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.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Its more effective because they are women but it isn't sexist is a direct contradiction.

Um, no it isn't. Not everything that includes gender is sexist. That's like saying giving hysterectomies to only women is sexist. The people choosing the threat are doing so because it is most effective, not because they have opinions on the qualities or abilities of that person as a member of the lesser sex.

I'm sorry, but you can't be serious. Using rape threats specifically against women because you know that it terrifies them is sexist. It trivializes sexual assault women face. The CDC once estimated that 1 in 5 women had faced attempted or actual rape compared to 1 in 71 men. It is an issue faced overwhelmingly by women.
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf

Considering murder victims are by a big majority male, would it be sexist to make death threats to men then? As it would trivialize the the bodily harm men face?

 Formosa wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
So no one is allowed to die on a hill that does not fit your narrative?

No, he shouldn't die on a hill that is build from badly reading his statistics, unless you agree with his reading of it?

Its drifted from rape threats to this. But it still isn't about gender wars. Let me just ask a question related to the community. Does your local community use the term raped to mean winning or winning overwhelmingly? A lot of women are pretty uncomfortable with that, my partner plays 40K but refuses to participate in the local community because she is that uncomfortable with the local atmosphere. Isn't that an issue faced by the community in your opinion for example?

No that’s an issue of personal accountability and challenging said person or persons and holding them accountable, it is in no way representative of the community at large as some are claiming, use some moral courage and integrity to make sure that these things don’t happen.

Trying to blame a whole community for a minority of offenders is apparently what being “preogrssive” is all about, and yet, as we have seen in this very thread, that does not happen and people are more than happy to attempt to write off a whole community based on thier own political bias even if it contradicts the tenets of the politics they claim to support.

Hence me saying local community. And adressing it has been tried, resulting in the closing of ranks and replies of "don't be so sensitive" or "he's just joking, get over it". Of course its not the entire community, but there is a subcurrent that has serious issues and that the community as a whole is embarresed to adress.

Writing off the whole community is a gakky thing to do and that is what Sarkeesian does because she is too general so it becomes polarizing in many people's view. But the subcurrent that actually feels attacked goes after people like Sarkeesian and they give us all a bad name. If the community stamps down on the hate train then arguments like hers get no traction. But even in this thread, its clear that people who had no intent of even attending are getting very emotional and defensive, which is exactly how we ended up here with her being invited in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dyndraig wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Its more effective because they are women but it isn't sexist is a direct contradiction.

Um, no it isn't. Not everything that includes gender is sexist. That's like saying giving hysterectomies to only women is sexist. The people choosing the threat are doing so because it is most effective, not because they have opinions on the qualities or abilities of that person as a member of the lesser sex.

I'm sorry, but you can't be serious. Using rape threats specifically against women because you know that it terrifies them is sexist. It trivializes sexual assault women face. The CDC once estimated that 1 in 5 women had faced attempted or actual rape compared to 1 in 71 men. It is an issue faced overwhelmingly by women.
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf

Considering murder victims are by a big majority male, would it be sexist to make death threats to men then? As it would trivialize the the bodily harm men face?

Context matters, most perpetrators are also men. But when another random from tumblr get pulled out saying in the future all men must be in camps or dead that is definitely sexist. And yes, it certainly does trivialize bodily harm to men trying to be edgy sending death threats. There are no winners in either.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
So no one is allowed to die on a hill that does not fit your narrative?

At any rate, this thread has devolved heavily. The title speaks of a particular person being invited on a tabletop gaming convention. How does the topic correlate in any way with swashbuckling surveys on sexual assaults to see which is more relevant?

I call for a mod to put this thread back on topic. Please open another one if you want to discuss gender wars.

This thread just kind of proved some peoples points. You can't bring social politics into anything without it resulting in a massive gakshow these days and this is what inviting a woman who makes her living by turning communities into gak flinging monkeys angry about things unrelated to the games they're playing.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
In my community it is very casualy to honor your defeated enemy with "you just ate a dick", mostly if you managed a particularly lucky roll that turned the game around. It is also customary for the defeated person to initiate with "I ate a dick" - it symbolizes that he understood his strategic mistakes and that he will strive to improve upon them.

Nobody finds it insulting. We don't have any women in our group, and I suspect that if we did the custom would stay strong. Nobody suggests actual intercourse - the term is simply floating above the battlefield and stays strictly within its 6'x4' boundaries.

And I very much like it. I have eaten my fair share of dicks and I have become a better player because of this.

