BruceVC

I'm not sure why you are suggesting that? Who said all gamers on GG are the same or are responsible for the extremist element ?

Again, when we can do absolutely nothing to stop it, what the heck do you suggest we do about it? All suggestions that have been suggested that I've heard of are that we shut up and wait forever, or go with an official censored site which has about as many problems as the shut up and wait forever idea. It's not like someones gonna say "Oh look, Bruce is mad at me, I better stop telling women to get back to the kitchen, harassing people, or sending deaththreats.", if there is an issue that can't be tackled in any way, even if the issue is more severe than the issues you could easily deal with, the only sensible thing to do is ignore the big issue and focus on the things you can fix, all the smaller issues add up, and by the time you could've fixed the big issue without creating bigger issues (that time being in eternity, seeing as there is no solution here that isn't worse than the status quo), all the fixable things you've dealt with will leave the world a far better place than if you'd somehow been able to perfectly fix that big issue with no side effects. So, give us one way to deal with harassment (that isn't heavily flawed) if you want us to deal with it and believe it can be dealt with, otherwise move on to things we can deal with, and I'm not saying game journalism is near the top priority of things wrong with the world that could easily be heavily improved, but the whole waiting forever thing is just ridiculous. I suppose we just have different things that we think are important, firstly I don't consider gaming journalists real journalists compared to people who say work for CNN. So to expect them to reform and to be bound by the same standards as normal journalists is just a waste of time IMO. Secondly I don't think there is a conspiracy amongst gaming journalists to undermine and attack white, male gamers. But back to the abuse and harassment question, you must always condemn it when people are involved in it and then distance yourself from any website or group that is fine with it. You can also make posts and discussions around why you don't think its acceptable. I know this probably doesn't sound very exciting but its the Internet so I'm not sure what else you can really do?

Interesting input, I'm also not a great puzzle solver. I don't have much patience I think....so I wonder if I will also get frustrated with GR2

You sick and tired yet the sexism, harassment and threats continue from certain people So we have to continue to point out this unacceptable social behaviour

Probably the same as any other game, some games you butcher orcs by the truckload, this one just has you doing it to people. Rather funny, I found. I don't find anything funny about that game and I definitely won't be playing it, with all the possible games you could design this game look like its about someone going on a shooting spree against an unsuspecting population?

How surprising you're arguing for something to be controlled. Would be interesting to hear who you'd suggest moderate this website, heh. I would say someone with a vested interest in GG but also a moderate, so someone like TN or Orog would probably be the best type of moderator ?

This is the classic excuse, though. "The conspiracy theory I believe in is reasonable because the people behind it aren't accountable to reason!" Throw all the "enemies" in a box with a dehumanized acronym label, go on feeling that you belong to the group with the righteous cause, and laugh off those on "your side" who say or do hurtful things. Please, I'd actually disagree that the hypocrisy and self importance of SJWs is related to whether it's a conspiracy or not, you can have a conspiracy without the unquestioning self belief and you can have the self belief without the conspiracy. Plus, of course, pointing out that both sides do unpleasant things is hardly laughing off. That was just in reply to your "conspiracies don't form and hold together unless all the conspirators think there is something really important motivating them"- I was pointing out that clearly SJWs do consider such things critically important, and clearly there was a 'conspiracy'- your term, not mine- because they had a closed mailing list coordinating the response. Now, you can argue that the mailing list doesn't exist (which it does) or that SJWs don't consider such things important (self evidently incorrect) but you can't really start shifting the goal posts around to using acronyms to 'dehumanise', because everyone does that. The 'conspiracy'- again, your term- is confirmed. That SJWs consider such things important is confirmed. Now, I might dislike SJWs rather a lot and some issue can be taken with using the term, but that wouldn't be why I labelled their actions as coordinated. I labelled them as such because they incontrovertibly were. And really, there isn't any other term other than SJW, I usually use antiGG but that ain't appropriate for events that are before #GG was even a thing. (Nice rhetorical constructs by the way, use of the passive aggressive questions, labelling things yourself ('conspiracy') then criticising based on your own label etc. With any luck Bruce will learn a thing or too, might improve the quality of his trolling to near oby levels.) You seem very defensive today Zora? I suppose it must be very unsettling debating with someone of Enoch's insight, intelligence and reasonableness. I wasn't going to mention this but your post made me realize its best I do. Enoch is not someone who has ever particularly espoused SJ values, well at least he hasn't made as many comments as someone like me about any particular SJ issue But now he is raising the same issues that many of us have raised about the nature, creation and motives of GG. And guess what...he is finding the movement lacking in certain areas. Now what are we to do? You can't dismiss his points with the usual "that's just your typical SJW opinion and nonsense ". So I can perfectly understand how this must be making you question what you think about GG, and do you know what Zora. That's okay, its good to reevaluate our positions in life on certain things, you don't want people to think you are intransigent. So my advice is see this exchange as something positive where you can learn something new

