The Big Picture: Remembering the Real Jack Thompson

[Goliath100]

My reaction to the Red Cross statement was more along the lines of "Don't they have better things to spend their time thinking about than video games?"

Honestly, I've never seen anything that in a game that comes close to a War Crime, unless it's perpetrated by the villains, who are punished by way before they make it to the Hague. (which was referenced in COD Advanced Warfare when talking about SPOILERS Atlas' bioweapon Manticore)

Do I really have to link the game theory episode about this? Also, I don't think you know the entire list of war crimes, hell I don't know more than a couple. To answer the question: Apparently yes because you just did deny the existence of war crime being done by the player. "You" don't represent the industry in any way, but it's still worth noticing given the complete statement from the Red Cross.

 

[Lightknight]

So... small potatoes really, compared to industry collusion and an attempt to call gamers dead for some ridiculous reason.

You stepped into my very devious trap, Comrade Moose.

I do have a certain something to say about the "collusion" surrounding the "Gamers Are Dead" articles.

So a quick google of the word "collusion"

secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

I have used a definition, so everything I say in this post is completely irrefutable by Laws Of Idiot Internet Debaters. See also any use off the word "cherry-picking"

About the only way it could possible fit the definition is through the use of the word "secret" and since two of the authors discussed said articles openly on Twitter prior to their publication, not even that.

As far as I can tell, "secret" is about the only way people are actually using the term. They coordinated the event in secret. That's collusion. In fact the etiology of the word is exclusively used as "secret" with the possibility of illegal being added later.

As far as I can tell, no one has claimed that what they did was illegal. Just that it was coordinated in secret rather than an organic and random attempt at it.

About the only way it could possible fit the definition is through the use of the word "secret" and since two of the authors discussed said articles openly on Twitter prior to their publication, not even that.

Well, I am unaware of any such tweets but this would still only work if they were the only authors. Also, were the twitter posts the result of already secretive discussions on the matter or were they early posts that evolved into more secretive group discussions? Did they elaborate on the scale of the coordination efforts that were undertaken and were these particularly major players in the article posting? Likewise, how far before the event were these tweets? Also, does it magically make the rest of the group not collusive if a couple people break radio silence? I don't think so.

Do you disagree that it was coordinated? That huge collusion scandal in the mainstream media in 2010 was also widely deemed as collusion despite not being illegal. Collusion is also commonly used as a synonym for conspiracy. A coordinated attempt to do something nefarious.

As for your comments on Gamergaters, it depends on what they're doing. If a few people are getting together to discuss doxxing someone or harming someone then you've got collusion there too and it also dings the bell on the illegal side of the street. Now, while those few individuals should absolutely be held accountable, they're also not in control of gamergate in some meaningful way. The journalists bear a fiduciary responsibility to their readers as the press. They conspired to post in unison in a way that attacked gamers and decided to redefine the term gamer as bigots or something insulting. Individuals colluding to do something illegal is a crime. People in a fiduciary role colluding is a scandal and may or may not be illegal. Just secretive and nefarious in nature as this was.

It is fun to see you say that they were merely telling publishers that they should cater to other audiences. But that wasn't what was going on. They were saying not to cater to a group at all. What's more is they foolishly used the term "Gamer" which isn't theirs to redefine.

Basically, they decided to take a group that grew up being insulted and bullied for their passion of gaming and decided to bully us as a group by insulting us and claiming that we deserve being insulted because we're whatever they want us to be that is negative with the industry. At some point they decided to change the name of gamer. Leigh Alexander decided that we (gamers) are the worst scum of the world. Who gets to change the meaning of a term? As far as I can tell, gamers as a group are unique of any other unifying qualifier other than a passion for games. Leigh Alexander, were she to enjoy games, would qualify as a gamer by such definitions. So somewhere along the way she decided that she could redefine the term into something negative and shame on her for doing that. For being that kind of bully. Unless you personally believe that a qualifying definition of a gamer is indeed "shit-slinger".

We are generally using the term heavy on the synonym with conspiracy side of things. It's just that the word conspiracy largely brings up the idea of nutjobs whereas this conspiracy is fairly blatant so as to desire a better term than something which evokes people believing something crazy.

So, if you're going to set a semantic mousetrap you should make sure the trap is set. Because even in the absence of all of this I could have merely claimed linguistic drift as common use of the term collusion includes just people who are coordinating their efforts to do something bad.

So the point we are trying to make here isn't that they did something illegal. It's that they went full ass-hattery on gamers. That they actively strategist and spoke together and conspired to attack gamers of all people by insulting and trying to redefine the term amongst other things. How in the world do you think this isn't a negative thing they did?

