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.

This is quite surreal. I had to look at the calendar to make sure this wasn't an April Fool's joke.

Evidently it's a real thing.

I'm not sure why they are bringing her in as an 'Industry GoH' as I don't know what she has to do with the tabletop gaming industry, as I don't think she's developed a ruleset or a boardgame, or that she was even a part of it. What I do know about is the kerfuffle she started in the video game hobby. She seems a disruptive and divisive influence.

Did anyone else notice this yet?

http://www.gencon.com/experience/industrygoh

The theme is change makers. Whether you like her or not, she is a change maker.

Technically, I think she is credited with one of the missions in that House on Haunted Hill expansion (though I really doubt she actually did much more than put her name on it).

Still, I saw this and thought, can't she just be happy ruining one industry? She can't order a latte without the coffee house turning into Thunderdome. The fact that they even bothered to invite this divisive, currently irrelevant person as a guest of honor means that her group of followers have decided that they have enough pull in the tabletop industry that they can start pushing their brand of bs without repercussions.

How did she ruin an industry? As far as I can tell the only thing that has changed is that there are more whining man babies than I thought.

What exactly do you fear will happen? More armor on the Sisters?

Red Weasel wrote:
How did she ruin an industry? As far as I can tell the only thing that has changed is that there are more whining man babies than I thought.

What exactly do you fear will happen? More armor on the Sisters?

Oh there's a lot in this hobby as well.

Red Weasel wrote:
How did she ruin an industry? As far as I can tell the only thing that has changed is that there are more whining man babies than I thought.

What exactly do you fear will happen? More armor on the Sisters?

She gave people an excuse to stop having actual discussions. If you disagreed with her poorly researched and terrible videos, you were labeled a misogynist and, likely, banned from whatever community you made the mistake of dissenting in. It really turned gamers against each other as battle lines were drawn and people just started attacking each other over nothing. She literally turned the term "gamer" from a positive to a negative by accusing all the gamers of being mouth breathing perverts and harassers.

I have no problems with one sharing their opinions about whatever they have opinions about, but I think you should be prepared to defend them - especially when those opinions are about other people. They deserve a chance to face their accuser, but instead, after being accused, they were lynched and banished without recourse. That's just not right.

And yeah, changing the design and lore of the Sisters to appease a dogmatic cult with a repressed sense of morality most people don't share seems like a bad thing. It doesn't to you?

I have nothing against Anita Sarkeesian - I think she has a lot of valuable things to say and her role as a pop culture critic has had a lot of impact. The idea she could ruin a community and have people "banned for dissenting" is just so laughably ridiculous - what is she, an all powerful wizard? If a community was thrown into turmoil by her pointing out some common tropes on a kickstarter, maybe your community had some pretty screwed up fault lines to begin with.

That being said it seems like an odd fit for GenCon, specifically, just by dint of her not having any real background in tabletop. She's going to be on a panel for Industry Guests of Honor for an industry she has not, so far as I am aware of, ever been a member of. It's a very strange pick.

I don't know the history of all the insiders they picked, though - maybe there is always an outsider on these panels.

 Ouze wrote:
I have nothing against Anita Sarkeesian - I think she has a lot of valuable things to say and her role as a pop culture critic has had a lot of impact. The idea she could ruin a community and have people "banned for dissenting" is just so laughably ridiculous - what is she, an all powerful wizard? If a community was thrown into turmoil by her pointing out some common tropes on a kickstarter, maybe your community had some pretty screwed up fault lines to begin with.

1) Show my anything that she has ever said that has been valuable. I'd even settle for vaguely insightful. Anything. Ever.

2) She didn't ruin the communities personally. The members of her dogmatic cult did. Originally, it started out of a bit of guilt. She said, people can be kind of dicks to girls, and being true, a lot of people were like, geez, our community does tend to behave in a slightly unfashionable way online. We should do something about that. And that thing they started doing is going overboard. Anyone who said, "Sarkeesian's video is factually untrue" was met with "But people can be kind of dicks to girls. You must be one of those people who are dicks to girls." Banned.

Her initial set of videos played into a very specific insecurity with gamers that tabletop gamers also have. "We don't have enough women, it must be because of the neckbeards that make game stores so smelly - maybe if we ban the smelly neckbeards, we'll make a more inviting environment for women. We love women. Gosh, it would be nice if one would talk to me. feth you neckbeards! Die in a fire! Hey, why are all the neckbeards angry? Who cares? They're neckbeards." Pinpointing that exact insecurity and fanning the flames of contempt was enough to set off a culture war. Because tabletop gaming has that exact same insecurity, they need to be fething scared of her showing her face in these parts.

