Meshugger

I don't see the importance of this particular difference. French, German, same difference.

Looks like even the scumbag Stinker is trying to get some cheap publicity. My sarcasm detector is broken. Care to elaborate?

...Rooooocking like a hurricane HERE I AM Roooooocking like hurricaaaane

^Video above retweeted by Steven Pinker (with 159K followers). Meaning this guy:

Based mom tearing the ADL a new one:

IGDA Presentation on how Game Designers can Self-Censor themselves better (for cultural sensitivity) from GDC 2008: http://www.slideserve.com/lahela/tom-edwards-igda-localization-sig-chair-principal-consultant-founder-of-englobe-inc This is how you kill creativity. Not even Bioware is spared from the rightous fury of geocultural sensitivity brigade: An elephant demon in Jade Empire is insensitive to Hindus. Flags of Taiwan in Ninja Gaiden is insensitivie to the Chinese, etc.

They are. Thompson wanted to ban games for silly reasons. Sarkeesian provided a *critique of trends in games. *more specifically a painfully moderate critique that constantly felt the need to reassure the viewer that they're not a bad person and that liking these games did not make them a person. You make it sound like it is just some Mary Sue with the most nicest of intentions Nah, that girl is a con man that pays lip service to radfems....and she wants to change games: http://www.hardocp.com/news/2015/02/27/8_things_anita_sarkeesian_wants_to_change_about_video_games#.VP6gLOEo4WQ But i want to be the bringer of good news, so i will provide you with the updated ethics policy of Eurogamer: http://www.eurogamer.net/policies.php?view=how-we-work

Ah, found it. Nvm.

Uh? Never heard about that before. Link?

An interview with an anonymous AAA-developer. Read and weep. https://archive.today/5fHyd I want to give her a hug

I am not sure if i am following.

Remember all those deleted posts during Total Bisquits AMA at reddit? All those strange shadowbans? All those subreddits that got nuked from existence and along with several users? One mod has had enough and leaked it all, lots of juicy stuff: http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2ydvd2/since_the_beginning_gamergate_has_been_about/ TL;DR-version: - They were stupid and incompetent. - They actually thought that deleting content firmly would shut people up. - Not liking something was enough to nuke threads/reddit. - They seem not to like games or gaming culture to begin with. - They seems to talk about the nude photos of Zoe with each other. They are simply more equal than others. This article gets mentioned, hohoho: http://www.reactionzine.com/an-open-letter-to-games-media/ //Edit:

...Presenten? He didn't know Geschenken so he just made presents sound German-y. I figured that much, it was more he got the rest (mostly) right so I thought a translator might've given him presenten. I really need to update my fake german (no google translate used).

Keine presenten für den Haus-frauen, hahaha-har-har!

They are ashamed by their own desires and are projecting. //arm-chair psychologist hath spoken

Huh. Still wondering what aggressive naval display mens though.

I wonder more what aggressive display of naval means.

Claim: "These people are involved corruption and collusion in the gaming industry" Journalist: "Cool, lets asked the accused ones what they think about it" Great digging journalists. Bravo. By that logic, John Gotti is completely innocent. Hey, we asked him and he told us it is a witch-hunt by the NYPD. But i shouldn't be surprised, CBC came out admitting that they are not interested in the claim of corruption, harrassment is much more interesting.

I fully expect you to abide by the same ethos when next sex-scandal between a politican in Brussels and a wife of a lobbyist of an Israeli arms dealer breaks the news. I'm thinking that discussing some of the explicit details of DSK's and Berlusconi's parties would get a thread locked down faster than you can say "bunga bunga", here or elsewhere. With good reason, too. Scrutiny of that sort of details belongs in a court of law, and only insofar as it's needed to determine if they constitute a criminal conduct... (thanks for the writeup back there, btw. After reading through 10+ pages I still had no idea what this thread was about, and now I can safely ignore it for good. #firstworldproblems) The thing is, is that explicit details of such a degree were never discussed as the thread would've been locked instantly. The nudies were on porn site that she did modelling for. But it seems like the very mention of such is a breach of privacy. Carry on.

Yeah, that too. Which is doubly hilarious because it hinges on taking at face value the account of a person who, by his own admission, posted the entire screed with the explicit purpose of encouraging MRA-types to doxx and harrass her - something I'd definitely categorize as manipulative and sociopathic. That said, I'd still assign a non-zero probability to her being a thoroughly unpleasant person to be in a relationship with, but given that this particular problem does not concern me in any way, shape or form, I consider it to be irrelevant. [citation needed] But regardless, that train has gone long ago. This ride however, will never end. I fully expect you to abide by the same ethos when next sex-scandal between a politican in Brussels and a wife of a lobbyist of an Israeli arms dealer breaks the news.

Gross misrepresentation. Anybody who actually read that thread and had a shred of human decency would have made the same call. Back then, it very much wasn't about "corruption" and "ethics". Most of the talk was about the degree of sluttiness Quinn has exhibited, and whether the nude pictures somebody pulled from somewhere made her worthy of receiving the **** of the posters. I was talking about other forums, as this one had mods that were sensible to understand that hot topics do not go away by shutting down all discussion about them. Of course there was nothing about ethics back then since the GamerGate didn't exist yet. Finally, i can just as easily remember people talking about being appalled on what kind manipulating sociopath she was and how hilarious it was for Kotaku trying to brush it away.

