BREAKING: Women of #GamerGate Make Breakthrough on HuffPo Live

[Calbeck]

There are precedents set up in the federal courts that if a privately owned site that allows online bullying, harassment, sexual harassment, or other such things, that the person in question can take you to civil court and sue.

Quite the contrary, actually. The reality is, anyone can sue anyone for any reason, but that doesn't mean the court will tolerate it past the initial case-meeting, or that it will succeed. You merely need to have the resources to go to court in the first place.

In terms of the actual law, the existing language is that websites are NOT liable for any of the things you mention, any more than they are legally liable for censoring speech by prohibiting persons from visiting their sites. They are not required to exercise censorship, nor prohibited from doing so. The only thing they ARE prohibited from allowing is specific illegal activity.

So unless you are going to argue that a specific person is engaged in actual lawbreaking, your position holds no water, nor does it provide cover for total bans of discussing GamerGate on specious allegations that "the whole movement is about misogyny".

Even if that's your point of view, it's not a matter of adherence to any law.

Did reddit go overboard? Maybe. Were they covering their asses so they couldn't be held liable in case Quinn decided to start holding people accountable for people harassing her? Yes.

Factually speaking, nope. From Findlaw http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/harassment.html

Criminal Harassment versus Civil Harassment

Criminal harassment should not be confused with how "harassment" is often used in contexts such as workplace discrimination lawsuits. Federal and state laws ban discrimination against certain types of people in certain situations, such as at work or in housing decisions. In these non-criminal contexts, the victim can sue the harasser in a private civil lawsuit, alleging that the harassment constitutes discrimination.

On the other hand, criminal harassment is usually confined to state law. States vary in how they define criminal harassment. Generally, criminal harassment entails intentionally targeting someone else with behavior that is meant to alarm, annoy, torment or terrorize them. Not all petty annoyances constitute harassment. Instead, most state laws require that the behavior cause a credible threat to the person's safety or their family's safety.

Though state harassment laws vary, they often take different levels and methods of harassment into account. Separate penal statutes or a general harassment statute may list various ways to communicate harassment, including telephone calls, emails, and other forms of communication. Whether there was any legitimate reason for the communication becomes a factor under many states' harassment laws.

Note the particulars.

1) Unless you're claiming criminal harassment, you must show that the person's misconduct arises from a position of power they hold over you, such as being an employer or a government worker causing harm to your work environment or benefits. Nasty comments on an Internet forum do not otherwise qualify.

2) Law enforcement, not the complainant, is the determinator of whether a credible threat to safety exists.

a) Right now, of three allegations where the person fled their home out of a safety concern, one has not bothered to involve the police. This alone would undermine an actual court case when a lawyer would ask why the police were not immediately, or at least quickly, notified.

b) All three have undermined their cases somewhat by exploiting the threats for sympathy and plugging their personal professional projects into the discourse while doing so. Similarly their supporters --- both journalistic and otherwise --- have done so as well, claiming that criticism of their work amounts to harassment even when there is no vitriol directed at them personally. No less than Kyle Orland of Ars Technica, the originator of the GamesJournoPros mailing list, provided a key example when he called for his fellow journalists to use the controversy surrounding ZQ "as an excuse" to provide her game with coverage. Not incidentally, this also happens to be something GamerGaters call out routinely as an example of journalistic failings within the game industry. In court cases, this behavior is usually called out by the defense as "grandstanding" and often makes obtaining a conviction much harder... especially when the alleged victim is publically pointing fingers despite not knowing who the actual perpetrator is.

c) We then have ZQ publically tweeting who she was going to be staying with, after declaring she was fleeing for her safety on grounds that someone had outed her real-world location. Any lawyer would ask her why she then outed her own real-world location. Add to this BW's circumstances of having a sock-puppet account (who else is going to use "DeathToBrianna" as their account name?) pop up and spam a half-dozen tweets at her just in time for her to turn on her computer and go to Twitter. Not a quarter-hour had passed between the oldest threats and her screencap of same. Their timing, specificity, lack of followup threats, and lack of any actual real-world threat manifesting itself in so much as garbage being picked through or vandalism, would undermine the credibility of these threats in the eyes of a court.

