racist and being linked to GG at the same time. There is no War in Ba Sing Se. Because we say there is no war.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
I just find it a little odd the gamersgate thing was originally about the whole zoe quinn person and supposedly about how critics can be bought and suddenly i heard anita sarkesian enter into the fray and bam we have the freaking sjw's vs gg groups.

Honestly i'm really curious about the whole sjw's side of things for that one 4chan character being created. I've heard gamersgate people say a group actually tried to make and fund a game with female protaganists and zoe quinn wrote some horrible things to the developers and got it shut down. Supposedly they tried raising money and allowed some donors a chance at making a character and 4chan helped for a donation for butt cancer or something (i don't remember but it's 4chan so expect something fitting for them) and that kept getting shut down. Anyway 4chan made a character called vivian james iirc that was supposed to represent 4chan in a sense. Supposedly for whatever reason the fund-raiser for this kept getting shut down and so far i've heard no real adequate reason as to why.

That group is TFYC. They're making an indie game that's on Steam Greenlight. If you have interest, you can look at it. It's called Afterlife empire. The whole TFYC and Zoe quinn saga is fairly well documented so google should be able to tell you the rest.

 Manchu wrote:
IME, when people say they want to leave politics out of something they usually mean that they want to exclude politics that disagrees with their own politics.

Sometimes, other times it means they don't want to have to discuss politics underlying certain media that they have a hard time justifying when its put out in the open.

Not that politics always has to put front and centre in everything, especially not in entertainment that's generally pretty lightweight like computer games. But then the answer isn't 'don't talk about politics', but 'yes, I get there's underlying politics and they're not alway lovely, but right now I'd just rather talk about the cover mechanics'.

 sebster wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
They being several media outlets who decided during the story outlet to paint the Sad Puppies as being a gamergate organizational offshoot rather then it's own group that has been around for longer.

Uh huh. So you ask for proof, I provide it, and then you simply don't reply to my post and then just go back to repeating your claim that there's no connection. That's a pretty gakky way to go about discussing an issue, don't you think?

I likely missed it, I don't tend to check this everyday. Not to mention I did discuss there was a connection, if a light one by one person who may have gathered up several people but as a whole it started up after several media outlets posted that and started on the narrative that they chose.

Sining wrote:
You don't even realise Vox Day isn't part of sad puppies.

First off that was Connie Willis not me, secondly by your silence are we to believe you accept Day is threatening the future of the Hugos?

Prestor Jon wrote:
The kind of "block" voting happening in Hugo's isn't bad. Anytime popular authors encourage their fans to participate in something you'll get groups of people that are at least somewhat like minded participating.

And you're still ignoring the difference between authors encouraging fans to vote for certain books, and authors organising a unified ballot that is printed and publically available, and sold under a certain ideological argument. Whether people think that the ideological argument has some kind of nasty gamergate politics in it, or whether it's as simple as 'let's get fun, swashbuckling stories recognised again', the problem is still there - the slate encourages people to vote based on an ideological position, not based on what books they actually liked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
I likely missed it, I don't tend to check this everyday. Not to mention I did discuss there was a connection, if a light one by one person who may have gathered up several people but as a whole it started up after several media outlets posted that and started on the narrative that they chose.

Well there's still time to go back and respond.

EDIT - My apologies. My response was to Sining, not to you. You didn't fail to respond to my point, and I should have double checked who I responded to before I gave my reply.

Sining wrote:


That group is TFYC. They're making an indie game that's on Steam Greenlight. If you have interest, you can look at it. It's called Afterlife empire. The whole TFYC and Zoe quinn saga is fairly well documented so google should be able to tell you the rest.

I'll condense it. After Zoe Quinn led an uprising that shut down a game jam sponsored by Pepsi, she started collecting money for her own (that still has no date or location, btw). TFYC were competing for money, especially because of their focus on promoting female game devs (and their intent to actually do so, rather than just collecting the money), so Zoe Quinn had a friend dox them, spawned a DDoS attack on them , and generally was a complete gak.

GamerGate backed TFYC out of spite.... which while not admirable, is still better than collecting donations for a non-existent game jam (being a scam artist) and furthers the cause of female inclusion in the games industry more than sleeping your way to positive press and votes to win awards. Of course, they also raised a lot more money for suicide prevention than Quinn's gakky choose-your-own-adventure book she tried to pass off as a game... which maybe goes to show that internet spite is more of a force for good than its given credit for.

