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.

 Ketara wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
She took in a LOT of money to produce a series of videos (Tropes vs Women), which she never finished,

So (looking for the details here), she made the series, but it wasn't as long as she'd originally planned?

No, it was abruptly dropped. Not only was it that, but as I've said- what she did, there is no way on this earth that she needed $400,000.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
Adeptus: There are jackals on the other side of it too though - that fella making a documentary about her and shilling for crowdfunding money. I will look him up and post a link.

I know who you're talking about. Both fellas, actually. And they couldn't get their act together. Both of them are idiots.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
Jorden Owen and Davis Aurini. They had a patreon for their documentary about Anita Sarkeesian and failed to deliver. Aurini is also a racist white nationalist. I would assume you are just as outraged about them, and disgusted at the lack of a large campaign of people castigating them for their lack of ethics?

Well, neither of them made headline news. And as I said, they're both idiots. They're not only idiots, but they're childish idiots and I have no doubts they looked at this and said, "Let's make a buck off this an promise something we can't deliver".

But again, these idiots don't have mobs rushing to their defense, either. Even among the opposition to Anita, these two were a joke.

So why didn't people just drop Anita as a joke when it was obvious her critiques were fairly badly thought out?

 Da Boss wrote:
So why didn't people just drop Anita as a joke when it was obvious her critiques were fairly badly thought out?

Because, for some reason, if someone has a complaint and a pair of boobs-dudes lose their damned minds once she bats her eyelashes. That, and there are a good number of people that want to turn everything into an ideological battleground. Again, see 'Bullyhunters'.

I just want to play games. I just want to come home from work at the end of the day, kick my shoes off, slip into a pair of shorts and a tee shirt, have some dinner, and play a damned game. I just want to go to my friendly local gaming store and throw some dice around and play little plastic war dudes. I just want to read a comic book, watch a tiddy movie, and chill out. That's all. I'm not asking anyone to do anything other than 'piss off and leave me be'. I'm not hurting anyone, I'm just a regular person and I'm unwinding.

I don't want to be called a bigot for doing that. I don't want to be called a pig because I like artwork of attractive women. I don't want to be lectured and questioned and pestered because this is my goddamned free time. I don't want the one thing that I can share with people, regardless of who they are, tainted with this childish bickering from tribalist loons.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
John, you've never had a problem with all the posters here, including me, who often point out KDM's foibles and ridiculous sexualization. What gives Sarkesian such power over you?

Which of our posters here have been on headline news? Just curious.

So, you're saying the content of what she says doesn't matter. What makes her different is that she is widely known (and hated)? It's the size of her soapbox that's the issue? If you've read through the KDM threads, there have been many tut-tutting articles about it in mainstream press already, some with far bigger profiles than Anita Sarkesian.

Don't let her get to you. You're the one giving her power over you that you would never let the Guardian or Forbes or the BBC have over you.


Besides, higher-profile outrage that brings more eyes to KDM will only translate into more profits for Adam Poots.

 Da Boss wrote:
Ketara, essentially she did not deliver everything she promised and what she did deliver was apparently pretty poor quality. A story we have all seen many times before, but without the absolute torrent of outrage seen in this case.

Okay. I've just looked into it to see what all the fuss and vitriol is about. Apparently Anita looked to raise $6000 to make five videos of 10-20 minutes in length. It funded in 24 hours though, so in excitement, she gradually put in four stretch goals to raise the quality and take it up to twelve videos. It finally funded at $158,922 (so I'm unsure where this $400,000 people are bandying around comes from). Looking online, I'm seeing ten videos made over a three year period, and apparently, she did indeed improve the quality from what she was producing before (I found a website where one girl was talking about the different equipment used in the production).

So to summarise, right now, after spending twenty minutes of my life I'll never get back investigating; she ducked out two episodes early after the campaign went waaay beyond anything originally planned. And she improved the quality, but not as much as some people think that the amount raised should justify.

None of which makes her a scammer by any reasonable stretch of imagination. Am I missing something or are these facts on the level?

So, you are saying that this only happens because Anita is a woman. Okay, totally agree.

I want all those things too. I do those things. If someone calls me a bigot for doing them, I just ignore them. It doesn't bother me. These people cannot lecture or pester me, I have to seek them out to see their opinions. Once I've decided they don't have much of value to say, I just move on. I also do not want things to be tainted by childish bickering. So I am asking what it is about our communities and hobbies that causes this dramatic over reaction and overly defensive response?

In a world with free speech, you've got to accept that some of it is going to be stuff you don't agree with. Just get on with life would be my advice. Don't let it eat you up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Ketara, essentially she did not deliver everything she promised and what she did deliver was apparently pretty poor quality. A story we have all seen many times before, but without the absolute torrent of outrage seen in this case.