You do realize that to a part of the community this can be offensive and feel like a unfriendly enviroment right? You just ate a dick can be construed as just a derogatory as saying gay about random stuff. Its a boys club mentality from having all men. How many younger people play there for example? Its hard to imagine if you played at a GW that you could just state that without a comment. The place where you do it matters a lot. But this can be one of those things turning others off to the community, in most cases it doesn't mean the community is bad, but reflect on how it looks from the outside looking in. That is exactly how Sarkeesian got big, from the outside looking in, to the general public, it seemed like she was right. In essence it becomes self defeating.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
In my community it is very casualy to honor your defeated enemy with "you just ate a dick", mostly if you managed a particularly lucky roll that turned the game around. It is also customary for the defeated person to initiate with "I ate a dick" - it symbolizes that he understood his strategic mistakes and that he will strive to improve upon them.

Nobody finds it insulting. We don't have any women in our group, and I suspect that if we did the custom would stay strong. Nobody suggests actual intercourse - the term is simply floating above the battlefield and stays strictly within its 6'x4' boundaries.

And I very much like it. I have eaten my fair share of dicks and I have become a better player because of this.

You do realize that to a part of the community this can be offensive and feel like a unfriendly enviroment right? You just ate a dick can be construed as just a derogatory as saying gay about random stuff. Its a boys club mentality from having all men. How many younger people play there for example? Its hard to imagine if you played at a GW that you could just state that without a comment. The place where you do it matters a lot. But this can be one of those things turning others off to the community, in most cases it doesn't mean the community is bad, but reflect on how it looks from the outside looking in. That is exactly how Sarkeesian got big, from the outside looking in, to the general public, it seemed like she was right. In essence it becomes self defeating.

I am pretty aware, yes. This is how this community was built, years after years. There are young people joining and they get subjected to the same ceremony as everyone else. The fact that they choose to come back time and again to play some more states that they do not mind the terminology. It's an open community. Nobody is forced to be there and there are a lot of other gaming groups within a stone's throw. Yet ours is the most populated by a ton. But we will not be changing it by force in order to potentially attract more people. This is who we are. People can elect to join or leave. Most of the people elect to join. There is a reason for this: Nobody bestows the dick blessing on another person in a derogatory manner. Nobody intends to insult. "Eating the dick" is a rite of passage, it is being passed around in a very comical manner and the youngster who "eats the dick" and acknowledges it earns respect from the older folks, who will be happy to sit around the table for two hours after the game and explain to the youngblood his mistakes and how to improve.

In short, people in my community understand the old "stick and stones" moto.

Oh and somewhere there's a video of our MVP shouting "YOU ALL ATE DICKS" while accepting the bronze medal in the ETC back in 7th edition WHFB days.

Most populated sure, but do the other groups have women? And again, nobody might mean anything insulting by it, but outsiders and new people don't know the history. Certain local communities can be perceived or actually be pretty unfriendly for certain groups. We don't need Sarkeesian to tell any of us that. But to women (or I guess gay men when it comes to this example?) genuinly interested in the hobby it can definitely be detrimental. And Sarkeesian paints a tarfet on her back that works on certain parts of the community. Sure, it might not be nice what she does, but there will always be people like her who depending on your opinion might just be trying to make a quick buck. But the elements of our community who got all angry and irrationally emotional to the points of harrasment are the ones that did the actual damage, without them we would all be Sarkeesian who? Just type in what she does in YT and see how many unknown people come out of the woodworks.

Edit: Besides does anyone know yet what the topic is going to be she speaks on?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Most populated sure, but do the other groups have women? And again, nobody might mean anything insulting by it, but outsiders and new people don't know the history. Certain local communities can be perceived or actually be pretty unfriendly for certain groups. We don't need Sarkeesian to tell any of us that. But to women (or I guess gay men when it comes to this example?) genuinly interested in the hobby it can definitely be detrimental. And Sarkeesian paints a tarfet on her back that works on certain parts of the community. Sure, it might not be nice what she does, but there will always be people like her who depending on your opinion might just be trying to make a quick buck. But the elements of our community who got all angry and irrationally emotional to the points of harrasment are the ones that did the actual damage, without them we we all be Sarkeesian who?

Edit: Besides does anyone know yet what the topic is going to be she speaks on?

If you spend 1 hour in my community during game nights you will understand exactly what I am talking about. It's actually heartwarming, even if it sounds ridiculous right now.