For an indie developer being singled out of a list of 50 games as one to watch out for is still damn more positive coverage than most get.

A single mention, from long before they began a romantic relationship. You have nothing to support the notion that this was untoward.

Their Romantic relationship true

The objection however is mainly to the absolute lack of disclosure in this. This then lead to people looking into other journalists and finding lots and lots of more serious cases

You want disclosure about sexual relationships, even if there's no compelling reason to believe they've had an impact on business?

As I said, prurient speculation.

Except it can easily be shown they were good friends at least

Taken from the source code of Depression quest's website

Check yourself it's from March 2013
https://web.archive.org/web/20130328034916/http://www.depressionquest.com/dqfinal.html

Long before Nathan Grayson's article.
https://twitter.com/OneMrBean/status/347504703287984130

How about if your work requires you to talk about said developer do you not think it's in the public interest to know you might not be unbiased and might have ulterior motives to promoting someone else's work rather than informing consumers ?

Was it Sexual ? No
Was it clear they were friends ? Yes pretty clear
was it clear there should have been a disclosure that the the article may be unbiased as it's about a friend ? YES

Well, to be fair we also don't know that there wasn't any romantic relationship involved then either.

But you're entirely right, the friendship relationship is established and, most importantly, he is credited in the game. Should absolutely have been disclosed. The entire article was pointing directly at that one game on the list. Out 50 he was indicating that it was best in show. Again, he titled the article after that one game, the only picture in the main article was taken from the game, and when he listed standouts Depression Quest was the first to be mentioned.

So he was absolutely benefiting Depression Quest for better or worse and whether or not the game deserved it is irrelevant. You still disclose that relationship so people understand the potential bias you're coming from. Like if I were a journalist and was best buddies with the developer's of Naughty Dog. The game would still be one of the best games I've ever played but as journalist I would HAVE to do one of two things: Recuse myself from writing about my best bud's work because I'm too close to the topic, disclose the relationship so as not to mislead the audience into thinking that I'm an unbiased voice on the matter. Whether I think I'm being biased or not is entirely irrelevant.

 

[Lightknight]

Zoe Quinn's name is not being dragged through the mud by anyone but herself.
She could have apologised to TFYC but chose to pretend to be blameless.
She could have apologised to Mundane Matt but she chose to claim youtubers were parasites.
She could have chose to not retweet the personal doccuments of a lawyer but she chose not to.
She could have chosen to give her side of the story but she chose to call anyone who dared ask a terrorist.
She could have chosen to not try to put a gagging order on her ex but she chose not to.

Everyone just needs to realise that she's not gonna apologise for shit.
This is not a person that takes her treatment of other people seriously.
This is a person that is part of a clique that loves to condescend and use social justice lingo as a means to patronise people they deem as "less civilised".

She reacted with the accusations of abuse with a RESTRAINING ORDER. She is beyond taking responsibility.

Let's just face the facts. Until she slips up again (in a way everyone can agree on), there's no point arguing about her. It is absolutely not relevant.

There are several things she did that a lot of people can agree on as being bad. For example, regarding the WizardChan scenario, journalist sites like the Escapist actually went back and edited the original article. The false DMCA take down was also generally accepted to be her. The blacklisting of TFYC was largely accepted as being her responsibility and the doxxing of the TFYC creators was correctly attributed to her PR guy or whomever TFYC sited when they claimed that Zoe doxxed them.

The only thing I see in response is complaints about the nature of TFYC and whether or not it was ok for them to require transgendered individuals to have identified as female before the start of the competition to prevent men from signing up and stealing the show as well as ruining the intent of the charity event that was supposed to give development resources to women (in addition to giving proceeds to charity, of course). So even if she had a philosophical issue with that, where the hell did she get off doing that to a charity group centered around giving development resources to females? How aren't feminists livid about this? Just because some people dragged her personal life through the mud? That doesn't negate the particular kind of evil it takes to derail a charity just because it's competing with your own non-charity event. Holy crap, Batman.

This is entirely relevant. That someone was able to tell journalists to run a story to benefit her greenlit game or not to run a story to prevent a competing organization from getting facetime? That's shitty. That's shitty and innocent people were harmed and harassed because of it.

Now, if you mean it's not going to do anything? Then I've got to disagree with you there too. It is a point of nepotism/cronyism in the industry. The fact that she was able to do this is what's the most harmful thing. How many other articles were only told to benefit friends of some kind and how many other stories haven't been told for similar reasons? It's a major problem.

 

[Dizchu]

So even if she had a philosophical issue with that, where the hell did she get off doing that to a charity group centered around giving development resources to females?