Okay. I've just looked into it to see what all the fuss and vitriol is about. Apparently Anita looked to raise $6000 to make five videos of 10-20 minutes in length. It funded in 24 hours though, so in excitement, she gradually put in four stretch goals to raise the quality and take it up to twelve videos. It finally funded at $158,922 (so I'm unsure where this $400,000 people are bandying around comes from). Looking online, I'm seeing ten videos made over a three year period, and apparently, she did indeed improve the quality from what she was producing before (I found a website where one girl was talking about the different equipment used in the prodution).

So to summarise, right now, after spending twenty minutes of my life I'll never get back investigating; she ducked out two episodes early after the campaign went waaay beyond anything originally planned. And she improved the quality, but not as much as some people think that the amount raised should justify.

None of which makes her a scammer by any reasonable stretch of imagination. Am I missing something or are these facts on the level?

Nah, I think that is the basic gist of it.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Don't let her get to you. You're the one giving her power over you that you would never let the Guardian or Forbes or the BBC have over you.


Besides, higher-profile outrage that brings more eyes to KDM will only translate into more profits for Adam Poots.

And you may be right here, I'll give you that. But 'ignoring the problem' has never fixed much. I believe that gaming as a whole has a genuine problem- and it's exploiting insecure and well-meaning people. I don't care if someone's a feminist, go be a feminist or a liberal or Alt-Right or a Furry or whatever the hell you want to be. That's fine, I'm not trying to change the world.

But don't come in selling snake oil. Because even if I vehemently disagree with someone, I will draw the line at a predatory piece of garbage on the doorstep. You might deserve your points debated, perhaps even ridiculed- but I don't like people trying to use your emotions and concerns to exploit you. Because a lot of the people that fall for the extremes hook, line, and sinker aren't older adults- they're kids. And that bothers me a lot.

 Ketara wrote:
Okay. I've just looked into it to see what all the fuss and vitriol is about. Apparently Anita looked to raise $6000 to make five videos of 10-20 minutes in length. It funded in 24 hours though, so in excitement, she gradually put in four stretch goals to raise the quality and take it up to twelve videos. It finally funded at $158,922 (so I'm unsure where this $400,000 people are bandying around comes from). Looking online, I'm seeing eleven videos made over a three year period, and apparently, she did indeed improve the quality from what she was producing before (I found a website where one girl was talking about the different equipment used in the prodution).

So to summarise, right now, after spending twenty minutes of my life I'll never get back investigating; she ducked out one episode early after the campaign went waaay beyond anything originally planned. And she improved the quality, but not as much as some people think that the amount raised should justify.

None of which makes her a scammer by any reasonable stretch of imagination. Am I missing something or are these facts on the level?

Eleven videos in three years. I can crank out one video a week if I'm researching the topic and have $400,000 to keep me intoxicated and fed. One of those Youtubers mentioned on the first page of this thread as a 'hates women' type cranks out at least one video a week of the same or higher quality.

Keep in mind, $400,000... and the 'quality' didn't improve until her own investors started asking what was taking so long and where the money went.

So yeah, half-assing a project is kind of a scam. Not only that, but using bad data... that gets it.

Now, don't get me wrong- it's no "City of Titans MMORPG" scam, but it's still a scam.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
So, you are saying that this only happens because Anita is a woman. Okay, totally agree.

Uh, well, yeah. It kinda is. If a guy did it, everyone would ignore it or point and laugh. Or the crazy feminists would show up and tell him to burn his peepee with a candle and stay quiet.

But it boils down to two extremes getting the spotlight- like the little meme where guys are arguing that all women are THOTs or all women are queens.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Eleven videos in three years. I can crank out one video a week if I'm researching the topic and have $400,000 to keep me intoxicated and fed.

You keep saying $400,000. I literally just looked at the KS and it said less than half of that. Did she get funds from elsewhere that I'm not aware of? Or have you literally just formed an opinion about this without even checking and made the figure up?

One of those Youtubers mentioned on the first page of this thread as a 'hates women' type cranks out at least one video a week of the same or higher quality.

Your speed or quality of production does not make you a scammer.

Not only that, but using bad data... that gets it.

Now, don't get me wrong- it's no "City of Titans MMORPG" scam, but it's still a scam.

'Scammer' is a word with very clear definitions. I'm still waiting to hear why it applies here.

