#Gamergate - Anita was on Colbert

Why shouldn't publishers expect developers to make games that review well? If there isn't something extremely wrong with the review process, expecting developers to make games that review well is a no brainer. If the review process is not one of quality that folks can depend upon, then publishers should adapt, but that adaptation is basically a complete rejection of a badly broken system that customers and publishers shouldn't have any faith in.

So it seems to me that focusing on reviewers is the best bet. Fix the system, and developers who make good games will get bonuses, those who don't will not, and the consumer wins.

Do I think publishers should depend on the current system? Heck no, but that isn't because it is a bad idea to do so, it is because reviews are freaking broken. I mean come on, New Vegas got points docked down to 8.4 because it was unplayable at launch, and we have reviewers who will dock points all the way down to 7.5 because they feel the game creators collectively hate women.

Both of those freaking scores are nonsense. No game that is unplayable at launch (even if I love New Vegas to bits and pieces) should get a score that is even in the vicinity of good, and a protagonist's outfit shouldn't dock a game so hard that they are one point below games that are a mess at launch.

This isn't the publisher's fault. Granted, they fund the review industry, but if they are guilty of anything, it is failing to wise up.

>Taking games journalism seriously in 2014

What confuses me is that people expect journalistic integrity, especially from Kotaku and Polygon. They been the designated nerd bait websites for years. You're better off reading a 4chan thread on a specific game.

GS has been getting on their level for a couple years now when it comes to click bait. I only come here to talk about video games. I haven't seen the front page in months.

Have any game sites apologized yet for the gamers are dead articles and their lack of disclosure?

As far as I am aware, no. The authors of those articles appear to stand by them still.

In terms of lack of disclosure, also a no. TB interviewed Totilo and I believe Totilo said that he thought that Grayson and Patricia shouldn't have to disclose such relations

true. But I should add that

those people that wrote those articles have been writing similar articles for a long time now, it's just that this time they committed the stupidity of publishing them all at the same time to silence the conversation about corruption and it backfired.

On MSNBC Leigh even admitted her piece was like adding more gas to the fire but she gives no fucks. She truly believes that the game community, not just #gamergate, are mostly angry white men and misogyny despite all the diversity in people and games.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-03-21-misogyny-racism-and-homophobia-where-do-video-games-stand

http://kotaku.com/5824084/well-thats-one-way-to-combat-misogyny-in-gaming

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-byrd/sexism-and-misogyny-ruin-_b_1773261.html

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/04/06/misogyny-sexism-and-why-rps-isnt-shutting-up/

http://www.autostraddle.com/it-just-never-ends-does-it-misogynist-gamers-199097/

http://www.dailydot.com/society/rape-misogyny-female-geek-gamers-culture/

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/04/were_all_gamers_now_and_thats_just_fine/

Look at the authors of all those pieces from years ago and compare them to the new articles from back in August. Most of them are the same people.

@Gue1:

ok, cool, good to know.

So these articles are practically part of their normal day :)

I agree that a reviewer should not be accountable for a game's metacritic score. There also should not be metacritic contracted bonuses in the first place because it's an invitation to potential corruption, but that's just my opinion.

Reviewers incapable of interjecting their ideological beliefs in their gaming reviews should not be working for mainstream, non-ideologically centered websites.

There's plenty of criticism for the publishers and contracts, but they're not the focus of GG which began with journalists trying to censor and silence legitimate criticism of their business practices.

Also this:

The cracks are increasing as an openly leftist progressive journalist is attacked by an actual hate mob of lunatics for having the audacity to offer a Zoe an actual neutral interview instead of the mainstream media's previous softball questions, cuddles, and tissues bullshit designed to craft a specific narrative.

So the official stance for these anti-gg people is we have to apologise for being white men and being gamers and for everyone who is a troll? they should just **** off, how about they apologise for being radical feminist self centred bullies?. If they are not willing be be constructive then they have no place in any discussions (not that they have had any).

@vl4d_l3nin: it does gamergate failed, message distorted, and she getting paid

If i wanna make fun of this situation I will because at the end of day it is all pointless

^

Case in point why the **** are you even mentioning racism even if it's a joke. Thats why the media won't take you seriously and comments like those hurt your cause while helping feminist.