People against Gamergate seem to get really giddy about sabotaging charities. Beyond TFYC they've also tried getting charities to refuse (very large) donations purely because of a difference in opinion. It's like when Christians lobby to get atheist donations refused because they're "immoral".

These people think they're infallible so any bad things they do is for "a greater good". It's insane.

How aren't feminists livid about this? Just because some people dragged her personal life through the mud? That doesn't negate the particular kind of evil it takes to derail a charity just because it's competing with your own non-charity event. Holy crap, Batman.

Some feminists are very angry actually. However there does seem to be a problem with many feminists in realising that feminists can be really bad people. When they disagreed with Christina Hoff Sommers the response wasn't "we're both feminists but I take issue with your opinions", the response was "you're not a real feminist". They don't want to accept the possibility that there are geniunely troublesome people amongst them because in their mind it dilutes the "feminist" group.

The same thing's happened with Gamergate. People with differing opinions have been accused of "not really a part of Gamergate". In the Zoe Quinn scenario, her harassment claims coincides with the narrative many feminists cling to (ie. women are oppressed and face constant harassment). They are more likely to believe that than "a narcissist did bad things and didn't even realise that she was doing bad things which made her think it was okay".

This is entirely relevant. That someone was able to tell journalists to run a story to benefit her greenlit game or not to run a story to prevent a competing organization from getting facetime? That's shitty. That's shitty and innocent people were harmed and harassed because of it.

Those journalism sites are garbage anyway. Zoe Quinn is just one of the more recent examples in a long history of favouritism.

Now, if you mean it's not going to do anything? Then I've got to disagree with you there too. It is a point of nepotism/cronyism in the industry. The fact that she was able to do this is what's the most harmful thing. How many other articles were only told to benefit friends of some kind and how many other stories haven't been told for similar reasons? It's a major problem.

What we should do is call Gawker Media out for being an awful company, not go after individuals like Quinn. They're losing advertisers left and right and their arrogance is on social media for all to see. I'm not sure which they'd rather do, see their business crumble or admit that they were wrong. Because eventually one of these things will have to happen.

 

[Dagda Mor]

4:45 to 5:00, people. That's what this was all about. And he's right. I've see enough people bring up this particular boogeyman I've just stopped responding to it because of how stupid the comparison is. If nothing else, it helps me realize whose opinions I don't have to take seriously.

How is it a stupid comparison?

"Video games cause violence" and "Video games cause sexism" are not exactly different mindsets. They're just blaming inanimate objects on different things.

Because Jack Thompson hated games and wanted them gone, whereas Anita wants games to be better. That's a massive difference, and it's exactly what Bob was trying to say in the video. Hell, I can't be arsed to watch Anita's videos, but if I'm not mistaken, she's not even saying that games cause sexism, she's just saying that a lot of games are sexist.

Also, I don't agree with the sentiment that games can't affect people. If you take that as true, I assume that you also believe that games can't improve people either. I believe that media does affect people, but that doesn't mean I think that playing a poorly thought out game instantly makes you a neo nazi or a crazed killer the same way that I don't think that playing a well-designed game enlightens you and transforms you into the Heavenly Buddha. When I say that a game can affect someone, what I'm asking is for the developer to be careful with its design and affect the players positively, rather than accidentally affecting them negatively.

 

[The Deadpool]

We do not need conclusive evidence for the null hypothesis to stop being the default.

Yeah, that's kind of the point. You don't prove things with poor evidence.

"To act as a compelling force" is noticeably different from "acts [...] in such a way as something happens as a result".

To compel: to force or drive, especially to a course of action

I don't know if this is a willful red herring or just being obtuse here...

Do not conflate my position with Anita Sarkeesian's. They are not the same.

If you want to discuss your hypothesis, then present it.

In an age when even construction workers don't dare to wolf-whistle for fear of causing offence, I don't see similar behaviour in the forums and social media surrounding gaming.

A few things.

a) Construction workers don't dare to wolf whistle? Ask any woman walking down a busy street how shy about making comments men are.

b) Comparing the real life antics to the anonymous, online antics is kind of false equivalency here.

c) You may FEEL that way, but let's look at this: The people who play games the most and are most deeply involved in the industry are the people who play for pleasure AND professionally: Testers and journalists.

Now the testers have been largely quiet here, but the journalists are falling OVERWHELMINGLY on one side of the conversation... That kinda contradicts what one would expect based on the hypothesis.

I'd say the risks of any harmful effects are enough

How do you get out of the house? Any risk of harm sky rockets the moment you do...

The "hedging your bets" arguments is kind of weak when the risk isn't quantified.

 

[Netrigan]

Do you disagree that it was coordinated?

