Shallow

Loved how she kept interrupting and insulting everyone, yet when hotwheels says 8chan isn't about her the journalist guy feels the need to apologize to her. Overall an incredibly biased interview.

I'm speechless. Maybe Gamers didn't die, maybe journalism did. I mean put the context aside. Pretend this isn't about GamerGate and SJWs, pretend it's an article about Crips vs. Bloods. I still don't think there's any reason for such undeniable bias from a JOURNALIST, flaunting an opinion in the most hyperbolized, factual fashion imagineable. This might be the single most bias and terribly unethical article to date....and what's scary is it's not even from a gaming journalist with an already terrible reputation, who we'd EXPECT this kind of **** from... Regular US journalist aren't biased as hell already? People are just trying to fit this into the only mold they understand, democrat/republican.

Except what if that corruption doesn't exist? What if it only exists in your head because of your own prejudice? Then whoever is looking for corruption is wasting their own personal time, so who cares?

Ah well, that stuff I don't condone, regardless of a persons political views no one has any right (though they still have a legal right) to reveal to the world without consent, that said person wears purple underwear decorated with elephants and hearts.

Looking for evidence of corruption is never a bad thing, regardless of how questionable your motives are, if someone is guilty, and your ways of acquiring proof is legal (and doesn't severely infringe on privacy), I'll be more than happy if someone spends their free time looking for and evaluating evidence. I don't see what is so bad about such witchhunts. If you're refering to boycotting campaigns instead then I also have no problem with them for obvious reasons.

How gameplay is gonna be when people do halfassed "relevant transformations" when they clearly don't fit and are being shoehorned into gameplay to please the SJW crowd: Skyrim-Buys an amulet of Mara for cheaper restoration magic-Every male npc you can marry hits on you when you talk to them That is such an improvement from Oblivion that just didn't bother with shoehorning in relationships. Or Morrowind for that matter, which included a very entertaining and well done bisexual great house councilman who you could tell wasn't just done dryly to please SJWs and feminist journalists. If homosexual or bisexual characters or even straight characters are going to be included, let them be included because developers want to do them, not because activist journalists will lie about your game (if you aren't an AA publisher the journalists are in bed with), not because SJWs will try to brand you as mysogynists, or will worship the ground you walk on as being inclusive. TN: Some people did try to talk to them, which was followed by, you know, the whole gamers are dead thing, not like people hadn't been calling for ethics policies, and said policies being followed, for a decade now.

Whilst it is indeed true that GG doesn't have as big a PR advantage with mainstream media as feminists, we have absolutely no way of controlling random internet whackjobs. the only thing that has been suggested, is that we all shut up because getting rid of internet whackjobs which is impossible without massive censorship and tyranical control should be higher priority than dealing with an issue that can be fixed, game journalist corruption. We can't possibly stop these people (both the ones on our side and yours), neither can you, thus it is stupid to tell us that we need to wait (you haven't specifically said this yourself, but this is the only thing that has been suggested to us to improve our PR) until these people are gone to have the game journalism corruption/censorship debate.

Last I checked no one who committed a school or workplace shooting said it was due to those nasty feminists trying to control their video games, don't think I've heard of any where the gunman made threats about committing said acts beforehand.

That shut the hell up part wasn't directed at you, or anyone, it was meant as a boiling down of what the quote meant, if you removed who it was addressed to, sorry if I didn't make that clear enough, although to be fair it looks clear enough to me what I meant, sorry about causing the misunderstanding anyhow. In any event, whilst what I wrote isn't overflowing with sympathy for the ones who have fled their housing, it doesn't change the point in the second part of my post, which you didn't address at all (unlike the first part there isn't really anything to be misunderstood here, this just looks like plain ignoring it), that the exact same harrassment (along with different kinds of harrassment) has been happening to people on our side, and that just because those people haven't run crying, it doesn't make it fair for you and the media to portray the sjw/media/feminist victims as somehow being worse off just because they're reacting more severely. It's completely ridiculous to say "How many founders or major contributing members of GG have been forced to leave there homes due to abuse from the anti-GG crowd?" when no one has been fysically forced to leave their homes, when looking at how people react to nonfysically intimidation or other stuff, it's not fair to look at how they reacted when judging the ones who subjected them to said stuff, you gotta look at what happened to them, if I say the same insults to three guys, two of them ignore it, and the third bashes my teeth in, it doesn't mean I behaved worse to guy 3# than I did to 1&2, it just means 3# had a harsher reaction.

It's the exact same point, just directed towards the other side of the story; someone with the same views as you did something bad, now shut the hell up and end all this bcrap or you can't blame people for thinking everyone with the same views/hobbies are of the same character calliber as the worst 1% of them. Also, "forced to leave her house" is a BS statement, as far as I'm aware no actual attempt at harming her has been made, so your point is that is that none of our people have fleed their home when the internet started spilling into their real life in a horrible way? So you're saying those people are being less abused just because they didn't run crying like whiny little girls or abuse it to get more donations (like Zoe did)? Didn't some gamergate supporter recieve syringes and white powder in his/her mail anyhow? What about the various people who are being called up at work by random strangers trying to get them fired?

