The Zoe Quinn Scandal

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.

**LordofHats**

Yeah I imagine the darkest side of this is that now whenever I pass an article or twitter from a member of the female persuasion I'll likely see comments somewhere along the lines of "who did you blow to get this published"

**Soladrin**

LordofHats wrote:
Yeah I imagine the darkest side of this is that now whenever I pass an article or twitter from a member of the female persuasion I'll likely see comments somewhere along the lines of "who did you blow to get this published"

Yeah, she essentially ruined all the (limited) progress there has been.

**Lynata**

Melissia wrote:I never heard of her before this scandal.

I only recall that name from that Game Jam scandal where the moderator managed to chase off the attending devs by spewing offensive remarks and artificially creating drama in spite of the guys who hired him asking him to stop or get fired.

I guess some people just seem very desperate to link this incident to "social justice warriors", to use OP's quote, and the ongoing debate about sexism in the gaming industry. Ironically whilst failing to recognise that if true, this is just another example of sexism hurting both genders.

**LordofHats**

Seaward wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Games journalism is a pit of terrible people doing ethically questionable things? No one cares until it involves sex.

It's nice to pretend things like that, but it's not really true.

See I remember this, and I also remember that no one cared (really that's probably because everyone already knows about the 4 Point score phenomena already, so that a critic got booted for not scoring games like the developer wanted no one was really surprised). Apparently to really get people talking you have to shock them first. The Quinnspiracy (I do like that name, catchy) has been going for a few days and has inspired more internet chaos than Jeff Gerstmann ever did. Probably helps that Jeff was just a typical reviewer at a mainstream site while this involves numerous webpages, celebrities, and the entire gaming social media scene.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Soladrin wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Yeah I imagine the darkest side of this is that now whenever I pass an article or twitter from a member of the female persuasion I'll likely see comments somewhere along the lines of "who did you blow to get this published"

Yeah, she essentially ruined all the (limited) progress there has been.

Eh they'll soldier on. If women can get the vote after a few thousand years they can get anything!

It's just kind of sad that now people have an example to link to when they make those kinds of comments.

**Melissia**

LordofHats wrote:
Yeah I imagine the darkest side of this is that now whenever I pass an article or twitter from a member of the female persuasion I'll likely see comments somewhere along the lines of "who did you blow to get this published"

They already did that, really. Oh, and comment more on her appearance than on her games, too.

Hell, I've seen that happen with Ms. Quinn, too.

**Seaward**

LordofHats wrote:See I remember this, and I also remember that no one cared (really that's probably because everyone already knows about the 4 Point score phenomena already, so that a critic got booted for not scoring games like the developer wanted no one was really surprised). Apparently to really get people talking you have to shock them first. The Quinnspiracy (I do like that name, catchy) has been going for a few days and has inspired more internet chaos than Jeff Gerstmann ever did. Probably helps that Jeff was just a typical reviewer at a mainstream site while this involves numerous webpages, celebrities, and the entire gaming social media scene.

We're remembering things very differently, then. Because the Gerstmann thing generated a metric fuckton of internet chatter, both of the formally-published and user-commentary variety.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Yeah I imagine the darkest side of this is that now whenever I pass an article or twitter from a member of the female persuasion I'll likely see comments somewhere along the lines of "who did you blow to get this published"
They already did that, really. Oh, and comment more on her appearance than on her games, too.

Hell, I've seen that happen with Ms. Quinn, too.

Well, to be fair, it turns out it's a legitimate question in her case.

**Lynata**

Seaward wrote:Well, to be fair, it turns out it's a legitimate question in her case.

The question is never legitimate until you have reason to believe the answer is yes.

A reason other than "it's a chick", I mean.

**Melissia**

Seaward wrote:
Well, to be fair, it turns out it's a legitimate question in her case.

Nope.

**Kojiro**

Lynata wrote:
The question is never legitimate until you have reason to believe the answer is yes.

Until women stop trading on their sexuality, until it stops being a currency they can exchange for favours or goods, this question will continue to be asked.

**Lynata**

Kojiro wrote:Until women stop trading on their sexuality, until it stops being a currency they can exchange for favours or goods, this question will continue to be asked.

