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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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.

The problem with that argument is that gamergate attacked sites which had actually exposed gaming journalism, just for daring to oppose them on their disgusting treatment of Quinn.

They spent basically no time on exposing actual corruption and a disproportionate amount of time attacking anyone who they believed disagreed with them.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Gamergate

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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.

The problem with that argument is that gamergate attacked sites which had actually exposed gaming journalism, just for daring to oppose them on their disgusting treatment of Quinn.

They spent basically no time on exposing actual corruption and a disproportionate amount of time attacking anyone who they believed disagreed with them.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Gamergate

Gamergate is what happened when the reactionary rejects of 4chan teamed up to attack women who make and write about video games with a molecule-thin veneer of being a consumer movement for "free speech" and "ethics in video game journalism". These are their stories.

Yeah this site certainly is one for an unbiased source, what next gamerghazi? Gawker?

Okay, what actual examples of journalism corruption has been uncovered by Gamergate? With evidence, please.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Okay, what actual examples of journalism corruption has been uncovered by Gamergate? With evidence, please.

The buy of lego domain before it was even announced by a journalist who knew it was going to be announced and bought a domain name.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Okay, what actual examples of journalism corruption has been uncovered by Gamergate? With evidence, please.

The buy of lego domain before it was even announced by a journalist who knew it was going to be announced and bought a domain name.

That name was rumoured weeks in advance. The person who bought it also gave it to lego at cost to himself, saying it was just a joke. He also outed himself as having bought it on twitter, so gamergate cannot really claim any credit for "uncovering" it.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Okay, what actual examples of journalism corruption has been uncovered by Gamergate? With evidence, please.

The buy of lego domain before it was even announced by a journalist who knew it was going to be announced and bought a domain name.

That name was rumoured weeks in advance. The person who bought it also gave it to lego at cost to himself, saying it was just a joke. He also outed himself as having bought it on twitter, so gamergate cannot really claim any credit for "uncovering" it.

Though it is completely illegal even if it was a joke. He was more connected so the possibility of him knowing about its release is extremely high, he financially benefited from the game being released. And is punishable by law. If it is just a rumor if you are financially benefiting from it that is still insider trading and completely agree.

Its not a joke in the eyes of the law.
Gamergate spread it out, and started talking about it.

You really can't uncover it. The whole point is talking about and spreading the word on it. The job of gamergate is not to uncover games corruption but talk about the issues that come from that corruption.

Corruption is not meant to be find by the public. That is someones job.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Okay, what actual examples of journalism corruption has been uncovered by Gamergate? With evidence, please.

The buy of lego domain before it was even announced by a journalist who knew it was going to be announced and bought a domain name.

That name was rumoured weeks in advance. The person who bought it also gave it to lego at cost to himself, saying it was just a joke. He also outed himself as having bought it on twitter, so gamergate cannot really claim any credit for "uncovering" it.

Though it is completely illegal even if it was a joke. He was more connected so the possibility of him knowing about its release is extremely high, he financially benefited from the game being released. And is punishable by law.

Its not a joke in the eyes of the law.
Gamergate spread it out, and started talking about it.

You really can't uncover it. The whole point is talking about and spreading the word on it. The job of gamergate is not to uncover games corruption but talk about the issues that come from that corruption.

Corruption is not meant to be find by the public. That is someones job.

Actually, if you're going to complain about the ethics of videogame journalism you should damn well have some actual evidence to back it up. Especially when you're actually spending all your time launching attacks on everyone who is disagreeing with you and your entire movement started because of a pissed-off ex boyfriends claims about his partners sex life, thus making sure the stereotype of a gamer remains a misogynistic angry white male for years to come (probably didn't help that one of the sites they were planning stuff from was hosting child pornography either). Which all serves to actually hold back higher classes of game journalism which might want to talk about gender issues or race issues out of fear that they're going to have all their personal details posted all over the internet. So Gamergate has only harmed gaming, not helped it in any way.

Whose job is it to uncover corruption, by the way?

Whose job is it to uncover corruption, by the way?

Matters what type of corruption.

The one who covers it is the journalist. The one that finds it varies from job to job or what type of corruption we are talking about.

If it is financial corruption it is a financial or treasury agent.