This is the classic excuse, though. "The conspiracy theory I believe in is reasonable because the people behind it aren't accountable to reason!" Throw all the "enemies" in a box with a dehumanized acronym label, go on feeling that you belong to the group with the righteous cause, and laugh off those on "your side" who say or do hurtful things. Also, since when do people take things that Adam Baldwin say seriously? The man never met a wacky conspiracy theory he didn't like. Enoch I have to say its been really refreshing and interesting getting your perspective on this whole matter, I'm really glad you decided to participate in this discussion

I actually stumbled upon this earlier today and almost posted it. It's a pretty good read, even if it doesn't say anything new to those of us who've been around this for a while. If they want to end GanerGate, adopting an ethics policy is a good way to start and finish. Screaming that people need to **** off is probably just going to poss them off. I don't believe you stumbled on this article KP, sorry. I think you are trying to take credit for some initial stumble but in fact you never stumbled at all If you had stumbled you probably would have told us, so no credit given for false stumbling

I hear you, but the reality is the complete anonymity of something like Twitter leads to some people being even more brazenly vituperative than they would on a forum I just feel a website is a better to manage and dissect all this information, yes there is the potential for the website being hijacked but it would be a pro-GG website anyway so that would be an established fact. The challenge at the moment is how do you have a reasonable debate with people who are active on GG without using Twitter?

This is a very good suggestion, GG should be a website that is moderated and controlled in a way that people can least have a semblance of a real identity . Or rather a way where proper links can be posted that can be verified and blogs can posted and discussed in a reasonable manner. That would definitely add to the credibility of the GG movement. I do find it interesting that the movement relies on one of the mediums that cannot be accurately monitored, social media

"Pure Evil " I don't know, maybe ask Gamespot how the rage impacted them when they haven't been relevant for years and why Jeff Gerstwinn's Wikipedia page is the second hit when you google them. The difference here is that back then, it was a dog eat dog world and the other publications ate them alive just as much as the gamers did. Now the damn place has cliquefied and there's just a lot of handholding and covering for your friends. I've seen this argument made before but it just doesn't hold water. Significantly larger amount of gamers raged out far, far worse than this over a reviewer standing in front of some mountain dew and doritos product placement. But nobody attacked all gamers as being responsible for those ridiculous fringe morons and nobody claimed credibility due to victimhood over it. Sorry TN but that's another fallacy about GG and its purpose and I know we don't agree on this one but it is important I raise this again All "gamers " weren't attacked, only gamers who didn't believe in transformation, I can guarantee you if you ask all the people on these forums if they felt the various articles written were about every single gamer there will be several people who will disagree with you and say "no I didn't think that applied to me" So its your own interpretation of the various events to say "all gamers were insulted and verbally attacked " Looking back now I do think it was silly to use the word " gamers" because of all the consternation it caused but it still doesn't change the fact it was taken out of context and used by some as an excuse to push a certain agenda and gain support for that agenda You can't say "Black people should get out of the country because of all the rape and murder and stealing they do" then when people get outraged say "oh, we didn't mean ALL black people, just the few that do that, I don't see how you could have musunderstood" its stupid. While not as bad, the cencept with the gamer articles is the same. So let me ask you something, if this was such a direct and obvious insult why is it that people like myself and many others are not insulted? Why is that we believe this wasn't directed at us? And its not because, for example, I am so blindly committed to SJ causes that I wouldn't take offense or choose to ignore someone who was really being really rude and dismissive just because they are a feminist So for example I do find some of the utterances of radical feminists very offensive and idiotic, but why did I not find the Leigh Alexander article problematic ?