There's clearly no intent to run away with no return, given ten videos were produced from an original plan of six. Granted, she left two undone from the last stretch goal, which if I'd pledged solely on the basis of quantity (which I doubt anyone did) it would annoy me. At the same time though, any sensible person pledging on KS is aware that those sorts of occurrences are common, and it is very clearly laid out in the T&C. It's an investment platform, and I have no idea what her reasons or motivations were for not doing the final two. Certainly my first assumption wouldn't be that she was filled with criminal intent to defraud.,

Either way, from a completely neutral and frankly, uncaring standpoint, I'm not seeing why the word 'scammer' would be applied, any more than the word 'writer', 'philanthropist' or 'convict'. If there's more to this, please feel free to bring fresh facts to my attention, but I've wasted enough of my life that I'm not going looking for further information.

 Ketara wrote:

You keep saying $400,000. I literally just looked at the KS and it said less than half of that. Did she get funds from elsewhere that I'm not aware of? Or have you literally just formed an opinion about this without even checking and made the figure up?

No, I did research. High-quality research and I'm not asking for your money to do so and you'll be getting the product on the same day. As of right now, I'm better than she is about research.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2015/01/24/anita-sarkeesian-releases-kickstarter-breakdown-raised-440000-in-2014/#60c4e5a4e1ea

 Ketara wrote:
'Scammer' is a word with very clear definitions. I'm still waiting to hear why it applies here.

Would you feel better if I say "ripoff"? Because it's either a ripoff, a scam, or she's an absolutely incompetent person.

If you're stating that 'intent' is what matters, well- we will never know her intent. But considering her shady background and the way she actually conducts 'research'...

Let's just say she's either malicious or stupid. I don't care which one, as a matter of fact- I'll let you pick.

 Ketara wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Oh, I must have been mistaken when I assumed you had good intentions. I won't make that error again, if you like.

$400,000. Youtube videos with stolen content. Kind of what anyone would consider a scam.

And I'll clue you in on something- if you don't believe the whole, "We're here to fight harassment!" thing isn't often a prelude for a swindle, see 'Bullyhunters'.

...Sorry, was that first line an attempt at being condescending? I can't quite tell, because you previously wrote a paragraph loftily admonishing me over needing to pick better role models to listen to, when I know nothing about the woman who I'm supposedly paying attention to, or anything she's said or done.

Don't you see how bizare that is?

I'm quite happy to discuss the topic, but I know little about it. Which is why I'm asking you simple questions over what it is that makes her a 'scammer' (something with very clear legal and moral connotations within the realm of law and intent) But I'm all I'm getting out of you is a mangled story and some bizare compulsion to set me up in little strawman chairs to knock down. Which is really quite peculiar and speaks realms as to your degree of personal emotional investment in the story. It is, after all, quite difficult to argue with someone who explicitly states that they don't know the facts (and consequently cannot have an opinion as of yet).

The specifics aside - you're not coming across as someone with a low level of knowledge trying to figure out what's going on. You're coming across as "I'm just asking questions" in the "Is this person a murderer? Did they beat their wife? Did they cook that man's pet gerbil in a microwave? I don't know, I'm just asking questions..." kind of way that someone who knows exactly what's going on does when they want to bait someone they disagree with into making themselves look silly. If that's not the case I'm sure AD will regret reacting so strongly.

 Da Boss wrote:
Ketara, essentially she did not deliver everything she promised and what she did deliver was apparently pretty poor quality. A story we have all seen many times before, but without the absolute torrent of outrage seen in this case.

Ehhh, I recall the initial round of outrage being fairly contained to the Usual Suspects. It only became truly ridiculous after that initial burst of mindless derp from a known tiny minority was used by some clickbait merchants to suggest that gamers as a group are fundamentally tainted because that minority exists(ignoring that they exist everywhere, in everything) that the backlash got ridiculous. Which is not to excuse the backlash, but she didn't just make a couple of shoddy videos and suddenly become the Great Enemy of all Gamerdom, both sides of the culture war outrage machine had a hand in driving things to that point.

 Yodhrin wrote:
The specifics aside - you're not coming across as someone with a low level of knowledge trying to figure out what's going on. You're coming across as "I'm just asking questions" in the "Is this person a murderer? Did they beat their wife? Did they cook that man's pet gerbil in a microwave? I don't know, I'm just asking questions..." kind of way that someone who knows exactly what's going on does when they want to bait someone they disagree with into making themselves look silly. If that's not the case I'm sure AD will regret reacting so strongly.

I know the game being played. Very will. You pretend to know nothing about it, to have someone speak their points and then go after them. We've already had the great and wonderful "I find it odd this only happens because she's a woman" thing come out.

Please, Jonathan McIntosh is one of my favorite social media lolcows.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

No, I did research. High-quality research and I'm not asking for your money to do so and you'll be getting the product on the same day. As of right now, I'm better than she is about research.

Questionable, scrutinising your link. The Forbes article states that the $440,000 was raised by her organisation. Not her KS. She registered as a non-profit, apparently, and solicited donations elsewhere. Which she is, of course, free to spend as she sees fit within the remit of the stated goals of the organisation. Where is the scam and why does money acquired elsewhere for other things (like the advocacy efforts mentioned in the article) have anything to do with her taking money for the explicit purpose of producing these videos?