IF it is collusion it is a journalist or an FBI agent.

If it is a harassment hack it is the FBI and Local Police.

It is not the job of a normal person to expose corruption. Unless their said job is to expose journalism

 Asherian Command wrote:

Whose job is it to uncover corruption, by the way?

Matters what type of corruption.

The one who covers it is the journalist. The one that finds it varies from job to job or what type of corruption we are talking about.

If it is financial corruption it is a financial or treasury agent.

IF it is collusion it is a journalist or an FBI agent.

If it is a harassment hack it is the FBI and Local Police.

It is not the job of a normal person to expose corruption. Unless their said job is to expose journalism

That is such utter rubbish. Anyone can make it their job to expose corruption. An individual is perfectly within their rights to investigate, through legal means, possible corruption and report their findings to the media.

Some people have dedicated jobs, such as Internal Affairs, but that does not mean the whole responsibility lies in these organisations. If that were the case then Watergate would never have been exposed as it was partly uncovered by two journalists (who you claim only have the job of covering the story once it is found) investigating the break in, not the FBI or what have you.

 Asherian Command wrote:

Whose job is it to uncover corruption, by the way?

Matters what type of corruption.

The one who covers it is the journalist. The one that finds it varies from job to job or what type of corruption we are talking about.

If it is financial corruption it is a financial or treasury agent.

IF it is collusion it is a journalist or an FBI agent.

If it is a harassment hack it is the FBI and Local Police.

It is not the job of a normal person to expose corruption. Unless their said job is to expose journalism

Who watches the watchers?

 sebster wrote:

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.

All of the suggested lists/ballots from various authors and websites were publically available. Whether it's from Scalzi or Locus or Sad Puppies or Tor.com or whomever. Sad Puppies put out a suggested list, Correia used his blog to promote the works on it and increase the sales of those stories on Amazon in the hopes that more people would read them find them worthy. There's nothing nefarious there. The only political aspect to Sad Puppies is that that they don't want an author's personal politics to play a role in evaluationg a story's Hugo worthiness. There is no unified political position shared by the authors promoted by Sad Puppies or any unifying demographic characteristic.

The primary reason for the outrage is that Sad Puppies successfully showed just how small and insular Hugo voting had become. There's been a lot of talk about how the success of the Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies campaigns pushed out other stories. Let's look at the Hugo nominations:
http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2015-hugo-awards/

Best Novel (1827 nominating ballots, 587 entries, range 256-387)
■Ancillary Sword, Ann Leckie (Orbit US/Orbit UK)
■The Dark Between the Stars, Kevin J. Anderson (Tor Books)
■The Goblin Emperor, Katherine Addison (Sarah Monette) (Tor Books)
■Lines of Departure, Marko Kloos (47North)
■Skin Game, Jim Butcher (Orbit UK/Roc Books)

There were only 1,827 nominating ballots cast to determine the nominees for the Hugo for Best Novel, arguably the most prestigious annual award for SciFi and Fantasy novels. That's a tiny infinitesimally small piece of fandom of genres that sell millions of books to millions of people every year. Within that little sliver of the fandom pie it only took 256 votes to win a nomination. It doesn't take a nefarious campaign of ballot box stuffing legions to get 256 fans of best selling authors to nominate them for a Hugo. Lines of Departure has 999 customer reviews on Amazon, I don't think it's a stretch to say that simply making Kloos fans aware that it's eligible for a Hugo could motivate 256-387 of them to spend $40 and cast a ballot. Ancillary Sword has 184 reviews on Amazon but the prequel Ancillary Justice has 652. The Goblin King has 201. You don't need Larry Correia to jab people with a cattle prod to get books that already have legions of fans to get nominated for an award chosen by fans.

The books that were pushed out by SP/RP ballots had less than 256 votes for them. 256 votes isn't a very high hurdle to jump. Given the gravitas of the Hugos that fact that it only took 256 votes to get a nomination this year is kinda sad IMHO.