BTW, has anyone figured out what Anita Sarkeesian is doing with all that cash she collected for the video series she's no longer working on?

Well i don't understand the whole super fighting mentality between the groups in some senses. I find myself to be siding with GG more but that doesn't mean i'll hate people with a different view. I mean i liked lynata a bit (wherever the h*ll he went) but he was more on the sjw side of things. As far as women go i want equality too but i feel it's needed to be tough where you have to be. Sure things aren't all fair for women but guys have it bad in some cases too. Even if women have things bad twice as often as men there are still significant cases where men have it worse than women. Sometimes i'd imagine i'm for equality but equality is a ridiculous idea. Things are unequal and that's just how it is. Things aren't even completely equivalent and the rush to be absolutely equal is ridiculous.

Also in my local GW i've seen several girls in the store though not often and most were treated just fine unless they were attractive (in which case people are still nice but give said girl more attention) and honestly i wouldn't expect any different from an attractive guy walking into a twilight convention. I feel it's also worth noting that merely for asking a guy friendly with a girl whose girlfriend she was he was very aggressive about saying she doesn't like to be flirted with even though i didn't even bring that up. Same goes for the GW manager when all i said was the girl in the store was pretty with him saying he'd kick me out of the store if i made her uncomfortable (it was a rather extreme response). In other words it's fine to alienate me a customer of many years for a possible customer just because she's pretty and a girl even when i never said anything to her that'd even suggest flirting. In fact if anything it made me act strange around her because i didn't want to get others mad at me. I feel this actually prevented her from being one of the group as well because when you alienate anybody around one person then that person will feel treated differently and it'll feel awkward and fake for them too.

I just never get the issue. A lot of girls supposedly want to be treated just like everybody else in the hobby but i find those girls if they were an average guy would get almost no attention whatsoever because some lack a personality or any sort of skills that might separate them and stand out in a good way. I mean honestly if you were to take away some girls' identity as women on here how many sh*ts do you think the mostly male population of the forum would give? Suddenly things would be about merit and i'm fine with that.

Also for all the complaints i've heard online for men saying things to women i've had my own stories of women insulting me online. Funny how in some games merely asking a woman if she is one and saying cool is grounds for being insulted by her for being losing to her 15 mins later in the game.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
I just find it a little odd the gamersgate thing was originally about the whole zoe quinn person and supposedly about how critics can be bought and suddenly i heard anita sarkesian enter into the fray and bam we have the freaking sjw's vs gg groups.

No, “SJW” got implied right from the start when it was about commenting on Zoe Quinn's alleged sex life.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Honestly i'm really curious about the whole sjw's side of things for that one 4chan character being created. I've heard gamersgate people say a group actually tried to make and fund a game with female protaganists and zoe quinn wrote some horrible things to the developers and got it shut down. Supposedly they tried raising money and allowed some donors a chance at making a character and 4chan helped for a donation for butt cancer or something (i don't remember but it's 4chan so expect something fitting for them) and that kept getting shut down. Anyway 4chan made a character called vivian james iirc that was supposed to represent 4chan in a sense. Supposedly for whatever reason the fund-raiser for this kept getting shut down and so far i've heard no real adequate reason as to why.

Yeah, the people making the game were the Fine Young Capitalists and they seemed pretty neat. I really think they wanted to have nothing to do with GG, that is why they barely ever spoke about it, and now they are completely under the radar.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Also though anti-GG isn't a group the SJW's seem to sorta be.

Yeah, but “SJW” is not something they originally identified with, it is what they were called.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
For me i think the major difference between the two groups is gamersgate people can be a little offensive but also aren't easily offended whereas sjw's tend to be easily offended and mindful of anything that might be offensive to others.

You should have seen the outrage on GG about a sock-puppet joke by a developer.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
GamerGate came about as a hashtag after the event we now call GamerGate started. Original it was 5 Guys, as the catalyst for the event was not a "harassment video" (whatever the hell that means), but a video detailing the shady antics of a number of journalists and how they related to a single indie developer.

Problematically, that's bs. The video 'detailing the shady antics' was a hatchet job by an ex-boyfriend, with absolutely no fething evidence of any collusion to produce favourable game reviews.

And what's more, we have cases in the past with actual evidence of trading favourable reviews for advertising purchases between major software labels and major review sites... and yet we're supposed to believe that this instance, in which an evidence free accusation against an indie game maker and one game journalist who's possible ethical breaches were unknown to management caused a massive retaliation.

The difference is that this time the story had sex, women and progressive politics involved. And those things caused a massive freak out among a certain part of the gaming community.