Great informative post. If the writers won't apologize then it would be nice if the outlets would apologize on behalf of their writers, but I suppose they care just as little. Then we'll just have to ignore them. A shame, I was looking for a little you know, positive change. One that did not come from the gamers themselves.

the angry white men of #gamergate

This first one, that's me. ;)

f

@Gue1:

so, now that we have established that Gamergate is not misogynistic, can we discuss games journalism?

You know, the thing that this is all about...

@notorious1234na:

I wish my comment was a joke, everything mentioned in my post has been fired at us by the extremists from the 'equal rights' SJW movement (I know they like to call themselves feminists but they truly are not). All be it tainted with sarcasm.

I am all for equal rights, everyone should be judged by their actions, merits and abilities and not where they are from, what gender they are or their sexual preferences (within acceptable social boundaries). Personally when I interview people for employment, I don't care what gender they are, I don't enquire into their sexual habits and the only reason nationality comes into the equation is ensure they have the right to work in my country (I am bound by law to do this).

This is where the gaming media is falling over. They do, as has become apparent, have a bias towards certain agendas and view points, these may be political, sexual or financial (Zoe Quinn being the spark in the tinder box but the tinder box has been building up since Doritos and Mountain Dew, if not before) and this is where the corruption inherent in the system is showing its ugly face. Instead of admitting it and then trying to fix it, they have derided their own user base and are using every tool in the box to try and get rid gamergate and for some bizarre reasoning those who class themselves as gamers.

damn beat me to it was gonna post it.

I am sick and tired of these over sexualised males in video games

i want games with a 800 pounds fat **** with type 2 diabetes and asthma as mc

yeah, I'd say shit was initially stirred after Jeff Gertsmann was canned.

If that happened today, instead of this Quinn crap, GG would be twice what it is.

Zoey Quinn cleared up the reason to why she did not want to do that interview with David Pakman.

http://ohdeargodbees.tumblr.com/post/101533638529/an-open-letter-to-people-calling-for-neutrality

She says that even though well meaning people want to actually have a debate the call for a debate publicly grabs the attention of the people that want to destroy the lives of the people that took part in the debate(Zoey Quinn in this case).

"The simple fact of the matter is that GamerGate is *not* about games journalism, and even if it was, their targets are disproportionately powerless in the industry, disproportionately female or feminist, and disproportionately *not games journalists*."

Being part of the problem automatically makes you a target no fucking shit. If she had not tried to gain an unfair advantage in the industry she would not have been the target. Does she not feel responsible in some way for what has happened? I'm sure her bosses wife is thrilled by what she did.

And I am disproportionately not buying it.

So she's willing to go on BBC and do an interview which will get far more attention for the same subject, yet here she bails on it, because she's worried about the backlash? I mean come on now.

Sounds like it's too much that someone was going to ask some legitimate questions, instead of just reinforcing the circlejerk.

Her explanation seems like an entirely plausible excuse given her previous willingness to speak to any msm outlet that offered her a TV spot and an agreement that they would only focus on her still unproven accusations to fan the flames of her story and only her story. /s

An obscure web journalist is likely going to have a less visible public presence than say a BBC or MSNBC appearance, then there's her tweeting public announcements every time that she's harassed or threatened in spite of authorities' general advice to do the exact opposite to avoid: copycats, further harassment by the same individual(s), or offering the troll the satisfaction of acknowledgement.

I'm sure she watched his previous interviews on the matter and knows that he would destroy her claims especially the whole lack of evidence thing surrounding every accusation that she has made.

Her accompanying twitter meltdown and unleashing her braindead minions on Pakman were completely unsurprising.

Those who take slanderous accusations against any group seriously, particularly when they are made against an anonymous, global, group of people, whether under the label of "gamers,""gamergate," etc., with NO EVIDENCE, NONE, 0, to support those accusations, as well as their would-be accusers, are dangerous to the rest of the critically thinking world.

There's a reason that The Crucible, Brave New World, and 1984 are often taught in schools (at least in the U.S.), but it appears that many of the anti people opted for Cliff Notes over actual reading.