3) For the record, neckbeards, I love you guys. We are all brought together by our passion for tabletop gaming and that is what our community it built around. It isn't about who we want to include or exclude, but about who chooses to join us in that passion.

 Sqorgar wrote:

1) Show me

No, because

 Sqorgar wrote:
Technically, I think she is credited with one of the missions in that House on Haunted Hill expansion (though I really doubt she actually did much more than put her name on it).

Shows that it would be a fool's errand. You're not going to argue in good faith, you're going to invent things in your head that bolster what you already think, and I'm not going to waste my time.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Anyone who said, "Sarkeesian's video is factually untrue" was met with "But people can be kind of dicks to girls. You must be one of those people who are dicks to girls." Banned.

If this is accurate, then it sounds like you belonged to some terrible communities and you should appropriately focus your ire, or be happy that you're better off for no longer being part of a community that so capriciously bans members, right?

A demonstrably dishonest grifter. Not much else to her otherwise.

Anyone who takes her seriously enough to think she either has merit or 'ruined an industry' is giving this social media tumor more credit than she deserves.

 Ouze wrote:
That being said it seems like an odd fit for GenCon, specifically, just by dint of her not having any real background in tabletop. She's going to be on a panel for Industry Guests of Honor for an industry she has not, so far as I am aware of, ever been a member of. It's a very strange pick.

Do you want the honest answer? It's simple.

Tabletop gaming is full of pathetic incels that will do anything to get a peepee touch or a little booty pat. Of course they'll bend the knee to anything with two mammary glands that has a whinge. It's a community ripe for exploitation.

I thought the most interesting part was that according to GenCon she would be doing a Q&A. Since when does she allow questions?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Do you want the honest answer? It's simple.

Tabletop gaming is full of pathetic incels that will do anything to get a peepee touch or a little booty pat. Of course they'll bend the knee to anything with two mammary glands that has a whinge. It's a community ripe for exploitation.

That, or there's just no money left for her in videogames.

 jonolikespie wrote:

That, or there's just no money left for her in videogames.

Maybe she LEVELED UP?!?!?!

Anita could have milked the video game thing and made a fortune if she'd been more familiar with the market and hit it about 10 years ago (but that's when she was in training under some professional grifter). But she bungled that. When the average gamer is... well, the average person, it's a bit harder to bat your lashes and hope some pathetic horde of nerds comes rushing in with their credit card numbers to 'save the maidens'. Tabletop gaming, however, a bit more ripe for it.

"Maybe if we give this woman money and listen to her ideas, all the cool hot gamer chicks will start wanting to play with me! Yeah, that's it! It's not me, it's because of the MUH SOGGY NESTS!"

 Sqorgar wrote:
Her initial set of videos played into a very specific insecurity with gamers that tabletop gamers also have. "We don't have enough women, it must be because of the neckbeards that make game stores so smelly - maybe if we ban the smelly neckbeards, we'll make a more inviting environment for women. We love women. Gosh, it would be nice if one would talk to me. feth you neckbeards! Die in a fire! Hey, why are all the neckbeards angry? Who cares? They're neckbeards." Pinpointing that exact insecurity and fanning the flames of contempt was enough to set off a culture war. Because tabletop gaming has that exact same insecurity, they need to be fething scared of her showing her face in these parts.

This. A 'bullseye' better than I could word it. No one ever bothers to consider the fact that men and women, in general, have very different interests. Even still, there are plenty of women in the hobby. And there are plenty of actual rude and awful neckbeards. Believe it or not, actual rude neckbeards are easy to deal with. I've only encountered it a couple of times, however, and it was never the type of guy who was important to the gaming community. In fact, both had legitimate social or mental issues and were more uncomfortably awkward than 'sexist'.

No one is excluded from gaming. At no point in my life have I ever seen any shortage of women in the hobby, because the ones interested in it are always there gaming and as a 'culture' we seem to be quite decent at policing ourselves. I can promise you, if the women aren't playing with you- by all means, assume they're this mysterious 'phantom audience'. That means the only reason they are not at your table is because of 'you'.

(Not directed at anyone, it's more the hypothetical 'you'.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:
I thought the most interesting part was that according to GenCon she would be doing a Q&A. Since when does she allow questions?

They're going to be pre-screened. I'd wager 'scripted'. The last time she had one, she started spewing insults. Not only that, I'm shocked anyone gave her a panel after the way she treated Boogie.

 Ouze wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
Technically, I think she is credited with one of the missions in that House on Haunted Hill expansion (though I really doubt she actually did much more than put her name on it).