This article makes some good point from an outsiders perspective. I also laughed at the comment below "Yet here we are: Apparently, it needs to be said. GamerGate also underlines one very sad aspect of the gaming scene. The stereotype of a "gamer" is a lonely young man who has replaced his social life with a set of animated avatars on a screen, and now has difficulty relating to women: The angry male virgin nerd, in other words. Let's assume this stereotype is grossly unfair. Gaming is bigger than that. But if you wanted to convince the outside world that gaming is dominated by angry male virgin nerds, then these tone-deaf responses to critics of gaming, and the death threats that have come along with them, are a pretty good way of doing it." The way this whole thing is going on and on and some of the reasons for some of the outrage does make this quote relevant to some gamers, or at least that's how they come across Let's put the shoe on the other foot and say that Yet here we are: Apparently, it needs to be said. Anti GamerGate also underlines one very sad aspect of the feminist scene. The stereotype of a feminist is a manhating selfobsessed lying greedy bitch or an **** trying to abuse labels and his media access to manipulate the general public into supporting his probably corrupt actions: The feminazi or the corrupt politician/journalist/randomguylookingtoexploitpeople, in other words. Let's assume this stereotype is grossly unfair. feminism is bigger than that. But if you wanted to convince the outside world that feminism is dominated by feminazis and corrupt journalists trying to get people to look the other way, then these tone-deaf responses to GamerGate, and the death threats that have come along with them, are a pretty good way of doing it. All you need to do is switch one label from another to make something telling everyone to stop voicing their disapproval because someone went to far apply to one side of an argument instead of the other, think about how easily the core message of a statement applies to what you support (feminism up there could just as easily be replaced with sjwing as well) before telling everyone how great the statement is. If there is a moral high ground, it's on the gamergate side anyhow, simply because it's less organized, and the people who are harrassing people on our side of the fence are actively being condemned by the closests they have to spokesmen, whereas harrassment is generally being condoned, supported, claimed to be falseflags, or at best, ignored, by the media spokesmen of the media/sjw coalition.

"Yeah stupid injuns go back where you came from!" Whilst most native Americans are probably not cool with Columbus, due to the shere population difference, the most people who are offended probably aren't natives.

Why is Genghis Khan still celebrated and practically worshipped in Mongolia? The past is the past, just let people enjoy their ****ing heritage, it's far enough back that we shouldn't care. Columbus isn't exactly what most would consider a nice guy, but what he achieved was really significant, admittedly that achievement was mainly due to him being mistaken about how big earth was, but that doesn't mean modern day non-native-Americans shouldn't celebrate him finding their home. I get why Columbus isn't really loved amongst native Americans, but they should either get over it, or start another American Indian war.

I sort of disagree, all but the first of my examples don't make the media noninnocent, they just make the media out to be wanting the conflict to go on, it just makes them value the lives of the people they're championing less than they value the cause of improving the situation for said peoples, black rights movements led to an increase in violence against black people, it doesn't mean they weren't very benefitial to black people in general, increasingly less so the more time goes by. Without conflict and chaos you can't get the bigger monsters to show their true faces, same way casuals first embraced gamergate when journalists revealed themselves to absolutely despise their consumers during the gamers are dead thing, if this thing really is about feminism to the media and not corruption as the media claims, conflict, provided one side wins it, will drastically alter the status quo, if the south hadn't seceeded slavery would've probably remained a state to state issue.

Good people being harmed < Personal pride (You'll probably consider this unethical, I just consider it neutral) Good people being harmed < Bad people taking off their masks and showing everyone how horrible they are Good people being harmed < Gamergate rallying its opposition into the horde under your control, whom you can then use for the greater SJW good Good people being harmed < Peer preasure from other game journalism sites, abandoning them would probably make for some awkward situations with people from other game journalism sites at various gettogethers In any event, at this point, adopting an ethics policy wouldn't be enough to please most of the angry people with pitchforks and torches, odds are to get the crowds to disperse and leave only a couple mysogynists and republicans trying to win the typically either libertarian or democrat gamer vote they'd also need to cut loose quite a few journalists. This isn't really related to your hypothetical clean slate site, but just figured it should be noted adopting an ethics policy wouldn't really do much at this point.

Does it really matter whether someone has titties or testies when you'll never see them, let alone engage in sexual relations? So what if some guys pretend to be women, judge them by the merit of their arguments, not their crotch, the idea that you can dismiss opposing views due to the gender and race of the people stating them is also ridiculous, the great thing about internet anonymity is that none of that crap can be verified, so you'll either have to look at whoever you're arguing withs arguments or prove yourself a sexist/racist/whateverist.