3) Criticism of a person's work is neither civil nor criminal harassment, even if it is intended to be nasty. Indeed, a number of critics in games journalism frequently resort to epithets. Yet, such criticism has been the vast majority of comments on websites which have chosen to shut down all such talk, with folks such as Stephen Totilo trying to badger the Escapist's Greg Tito into doing likewise --- on blanket grounds of harassment.

No privately-owned website is required to allow ANY speech, public or private, to be conducted through their websites. Neither, however, are they legally liable for same, nor expected to "police" such.

 

[Calbeck]

I'm glad you brought up film, because film critics inject their personal politics and beliefs into their reviews all the time.

And are usually derided for it, especially the more ideological the comments and the more removed from the actual film their comments become.

Should a movie reviewer, for example, talk about Brokeback Mountain in terms of their beliefs as a Fundamentalist Christian, their peers would savage him or her for it and rightly so. Should they speak of Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" by going on a tirade about obesity in America or school curriculae, the same would happen.

So when someone writes a review about a game, but spends half their word-count deploring the game as sexist --- indeed, that being their only point of negativity, and yet docking the game 25% of a full 10/10 as other reviews did --- then you have a crippling ideological bias in evidence.

But if you REALLY want to see a reviewer go wholly off-the-cliff in that regard, here's a review of the Hitman: Absolution trailer from more than two years ago --- interestingly enough, even though Leigh Alexander provided no direct input, she is credited by the author for initially quashing his desire to do a review at all:

http://critdamage.blogspot.com/2012/05/quit-pretending-there-isnt-videogame.html

So yes, this kind of thing has been a problem for literally years before the "Gamers are Dead" articles, but it's clear that this is the sort of language and direction which contributed to creating an openly-hostile atmosphere in the gaming community on the part of journalists.

 

[Andrey Sirotin]

I didn't not claim knowledge, I merely hold a belief that majority of gamers are moderate and thusly want moderate opinions. And what is so wrong about moderate views?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with moderate views. There is most certainly something wrong with operating under the presumption that a faceless unverified "majority" shares them, and that this makes them "right".

You did not answer my question, would you be offended if these extreme perspectives would have being injected into gaming media coverage?

Uh, I thought I did champ. I thought it was pretty clear that the answer was "no". I do not get offended by people holding opinions that differ from mine.

Where did I state that I want to censor the reviewer? I do want gaming sites to focus on gameplay, AI, graphics, value, and length(a consumer report) rather than on social viewpoint.

That is correct sir. You want them to focus on saying the things you want them to say, and to stop saying the things you don't want them to say. Gamer Gate wants to accomplish this through black lists and email campaigns designed to get people fired and/or bring down websites. How would you characterize that?

I think that social critique should be left to the websites that specialize in them because their audience is looking for that perspective.

That's fine. That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it.

I'm not going to go to Rottentomatoes to look for Christian reviews of "A Land before Time," but I will go there to check out film buff's opinion on it.

I'm glad you brought up film, because film critics inject their personal politics and beliefs into their reviews all the time.

No, it actually does make them right because majority rules.

I'm not part of GG, but I share some views with them (not enough to identify myself as part of their movement+ I hate twitter). They have some interesting points, but some are very unrealistic. I'd say that it's more of a boycott(a la Chick-fil-a), rather than censorship(but you can call it that). They can't cause censorship w/o majority of site's visitors/advertisers being in agreement with GG.

I'm sure they do, but how many of them downgrade an entire movie because of problematic themes? Michael Corleone punches a woman in the face- 4/10.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

And are usually derided for it, especially the more ideological the comments and the more removed from the actual film their comments become.

Derided? Sure. People get derided for their opinions all the time. You state your opinion in a public space, it might get derided.

Blacklisted and subject to a mass mailing campaign trying to drum them off the internet? Nooooot so much.