Okay I have to say that this must be one of the funniest articles I have read in a ages, the thought of people on GG having a serious debate with a bot cracked me up :lol: I know I shouldn't be laughing but you guys must admit it is funny when someone gets conned like that under those circumstances

Yes, it is. The whole thing would have blown over in a week if there had not been a coordinated attempt to censor every mention of it- up to and including using DMCA takedown notices. As soon as that happened the Streisand Effect took over, and the censorship became larger than the story. Though, of course, the antiGG crowd never mention that. It also certainly didn't help that ZQ had publicly made some contextually pretty inflammatory statements about men cheating on women being equivalent to rape and then decided to cheat repeatedly on her bf. Then you had the- obviously coordinated, as well- 'Gamers are dead' articles attacking the people who theoretically at least give most of the people writing the articles their livelihoods, though of course the antiGG crowd no longer mention those. And of course the doxxing of GG people, fake accusations based on said doxxing, death threats based on said doxxing (usually laughed at though), comparisons to ISIS, ddosing Gamersgate (useless SJWs, illiterate and can't even ddos a site with multiple domains properly), using smurf/ sockpuppet accounts, general and repeated hypocrisy/ cognitive dissonance/ irony being something for putting creaseys in shirtys, and verifiable false flags like claiming to be 4chan and threatening to release nudes of Hermione Grainger when it was an SJW affiliated PR firm 'trying to raise awareness', after being caught out because they too were utterly incompetent and left identifying information in their Apache server config. Though, of course, the antiGG crowd never mention those either. The 'Zoe Quinn incident' itself isn't the problem, it's just a symptom. A symptom of what exactly? I mean, it sounds like you're arguing that an assortment of pranks and like-minded op-eds amount to a vast media conspiracy to... protect Nathan Grayson? Protect the huge amount of money they were making from Depression Quest?? Oppress people who like the kind of games that already dominate the marketplace?? (And by "oppress," I mean, "say bad things about.") Just doesn't make any sense-- conspiracies don't form and hold together unless all the conspirators think there is something really important motivating them. Isn't it much simpler to assume that some publishers decided it was unwholesome (and potentially legally dangerous) to be in the business of promoting a jilted lover's story about an ex, that a few angry people did mean or dishonest things, that some writers came up with the same "hot take" response to the more extreme sexist threats, and that some hosting entities like 4chan and certain subreddits didn't want to be associated with said extreme threats? Enoch if you have time read this links, I know there is so much information out there about this event and everyone thinks " there articles are the most insightful " but one of these links is from a business website so its not from your standard gamer perspective http://www.businessinsider.com/gamergate-death-threats-2014-10 http://jezebel.com/gamergate-trolls-arent-ethics-crusaders-theyre-a-hate-1644984010

Not holding out much hope that will be good. I have the first two Dreamfall games on GOG, I should play them soon

To be fair, a lot of these 'journalists' don't. Alexander must have been beat up by some nerds or something, but aside from her they all seem to think themselves greater than they actually are. I'm not certain the whole glut of 'Gamers are dead' articles that launched around the same time were all misinterpreted either as a result of watching these people at play. I think GG was before that article, back when it was still hunting down corruption or whatever, but I may be mistaken. Fair enough, maybe some gaming journalists don't respect the people who ultimately give them a job and pay there salaries. I would just find it a strange business model if that was really common. It would be like me having a company that sells ice-cream and then making a statement on TV that "people who eat ice-cream are fat lazy degenerates " I can't imagine I'll be in business very long

No matter about going over something we have discussed before, we repeat things regularly on these forums My point around the agenda was more how people after reading that article then said " you see, this just highlights the absolute disdain gaming journalists have for us the gamers . We need to unite about this unacceptable behaviour ", and that was another reason for the success and foundation of GG But once again if the article was misinterpreted it makes another reason for the creation of GG moot? Now I'm not saying the article was reasonable, I can understand how it must have annoyed people but its not a reason to now say " gaming journalists have no respect for gamers "

Believe in transformation ? What new buzzphrase faith is this ? It was silly for Alexander to use it, because it isn't what she meant in her whiny diatribe, not to people taking her words to push an agenda. I'm not sure I get what you mean? If someone writes a scathing review on white, racist gamers and is really direct it wouldn't bother me because I'm a white gamer. I'm not a white, racist gamer But can you explain what you mean about the agenda part of your post ?

