Scootinfroodie said:
Condescension is a great replacement for arguments and evidence
This is the second charge of "condescension" from you, and I was made curious. I read back through your posts in this thread, and then your post history in general. I don't know if you're oblivious to your own posting style, or simply calling out behavior your recognize in yourself. Yes, I am being condescending. I am most definitely not alone in that. Alas, I can't control your behavior, I can only control my own, so I'll try to be less of an ass. I would appreciate it if you would return the favor.
Scootinfroodie said:
For myself, "too much" would be that point at which the bias distracted from my enjoyment of the review. Either by completely obfuscating the information I'd come to find, or by presenting an ideological perspective I found unpalatable.
In general, not at all. It's not for me to police the internet and decide what people should or shouldn't be reading.
Scootinfroodie said:
Again, it depends on what they're considering "biased". People who write about their employers, SO's etc. and don't disclose should be suspended or terminated for sure. As for the last bit, that's most certainly not what I'm seeing. Could you quote the specific bit of text where somebody considers having a political or philosophical affiliation to be worth firing someone over?
Okay, this is one of several points that provoked my "bad faith" comment. I know from your posting history that you have spent time in the Gamer Gate threads, including the mega thread. From your tone and the people you choose to debate, I'm relatively certain I know which side of the debate you land on. I know you're aware of the existence of a media blacklist, and I know you're aware there have been calls to drum people out of the industry. I know you're one of the major reasons for that call is a presumed "ideological bias" in the media, and that the ideology in question is "liberal". I know you're aware that there have been calls to have people fired, to crumble websites, to "go to war".
I'm not going to data mine 1600 pages of thread to provide you quotes. I'm sure you're a lovely guy, but my investment in proving this point to you does not run that deep. You can dismiss it all you want on grounds of insufficient evidence, if that is your preference. Burden of proof is on me, and I'm unwilling to provide it, because it's a lot of fucking effort for something that ultimately doesn't matter very much to either of us. If you wish to characterize me as a fabulist, you may do so. I know what I read. There is a reason for my rancor on this issue.
I don't require quote mining to know that people who oppose Gamer Gate have said or done terrible things. It stands to reason. It's a polarized, aggravated debate (that for some reason has become deeply politicized). I know that people on both sides are saying ridiculous things the same way I know the water in this glass is wet.
There's a reviewer named Tom Chick. He's been plying his trade in this industry for a long time. He's known for a couple of things...idiosyncratic taste in games, and a propensity for being honest whilst employing his entire 5 point scale. He often gives popular games he didn't enjoy bad scores, most famously Deus Ex. He is LOATHED for it. On this website, a year or two ago, there was a thread discussing his review of some Halo game or other. He was called a troll and a malingerer, a clickbaiter and an attention whore. Some people don't like "honest". Some people like confirmation of their existing beliefs. Quite frequently when someone charges a review with being "too biased", what they mean is "too not what I believe".
Scootinfroodie said:
Losing customers in general? Word of mouth? My own experiences? Larger moving of readers? Maybe the pulling of ads?
That's fine, as long as you acknowledge this isn't any more reliable than Alexa. If I offered up "my own experiences" or "word of mouth" to contradict your beliefs on this subject I highly doubt you'd put any stock in them.
Scootinfroodie said:
When did I mention a twitter hashtag, or attribute customer loss to that? These issues have been around for years
I'm referring to Gamer Gate in general. The commonly accepted narrative is that Gamer Gate "won", and that the sites who wronged them were devastated and bleeding customers. I've never seen any concrete evidence to support that.
Scootinfroodie said:
As for RPS specifically, if we look at similar sites/business models, a sudden shift in model is a result of the previous system not working. While it's possible that RPS is just gettin' greedy, it's not really probable.
Honestly, neither one of us knows anything. We're both just speculating.
Scootinfroodie said:
Where did I mention a conspiracy? For someone who complained about attributed positions, you seem to be doing nothing but.
Yes, I attributed a sympathetic if not wholly involved stance in Gamer Gate to you. That was unfair of me.
Scootinfroodie said:
A watchdog group accused the site of bumping up the numbers of left wing sites, and lowering those of right wing sites when those sites were reporting growth.
A watchdog group. Which watchdog group? Could it have been a...right wing watch dog group? I'm not even trying to be snarky, it just...stands to reason.
Scootinfroodie said:
Whether or not that's true, there are countless articles on how Alexa's ranking system is flawed either in the sense of it being inaccurate (generally due to sampling methods) or easily gamed (generally for the same reasons)
Yes, a quick Google search confirms this to be true. I'm certainly not married to Alexa, the first time I even used it was when I Googled something along the lines of "site traffic" when wanting to see if sites really were taking it on the nose. If there a better tool, I'll happily use the better tool.
Scootinfroodie said:
Please explain what portion of your position I'm expected to honestly discuss.
My OP, despite hanging on a particular interpretation of the terms...one employed almost universally through the thread up to that point...was not unreasonable. Yes, I exhibited astonishment that there was even debate. I also clarified my opinion and provided context. Your response to this was to wade in swinging and say I was being "absurd". I was already in a bad mood due to the poor judgment I showed earlier in the day reading the contents of a variety of Gamer Gate threads on the Off-Topic Forum, so I was not in the mood to be snotted at about semantics. Things devolved from there.
The unfortunate thing is I've actually tried to stay relatively moderate in this debate (not THIS debate, but the GG debate), and clearly I'm becoming a bit polarized myself if I'm reacting THAT aggressively to perceived agenda. I need to take a break from reading this shit.