Drama in indy gaming and games journalism

[Malcador]

I need to stop posting when half asleep, repeated easily above, there. Tsk.

[GhoulishVisage]

 

 

 

 

If your empathy only extends as far as your politics you do not truly have empathy.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

 

If your empathy only extends as far as your politics you do not truly have empathy.

I'm impressed how intelligent and mature these SJWs are.

[Volourn]

"How interesting that you consistently do have time to respond to Volo but not to anyone actually making points."

 

I'm not threat. I'm not popular on the internet so attacking me and labeling a white male racist sexist rapist just get chuckles from both sides. L0L

[Blarghagh]

I'm going to take a step to a few pages back:

 

Psst! Media guys! Come over here. I have a secret. And it’s a big one.

 

I know how to KILL #GamerGate. The method’s simple, direct, and utterly infallible.

1. Adopt an ethics policy.
2. Adhere to it.

BOOM! Blow them right away.

 

#GamerGate’s all about the misogyny, right?

 

Look at it this way: it’s a guaranteed win. Even if they’re not brutal, women-hating troglodytes looking to (vicariously) ravish helpless women in vicious women-hating video games, if you take away their single demand, you win. They have no leg to stand on.

 

So why not do it?

 

Unless… oh. It’s the steps, right? You have a problem with the steps? Probably the second one, most of all. You just can’t do it, right? It sticks in your craw.

 

http://daddywarpig.wordpress.com/2014/10/09/how-to-kill-gamergate-in-2-easy-steps-which-kotaku-polygon-and-the-verge-wont-even-try/

 

I don't like retreading old ground, but this keeps weighing on my mind. I originally posted this article because, well, I found it funny. But the more I think about it, the more this guy has made a point much more profound than even he knows. I need you guys to help me out here.

 

Why not do it?

 

I mean, I'm trying to think about this from the perspective of games journalists who are against #GamerGate. For sake of argument, let's make the following assumptions:

 

1 - I am the editor of a publication of Games Journalism such as Kotaku or Polygon.

 

2 - I have not adopted an ethics policy, but nevertheless my publication has never posted anything nor have my employees ever done anything that could be seen as unethical.

 

3 - #GamerGate is a conservative, misogynist hate group concerned only with keeping women out of gaming.

 

4 - #GamerGate uses false accusations of corruption in my publication to give false crediblity to their cause and snare gullible supporters and it grows enormous.

 

5 - #GamerGate begins to harass and harm women, developers and everyone who disagrees with them using my lack of transparent ethics policy as an excuse.

 

Okay, got those assumptions down? Here goes. Why would I not implement an ethics policy and adhere to it?

 

I've got some thoughts on why I would not, but none of them truly make sense.

 

Why not do it? Well, I won't give in to that hate group. I haven't done anything unethical and I do not need to change.

 

Except, since I haven't done anything unethical, it doesn't mean I would have to change. I'd just keep doing what I was doing already. It just means a little effort to create a blurb that confirms my publication won't do anything unethical and specifies what I feel is unethical. Since I know clearly what is unethical by nature of being certain I have never done it, this is easy.

 

Why not do it? Well, if I give in to their demands I validate their existence. They don't deserve that.

 

Except, taking away their one credible demand doesn't so much validate as completely invalidate their existence because if they don't have a credible demand nobody can or will take them seriously and people who only sides with them over this false conspiracy theory will drop them like a hot potato.

 

Why not do it? Well, screw that. I have my pride. I'm don't owe anybody anything.

 

Except, good people are being harmed and harassed by this group over my lack of transparent and enforced ethics policy. I have the power to stop it without effort, yet I will allow it to continue for my own personal satisfaction? I can't do that, because I don't do things that are unethical.

 

Why not do it? I'm scared of the mob and I'm just going to ignore it and be silent about the whole ordeal and never mention it.

 

Except, good people are being harmed and harassed by this group over my lack of transparent and enforced ethics policy. I have the power to stop it without effort, yet I will allow it to continue for my own personal satisfaction? I can't do that, because I don't do things that are unethical.

 

Why not do it? Well, I'm angry at them and for that I am going to antagonize them even further at risk of causing more harassment.

 

Except, good people are being harmed and harassed by this group over my lack of transparent and enforced ethics policy. I have the power to stop it without effort, yet I will allow it to continue for my own personal satisfaction? I can't do that, because I don't do things that are unethical.

 

Why not do it? Well, I'm sorry but attacking them through clickbait articles gives me a lot more advertising money and lets me feel good about how progressive my smart followers think I am.