But if you REALLY want to see a reviewer go wholly off-the-cliff in that regard, here's a review of the Hitman: Absolution trailer from more than two years ago --- interestingly enough, even though Leigh Alexander provided no direct input, she is credited by the author for initially quashing his desire to do a review at all:

Yup, that's an over the top article alright. I thought that trailer was puerile and worthy of extreme ridicule, but I don't share the volume of that critic's outrage. I do, however, support their right to pen that opinion of it.

No, it actually does make them right because majority rules.

Heh...heh...okay...okay guy. I think it's probably best for both of us if we call our little discussion quits here. If this is truly your belief, there really isn't much point on us discussing anything further. Divide is too great.

 

[Andrey Sirotin]

No, it actually does make them right because majority rules.

Heh...heh...okay...okay guy. I think it's probably best for both of us if we call our little discussion quits here. If this is truly your belief, there really isn't much point on us discussing anything further. Divide is too great.

Fair enough. I didn't figure that either of us would change our perspectives, but the conversation was enjoyable nonetheless.

 

[DeimosMasque]

That being said, why didn't the recent Shadow of Mordor early review guidelines cause a huge uproar within GG? If journalistic ethics is really the driving force of GG, then this event should have caused the biggest reaction. That did not happen and Shadow of Mordor essentially got a free pass even with its well known and well documented shady practices.

The argument I saw put forth is that youtubers aren't journalists even if they do reviews thus it wasn't a gamergate issue.

 

[Wasted]

The argument I saw put forth is that youtubers aren't journalists even if they do reviews thus it wasn't a gamergate issue.

If that is the case, what defines a journalist?

If it is someone that has actual training in journalism, then how many people in the gaming media actually have such training? I would figure that it is not a large number. If you need an actual bachelor's degree in journalism to be considered a journalist, then I would think the number would be even smaller.

Should people with no journalism training be expected to follow ethical guidelines like traditionally trained journalists?

When I graduated from my master's program, I was required to take the Hippocratic Oath. I do not expect anyone not in the medical/mental health field to know or follow such ethical rules even when they are second nature to me.

 

[Calbeck]

And are usually derided for it, especially the more ideological the comments and the more removed from the actual film their comments become.

Derided? Sure. People get derided for their opinions all the time.

Then you agree that banning someone for commenting derisively on a review or other journalistic piece is poor editorial activity?

Blacklisted and subject to a mass mailing campaign trying to drum them off the internet? Nooooot so much.

You have just described what happened to people who commented negatively on reviews and other journalistic pieces. It seems we are largely if not wholly in agreement.

Of course, I am referencing an actual organization claiming journalistic credibility, and not a mass of people on the Internet who make no such claims. Trying to equate the two would destroy any standard by which journalism could in fact be held to.

Yup, that's an over the top article alright. I thought that trailer was puerile and worthy of extreme ridicule, but I don't share the volume of that critic's outrage. I do, however, support their right to pen that opinion of it.

Certainly. And as it was a review worthy of negative comment, similar to the "Gamers are Dead" articles, it clearly makes no sense to ban all such comment as "harassment". Not unless the actual concern is to quash public dissent against such articles. This is doubly troubling when attempts are made to extend such quashing to other sites, and triply so when refusal to quash is met with accusations of "supporting harassment".

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Then you agree that banning someone for commenting derisively on a review or other journalistic piece is poor editorial activity?

Banning someone from a website? I suppose that's up to individual website code of conducts and how they like to mediate their comments section. It doesn't really have hide nor hair to do with "journalism" whatsoever.

You have just described what happened to people who commented negatively on reviews and other journalistic pieces. It seems we are largely if not wholly in agreement.

No, we are in disagreement over a false equivalence. If two people write an editorial, the right for both those editorials to exist is equal. If two people write comments on a website, whether or not those comments remain is entirely up to the people who run the website. It's sort of the difference between you making a speech about your ideological beliefs in your living room, or in a stranger's living room. You don't enjoy the same "rights" in both places.

Of course, I am referencing an actual organization claiming journalistic credibility, and not a mass of people on the Internet who make no such claims. Trying to equate the two would destroy any standard by which journalism could in fact be held to.

Generally speaking I find if I'm in an argument where I'm demanding a certain level of behavior from someone, I like to demonstrate that same behavior myself.