Still can't realise that it was never about journalistic ethics? Then ask yourself why it was Zoe Quinn who got targeted for so much abuse, when Nathan Grayson, the guy who was accused of writing the favourable review and was the actual unethical journalist, got no such attention.

And it has feth all to do with the Hugo awards.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:


For me i think the major difference between the two groups is gamersgate people can be a little offensive but also aren't easily offended whereas sjw's tend to be easily offended and mindful of anything that might be offensive to others. Not sure if i worded that well enough but i'm sure others would word it worse since this is the off-topic forum.

You've got it right.

I didn’t ignore your statement, instead I put your claim in the proper context of what the left wing response has been to this point – proposals. To this point the left wing has done nothing, and so just picking out the nastiest responses is just trying to drag them down to the level of the puppies before they’ve actually done anything in response.

No. Random individuals have posted nasty things about the puppies, some of them have even suggested organised responses that are just as bad as what the puppies did. But so far there has been no organised, coherent effort.

If this was just a few people on twitter, this would be a rather decent point, however I will discuss this at the end

My position is actually very fething simple, and has been made clear through this thread.
1) Awards for art shouldn’t be gamed or manipulated with strategies like block voting.
2) You shouldn’t judge art by the politics of the author, and you certainly shouldn’t drag politics in to an awards ceremony.
3) Any individual or group that’s done either or both of the above deserves criticism.

Fair enough.

deserve criticism, and groups like the puppies who organised campaigns to game the voting system deserve equal criticism. And that’s exactly who I’ve said have behaved badly.
So this means that people who harangued authors like Correia and said they weren’t voting for him despite have no knowledge of his work

Also fair enough.

The mistake you’re making is that it’s good enough to judge the whole of the left wing by picking out some random left wing shouty people on the internet. But until there is any kind of organised response, the only ones who can be criticised are those specific left wing shouty people who’ve said mean things.

There's a difference between a few people on twitter, and multiple news sources beginning to pass around the "Misogynistic label". There's also a difference between "That person is trying to create a block vote in order to pass things through that he feels has been overlooked due to his various reasons factual or not. " and "That person is a misogynistic monster who simply wants to ensure that women and minorities never attain status in this prestigious awards"

One is factual as well as to the point. Sad Puppies is trying to use block voting tactics in order to pass things through that he feels deserves acclaim, the other however is less "mean" and more Angry Libel directed to paint the entirety of Sad Puppies and those that support them as women hating, minority bashing monsters in order to assure their status as "lesser hateful conservatives"

There's actual organization painted behind this, as well as kneejerk acclaim considering how many people have managed to jump on this bandwagon without actually looking at the sources. While at the same time I have not checked into any responses based on the Hugo awards as a whole (aside from banning a few of John's works interestingly but I do not know the issues behind that). There is an organized output trying to create pressure and hate on those who Support SP while at the same time painting a few people who aren't apart of SP as apart of it in order to show that they are straight up monsters.

SP is wrong for what they did and I dislike the organized voting block that they had created, however I cannot say that the other group is in any sort of good light either considering the responses that they are giving.

Both are childish, that's my stance, one shouldn't have forced the issue as they did and the others shouldn't have gone the full way and trying to paint them as monstrous beings.

EDIT - My apologies. My response was to Sining, not to you. You didn't fail to respond to my point, and I should have double checked who I responded to before I gave my repl

Well I've replied again anyways.

Still can't realise that it was never about journalistic ethics? Then ask yourself why it was Zoe Quinn who got targeted for so much abuse, when Nathan Grayson, the guy who was accused of writing the favourable review and was the actual unethical journalist, got no such attention.

Then you didn't exactly look into it at all, NG got a massive amount considering the issues he has brought forth upon himself with his 'integrity'.

And what's more, we have cases in the past with actual evidence of trading favourable reviews for advertising purchases between major software labels and major review sites... and yet we're supposed to believe that this instance, in which an evidence free accusation against an indie game maker and a fringe game journalist caused a massive retaliation.

Ironically it would have died down had the news sites not bit back with the "Gamers are dead", which provoked a massive organized response in return, had they let the issue die down it would've been ala Doritopope, and Kane and lynch. It was the lynchpin that showed that there was something seriously wrong with journalistic ethics.

 sebster wrote:


Still can't realise that it was never about journalistic ethics? Then ask yourself why it was Zoe Quinn who got targeted for so much abuse, when Nathan Grayson, the guy who was accused of writing the favourable review and was the actual unethical journalist, got no such attention.