I don't know, maybe ask Gamespot how the rage impacted them when they haven't been relevant for years and why Jeff Gerstwinn's Wikipedia page is the second hit when you google them. The difference here is that back then, it was a dog eat dog world and the other publications ate them alive just as much as the gamers did. Now the damn place has cliquefied and there's just a lot of handholding and covering for your friends. I've seen this argument made before but it just doesn't hold water. Significantly larger amount of gamers raged out far, far worse than this over a reviewer standing in front of some mountain dew and doritos product placement. But nobody attacked all gamers as being responsible for those ridiculous fringe morons and nobody claimed credibility due to victimhood over it. Sorry TN but that's another fallacy about GG and its purpose and I know we don't agree on this one but it is important I raise this again All "gamers " weren't attacked, only gamers who didn't believe in transformation, I can guarantee you if you ask all the people on these forums if they felt the various articles written were about every single gamer there will be several people who will disagree with you and say "no I didn't think that applied to me" So its your own interpretation of the various events to say "all gamers were insulted and verbally attacked " Looking back now I do think it was silly to use the word " gamers" because of all the consternation it caused but it still doesn't change the fact it was taken out of context and used by some as an excuse to push a certain agenda and gain support for that agenda

Do you REALLY not understand what I just said? It's what GG stands for. The first part definitely. That's what nearly anyone would tell you, "this is about ethics". But obviously much of it has descended into a wider argument on gender politics and harassment. Okay thanks, I just wanted to be clear

My entire post (not just the tiny slip you quoted) states that it mustn't severely infringe on privacy, and threatening to shoot up schools (and doxxing for that matter) has jack **** to do with looking for corruption. Honestly, I'm slightly offended by you drawing what I said so severely out of proportion. Using any logic at all and not just tying unrelated stuff together, what the hell does doxxing and deaththreats have to do with looking into available information and looking for corruption? I think what he means is some people on GG claim there objective is tackle corruption but in fact they aren't concerned about corruption at all and have used the medium of GG to seriously harass people and basically engage in real bigotry and misogyny Yeah well that has absolutely nothing to do with my post or his post for that matter, if that's what he means, maybe he shouldn't go off trying to shove crap down my throat or apply my logic in nonsensical manners. It doesn't matter whether that's how he feels, it doesn't excuse such extreme levels of strawmanning me. The thing is he isn't really making a strawman Remember you said GG is about looking for corruption, this is a noble and reasonable objective. So maybe that's what you really believe GG is about and I don't doubt the veracity of your belief But GG has evolved for many of its members to something much more malicious and vindictive. So if someone says " GG is a good initiative because fighting corruption is good" its very easy to understand someone else saying " oh please with all the bigotry coming from GG how can you think that's what its really about or that justifies the conduct of some GG members " Anyway I'm not attacking you, I'm just explaining his perspective

hope you're joking man Well he is being Volo, which is always hard to determine when he is being serious, joking or trolling, You need to get to know him

