Yeah that's a fair point. The reason I kind of jumped over it is that it is so difficult to pinpoint. Do I think there is corruption in gaming journalism? Absolutely. But how much of it can be proven? What can be proven is undisclosed relationships between parties featuring each other favourably. To me this falls under the category of biased reporting, and the way I see it, it's up to each individual publication to prove that they are trustworthy (by ensuring to disclose relationships, something we have been seeing increasingly often) rather than others to prove that they are not. Then everybody can choose for themselves which publications they find trustworthy.

Ultimately, corruption is an uncontroversial issue like harassment, in that everybody is fine with condemning it. But just like harassment, progressives and GamerGate tend to focus on that which is perpetrated by the ideological other side, rather than their own. So I don't think it makes sense to look for a compromise here, just like it doesn't make sense to look for a compromise with regards to harassment. All we can do is keep condemning and fighting it wherever we find it. And if any journalist has a problem with that, I'd say shame on them.

To build a bridge, first both sides would have to acknowledge that this is a difference of ideology and stop demonising each other.

On one side we have (left-)libertarians, who believe in "live and let live" and creating change through positive example alone.

On the other side we have the "progressives", who believe in creating change by calling out negative examples, and influencing society for the better through forums like academia and leading media.

Asking for a compromise is futile, even more so than asking for a compromise between left and right wing politics. Because for the progressive ideology to be successful, it requires full buy-in and control of the narrative. We can disagree on the issues, sometimes vehemently, but ultimately we all have the same goal: To create the most accepting and most diverse industry that we possible can.

In other words, we need to agree to disagree and stop attacking each other.

The problem with that is, that you cannot control an anonymous mob. Authoritarian views are unpopular with gamers, that is unlikely to ever change. So if you push a progressive agenda, you will receive a lot of negative comments, which can be perceived as harassment. Moreover, it's impossible for any "side" or ideology to completely rule out anonymous trolling. It just doesn't work. Even if you could somehow mind-control all like-minded individuals, this would still leave the possibility of somebody trolling on purpose to make one side look bad.

What GamerGate COULD offer though is this (and I believe that most would be in agreement of it):

- That progressive ideas, while not appreciated, have a right to be expressed. Anybody demanding that Anita or others be silenced completely is not welcome. As long as she has an audience, she is allowed to address it.

- To support any and all positive(!) steps to support women or minorities in gaming. Positive meaning the difference between "why it's great to be a woman in gaming" vs. "why it sucks to be a woman in gaming". I strongly believe that gamers in general are among the most accepting of all demographics, even if it can feel like a boy's club at times. Of course GG has already been doing this e.g. by supporting several (non-progressive) initiatives and charities.

- To express clearly that all ideas to create new experiences are welcome, as long as it doesn't come to the exclusion of existing experiences. All types of games are welcome as well, though do expect honest feedback if a game simply isn't fun to play.

In a nutshell, GamerGate could become the voice of the all-accepting libertarian side of the debate, that refuses to partake in or support any form of fear mongering or other negative activities. That will still make them enemies of the radical progressives, but this should make it clear to the majority of rational people on both sides that there is nothing to be afraid of.

In turn, the progressive side could offer this:

- To make it clear that disagreeing with progressive ideas (either as a game developer or gamer) is acceptable, and does not mean that you are a misogynistic shitlord or deserve to have your career ruined.

- To stop all attacks on the gamer identity as a whole (I believe this has already happened, but it's still an important point), and to agree to reduce the fear-mongering which paints our hobby in a bad light (e.g. be slightly more proactive in allowing voices of female gamers and developers who are actually having a great time).

- To clearly label ideologically biased websites and/or articles. Now that politics have become a permanent part of gaming culture, it is vital that we are aware of political biases in gaming outlets just like we are aware of political biases in mainstream media outlets.

I would not go as far as to involve anything related to corruption or biased reporting, because frankly, I believe that biased reporting is an inevitable result of ideological journalism and for better or worse, ideological journalism is here to stay. If we are aware of the biases we can deal with it, and get our information from the biased (or unbiased) source we find most trustworthy.

To be clear, I don't believe that the radical elements (including many thought-leaders) of either side would ever fully agree to such a peacetreaty. The radicals are ultimately the true enemies, which will have to be denounced for any of this to be successful. So I think this would have to be driven by a new movement (I'd love to see #GamerBridge happening), supported by an assortment of influential moderates from both sides (nobody is perfectly neutral). And the goal would have to be to target the majority of reasonable moderates on both sides who don't really want to fight each other.

I don't have the pull to make this happen. Extremely few people do. All I can hope is that perhaps the core of this message will eventually reach the right person and eventually set something in motion.

Actually I should probably put this on my blog as well, but let me know first what you think. Am I completely off-base about something?

Please check the update on Reddit. Tim Sweeney commented to clear up any possible confusion:

We see the UE4 software's role in the industry being what a paintbrushes are to artists. So section 1 provides a license to UE4 for "any lawful purpose". You are free to use the engine for anything that's legal, no matter how offensive we might find it.

However, we see the UE4 trademark differently. That's our brand and reputation there! So, section 11 restricts the use of them, and also mandates certain notices as required by copyright and trademark law. This does not restrict your use of UE4, just the manner in which the trademark is displayed.

Teams who want to use the UE4 logo outside of the required notice -- for example in a splash screen or marketing -- need to ask our permission. We generally grant it for anything that's in line with our brand and reputation, but sometimes say no.

A good example is Hated, a controversial game being developed with UE4. It's built by a very talented team, and we absolutely support their right to freely express their creative vision with our tools. However, we don't agree with their depiction of the subject matter, so, no trademark license.

Any other UE4 EULA questions? Myself and many others at Epic put an enormous amount of effort into the UE4 license agreement, in hopes of being as free and accommodating as practicable.

This is exactly how I understood the license to begin with, and I expected that Epic would be very forthcoming in clearing up any potential doubts.

It's good to be critical and cautious, but let's also not forget the importance of clearing things up with the involved parties before we inadvertently spread FUD.