I mean, I don't tell CMON off for spending profits acquired through selling webstore goods on something other than a KS, do I? You wouldn't query a headmaster running a raffle for spending money earnt during his day job on something other than that.

Would you feel better if I say "ripoff"?

It would only be a ripoff if your sole reason for your donation was the quantity of episodes produced. Granted, perhaps there are a few such people. But as stated, that is an explicit feature and risk of the KS platform. If an author puts up a 400 page book up on KS, it funds, and it turns out with a little judicious editing to only need 350 pages, not many people would focus in on the page count and start making storming denunciations about the author being a scammer.

Why? Because it would be frakkin weird.

If you're stating that 'intent' is what matters, well- we will never know her intent.

It would be strange to label her a scammer without that vital piece of information, given that she does not appear to have defrauded anyone or been taken to court.

But considering her shady background and the way she actually conducts 'research'...
Let's just say she's either malicious or stupid. I don't care which one, as a matter of fact- I'll let you pick.

Fox News and the Daily Mail do bad research. The first descriptive word which springs to mind isn't 'scammer' though.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
The specifics aside - you're not coming across as someone with a low level of knowledge trying to figure out what's going on. You're coming across as "I'm just asking questions" in the "Is this person a murderer? Did they beat their wife? Did they cook that man's pet gerbil in a microwave? I don't know, I'm just asking questions..." kind of way that someone who knows exactly what's going on does when they want to bait someone they disagree with into making themselves look silly. If that's not the case I'm sure AD will regret reacting so strongly.

I know the game being played. Very will. You pretend to know nothing about it, to have someone speak their points and then go after them. We've already had the great and wonderful "I find it odd this only happens because she's a woman" thing come out.

Please, Jonathan McIntosh is one of my favorite social media lolcows.

I am not arguing from a disingenuous place fwiw. I honestly do think this only happened because she is a woman, because there is a pretty big segment of "gamerdom" that has a problem with women. "Not all gamers" and all that, but I just do not see this happening to non women to the same extent. I have never heard of Jonathan McIntosh for example, never seen anyone who made a series of videos about him or obsessed about him to the extent people like Sargon of Akhad, or Thunderf00t do about Anita. I saw her early videos, thought "That is disappointingly shallow" and only paid attention again when it was going mental, and then checked in a few times to see why it was still going on a month later, six months later, a year later. It made me pretty sad. When my non-nerd friends heard about it, I was embarrassed. I am embarrassed by the reactions I see in this thread, years later.

 Yodhrin wrote:

The specifics aside - you're not coming across as someone with a low level of knowledge trying to figure out what's going on. You're coming across as "I'm just asking questions" in the "Is this person a murderer? Did they beat their wife? Did they cook that man's pet gerbil in a microwave? I don't know, I'm just asking questions..." kind of way that someone who knows exactly what's going on does when they want to bait someone they disagree with into making themselves look silly. If that's not the case I'm sure AD will regret reacting so strongly.

I see. Most be one of those text/tone things. In that case, I'll state here quite clearly that I knew sweet fanny adams really about the matter before I read this thread, and having now looked into it; I'm no closer to seeing why one slightly dreary internet content producer is worthy of any real attention or concern than when I started. She hasn't defrauded anyone, she hasn't done anything particularly offensive, and given the common crossover between miniature games/computer games, I don't see why there should be any controversy over her attending a convention as a guest (assuming she's relevant for a specific point under discussion).

I'm okay with her, a lot of what she says is grounded in truth, and she's endured a lot of unfair death threats and attacks. I don't agree with everything she says either, but at least she isn't some crazy alt-right loon or something.

 Ketara wrote:
Questionable, scrutinising your link. The Forbes article states that the $440,000 was raised by her organisation. Not her KS. She registered as a non-profit, apparently, and solicited donations elsewhere. Which she is, of course, free to spend as she sees fit within the remit of the stated goals of the organisation. Where is the scam and why does money acquired elsewhere for other things (like the advocacy efforts mentioned in the article) have anything to do with her taking money for the explicit purpose of producing these videos?

Well, let's see those paid appearances I'm sure raked in cash.

Either way, let's just for the sake of argument say she got $200,000. Nah, screw that.

Let's say she got $100,000. One hundred thousand dollars. It still doesn't add up. Look at the quality, objectively. Her critics have shown to have better quality and make a fraction of it. But that's okay- most people don't like admitting they got screwed over, because it makes them look stupid.

 Ketara wrote:
I mean, I don't tell CMON off for spending profits acquired through selling webstore goods on something other than a KS, do I? You wouldn't query a headmaster running a raffle for spending money earnt during his day job on something other than that.