Plus, - and I know this is going to fan the flame- in my 16 years of involvement in the wargaming hobby I have only ever actually witnessed one woman play the game - she played for the Bulgarian team in the ETC some years back. It could be that the very purpose of Sarkeeshian's presence will be to encourage more women in gaming. However, I do not think that women don't join our community because of the dick ritual. I think they do not join because they don't care about wargaming. And we will definitely not change our ways in order to potentially attract women in our group. This is because we want to spend our gaming nights the way we want, not the way Sarkeeshian wants us to. Otherwise it would not be fun for us any more.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Most populated sure, but do the other groups have women? And again, nobody might mean anything insulting by it, but outsiders and new people don't know the history. Certain local communities can be perceived or actually be pretty unfriendly for certain groups. We don't need Sarkeesian to tell any of us that. But to women (or I guess gay men when it comes to this example?) genuinly interested in the hobby it can definitely be detrimental. And Sarkeesian paints a tarfet on her back that works on certain parts of the community. Sure, it might not be nice what she does, but there will always be people like her who depending on your opinion might just be trying to make a quick buck. But the elements of our community who got all angry and irrationally emotional to the points of harrasment are the ones that did the actual damage, without them we we all be Sarkeesian who?

Edit: Besides does anyone know yet what the topic is going to be she speaks on?

If you spend 1 hour in my community during game nights you will understand exactly what I am talking about. It's actually heartwarming, even if it sounds ridiculous right now.

Plus, - and I know this is going to fan the flame- in my 16 years of involvement in the wargaming hobby I have only ever actually witnessed one woman play the game - she played for the Bulgarian team in the ETC some years back. It could be that the very purpose of Sarkeeshian's presence will be to encourage more women in gaming. However, I do not think that women don't join our community because of the dick ritual. I think they do not join because they don't care about wargaming. And we will definitely not change our ways in order to potentially attract women in our group. This is because we want to spend our gaming nights the way we want, not the way Sarkeeshian wants us to. Otherwise it would not be fun for us any more.

Yeah I understand that the community itself can be nice and all of them have quirks. Just saying that its one of those things that might be hard to explain to an outsider.

I think the women in gaming right now might be a bit of a chicken or the egg question. I'm not going to guess on Sarkeesian's motivations, they might be genuine or cynical and everything in between, without knowing her beyond the public facade. But the 'dick ritual' might be partly responsible for not having any women, and while you might want to preserve what makes your group fun, a woman on the outside might only see/feel the excluding nature of it. But it is exactly this discinnect between out and in that creates such emotional tension. People have opposite views they both feel are right.

As I think most of us are men, this thread might benefit from some female posters, but I doubt they will show up.

My wife finds it dispiriting because some dude always wants to tell her what to do or how to play her stuff. Even when she was at a party trying out a model race car track some dude kept insisting she give him the controls so he could "show her how to do it" (He did not do this to any of the other people there) and was really put out and sulky when she told him where to go.

 Da Boss wrote:
My wife finds it dispiriting because some dude always wants to tell her what to do or how to play her stuff. Even when she was at a party trying out a model race car track some dude kept insisting she give him the controls so he could "show her how to do it" (He did not do this to any of the other people there) and was really put out and sulky when she told him where to go.

This. 100% this. This is really what is killing the "women in X field". Smartasses who assume too much. I once had a seller bypass my wife and ask me what kind of bicycle "does she really want" because she was thorough and picky with her questions and did not cut him any slack on his marketing bullgak.

Edit: She is now the official negotiator of our household.

....

I guess going back on topic is an elusive dream? I would be far more interested in hearing who you would suggest is more suitable to be there, for example lets say the face of HABBA she is an old industry veteran and a positive role model for any woman who would like to join the industry professionally and have a career in it.

Anyway since the discussion has devolved context matter words are void without context, personally the most direct and unapologetic "rape slur" in my face has been done by a friend in totally dominating me in a boardgame, does the fact she was female matter? no it does not (other than proving anybody can do this behaviour), should I feel insulted? no, it was in the context of the game been played, nobody felt insulted and nobody should feel insulted.

I really suggest you need to start treating individuals as individuals and not as nebulous groups that work under a hive mind.

I have no strong opinion about who should be the keynote speaker at Gencon, it's more the fact that AS still draws such a strong response that fascinates me. Gencon hardly needs a keynote speaker in my opinion.

Why not? a guest of honour is an important individual put in spotlight and their speech bears impact on the industry and market, directly or indirectly.

Anyway I would be glad to hear about prominent industry figures I many not know.

