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.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

Wouldn't looking at other conventions (who use codes of conduct with much success) be a much closer correlate? The "open source community" is only one, highly-specialized, community and is only one data point. And just because *you* are terrified, doesn't mean they're all bad.

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?

I'm not opposed to the idea of a code of conduct, I actually welcome it. However, it needs to be simple, not overreaching, and evenly enforced.

I've personally seen someone get physically assaulted and be ejected because they called the woman a "B". She was Allowed to stay.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
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.

Could you name last year's speaker without googling it? I sure couldn't. I didn't even know they had keynote speakers. But now we are going to see gamers across the Internet comparing her negatively to past, present and future speakers at Gencon, giving them more prestige. Picking Sarkesian has raised the profile of the whole speaking gig.

But really, the Gencon guest of honor's speech has an impact on the industry and market? O-kay.

Well, it is apparent here that she can still stir-up controversy just with her name.
She did as she intended and got people talking (still does it looks like).

I just find her too condescending and happily pointing out "problems" with little to offer for solutions.
I always felt she was seeking the spotlight more than being a champion for positive change, my opinion however.

I feel her being there detracts more than adds to events but just like free speech: anyone can choose to listen or ignore.
I really do not want to give an extension to her 15 minutes of fame.

Yet, you kinda just did?

She didn't do anything yet.


Apparently that makes her some kind of strategic genius for causing the community to tear itself apart without her having to lift a finger. I'm telling you, it's the Monsters are Due on Maple Street.

I think if Anita Sarkeesian ever needed an advocate, it would be Sqorgar, because he's really convinced me she has something really important to say and needs a soap-box like Gencon to say it to as many people as possible.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
She didn't do anything yet.


Apparently that makes her some kind of strategic genius for causing the community to tear itself apart without her having to lift a finger. I'm telling you, it's the Monsters are Due on Maple Street.

Assuming you don't look at the smouldering dumpster fire of the video game community after she got internet famous.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
She didn't do anything yet.


Apparently that makes her some kind of strategic genius for causing the community to tear itself apart without her having to lift a finger. I'm telling you, it's the Monsters are Due on Maple Street.

Assuming you don't look at the smouldering dumpster fire of the video game community after she got internet famous.

The dumpster fire the community ignited over a women with a tiny audience. Sarkeesian showed up with a lighter, the community poured a tanker of gasoline over it. If anything the lesson here is to calm the hell down and not set another fire before anything has happened. It backfired spectacularly last time and some people seem itching for a repeat. Its a woman with opinions, come on people, its not the apocalypse.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
Wouldn't looking at other conventions (who use codes of conduct with much success) be a much closer correlate?

It would, and I can vaguely remember some situations where that has come up too. Generally speaking, I have a problem with CoCs that push a particular political agenda and which broadly define offense in terms of the offended rather than with regards to intent or context.

For instance, the Geek Feminism wiki has a CoC (adopted by others) which has the following:
"Unwelcome comments regarding a person’s lifestyle choices and practices, including those related to food, health, parenting, drugs, and employment."

That's incredibly broad and just waiting to be abused by someone with an agenda against another con goer. It gets WORSE.

The Geek Feminism community prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort. The Geek Feminism Anti-Abuse Team will not act on complaints regarding:

‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’ (because these things don’t exist)
Reasonable communication of boundaries, such as “leave me alone,” “go away,” or “I’m not discussing this with you.”
Refusal to explain or debate social justice concepts
Communicating in a ‘tone’ you don’t find congenial
Criticizing racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions

I'm suggesting that anybody who chooses a CoC like this one is pushing an agenda and using the CoC as a way to force others to conform to it.

You cite that it was a state constitution. I'm fairly sure there are ~50 of those, all of which are very different from each other and from the federal, so this ruling may have been highly specific to that specific state.

Yes, and that matters. There was, for example, a case in California where college students were passing out flyers in a mall. The California courts decided that mall had the right to ask them to stop as a private business, but the California constitution allowed for extra protections that meant that the students could still pass out flyers. State constitutions can have broader protections than given at the federal level. However, the specific case I cited, I did so because it seemed most relevant to the biased political censorship on Twitter and Facebook. I think if it were ever tested in the court of law, they'd have no choice but to declare Twitter or Facebook as public forums, and thus guarantee the right of expression be given freely.

