You don't have to be afraid of taking a public stance against #GamerGate.

[Calbeck]

In fact ending carriers and doxxing someone is encouraged in the Anti GG people along with racism and character assassination this shows you how many of the advocates and "megaphones...lol" are actually corrupt or if their intentions are good just plain out delusional.

"In the Anti GG people"? What does that actually refer to? Anti-GG is not an organisation; it's not even a movement in itself. It is opposition to a movement.

Funny how Gamergate isn't an organization, either. Our "organization" is limited to individuals coming up with ideas and other people in the movement deciding to get involved with the idea or ignoring it. Given the number of times our opponents demand we CREATE an organization complete with leaders and some weird chain-of-herding-cats notion, that shouldn't be surprising to you.

 

[MrBaskerville]

I was on the fence for a while, but after reading more about the roots of the movement i really don't want to associate myself with any of this. Frankly i find it depressing that people would stoop so low and that they have had this much succes starting a revolution, based on a vile witch hunt. I know it changed direction and that most probably distances themselves from all that have happened (and still happens) with Quinn, but i don't think i'm capable of that. Besides, i think i've come to realize that GG isn't a caude i would deem worth fighting for, now that it has become a fight for objective reviews and crap like that, that's the exact opposite of what i want. There'll be a time to fight for ethics, but right now i'm more interested in finding a way to stop people from acting like assholes (i'm not talking about you...), seems like a more urgent cause at the moment.

 

[Netrigan]

I was on the fence for a while, but after reading more about the roots of the movement i really don't want to associate myself with any of this. Frankly i find it depressing that people would stoop so low and that they have had this much succes starting a revolution, based on a vile witch hunt. I know it changed direction and that most probably distances themselves from all that have happened (and still happens) with Quinn, but i don't think i'm capable of that. Besides, i think i've come to realize that GG isn't a caude i would deem worth fighting for, now that it has become a fight for objective reviews and crap like that, that's the exact opposite of what i want. There'll be a time to fight for ethics, but right now i'm more interested in finding a way to stop people from acting like assholes (i'm not talking about you...), seems like a more urgent cause at the moment.

Really, the only way to end the stranglehold the game industry has on the gaming news is to mainstream the gaming news... not a million miles away from what we've seen The Escapist do in the past few months, diversifying into other mediums.

So they have plenty of content without Activision or EA giving them all the exclusives, so they if a publisher pulls their advertising, they can pick it up from another industry. To basically strip the companies of their ability to say NO.

The problem is gaming sites, just like the fans, are on the company teat. Their objection only goes so far. If Call of Duty was supporting the killing of kittens, you wouldn't be able to pry enough mouths away from their teat of choice to make them stop the killing of kittens.

 

[Deadcyde]

I was on the fence for a while, but after reading more about the roots of the movement i really don't want to associate myself with any of this. Frankly i find it depressing that people would stoop so low and that they have had this much succes starting a revolution, based on a vile witch hunt. I know it changed direction and that most probably distances themselves from all that have happened (and still happens) with Quinn, but i don't think i'm capable of that. Besides, i think i've come to realize that GG isn't a caude i would deem worth fighting for, now that it has become a fight for objective reviews and crap like that, that's the exact opposite of what i want. There'll be a time to fight for ethics, but right now i'm more interested in finding a way to stop people from acting like assholes (i'm not talking about you...), seems like a more urgent cause at the moment.

I think it's a bit weak that GG is the one copping all the "stop being jerks" nonsense or the "i can't side with GG they're too malign for me" when it's been rife on both sides. False flags, outright lies, harassment, doxxing, ddos; boh side are equally as guilty of this yet for some reason all i hear in the media is "Gamergate is a misogynistic movement" when really its more:

"Everyone's shouting and it's making no real difference except as a huge distraction as everyone tries to undermine the perceived oppositions moral high ground and any attempt at real discourse is being overpowered by this pretty pretty distraction"

You'll notice most people that actually game have stopped any real vocal addition to this clusterfuck of political agendas because they've no doubt realized it's having little to no perceived difference on gaming itself as is evidenced by the continuation of rubbish on steam greenlight, the continual anti consumerist gouging by AAA and that "game/r of the year" awards have no effect on gaming content.

It's a waste of time, not a culture war.

 

[Richard Keohane]

I reiterate, this is not a debate. Gamergate is not a debate. It has not been a debate for quite some time now. Gamergate is a consumer activism movement to burn businesses to the ground and salt the earth for their ilk in the future. Gamergate is a mass-email campaign intended to change an industry to suit the liking of the majority of its consumers. That is all it is. There is no leader, there are no tenets, there is no collusion. The reason gamergate still exists after two months is because there are still things for people to be angry about. You cannot remove someone's anger by debating their right to be angry, you can only remove it by removing the source for their anger. "Debate" in the context of gamergate is a joke, and should be treated as such.