And therefore I'm not blaming the entire community. But there is an undercurrent of unpleasent individuals in almost every community, not just gaming, because people are people. Instead of gnashing your teeth about the community strawman, maybe reflect on the behaviour of people who unapologetically use "rape slurs" before going "its just a joke bro", whether male or female and if those really are the kinds of people you enjoy having in the overall community. We're not all bad eggs, sadly when issues like this come up the bad eggs are the most vocal, vitriolic and visible ones.

Let Sarkeesian speak, be civil about it and this whole thing can blow over. Or we can start getting defensive and see where the sympathy wave for her ends up taking the community. Simple really.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

More mature creations are needed to transform a perception of a type of media from being for children to for adults. That doesn't mean more violence and more sex, FATAL did nothing to make RPG gaming seem more mature. It means tackling more complex ideas. It means not shying away from politics because you are "just making games". It means tackling hard issues.

The setting of a game about giant space men fighting green football hooligans might not be the best place to have a discourse about Chinese foreign policy.

There is a time and place, wargames aren't it.

You can't say "wargames" aren't just like you can't say "videogames" aren't appropiate to tackle sensible issues.

They can do it! But, of course, the fact that videogames, boardgames or wargames that talk about political and sensible isues exist doesn't mean theres not others that are just here for fun. You can have games like Detroid: Become Human alongside games like Heroes of the Storm or God of War 4.

Thats the beauty of it, each product catters to an audience. I, as said early, can absolutely understand the mantra of "no politics". That doesn't mean I can't appreciate and I don't see te value of videogames, books, comics, board games, wargames, etc... talking about politics. When I want a deep experience, I go for one of those games, when I don't, because I wan just some hours of pure fun forgetting the outside world, then I go to the other products that aren't political in any shape or form.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Why shouldn't politics be discussed whilst playing a game? If a game has political themes (and most will), why shouldn't they be discussed?

If both people want to talk politics, absolutely NOTHING ir wrong with that. If both parties are interested, talk about religion, politics, sportsball, online gambling, your kids, your pets, or even cooking. *

If the one person isn't interested and says so, maybe leave them alone and move to another topic.

Not accusing you, ATCM specifically, of boring the feth out of someone at the table. Just a reminder in general for people to be polite.

*DON'T fething bring up the designated hitter rule. Having 2 sets of rules in MLB is a fething joke... Burn it all down!

 Galas wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

More mature creations are needed to transform a perception of a type of media from being for children to for adults. That doesn't mean more violence and more sex, FATAL did nothing to make RPG gaming seem more mature. It means tackling more complex ideas. It means not shying away from politics because you are "just making games". It means tackling hard issues.

The setting of a game about giant space men fighting green football hooligans might not be the best place to have a discourse about Chinese foreign policy.

There is a time and place, wargames aren't it.

You can't say "wargames" aren't just like you can't say "videogames" aren't appropiate to tackle sensible issues.

They can do it! But, of course, the fact that videogames, boardgames or wargames that talk about political and sensible isues exist doesn't mean theres not others that are just here for fun. You can have games like Detroid: Become Humand alongside games like Heroes of the Storm of God of War 4.

Thats the beauty of it, each product catters to an audience. I, as said early, can absolutely understand the mantra of "no politics". That doesn't mean I can't appreciate and I don't see te value of videogames, books, comics, board games, wargames, etc... talking about politics. When I want a deep experience, I go for one of those games, when I don't, because I wan just some hours of pure fun forgetting the outside world, then I go to the other products that aren't political in any shape or form.

Exactly.

Though I would say that God of War 4 isn't just there for fun. It's an examination of fatherhood, which is a political subject. Of course you can just play it for the combat but that is not the same as it not having any political commentary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

For example 40k's political background hardly comes in the actual gameplay that is far removed from the background, so why would a player want to discuss 40k politics while playing?

Considering the shallowness of 40K's actual mechanics, you can't exactly just talk about the mechanics of it over a multi-hour game. Seems weird to me to not talk about the setting since the setting is, judging by many peoples own words on the subject, what makes people play 40K over other games.

I don't think God of War has a political commentary, unless you threat political as... everything that happens in real life.

I agree that is a deep game about fatherhood, living with your past, redemption, etc... but I wouldn't say thats political, just a narrative device that enters in some serious issues people can relate with. In the other hand Detrod: Become Human clearly enters in issues that are political in his nature and are still present in our political landscape today.
But at this point I think we are just arguing semantics about what we understand as "political".