If I give you money to cut my lawn, and you run the mower through the middle of it and go invest in a pressure washer, I'm going to be mad. You asked for my money to provide a service or product, and instead you went and did something else- that's kind of ripping me off.

 Ketara wrote:
It would only be a ripoff if your sole reason for your donation was the quantity of episodes produced. Granted, perhaps there are a few such people. But as stated, that is an explicit feature and risk of the KS platform. If an author puts up a 400 page book up on KS, it funds, and it turns out with a little judicious editing to only need 350 pages, not many people would focus in on the page count and start making storming denunciations about the author being a scammer.

If you promise me you'll make me ten pieces of fried chicken for a sum of money, and show up with eleven- you're going to find I'll be asking about that last piece. And I'll be quite upset if you've just taken cold KFC out of someone else's fridge and put it on your own plate.

 Ketara wrote:
It would be strange to label her a scammer without that vital piece of information, given that she does not appear to have defrauded anyone or been taken to court.

You know what else has a definition? "Threat" and "Harasser". I'll let the "she never went to court" argument fly when the same is acceptable for these "evil trolls". So, if there's no scam there's no harassment, either- by your logic.

 Ketara wrote:
Fox News and the Daily Mail do bad research. The first descriptive word which springs to mind isn't 'scammer' though.

Neither of which have offered you something in exchange for money and delivered a shoddy final result based on false information, either. These are existing products and services and you know about them already.

If I offered to do research for you on Anita Sarkeesian, and came back with a Ralph Retort article and a poor-quality video of some Youtuber screaming about SJWoowoos, you'd be pretty disappointed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
I have never heard of Jonathan McIntosh for example, never seen anyone who made a series of videos about him or obsessed about him to the extent people like Sargon of Akhad, or Thunderf00t do about Anita.

Because McIntosh says the same absurd stuff Anita does, and because he's not a woman people make fun of him and laugh at him about it. Something with a vagina shows up and says, "The sky is green" and suddenly neckbeards are re-evaluating the naming of colors and arguing that she's got a point and anyone who disagrees hates women.

 Da Boss wrote:
I am embarrassed by the reactions I see in this thread, years later.

Maybe your fret too much. I'm not embarassed. What I told my friends?

"Yeah, it's just some huckster trying to stir controversy for a buck, a lot of victim and identity politics. You know, the stuff we usually make fun of."

 Ouze wrote:
Ia lot of valuable things to say

Such as?

Like, seriously, the only two things I've seen of her are: a) video about female posture being somehow sexist (even though it's mimicking real movements) and b) the hitman video (which... is an entirely optional thing to do in a game about killing)

She is utterly inconsequential and I would love for both haters and other groups to drop her as the irrelevant source she is.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Well, let's see those paid appearances I'm sure raked in cash.

Either way, let's just for the sake of argument say she got $200,000. Nah, screw that.

Let's say she got $100,000. One hundred thousand dollars. It still doesn't add up. Look at the quality, objectively. Her critics have shown to have better quality and make a fraction of it. But that's okay- most people don't like admitting they got screwed over, because it makes them look stupid.

We know exactly how much she got. I posted it above. A little shy of $160,000. That's the money that she took in explicitly to produce these videos. That's the sum. Given that she only asked for $6000, and had already made videos previously, it would have been quite clear to all involved the level of investment into production quality that was to be expected. If she had raised $6000 exactly, nobody would have batted an eyelid at what was put out.

Just because more people choose to invest does not equal an obligation for an equivalent rise in production quality to match it. Any more than if Maelstrom's Edge had hit £200,000,000, you would expect gold plated miniatures. The woman has no desire to be a professional movie maker, and no such aim or ambition was expressed (as far as I can tell). She said that she would increase the production quality as a stretch goal. And she did, to the tune of a few thousand extra spent on it. Given no quantitative or qualitative marker on her commitment, she has absolutely met it.

Ergo, there is no scam on that front. Unrealistic expectations on the part of people, perhaps. But no scam.

If I give you money to cut my lawn, and you run the mower through the middle of it and go invest in a pressure washer, I'm going to be mad. You asked for my money to provide a service or product, and instead you went and did something else- that's kind of ripping me off.

You've missed the analogy. I'll run using yours to try and make it clearer.

It's like you giving me $40 to go and buy a lawn mower to mow your lawn. I then go off, work a day job, and make money elsewhere. I spend that money elsewhere. I buy the $40 lawn mower and mow your lawn using the originally agreed mower.

You then jump up and down and ask me why I didn't use the money I earned elsewhere to buy a better lawn mower.

Just because she raised $250,000 from other sources for other things does not obligate her to spend it on her KS product.