On phone so I'm only responding to this bit. I actually haven't read the rest of your post so I may or may not respond later.

I personally don't find 24 hours to be too little time for people to respond to the first articles with articles of their own.

We'd been having this conversation for two years previous to this and it was a Hot Button issue at that time, so I'd expect this old conversation was swirling around in a lot of minds.

The Twitter exchange shows two people independently planning similar pieces prior to their release. Some of the articles reference earlier articles. There's just oodles of time in the 24 hour window.

I could probably pop out a similar piece of similar length in a couple of hours because, again, I've got over two years thinking about this exact subject. If you count my comics experience, more like a decade of insisting that an industry shouldn't be catering only to the hardcore base.

If ten authors popped out articles about why there needs to be a Shogo 2, all saying variations on the same thing, I'd be suspicious because no one is thinking about Shogo.

But everyone has been thinking about the hardcore gamer and his relationship to the game industry... for the last two years. An article on the subject would be child's play to write and likely include commonly held opinions. All it needed was a tiny nudge to get rolling.

 

[Silvanus]

Yeah, that's kind of the point. You don't prove things with poor evidence.

I'm not trying to prove anything, as I've said multiple times.

For the umpteenth time, the null hypothesis is no longer the default position. I did not need conclusive evidence for that to be the case.

If you believe everything I've presented is so deeply flawed as to be insignificant, then explain why, or present counter-evidence.

To compel: to force or drive, especially to a course of action

I don't know if this is a willful red herring or just being obtuse here...

This is getting silly. If you use the terms "cause" and "influence" interchangeably, that's fine. Let's move on.

If you want to discuss your hypothesis, then present it.

I don't, as I've said before.

 

[sexy=sexist]

Just out of curiosity what do you think about the fallowing?

Did Anita try and get Thunderfoot banned from twitter?
Myself, I doubt it was her, probably just a misguided fan.

What about not allowing anyone to record her classroom lectures and using the campus security to enforce the ban?
Well I guess she can do that, I wont call it censorship if everyone knew about it ahead of time, I find it pretty shady myself however.

Her use of her Facebook page Feminist Frequency.
Yah the heavy censorship of the FF Facebook page that removes any criticism, or even just comments politely disagreeing is pretty screwed up.


Why do you consider or not consider the above to be censorship and have there been any more?

 

[Lightknight]

Do you disagree that it was coordinated?

On phone so I'm only responding to this bit. I actually haven't read the rest of your post so I may or may not respond later.

I personally don't find 24 hours to be too little time for people to respond to the first articles with articles of their own.

We'd been having this conversation for two years previous to this and it was a Hot Button issue at that time, so I'd expect this old conversation was swirling around in a lot of minds.

The Twitter exchange shows two people independently planning similar pieces prior to their release. Some of the articles reference earlier articles. There's just oodles of time in the 24 hour window.

I could probably pop out a similar piece of similar length in a couple of hours because, again, I've got over two years thinking about this exact subject. If you count my comics experience, more like a decade of insisting that an industry shouldn't be catering only to the hardcore base.

If ten authors popped out articles about why there needs to be a Shogo 2, all saying variations on the same thing, I'd be suspicious because no one is thinking about Shogo.

But everyone has been thinking about the hardcore gamer and his relationship to the game industry... for the last two years. An article on the subject would be child's play to write and likely include commonly held opinions. All it needed was a tiny nudge to get rolling.

So you're thinking it was cooperation but not necessarily conspiratory? That they'd all been sitting around with this particular ax to grind against the "hardcore gamer" and once one started grinding it was a natural building of inertia?

I... I'd honestly find that a hell of a lot more insulting to be honest. That this kind of seething and outright bigotry towards gamers was just below the surface naturally. They should really move along to another industry if so.

It was really odd to be attacked by the people I trust (or trusted) for news on something I care about. I have no idea what they were trying to redefine gamer as but if this was just a bandwagon people jumped on and already shared thoughts of then that's pretty damning of the sort of culture the gaming media has established where their core audience (gamers) gets redefined as reactionary shit slingers that shouldn't be catered to.

 

[Lightknight]

Just out of curiosity what do you think about the fallowing?

Did Anita try and get Thunderfoot banned from twitter?
Myself, I doubt it was her, probably just a misguided fan.

What about not allowing anyone to record her classroom lectures and using the campus security to enforce the ban?
Well I guess she can do that, I wont call it censorship if everyone knew about it ahead of time, I find it pretty shady myself however.

Her use of her Facebook page Feminist Frequency.
Yah the heavy censorship of the FF Facebook page that removes any criticism, or even just comments politely disagreeing is pretty screwed up.

Why do you consider or not consider the above to be censorship and have there been any more?

