Gamergate discussion thread (one and only, KEEP IT HERE)

I agree with this both sides have d*cks, though I lean on The Pro side I think its kinda crappy that ALL gaming Journalists (EVERY SINGLE ONE) are now apparently all unethical because of this Kerfuffle, they are still a lot of great honorable sites out there that are just as appalled by the breach in ethics and the incestuous relationships between Big publishers/indie Publishers and websites. Even now I am sure someone will state but the "other side is worse they doxxed/sent death threats bomb threats, we never did that.,everyone on our side is white as snow and pure like the virgin Mary, the other side only has jet black child sacrificing demon worshipers."

@loafofgame: I can only agree with you, except this bit:

I wouldn't call Fiamengo part of an MRM, because one of her main points is common sense: you shouldn't suppress dissent.

For more than 1 reason:

- It's the main point, not the only point.

- She does lectures on Men's Rights from what I've seen (she could use the platform of feminist lectures if wanted). Though it seems she also does some that are in the gray area between both:

- I didn't find a claim by herself, but if these articles are correct, she's a former feminist.

- It seems she's a member of CAFE (Canadian Association for Equality), which is an egalitarianist organization that focuses quite a bit on men's issues.

Maybe she's formally an egalitarian, that focuses less on feminism and more on men's rights.

@McStrongfast: I may not be an american lawyer and admit I am but guessing here, but the mere use of that character in the logo, a fictional one, without further use for anything else in the website, along with the use of other characters in order to not call that one character as an identity (for example, his "personal" image is Rorschach), may very well constitute fair use: it bears no substantiality regarding the whole of his blog, and barely any effect on the original work. Anyway, I can see where you're coming from, and agree that that kind of thing should be avoided, but I don't know if it's just an excess of preciosity (sorry for the redundancy) in seeking double standards, or if that's really an important unethical practice regarding consumers (I still regard this GG thing as something related to the media - audience relation, from their expressed concerns, still haven't seen much regarding protection of corporate rights, or something like that).

@Gue1 said:

SJW's bulling an SJW. You gotta love the smell of a narrative falling down.

Wait Isn't Joss whedon their darling he was with her most holy Anita or am I missing something?

@super600: Can you, or anyone else in Anti-Gamer Gate explain why Gamer-Gate is ''right wing''? I've seen this pop up time and time and I can't find any basis for it whatsoever.

It's a messed up thing that only people who who are too politically minded would think, GG would be very libertarian in terms of how it views how gaming should work, you get what you pay for, if people want a trans protagonist in a big budget game then that needs to be financially sound, it isn't a charity, it has to be what most people buying the game want, not what people on twitter or tumblr want.

These same people could believe in universal healthcare, vote left, be pro-choice, etc but people who are politically minded will assume you support everything if you happen to have a view that normally falls into the right or left camp.

They're considered anti-feminist and supported by people and groups that are generally considered right-wing. Even if the people supporting aren't all right wing, on the surface, it appears as a conservative group.

I am of the belief that groups that commonly use the term "social justice warrior" are probably conservative or filled with lame people.

Well, you have to remember, the job of those who work within the video game media isn't to inform. It is to get you to click links in order to see ads. Calling them unethical for using inflammatory language to get you to click a link is pushing things a bit far, given that just about every advertiser in the western world (possible the whole of the thing) user such tactics.

They don't even do this to just one side. Look at what they did to Bioware when they announced that moving forward all new content for Republic was going to contain same sex romance options. Folks like Kotaku started screaming that they were going to quarantine all homosexuals on a gay planet. They will smear developers actively pushing for inclusivity if they can twist the facts into something people will consider a scandal if they fail to do radical things like "Looking at the statement the company released." and so forth.

Spinning data is the entire job description of those who's goal is getting you to click ads. No reason to hate them for it, just get your data elsewhere.

Give me an example of this. There are trolls sure, but who is part of Anti-GG that is NOT a feminist or SJW? So you've gone to say that GG is a hate group that there may be trolls going against both sides? Didn't you say that GG is a hate group? That it's against women in gaming and consists of the most hateful people on the internet? You have yet to prove that GG has actually threatened anyone when it's the other way around mate... Brianna Wu has lied, Anita Sarkeesian has lied and Zoe Quinn has lied. Nathan Grayson has lied, Brandon Boyer has lied and many more. Can you honestly defend this?