That's the dirty little secret that was exposed and is causing such sour grapes; the Hugos had turned into an award determined by a tiny insular group of trufans that wanted the proper authors to win, the proper books to be reviewed and endorsed by the proper sites and make the suggested lists on the proper sites, tacitly condone the personal self promotion and campaigning done by the proper authors and enjoy a nice circle of affirmation and pats on the back when the proper stories won every year and their ideals of what real scifi and fantasy should be were upheld. Nobody wanted to upset that applecart and take away the power of the gatekeepers and kingmakers, nobody wanted to incur the wrath of the vocal minority that would decry and dismiss stories that had too much cismale gender normative patriarchy in them or whatever.

Now everybody knows that it doesn't take many motivated fans to get popular authors nominated for Hugos and no amount of libel or slander heaped on guys like Larry Correia and Brad Torgersen in national publications can put that genie back in the bottle. Now people have to recognize the fact that the Hugos, as presently constituted, can't be controlled by the SMOFs and trufans, that the barbarian hordes of wrongfans and their willingness to spend $40 to vote for wrongstories have kicked down the door and there's no way to push them out under the current system. Now WorldCon has to decide if the Hugos are going to determined by any member of fandom willing to pay $40 and let the nominations fall as they will or if they want to change the system and make it an award given by a chosen few who determine who is worthy.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Whose job is it to uncover corruption, by the way?

Matters what type of corruption.

The one who covers it is the journalist. The one that finds it varies from job to job or what type of corruption we are talking about.

If it is financial corruption it is a financial or treasury agent.

IF it is collusion it is a journalist or an FBI agent.

If it is a harassment hack it is the FBI and Local Police.

It is not the job of a normal person to expose corruption. Unless their said job is to expose journalism

That is such utter rubbish. Anyone can make it their job to expose corruption. An individual is perfectly within their rights to investigate, through legal means, possible corruption and report their findings to the media.

Some people have dedicated jobs, such as Internal Affairs, but that does not mean the whole responsibility lies in these organisations. If that were the case then Watergate would never have been exposed as it was partly uncovered by two journalists (who you claim only have the job of covering the story once it is found) investigating the break in, not the FBI or what have you.

Yes but it by the means of how you find out that are much more important. IF you found out illegally not every citizen can and will be able to.

It also adds credibility if you actually know what you are doing, you can't be an everyday citizen and expose it without having actual credibility behind your statements.

The watergate thing was exposed by two journalists who were working with a secondary group. They were not ordinary citizens, they had credibility behind their statements that normal people usually do not have and lack.

Lets say you find out about someone in your company has insider trading knowledge you go to internal affairs and bring up the issue. You are not exposing it, you are reporting on it. You are the source not the exposer.

The internal affairs are the exposer of this information that there is someone who has inside trading secrets.

Who watches the watchers?

The watchers peers and those who have credibility

 Asherian Command wrote:

Who watches the watchers?

The watchers peers and those who have credibility

The world would be a much nicer place if that were actually true.

Credibility is gained by having evidence, not by a job description.

If someone uncovered corruption in their local police force and had evidence gathered by Freedom of Information requests, whistleblower testimony or whatever, they have uncovered corruption and have the evidence required to make their claim credible, no matter whether they're the president of the united states or joe who packs bags down at the local supermarket.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Credibility is gained by having evidence, not by a job description.

If someone uncovered corruption in their local police force and had evidence gathered by Freedom of Information requests, whistleblower testimony or whatever, they have uncovered corruption and have the evidence required to make their claim credible, no matter whether they're the president of the united states or joe who packs bags down at the local supermarket.

Yes but they establish credibility by titles and what they actually do. say if someone who works as a garbage man discovers this. There is a high likelihood of him being ignored more than someone who has a degree and has established credibility.

See it is gained through education and your job description. In this world that is what happens. It is highly romanticized to believe that you do not need a related job in order to expose something.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Credibility is gained by having evidence, not by a job description.

If someone uncovered corruption in their local police force and had evidence gathered by Freedom of Information requests, whistleblower testimony or whatever, they have uncovered corruption and have the evidence required to make their claim credible, no matter whether they're the president of the united states or joe who packs bags down at the local supermarket.

Yes but they establish credibility by titles and what they actually do. say if someone who works as a garbage man discovers this. There is a high likelihood of him being ignored more than someone who has a degree and has established credibility.