1. Zoe Quinn got targeted after she filed a false DMCA claim to take down videos about the situation. As it turns out, people who love the freedom of expression the Internet provides get REALLY pissed about censorship.

2. Nathan Grayson was just one out of several people she slept with, her being the thing that tied it all together, but most importantly

3. Unlike Zoe Quinn, Nathan Grayson was in a position where GG could actually lay on some pain, rather than just complaining. GG's targeted campaign against Gawker is actually hurting the source of the problem- gakky companies with gakky journalists. The economic damage sustained by kotaku, rock-paper-shotgun, etc, is more real than Internet trolling. It just doesn't make the headlines... especially since GG is winning on that front. The changes made to FCC rules on native advertising are, without a doubt, a wonderful thing that came from GamerGate.

Book awards are pointless, they are irrelevant to the content, the style and whether there is an emotional attachment by the reader. I never would buy a book because of an award sticker, just like I would never by a car because of a car award sticker.
Ever heard a series of critics discuss a book? i'd rather cut my ears off, same for authors, they remind me of english teachers in school who are determined to ruin the attraction of fiction by breaking it down into bare parts. These are the people who vote for these things, in the end it's a payday and a nice shiny part of a cover for the publishing house to use.


Effectively a popular book is a voting block, a well received author is a voting block. and GG can go bugger off, it was a internet storm in a thimble, can we stop making out it was important?. Hybrid is hereby banned from mentioning it !

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
There's a difference between a few people on twitter, and multiple news sources beginning to pass around the "Misogynistic label". There's also a difference between "That person is trying to create a block vote in order to pass things through that he feels has been overlooked due to his various reasons factual or not. " and "That person is a misogynistic monster who simply wants to ensure that women and minorities never attain status in this prestigious awards"

And that's a fair point, having a story put on-line and then retracted is never good, having multiple stories put up and pulled down again shows a pretty serious misfiring among journalists. Whether that was people coming in without properly differentiating Vox Day from the other people involved who aren't crazy, or whether it was because journalists were too quick to take in only the side of people pushing back against the puppies, I'm not sure.

There's actual organization painted behind this, as well as kneejerk acclaim considering how many people have managed to jump on this bandwagon without actually looking at the sources. While at the same time I have not checked into any responses based on the Hugo awards as a whole (aside from banning a few of John's works interestingly but I do not know the issues behind that). There is an organized output trying to create pressure and hate on those who Support SP while at the same time painting a few people who aren't apart of SP as apart of it in order to show that they are straight up monsters.

I don't think you need to organise anything to get people on the internet to jump on a bandwagon without looking at any sources

And while I agree there is certainly a lot of pressure being applied to push back against the puppies, and much of it is very odious indeed, it isn't organised. I don't mean to make that distinction to argue the left is better than the right, because it isn't. I merely mean to point out that on this issue, so far, only one side has managed an organised campaign in the Hugos. The response from the left may never get organised and instead just remain a bunch of angry voice on the internet, or it may be just as confrontational and stupid as the puppies voting campaign. Or possibly, it might end up being something constructive, like GRR Martin's call to get out the vote, coupled with getting people to simply vote for books they think were really good.

The last option is the least likely, but possible. And all I'm saying is to wait until it happens before we condemn them as being just the same as the right wing.

SP is wrong for what they did and I dislike the organized voting block that they had created, however I cannot say that the other group is in any sort of good light either considering the responses that they are giving.

Both are childish, that's my stance, one shouldn't have forced the issue as they did and the others shouldn't have gone the full way and trying to paint them as monstrous beings.

I certainly don't want to defend any of the crazies on the internet attacking various members of the puppies, those people are just as bad. I just think we need to wait until the left actually responds en masse before we judge them as a whole.

Well I've replied again anyways.

Cool

Then you didn't exactly look into it at all, NG got a massive amount considering the issues he has brought forth upon himself with his 'integrity'.

He got a pretty ridiculous level of attacks, but nothing like what Zoe Quinn copped.

Ironically it would have died down had the news sites not bit back with the "Gamers are dead", which provoked a massive organized response in return, had they let the issue die down it would've been ala Doritopope, and Kane and lynch. It was the lynchpin that showed that there was something seriously wrong with journalistic ethics.

I don't recall a single death threat ever being sent to anyone over any previous scandal. And those scandals were over major label games with front page reviews. But here a game no-one gives a gak about was reviewed by a journalist working the gaming fringes, and it causes a meltdown.