Certainly. And as it was a review worthy of negative comment, similar to the "Gamers are Dead" articles, it clearly makes no sense to ban all such comment as "harassment". Not unless the actual concern is to quash public dissent against such articles. This is doubly troubling when attempts are made to extend such quashing to other sites, and triply so when refusal to quash is met with accusations of "supporting harassment".

You and I are publicly dissenting about those articles right now, and we are not being "quashed". I'm also far, far too tired of this debate to get into this rhetorical merry go round where we pretend there was never any actual bullshit going on, and it was all just furrowed-brow criticism issued by reasonable people. I used to be a regular visitor to Rock Paper Shotgun back when they were a funnier, more consistent website, and I recall the comments section before they locked it down. I would've locked mine, too. I also recall Total Biscuit's comment section, and what it was like before he locked it down.

People can do whatever they want with their own websites. If you want to make a website today, and rage about SJWs and their sinister agendas, and lock down your comments section so no one can censure you for it, I will applaud your right to do that.

 

[Calbeck]

Then you agree that banning someone for commenting derisively on a review or other journalistic piece is poor editorial activity?

Banning someone from a website? I suppose that's up to individual website code of conducts and how they like to mediate their comments section. It doesn't really have hide nor hair to do with "journalism" whatsoever.

Except when it is used to suppress criticism of journalism. Is it their right to do so? Absolutely. Does it have a chilling effect on a free marketplace of ideas, particularly when absent any actual harassment? Also absolutely.

Of course, I am referencing an actual organization claiming journalistic credibility, and not a mass of people on the Internet who make no such claims. Trying to equate the two would destroy any standard by which journalism could in fact be held to.

Generally speaking I find if I'm in an argument where I'm demanding a certain level of behavior from someone, I like to demonstrate that same behavior myself.[/quote]

You just spoke out about false equivalencies: if random people on the Internet are required to adhere to professional journalistic standards when commenting on journalistic material, then clearly they are due journalistic considerations. Which would argue against the right to suppress dissent, as a matter of simple professional courtesy.

You and I are publicly dissenting about those articles right now, and we are not being "quashed".

Specifically, because this website resisted calls from other websites to so quash. The effort to do so was nonetheless made; you seem to suggest that is irrelevant because the effort was unsuccessful.

I'm also far, far too tired of this debate to get into this rhetorical merry go round

Suppression and censorship, particularly in response to poor journalistic practices, are far from rhetorical matters.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Except when it is used to suppress criticism of journalism. Is it their right to do so? Absolutely. Does it have a chilling effect on a free marketplace of ideas, particularly when absent any actual harassment? Also absolutely.

How so? Why is it a "chilling effect"? You were all quite free to find a different platform to express yourselves on, and you did so. You've been talking non stop about it for months. I barely even follow it and yet every time I pop in here there are six new Gamer Gate threads and 37 news updates. What chilling effect, exactly?

You just spoke out about false equivalencies: if random people on the Internet are required to adhere to professional journalistic standards when commenting on journalistic material, then clearly they are due journalistic considerations.

Who is talking about "professional journalistic standards"? Is that the only shortcoming you've observed in some of the "criticism" levied against the hypothetical perpetrators? A lack of professional journalistic standards? That's...interesting, if so.

Specifically, because this website resisted calls from other websites to so quash.

I recall a single sourced call to quash, specifically to quash discussion of Zoey Quinn's sex life. Do you have other incidents? Which websites? What specifically were they called on to quash?

Suppression and censorship, particularly in response to poor journalistic practices, are far from rhetorical matters.

Ah, good old censorship. We're back to GamerGate's definition of censorship, I presume, as opposed to the actual one? Which is to muffle or silence any voice, including on your own privately owned website? So, again I will ask, what's with the blacklist, chum? What's with the attempts to get people fired, to drum them out of the industry? What's with the calls for "objective reviews" and a silencing of anyone's "personal bias"? That seems to be a bizarre deviation from form.

 

[Calbeck]

How so? Why is it a "chilling effect"?

I suggest you look up any discussion of free speech which has ever entered a court of law in the United States and Britain. That, or consult a lawyer so they can give you a blank stare and then toss a legal brief on the subject in your lap.