If the garbage man pulls physical evidence that can be proven to be true out of the garbage can and brings it to the attention of the media, the fact that he's a garbage man (he probably perfers sanitation engineer) isn't going to matter in regards to the veracity of the claims and the impact of the scandal. An uncorroborated personal account of something seen or heard is going to be easy to dismiss regardless of that person's job, education level, etc.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Credibility is gained by having evidence, not by a job description.

If someone uncovered corruption in their local police force and had evidence gathered by Freedom of Information requests, whistleblower testimony or whatever, they have uncovered corruption and have the evidence required to make their claim credible, no matter whether they're the president of the united states or joe who packs bags down at the local supermarket.

Yes but they establish credibility by titles and what they actually do. say if someone who works as a garbage man discovers this. There is a high likelihood of him being ignored more than someone who has a degree and has established credibility.

You'd be surprised how many 'low skill' workers actually have degrees of some form or another. You would do well not to judge a man by the merits of his profession, but by the wisdom of his words.

 daedalus wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Credibility is gained by having evidence, not by a job description.

If someone uncovered corruption in their local police force and had evidence gathered by Freedom of Information requests, whistleblower testimony or whatever, they have uncovered corruption and have the evidence required to make their claim credible, no matter whether they're the president of the united states or joe who packs bags down at the local supermarket.

Yes but they establish credibility by titles and what they actually do. say if someone who works as a garbage man discovers this. There is a high likelihood of him being ignored more than someone who has a degree and has established credibility.

You'd be surprised how many 'low skill' workers actually have degrees of some form or another. You would do well not to judge a man by the merits of his profession, but by the wisdom of his words.

That holds up in court just as much as an eye witness accounts sadly.

I am just telling you how it is. Not how it should be.

In this day and age it is less on the merits of the person but what their job title is. Even if they expose something in corruption there is a high possibility of them getting ignored and the one who is an actual expert being referred to as the exposer.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Okay, what actual examples of journalism corruption has been uncovered by Gamergate? With evidence, please.

A secret mailing list that gaming journalists used to shape industry-wide attitudes (including the launch of a dozen or so "gamers are dead" memes across that many game news sites) was exposed, as well as its relevance to a person who exposed a charity as a sham and was fired because of it.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/09/addressing-allegations-of-collusion-among-gaming-journalists/

As for proof, here's an article by the person responsible trying to cover his ass.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Credibility is gained by having evidence, not by a job description.

That anyone can make a living as a priest, imam, or rabbi is clear evidence that your statement is wrong.

 EmpNortonII wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Okay, what actual examples of journalism corruption has been uncovered by Gamergate? With evidence, please.

A secret mailing list that gaming journalists used to shape industry-wide attitudes (including the launch of a dozen or so "gamers are dead" memes across that many game news sites) was exposed, as well as its relevance to a person who exposed a charity as a sham and was fired because of it.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/09/addressing-allegations-of-collusion-among-gaming-journalists/

As for proof, here's an article by the person responsible trying to cover his ass.

That article doesn't actually say any of those things, in fact none of the evidence I've found about that list seems to suggest anywhere near that level of control, especially when those involved in that group couldn't decide whether to block comments who supported harassing Quinn or not. If you have already decided that that is what having journalists speaking to each other means, then I suppose any slight indication that it could happen is evidence, I suppose.

Even when that "evidence" is posted by a person who has absolutely no interest in gaming and has openly insulted those who do (calling them "‘pungent beta male bollock-scratchers and twelve-year-olds") and is only reporting on anything in order to increase support for himself.

 sebster wrote:

 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.

1. "for so much abuse when compared to Grayson" is the operative part here. Of course she had received some criticism- that criticism is what she had the false claims made against... but this didn't become focused on her until she did that. MundaneMatt *has* specified that she was responsible for his video being taken down.

2. By "after" we of course meaning 2 days later... and that's just what we know. March 31st vs April 2nd... and that's just what we know, not what's possible or likely the case. A woman sleeping around to advance her career is hardly a conspiracy- I expect everyone knows someone that's done it, and not all of them are women. Men do it, too.

3. It was past my bed time. I also got DMCA backwards twice. Either way, yes, GamerGate had a mailing campaign to get the rules changed and the rules changed. People involved with it have posted photos of the letters they received back from the FTC. Yes, the Gamergate mailing list had a positive effect.