There was a lot more going on than people wanting game sites to give honest reviews.

 .Mikes. wrote:

Sining wrote:
You don't even realise Vox Day isn't part of sad puppies.

First off that was Connie Willis not me, secondly by your silence are we to believe you accept Day is threatening the future of the Hugos?

.Mikes. wrote:
Connie Willis has now turned down an invitation to present an award at the Hugos this year.

And if anyone needs reminding again how petulent the sad puppies are being:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:
[

Problematically, that's bs. The video 'detailing the shady antics' was a hatchet job by an ex-boyfriend, with absolutely no fething evidence of any collusion to produce favourable game reviews.

Seriously, STOP revising history. The video was made by a THIRD party, one that wasn't related to the ex-boyfriend. The ex-boyfriend wrote a blogpost detailing his relationship with ZQ and how she ended up cheating on him with 5 other guys. If this was a female, we'd all be lauding her for her bravery by now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

I don't recall a single death threat ever being sent to anyone over any previous scandal. And those scandals were over major label games with front page reviews. But here a game no-one gives a gak about was reviewed by a journalist working the gaming fringes, and it causes a meltdown.

There was a lot more going on than people wanting game sites to give honest reviews.

You're a pretty good liar. That or too lazy to google

2012.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/04/23/game-developers-get-a-lot-of-death-threats/

http://kotaku.com/5904367/another-day-another-death-threat-from-gamers-to-the-people-who-make-video-games



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also evidence of what? One person in GG that also supports SP3?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The whole GG / Hugos thing is an interesting parallel. On one side, you supposedly have this entrenched fandom that's super hostile to newcomers and how they're harassing newcomers and making them feel unsafe etc etc etc and how that's wrong.

And then on the other side, suddenly you have this story about these people who belong to this community and who have made it their community and how they're suddenly invaded by hateful newcomers yada yada yada.

The narrative. It works.

 EmpNortonII wrote:
1. Zoe Quinn got targeted after she filed a false DMCA claim to take down videos about the situation. As it turns out, people who love the freedom of expression the Internet provides get REALLY pissed about censorship.

2. Nathan Grayson was just one out of several people she slept with, her being the thing that tied it all together, but most importantly

3. Unlike Zoe Quinn, Nathan Grayson was in a position where GG could actually lay on some pain, rather than just complaining. GG's targeted campaign against Gawker is actually hurting the source of the problem- gakky companies with gakky journalists. The economic damage sustained by kotaku, rock-paper-shotgun, etc, is more real than Internet trolling. It just doesn't make the headlines... especially since GG is winning on that front. The changes made to FCC rules on native advertising are, without a doubt, a wonderful thing that came from GamerGate.

1. Quinn had already received a hell of a lot of criticism before the allegations of using a DCMA were ever made. And that claim was only well known when TotalBiscuit waded in on the issue, in a post where he openly stated he didn't know for sure if she was even the one who filed the DCMA.

2. The accusations of a vast sex conspiracy were never more than accusations, and very silly ones at that. The one relationship that did exist was with Grayson, and that started after he'd covered her games. But despite coming from probably the least reputable source possible, an ex, a large portion of the internet just lapped them up, expanded on them, and went on to build really weird conspiracy theories around them. They did this because of reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with ethics in video game journalism.

3. It's the FTC, not the FCC. And claiming its due to gamergate is quite imaginative, to say the least.

Here's another article for you about threats to game developers not related to GG

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-08-25-bomb-scare-on-soe-heads-plane-tied-to-ddos-attacks

Sining wrote:
Seriously, STOP revising history. The video was made by a THIRD party, one that wasn't related to the ex-boyfriend. The ex-boyfriend wrote a blogpost detailing his relationship with ZQ and how she ended up cheating on him with 5 other guys. If this was a female, we'd all be lauding her for her bravery by now.

Ah yes, I remember now. The boyfriend's video just said she slept around. It was a third party who joined the crazy dots to make a flying rodent gak conspiracy out of the whole thing.

That doesn't really help your case, you know.

You're a pretty good liar. That or too lazy to google

And here we have Sining not bothering to read. Must be a weekday. Neither of your links show death threats about any previous ethics scandal.