It seems like this has become a pattern: you cite highly specific examples as exceptions, but ignore the general rule. That's not a good way to make logical decisions.

Actually, I cited two examples (you forgot Marsh vs Alabama, which was about privately owned company towns) - and I should point out that this is still two more cases than anyone else in this thread has cited.

I found one example of the Supreme Court declaring that malls were private property and could prevent certain forms of speech on them, but I didn't cite that one because in 2003, there was a case of a mall in California asking a man to remove a political shirt. He refuse and was arrested. He claimed a right to free speech. This was never tested in a court of law because the next day, hundreds of people showed up in that mall wearing the same shirt in protest. The mall rescinded the charges and fired the security guard who had him arrested. It seems to me that the people have spoken on this and they didn't think that the mall's right as a private business gave them the right to overrule the freedom of expression of its customers.

There. I've now quoted 5 different cases, including one that does not support my position. How many more do I have to post before I'm allowed to have an opinion?

 Nurglitch wrote:
I think if Anita Sarkeesian ever needed an advocate, it would be Sqorgar, because he's really convinced me she has something really important to say and needs a soap-box like Gencon to say it to as many people as possible.

What have I ever done that made you think a comment like this was appropriate?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Its a woman with opinions, come on people, its not the apocalypse.

It may not be the apocalypse, but there is a body count.

A bodycount because people couldn't keep a handle on their emotions. What did Sarkeesian really achieve before the house got burned down over her opinions?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
She didn't do anything yet.


Apparently that makes her some kind of strategic genius for causing the community to tear itself apart without her having to lift a finger. I'm telling you, it's the Monsters are Due on Maple Street.

Assuming you don't look at the smouldering dumpster fire of the video game community after she got internet famous.

The dumpster fire the community ignited over a women with a tiny audience. Sarkeesian showed up with a lighter, the community poured a tanker of gasoline over it. If anything the lesson here is to calm the hell down and not set another fire before anything has happened. It backfired spectacularly last time and some people seem itching for a repeat. Its a woman with opinions, come on people, its not the apocalypse.

That's the weird thing about it. It's like the thing where some women pointed out that men don't believe them, at which point some men stood up and pointed out that they didn't believe those women that men didn't believe women. It's like how some men perceive women to talk disproportionately much when the reverse is true.

As much as people claim that Gamergate destroyed the "gamer" community... eeeh... I don't think so. After time past, things aren't all that different, at least, not specifically with the videogame industry.

You have the general political climate that splash everything, of course. But anybody that sais the videogame community is in a worse state is just exaggeratting and using specific cases to generalise as if everything is horrible. People (From every "side" in the gamergate thing) that spend too much time arguing on the internet and lose track of reality. You see it all the time. For most of the "videogame community" it didn't changed anything.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
She didn't do anything yet.


Apparently that makes her some kind of strategic genius for causing the community to tear itself apart without her having to lift a finger. I'm telling you, it's the Monsters are Due on Maple Street.

Assuming you don't look at the smouldering dumpster fire of the video game community after she got internet famous.

That was her enemies' greatest own-goal.

I don't think so either, if anything the industry itself is trying to damage itself with business practices. The vast majority of gamers probably didn't even pay that much attention to the whole Gamergate thing. Videogame journalism was a cesspit of conflicts of interest long before the gate and still is. Meanwhile the 'movement' is pretty much dead.

 Galas wrote:
As much as people claim that Gamergate destroyed the "gamer" community... eeeh... I don't think so. After time past, things aren't all that different, at least, not specifically with the videogame industry.

You have the general political climate that splash everything, of course. But anybody that sais the videogame community is in a worse state is just exaggeratting and using specific cases to generalise as if everything is horrible. People (From every "side" in the gamergate thing) that spend too much time arguing on the internet and lose track of reality. You see it all the time. For most of the "videogame community" it didn't changed anything.

