RE: Will The Escapist be Attending and/or Covering E3?

[Jordan Masters]

I recently viewed this video: http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/stand-together-the-gaming-community-vs-sopa-and-pipa

I was wondering if The Escapist plans on covering or attending E3 this year, or if it intends to boycott E3 in part of the stance many gaming media coverage outlets are taking against the ESA's support for SOPA & PIPA.

Does anyone know if The Escapist has publicized their stance on this matter?

 

[Strain42]

I know a lot of people in the community have talked about it, I'm not sure how many of them actually have tried to contact The Escapist itself about it.

 

[Lilani]

The community encouraged it, but now that the ESA has backed off SOPA and PIPA and both of them are pretty well dead, their goal has been accomplished. Why wouldn't they cover E3?

 

[Daystar Clarion]

The ESA have already declared their withdrawel of support for SOPA.

Sure, it means nothing to do so after the bill has pretty much died, but they've withdrawed it nontheless.

 

[Dalek Caan]

Yes. Even if they still support them, even if they no longer can, some of the devs at E3 might not support SOPA or PIPA and so it would be unfair if there stuff wasn't shown on the net just because of someone else beliefs.

 

[DustyDrB]

Yes. They will be there.
I think this would have been true even if the bill had not failed. Frankly, I found the self-righteous attitude of the people demanding The Escapist to refrain from covering E3 downright nauseating. I said it before, but it's just way too easy to make such a demand when you have nothing to lose from it. If they had decided not to cover E3, I'd have respected it. But that would have been their decision to make, and theirs alone.

But the bill has failed (or has in principle), so what would a boycott accomplish now?

 

[Something Amyss]

The community encouraged it, but now that the ESA has backed off SOPA and PIPA and both of them are pretty well dead, their goal has been accomplished. Why wouldn't they cover E3?

Because this isn't the first time they've backed such a bill and it won't be the last. There might be something to be said for showing them it's a serious issue.

 

[Yureina]

As others have said, I don't think it really matters anymore. At least not now anyway. If anything, I kinda hope that The Escapist does show up to E3, if only so I can read the nice articles they will write about it. :3

 

[Mr.PlanetEater]

Once again I fail to see how boycotting an event that is in about six months going to do anything to stop a bill that will be dead long before than?

 

[Best of the 3]

Most likely. It'd probably hurt the escapist not to attend and I'd rather not have that happen, even if the ESA were still supporting SOPA.

 

[Lilani]

The community encouraged it, but now that the ESA has backed off SOPA and PIPA and both of them are pretty well dead, their goal has been accomplished. Why wouldn't they cover E3?

Because this isn't the first time they've backed such a bill and it won't be the last. There might be something to be said for showing them it's a serious issue.

Why punish them for something they haven't even done yet involving legislation that doesn't exist yet? Extra Credits and all them said they weren't going to attend E3 until they stopped backing the bill. That was the offer. Nothing more, nothing less. It would be hypocritical and dishonorable for them to go back on their word, now. And it would give the ESA even less of a cause to take something like that seriously in the future. If we want them to have a reason to play fair and keep their word in the future, we're going to have to set the example by doing it first.

And besides, they're going to have to tread lightly when it comes to legislation like this in the future, and they know it. If they want their word to mean anything in future hearings involving any type of legislation, they're going to have to avoid tripping over their previous statements. If they do, their opponents will call them out on it, and their word will mean next to nothing. They've made their new position known now, and they can and will be held accountable for it.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

Yes. They will be there.
I think this would have been true even if the bill had not failed. Frankly, I found the self-righteous attitude of the people demanding The Escapist to refrain from covering E3 downright nauseating. I said it before, but it's just way too easy to make such a demand when you have nothing to lose from it. If they had decided not to cover E3, I'd have respected it. But that would have been their decision to make, and theirs alone.

But the bill has failed (or has in principle), so what would a boycott accomplish now?

First, you have the right to ask them to do it because you are the user. They earn money thanks to you, you can ask them to represent you or you will leave the community. It's as simple as that.

Second, it's not important whether or not the bill failed. The important think is they supported it. If another bill, similar to SOPA comes, how can we be sure they won't support it too? They didn't change their mind because they realized that the bill is bad. They didn't change their mind. They deserve to be punished.
In the justice system, there exist something as "attempted murder". You didn't kill him, but you tried it. You get punished for that. Attempted robbery, identity theft, immigration, fraud, etc. Attempted breaking of any law is punishable. Same thing is valid in this situation
They didn't succeed with this bill, but their tried it. They need to be punished for that.
They didn't break any existing laws, but they lost all credibility they had. They obviously don't represent the gaming industry.