A common theme in all three works centers around a rephrasing of Frank Herbert's words in Dune:

"(S)He who controls the narrative, controls the discourse."

"Bu-, bu-, but it was the gamers/GG people that doxxed and harassed Zoe it's obvious."

"Where's your proof?"

"I just said it's 'OBVIOUS,' gosh ... and she did get a threat."

"STFU, and stop slandering people until you can be bothered to provide evidence to actually prove your claim. The burden of proof lies with you."

"Bu-, bu-, but she's a woman."

"And?"

"Listen and Believe?"

"FFS."

"MISOGYNIST!"

Fred West

She's mostly referring to some of the people on the gamergate side or neutral that want to interview her and other abuse victims.Depending on the question asked by the interview who may be a part of gamergate people may go after the person being interviewed even more.Someone like quinn may answer a certain answer related to her and gamergate and people will ignore the answer and throw more accusations against the person. With something like the BBC interview she may be able to control the type of questions asked a bit so this doesn't happen or the BBC will make sure to ask questions that don't make her or any other abuse/harassment victims situation worse.Zoey Quinn does not want to answer question she already debunked a ton also.

David Pakman is not even on the GG side, He's not on either side, as demonstrated through all of his interviews on the topic so far.

He's a self identified leftist progressive and everyone knows that GG is composed of nothing but misogynistic (internaliy misogynistic) right wingers.

He's exactly the sort of reporter that she should be speaking to, tough but clearly neutral and actually willing to give the other side a voice for a change. Unfortunately, she knows that he will bring up that annoying question about a lack of evidence to support her claims, so she's not about to do that.

Nah, she's feels safer when the interviews aren't as "public" (i.e. on a msm TV station), don't offer the other side representation, and don't do anything more than ask, "So, tell us what happened..."

I would fully expect her to lose composure the same as BW and start accusing him of a "hit piece," for asking questions she'd rather not answer and for pointing out the gaps in her logic.

Quinn does not want to answer questions related to her private life at all and anything she has debunked a bunch already to death.

Of course not. She already got to air her version of things on msm TV stations with no counter voice from the other side in a follow up interview and no actual "interviewing" being done to actually challenge her claims.

You know, like an interviewer is expected to do when there's as glaring a gap in logic as a lack of proof to support her claims?

It always comes back to that whole lack of proof thing that the msm and antis clearly don't seem to believe matters, but that should have been the first question asked once she accused GG/gamers as the origin of her threats and harassment.

Meanwhile, she and her boyfriend continue to tweet daily slander and harassment of GG by claiming that it's "overwhelmingly" a campaign of harassment being staged by a hate group, composed of right wing, misogynists, etc.

Unfortunately for them, Newsweek's analysis of tweets containing the GG hashtag revealed that the majority of related tweets were completely neutral:

Using an algorithm that looks for positive and negative words, BrandWatch found most tweets were neutral in sentiment. "If our algorithm doesn't identify a tweet as positive or negative, it categorizes it as neutral," a Brandwatch representative told Newsweek. "Data scientists refer to these tweets as 'undetermined' because the algorithm did not classify the mention as either negative or positive." Tweets directed at Grayson and Totilo were, on average, more negative than those directed at Quinn, Wu or Sarkeesian.

FULL ARTICLE

Damn these pesky facts that keep coming back to topple the narrative that they've worked so hard to create.

she sorry for pretending to be a woman

@Dasein808 said:

@super600 said:

.Quinn does not want to answer questions related to her private life at all.

Of course not, she already got to air her version of things on msm TV stations with no counter voice from the other side in a follow up interview and no actual "interviewing" being done to actually challenge her claims.

You know, like an interviewer is expected to do when there's as glaring a gap in logic as a lack of proof to support her claims?

It always comes back to that whole lack of proof thing that the msm and antis clearly don't seem to believe matters, but that should have been the first question asked once she accused GG/gamers as the origin of her threats and harassment.

Meanwhile, she and her boyfriend continue to tweet daily slander and harassment of GG by claiming that it's "overwhelmingly" a campaign of harassment being staged by a hate group, composed of right wing, misogynists, etc.