Anita, though I disagree with specific components of her arguments on the damsel trope, hasn't really ever struck me as someone to lash out at others so much as pointing to people like Thunderfoot as examples of oppression rather than trying to silence his voice.

As far as her controlling areas that are her forums, that's not censorship. Censorship is silencing people's voices generally. It isn't preventing them from commenting on your sites or pages. Those are private locations. You can tell a person in your own home not to shout obscenities.

Honestly, as much as I disagree with her I completely understand not allowing comments on those things. Look how verbose we are here. She would get trolled all day every day and even those of us who disagree with her should be able to understand that.

FYI, plenty of professors don't allow videotaping either.

 

[Lightknight]

So even if she had a philosophical issue with that, where the hell did she get off doing that to a charity group centered around giving development resources to females?

People against Gamergate seem to get really giddy about sabotaging charities. Beyond TFYC they've also tried getting charities to refuse (very large) donations purely because of a difference in opinion. It's like when Christians lobby to get atheist donations refused because they're "immoral".

These people think they're infallible so any bad things they do is for "a greater good". It's insane.

Yeah, I don't care where the money is coming from if it's going to a good cause. If nothing else, that's less money in the pockets of people you don't like and more money in the pockets of people we should like. It's one of those win/win scenarios.

It just feels particularly weird to have this happening on the feminist side of things... you know? Like they're supposed to be the more level headed of the bunch and now everything has gone bizarro-world on me. But maybe you come from a different background than me. Just keep in mind that by feminism I mean pushing for equality. Not this pseudo-feminism bullshit that's really just misandry that all men are just rape monsters who should feel bad and kneel when women pass.

Some feminists are very angry actually. However there does seem to be a problem with many feminists in realising that feminists can be really bad people. When they disagreed with Christina Hoff Sommers the response wasn't "we're both feminists but I take issue with your opinions", the response was "you're not a real feminist". They don't want to accept the possibility that there are geniunely troublesome people amongst them because in their mind it dilutes the "feminist" group.

Some day, we'll live in a world where we understand that people of all races, genders, sexes, ideologies and even dispositions are asshats. Asshats everywhere who are all biologically predisposed to take advantage of any exploits available to them.

The same thing's happened with Gamergate. People with differing opinions have been accused of "not really a part of Gamergate". In the Zoe Quinn scenario, her harassment claims coincides with the narrative many feminists cling to (ie. women are oppressed and face constant harassment). They are more likely to believe that than "a narcissist did bad things and didn't even realise that she was doing bad things which made her think it was okay".

It seems like gamergate's big purpose is to say that harassers don't speak for the majority. But I see what you mean.

Those journalism sites are garbage anyway. Zoe Quinn is just one of the more recent examples in a long history of favouritism.

Unfortunately, they're all we have that really cater to our market. Garbage or not, if they're going to claim to be legitimate components of journalism then they need to be held to the ethical standards of journalists.

What we should do is call Gawker Media out for being an awful company, not go after individuals like Quinn.

Gawker and individuals responsible should be brought to light. There's no reason why we can't call Gawker out on it's shenanigans and also call Quinn out on derailing feminist charities for personal gain. As the lynchpin that broke this whole scandal, she's certainly gotten a ton more shit than any single individual deserves but she's just as deserving of ire right now for the TFYC issue alone. That she abused her connections with media is every bit a part of the problem as the media connections that let her do it. It's really only with the Grayson components that I would put he blame on Grayson who may very well have written those articles without any direct prompting from Zoe (for example, I seriously doubt they exchanged sex for journalism, I think they just liked eachother like people do and Grayson decided to benefit her without disclosing the relationship which is all on him). So the entire five guys nonsense was a total red herring and should have all been told from Grayson's wrong doing side instead while the only thing discussed with Zoe would have been Wizardchan and TFYC. I guess that's what happens when the only source talking about it for weeks is her old boyfriend. When are people going to fully grasp the Streisand effect?

They're losing advertisers left and right and their arrogance is on social media for all to see. I'm not sure which they'd rather do, see their business crumble or admit that they were wrong. Because eventually one of these things will have to happen.

I don't really care which. I just want reliable news on a subject I'm passionate about. If they admit wrong doing and change their ways and I get reliable journalism then I'd be just as happy as if someone replaced them wholesale and brought reliable journalism.

The thing I don't want is to see them replaced with groups biased the other way. That's always the risk of these kinds of unseating of kings. The pendulum keeps swinging too far one way or another rather than stopping in the middle where it really needs to be.

 

[Netrigan]

Do you disagree that it was coordinated?

On phone so I'm only responding to this bit. I actually haven't read the rest of your post so I may or may not respond later.