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

More mature creations are needed to transform a perception of a type of media from being for children to for adults. That doesn't mean more violence and more sex, FATAL did nothing to make RPG gaming seem more mature. It means tackling more complex ideas. It means not shying away from politics because you are "just making games". It means tackling hard issues.

The setting of a game about giant space men fighting green football hooligans might not be the best place to have a discourse about Chinese foreign policy.

There is a time and place, wargames aren't it.

You can't say "wargames" aren't just like you can't say "videogames" aren't appropiate to tackle sensible issues.

They can do it! But, of course, the fact that videogames, boardgames or wargames that talk about political and sensible isues exist doesn't mean theres not others that are just here for fun. You can have games like Detroid: Become Humand alongside games like Heroes of the Storm of God of War 4.

Thats the beauty of it, each product catters to an audience. I, as said early, can absolutely understand the mantra of "no politics". That doesn't mean I can't appreciate and I don't see te value of videogames, books, comics, board games, wargames, etc... talking about politics. When I want a deep experience, I go for one of those games, when I don't, because I wan just some hours of pure fun forgetting the outside world, then I go to the other products that aren't political in any shape or form.

Exactly.

Though I would say that God of War 4 isn't just there for fun. It's an examination of fatherhood, which is a political subject. Of course you can just play it for the combat but that is not the same as it not having any political commentary.

Except Detroit and GoW4 aren't community games. They're single player games telling a story and by extension online games are generally faceless and you can just leave a game and find a new one in a matter of seconds.

If you're 2 hours into a 40k and decide to leave the table because your oppnent decided to tell you he's pro-life you've wasted and evening and there's now someone in your comminity you can't play with so you've lowered the pool of players for both of you. Not to mention word will inevitably spread and people who weren't even involved might take offencr and refuse to play him.

And thats why multiplayer games try to avoid all kind of politics, because they want to cater to the biggest audience possible.

And why I use the triunvirate of prohibitions. That does not mean we are just scared of political conversations.

When I go to a tournament to my FLGS, normally a couple of us, with the store owner, go to eat together to a nearby bar, and we talk about all kind of stuff around the table, but in the proper FLGS and the tournament, people comes to game, and people that we aren't as friend with can come to, and avoiding confrontation about that kind of personal issues is basic to grow a strong community.

But we weren't talking about single player vs multiplayer, but about the "Videogames/wargames shouldn't be political in any shape or form". And with that I disagree. I believe theres room for everything, and I agree with Mallus in the fact that if you want a medium to be seen as something serious IT needs to be, at least some part of it, political, divisive, vanguardist, etc...

So, I was listening to a podcast about the OTHER key speaker at Gencon. Unlike Anita, at least he is part of the gaming scene. From what I remember about him, he owns a computer dice rolling program.

However, he is also a little full of himself and has a bit of controversy. Although he has supported all-female gaming communities he has also threatened to ban someone looking for a male-only gaming group.

 Sim-Life wrote:
If you're 2 hours into a 40k and decide to leave the table because your oppnent decided to tell you he's pro-life you've wasted and evening and there's now someone in your comminity you can't play with so you've lowered the pool of players for both of you. Not to mention word will inevitably spread and people who weren't even involved might take offencr and refuse to play him.

The only waste of time in that situation would be the two hours I spent before realizing that my opponent is an awful person I do not want to associate with. I would rather know that up front so I can avoid spending my time on someone like that. And I don't care one bit if their awful beliefs becoming public knowledge makes it difficult for them to find willing opponents. Their removal from the community is a thing to be celebrated.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
If you're 2 hours into a 40k and decide to leave the table because your oppnent decided to tell you he's pro-life you've wasted and evening and there's now someone in your comminity you can't play with so you've lowered the pool of players for both of you. Not to mention word will inevitably spread and people who weren't even involved might take offencr and refuse to play him.

The only waste of time in that situation would be the two hours I spent before realizing that my opponent is an awful person I do not want to associate with. I would rather know that up front so I can avoid spending my time on someone like that. And I don't care one bit if their awful beliefs becoming public knowledge makes it difficult for them to find willing opponents. Their removal from the community is a thing to be celebrated.

Everyone who disagrees with me is alt-right/nazi/morally-bankrupt/incel/whatever the latest insult used to dehumanize and dismiss complex and nuanced issues.