This is also pretty freaking hilarious

Well, she might very well be a part of MRA in the factual sense ;-P, but based on the provided video I'd personally see her as an egalitarian who has found more egalitarian aspects in MRM's than in feminism. I watched the entire speech and Q&A and nothing she said seemed to be specifically focused on men's rights, other than men's rights being an argument to balance out some people's disproportionate/inconsiderate focus on women's rights. But I don't know anything about MRM's. If they are actually egalitarians with a focus on men's rights, then I would rather call them general egalitarians, instead of men's rights activists.

What Fiamengo said seemed to be common sense; acknowledgement of the fact that both men and women have issues and rights, both to be taken equally seriously. If a campus turns out to be disproportionately focused on women's rights, then any dissent will automatically look like MRA (because you need to acknowledge and address men's rights to compensate for that strong focus on women's rights), while it might simply be egalitarian. That's why (on the basis of what I've seen) I personally wouldn't call Fiamengo part of MRA, even though she might speak in its name or represent it. That of course takes nothing away from the fact that she might very well be an active member of equality groups or MRM's.

@loafofgame: yes, I'm thinking the same.

A feminist thinks the fact that the suicide rate for women is double that of men in China is a serious problem.

An MRA thinks the fact that the suicide rate for men in the west is two or three times that of women is a serious problem.

An Egalitarian is pained by the fact that both sets of "equality activists" only think one of these things is a problem.

Wrong, a third wave feminist doesn't give a shit about anything except for their feels

GamerGate is the perfect example of that

True that I view the MRA with same contempt as Modern day feminists , they are the other side of the extremist coin

@The_Last_Ride said:

This is also pretty freaking hilarious

I think Polygon being a bit shit is the one thing we can agree on. That wishy-washy neutral bullshit boilerplate helps no one. Gamergate is not difficult to define at all. That was only ever the case for a brief confusing moment when everyone tried to get a handle on it, up until the beginnings of September maybe. After that it's been blatant 97% repugnant trash pile on fire, its toxic smoke and ashes suffocating anyone it gets near.

Anyway. Thisis gross. I forget which MRA people are associated with which sites, but you know, one horrible person or another. Ah, it's this one. People who at the very least happily associate with and endorse people like that is who Gamergate's defending and donating to. Ethics. As usual, it would be funny if it wasn't so depressing and sad. "Get politics and agendas out of our games", Gamergate says, while trying to push extremist MRA's into cons. And of course this is somehow meant to be about ethics in games journalism. Remember when that was the veil these instigating horrible people pushed their hateful garbage under?

@McStrongfast said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

This is also pretty freaking hilarious

I think Polygon being a bit shit is the one thing we can agree on. That wishy-washy neutral bullshit boilerplate helps no one. Gamergate is not difficult to define at all. That was only ever the case for a brief confusing moment when everyone tried to get a handle on it, up until the beginnings of September maybe. After that it's been blatant 97% repugnant trash pile on fire, its toxic smoke and ashes suffocating anyone it gets near.

Anyway. Thisis gross. I forget which MRA people are associated with which sites, but you know, one horrible person or another. Ah, it's this one. People who at the very least happily associate with and endorse people like that is who Gamergate's defending and donating to. Ethics. As usual, it would be funny if it wasn't so depressing and sad. "Get politics and agendas out of our games", Gamergate says, while trying to push extremist MRA's into cons. And of course this is somehow meant to be about ethics in games journalism. Remember when that was the veil these instigating horrible people pushed their hateful garbage under?

Since you are making that claim, prove it. Because it really isn't. Take a look in the hashtag. I would say 97% of it is about ethics

OMG, you seriously don't know that they did illegal stuff doing that right? They libeled them and called the cops on them. They also didn't refund them or gave them a valid reason. It's funded by the city so it's illegal for them to harass them. You are so ignorant on this issue that i don't know if i can have a conversation with you. Sites are corrupt and people are getting thrown out without valid reason. Ralph, Honey Badgers and just look at the recent bomb threat you're totally glossing over..