It will, and it would continue to be asked for quite some time afterwards as well. But arguably it isn't supposed to be asked.
Apart from the "sex trade" only being symptomatic of the gender disparity in the industry, it's still an act of stigmatisation. It's like an attempt at justifying racial profiling in the police force by pointing to Black people committing crimes.

Men trade on their sexuality as well, just like men get sexually harassed by their female bosses. I have yet to hear of a single case where a male developer was faced with this question.

**Melissia**

Kojiro wrote:
Lynata wrote:
The question is never legitimate until you have reason to believe the answer is yes.

Until women stop trading on their sexuality, until it stops being a currency they can exchange for favours or goods, this question will continue to be asked.

It'll be asked regardless of that happening. And in any situation, it remains a nonsensical question that is as irrelevant as it is worthless.

**Kojiro**

Lynata wrote:
It will, and it would continue to be asked for quite some time afterwards as well. But arguably it isn't supposed to be asked. Apart from the "sex trade" only being symptomatic of the gender disparity in the industry, it's still an act of stigmatisation. It's like an attempt at justifying racial profiling in the police force by pointing to Black people committing crimes.

Here's where I have to disagree with you after a fashion.

It's all about the point you come into it at.

There's no reason to suspect that average person on the street of anything in particular. It would be wrong to ask where that black guy got a Lexus, how that woman got to be so high in the company etc simply on those grounds. But if other facts come to light- the Lexus driver hasn't worked in 8 years, has a rap sheet a mile long and lives in the projects, the woman is in a position normally held by someone with a degree while she's a (completely gorgeous) but uneducated idiot then suspicion is duly warranted. It's all about when you turn the lens of investigation on someone.

Once you have reasonable grounds to suspect that something untoward is going on automatically ruling out legitimate possibilities such as 'that Lexus is stolen' or 'she's sleeping with the boss' would just be bad investigative work. So I agree with you it shouldn't be the 'default' assumption but once something is flagged as fishy all possibilities should be explored.

Lynata wrote:
Men trade on their sexuality as well, just like men get sexually harassed by their female bosses. I have yet to hear of a single case where a male developer was faced with this question.

You've already answered this yourself. You claimed (not that I dispute it) that the industry is biased heavily towards males. Males don't get faced with this question because the chances of a male in the industry even being able to trade on his sexuality is vanishingly small.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:
It'll be asked regardless of that happening. And in any situation, it remains a nonsensical question that is as irrelevant as it is worthless.

Tell me how- in cases where it's actually the truth- it is irrelevant?

**Lynata**

Kojiro wrote:Once you have reasonable grounds to suspect that something untoward is going on automatically ruling out legitimate possibilities such as 'that Lexus is stolen' or 'she's sleeping with the boss' would just be bad investigative work. So I agree with you it shouldn't be the 'default' assumption but once something is flagged as fishy all possibilities should be explored.

So, pretty much what I said in the post you originally replied to.

Kojiro wrote:You've already answered this yourself. You claimed (not that I dispute it) that the industry is biased heavily towards males. Males don't get faced with this question because the chances of a male in the industry even being able to trade on his sexuality is vanishingly small.

Pretty much. I admit it was a trick question - I just wanted to see if anyone disputed it.

That being said, do we actually have credible metrics about what percentage of women climb the career ladder by trading sexual favours, or is this suspicion on the interwebs mostly just a bias resulting out of a bygone era where it was more or less socially accepted for men to have an affair with their secretary, combined with a reflexive fear against more and more women pushing into traditionally male occupations?

**Melissia**

Kojiro wrote:
Tell me how- in cases where it's actually the truth- it is irrelevant?

Because a woman's appearance still has no relevance to the topic at hand.

You've yet to explain why it is relevant. This is, of course, because you are incapable of doing so.

**Kojiro**

Melissia wrote:
Because a woman's appearance still has no relevance to the topic at hand.

You've yet to explain why it is relevant. This is, of course, because you are incapable of doing so.