You can't even have disagreements and remain polite and civil in broader society where we're supposed to be actively exercising those skills - yet there are people who want to inject divisive politics into games?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
It isn't though. He is arguing that his hobby shouldn't be treated childishly while at the same time arguing that politics should be kept out of his hobby. Arguing that such a large part of adult life shouldn't be in a particular hobby is the opposite of asking that hobby to not be regarded as childish.

But that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing against control. I think that that the control should be squarely in the hands of the creators, without anybody sitting over their shoulder telling them what is right and wrong. I have my preferences (I prefer my politics to be recontextualized into fictional form than simply being called a nazi by a ranting mouthpiece), but never once have I argued that people shouldn't be allowed to do that if that is what they want to do. I simply want that to be the creator's choice, not the choice of a "cultural critic", governing body, or political movement.

To put it into political perspective, I'm completely okay with someone writing a book in which the Nazis are good guys. While the premise may be immoral, it could lead to an interesting work that challenges perceptions and shows comparisons to the politics of today, and how we are making the same mistakes without necessarily being pro-evil. What I'm not okay with is someone else telling someone they CAN'T write a book where the Nazis are good guys because some guy ran over a protestor at a rally, and we need to regulate what messages we can and can not tell.

If games are to be perceived as more than childish then they must be willing to tackle adult themes, and not just by throwing in genitals and dismemberment. Thinking that gore and sex makes you mature is a childish perspective in itself. What is the less childish game, Doom or Heavy Rain?

I think you are misunderstanding. I'm not arguing that the games themselves should tackle mature content. That's up to the creators. I'm arguing that we should treat all games as if they COULD, such that cultural critics, governing bodies, and political movements can't use children as their shield to impose their limited world views on the creators or the customers.

More mature creations are needed to transform a perception of a type of media from being for children to for adults. That doesn't mean more violence and more sex, FATAL did nothing to make RPG gaming seem more mature. It means tackling more complex ideas. It means not shying away from politics because you are "just making games". It means tackling hard issues. Think of how effective a video game could be at depicting the horrors of the Holocaust. Why hasn't it been made? We've made plenty of games set in World War 2, after all. Because of the idea that games should not tackle those political issues. Which is bs, games absolutely should be free to tackle those issues like any other form of media.

I honestly am not sure who you are arguing with. I'm fine with politics being part of my entertainment. Satire and parody are the height of human achievement, and it'd be hard to argue that The Wire isn't the best tv show that has ever been made. But there is a difference between using your entertainment as a soapbox and using your entertainment as a way to tell stories that happen to have a message.

And even then, I'm fine with soapboxes (heck, I even find Ayn Rand occasionally readable), as long as that is the creators choice. It is then my choice to not read/watch it then. And that's the end up of it. Two adults, making our own decisions. What I don't want is somebody telling the creator that they can't create something in the way they want to create it because of bs reasons just because they feel an incessant need to tell everyone how to live their life.

Sarkeesian's criticism of video games was about this very control. It wasn't "hey, isn't it weird that this seems to happen a lot". It was "hey, this happens a lot and it is immoral and wrong and creators need to be held responsible for their loathsome practices". If her criticism stopped at "I'd like to see more of this type of content", great! But instead, it was almost exclusively, "There needs to be less of this type of content", which I don't agree with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
So, I was listening to a podcast about the OTHER key speaker at Gencon. Unlike Anita, at least he is part of the gaming scene. From what I remember about him, he owns a computer dice rolling program.

However, he is also a little full of himself and has a bit of controversy. Although he has supported all-female gaming communities he has also threatened to ban someone looking for a male-only gaming group.

Would that be Nolan T Jones? I didn't recognize his name, and his achievement of a virtual dice rolling thing seemed awful slight for an industry "change maker", but I did notice that his moderator is the founder and director of an organization called "I Need Diverse Games". Moreover, the moderator for Jordan Weisman has a special project for the industry to adopt a professional code of conduct and uniform anti-harassment policies and procedures (warning bells). There's definitely some agenda pushing at GenCon this year. It's coming you guys.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Moreover, the moderator for Jordan Weisman has a special project for the industry to adopt a professional code of conduct and uniform anti-harassment policies and procedures (warning bells). There's definitely some agenda pushing at GenCon this year. It's coming you guys.

I just want to look at anime tiddies and paint toy soldiers :<

Cryptek of Awesome wrote:
Everyone who disagrees with me is alt-right/nazi/morally-bankrupt/incel/whatever the latest insult used to dehumanize and dismiss complex and nuanced issues.

Yes, that is 100% what I said, no strawman at all.

You can't even have disagreements and remain polite and civil in broader society where we're supposed to be actively exercising those skills - yet there are people who want to inject divisive politics into games?