Shows that it would be a fool's errand. You're not going to argue in good faith, you're going to invent things in your head that bolster what you already think, and I'm not going to waste my time.

First, I got the name wrong. It's Betrayal at House On the Hill. Second, the game had 50 different contributors, of which Sarkeesian is one of like three that have no game design credentials AT ALL. She's never written fiction or designed a game before or since, so I find it hard to believe that a complete amateur with no experience managed to make a Betrayal mission that was worth playing on her first attempt, and then proceeded to follow up this amazing accomplishment by never doing it ever again. It is far more likely that she worked with a ghost writer who did the playtesting and design, and used her name recognition as a way to add value to the product. It's not an absurd conclusion to draw.

So, let me get this straight. You won't address my points, then accuse me of not arguing in good faith to hide your shame of being unable to? Where have I see this sort of behavior before... It seems so familiar...

If this is accurate, then it sounds like you belonged to some terrible communities and you should appropriately focus your ire, or be happy that you're better off for no longer being part of a community that so capriciously bans members, right?

NeoGAF was the largest and most respected video game forum in the world. It had people from pretty much every developer and publisher posting there, interacting with the fans. It was the first site the get news and information about the industry. It had its problems, but it was a great community for a long, long time. And that changed with Sarkeesian's videos (or rather, the threads about those videos). Within a fortnight, it had gone crazy and they started banning a bunch of people, not for breaking the rules, but for having specific opinions - including industry vets who had been on the forum for a decade. It became hostile and everybody was under constant threat of getting banned (there would be threads where literally every other poster was permabanned)

In many respects, NeoGAF was a lot like Dakka is now, but for a larger, more mainstream industry. So don't blame the community. It could happen anywhere. Like, say, a Star Wars forum.

 Sqorgar wrote:
I got the name wrong. It's Betrayal at House On the Hill. Second, the game had 50 different contributors, of which Sarkeesian is one of like three that have no game design credentials AT ALL. She's never written fiction or designed a game before or since, so I find it hard to believe that a complete amateur with no experience managed to make a Betrayal mission that was worth playing on her first attempt, and then proceeded to follow up this amazing accomplishment by never doing it ever again. It is far more likely that she worked with a ghost writer who did the playtesting and design, and used her name recognition as a way to add value to the product. It's not an absurd conclusion to draw.

Ok, that's a fair rationalization. I should have given you an opportunity to ask why you assumed what you said, instead of assuming it was invented out of malice.

 Sqorgar wrote:
And that changed with Sarkeesian's videos (or rather, the threads about those videos). Within a fortnight, it had gone crazy and they started banning a bunch of people, not for breaking the rules, but for having specific opinions - including industry vets who had been on the forum for a decade. It became hostile and everybody was under constant threat of getting banned (there would be threads where literally every other poster was permabanned).

If you take a step back and look at what your saying, you're really describing what sounds like a problem with the community - a prexisting problem. If some rando who isn't a part of that community can make some videos and utterly destroy it in 2 weeks, as you claim, and turn all the mods into totalitarians, then it sounds like there were some pretty deep fault lines already; like blaming a match and not the cans of gas and dynamite all over the place.

 Sqorgar wrote:
NeoGAF was the largest and most respected video game forum in the world. It had people from pretty much every developer and publisher posting there, interacting with the fans. It was the first site the get news and information about the industry. It had its problems, but it was a great community for a long, long time. And that changed with Sarkeesian's videos (or rather, the threads about those videos). Within a fortnight, it had gone crazy and they started banning a bunch of people, not for breaking the rules, but for having specific opinions - including industry vets who had been on the forum for a decade. It became hostile and everybody was under constant threat of getting banned (there would be threads where literally every other poster was permabanned)

In many respects, NeoGAF was a lot like Dakka is now, but for a larger, more mainstream industry. So don't blame the community. It could happen anywhere. Like, say, a Star Wars forum.

One forum, dedicated to RPG's (and it's a big one)- was always a little... odd. But after a certain blog about 'white male terrorism', that site went spiraling into absolute madness. It was always a bit sketchy because of some of the Admins' egos, but it went from walking on eggshells to something more like tiptoeing through a minefield. Witch hunts, nitpicking every possible statement for a potential hint of Xism. Mods and Admins acting like they're in a Stanford Prison Experiment. Repeated 'and everyone clapped' stories, and even the slightest hint of skepticism not only got you banned but they took their time to flame you. It was a nuthouse, and it's a shining example of how just the right combination of frauds and desperate losers can absolutely destroy a community that once had minimal problems and banded together for the love of a hobby.