Protip: "forced into going somewhere else" is one of the side-effects of a "chilling effect". Hence the reason I realize you have no idea what you're responding to.

Who is talking about "professional journalistic standards"? Is that the only shortcoming you've observed in some of the "criticism" levied against the hypothetical perpetrators?

Hm, let's see: lack of connective material, leaping to conclusions strictly on basis of he-said/she-said, and making assertions without any support. Well, if that's the kind of journalism you don't think should be "criticized"...

I recall a single sourced call to quash, specifically to quash discussion of Zoey Quinn's sex life.

Except for the reality: by that time, ZQ's personal affairs were barely 1% of posts on the GamerGate subject --- ASIDE from people opposing the group, who almost without fail brought it up.

So, clearly, it seems to me that you feel Stephen Totilo was ONLY calling for GamerGate's opposition to be quashed. Interesting interpretation, that.

Not to mention that by the time of the "single sourced call" we're talking about, most other gamer-related venue of speech had already been censored by their site owners. So at this point, they were exporting their quashing to sites they had no control over, but you seem to want to minimize that fact.

Do you have other incidents? Which websites? What specifically were they called on to quash?

The whole of Reddit and 4chan immediately come to mind, neither of which limited quashing to "Zoe Quinn's sex life" either.

Ah, good old censorship. We're back to GamerGate's definition of censorship

You mean the dictionary's definition, I presume: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor

[/i]a person who examines books, movies, letters, etc., and removes things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc... to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable [/i]

You react to the term as though it, itself, is a crime: it is not. It is merely an accurate description of the mods of those websites conducting lawful actions to suppress speech of which they did not approve --- regardless, in fact, of actual content, since discussion of the movement was itself censored.

Now, you respond by saying GamerGaters are wrong to blacklist, condemn, and seek the firing of people who in any other field of endeavor would already be fired for having dramatically embarrassed their parent company with broad-stroke insults of a core demographic.

I cannot agree. But since we're on the Escapist, I'm free to do that and so are you.

 

[Calbeck]

I find it interesting that people who insist GamerGate does nothing but talk about "Zoe Quinn's sex life" are routinely oblivious to the fact that it is virtually never talked about... EXCEPT when the movement's opposition bring it up themselves in order to complain that GamerGate talks about nothing else.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

I'll jump back to the olive branch and we can end this here then. I get riled up too easily about this. In general I'm calm on the Internet, just condescending, but complaints about ME3 using things that aren't proper criticism (like trying to misquote that A,B,C thing) make me go from zero to ten. I have strong feelings about Mass Effect because it got me into university and changed my life (long story).

So yeah I'll take that olive branch. We'll just end it on your post.

That'll teach me to fall asleep, then be immature and avoid the boards since I didn't want to continue fighting due to being exhausted with the subject.

Mutual olive branch it is and I get exactly what you mean. I'm usually fairly calm here on the internets, occasional snark aside, but certain things get me going. ME3 was a depressingly big gut punch, considering the hundreds of hours I'd invested writing, playing, posting, and talking about it. But we can definitely leave off, especially given the whole "not at all on topic" thing.

I will now go and take solace in the objective awesomeness that is the Sword Fleet scene.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I suggest you look up any discussion of free speech which has ever entered a court of law in the United States and Britain. That, or consult a lawyer so they can give you a blank stare and then toss a legal brief on the subject in your lap.

Protip: "forced into going somewhere else" is one of the side-effects of a "chilling effect". Hence the reason I realize you have no idea what you're responding to.

This isn't a freedom of speech question, although it's fun to see that hoary old chestnut make another appearance on a forum. Always entertaining to see people invoke "freedom of speech" whenever they're feeling cross about something.

Hm, let's see: lack of connective material, leaping to conclusions strictly on basis of he-said/she-said, and making assertions without any support. Well, if that's the kind of journalism you don't think should be "criticized"...