The politics are already there. Not knowing a person is awful doesn't make them any less awful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sqorgar wrote:
[I think that that the control should be squarely in the hands of the creators, without anybody sitting over their shoulder telling them what is right and wrong.

The control is already in the hands of the creators. Nobody is forcing them to listen to any critics, they have full control over their creations. If they listen to someone else's opinion about what is write and wrong it's only because they have voluntarily decided to hear that opinion and be persuaded by it. And there is no plausible scenario where this changes in the US. Your speculation about forced regulation of content is paranoia, nothing more.

But instead, it was almost exclusively, "There needs to be less of this type of content", which I don't agree with.

Too bad, because part of freedom of speech/expression is being able to say "I don't like this, stop doing it". You can't simultaneously insist that creators have control over their content and demand that a content creator stop saying something that you object to. Sarkeesian is free to say "this sucks, stop doing it" and everyone else is free to listen to her or ignore her as they choose.

Moreover, the moderator for Jordan Weisman has a special project for the industry to adopt a professional code of conduct and uniform anti-harassment policies and procedures (warning bells). There's definitely some agenda pushing at GenCon this year. It's coming you guys.

Yes, because when I see "the industry should adopt a code of conduct and formal anti-harassment policies" what I immediately think of is "agenda pushing" and not "doing exactly what every major corporation's HR department does".

 Peregrine wrote:

Moreover, the moderator for Jordan Weisman has a special project for the industry to adopt a professional code of conduct and uniform anti-harassment policies and procedures (warning bells). There's definitely some agenda pushing at GenCon this year. It's coming you guys.

Yes, because when I see "the industry should adopt a code of conduct and formal anti-harassment policies" what I immediately think of is "agenda pushing" and not "doing exactly what every major corporation's HR department does".

Not just every company that is large enough to have a HR person, but pretty much every major convention. Hell, some conventions have faced guests canceling because they *didn’t* have such policies - the SLCC had a huge issue with that only about a month or so ago.

 Peregrine wrote:

The control is already in the hands of the creators. Nobody is forcing them to listen to any critics, they have full control over their creations. If they listen to someone else's opinion about what is write and wrong it's only because they have voluntarily decided to hear that opinion and be persuaded by it. And there is no plausible scenario where this changes in the US. Your speculation about forced regulation of content is paranoia, nothing more.

I assume you aren't familiar with the legal term "chilling effect"? Simply put, it is something which discourages people from fully exercising their legal right to the freedom of expression. For instance, if there was a regulating body which could slap a label on your product that made it so that stores would not carry your product - your right is not strictly being limited, but it effectively is because of the consequences of using it are so dire.

For instance, a code of conduct, if done improperly, could have a chilling effect on people expressing their opinions on things because they could get kicked out of the con for speech that is entirely legal, reasonable, and appropriate, but the code of conduct was written in such a way that any speech that could be claimed to be offensive (even when reasonably not, nor intended to be) is against the rules. For instance, male panelists could be terrified of sharing any potentially disagreeable opinions on the chance that a woman labels their opinions as harassment.

There's the spirit of the law and the letter of the law, and while the letter of the law may not be broken, the spirit certainly is. And nobody wants to walk around with a broken spirit.

Too bad, because part of freedom of speech/expression is being able to say "I don't like this, stop doing it".

Well, actually, "stop doing it" is an imperative command, and that is not covered under the freedom of expression. That's more of an issue of compelled speech, like "salute the flag" or "tell me your iphone password". Now, "you should stop doing it" or "it sure would be nice if you stopped doing it" or even "down with this sort of thing", that's different. But that's neither here nor there. I just thought that if you were going to bring up constitutional law, you should know that compelled speech is a free speech issue but from the opposite direction.

You can't simultaneously insist that creators have control over their content and demand that a content creator stop saying something that you object to. Sarkeesian is free to say "this sucks, stop doing it" and everyone else is free to listen to her or ignore her as they choose.

I'm fine with her saying whatever she wants, but I draw the line at creating codes of conduct, testifying for the censorship of the internet in front of the UN, or being a part of the Twitter Trust and Safety council that actually censors other people's tweets. As long as it is just speech, that's fine, but Sarkeesian went way past speech and is an active enemy of it.

Yes, because when I see "the industry should adopt a code of conduct and formal anti-harassment policies" what I immediately think of is "agenda pushing" and not "doing exactly what every major corporation's HR department does".