If you promise me you'll make me ten pieces of fried chicken for a sum of money, and show up with eleven- you're going to find I'll be asking about that last piece. And I'll be quite upset if you've just taken cold KFC out of someone else's fridge and put it on your own plate.

I've agreed that if you were solely interested in quantitative output, yes, it would be a ripoff. I continue to state though that I would find it strange as hell to hassle the author for not writing fifty extra pages. I mean, if that's your thing, you do you, and sure, you expected them. But even then, this is still Kickstarter, and it goes with the territory. Expecting a 100% accurate translation between concept and product when dealing with creative content is a recipe for eternal disappointment.

You know what else has a definition? "Threat" and "Harasser". I'll let the "she never went to court" argument fly when the same is acceptable for these "evil trolls". So, if there's no scam there's no harassment, either- by your logic.

...You're starting to embarass yourself now. Words have meanings. You used one, it doesn't fit very well. Get over it.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 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.

John, you've never had a problem with all the posters here, including me, who often point out KDM's foibles and ridiculous sexualization. What gives Sarkesian such power over you?

KDM has always generated a healthy level of objection from a portion of the market. That KDM takes that and keeps doing its thing anyway is part of the charm.

None here are creating public controversy as a minor celebrity. She might.

KDM generates a excessive amount of complaint about superficial appearance, among ignorant people who paint it as Larry Flynt's Hustler of board gaming, when it's really not. At all.

 Ketara wrote:

We know exactly how much she got. I posted it above. A little shy of $160,000. That's the money that she took in explicitly to produce these videos. That's the sum. Given that she only asked for $6000, and had already made videos previously, it would have been quite clear to all involved the level of investment into production quality that was to be expected. If she had raised $6000 exactly, nobody would have batted an eyelid at what was put out.

...ah, that's right.

She didn't need the money for research to make the videos. She made the videos and was e-begging, and stupid people gave her cash.

Yes, quality and quantity are relevant if you're making a product I've paid for. If I give you a pizza missing slices, and it's been under a heat lamp after I've promised a scratch-made, high-quality brick oven pizza- you'll be rather upset.

 Ketara wrote:
...You're starting to embarass yourself now. Words have meanings. You used one, it doesn't fit very well. Get over it.

Nah. I'm not embarassed at all. I'm spot on. Then again, I would be embarassed if I had to defend this. I don't see how you do it.

The point stands, "She never went to court for it so it doesn't count". Well, then I hold her 'harassers' and 'threats' to the same standards. Not even an arrest, and these are crimes. Hmmm... maybe they're not legitimate.

Furthermore, it's rather piss-poor that an anti-bullying celeb is on video, bullying and name-calling from a speaking platform. She is a toxic element and needs to be kept out, along with her cult.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Carnikang wrote:
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.

Where did anyone who was excited about Warhammer Adventures state that it was because of the diversity? I read the whole thread on Dakka, and the only pro-diversity supporters were straw men invented by the usual "not muh warhams " types.

The actual pro side was interested in books that would appeal to (their) kids.

Firmly in that bolded group myself, but I have spoken with some people on a local level, and through online interactions in other medium than Dakka. It wasn't a lot, but there was a small (but as always, vocal) portion that celebrated it because it wasn't the same stuff/more diverse. Not saying that was everyone, just like a good portion of the 'rage' was more jabs at it. Again though, Not on Dakka and through personal talks with some people locally, there was some actual anger about it.

Like I said, these aren't the whole populations of the many faceted community, and even then, the smaller community of Dakka didn't exempt some of the opinions I saw. I'm just watching and seeing a possible issue with someone reading the wrong bit rhetoric and latching onto that. I know for one if Anita was linked one of Arch warhammer's vids on WH;Adventures, I bet a nickel (to you personally Bob) that she would have something to say. They weren't very flattering or welcome of the books, to say the least.

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
I'm okay with her, a lot of what she says is grounded in truth, and she's endured a lot of unfair death threats and attacks. I don't agree with everything she says either, but at least she isn't some crazy alt-right loon or something.

Probably for the best that she's not actually a hard left or alt-right. Using either 'fan-base' is bad enough without actually being a fervent believer in the smoke you're blowing. That just gives it a whole new tone and sort of threat level. Then again, it might alleviate some of the worst cases of information, because she would forcibly say things using more erratic/wild logic or extreme lingo some of them use. It would put the whole thing in a more easily viewed light.

 Carnikang wrote:
Like I said, these aren't the whole populations of the many faceted community, and even then, the smaller community of Dakka didn't exempt some of the opinions I saw. I'm just watching and seeing a possible issue with someone reading the wrong bit rhetoric and latching onto that. I know for one if Anita was linked one of Arch warhammer's vids on WH;Adventures, I bet a nickel (to you personally Bob) that she would have something to say. They weren't very flattering or welcome of the books, to say the least.