Except NeoGAF tore itself apart and people started getting fired from jobs in the industry wrongthink as developers try to prove who is the most progressive and anyones criticism of anything can be written off by accusing them of being Xist.

 Nurglitch wrote:
It's like how some men perceive women to talk disproportionately much when the reverse is true.

That isn't exactly accurate.

It seems men talk more in public settings where women talk more in personal settings or in larger groups.

http://time.com/4837536/do-women-really-talk-more/

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/do-women-talk-more-than-men/

How many people got fired then?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
A bodycount because people couldn't keep a handle on their emotions. What did Sarkeesian really achieve before the house got burned down over her opinions?

Here's a very simple example of something that happened. An artist named Tamara Smith complained that Sarkeesian had used her artwork in one of the Tropes vs Women videos without permission. A week later, she tried to do an AMA on reddit, only to find herself banned and the thread deleted. The official reason for the ban is that she was asking for upvotes, which is kind of the jaywalking of reddit. It's rarely enforced and everybody does it. The nonofficial reason is that reddit admins felt that her claims were leading to more harassment for Sarkeesian, and that the AMA, which did not explicitly call out Sarkeesian, was just a backdoor way to talk about it. The thread concerning the ban was also closed and removed from /r/all and /r/gaming.

This has nothing to do with her opinions. This was reddit protecting her, and the fact that she doesn't have to answer for the things she does wrong.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
A bodycount because people couldn't keep a handle on their emotions. What did Sarkeesian really achieve before the house got burned down over her opinions?

Here's a very simple example of something that happened. An artist named Tamara Smith complained that Sarkeesian had used her artwork in one of the Tropes vs Women videos without permission. A week later, she tried to do an AMA on reddit, only to find herself banned and the thread deleted. The official reason for the ban is that she was asking for upvotes, which is kind of the jaywalking of reddit. It's rarely enforced and everybody does it. The nonofficial reason is that reddit admins felt that her claims were leading to more harassment for Sarkeesian, and that the AMA, which did not explicitly call out Sarkeesian, was just a backdoor way to talk about it. The thread concerning the ban was also closed and removed from /r/all and /r/gaming.

This has nothing to do with her opinions. This was reddit protecting her, and the fact that she doesn't have to answer for the things she does wrong.

This is an example of when the gakstorm had already ignited. I asked if anyone could point out anything Sarkeesian achieved before this started.

And its Reddit, its an enlightened dictatorship at rhe best of times and a gakhole at the worst. Does this somehow prove her power?

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Galas wrote:
As much as people claim that Gamergate destroyed the "gamer" community... eeeh... I don't think so. After time past, things aren't all that different, at least, not specifically with the videogame industry.

You have the general political climate that splash everything, of course. But anybody that sais the videogame community is in a worse state is just exaggeratting and using specific cases to generalise as if everything is horrible. People (From every "side" in the gamergate thing) that spend too much time arguing on the internet and lose track of reality. You see it all the time. For most of the "videogame community" it didn't changed anything.

Except NeoGAF tore itself apart and people started getting fired from jobs in the industry wrongthink as developers try to prove who is the most progressive and anyones criticism of anything can be written off by accusing them of being Xist.

The biggest problem of the videogame community are lootboxes and depredatory business practices, developers that lie like No Man's Sky and Sea of Thieves. NeoGAF, whatever, its a internet community, yeah it was the biggest one, and it died, others will come to suplant it.

People gets fired ok. For a ton of different reasons, I don't disagree with that. But after all of that happened, in the aftermath of the battle...are you really trying to say to me that the videogame industry was... destroyed? That things are substantially worse than before (Because of that, as I said, theres many things that are wrong right now)?

Maybe is because I'm spanish and Gamergate didn't affected the hispanic internet community, but I can't really say that I agree with all the hyperbole and exageration that some people gives to those specific events.
Internet is a liberal's dream (The european meaning for liberal). You can do whatever you want. And if you can't, build a space yourself. If people agrees with you, then congratulations.




See? This is an example of something absolutely irrelevant once time has past. If people dislike Reddits another platform will arise.

