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.

Taunting someone that you're going to rape them makes you a gakky person.

 Krellnus wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Taunting someone that you're going to rape them makes you a gakky person.

As opposed to saying that you're going to utterly wreck them or say they are going to get dunked?

Yes.

 Frankenberry wrote:
[snip]

A professional sports player (working with the assumption that e-sports are to be respected at the same level as regular sports) threatens another professional sports player with rape. The second player, upon receiving this threat, reported it to the agency which runs the professional sport in question, and said agency put the first player on a ban for conduct that violated the policies its players must follow.

Then an unrelated third player has a hissy fit because he's mad that someone got punished for breaking the rules.


So... if anyone is "freaking out" about anything... it's the third player-- and you.

 Frankenberry wrote:
Etiquette hasn't been apart of the internet scene since forever, it's fething lame that some 'institution' thinks they can enforce it now.

If you don't want to follow the rules of the organizer of a tournament, don't join the tournament.

The rules of the tournament include good sportsmanship, and that's anything but.

The TO almost invariably wants you to treat the participants with respect, and for organized sports where you get paid for playing, this is part of the contract.

 illuknisaa wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Krellnus wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Taunting someone that you're going to rape them makes you a gakky person.

As opposed to saying that you're going to utterly wreck them or say they are going to get dunked?

Yes.

Nice double standard.

No. And if you're incapable of explaining why you think that's a double standard, it clearly isn't.

 illuknisaa wrote:
1 and 2 are literally the same thing.

You say 1 is bad and 2 is not bad.

Double standard.

Assertion number one is false.

You made the assertion that the two are the same. You have yet to prove your assertion.

Prove it.

Actually, I have gone to 40k tournaments where you would be disqualified for saying that. Many of them invoke a family-friendly environment where it is not intended to be hostile. And there is very little that is more hostile than rape threats.

Meanwhile, I had someone say something to me along those lines as recently as Monday of this week, while playing league of legends.

Your personal experiences are fine and all, but scientific evidence has shown that women receive far more insults, negative attention, and general harassment while playing video games than men do, so don't discount the existence of the problem when you're not the target to begin with.

Eumerin wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Meanwhile, I had someone say something to me along those lines as recently as Monday of this week, while playing league of legends.

Your personal experiences are fine and all, but scientific evidence has shown that women receive far more insults, negative attention, and general harassment while playing video games than men do, so don't discount the existence of the problem when you're not the target to begin with.

The most recent data I've seen actually suggests the opposite - men receive more online threats, harassment, etc... But the types of harassment directed at women tend to be more offensive.

Of the studies I've seen (several of which have been part of rotation of quotes in my signature in the past, actually), the number has been well above a 3:1 ratio of harassment sent towards women vs sent towards men. My personal experience mirrors this. Not only is the harassment greater in quantity, but it also tends to be more vicious.

Bishop F Gantry wrote:
demanding special treatment of women

Respect isn't "special treatment".

 Kojiro wrote:
a common parlance version that means 'to easily defeat'.

That's not common. That's a specific quirk of the underlying misogyny in gamer culture.

 Kojiro wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:
a common parlance version that means 'to easily defeat'.

That's not common. That's a specific quirk of the underlying misogyny in gamer culture.

Are you actually making the assertion that a general member of the public- let alone the kind of people following a pro SC2 player- would interpret that tweet as an actual threat of sexual assault?

"Going to rape some girl soon." is, literally, an admission of intent to rape someone. Someone saying that in most situations would be looked at as if they're insane or criminal.

Refusing to consider hte ramifications of saying gakky, horrific things to other people is not a sign of a good person.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
if a guy had said this to a guy, we wouldn't even have this thread.

Because if that had been the case, the pathetic little twit NightEnDD wouldn't have raised a big gak about it to begin with.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Context: It's important!

Context is not an excuse for being a gakky person.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's also not an excuse to imply meanings that aren't there.

Much like gravity, the meaning is there whether you want it to be there or not.

No one is treating it like the end of the world, Matty.

Except maybe the people who are acting like a person getting punished for breaking the rules is the end of the world, maybe.