Mind you, this all went insane after someone posted a blog that was begging people to harass a miniatures company, and it was extremely questionable to anyone with an inkling of critical thinking skills.

Yes, people like Sarkeesian do damage communities. More than they should, because yes- there are two ends of the extreme. Make no mistake, Sarkeesian's a fraud and a parasite. But when people like her show up, the communities should do what we've always done and handle our own problems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
If you take a step back and look at what your saying, you're really describing what sounds like a problem with the community - a prexisting problem. If some rando who isn't a part of that community can make some videos and utterly destroy it in 2 weeks, as you claim, and turn all the mods into totalitarians, then it sounds like there were some pretty deep fault lines already; like blaming a match and not the cans of gas and dynamite all over the place.

Yeah, the problem is very simple.

Many members of the gaming community are easily bullied and exploited. Put some teats on the swindler or the bully and suddenly the drooling masses lose their damned minds.

Ever noticed how people like her don't go after Rappers? Guys that openly and willingly exercise sexist behavior?

The same reason PETA isn't yanking the leather vest off a Hells' Angel, and instead goes after some grandma with a fur coat. They always go after targets they see as weak.

IDGAF about her. Unless she goes after Kingdom Death. Then, I might just join Kotaku online in trying to get her banned and censored.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
IDGAF about her. Unless she goes after Kingdom Death. Then, I might just join Kotaku online in trying to get her banned and censored.

I just don't want McIntosh commentary on gaming. Hers was cringy enough, but her pet soyboy needs to be mocked into the darkest corners of the internet.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Ever noticed how people like her don't go after Rappers? Guys that openly and willingly exercise sexist behavior?

The same reason PETA isn't yanking the leather vest off a Hells' Angel, and instead goes after some grandma with a fur coat. They always go after targets they see as weak.

I think a more likely (or at less less tin-foil-hatty) explanation is that she is more familiar with gaming, and the gaming community, since she had played games since she was little. You go with what you know.

 Ouze wrote:
If you take a step back and look at what your saying, you're really describing what sounds like a problem with the community - a prexisting problem. If some rando who isn't a part of that community can make some videos and utterly destroy it in 2 weeks, as you claim, and turn all the mods into totalitarians, then it sounds like there were some pretty deep fault lines already; like blaming a match and not the cans of gas and dynamite all over the place.

It was a preexisting problem. Like I said, it was a deep seeded insecurity that belonged to all of us. That insecurity was flamed into a fire, and it turned everybody against each other. All witch hunts begin with insecurity.

Have you seen the threads about boob armor and combat heels on Dakka? Not a single one of those threads has ever gone to completion. We, as a community, have NEVER resolved that issue. There's no middle ground there. The two sides are diametrically opposed. For one to win, the other must lose. But there's a sort of uneasy truce surrounding this issue because the threads typically start running in circles and people start getting mean, and a moderator comes in and locks the thread.

Now, imagine that something happened where the balance shifted just a bit, like the moderators choosing sides. Not only did they choose sides, they felt morally obligated to act to silence the other side. Something like that can be as simple as suspicion that one side is lying, or that they are brigading from another website. Or it could be the suspicion that the people pro-boob armor secretly hate women and are misogynists, and that boob armor is actively keeping women out of the hobby. It's no longer a simple internet argument. Now it has consequences, and the moderators are morally justified in stepping in and dictating the discussion's outcome. When people disagree, they are disagreeing with the moderators, acting in official capacity, and their word is final. Disagreement with a moderator is a bannable offense. And then things start getting worse from there.

That's all it takes. Just a little push on the insecurity to get moderators to take sides, and it's over. All it takes. It's nothing. A trifle. And yet, overnight, those moderators will become dictators. And if you think it can't happen here, I don't know what to tell you. Let's hope you are right.

 Ouze wrote:
I think a more likely explanation is that she is more familiar with gaming, and the gaming community, since she had played games since she was little. You go with what you know.

Actually she's also said the exact opposite- that she wasn't familiar with gaming and that she didn't know anything about games.

The jackal goes after prey that it knows it can take.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Actually she's also said the exact opposite- that she wasn't familiar with gaming and that she didn't know anything about games.

The jackal goes after prey that it knows it can take.

Yes, I'm aware of one out of context quote in a single video, the same year she went to the Canadian video game awards, that blows the whole thing open.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Have you seen the threads about boob armor and combat heels on Dakka? Not a single one of those threads has ever gone to completion. We, as a community, have NEVER resolved that issue. There's no middle ground there. The two sides are diametrically opposed. For one to win, the other must lose. But there's a sort of uneasy truce surrounding this issue because the threads typically start running in circles and people start getting mean, and a moderator comes in and locks the thread.