So Gamergate discussion has now taken over most of this thread. I guess I have a share of responsability for that. Anyhow, wonder what will happen at the Hugo next year.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EmpNortonII wrote:
A woman sleeping around to advance her career is hardly a conspiracy- I expect everyone knows someone that's done it, and not all of them are women.

I do not. But then again, I might as well be John Snow.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 EmpNortonII wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Okay, what actual examples of journalism corruption has been uncovered by Gamergate? With evidence, please.

A secret mailing list that gaming journalists used to shape industry-wide attitudes (including the launch of a dozen or so "gamers are dead" memes across that many game news sites) was exposed, as well as its relevance to a person who exposed a charity as a sham and was fired because of it.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/09/addressing-allegations-of-collusion-among-gaming-journalists/

As for proof, here's an article by the person responsible trying to cover his ass.

That article doesn't actually say any of those things, in fact none of the evidence I've found about that list seems to suggest anywhere near that level of control, especially when those involved in that group couldn't decide whether to block comments who supported harassing Quinn or not. If you have already decided that that is what having journalists speaking to each other means, then I suppose any slight indication that it could happen is evidence, I suppose.

Even when that "evidence" is posted by a person who has absolutely no interest in gaming and has openly insulted those who do (calling them "‘pungent beta male bollock-scratchers and twelve-year-olds") and is only reporting on anything in order to increase support for himself.

You're reading the article wrong. This isn't a tell-all about what journalists found- this is the person who did it covering his ass afterward. I could have posted Milo's article about it, but you would have just attacked Milo. By using the art techica bit, I've confirmed the existence of the list before any discussion of what happened. Obviously, it was a big enough deal that Kyle felt the need for damage control and to deny allegations. Now that we've established that it existed, here's another link for you.

http://www.gamezone.com/originals/here-s-what-we-know-allistair-pinsof-destructoid-yanier-niero-gonzalez-game-journo-pros-and-more

Not only does it bring up the list, it also established the SJW bona fides of the lists's members... which is important once we look at how the list supported Quinn.

Brianna Wu and Anita Sarkeesian are only a part of Gamerghazi for the same reason Milo is a part of GamerGate... self-promotion. The difference, of course, is that Milo is a journalist and it is his job to research and report these things. He's just doing his job, even when it requires him to give favorable coverage to people he doesn't like (something Faux News and MSNBC do sporadically, at best).

Brianna Wu, meanwhile, is a game developer making a game with sexist tropes and idealized female bodies willing to do anything to promote her game that doesn't involve hard work.

Anita Sarkeesian is a snake oil saleswoman who has collected $160,000 for a video series she hasn't produced anything for since 2012. There's also this... http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/01/prweb197342.htm




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
So Gamergate discussion has now taken over most of this thread. I guess I have a share of responsability for that. Anyhow, wonder what will happen at the Hugo next year.

That is an excellent question.

Well, it has to be one of two things, right? Either the Sad Puppies will dominate it or Tor and friends will launch a more widespread response

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
So Gamergate discussion has now taken over most of this thread. I guess I have a share of responsability for that. Anyhow, wonder what will happen at the Hugo next year.

Ugh. Its dumb. The whole issue is dumber than the debate on the pipeline.

my distaste for gamergate and its surroundings is probably one of the largest hate for a single event on this entire forum.

 Manchu wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That doesn't really matter.

It matters quite a lot. First, it obviates the argument that Hugo nominations just reflect what SF readers, broadly speaking, think is good SF. Rather, Hugo nominations are the product of a far more specific culture, including its political characteristics. Which is to say, we don't need to posit the existence of some secret cabal to understand how ideology can color nominations. Second, instead of just being another backlash against multiculturalism, I believe this issue is actually motivated by the fact that the Hugo award is far more well-known and prestigious than the obscure and arguably outmoded fandom represented by WorldCon membership.

Now this I can agree with. Having been to two Worldcons and several smaller cons with a lot of membership in common, I can definitely agree that they are far from mainstream in their fandom. I wouldn't apply any kind of political bias to the hardcore Worldcon membership, but the attendees definitely have a bias towards stories that most normal fans would not rate so highly.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That doesn't really matter.