Jesus, you're all over the place. Firstly, I never said journalism shouldn't be criticized. Secondly, once AGAIN I was referring to the "laymen" you are so happy to hand wave the behavior of. I mentioned blacklisting and mass mail campaigns as an attempt to squash opinions you dislike. You hand waved it as the actions of "a mass of people on the internet" who apparently needn't be held to any standard of behavior at all, because "mass of people" I guess.

Except for the reality: by that time, ZQ's personal affairs were barely 1% of posts on the GamerGate subject --- ASIDE from people opposing the group, who almost without fail brought it up.

So, clearly, it seems to me that you feel Stephen Totilo was ONLY calling for GamerGate's opposition to be quashed. Interesting interpretation, that.

Not to mention that by the time of the "single sourced call" we're talking about, most other gamer-related venue of speech had already been censored by their site owners. So at this point, they were exporting their quashing to sites they had no control over, but you seem to want to minimize that fact.

Sooo....that was a fun change of subject. Once again, I recall a single incidence of this happening, related to discussion of a single event, and you've pretty much confirmed that. Unless you just felt like not listing all the other "websites" that joined in this call to "quash" the discussion you've been happily having for weeks and weeks now?

This is sort of a common theme, isn't it? I ask you a question, and suddenly we're talking about something else! It's kind of neat.

The whole of Reddit and 4chan immediately come to mind, neither of which limited quashing to "Zoe Quinn's sex life" either.

The whole of Reddit and 4chan tried to "quash" discussion on other websites! Gasp! When did that happen! The whole of Reddit! Like, all of it? All of Reddit tried to quash discussion on other websites?

Or wait, do you mean "discussion was quashed" ON Reddit by the people who own and moderate Reddit? Well that's much less exciting, isn't it?

[/i]a person who examines books, movies, letters, etc., and removes things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc... to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable [/i]

You react to the term as though it, itself, is a crime: it is not. It is merely an accurate description of the mods of those websites conducting lawful actions to suppress speech of which they did not approve --- regardless, in fact, of actual content, since discussion of the movement was itself censored.

Alright, so...if someone shushed you in a library, you'd view that as censorship. If you were asked not to swear in the board room, you'd view that as censorship. So invoking "censorship" is basically your go-to reaction any time you're not allowed to say exactly what you want to say when you want to say it, even if it's on someone else's property. The Gater definition of censorship, which is what I thought.

Now, you respond by saying GamerGaters are wrong to blacklist, condemn, and seek the firing of people who in any other field of endeavor would already be fired for having dramatically embarrassed their parent company with broad-stroke insults of a core demographic.

I cannot agree. But since we're on the Escapist, I'm free to do that and so are you.

Wrong? Not wrong. Just advocates of the kind of "censorship" they're aggrieved about, on a much larger scale. Not allowed to say what I want on your website? Well then sir I want you fired and your voice removed from the discussion entirely. This is the "ethical" movement I am to understand is policing the non-ethical journalists, and am being asked to support.

There's no law against mass mailing sponsors to try and get something removed from the internet, just like there's no law to stop fundamentalist Christians from trying to get violent shows off the air, or government officials with strong beliefs from stumping to get harsher laws strapped to entertainment products. People are allowed to do all of these things, I'm in no position to tell them no.

Surely you could just CRITICIZE the journalists in question, but it's much more important to SILENCE them forever and see to their ejection from the industry, so you never have to hear them ever again. This will better craft the world you want to see. Have at it! What could possibly be wrong with that?

 

[Dagda Mor]

I really don't think that reviews are very good as a straight-up buyer's guide anyway, under most circumstances. If I hear buzz about a game, I'll check it out. To me, reviews are really more about discussion and critique of the game or movie or what have you--they generate the initial buzz and get the ball rolling. That can lead to sales indirectly, but I don't see "9/10" and think, "Oh, it looks like someone else liked that, so I definitely have to buy it." The inverse is also true.


Further, if a game has an anime art style and some reviewers don't like that, why is that a problem? Some players don't like an anime art style either. The guys that do like an anime art style will hear about it, regardless of whether someone else doesn't like it.

 

[Calbeck]

This isn't a freedom of speech question

No, it's a matter of harassing gamers out of an uncomfortable discussion which was mainly about their poor accountability and less about the sex lives of individual people. Which is why it is constantly asserted by the poor accountants that the reverse is true, while at the same time having changed certain of their policies to address exactly the points that they simultaneously say no one was "really" trying to make.