Now, imagine that something happened where the balance shifted just a bit, like the moderators choosing sides.

Yeah, I can imagine exactly what that looks like. There is a huge problem on Dakka Dakka with this, too. The only reason the plastic render thread didn't turn into the usual dumpster fire was aggressive moderation by a different set of moderators.

Now, if someone did a set of videos about how Sisters threads bring out the worst in the 40k community, it would be difficult to blame the person who did the videos for exposing issues that have been rampant and just under the surface for quite a while That's what I'm saying.

 Ouze wrote:
Yes, I'm aware of one out of context quote in a single video, the same year she went to the Canadian video game awards, that blows the whole thing open.

Well, she clearly is familiar. Since she said you got rewarded for murdering innocent women in the Hitman series. And cherry-picked most of her 'studies'. Ever thought that maybe she got that invitation to the awards show for the same reason she got invited to GenCon?

Yeah, outlandish- I know. But then again, I'm the one sitting her telling you that she's a dishonest huckster after she took an obscene amount of money and never delivered on her promise, and stole "Let's Play" footage from other gamers.

Oh, by the way if you touch a hot stove it will burn you and if you stare into the sun you'll burn your retina.

Whether she's a life long gamer or not her videos are either exceptionally poor or intentionally disingenuous.

My gaming group and gaming store acually has loads of women, including the main staff. They all detest her and other professional victims with a passion.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Ever thought that maybe she got that invitation to the awards show for the same reason she got invited to GenCon?

No, because she got invited to Gencon, at least as claimed, for being a change maker. At the time she went to the first Canadian game awards she had just launched FF and the Tropes vs Videogames didn't happen for another what, 4 years? I don't think anyone knew who she was yet.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Whether she's a life long gamer or not her videos are either exceptionally poor or intentionally disingenuous.

You mean to tell me that you don't assert your conclusion before you begin your research?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
No, because she got invited to Gencon, at least as claimed, for being a change maker. At the time she went to the first Canadian game awards she had just launched FF and the Tropes vs Videogames didn't happen for another what, 4 years? I don't think anyone knew who she was yet.

She got invited because she was already a snake oil salesman before she launched her youtube series. For whatever reason, some Canadians wanted her around. Don't act like inviting her to something like this makes her an actual relevant expert or remotely credible in her field.

She's a media manipulating performance art genius, I'd even suspect many of her 'mistakes' are on purpose to make intertubes chatter, and taking money from the gullible is borderline victimless crime

Honestly, she's just another agenda pusher who may weight in on the industry... it only matters if her agenda is pushed by someone with backing, or like minds are already in place.

Not to add fuel to fire, but the Warhammer Adventures debacle has put the community into a light that I'm not sure I enjoy all that much. People either reacted horribly (nah mah stuffs no kids) or they seemed to revel in the fact that there was more 'all-important-diversity' (among other things that seemed suspect) and that was the only thing good about the inclusion of the books. That could easily be seized upon by someone like her.

And so it spreads...

And "change maker"? The change she wants isn't the kind of change anyone needs...

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
She's a media manipulating performance art genius, I'd even suspect many of her 'mistakes' are on purpose to make intertubes chatter, and taking money from the gullible is borderline victimless crime

Quite. Throwing money at her at this point is idiotic. Absolutely no sane person on the planet would financially support someone who didn't deliver a full product- she specifically failed to do that. Not only was it incomplete, but most of it was just stolen footage from Youtube. She got an obscene amount of money to create a series of videos that any moron can make. For FREE.

A fool and his money are soon parted.

One reasonable side hates her because she's extremely dishonest in her statements (or just incompetent). The other reasonable side sees someone who's using the feminist angle to exploit well-meaning (or desperate) persons for monetary gain.

I don't care if you love or hate feminism. If you don't know a cheap con artist when you see one, you deserve every bit of distress and every lost dollar.

 Carnikang wrote:
Not to add fuel to fire, but the Warhammer Adventures debacle has put the community into a light that I'm not sure I enjoy all that much.

Dude, I see what you're saying and I know where you're coming from- but let's just put it this way: The 'Negative Reaction' was blown way out of proportion. Most of it was joking and making fun of the product. A few people were whining that this was some sinister SJW plot, but anyone can see this was ridiculous. The only 'reaction' I saw that was big was basically a bunch of people pretending the minor joking and a couple of loons constituted a 'major outcry'. If that's a 'debacle' in the 40k gaming community, then 8th Edition was Armageddon.