Unfortunately for them, Newsweek's analysis of tweets containing the GG hashtag revealed that the majority of related tweets were completely neutral:

Using an algorithm that looks for positive and negative words, BrandWatch found most tweets were neutral in sentiment. "If our algorithm doesn't identify a tweet as positive or negative, it categorizes it as neutral," a Brandwatch representative told Newsweek. "Data scientists refer to these tweets as 'undetermined' because the algorithm did not classify the mention as either negative or positive." Tweets directed at Grayson and Totilo were, on average, more negative than those directed at Quinn, Wu or Sarkeesian.

FULL ARTICLE

Damn these pesky facts that keep coming back to topple the narrative that they've worked so hard to create.

The guy was also violating her privacy by openly asking her if she wanted to be interviewed instead of DM'ing her.She has no hard feelings against the guy anyway, but she doesn't like what he did.

I'm sorry, but I'm just going to have to disagree. I don't use twitter, so I don't even know what a DM is, but I saw her mention it as well. He also mentioned that he did not have any other contact information for her at the time.

She has a public twitter for a reason, and she could have simply responded by saying something like, "I'll consider it, but I I'd like to speak to you in private regarding the details," like an actual professional would, but she opted to act like a histrionic child and do this instead:

Leading to him getting 100s of actually legitimate harassing emails from idiots.

I believe that her excuse was transparent (i.e. she will not participate in any interview that in any way challenges her claims because it's apparently the interviewer's job to just "Listen and Believe" her) and she made that even more apparent through her angry outburst at him.

There's a reason she didn't like what he did, but it has nothing to do with him asking her if she'd like to do an interview.

Pakman has challenged everyone he has interviewed on this subject so far.

He made BW and, unfortunately, that Jennie GG girl both look foolish. He challenged Milo on some of his past statements about trans people, and he and TotalBiscuit had a tough but brilliant exchange on both sides.

To me, he is what more veteran "reporters/journalists" in the actual msm should aspire to be: principled, neutral, and tough.

hahahaha David Pakman still getting blasted for being neutral. hahaha

that poor man really has no idea in the troubles he has gotten into for not blindly believe in the misogyny rhetoric. And have in mind that he is no gamer nor had any affiliation to #gamergate before the interviews but they are trying soooo hard to antagonize him.

Even in your heavily biased explanation - where you assume harassment would somehow only be furthered by this very specific public appearance, and none of the others that she continues to be a part of such as inflammatory blog/ twitter posts, articles and interviews - you're basically admitting she's manipulating the media by only talking to outlets that peddle her victimization angle.

If she was really interested in removing negative attention from herself and others, she'd stop writing blogs, or doing interviews, or writing on twitter, go the the Winchester, have a nice cold pint, and wait for this all to blow over.

Ooo, I wonder what this exchange is all about?

Secret codes and stuff?

So exciting. Like number stations and stuff.

Intrigue+

Fred West doesn't seem to have been a very nice man.

"Red Ronnie Runs at night."

(and the views roll on)

She seemed to have no problem going on BBC and MSNBC and telling her story colour me suspicious

Yeah, it's almost as if the best way to stop all this harassment would be to sit down and answer the questions that everyone has to ask, to let this matter rest.

But being a professional victim is much cheaper, easier and profitable!

Like, why would going on Pakman's show (who gets little coverage) lead to more harassment than going to the BBC (which has a significantly larger reach). It's almost as if she is cherry-picking what programmes she goes on...

hhmmm? the only questions that matter concern eron and his evidence she has yet to debunk anything he said, or showed from the private chats they had.

She does not want to answer anything related to that guy at all.She rather move away from him. She also has a restraining order on him and he keeps on violating it.

@super600 said:

@Dasein808 said:

@super600 said:

.Quinn does not want to answer questions related to her private life at all.

Of course not, she already got to air her version of things on msm TV stations with no counter voice from the other side in a follow up interview and no actual "interviewing" being done to actually challenge her claims.

You know, like an interviewer is expected to do when there's as glaring a gap in logic as a lack of proof to support her claims?