Yes. We have 'Arch'. I don't think he's a blight on the community, he's not as bad as people make him out to be- but he's really unwise in the way he words things, and chooses odd hills to die on. You could argue the Swede is part of the problem. I wouldn't even say you're wrong. Jeremy Hamblin is another. I don't really support that guy after doing some digging on his behavior. I think they're both desperate for the clicks and they tend to lean toward the other end of the outrage mob.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

...ah, that's right.

She didn't need the money for research to make the videos. She made the videos and was e-begging, and stupid people gave her cash.

Basically. But people giving you money on the side doesn't equal an obligation to use that money for a KS. She's free to use it for whatever she likes, as long as she was clear to those people back then what she was planning on doing with it (in this case, advocacy).

Yes, quality and quantity are relevant if you're making a product I've paid for. If I give you a pizza missing slices, and it's been under a heat lamp after I've promised a scratch-made, high-quality brick oven pizza- you'll be rather upset.

Sure. And in more substantial, concrete things, I'd agree with you. But there's two specific things here that modify my opinion.

1. The speculative nature. This is an investment, with no guaranteed return. You're providing money to help realise the creation of a project, not in exchange for a specific return.This is clearly laid out.
2. The form of product being created, namely, creative content. Like with the book example, the output isn't usually measured primarily by the total quantitative output but that of the achieved goal. If people invest money to have an hour long nature documentary about seals made, few people complain when the seal documentary is 55 minutes long. They wanted a seal documentary, they got one.

This is different to a miniatures KS, where you're not investing so much for the abstract 'creation' of a line of miniatures, but for specific rewards.

Nah. I'm not embarassed at all. I'm spot on. Then again, I would be embarassed if I had to defend this. I don't see how you do it.
The point stands, "She never went to court for it so it doesn't count". Well, then I hold her 'harassers' and 'threats' to the same standards. Not even an arrest, and these are crimes. Hmmm... maybe they're not legitimate.

You've mistakenly seized upon one part of a greater point, isolated it, and then ignored the rest. I'll reiterate in very clear explicit language.

If you are going to label someone a scammer, you need to have established that people were 'scammed', or that the person deliberately set out to be a 'scammer'; a 'scammer' being someone who deliberately and purposefully defrauds another of goods or money. Without these things, applying the descriptive phrase 'scammer' is incorrect.

Going to court and being successfully prosecuted would be proof of the first kind (that people have been scammed). Another would be to demonstrate that people had signed a binding contract, and been cheated, or that they had been misled into making an agreement where they were not fully aware of the relevant circumstance. That sort of thing. Alternatively, a confession by the person or evidence of their intent would suffice, assuming we do not have reason to suspect it (torture, etc).

In this case, you have admitted to having no proof regarding her intent. There is no kind of criminal record either. In which case, we are left grasping for justification that she deliberately defrauded people. We've established already that the quality of her product is an irrelevant corollary given it meets the description (i.e. videos about specific subjects). Furthermore, given that she made 10 of 12 videos, it is unlikely that this was ever a deliberate deception to obtain goods/money. The contract used on KS makes clear the speculative basis of the financial commitment, and she offered sufficient proof/projections of what she was likely to turn out through multiple channels before the Kickstarter concluded. All of which have been accurate.

Ergo, it would be wrong to call her a 'scammer'. She's not like Daniel Mandelbaum. You could happily call her unreliable, because she's slow, or not particularly gifted because her videos aren't the best, or a poor researcher, because her facts are off. But scammer? Nah guv. She's not a crook.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Carnikang wrote:
Like I said, these aren't the whole populations of the many faceted community, and even then, the smaller community of Dakka didn't exempt some of the opinions I saw. I'm just watching and seeing a possible issue with someone reading the wrong bit rhetoric and latching onto that. I know for one if Anita was linked one of Arch warhammer's vids on WH;Adventures, I bet a nickel (to you personally Bob) that she would have something to say. They weren't very flattering or welcome of the books, to say the least.

Yes. We have 'Arch'. I don't think he's a blight on the community, he's not as bad as people make him out to be- but he's really unwise in the way he words things, and chooses odd hills to die on. You could argue the Swede is part of the problem. I wouldn't even say you're wrong. Jeremy Hamblin is another. I don't really support that guy after doing some digging on his behavior. I think they're both desperate for the clicks and they tend to lean toward the other end of the outrage mob.

