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.

 His Master's Voice wrote:
I have recently instituted a rule that prevents me from discussing any relevant issues unless I can see the eyes of the person I'm talking to.

That rules me out - these things are glued on


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
As far as I've seen, the sex scenes in GTAV are about as non-interactive as you can get. It's basically an animation that plays out, with some bad sound effects. In first person they appear to be even less explicit, as the camera is on your PoV and remains pretty locked. So really anyone worried about interactivity or how the 1st person view changes it, really it just makes it more awkward.

Yeah, it seems less interactive than Hot Coffee was.

Which was itself less interesting than Hot Chocolate was in Steambot Chronicles. If you played your cards right, a female companion could clean your

 Melissia wrote:
Such as? You seem to be assuming some kind of conspiracy to cause controversy, which I find laughable. I might have agreed with you if you said it was poorly worded and poorly thought out in how it said things, but you seem to be saying that it was intentionally put out this way in some sort of bizarre conspiracy, rather than just someone making a carelessly celebratory post that happened to insult a few loud and obnoxious people.

Well, this is still on twitter if you check efighter3's tweets:

 Melissia wrote:
A single snarky comment made on twitter doesn't indicate any kind of grand conspiracy

It makes it harder to defend her as a voice for inclusiveness though. I admire your efforts

I'm not being snarky, by the by. Unlike Ms Alexander, you're actually conversing about this.

(Thanks to the GG autoblocker, she's blocked me on Twitter )

 Melissia wrote:
In her defense, you realize how many random people are trying to "converse" with her bout it, all of them wanting to have the same conversation and refusing to look at other conversations she's had in the past on the exact same topic?

I don't blame her for blocking #gamergate on twitter, given that. Let's face it, there's probably been thousands of people before you, and a good portion of them were not looking for any sort of honest conversation-- they were looking for gotchas and to pin insults on her and goad her in to things.

Oh, I can understand that. I wouldn't be surprised if her tweets following the article might have been born of frustration.

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.

 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

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!)

 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.

 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.

 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.

 Lynata wrote:

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:Tbh neither can I. Its a stupid name. but the issues over nepotism, censorship and collusion that it exposed are serious.

lol, you mean the issue where a certain group of gamers went on a pathetic, sexist crusade instead of fact-checking claims that were easily disprovable just by spending five seconds on a search engine of your choice?

It exposed something, alright ... but I don't think it is what you think it is.

He mentioned Depression Quest in a Rock Paper Shotgun article on the 8th of Jan, and a Kotaku article on the 31st of March. He didn't mention that he was a tester for 'powerful Twine darling Depression Quest' which is a bit of a conflict of interest.

But no, I don't think he ever formally reviewed it.

 Melissia wrote:
Someone making a quick reference of a game isn't really something to be gaking your pants over.

Eh, it was a minor breach of ethics that wasn't addressed, people pulled the threads leading to more and more corruption, leading to this tangled web we're in today.

It's too late to flush the poo.

 Melissia wrote:
Most of which ended up being also fake or minor issues, too.

Meanwhile, bigger issues have long been ignored, and are still ignored, by gamergate.

I don't think the undisclosed conflicts of interest are false. They're verifiable by Patreon with a bit of digging.

I also don't think they're minor, for a profession that relies on trust of the reader. Or any profession, really.

And what bigger issues have been ignored?

*change the name, the brand is no good
*you've made things too emotionally charged for real dialogue
*you should care more about this other different thing
*your goals aren't clear enough, you won't achieve anything
*the bad actions of this one person reflect on the whole

Is it weird I'm starting to notice the anti-GG arguments are the same as anti-feminism arguments?