This is why the ZQ issue is a dead-letter; it is a matter of historical fact, but the original, quite-real concerns which spawned them were dealt with. Gamergate SHOULD have ended there, but the journos decided to open fire with both rhetorical barrels into the crowd in the "Gamers Are Dead" scandal.

Way to break it, heroes...

although it's fun to see that hoary old chestnut make another appearance on a forum. Always entertaining to see people invoke "freedom of speech" whenever they're feeling cross about something.

You can't be convincing when you say that, unless you're holding up a cup of Boston tea to your lips and sneering about "quaint Colonials". -:3

Jesus, you're all over the place. Firstly, I never said journalism shouldn't be criticized.

The controllers of the forums where such criticism was banned clearly disagree with you. Of course, they insist that the whole of the discussion was talk of someone else's sex life --- and, incidentally, at least one of those who was outed STILL says that the entire discussion of the matter here on the Escapist is all about that same person's sex life. Indicating that he never bothered to read any of it before making his assertions, assuming for his sake that he isn't lying outright.

Indeed, that's a position so ill-informed as to make the case that he never bothered to read any of the boards he controlled in the first place --- someone merely said to him "it's all about private sex" and he took it as Gospel. Capitalization deliberate.

Secondly, once AGAIN I was referring to the "laymen" you are so happy to hand wave the behavior of. I mentioned blacklisting and mass mail campaigns as an attempt to squash opinions you dislike.

Except they do neither.

Even if someone gets fired, boycotted or ignored, they don't lose the ability to have or promulgate an opinion in the same way anyone else can. The difference is, WE won't silence THEM by banning, censoring, deleting, et cetera.

You hand waved it as the actions of "a mass of people on the internet" who apparently needn't be held to any standard of behavior at all, because "mass of people" I guess.

Here are twenty-five thousand cats.

Feel free to herd them, let us know how that goes. Now, if you want to assert that gaming journalism should be held to the standard of organization inherent in a truckload of cats...

Sooo....that was a fun change of subject. Once again, I recall a single incidence of this happening, related to discussion of a single event, and you've pretty much confirmed that.

Yep, forum owner stomps out discussion on his own site and then goes to a site he doesn't control and accuses the controller there of harboring "harassment" against a single individual because he is absolutely positive that's all anyone is actually talking about.

You can minimize that all you like, but it's still a matter of exporting censorship in hopes of quashing unwelcome speech which "festers" (in his words) elsewhere.

Or wait, do you mean "discussion was quashed" ON Reddit by the people who own and moderate Reddit? Well that's much less exciting, isn't it?

It's also what I said, and you're a lousy actor. You really need to place the back of your hand to your forehead when engaging in faux shock/dismay. -

Alright, so...if someone shushed you in a library, you'd view that as censorship.

a person who examines books, movies, letters, etc., and removes things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc... to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable

I can keep repeating that for as long as you want to try to minimize and misrepresent the definition. You're arguing with Merriam-Webster, not me.

Captcha: Corolla https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqbgBRBRnrE

 

[BloatedGuppy]

No, it's a matter of harassing gamers out of an uncomfortable discussion which was mainly about their poor accountability and less about the sex lives of individual people.

Yeah yeah we have a difference in opinion about the genesis of this particular discussion.

Also...I'm a gamer. I don't feel "harassed" out of any discussions. I was briefly "harassed" out of the GamerGate master thread.

You can't be convincing when you say that, unless you're holding up a cup of Boston tea to your lips and sneering about "quaint Colonials". -:3

Oh, cute! Credit for wearing your politics on your sleeve, I guess. That's me, always sneering about the colonials, given Canada's long history of aggressive colonization.

The controllers of the forums where such criticism was banned clearly disagree with you. Of course, they insist that the whole of the discussion was talk of someone else's sex life.

And others insist the entire reason for the moderation was to silence their dogged pursuit of an industry wide conspiracy of feminists and SJWs trying to control and ruin video games. Yes, I'm aware of the talking points. How could I not be? The "censored" discussed has been raging for weeks.