Mostly because I never said anything about a womans appearance. I said women trade on their sexuality (far more so than men and to varying degrees). Quinn has turned out to be an example of one such example.

Melissia wrote:
It'll be asked regardless of that happening. And in any situation, it remains a nonsensical question that is as irrelevant as it is worthless.

Bolding mine. The question- which I'll simplify to 'Did that person sleep their way to the top'- is wholly valid at a certain point of investigation*. In this particular case with Quinn it's actually the correct answer. How a question that leads to the truth can 'remains a nonsensical question that is as irrelevant as it is worthless' is what I asked you to explain, if you can.

*see above. Not as a default, but to rule it out under any situation is just stupid.

**Ahtman**

This seems more like sleeping one's way to semi-obscurity as I still doubt most have heard of Quinn or the game, even with this 'scandal'. Did we ever get proof of quid pro quo or is it simply the appearance of impropriety?

**Lynata**

Kojiro wrote:In this particular case with Quinn[b] it's actually the correct answer.

I thought the problem here was that it was regularly asked before this alleged scandal came up? At least that's how I understood the earlier comments; correct me if I'm wrong.

From what I was able to witness on the web, in the majority of cases the only basis for the question is "it's a chick". There are indeed many sad people out there who are incapable of considering alternatives such as other methods of influencing (cash, networking, other favours) or that, gods forbid, the girl might actually be good at her job, at least in the eyes of a sufficiently large number of people who simply hold a different opinion than oneself.

Ahtman wrote:Did we ever get proof of quid pro quo or is it simply the appearance of impropriety?

So far it just seems to be an ex boyfriend throwing a hissy fit and certain sections on the internet desperately attempting to twist this into some sort of proof against "social justice warriors".

"[...] Having spoken to Nathan several times, having looked closely at the numerous messages sent our way by concerned readers and, having compared published timelines, our leadership team finds no compelling evidence that any of that is true.

On March 31, Nathan published the only Kotaku article he's written involving Zoe Quinn. It was about Game Jam, a failed reality show that Zoe and other developers were upset about being on. At the time, Nathan and Zoe were professional acquaintances. He quoted blog posts written by Zoe and others involved in the show. Shortly after that, in early April, Nathan and Zoe began a romantic relationship. He has not written about her since. Nathan never reviewed Zoe Quinn's game Depression Quest, let alone gave it a favorable review."
-- http://kotaku.com/in-recent-days-ive-been-asked-several-times-about-a-pos-1624707346

**Melissia**

Kojiro wrote:
Mostly because I never said anything about a womans appearance.

Yes, in fact, you did. See: This entire conversation, you've been talking about it from the start:

Kojiro wrote:
Lynata wrote:
Seaward wrote:
Melissia wrote:Oh, and comment more on her appearance than on her games, too.
Well, to be fair, it turns out it's a legitimate question in her case.
The question is never legitimate until you have reason to believe the answer is yes.

A reason other than "it's a chick", I mean.
Until women stop trading on their sexuality, until it stops being a currency they can exchange for favours or goods, this question will continue to be asked.

Regardless, even the question you ask is irrelevant, and constantly applied by misogynistic clowns towards every woman who has any success at all.

Like with many misogynistic memes, it assumes incompetence on the part of the woman, just like if I asked you "who'd you take it up the ass from to graduate?". The assumption with a question like that is that "obviously you aren't good enough to have graduated on merit alone". The fact that this assumption is assigned to women primarily is not indicative of women being less competent, but of society being biased against women.

**Ahtman**

Lynata wrote:
So far it just seems to be an ex boyfriend throwing a hissy fit

Well that settles it; there is no more a reliable source than an ex spouting off.

**Talizvar**

Yeah, there was a "sexism on the internet thread".
My two cents on this topic:

Zoe Quinn's pickle is a fine example.
Software developer, seems to be a true honest to goodness geek in many things and published a game that got onto Steam.
Supposedly some evidence that some form of sexual relations were had with some reviewers of her game and she is presently in a relationship.

Let huge media storm commence.

Probably one fifth of the media storm going on would have happened if it was a guy (plus the difficulty of a guy finding compatible reviewers could be problematic).
Also the reviewers that had said relations have not had quite as much public backlash.