To put everything into a perspective. Gaming used to be a hobby practiced by the social outcasts that had problems with interacting with people. They were mocked for their hobby all the time and stories about finding the dream girl being someone shared this hobby with them were quite a lot (it says quite a lot about their social status). Later, it grew and the more people started to play video-games as a hobby. Still, it was a hobby outside of the mainstream and games could be just about anything without little to moral judgement on the content. It was games after all, no one took them seriously. Then it got big, really big. The game companies and distributors became big, and if not bigger, than Hollywood. AAA games and dubious review scores seemed to go hand in hand, but nothing could really be proven. Thus, the first schism had started between gamers and the journalists. Rumors about payed hotels and "events" involving strip-clubs, drugs and escorts flourished, but again, never proved. Now we have this Jack Thompson who wants to ban murder-simulators. But the industry quickly responded, even the Dorito-Pope himself and journalists alike and defended it to the bone. And still within the gaming community, no one took the content of the games seriously. They were games after all. Then the indie-scene started to flourish with small, cheap games that had their own little charm. A new segment in favour on the ever growing budgets of the AAA-counterparts, which was good, everybody won. Somewhere down the line people started to show up, mostly in the indie-scene, that thought that the only way for gaming as hobby to be taken seriously, was that it was elevated to an art. Most people didn't care that much, but it was still quite the debate and reached to such a level that even Roger Ebert had to weigh on his opinion about it (He didn't think that games ere art). Still, these people were on the fringe and no one really took them seriously. They were games after all. In a world filled with war, famine and lies, games were that something childishly innocent and pure. Then more reviewers started to switch gears and take the content in games seriously, critics arose (like Anita) and suddenly the moral narrative of a game was something that had to be analyzed, dissected and critiqued. At first, most people again didn't care that much and thought that it was quite stupid. It's a hobby after all, why take it seriously? Then almost unknown games started to get awards, and when playing them, gamers quickly noticed that they were simply not good games, or even games at all (see Mountain). Why on earth are these games being championed among the great pool of what's out there? Why are complete unknowns attending big panels at different cons, talking about "toxic" and "problematic" themes, diversity in representations and other nonsense. Why are reviewers acting like critics and are talking about how games made them feel as a person as to what the game is about? Games were no longer ha hobby, they were art. Gaming as a whole had to grow up. Gaming was a serious business. All that frustration, all that brewing contempt for the journalists and the industry as a whole grew and grew and suddenly gamers were banned on the big sites, threads locked and they were told that they were misogynists for they talked about a sex scandal involving an indie developer and a journalists. That was the last drop. Not even gaming can be a safe haven from everyday corruption anymore. Gamers wanted their hobby to be legitimized as a fun past time, but clearly that was too much to ask. The innocence is gone, the childish fondness for an adventure is now an examination of gender and identity politics in post-colonial society of oppressive systems. No wonder gamers are now just saying "**** OFF" as rabid dogs, because their fantasy is no longer there to wander off to. All we ever wanted was to be left alone playing our games. Thank you for listening & believing.

Okay, let's say there's a correlation between him voicing pro-GG sympathies and receiving less coverage. It still does not imply causation. I mean, there are other perfectly legitimate reasons for somebody receiving less coverage after doing so. This is where personal biases come into play; I can name three alternate reasons off the top of my head that are not at all, or only tangentially related to him being pro-GG for receiving less coverage in this period of time, but if one does not stop and consider alternate theories, it's easy for one possible interpretation to seem like the only reason worth considering. Okay, now I'm confused. When Sarkeesian & co. receive graphic death and rape threats, they "just need to grow a thicker skin" and "relax, it's just how the Internet is, it's not real", but when somebody points out that there are no people of color in a game set in medieval Europe, it's an attack on the creator? ...No, I really don't? I mean "I'm trying to phrase this in a way that doesn't sound hostile, because I find hostility to be counter-productive to rational discussion" seems like a relatively reasonable and not very controversial statement to make. To me, at least. Unless the reviewers come out and say "we totally black-listed the guy" we do not have 100% proof. But considering the circumstances and the whole GamerGate hablooa, i can safely say that is the most likely reason. I must've confused you somewhere during the debate. My point was that people "attack" him as in they want to change his creation, i fail to see how that can be measured for the death-threats against Anita. Nobody supports that kind of stuff. I do support people for calling her the fraud that she is though. Finally, it must be a cultural thing. Where i come from, anyone who has to emphasize that they are not hostile or bad intent, is really hostile. It is simply implicitly expected that you're always honest about what you're going to say.

You do not need to cordial with me if you find my arguments frustrating, or just do not like me in general. If it helps your senses, i can tell you that i am an adult man and can take insults pretty well and not some teenage girl that will threaten with suicide for making me ungoodfeel. False niceness is ugly compared to pure passion and desire after all. ...I don't find "pure passion and desire" conducive to rational discussion; overt hostility even less so. You seem to be ignoring the possibility that trying to cause no offense inadvertently when none was meant can also stem from a desire to communicate one's point cleanly and efficiently, not just out of "false niceness". It really, really doesn't? As far as I can see, somebody mentioned that the game "seems white" or somesuch, and asked somebody who specializes in calling attention to historical people of color in medieval Europe whether it's an accurate depiction or not; somebody else took offense and started bashing this person in a manner reminiscent to the hissy fits thrown by 5-year-olds, then this somebody was called bad names. Unless I missed something, or we take "game looks white" as "attacking the creator", I'm simply not seeing any attacks taking place in the article. Something something correlation does not imply causation something something? (Actually, I hate this adage, because that's exactly what correlation does: it implies causation. Does not prove it, but in the majority of cases, Occam's Razor says it's very likely.) The guy was Pro-GG since day one, that's why i wanted you to check the dates. As for what is an attack, we seem to have different interpretations how it works. Finally as for niceness, if you really meant no offense then at least then you understand why my spider-senses started tingling when you emphasized that you're trying to have reasonable and constructive discussion. Believe it or not, i do actually enjoy these discussions.

More about suspicion about black-listing in general in IGDA: http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2015/03/igda-comes-under-fire-with-cabal-allegations-igda-members-stay-silent/