I had just finished getting angry about that disgusting Boston piece and I go and see it again :( I don't know whether you're calling Boston horrible people or if you're endorsing the piece, but I think it's an utterly vile piece of journalism. Some reading to start with would be Eron's response (Part 1, Part 2), which shed light on how deceitful and manipulative the guy who wrote the Boston piece has been.

The story of Eron and Zoe has progressed and largely diverged from gamergate (such that Zoe is rarely mentioned by the latter group and some gamergaters refuse to donate to Eron's legal fund because they don't see it as relevant), and the whole story is a great demonstration of how terrible the media and courts can be. I don't care strongly about game journalists, but I'm very incensed by the media's refusal to acknowledge Eron's initial post about Zoe as one long accusation of her being an abuser (something many other survivors of abusive relationships have agreed with), or to separate him from the harassment committed by others (I've seen no compelling evidence of him encouraging this, in fact he edited his post to tell them to knock it off). Now he's been placed under an overly restrictive gag order that prevents him from saying a word about his abusive relationship such that he cannot even defend himself, and wasn't allowed to say a word in his own defence in court. He's been screwed over to no end, luckily he's found a lawyer now to help him appeal the gag order. Nonetheless, I think there's a good chance he's done a fair few bad things himself, though even so that Boston piece is horrifyingly one-sided and doesn't mention a word of the allegations against Zoe of being an abuser.

deepfreeze.it is the perfect solution of exposing corrupt journalists

Then I have to decide if I redefine myself as an egalitarian now and not a feminist anymore, or if I insist in convincing others of a more egalitarian type of feminism instead of what's the predominant today. What's ironic is that both movements (Feminism and MRM) could simply complement each other in the search for equality.

This is taking the assumption that Social Justice Warriors are left-wingers. That's simply not true. Social Justice Warriors are the radical, authoritarian Left; the typical Tumblrite. These people are mocked across the internet as a whole.

Being against the type of Feminism that shames people for wearing a T-Shirt is the right thing to do.

Well let's see of the history of GG so far. MRA's have been mixed in with KKK, ISIS, Terrorists, etc. They've even been thrown out of a convention without a valid reason when they challenged feminists.

Feminists so far haven't experienced anything from GG except scrutiny and criticism

Oh they will eventually, the MRM just has to stick around for twenty or thirty years before it is adopted into the fold. There was no group in western society as transphobic as feminism in the eighties and nineties. They used to put up signs in clubs and colleges claiming that transgendered men were only pretending to be women to peep and possibly rape women in woman's restrooms.

Now new TGAs are best buds with feminists, and vastly confused by the resentment of the old guard. Same thing will happen with MRMs.

it's on KIA, but i don't really see the point of donating to him when this has nothing to do with GG.

Its quite suspicious that when you watch the 'perfect' review of Witcher 3 that the gamespot review has a sponsored by The Witcher 3 on it?

And hey, I've already bought the Witcher 3 because I think it'll be great.

But, consider Gamespots diabolic transparency and conflict issues (see Danny O'Dwyer') is there a risk taht this game would have got a 8/9 rather than a 10 if it wasn't sponsored?

I would hope Gamespot would be happy to clarify that their marketting group and reviewers do not share information as per IGN, who despite their usual oddities and naughtiness have managed to deal with these problems much more robustly in this year long controversey.

If you are seriously asking if you should trust the critique of someone who is getting paid by the people they are critiquing, the answer is no. There is no clarification that should change that. There is no industry where that is a good idea, and no explanation is going to suddenly make it a good idea for video games.

Professional game reviews are a good conversation starter, enjoy the comments section! They are not however something on which you should base your decision to purchase a product.

One thing I would like to say is that gaming itself is not a job...you don't need credentials to qualify. If you like playing games (no matter what games or at what level) and you want to call yourself a gamer, then so be it. Once again, not a job in and of itself but a hobby.

That's an excellent point which i did not notice. This should be disclosed, but it won't. Because Gamespot has yet to implement a freaking ethics policy. They've said for almost 5 months now that they're "working on it". This means they don't give a shit

They already have one. They're owned by CBS who have their own ethics policy which can be viewed here

Correct, however it is iffy when compared to the policies now in use at IGN, Polygon, Destructoid, The Escapist et al. as it does not specify the requirement to disclose funding of projects explicitly.