I personally don't find 24 hours to be too little time for people to respond to the first articles with articles of their own.

We'd been having this conversation for two years previous to this and it was a Hot Button issue at that time, so I'd expect this old conversation was swirling around in a lot of minds.

The Twitter exchange shows two people independently planning similar pieces prior to their release. Some of the articles reference earlier articles. There's just oodles of time in the 24 hour window.

I could probably pop out a similar piece of similar length in a couple of hours because, again, I've got over two years thinking about this exact subject. If you count my comics experience, more like a decade of insisting that an industry shouldn't be catering only to the hardcore base.

If ten authors popped out articles about why there needs to be a Shogo 2, all saying variations on the same thing, I'd be suspicious because no one is thinking about Shogo.

But everyone has been thinking about the hardcore gamer and his relationship to the game industry... for the last two years. An article on the subject would be child's play to write and likely include commonly held opinions. All it needed was a tiny nudge to get rolling.

So you're thinking it was cooperation but not necessarily conspiratory? That they'd all been sitting around with this particular ax to grind against the "hardcore gamer" and once one started grinding it was a natural building of inertia?

I... I'd honestly find that a hell of a lot more insulting to be honest. That this kind of seething and outright bigotry towards gamers was just below the surface naturally. They should really move along to another industry if so.

It was really odd to be attacked by the people I trust (or trusted) for news on something I care about. I have no idea what they were trying to redefine gamer as but if this was just a bandwagon people jumped on and already shared thoughts of then that's pretty damning of the sort of culture the gaming media has established where their core audience (gamers) gets redefined as reactionary shit slingers that shouldn't be catered to.

There's been two years to pick sides. They've likely made their position on diversity known long ago (should be the same general mix of liberal and conservative in gaming as in general population). Several of these sites are decidedly progressive.

Such as, its no surprise MovieBob sided with Sarkeesian. He's been saying much the same for years now.

GamerGate divided gamers in a major way and these outlets picked a side. They see GG as being about harassment (and there's no denying the harassment of Quinn at the very beginning) and came down hard.

Anywho, I think they were just feeding off of each other. A couple of similar articles got a ball rolling.

I view the articles as well meaning but needlessly divisive. Gamers aren't going to die but they've mutated for the fourth or fifth time (remember arcades, remember mascots, etc.). There's always going to be the fanboys/girls, but the industry is much bigger than that and its past time we started acting like it. Such as more reviews targeting normals. This is yhe success of Marvel Studios. Fans have a place but never at the expense of the mainstream.

 

[The Deadpool]

For the umpteenth time, the null hypothesis is no longer the default position. I did not need conclusive evidence for that to be the case.

That's not how it works. The idea is that any hypothesis is untrue until proven otherwise. Not until it is BELIEVED otherwise, not until it is proven POSSIBLE, not when someone really wants it to be true. Until PROVEN true.

 

[Lightknight]

There's been two years to pick sides. They've likely made their position on diversity known long ago (should be the same general mix of liberal and conservative in gaming as in general population). Several of these sites are decidedly progressive.

But when did deciding not to cater to the core demographic become "pro-diversity"? Seems like that's just pro-exclusivity and deciding that they don't like one of the groups?

Such as, its no surprise MovieBob sided with Sarkeesian. He's been saying much the same for years now.

Sure, and Bob's video on "dad" movies was pretty telling as well. He also regularly complains about every movie where a female actress does a good job but isn't he protagonist.

I view the articles as well meaning but needlessly divisive. Gamers aren't going to die but they've mutated for the fourth or fifth time (remember arcades, remember mascots, etc.). There's always going to be the fanboys/girls, but the industry is much bigger than that and its past time we started acting like it. Such as more reviews targeting normals. This is yhe success of Marvel Studios. Fans have a place but never at the expense of the mainstream.

Actually, I haven't felt harmed at all by diversity in games. These sites really pegged me wrong when they cried about us being somehow afraid of change. These indie games have been wonderful and I absolutely love them. So them bitching about diversity when responding to my complaints about journalism is practically crazy to me. Like if you were to talk to someone about how bad the city water tastes and they call you a racist.

It's like they can't comprehend the thought that people would be pro-equality and pro-unbiased journalism. Do they think their blatant bias is actually benefiting someone?

 

[Lissie InCode]

Even if the majority of Gamergate participants are trying to make a change in gaming journalism ethics (which is understandable) and not an unfortunate mix of misogynists, trolls, and angry young men: they are harming their cause's credibility MASSIVELY by taking on the #Gamergate banner. The brand is tainted beyond the ability of any outside repair, and inside repair is unlikely to happen. No matter what your position Anita Sarkeesian or anything one issue, this is a reality of marketing: you cannot fix a bad brand by reframing the issues. When a brand is tainted, you must address the branding if you want people to think differently about it.