I have to also comment: how much popularity prior to this would she have had if a guy? (I suspect less, I do admit she had done many interesting things and has good skills that have their own merit)

Sexism both giveth and taketh away.

I guess I have mixed feelings when someone has no problem using the advantages their condition/status can afford them and then complain fiercely when faced with disadvantages due to their condition/status seems just plain old whiny/angling for advantage.

I figure in the workplace, the gender of the person should mean nothing, but the public reaction in this case proves otherwise.
Posted 2014/08/20 12:28:34

**Ahtman**

Supposedly some evidence that some form of sexual relations were had with some reviewers of her game

As far as I can tell this is total speculation and there is absolutely no actual evidence for this.

**Talizvar**

Ahtman wrote:
Supposedly some evidence that some form of sexual relations were had with some reviewers of her game
As far as I can tell this is total speculation and there is absolutely no actual evidence for this.

What you say can very well be true.
Kotaku gave this statement: http://kotaku.com/in-recent-days-ive-been-asked-several-times-about-a-pos-1624707346/all
Boyfriend blog here: http://thezoepost.wordpress.com/
Interesting article: http://talkingship.com/wp/2014/08/19/zoe-quinn-sexual-affairs-ethics/
At the end the writer claims the Kotaku writer confirmed his involvement but "no link = never happened".

**Melissia**

Kotaku's statement is really the end of the issue, for me.

**Manchu**

This kind of reminds me of the drama that went down in/around RPGdom when the D&D 5E PDF was released and mentioned a couple of notoriously abrasive independent designers and there was a nasty tide of false, gossipy crap spread about them in a relatively short period of time. While it sucks to have people spread insulting rumors about you, especially lies, it is unlikely to come out of nowhere. The designers in question spend a lot of time being utter dicks to people online and tend to go on at length about why that is not only justified but also like their sacred duty or something. So their reputations were admittedly falsely embellished by these lies but there was a reason gak stuck when it had been flung.

In this case, there seems to be some assumption that gak sticks on women easier than men -- especially when it comes to rumors of trading sex for fame and fortune (despite Miss Quin apparently having neither). I don't think that assumption is completely unfounded but just as a matter of practical wisdom, as with the two male RPG designers I described above, it is easy to assume there is fire when there is already an awful lot of smoke.

**Lynata**

Talizvar wrote:Interesting article: http://talkingship.com/wp/2014/08/19/zoe-quinn-sexual-affairs-ethics/

Lousy research, or rather misquoting. The tweet from Totilo does not refer to Boggs, but Grayson.

And ...

At least that blog has now bothered to "update" on the only source for a potential affair with Joshua Boggs being the word of the ex-boyfriend, though the misquote still remains in place.

I admit, this story did turn out to be more interesting than I thought at first, after all. If only a little. It now seems to be a study about the internet.

Manchu wrote:In this case, there seems to be some assumption that gak sticks on women easier than men -- especially when it comes to rumors of trading sex for fame and fortune (despite Miss Quin apparently having neither). I don't think that assumption is completely unfounded but just as a matter of practical wisdom, as with the two male RPG designers I described above, it is easy to assume there is fire when there is already an awful lot of smoke.

I suppose the entire truth may never be revealed - it all seems to have started with Quinn and her BF breaking up, and the true reasons for this would explain everything.

As for the smoke, however .. given the internet's reaction, it really just seems to be that Quinn became collateral damage of an ongoing fight between "social justice warriors" and the "white guy defense force".
Apparently 4chan was out in force.

**Melissia**

The "smoke", in this case, is little more than the acrid toxic stench fumed out by spiteful jerks. There's nothing really defensible about it. The blatant lies that were the accusations were really just little more than a thinly veiled excuse to go after a woman whom had already spoken out against harassment.