It does not specify the minimum limits for the declaration of gifts, instead delegating that to 'individual companies' to decide.

Accordingly I would suggest that the CBS group policy has been drafted which then requires either a gamespot policy or guideline from subsidiaries and group companies to define those limits to be in compliance with the CBS group policy.

Therefore, consideringt that the writers and editors also ignore the policy regarding conflicts of interest on Page 4. See Danny O'Dwyer and Zoe Quinn. and that there is a lack of a set of policies or guidelines which explicitly state the requirements for Gamespot to honour the CBS Business Conduct Statement (2012! How Long Ago?) and the policies within.

--- COIs (Page 4) ---

CBS requires that you disclose, in writing, any personal, business, or other relationship that could potentially affect your business judgment on behalf of your Company and CBS. The existence of a potential conflict of interest, potential conflict of interest, potential conflict of interestsuch as one or more of the situations discussed below, does not necessarily constitute a violation of CBS’s conflict of interest policy. Our policy is one of disclosure and review of potential conflicts and prohibition of actual conflicts of interest. In some cases, disclosure actual conflicts of interest may be all that is required. In others, the situation may require additional action to avoid a conflict of interest or to remedy one.

But remember, in all cases, you must disclose all potential conflicts of interest.

--- Gifting (Page 6) ---

Accepting any of the following from a current or would-be supplier, customer, or competitor of your Company: entertainment, meals, gifts, discounts, services, transportation, or favors that (i) are worth more than a minimal value or (ii) obligate you or influence your decision-making in any way, regardless of value. Each Company establishes its own guidelines for what constitutes minimal value. If you do not know the amount that your Company has established as constituting minimal value, please ask a member of your Company’s Law Department or a Human Resources Representative. Disclosures under this and the following paragraphs should be made first to your supervisor or a Compliance Officer who will advise you if an updated Certification formis required;

http://www.cbscorporation.com/_uploads/mce_files/2012BCS.pdf

It's common practice that if they don't get a review copy then they will buy the game. In fact you are supposed to disclose that you got a review copy, while getting it through a store or kickstarter is not seen as a conflict of interest. If you think about it rationally why would paying for something create a conflict of interest? People tend to be much more critical on stuff they paid for than what they got for free. Besides Danny did disclose that he supported her kickstarter. As for personal relationships, we been over this before, there is no evidence that he had ever spoken to her before covering her games. So what id the conflict of interest you are referring to? Why not just stick to your paid sponsorship example rather than making nonsense up?

Gamespot should have set up their own policy that fills in the specifics left out by the CBS one. I'm not disagreeing with that.

Not that anyone should care, but Kickstarter is not treated as a marketplace in which people make purchases. When someone makes a purchase, they are entitled to delivery of a product. If you fund a Kickstarter, you are entitled to some rewards but the product doesn't have to be delivered. Kickstarter is treated more as a charitable donation, and if you are giving charity to someone, you shouldn't be in a position to judge them.

I will however concede that this entire tangent is lunacy. The biggest conflict of interest a person in possibly be in is publicly reporting on the person paying them. As video game sites are often heavily if not exclusively funded by video game publishers and their goal is to get their opinion out to as many people as possible, you can trust someone reporting on the game industry to tilt the dice as hard in the publisher's direction as they can get away with.

Unless of course the publisher isn't paying them. They you can of course trust them to tilt against the dice the other direction, again as far as they can get away with. This encourages wayward publishers to buy up some ad space, perhaps at a discount to cement the newly formed good will. Ethic in video game journalism isn't even possible until that revenue stream is cut, which isn't going to happen as long as video game websites are a thing. I mean could you imagine if every game review or article started with the amount the publisher had paid the site that year? How many questions about good/bad press would people start asking?

But because that info isn't disclosed, it is assumed everything is on the up and up.

No i read over that and it's so vague that it can not be considered an ethics policy, it doesn't specify anything. I told the staff this and they have done nothing so far

Poor Ubisoft. Even when they give the people what they want, they still bitch about it.