Personally, I like some of Archs views, but I also do not like others. He makes decent videos at times. Other times, his views are... interesting. I have listened to that discussion he had with Unsleeved Media, and the subsequent videos about 40K Feminists, and I have to say, I think there may be 'legitimate' worries founded on shakey logic or evidence. That's remain to be seen though. While I may not believe that 'der feminazis are cummin for my minis' I do believe that a group that tries to say that it's tolerant can and will frame those it doesn't like (or are vocal in opposition to) as intolerant of even the smallest change to a setting or product.

Man, it sucks to not have been aware that Gamergate was even a thing until it ended, avoiding all of that crap, to then just see it reappear every 3-5 months in other places.

 Ketara wrote:

If you are going to label someone a scammer, you need to have established that people were 'scammed', or that the person deliberately set out to be a 'scammer'; a 'scammer' being someone who deliberately and purposefully defrauds another of goods or money. Without these things, applying the descriptive phrase 'scammer' is incorrect.

Then I'll stick with labeling her incompetent. However, keep in mind- that much of the stink that rose accusing her of being a 'scammer' came from her own donors.

So, sure- you can easily say what she did isn't illegal. But that doesn't mean it was ethical. It was still pretty scummy, and I'll label that a swindle or a scam or a ripoff.

Or maybe she found a bunch of gullible morons and exploited them. Legal, but it happened.

Either way, it's not changing my rather significant disgust for her.

So no, she broke no laws that we can prove. But that doesn't mean she did the right thing, and it wasn't scummy.

 Carnikang wrote:
Personally, I like some of Archs views, but I also do not like others. He makes decent videos at times. Other times, his views are... interesting. I have listened to that discussion he had with Unsleeved Media, and the subsequent videos about 40K Feminists, and I have to say, I think there may be 'legitimate' worries founded on shakey logic or evidence. That's remain to be seen though. While I may not believe that 'der feminazis are cummin for my minis' I do believe that a group that tries to say that it's tolerant can and will frame those it doesn't like (or are vocal in opposition to) as intolerant of even the smallest change to a setting or product.

He's got some points, but I think the first thing he did wrong was he started complaining about the SJWoowoos, instead of using the most powerful tool at our disposal- ridicule.

And no, I don't believe the feminazis are coming for the minis, either. After all, this a group whose first point on their FAQ was "No, we're not a troll page and we're actually serious about this." That's not a threat at all.

 Galas wrote:
Man, it sucks to not have been aware that Gamergate was even a thing until it ended, avoiding all of that crap, to then just see it reappear every 3-5 months in other places.

I won't lie, having successfully more or less avoided it until now, I'm highly disappointed at how utterly mundane the whole thing seems to be. I mean, when I set out to look into it, I was expecting something mildly salacious and interesting given all the rage and emotive language, not just someone making a ten episode youtube series instead of twelve.

 Ketara wrote:
I won't lie, having successfully more or less avoided it until now, I'm highly disappointed at how utterly mundane the whole thing seems to be. I mean, when I set out to look into it, I was expecting something mildly salacious and interesting given all the rage and emotive language, not just someone making a ten episode youtube series instead of twelve.

That wasn't Gamergate. Not that the real thing was a spectacle, but Anita was pretty much ignored and forgotten for a while and would seldom crop up as an issue.

If you want real comedy gold, go find Anita's tweets when she was at E3. Apparently, she was shocked that Doom had violence and guns in it.

Carnikang, I read your statement as dividing "the community" into two camps, and those two camps into pro-diversity and anti, which is where I disagreed. If you are qualifying that you only meant a small portion of the community, more or less the usual agitators, then that's different and a much lesser matter for the community as a whole. When you describe the Warhammer Adventures reaction as a debacle, it sounds more like condemnation of the community than a footnote about some rowdy jerks on the Internet.

I would wager that the largest part of the community reacted with apathy, followed by a portion displaying a combination of amusement and curiosity. There might be enough excited supporters and detractors globally to fill a convention hall. But conflict and outrage sell, so that last group will get all the attention.

I don't know who Arch is, and am mostly familiar with Sarkesian through her reputation, but I would not take that bet. Her job is having something to say, and she seems to be good at it.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Carnikang, I read your statement as dividing "the community" into two camps, and those two camps into pro-diversity and anti, which is where I disagreed. If you are qualifying that you only meant a small portion of the community, more or less the usual agitators, then that's different and a much lesser matter for the community as a whole. When you describe the Warhammer Adventures reaction as a debacle, it sounds more like condemnation of the community than a footnote about some rowdy jerks on the Internet.

I would wager that the largest part of the community reacted with apathy, followed by a portion displaying a combination of amusement and curiosity. There might be enough excited supporters and detractors globally to fill a convention hall. But conflict and outrage sell, so that last group will get all the attention.

I don't know who Arch is, and am mostly familiar with Sarkesian through her reputation, but I would not take that bet. Her job is having something to say, and she seems to be good at it.

I probably should use more careful words, but I agree on all points really.