 Galas wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Galas wrote:
As much as people claim that Gamergate destroyed the "gamer" community... eeeh... I don't think so. After time past, things aren't all that different, at least, not specifically with the videogame industry.

You have the general political climate that splash everything, of course. But anybody that sais the videogame community is in a worse state is just exaggeratting and using specific cases to generalise as if everything is horrible. People (From every "side" in the gamergate thing) that spend too much time arguing on the internet and lose track of reality. You see it all the time. For most of the "videogame community" it didn't changed anything.

Except NeoGAF tore itself apart and people started getting fired from jobs in the industry wrongthink as developers try to prove who is the most progressive and anyones criticism of anything can be written off by accusing them of being Xist.

The biggest problem of the videogame community are lootboxes and depredatory business practices, developers that lie like No Man's Sky and Sea of Thieves. NeoGAF, whatever, its a internet community, yeah it was the biggest one, and it died, others will come to suplant it.

People gets fired ok. For a ton of different reasons, I don't disagree with that. But after all of that happened, in the aftermath of the battle...are you really trying to say to me that the videogame industry was... destroyed? That things are substantially worse than before (Because of that, as I said, theres many things that are wrong right now)?

Maybe is because I'm spanish and Gamergate didn't affected the hispanic internet community, but I can't really say that I agree with all the hyperbole and exageration that some people gives to those specific events.
Internet is a liberal's dream (The european meaning for liberal). You can do whatever you want. And if you can't, build a space yourself. If people agrees with you, then congratulations.

The problems you have with the video game industry are mainly a western dev, triple AAA problem. Dozens of games are released without these practices. No one forces you to play Overwatch and Battlefront.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
How many people got fired then?

I can only think of one off the top of my head (the sound designer for Subnautica was fired for complaining about SJWs on Twitter), but I can think of multiple examples of the progressives trying to get people fired. For instance, they contacted Bethesda in an attempt to get the lead artist on DOOM fired after he mocked Sarkeesian's complaints against the violence in the game (his words: "HAHA Winning"). Just because he wasn't actually fired doesn't mean that this wasn't extreme harassment and a trying and difficult time for him - feel free to read the Facebook post he made if you doubt the stress he was under.

In another, slightly more hilarious example, people contacted the wife of an author involved in the Sad Puppies thing to let him know how racist he was and that she shouldn't stick by him. His wife is black.

Internet communities tear themselves apart over every little thing. The minecraft community tore itself apart over changes Mojang made, the Skyrim community 'tore' itself apart over paid mods, the warhammer End Times tore the community apart etc etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
How many people got fired then?

I can only think of one off the top of my head (the sound designer for Subnautica was fired for complaining about SJWs on Twitter), but I can think of multiple examples of the progressives trying to get people fired. For instance, they contacted Bethesda in an attempt to get the lead artist on DOOM fired after he mocked Sarkeesian's complaints against the violence in the game (his words: "HAHA Winning"). Just because he wasn't actually fired doesn't mean that this wasn't extreme harassment and a trying and difficult time for him - feel free to read the Facebook post he made if you doubt the stress he was under.

In another, slightly more hilarious example, people contacted the wife of an author involved in the Sad Puppies thing to let him know how racist he was and that she shouldn't stick by him. His wife is black.

The guy being a racist on Twitter? Have you seen what the man publically posts? Yes, of course only his SJW tweets could have gotten him fired.

As for the rest, both sides tried getting people fired, its not that great of an argument when the pot is calling the kettle black.

Oh, I absolutely agree! And thats why I don't play those games, and thats the end of it.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
This is an example of when the gakstorm had already ignited. I asked if anyone could point out anything Sarkeesian achieved before this started.

So, you are asking what she achieved before she achieved anything? Before her kickstarter, she was making videos about Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Twilight that nobody gave a gak about. The gakstorm happened during her kickstarter, before she had even made anything, and it boosted the funding by 10,000%. Literally, the gakstorm is her first achievement.

And its Reddit, its an enlightened dictatorship at rhe best of times and a gakhole at the worst. Does this somehow prove her power?

If it was only Reddit, then no. It wasn't only Reddit.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
This is an example of when the gakstorm had already ignited. I asked if anyone could point out anything Sarkeesian achieved before this started.