I'll tell how to #stopgamergate2014: - Adopt/Clarify/Reinstate an ethics policy. Do so loudly in clear, plain, straightforward manner without any unnecessary ramblings about politics or internet toxicity. Do not include in this section the 5 paragraphs about misogyny, save that itch for another time. Commit clearly to avoid or disclose any conflicts of interest. Commit to objectivity and impartiality as best you can, leave the ridiculous ramblings and snark about your strawman views of the real world application of objectivity out of it. - Cover the the harassment and doxxing of the side you aren't covering in a proper article. Condemn it in the same terms you condemn all other harassment. Admit that if you expect gamergaters to own up to their crap you have to own up to yours or if these people don't speak for you neither do random bigots speak for most gamers. Again, clearly, plainly, loudly. Admit that any double standards and hypocrisy on the matter are unacceptable. - Apologise, without reservation, without any between the lines jabs or the aforementioned 5 paragraphs about misogyny, in a plain and straightforward manner, to anyone who took any articles or social media statement by any of the site's staff made about the "gamer identity" as an insulting stereotype imposed on their hobby and themselves. Do so loudly in a manner befitting the scale of GG and not in some vague tweet. I don't care if you think you're misunderstood, include whatever "we didn't mean it like that statements" but swallow your snobbish pride and do it. Even if you aren't Gamasutra and the like still make a statement and clarify your stance with a healthy measure of respect for video game players. - Comment on/condemn the alleged blacklisting of developers based on the views the site's journalists/editors disagree with. Commit to covering what the public shows interest in with a measure of balance. - Now talk about misogyny as a toxic fringe that poisons discussion that while should not be ignored also should not be an excuse or shield held against the majority at large. Here you can run wild to your hearts content in the thesaurus and compete in the use of the most ferocious and melodramatic adjectives of condemnation like, horrendous, sickening, depraved. But mention again how it's an issue on both sides because man there is been hilariously plentiful of dismissing women and minorities as "straight white guys" and being made fools of on the anti-GG side. And if anything is 'problematic' that qualifies also. Whoever is still left in GG afterwards we can then talk about labelling as a misogynist mob. But this isn't going to be stopped by snorting acid at GG. I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean, are these point what GG stands for or for what #stopgamergate2014 stands for Because I want to know what GG stands for ?

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? So, using your own logic, it's okay to dox people, drive them from their home, and threaten to shoot up schools all in the name of "looking for corruption"? I mean, you cast a pretty wide net with your words. My entire post (not just the tiny slip you quoted) states that it mustn't severely infringe on privacy, and threatening to shoot up schools (and doxxing for that matter) has jack **** to do with looking for corruption. Honestly, I'm slightly offended by you drawing what I said so severely out of proportion. Using any logic at all and not just tying unrelated stuff together, what the hell does doxxing and deaththreats have to do with looking into available information and looking for corruption? I think what he means is some people on GG claim there objective is tackle corruption but in fact they aren't concerned about corruption at all and have used the medium of GG to seriously harass people and basically engage in real bigotry and misogyny

No gg came into existence because of the lack of journalistic integrity, and years of frustration over this, nobody cares about Ms Quinn's adultery but you. I'll try and make it very simple Bruce, though I don't know if i'll be successful: As a journalist you have a duty to inform the public objectively, without bias and following ethical guidelines as society regards journalism as an important function. Or used to due to Watergate and various other investigations. To be a journalist one must follow an ethical code, this is not mandated by me and I have no interest in it, to remain seperate from your subject, to diminish bias as much as possible, to report truthfully on your discoveries, and to neither make improper use of your position or give the appearance of such. By commiting adultery with a developer, his subject matter, Mr Grayson made an ethical mistake. This is not a problem until he failed to recuse himself from any professional dealings with her, or made sure that his editor knew that he had a significant conflict of interest between his private life and his duty to report objectively to his audience. He did neither and was caught out when this scandal aired, thus he is guilty of ethical misconduct, bringing his profession into disrepute and a blatant lack of ethics. This is not optional, it is the ethics covered when one achieves a journalism degree. He did not have to write anything about Ms Quinn or his adultery with her, the damage had allready been done. Read any paper on journalistic ethics or ask any professional, they'll agree with me, Mr Grayson gave not just the appearance of impropriety but the actuality. Sorry to the rest of the forum for having to repeat myself. Do you really consider the people who write reviews about games the same as a journalist who works for the example at the Economist? I can't believe you really believe that, anyone can write reviews about games Nonek. You just need a website and to have played the game. You are holding "gaming journalists " to far high a standard IMO But I'm not saying they mustn't have integrity or write interesting and relevant reviews , but lets not exaggerate what they do and what it means to be a " gaming journalist "