I guess you haven't been paying attention to what has been going on with CoCs in the open source community.

 Sqorgar wrote:
I assume you aren't familiar with the legal term "chilling effect"? Simply put, it is something which discourages people from fully exercising their legal right to the freedom of expression. For instance, if there was a regulating body which could slap a label on your product that made it so that stores would not carry your product - your right is not strictly being limited, but it effectively is because of the consequences of using it are so dire.

You're misusing the term "chilling effect". It refers specifically to the threat of legal action suppressing speech, even if that legal action would not eventually win in court. For example, sending a cease and desist notice to someone who is legally exercising their right to free speech, knowing that they don't have enough money to spend on fighting you in court, would be a chilling effect case. Even though the target is legally justified in what they are doing they are prevented from speaking. Merely being criticized by other people is not at all the same.

For instance, a code of conduct, if done improperly, could have a chilling effect on people expressing their opinions on things because they could get kicked out of the con for speech that is entirely legal, reasonable, and appropriate, but the code of conduct was written in such a way that any speech that could be claimed to be offensive (even when reasonably not, nor intended to be) is against the rules. For instance, male panelists could be terrified of sharing any potentially disagreeable opinions on the chance that a woman labels their opinions as harassment.

Oddly this is not a problem for the many businesses, virtually every business large enough to have an HR department, with codes of conduct and harassment policies. Perhaps these things are not so scary after all?

Well, actually, "stop doing it" is an imperative command, and that is not covered under the freedom of expression. That's more of an issue of compelled speech, like "salute the flag" or "tell me your iphone password". Now, "you should stop doing it" or "it sure would be nice if you stopped doing it" or even "down with this sort of thing", that's different. But that's neither here nor there. I just thought that if you were going to bring up constitutional law, you should know that compelled speech is a free speech issue but from the opposite direction.

This is a nonsense argument. "Stop doing that" is protected speech. And you're nitpicking the details of a paraphrased quote, which is even more absurd.

I'm fine with her saying whatever she wants, but I draw the line at creating codes of conduct, testifying for the censorship of the internet in front of the UN, or being a part of the Twitter Trust and Safety council that actually censors other people's tweets. As long as it is just speech, that's fine, but Sarkeesian went way past speech and is an active enemy of it.

Codes of conduct, Twitter doing what they want with their private property, etc, are not free speech cases. A private organization can set whatever policies they want, and you don't have a right to have them give you a platform to speak from or an audience to listen to you.

 Peregrine wrote:
You're misusing the term "chilling effect". It refers specifically to the threat of legal action suppressing speech, even if that legal action would not eventually win in court.

Someone found Wikipedia! Did you bother to check any other sources? Wikipedia even mischaracterizes the very source they are quoting (oh, Wikipedia). I think you'll find that the term applies to any undue influence or threat of sanction, especially in the context of regulatory bodies.

Merely being criticized by other people is not at all the same.

I'm not talking about pure criticism. I'm talking about code of conducts, trust and safety councils, ratings systems, regulations, and so on.

Oddly this is not a problem for the many businesses, virtually every business large enough to have an HR department, with codes of conduct and harassment policies. Perhaps these things are not so scary after all?

I really urge you to go see how CoCs are weaponized within the open source community. It's terrifying.

Codes of conduct, Twitter doing what they want with their private property, etc, are not free speech cases. A private organization can set whatever policies they want, and you don't have a right to have them give you a platform to speak from or an audience to listen to you.

This is a talking point I see often and it is easily disproven.

Here's one example, "Guttenberg Taxpayers and Rentpayers Association v. Galaxy Towers Condominium Association". Basically, an association that owned a bunch of condos in New Jersey had a policy against distributing flyers, yet distributed their own flyers for political candidates (who would win, because they owned something like 25% of the homes in the district). They were sued and the courts decided that by distributing their own flyers, this resulted in the “dedication of this property from private to political and thus public use”. The judge found that the refusal to allow flyers violated the state constitution because “a level playing field requires equal access to this condominium because it has become in essence a political ‘company town,’ in which political access controlled by the Association is the only ‘game in town.’” Can you see how this precedent might be relevant to Facebook and Twitter and other social media websites that are selectively allowing some political speech but not others?

In Marsh vs Alabama, the Supreme Court decided '"company town" was the same as a public street for First Amendment purposes, finding that "the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it."'.

Long story short, private business that are for open public use are more beholden to the first amendment. Moreover, if a business takes government money or uses government resources, they are not considered a private business for the purposes of regulating speech.