You can't please everyone.

Yeah, I know. I thought it was excellent news.

There are extreme idiots on both sides.

The Honey Badger thing was really out of place. I'm so glad they are gonna sue the organizers of Calgary Expo and it's gonna be glorious because they have a very high chance of winning this easily.

Right now the HB are taking donations and they are really close to the $30k they need for legal fees.

Mod Edit: Per rules on advertising, please do not link to fundraising campaigns

So you actually admit there are extremes on anti-GG sides now?

Proof of GG not being a hate group

Link

0.66% accounts were doing stupid shit and they're most likely sock puppets

That isn't proof GG isn't a hate group. It is proof that people can make a lot of money focusing on tiny scraps of the internet and pretending it is the root of all evil.

The proof that GG isn't a hate group is the fact that the people who insinuate that GG is a hate group are ""connected"" (double quotes for extra sarcasm) to harassment, bomb threats, doxxing, acts of vandalism, hate speech, racism, sexism and so on and so forth for acts as small as calling them on their BS or putting an animated female navel on cover art. The idea that they can point to the existence of similar elements in other groups and clutch their pearls is asinine.

If GG is a hate group, or like a hate group, or hate group adjacent, then just about every vaguely political group on the planet is in the same boat.

WAM is a feminist group. If there's anyone that would find a lot of harassment it would be them

Everything Anti-GG have said is bullshit, i would like to see @super600 debunk all of the facts i've posted lately

I agree it was BS, been telling Super it was BS since August. WAM's results however only illustrate how much of a mountain people are making out of a molehill in the name of seeking profit. They are pointing to the background noise of the internet, the same moronic idiocy you will find on twitter in the name of every cause (I.E diversity officers tweeting Kill All White Men) and pretending it is a specific attack against women.

Gamergate is no more a hate group then Feminism, not because of some study, but because every group on the internet has idiots who make idiotic statements on social media. The existence of that idiocy doesn't make any group a hate group.

To me, a hate group is a collective of people who all think the same, and no one's thought processes differ from the underlying theme of said group: to hate. The KKK and the WBC are examples of hate groups. Not a single KKK member isn't racist and not a single WBC member isn't homophobic. It's quite clear, at least to me, that not every GG member hates women. There may be some GG members that have issues with women, but there are also women who identify as GG and that automatically declassifies GG as a hate group. That's why you don't see blacks in the KKK and you don't see homosexuals going to WBC churches. You can't be a hate group while also incorporating members of whom you are supposed to hate.

@The_Last_Ride there is no need to prove to anyone that GG is not a hate group: it's self-evident. The people you are trying to prove this to are already set in believing what they want to believe, and you will never change their minds as it's wasted energy. If they cannot accept simple common sense, then they surely will not accept any proof you present them.

I remember reading an interesting (to say something) post in NeoGAF about how GG was killing the dreams of young people who aspire to be game developers.

There was this little girl who's dream was to become a game developer and she somehow felt crushed about GG, she thought that men didn't want any female developers in the industry so she just give up. It makes me wonder, does GG really have that effect? What really makes me thing about this is that there is more blame in people who try to give GG this role it was never meant to have, that is to be misogynistic and just anti-women in general. Was that really it's purpose? I think that some people that have bigger influence in the media gave it this purpose, just to crush it down and then make people think that "gamers" just don't want females in gaming at all, when that wasn't the case, but now we have people like this, feeling crushed and giving up their game development dreams (assuming that was true.)

PD: I got banned from NeoGAF for saying something similar to this, I really hope this won't be a similar case.

you guys should do yourself a favor and read this blog. It's quite the eye opener.

The War Against Creators

https://medium.com/@VariantDash/the-war-against-creators-e4996ecc978b

-

They turned gamergate into a boogeyman and now they are using it for clicks due to the novelty that it still has. The fact that people cannot believe that there can be a group of people that sit in front of a computer every day with the sole purpose of harassing women of gaming still draws a lot of attention.