So, you are asking what she achieved before she achieved anything? Before her kickstarter, she was making videos about Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Twilight that nobody gave a gak about. The gakstorm happened during her kickstarter, before she had even made anything, and it boosted the funding by 10,000%. Literally, the gakstorm is her first achievement.

Actually if you look at her wikipedia page she did a bunch of things beforehand. Her kickstarter blew up because people were outraged she dared voice her opinions on "my hobby". The gakstorm others summoned literally made her what she is today. Nobody took notice of the things she did before. People fear a 'monster'they themselves created.

 Sqorgar wrote:

And its Reddit, its an enlightened dictatorship at rhe best of times and a gakhole at the worst. Does this somehow prove her power?

If it was only Reddit, then no. It wasn't only Reddit.

So it was social media with admins who feel like dictators that have existed since the dawn of the internet and video game journalism so financially dependent on the industry they might as well have been parasites? Wow, people must have never been banned anywhere over emotional disagreements before Gamergate that this is such a big deal.

Of course during Gamergate many things happened. That, nobody claims isn't true.

The point here is... now that we are years in the future after gamergate... what, lasting change has she made, or gamergate made, to the gaming community?

Gamer journalists are as corrupt as unprofesional as ever, and the "culture war" is still raging on because the world hasn't really change in that regard.

 Peregrine wrote:
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.

Generally speaking, in literally every single FLGS I've visited, this kind of attitude will get you and everything you bring in physically removed and permanently banned from the premises. Not only that, but we'd make sure word got to every other FLGS to keep this kind of toxic attitude out of our gaming community. The joke is, "We'll see their miniatures on Craigslist soon" because we make it a point, just like you said, to make their 'awful' beliefs public knowledge.

Because I don't know about you, Peregrine, but in the majority of the world- people get together and game and don't harass someone about their personal beliefs. We don't care about how you vote or your personal beliefs, but we do believe that if you want to discuss politics you can leave the shops and go somewhere else and have that discussion. People that make it a point to harass others because they share a different opinion about an issue are best shown the door. In an abrupt, and very public manner. In the community where I play, we are a very diverse and laid-back group of people. We keep it that way because we purge the toxic elements. 'Diversity' means exactly that, it doesn't mean you exclude or bother people because they have a difference in opinion.

I hope this is clear enough for you.

 Ouze wrote:
Yes, quite. Aside from a redtext to a edgelord there aren't even any in-thread warnings and at this point in the thread it's improved dramatically from where it started.

Well, as evidenced here we don't all have the same 'pass' to call people names on the forum. I'm sure, however, this is just a simple oversight.

And I'm about as 'edgy' as a bowling ball and half as much fun to shove your fingers into.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
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.

Generally speaking, in literally every single FLGS I've visited, this kind of attitude will get you and everything you bring in physically removed and permanently banned from the premises. Not only that, but we'd make sure word got to every other FLGS to keep this kind of toxic attitude out of our gaming community. The joke is, "We'll see their miniatures on Craigslist soon" because we make it a point, just like you said, to make their 'awful' beliefs public knowledge.

Because I don't know about you, Peregrine, but in the majority of the world- people get together and game and don't harass someone about their personal beliefs. We don't care about how you vote or your personal beliefs, but we do believe that if you want to discuss politics you can leave the shops and go somewhere else and have that discussion. People that make it a point to harass others because they share a different opinion about an opinion are best shown the door. In an abrupt, and very public manner. In the community where I play, we are a very diverse and laid-back group of people. We keep it that way because we purge the toxic elements. 'Diversity' means exactly that, it doesn't mean you exclude or bother people because they have a difference in opinion.

I hope this is clear enough for you.

 Ouze wrote:
Yes, quite. Aside from a redtext to a edgelord there aren't even any in-thread warnings and at this point in the thread it's improved dramatically from where it started.

Well, as evidenced here we don't all have the same 'pass' to call people names on the forum. I'm sure, however, this is just a simple oversight.

And I'm about as 'edgy' as a bowling ball and half as much fun to shove your fingers into.

Even as a liberal I would do exactly the same thing.