The boyfriend...didn't make a video...He wrote a blog. I'm not even sure where you're getting a video from.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also more googling for sebster who apparently can't be bothered

http://www.giga.de/unternehmen/giga/news/community-of-hate-one-individual-wrote-me-a-death-threat-on-how-he-was-going-to-rape-and-murder-me/

Okay, going through google, reviewers seem to get a disturbing number of threats sometimes.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
I remember hearing anita sarkesian (or however her last name is spelled) supposedly never even played a video game or at least not before throwing out her opinions. At least that's what i've heard. So you know some of your leaders are also not terribly involved but they sure as hell want to throw their opinions around.

Except that
a) that is just what you heard, get some real info.
b) she started speaking about video games the way she does long before the start of Gamergate and was involved in it just because she was constantly attacked by GamerGater.
c) even if we forget a) and b), anti-Gamergate is NOT a group identity like Gamergate. Anti-Gamergate is just, as the name imply, anyone who disagree with Gamergate. Gamergate though, with its esoteric name and its mascot and everything, is completely a group identity. That is why people cannot even agree on what this is about. It is pretty much like saying you are pro-Nazi or anti-Nazi: if you are pro-Nazi, it makes perfect sense to reproach you the atrocities committed under Hitler's command, but if you are anti-Nazi it does not make you responsible or complicit in any way, shape or form of the atrocities of Stalin's USSR, even though they fought the Nazis too. I point Godwinned.

So you forgot about this then

Can we please keep the GG discussion in the GG thread, not the Hugo's thread, where it has at best a tangential connection?

Yeah, but the GG thread might get insta-locked because discussions around GG go toxic pretty fast ^^.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EmpNortonII wrote:
As it turns out, people who love the freedom of expression the Internet provides get REALLY pissed about censorship.

Nope. Only about censorship of things they agree with.

Sining wrote:
The boyfriend...didn't make a video...He wrote a blog. I'm not even sure where you're getting a video from.

And I made a typo. You got me. I tend to get a little careless when I get bored with people.

Also more googling for sebster who apparently can't be bothered

And more failed reading from Sining. Once again, can you provide a single death threat related to any of the previous 'game review ethics' instances? Or are you just going to continue pretending that 'death threats exist' means something to someone, somewhere?

And once again, you really need to settle down on the snide comments. When we were discussing the actual topic of this thread, the Hugos, you failed to provide one single bit of evidence for any of your claims, and when you requested evidence that GG were invited in to the puppy campaign and I provided it, you just stopped responding.

So your argument is that what? Death threats in this instance invalidates something?

Again, you provided one photo of one person on twitter who's both a SP3 and GG member. ONE person. By that logic, since Arthur Chu is offering guys 40 usd to vote no-award on twitter, obviously, those people who are going to vote no award are just being bribed. See how that works?

I mean sebster, I know your forum life revolves around me responding to you but it's not like I check the forum every hour and not like I go through every post. If your feelingz were hurt cause I didn't respond to you, I apologise. No need to be tsun tsun

 sebster wrote:
Still can't realise that it was never about journalistic ethics?

No. It's always been about that. And still is. To this very day.

The more aGGros go on about how GG'ers are like ISIL, the KKK, and so just makes their laughable position even worse. But Quinn? Who, literally?

Sining wrote:
Death threats in this instance invalidates something?

Feels before Reels, yo. That's the way it works.

H.B.M.C. - it certainly seems to me that other scandals that did not involve women developers and sex did not gain half as much mileage or produce one quarter of as much vitriol as fething gamergate did.

Christ I am so sick of this pseudo MRA bs polluting my gaming websites.

 Da Boss wrote:
H.B.M.C. - it certainly seems to me that other scandals that did not involve women developers and sex did not gain half as much mileage or produce one quarter of as much vitriol as fething gamergate did.

DoritoGate was more funny (and tragic) than rage inducing. What happened to Jeff Gerstman was horrible. The ME3 ending got much the same reaction from journalists as did this (except replace the word "misogyny" with "entitled"). As I said, this was just the final straw (so to speak). People keep trying to bring it back to Zoe Quinn, the "but it wouldn't've happened if it weren't for you meddling misogynists!" nonsense, but the fact is Quinn's relevance in all of this went to zero within a couple of weeks, as people started digging (even people generally opposed to gamers, like Milo) and started finding more gak.

Hell you could even flip the argument and say that if the person who kicked this off was a guy it wouldn't've seen such a massive (not to mentioned coordinated) push back from the so-called journalists as it did. For every MRA there's a white knight waiting to throw himself in front of someone.

 Da Boss wrote:
Christ I am so sick of this pseudo MRA bs polluting my gaming websites.

Ah. So I'm an MRA now. Ok.

To the man indeed.