For example:

• I read an article about the colonization of Mars and how can it be free of sexism. At the bottom of the article the Guardian makes reference of gamergate as the worst thing that could happen.
• Then we have this recent film of Mad Max. There are multiple reviews where the reviewers say that the movie's incredible but because the protagonists are women (I have no watched it yet so I have no idea), that gamergators will hate it.
• There's another article that I read the other day about how the LGBT and minority geeks are making a stand against gamergate because they are tired of the attacks.

And there are many more examples, everyone from MarySue to Salon they now use gamergate as a method to generate interest on articles that don't even have anything to do with gaming let alone gamergate. Thus when you think about it is just like you say. Instead of promoting "diversity" these people are actually scaring people away, which is counter productive but all for the sake of clicks and ad revenue.

And about the NeoGaf ban, bro, just take a look at this thread. Neogaf really fell in the abyss and there is no coming back from there. XD

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1048257

And look at what this mod says

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=164659503&postcount=1005

The good news is that the Internet is winning this war for us, even if it is the reason we are having this war in the first place. The internet is catering to niche groups more and more heavily, because technology is now not only increasing the ease and lowering the expense of content delivery, it has exploded the quality of user created content.

I mean heck, Game Theory now has the budget necessary to hop into a fighter jet and fly around with a camera because Star Fox. Movie theaters and cable TV are dieing, and the more people consume media on the internet the more diverse it will be. We are going to see a savage increase in the power and prevalence of echo chambers because of this, but if you want to see a gay kid kicking ass with a psychic horse at his or her side, you won't have to turn to books anymore.

Gosh darn I can't wait until Lackey Fans start making stuff for Youtube, Lackey fans are the best fans...

Anyway: More and more people are realizing that the people who hate your art are not planning on buying it even if you make the changes they are screaming about. They are not screaming because they want to change your work for the better. They are screaming because they are entertained by venting outrage. You were just a handy target. I like to call it the Michael Bay mindset. Say what you want about his movies, but the man gives the people what they want, and they pelt him with cash for doing it, regardless of the internet hate.

i would like to know who those accounts are and if they're sock puppets

@kittennose: It's funny that you mention Game Theory since this video:

is doing exactly what that guy on the blog post is complaining about.

@Gue1: I think NeoGAF is just beyond salvation now, but you're right, people who write those articles really have no ethics at all, since they're alienating and scaring people away for the purpose of clicks and visitors. There isn't an anti-women organization in videogames at all.

@Gue1 said:

you guys should do yourself a favor and read this blog. It's quite the eye opener.

The War Against Creators

https://medium.com/@VariantDash/the-war-against-creators-e4996ecc978b

-

They turned gamergate into a boogeyman and now they are using it for clicks due to the novelty that it still has. The fact that people cannot believe that there can be a group of people that sit in front of a computer every day with the sole purpose of harassing women of gaming still draws a lot of attention.

For example:

• I read an article about the colonization of Mars and how can it be free of sexism. At the bottom of the article the Guardian makes reference of gamergate as the worst thing that could happen.
• Then we have this recent film of Mad Max. There are multiple reviews where the reviewers say that the movie's incredible but because the protagonists are women (I have no watched it yet so I have no idea), that gamergators will hate it.
• There's another article that I read the other day about how the LGBT and minority geeks are making a stand against gamergate because they are tired of the attacks.

And there are many more examples, everyone from MarySue to Salon they now use gamergate as a method to generate interest on articles that don't even have anything to do with gaming let alone gamergate. Thus when you think about it is just like you say. Instead of promoting "diversity" these people are actually scaring people away, which is counter productive but all for the sake of clicks and ad revenue.

And about the NeoGaf ban, bro, just take a look at this thread. Neogaf really fell in the abyss and there is no coming back from there. XD

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1048257

And look at what this mod says

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=164659503&postcount=1005

i saw that, that' really bad...

Since Game-Spot reported on Brianna Wu getting threats from GG (supposedly), how about reporting on an Ohio Attorney saying that Wu's reports on GG were a waste of time?

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/05/23/ohio-attorney-brianna-wu-wasted-time-and-resources-over-gamergate/

THey won't dude... They even interview the leader of the IGDA. They haven't done any ethics update and they haven't even updated any of their policies. They've done one sided articles on GG so far. At least they're letting us talk here on the forums. I need to give props to Synthia who battled for me. But it took a lot for that just to happen