Gamergate sort of is, this movement is opposed to censoring games, it generally consists of people believing people should be able to choose what kind of games they want to play, not just what fits some journalists SJW agenda, granted the sites are pussies and don't dare to take on giants like GTA, so our right to murder virtual prostitutes isn't under attack, but being able to murder virtual prostitutes is a key part of freedom of expression.

No, offensive words surely should only be offensive if they touch a nerve How can you be offended to be compared to ISIS? ISIS is a real, brutal and militant extremist group that is chopping off peoples heads and crucifying its enemies, and that's on a good day. How can a gamer ever possibly think that describes them, that's just ludicrous. Its not offensive because its so stupid Your logic is so unbelievably hypocritical, to put it into perspective: How can a rich succesful educated black buisnessman be offended when racists and general **** treat him like, and claim that he is, a crackaddict thug, or something akin to that, I mean how can he possibly think that describes him. There is nothing wrong with racists labeling whole groups of people horrible things, as long as the label doesn't fit. If someone made a statement like that I'm guessing you'd go crazy, I'm guessing no one would blame you, this isn't even your logic taken to an extreme, if anything people claiming you're worse than daesh is worse than people claiming you're a crackaddict thug.

You clearly don't understand the concept of free speech, you're entitled to say whatever you want, you're not entitled to be payed for saying it. If all advertising was cut, the owners went broke, and all SJW game journalism sites died out, there would still be a million essentially free (gotta have an internet connection, and something to type with ) sites they could post their views on. A website can't believe in something, it isn't sentinent, people trying to organize an organized boycott isn't some horrible fascist thing, it's one of the best ways to show strong disapproval in a fair manner, this isn't the state punishing them for their behavior either (like some government fellas wanted to do to Chick fil a), it's free peoples boycotting and encouraging the boycotting of a site that they believes uses its power to project political messages and propaganda that they aren't supposed to project. There's nothing intolerant about asking people to stop funding stuff, I highly doubt you'd be spouting the same statements if this was a discussion about chick-fil-a. Taken to the extreme the flawed logic you're using ****s all over tons of things I'm guessing you approve of, so I'd advice you reflect on it. tl:dr Free speech = Everyone has the right to speak, no one has the right to get payed for speaking, nor to have people not abandon you for the things you've said. Bruce doesn't understand free speech, and owes Volo an apology.

Isrealis are sensitive about Isreal, and don't recognize any of its flaws, well established fact.

Well, to be fair at least the first ones negative events aren't really e-e abuses as much as rich company owner - cops and courts abuses.

I don't think you understand sharp ones core message, he's just a dieheart communist looking to encourage the people to give commie revolutions another try.

I'm from the patriarchy and I approve this message. Games are all about fun atm they need to rethink what these negative tropes are doing to the consensus about gender, no modern games portray women as inferior beings and the slaves of men, they're pushing the feminazism to our young. No games let you play as a man running a global secret world controlling organization trying its hardest to undermine women through video games, propaganda, and third world military coups. Most games don't even acknowledge the patriarchy's existance.

I didn't back the game, so I've never played it, I also am not one of the people who played the IE games an insane amount of times, haven't played all of them either. With that noted, I still feel fairly capable of commenting on the attribute system, on a broader solely conceptual level, whilst obviously I have no idea which exact numbers are needed, the main change I'm proposing isn't a numbers change. Anyhow, so I was thinking, the design goal in regards to attributes was to have them focused (each only tweak one or two values, sticking to one unless that makes the attribute worthless for some classes), and viable for all classes and merely changing the tactical playstyle (and gear + stats + talents) you'll want to employ. I get why adding deflection as an attribute is appealing, it is a fun thing to be able to tweak, but it fits really poorly with all other attributes on a roleplay level, and it is a thing worth having, for everyone, on its own (once they add some proper targetting AI ofc), and thus adding it along with something else wouldn't fit with the wonderfully minimalistic attributes atm, that allow you to properly define yourself, that don't force you to take things you don't want defining you with things you do want. To me the best way to deal with deflection is to add a new attribute, called "Reflexes" or something, it'd allow a thing that can stand on its own to stand on its own, I understand that adding an attribute is probably a drastic measure that requires a lot of work, but it seems like the only way to add deflection without breaking the wonderful principles of the attribute system, without making it less roleplay-ey and intuitive. If you were to go along and do this, ofc there'd now be an issue with int, and there are various ways of solving that issue, my ideal way would be upping base interrupt, upping concentrations effect against interrupt, and tossing duration back into int. There are various other viable ways of balancing the int mess a deflection attribute would cause, I obviously don't have the experience to act like my suggestion is any better than some potential others (like simply buffing ints AoE effect either by making it bigger or making the area it'd apply effects on people you don't want the effects applied to smaller), so I won't.

Not really sure how I feel about Torment, it might be good, but it seems far more likely it'll be almost a copypaste of Planescape: Torments storyline, in a different setting, with an art style I don't think is all that amazing.