Except they do neither.

God I must have...I must have IMAGINED the website blacklist, and the calls for firings. All a crazy fever dream.

Even if someone gets fired, boycotted or ignored, they don't lose the ability to have or promulgate an opinion in the same way anyone else can. The difference is, WE won't silence THEM by banning, censoring, deleting, et cetera.

Gotcha. If you're moderated out of a forum and have to have your discussion in a different forum, it's censorship, and corruption, and must be stopped. If your boycott results in websites collapsing or people losing their jobs, and you've effectively silenced a voice you disapprove of it, it's cool beans. Again, I am deeply impressed by the double think. Orwell would be proud. Possibly also horrified.

Here are twenty-five thousand cats.

And here's the hand wave, right on time. Hey, you're ONE cat. You could control your own behavior, right?

Yep, forum owner stomps out discussion on his own site and then goes to a site he doesn't control and accuses the controller there of harboring "harassment" against a single individual because he is absolutely positive that's all anyone is actually talking about.

Yep, one thing happened, one time, one person involved. You present it in a discussion as a slew of websites trying to "quash" discussion everywhere. See the problem?

I can keep repeating that for as long as you want to try to minimize and misrepresent the definition. You're arguing with Merriam-Webster, not me.

Invocations of censorship and freedom of speech when no government body is imposing restrictions on you and you are QUITE FREELY DISCUSSING the so called "censored" material is so patently ludicrous that I'm honestly boggled we're even having this discussion. You got moderated off a couple of websites, and you believe your freedom of speech is under attack. You deplore the "censorship" of moderation, but want to boycott people who disagree with you.

As I've said before, I think gaming "journalism" is a fucking mess. I'm ALL in favor of criticizing it. I will support the criticism of it night and day. I just won't join your little crusade against the "SJW" menace, I won't rubber stamp a grassroots movement to drum people out of the industry for having an opinion, and I'll continue to howl with laughter at the concept of "objective reviews".

 

[Calbeck]

Also...I'm a gamer. I don't feel "harassed" out of any discussions. I was briefly "harassed" out of the GamerGate master thread.

No one deleted your posts, kicked you off the Escapist, or did any of the things I referred to as harassment? Then no, you haven't got any comparisons to make.

And others insist the entire reason for the moderation was to silence their dogged pursuit of an industry wide conspiracy

Haven't met those folks, sorry. You seem to have a field full of straw men, and they're on fire. Should tend to that.

God I must have...I must have IMAGINED the website blacklist, and the calls for firings. All a crazy fever dream.

Yep, it's sure crazy of you to insist that getting fired means you've lost the freedom of speech.

Given that you don't seem interested in keeping track of your own statements let alone mine, and since I don't have any interest in assuming anything other than simple disorganization of speech on your part (that would be rude), I will bid you adieu.

EDIT: Although, I do want to thank you for resurrecting this thread from the deadpile and giving me a reason to continue the discussion this long, thus keeping it in the public view and allowing more people to notice the OP's link to the Women of #Gamergate.

Thanks for playing! -

 

[BloatedGuppy]

No one deleted your posts, kicked you off the Escapist, or did any of the things I referred to as harassment? Then no, you haven't got any comparisons to make.

No, because I didn't invoke moderation by breaching site etiquette.

Haven't met those folks, sorry. You seem to have a field full of straw men, and they're on fire. Should tend to that.

Then you haven't looked very hard. Or at all.

Yep, it's sure crazy of you to insist that getting fired means you've lost the freedom of speech.

No, that only occurs when you get moderated on a forum, as we have established.

Although, I do want to thank you for resurrecting this thread from the deadpile and giving me a reason to continue the discussion this long, thus keeping it in the public view and allowing more people to notice the OP's link to the Women of #Gamergate.

Thanks for playing! -

GASP! You've foxed me with your brilliant ruse. Here I was replying to something in my inbox, and all along I was bungling into your cleverly laid trap. Well done. How else were you going to get a GamerGate thread visibility in the off-topic forum? They're so hard to find.