If you don't believe a tainted brand image is very likely to kill your issue, I'd encourage you to ask yourself why companies have a history of changing their logos/color schemes after a major controversy or public image shift. And why logo, image heavy creative companies (such as Disney) work so hard to protect their brands from even the slightest wiff of negative public image. Ask Dell why, when they acquired Alienware, they still distanced themselves from that brand as far as they could. Your brand and what it represents cannot survive if it is in clash with your image.

So, GamerGaters, if you want to win women and journalists over to your cause and be the activists you so clearly want to be, you are going to have to rebrand both your image and your goals. Because I've been paying attention and as much as I don't like gaming journalists *some of the time*, you've been hostile (or silently complicit in hostility) to women and minorities like me *all of the time.* I don't see why I should support you if all I hear is how much you think me and mine are out to ruin you. The way I hear it from some of your loudest voices, because I support Anita Sarkeesian and her goals, and donated, and worked hard to create good feminist and female gaming spaces, I'm the enemy. Because I've been on the inside of gaming journalism and done creative work, I'm some sort of fan-hating kombanitor. And this isn't true. I know it's not true because I've worked *for* you in the past. And what's sad is: I think you have some good points because gaming journalism and ethics in journalism is a serious issue. But because you've allied yourself so staunchly to old-man-yelling-at-cloud misogynists and reactionary thinkers, you've done yourselves a huge disservice.

Let me ask you, GamerGate supporters who want this to be about changing gaming journalism: what made you seriously think this brand was the banner you wanted to fly under? No, really, tell me. Because given it's short history I can tell you no one cares it's goals for journalism... and I doubt that will change because right now, Wikipedia, Know Your Meme, and most of America won't get past the "Zoe Quinn's Boyfriend" part without dismissing you all. What I'm saying is: even if your goals are good, you were naive to think GamerGate was any type of vehicle for the changes you claim to want.

I'm not saying this to be mean-spirited, edgy, or cruel. I think some of you do have good, clear goals in mind. The Fine Young Capitalists raised money, and that was good. But the reality is thus: if you want to achieve those goals, you're going to have to reform your brand, apologize, and work together to frame the discussion away from misogyny and FOR GOD'S SAKE GET AWAY FROM THE LOVER'S QUARREL CRAPSLINGING THIS TIME.

Or, you know, business as usual. And if GamerGate wants to carry on with business as usual and doesn't change the brand, it will stagnate and collapse. And if the most it ever wanted to be was a punchline for Stephen Colbert, than I can say it's earned it.

EDIT:

I'm going to try and be succinct since I already said my piece, however I want to add this: Jack Thompson was a hateful man who did bad things to women including the attorney general, but he's no one to compare Anita Sarkeesian. That's because Jack Thompson has been built into such a boogeyman by the gaming community, calling someone him roughly sounds to me like the video game community equivalent of calling someone Hitler in that it's so silly all I can think of is "literally Hitler." I've heard this from more than a few non-gamers and gamers alike, so I know it's not just me, it's something to think about.

If I were a GamerGate supporter who wanted any boogeyman to compare her to, I think a better go-to would have been Tipper Gore. If you don't believe me, look it up, because the history and facts actually support some of the comparisons, unlike a comparison to Thompson which is cartoonishly hampered in mythos. But I doubt anyone thought about that strategy too long.

 

[Netrigan]

There's been two years to pick sides. They've likely made their position on diversity known long ago (should be the same general mix of liberal and conservative in gaming as in general population). Several of these sites are decidedly progressive.

But when did deciding not to cater to the core demographic become "pro-diversity"? Seems like that's just pro-exclusivity and deciding that they don't like one of the groups?

Such as, its no surprise MovieBob sided with Sarkeesian. He's been saying much the same for years now.

Sure, and Bob's video on "dad" movies was pretty telling as well. He also regularly complains about every movie where a female actress does a good job but isn't he protagonist.

I view the articles as well meaning but needlessly divisive. Gamers aren't going to die but they've mutated for the fourth or fifth time (remember arcades, remember mascots, etc.). There's always going to be the fanboys/girls, but the industry is much bigger than that and its past time we started acting like it. Such as more reviews targeting normals. This is yhe success of Marvel Studios. Fans have a place but never at the expense of the mainstream.

Actually, I haven't felt harmed at all by diversity in games. These sites really pegged me wrong when they cried about us being somehow afraid of change. These indie games have been wonderful and I absolutely love them. So them bitching about diversity when responding to my complaints about journalism is practically crazy to me. Like if you were to talk to someone about how bad the city water tastes and they call you a racist.