The harassment got really fething bad, too. To quote the lady herself:

I am not going to link to, or address anything having to do with the validity of the specific claims made by an angry ex-boyfriend with an axe to grind and a desire to use 4chan as his own personal army. This is not a “she-said” to his “he-said”. The idea that I am required to debunk a manifesto of my sexual past written by an openly malicious ex-boyfriend in order to continue participating in this industry is horrifying, and I won’t do it. It’s a personal matter that never should have been made public, and I don’t want to delve into personal gak, mine or anyone else’s, while saying that people’s love and sex lives are no one’s business. I’m not going to talk about it. I will never talk about it. It is not your goddamned business.

What I *am* going to say is that the proliferation of nude pictures of me, death threats, vandalization, doxxing of my trans friends for having the audacity to converse with me publicly, harassment of friends and family and my friends’ family in addition to TOTALLY UNRELATED PEOPLE, sending my home address around, rape threats, memes about me being a whore, pressures to kill myself, slurs of every variety, fething debates over what my genitals smell like, vultures trying to make money off of youtube videos about it, all of these things are inexcusable and will continue to happen to women until this culture changes. I’m certainly not the first. I wish I could be the last.

Because I’ve had a small degree of success in a specific subculture, every aspect of my life is suddenly a matter of public concern. Suddenly it’s acceptable to share pictures of my breasts on social media to threaten and punish me. Suddenly I don’t have any right to privacy or basic dignity. Suddenly I don’t get to live out normal parts of life, like going through a bad and ugly breakup in private. I have forfeited this by being a blip in a small community, while those who delight in assailing me hide behind their keyboards and a culture that permits it, beyond reproach.

My life and my body are not public property. No one’s life and body are public property.

Sexuality is one of the most personal, hurtful, and easy things to demonize a woman over, and also has nothing to do with my games. Yet large swaths of the gaming community are either unable or unwilling to separate the two. I’m convinced that my ex chose 4chan as the staging ground for his campaign of harassment and character assassination because he knew this; he knew that someone claiming to be “from the Internet” has shown up at my house once already, and he is counting on the most reviled hubs of our community to live up to their sordid reputations. This is another example of gendered violence, whereby my personal life becomes a means to punish my professional credentials and to try to shame me into giving up my work. I’m still committed to doing my small part to create a world where no woman is at risk of experiencing this.

**ZebioLizard2**

Melissia wrote:
The "smoke", in this case, is little more than the acrid toxic stench fumed out by spiteful jerks. There's nothing really defensible about it. The blatant lies that were the accusations were really just little more than a thinly veiled excuse to go after a woman whom had already spoken out against harassment.

Someone hasn't actually looked into the fact that the first 'harassment' wasn't actual harassment at all, unless you consider her and her internet attack squad attacking a depression forum over something they've never done, and has not in fact done at all except for being the target for various sites to support Zoe against.

And in this case there was evidence provided by the boyfriend over the issues to begin with, as well as showing things to make sure he hasn't altered the text logs or chats she had herself provided.

**trexmeyer**

I was expecting her to look like one of those TwitchTV camgirls, but she looks like a run of the mill slightly oddball gamer chick. Her sleeping around for favorable reviews isn't believable.

**Melissia**

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Melissia wrote:
The "smoke", in this case, is little more than the acrid toxic stench fumed out by spiteful jerks. There's nothing really defensible about it. The blatant lies that were the accusations were really just little more than a thinly veiled excuse to go after a woman whom had already spoken out against harassment.
Someone hasn't actually looked into the fact that the first 'harassment' wasn't actual harassment at all

Yes, I'm well aware of your ignorant claims.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
And in this case there was evidence provided by the boyfriend over the issues to begin with, as well as showing things to make sure he hasn't altered the text logs or chats she had herself provided.

Even if we start with the assumption that his version of the story is the only one that matters, as you have done, and that he in fact provided any actual proof for his claims... which is debatable, as angry exes lie about the person they broke up with all the time... it's irrelevant given that his accusations of unethical behavior are provably false; the person he claimed she cheated on him with for journalistic favors did not, in fact write an article about her after the supposed affair.

Your argument is, therefor, nonsense. To the people who started the gak-storm, it was nothing more than a bunch of horse-gak used as an excuse to attack her.

**trexmeyer**

TLDR: Bitters ex-bfs/gfs say extremely negative things about their former lover. Don't believe them.