It matters quite a lot. First, it obviates the argument that Hugo nominations just reflect what SF readers, broadly speaking, think is good SF. Rather, Hugo nominations are the product of a far more specific culture, including its political characteristics. Which is to say, we don't need to posit the existence of some secret cabal to understand how ideology can color nominations. Second, instead of just being another backlash against multiculturalism, I believe this issue is actually motivated by the fact that the Hugo award is far more well-known and prestigious than the obscure and arguably outmoded fandom represented by WorldCon membership.

Now this I can agree with. Having been to two Worldcons and several smaller cons with a lot of membership in common, I can definitely agree that they are far from mainstream in their fandom. I wouldn't apply any kind of political bias to the hardcore Worldcon membership, but the attendees definitely have a bias towards stories that most normal fans would not rate so highly.

This is exactly the conflict that Sad Puppies was trying to correct. Arguably the most prestigious award for scifi and fantasy literature was being awarded to books that left a huge chunk of fandom wondering why those stories were winning awards while popular best sellers never even got nominated. When you make a concerted effort to educate those fans about how Hugo voting works and that for $40 they can nominate their favorite books instead of books they've never heard of, you get results that upset the entrenched WorldCon attendees/Hugo voters that wanted to maintain control of the award process.

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

Connie Willis is still alive?

Honestly, though, it's a shame. She did a good job last time I saw her present.

Is Harlan Ellison still alive to upstage her?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That doesn't really matter.

It matters quite a lot. First, it obviates the argument that Hugo nominations just reflect what SF readers, broadly speaking, think is good SF. Rather, Hugo nominations are the product of a far more specific culture, including its political characteristics. Which is to say, we don't need to posit the existence of some secret cabal to understand how ideology can color nominations. Second, instead of just being another backlash against multiculturalism, I believe this issue is actually motivated by the fact that the Hugo award is far more well-known and prestigious than the obscure and arguably outmoded fandom represented by WorldCon membership.

Now this I can agree with. Having been to two Worldcons and several smaller cons with a lot of membership in common, I can definitely agree that they are far from mainstream in their fandom. I wouldn't apply any kind of political bias to the hardcore Worldcon membership, but the attendees definitely have a bias towards stories that most normal fans would not rate so highly.

This is exactly the conflict that Sad Puppies was trying to correct. Arguably the most prestigious award for scifi and fantasy literature was being awarded to books that left a huge chunk of fandom wondering why those stories were winning awards while popular best sellers never even got nominated. When you make a concerted effort to educate those fans about how Hugo voting works and that for $40 they can nominate their favorite books instead of books they've never heard of, you get results that upset the entrenched WorldCon attendees/Hugo voters that wanted to maintain control of the award process.

They could have fixed the problem without handing out a slate of approved books they hope would win (wink, wink). Lobby to have the Worldcon membership fee reduced for nonattendees, or to be subsidized in some way (say, a proof of purchase system with the publishers who might want to increase the prestige of their works). By attaching a list of approved works with apparent input from politically contentious people to the push for populist voting, they've simply destroyed their own cause, and quite possibly the value of the award itself.

 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.

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

text removed.

Do not work your way around the language filter like this.
Reds8n

I'm in the same boat. Cracked used to be something to visit daily, and then the good content slowly dried up and went away.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
So Gamergate discussion has now taken over most of this thread. I guess I have a share of responsability for that. Anyhow, wonder what will happen at the Hugo next year.

Ugh. Its dumb. The whole issue is dumber than the debate on the pipeline.

my distaste for gamergate and its surroundings is probably one of the largest hate for a single event on this entire forum.

Yeah i'm finding these articles with these GG and aGG to be frustrating, pointless and ending in the same manner (with a locked thread). Didn't albert einstein say something about insanity being doing the same thing continuously and expecting different results?

My general rule is the Off-topic section is a very bad place to be or at least if you're in a political thread.



Is it sad that cracked.com has become so bad i actually have thought about writing articles for them (whereas before i thought i could never match that level of skill and talent)? I can be a funny guy at times but i don't have detailed info on events. I could probably write like a couple articles but it'd be more based on personal experience than detailed info displayed anywhere.