So, putting aside all the controversy about the terrible things #gamergate started with, and just talking about #gamergate as it stands right now...

This thread wouldn't be a debate, except #gamergate supporters keep on bringing up the debate. You can say that you have transcended the need for debate, but then, why is #gamergate's supporters still mostly just debating?

Because it's trying to find relevance. 90% of #gamergate was yelling loudly through the internet, 5% of gamergate was death threats, hacking, and other deplorable behavior, and 5% of #gamergate were people trying to actually take action to do something good. Most of the trolls and the white knights have had their moment in the sun and moved on to better things... there's very little of #gamergate left but people yelling and debating. I'd like to see a positive outcome from #gamergate more than anyone, but there's very little left of the movement that's actually doing much of anything towards reforming the community. The Escapist updated their code of conduct because of #gamergate, so good on them. There are some "blacklists" floating out there, which are meant to leverage the community against corruption, but it's not really getting much traction.

Honestly, #gamergate is almost nothing but debate at this point.

 

[Agkistro]

In one aspect GG has likely done much more harm than good. You can't prove this collusion is going on. You can speculate that it might have happened or could have happened, but you can't 100% prove it.

If you are saying that with a straight face, then you simply haven't been paying attention to the very thing you mean to criticize. Is there anybody out there doubting the existence of GameJournoPros?

This future, which has started to take shape, is one where small time indie devs blame their failures on corruption rather than their own bad ideas. Crying foul at any criticism made because there's a movement waiting with open arms, who won't judge them at all.

Er, kind of surprising to see you slam Depression Quest like that, given the other things you said.

 

[Silvanus]

Funny how Gamergate isn't an organization, either. Our "organization" is limited to individuals coming up with ideas and other people in the movement deciding to get involved with the idea or ignoring it. Given the number of times our opponents demand we CREATE an organization complete with leaders and some weird chain-of-herding-cats notion, that shouldn't be surprising to you.

Sorry about the wait for a response.

It's not surprising to me at all; I'm well aware it's not an organisation. Still, it is a movement in its own right, which "Anti-GG" isn't.

 

[Deadcyde]

Funny how Gamergate isn't an organization, either. Our "organization" is limited to individuals coming up with ideas and other people in the movement deciding to get involved with the idea or ignoring it. Given the number of times our opponents demand we CREATE an organization complete with leaders and some weird chain-of-herding-cats notion, that shouldn't be surprising to you.

Sorry about the wait for a response.

It's not surprising to me at all; I'm well aware it's not an organisation. Still, it is a movement in its own right, which "Anti-GG" isn't.

Well i'd believe that if there wasn't as much harassment, group think and targeted attacks.

 

[Silvanus]

Well i'd believe that if there wasn't as much harassment, group think and targeted attacks.

That "anti-GG" is a movement in its own right?

Could you enlighten me on my question; does one have to identify themselves with it to be a part of it, or does it include anybody who's critical of GamerGate or its supporters?

 

[Calbeck]

Funny how Gamergate isn't an organization, either. Our "organization" is limited to individuals coming up with ideas and other people in the movement deciding to get involved with the idea or ignoring it. Given the number of times our opponents demand we CREATE an organization complete with leaders and some weird chain-of-herding-cats notion, that shouldn't be surprising to you.

Sorry about the wait for a response.

It's not surprising to me at all; I'm well aware it's not an organisation. Still, it is a movement in its own right, which "Anti-GG" isn't.

Maybe if they could agree on a hashtag and stick with it...? *ponyshrug*

 

[Silvanus]

Maybe if they could agree on a hashtag and stick with it...? *ponyshrug*

Would then the hashtaggers be the canonical "anti-GG"?

A great number of GamerGate's critics would be discounted, then.

 

[Calbeck]

Nonetheless, the cold hard facts are that nobody has apologized, and all of the sites you've been going after are still standing. I'm very doubtful that you can change that.

Well, you're welcome to your opinion. If the attitude is going to remain "nothing wrong was done", our attitude will remain "your advertisers may not agree". This has gone from protest to boycott for that reason, and standard boycott strategy is now in play.

let's suppose, just for argument's sake, that Gamer Gate actually manages to destroy Gamasutra. Even if that happens, I don't see Leigh Alexander being completely forced out of the gaming journalism industry.

She's welcome to seek new employment. Free country and all. Heck of a thing to put on one's resume, however.

A lot of anime fans have just learned to ignore these people, at least insofar as they find them offensive. Perhaps those in the GG movement should make the same decision with some gaming journalists.

Hard to ignore ongoing censorship.

The mainstream TV media is now getting involved.

GGers WERE heavily against doing so, until the MSM Left began parroting LiterallyWu's line by parroting one another. Something I had already warned was going to happen. Now it's grudgingly being accepted that the Leftward Media Well has been thoroughly poisoned.