Also, if we don't boycott them now, we, the whole user base, the whole internet loses it's credibility. Everything that was said will be an empty treat. Next time something similar happens, they won't take us serious at all.

 

[The Random One]

Yes. They will be there.
I think this would have been true even if the bill had not failed. Frankly, I found the self-righteous attitude of the people demanding The Escapist to refrain from covering E3 downright nauseating. I said it before, but it's just way too easy to make such a demand when you have nothing to lose from it. If they had decided not to cover E3, I'd have respected it. But that would have been their decision to make, and theirs alone.

Demanding, maybe, but requesting, no. As a provider of free content, the Escapist has to juggle several demands when choosing what to do. It needs to please the investors and sponsors who give it money to do stuff and also the users who give it the traffic that makes it attractive to investors and sponsors. When a freeloading hack like me says I'm all for the Escapist doing this it means nothing, but if enough freeloading hackers say it the Escapist has grounds to justify its actions to its investors and sponsors. But, again, if it wishes to do so.

I'm all for the Escapist doing this, by the way. Pulling out support after putting hundreds of dollars behind a law is not enough, and this should send a clear message. Otherwise what's the point of being a small website? We might as well all go to GamePots.

 

[Something Amyss]

Why punish them for something they haven't even done yet involving legislation that doesn't exist yet?

Let me flip that around on you in an equally loaded statement: Yes, why punish them for past and current behaviour?

Extra Credits and all them said they weren't going to attend E3 until they stopped backing the bill.

Good for them. Thankfully, I'm not speaking for them. But speaking as part of the community at large, I find it rather dumb to not pressure them when there is leverage. Basically, the only thing we've taught them is not to sponsor legislation near E3. Even then, only the death of the bill got them to back off.

And it would give the ESA even less of a cause to take something like that seriously in the future.

Yes, punishing them for backing crippling legislation would totally send the message not to take people seriously.

The larger problem is that whenever something like this happens, it gets progressively harder to gain support for it next time. Meanwhile, they've been pushing legislation since the late 90s, and have only gotten better at it. You might want to make the point where you can, for next time, there may be no protest.

And besides, they're going to have to tread lightly when it comes to legislation like this in the future, and they know it.

LOL. Okay, if you say so.

If they want their word to mean anything in future hearings involving any type of legislation, they're going to have to avoid tripping over their previous statements.

Ummmm...You don't follow politics, do you? One of the leading Republican candidates has been for and against almost every issue on the book, often in close proximity to one another.

If they do, their opponents will call them out on it, and their word will mean next to nothing.

Yes, because their opponents got the right to speak before Congress during the SOPA/PIPA hearings. Oh, wait, they didn't. One lawyer for Google got a chance to speak in opposition and was treated with great hostility by Congress.

Or do you mean, to the public? Because there's not a great track record there when tracking consistency.

They've made their new position known now, and they can and will be held accountable for it.

If you think a corporation, association, or any major public figure/business is going to be held accountable for their words, you're sorely mistaken.

Additionally, did you look at their statement? Despite adamant support for SOPA/PIPA, they claim they have "always supported balanced legislation."

They have already backtracked! Right there, in the withdrawal they put on the record! Forget the fact that their support of SOPA/PIPA was at odds with their claims when they promoted the Video Game Voters Network.

So basically, they've backtracked twice, but this time they'll he held accountable if they backtrack.

 

[Sylveria]

But the bill has failed (or has in principle), so what would a boycott accomplish now?

"He tried shooting someone in the face. The gun didn't go off. What would arresting him accomplish now?" That's basically your argument.

If attempts to inflict harm aren't met with consequences, people have no reason to stop trying. Sooner or later, they will succeed.

 

[Ickorus]

Once again I fail to see how boycotting an event that is in about six months going to do anything to stop a bill that will be dead long before than?

It's more about kicking the ESA in the ass for trying to pass a bill that the majority of gamers and most of the developers they're meant to represent did not want.

The ESA have dropped support now though so.. Mission Accomplished I guess.

It's a pretty hollow victory though since the bill was already circling the drain when they dropped their support so it doesn't mean they've seen the error of their ways, more that they realised supporting a dying bill was useless and they might as well attempt to save face with the gaming community by pretending they weren't sad it was dead.