As for your ideas on "third wave feminism", if you want that discussion, let's not have it here. Might be better to talk about that in PM, since that's not really the topic of this thread.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But some of us are treating it as an example of "inherent misogyny", [which is] complete nonsense.

The prevalence of misogynistic insults and rape references directed towards women amongst gamers is an excellent example of misogyny within the culture.

While I'm well aware that you'd prefer to live in denial of the problem, that doesn't make it go away.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Honestly, in my experience its usually only the people who are annoying who get insulted

"It's her fault for wearing such a short skirt!"

 Swastakowey wrote:
Gamers annoy everyone.

If that's how you define gamers, then let gaming die.

 Swastakowey wrote:
No thats not at all what I siad...

You said:

"in my experience its usually only the people who are annoying who get insulted"

And...

"If you find yourself being insulted frequently maybe you are just being annoying?"

These are your words, not mine. This is what you said. And your conclusion is nonsense, based on ass-pulls instead of facts.

Compare that to this:
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/women-arent-welcome-internet-72170/

In 2006, researchers from the University of Maryland set up a bunch of fake online accounts and then dispatched them into chat rooms. Accounts with feminine usernames incurred an average of 100 sexually explicit or threatening messages a day. Masculine names received 3.7.

No difference in actions, just different names. Result? 27 times more insults directed at feminine names over masculine ones.

Or this:
http://www.themarysue.com/academic-study-game-harassment/

In order to standardize the experimental conditions, verbal messages were pre-recorded in both a male and female voice. These were made up of unassuming things such as “hi everybody,” “nice job so far,” and “thanks for the game, bye.” The researchers then played public matches, transmitting the messages via voice chat. Matches played without engaging in voice chat were used as a control.
[...]
Findings indicate that, on average, the female voice received three times as many negative comments as the male voice or no voice. In addition, the female voice received more queries and more messages from other gamers than the male voice or no voice.

Again, no difference in actions, nothing "annoying"-- merely a change in voices and usernames. Female voices received three times more harassment and insults than male voices.

That's just the tip of the iceberg; there's studies showing a similar, if less extreme bias even within the scientific community. Pretending that the gamer community doesn't have a problem with misogyny doesn't make the problem go away. It really just makes it worse.

 StarTrotter wrote:
Actually I've seen statistics that show that men are more likely to be harassed overall.

Citation needed. The weight of evidence is against your claim, so I'm assuming it's an ass-pull.

From the link you gave:

Young women, those 18-24, experience certain severe types of harassment at disproportionately high levels: 26% of these young women have been stalked online, and 25% were the target of online sexual harassment. In addition, they do not escape the heightened rates of physical threats and sustained harassment common to their male peers and young people in general.

 StarTrotter wrote:
Still, I think it's important to note that it's more everyone's getting screwed in the end.

Not when people use that as a justification for the status quo.

Also, look at the three links I gave above, which show three separate studies of much higher quality than the Pew poll.

 Swastakowey wrote:
I would like to see a link to all the accounts made in these tests. I wanna see that there is no bias in these studies. When I read this all I can see is a case of "he said she said".

and then you immediately go list some anecdote after complaining about "he said she said".

Your retelling of your wife's anecdotal internet experiences are not of equal value to this discussion as several actual peer-reviewed scientific studies on the matter.

Debates don't work that way.

 Swastakowey wrote:
I feel the same about those articles you linked. With so much bull crap on the internet there needs to be proper sources being used.

Tough gak. Your crappy anecdote isn't worth anything compared to real studies.

I'm saying he made a statement saying he had intent.

He made the statement that he intended to sexually assault a girl.

That's not really a deniable thing. That's what he ACTUALLY said. Regardless of what he meant, that's what he said. And thankfully he has since retracted it and apologized for it.

You failed to make your point. To use another example, Calling someone a jerk is not the same as calling them an [N-Bomb]. No matter the intent.

I see plenty of people, including at least one in this thread, saying that they were in the wrong to ban the player. And yes, saying "she shouldn't have reported him" is the same as saying "he shouldn't have been banned", as far as the end result goes.