Which has brought more support around to my position on the subject. You see, I was rather heavily involved in center-right politics some years ago, still know a few folks. Didn't WANT to bring the MSM into this, but Wu already did that. Now we're in the position of countering on a larger scale...

...and guess which networks consider themselves in direct competition with Wu's choice of MSNBC? With far bigger ratings and a constant desire to show MSNBC as terrible excuses for reporters? Which means vindicating GamerGate as far as humanly possible, in order to cause the most damage to their rival?

Yeah, you can thank Wu for forcing this particular hand. Problem was, she bet the farm on a pair of threes.

The situation is escalating, well beyond your control.

*laughs* Oh man, you really have no idea...

 

[GloatingSwine]

Well, you're welcome to your opinion. If the attitude is going to remain "nothing wrong was done", our attitude will remain "your advertisers may not agree". This has gone from protest to boycott for that reason, and standard boycott strategy is now in play.

This is the greatest irony of GamerGate.

Attempting to control editorial stance via advertising cashflow is a direct breach of journalistic ethics!.

The only effect GamerGate has sought to have so far is to break down ethics in videogame journalism by enabling advertisers to control the editorial voice.

 

[The Lunatic]

This is the greatest irony of GamerGate.

Attempting to control editorial stance via advertising cashflow is a direct breach of journalistic ethics!.

The only effect GamerGate has sought to have so far is to break down ethics in videogame journalism by enabling advertisers to control the editorial voice.

I believe the goal of these emails has been to inform advertisers what sites are doing under their banner.

If the advertisers don't like what's happening, such as bullying, it is their choice to pull the advertisements.

It's not really about control, more about informing. The people who makes these decisions are intelligent people, they can make the choice for themselves as to if they want to have their company represented by these websites.

 

[Deadcyde]

Well i'd believe that if there wasn't as much harassment, group think and targeted attacks.

That "anti-GG" is a movement in its own right?

Could you enlighten me on my question; does one have to identify themselves with it to be a part of it, or does it include anybody who's critical of GamerGate or its supporters?

We're going to argue the semantics of organization now? Okay, there is a bunch of people -actively working together to undermine gamergate-. There are as many forum dedicated to anti GG as there are GG

An organization or organisation is an entity, such as an institution or an association, that has a collective goal and is linked to an external environment.

 

[GloatingSwine]

I believe the goal of these emails has been to inform advertisers what sites are doing under their banner.

If the advertisers don't like what's happening, such as bullying, it is their choice to pull the advertisements.

It's not really about control, more about informing. The people who makes these decisions are intelligent people, they can make the choice for themselves as to if they want to have their company represented by these websites.

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better, but the effect is making the advertiser withdrawing support for a site over editorial positions a more widespread and accepted practise.

Y'know, the thing that got Jeff Gerstmann fired.

The biggest cancer in all of videogame journalism.

GamerGate is enthusiastically making it happen.

Good job!

 

[Irick]

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better, but the effect is making the advertiser withdrawing support for a site over editorial positions a more widespread and accepted practise.

Y'know, the thing that got Jeff Gerstmann fired.

The biggest cancer in all of videogame journalism.

GamerGate is enthusiastically making it happen.

Good job!

You are equating asking an advertiser to pull adds because of their lead editor promoting bullying and hate to someone being fired for not towing the party line with their reviews and instead going for an honest recount of their experience?

I'm sorry, but that doesn't follow.

 

[GloatingSwine]

You are equating asking an advertiser to pull adds because of their lead editor promoting bullying and hate to someone being fired for not towing the party line with their reviews and instead going for an honest recount of their experience?

I'm sorry, but that doesn't follow.

Except it's also happening to Polygon over their Bayonetta 2 review, an open campaign to have Nintendo reduce their press feed to Polygon over a review score. (Oh wait....)

And even if it weren't, the effect is still the same, the power balance shifts towards advertisers of all stripes no matter what the intentions.

 

[Silvanus]

We're going to argue the semantics of organization now? Okay, there is a bunch of people -actively working together to undermine gamergate-. There are as many forum dedicated to anti GG as there are GG

An organization or organisation is an entity, such as an institution or an association, that has a collective goal and is linked to an external environment.

Uhrm, no, we're not going to argue that. The facetiousness isn't necessary, or helpful, and nor does it actually address what I asked.

Somebody is a "GamerGater" if they identify themselves as a supporter, but I'm not sure whether the same criteria are being applied to "Anti-GG". It's a genuine question.

...and guess which networks consider themselves in direct competition with Wu's choice of MSNBC? With far bigger ratings and a constant desire to show MSNBC as terrible excuses for reporters? Which means vindicating GamerGate as far as humanly possible, in order to cause the most damage to their rival?

Yeah, you can thank Wu for forcing this particular hand. Problem was, she bet the farm on a pair of threes.

I'm not savvy on American media outlets. Are you talking about Fox?