It always comes back to that whole lack of proof thing that the msm and antis clearly don't seem to believe matters, but that should have been the first question asked once she accused GG/gamers as the origin of her threats and harassment.

Meanwhile, she and her boyfriend continue to tweet daily slander and harassment of GG by claiming that it's "overwhelmingly" a campaign of harassment being staged by a hate group, composed of right wing, misogynists, etc.

Unfortunately for them, Newsweek's analysis of tweets containing the GG hashtag revealed that the majority of related tweets were completely neutral:

Using an algorithm that looks for positive and negative words, BrandWatch found most tweets were neutral in sentiment. "If our algorithm doesn't identify a tweet as positive or negative, it categorizes it as neutral," a Brandwatch representative told Newsweek. "Data scientists refer to these tweets as 'undetermined' because the algorithm did not classify the mention as either negative or positive." Tweets directed at Grayson and Totilo were, on average, more negative than those directed at Quinn, Wu or Sarkeesian.

FULL ARTICLE

Damn these pesky facts that keep coming back to topple the narrative that they've worked so hard to create.

The guy was also violating her privacy by openly asking her if she wanted to be interviewed instead of DM'ing her.She has no hard feelings against the guy anyway, but she doesn't like what he did.

Neutral in the sense that the algorithm wasn't able to determine and place them into a category; "Data scientists refer to these tweets as 'undetermined' because the algorithm did not classify the mention as either negative or positive."

Something sounds off about that...if there is a restraining order that keeps getting violated, why hasn't the restrained person been arrested to face charges? That is the whole purpose of a restraining order, if it actually exists.

So there is a middle age Russian Feminist that has revealed that Sarkeesian don't know shit of what she's talking about.

Exactly, not negative and not positive.

Neutral.

This is called evidence that actually supports a claim. (i.e. GG is a consumer revolt and not a misogynistic campaign against women).

You also forgot the most important detail:

Tweets directed at Grayson and Totilo were, on average, more negative than those directed at Quinn, Wu or Sarkeesian.

You might not agree with the significance of Newsweek's analysis, but it's still more proof than anyone on the anti side has provided to back their accusations.

I'll keep waiting for any anti person to provide the same to support their claims that gamers/GG have been the origin of any of the associated harassment, and assuming that any can even be found, then I also reserve the right to dismiss it due to the fact that the "overwhelming majority" of people involved are not a part of any of this harassment or threats.

Wow this thing is still going on?

"Neutral" is a category for tweets that the algorithm could not decide what category to place it in, basically it's a Miscellaneous category. The algorithm used probably looked for key words that reflect negative or positive attitudes.

"Good" "Awesome" ":)" etc would be categorized as positive. "Kill," derogatory terms, profanities, etc would be labelled as negative.

If someone were to tweet: "I wish someone would make this person disappear." "The algorithm may not pick up on this being a negative statement because it lacks the keywords the algorithm looks for and would categorize it in the undefined category. Another predicament that might occur is if a tweet had negative and positive terms "I wish ___ was dead :)." The two terms would be contradictory and unless there was some type of ranking system for terms used (one term is more negative than a positive term) the tweet would be lumped into the undefined category.

As for Grayson and Tolito recieving on average more negative comments, it would be interesting to see if there was a difference in severity of comments between Grayson and Tolito and Wu and Quinn.

The courts and law enforcement have warned him to stopped violating it, but he hasn't listen. It may take awhile for the courts to deal with the restraining order violations and she probably has a lot of evidence now that he keeps on violating it.

I'm aware of that.

An algorithm is not going to be able to definitively distinguish potential veiled threats, but then again, neither can humans. That's why they're "veiled" and ambiguous.

Unless you can find evidence that proves that the majority of that "undetermined" majority were veiled threats of some sort, then there's absolutely no reason to assume that.

If you hadn't already read the entire article yet, it is another hit piece and smear, so they had to offer that qualification to help try and make it fit the existing narrative.

If they didn't, then it might suggest a truth they do not want acknowledged. It's a qualification to acknowledge a potential margin of error.

It's not proof that the majority of the tweets in question were veiled threats.

Yeah, I would hope they would have to had offer that qualification because it would be misleading otherwise.