It's like they can't comprehend the thought that people would be pro-equality and pro-unbiased journalism. Do they think their blatant bias is actually benefiting someone?

There's like 18 coversations going on. No one is ever having the one you want. I talk about game reviews, the other guy is talking about Sarkeesian. Someone is talking about harassment, the other person is talking ethics. Its a flame war writ large.

As for it being the core demographic... well, Call of Duty just called that into question as it was saif that CoD fans aren't gamers... they're CoD fans. Biggest franchise on the planet and these guys aren't terribly interested in playing anything else. Mobile games is huge, but they don't tend to self-identify as gamers. Farmville is big, same deal. A lot of WoW players play nothing else. If Sony can get Playstation Now off the ground, you won't even need consoles to AAA game.

And these sites didn't offend all gamers. Many (myself included) didn't much care what they said, because its their opinion.

Likely won't continue this conversation. Three new games tonight and I'm a gamer who would rather game than argue.

 

[sexy=sexist]

Anita, though I disagree with specific components of her arguments on the damsel trope, hasn't really ever struck me as someone to lash out at others so much as pointing to people like Thunderfoot as examples of oppression rather than trying to silence his voice.

Then I assume that you don't think she had a hand in silencing his voice?

As far as her controlling areas that are her forums, that's not censorship. Censorship is silencing people's voices generally. It isn't preventing them from commenting on your sites or pages. Those are private locations. You can tell a person in your own home not to shout obscenities.

So you would not consider it censorship if the escapist forum erased posts and banned anyone that shared your view?
I myself say you have the right to self-censor your own home, but it is censorship, and worse if you are inviting people to have a discussion but only allowing those who agree with you.

 

[Lissie InCode]

Anita, though I disagree with specific components of her arguments on the damsel trope, hasn't really ever struck me as someone to lash out at others so much as pointing to people like Thunderfoot as examples of oppression rather than trying to silence his voice.

Then I assume that you don't think she had a hand in silencing his voice?

As far as her controlling areas that are her forums, that's not censorship. Censorship is silencing people's voices generally. It isn't preventing them from commenting on your sites or pages. Those are private locations. You can tell a person in your own home not to shout obscenities.

So you would not consider it censorship if the escapist forum erased posts and banned anyone that shared your view?
I myself say you have the right to self-censor your own home, but it is censorship, and worse if you are inviting people to have a discussion but only allowing those who agree with you.

Not all censorship is bad. If say, I ran a gaming forum, I would censor posts about under water basket weaving if it didn't relate to the discussion or community I was cultivating. On a pro-basket forum I would censor posts from the anti-basket people. One of the tradeoffs to private enterprise and private goals are often degrees of equally private oversight.

If Anita did silence Thunderfoot, I would ask: how? Did she use her power and position? Her "internet hate machine?" If so, than welcome to the 21st century and it's various special interest Twitter mobs. He might have been guaranteed speech but no one is required an audience or any sort of supportive audience. I think it's much more likely that he wasn't silenced: he just wasn't supported, either. And I'm not so sure that's a bad thing. He wasn't exactly saying anything ground breaking, he's been varying degrees of unstable in his videos, and his supporters have been awful. He's back anyways, and his Twitter feed is up again (full of the least-rational voices he could stand to align himself).

 

[sexy=sexist]

Not all censorship is bad. If say, I ran a gaming forum, I would censor posts about under water basket weaving if it didn't relate to the discussion or community I was cultivating. On a pro-basket forum I would censor posts from the anti-basket people. One of the tradeoffs to private enterprise and private goals are often degrees of equally private oversight.

Ok so you do think it is ok to remove posts that don't agree with you, if you control the forum?

If Anita did silence Thunderfoot, I would ask: how? Did she use her power and position? Her "internet hate machine?" If so, than welcome to the 21st century and it's various special interest Twitter mobs. He might have been guaranteed speech but no one is required an audience or any sort of supportive audience. I think it's much more likely that he wasn't silenced: he just wasn't supported, either. And I'm not so sure that's a bad thing. He wasn't exactly saying anything ground breaking, he's been varying degrees of unstable in his videos, and his supporters have been awful. He's back anyways, and his Twitter feed is up again (full of the least-rational voices he could stand to align himself).

I am not really sure what your answer is here. Could you clarify for me? If Anita silenced him it would have been by getting him banned on twitter with a false charge with the goal of stopping or discrediting his criticism. He was silenced, I am not sure how that could be argued but his account was unbanned and I don't think it can be shown to have been by her herself. If it was done without her knowledge and consent she can't be held responsible for it.