 

EXCEPT, GOOD PEOPLE ARE BEING HARMED AND HARASSED BY THIS GROUP OVER MY LACK OF TRANSPARENT AND ENFORCED ETHICS POLICY. I HAVE THE POWER TO STOP IT WITHOUT EFFORT, YET I WILL ALLOW IT TO CONTINUE FOR MY OWN PERSONAL SATISFACTION? I CAN'T DO THAT, BECAUSE I DON'T DO THINGS THAT ARE UNETHICAL.

 

Why not do it? Well, I haven't really considered it this way. I guess I was just being really, really dumb before.

 

Except, you do not build a halfway succesful publication by being dumb as a brick. There is no way this hasn't occured to me.

 

Why not do it? Well, I want to leave the door open for possible unethical behaviour in the future?

 

...

 

Why not do it? Help me out here, guys. If I am even a halfway ethical publication in the face of this situation, what reason would I have not to adopt a transparent and enforced ethics policy? The only reasons I can come up with at all are either illogical or unethical. If I do not find any other reasons that the publications involved in #GamerGate will not do this, I have to come to the conclusion that they are not innocent of unethical behaviour. In fact, I am prepared to come and say right now that, assuming these things are true, not implementing an enforced ethics policy is inherently unethical behaviour.

 

Help me out here guys. I must be missing something.

Edited October 11, 2014 by TrueNeutral

[kirottu]

I think it's a simple beautiful idea.

[Shallow]

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.

[Blarghagh]

That's my point, though. That hypothetical shows that the narrative played out by games media of "we're totally innocent and you guys are sexist nerds" can't be anything other than complete and utter nonsense, because none of it makes sense.

[PrimeJunta]

Nobody's as easily offended or easy to troll as the folks who keep woofing about SJW's. All you have to do is say something complimentary about Anita Sarkeesian. Lulz guaranteed. Compared to them, actual SJW's are marble.

[Shallow]

That's my point, though. That hypothetical shows that the narrative played out by games media of "we're totally innocent and you guys are sexist nerds" can't be anything other than complete and utter nonsense, because none of it makes sense.

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.

[Walsingham]

Three letter acronym alarm: I assume SJW means Single Jiggling Wombat.

[Lexx]

Three letter acronym alarm: I assume SJW means Single Jiggling Wombat.

It is the only thing that makes any sense.

[Bryy]

Nobody's as easily offended or easy to troll as the folks who keep woofing about SJW's. All you have to do is say something complimentary about Anita Sarkeesian. Lulz guaranteed. Compared to them, actual SJW's are marble.

The undeniable fact of the matter is that no matter how ****ing stupid anti-GGers get, the entire "movement" of GamerGate was started by guys that were so offended that a woman had a sex life. So, while anti-GGers been getting progressively more hostile (and that's not okay and I'm in no way saying it is okay), it's ridiculous to use that as an excuse to somehow claim GamerGate has any kind of moral superiority. 

 

And while Adam Baldwin did coin the phrase, that doesn't mean he "started" it. That's a BS cop-out.

[kirottu]

Proof of military/corporate collusion:

https://twitter.com/radicalbytes/status/520773944610000897

 

Capcom diversity vs XOXO diversity:

http://i.imgur.com/awnBs2u.png

[Meshugger]

Who's this Jonathan McIntosh guy?

Edited October 12, 2014 by Meshugger

[kirottu]

He is the producer and co-writer of Feminist Frequency aka Anita Sarkeesians youtube channel.

[Elerond]

 

Capcom diversity vs XOXO diversity:

http://i.imgur.com/awnBs2u.png

 

XOXO is technology conference aimed for indie developers, content creators, entrepreneurs in Portland (city that is 76,1% white), which event that other picture is from?

[TrashMan]

Internet debates and facts..... ha.

 

ha.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[Fighter]

He is the producer and co-writer of Feminist Frequency aka Anita Sarkeesians youtube channel.

 

Anita is being at least somewhat moderate (at least she keeps her mouth closed) but I bet this guy puts into plain words what she really thinks.

Edited October 12, 2014 by Fighter

[pmp10]

Why not do it?

Because it wouldn't change anything.

Gamergate is only concerned by corruption and ethics when it comes to pushing specific agendas.

In fact most journalistic organizations have some form of working guidelines and it didn't stop them from ignoring this whole mess.

 

 

He is the producer and co-writer of Feminist Frequency aka Anita Sarkeesians youtube channel.

 

Anita is being at least somewhat moderate (at least she keeps her mouth closed) but I bet this guy puts into plain words what she really thinks.

 

That's just a sad sign of the times.

People become so radicalized that even Anita can appear a moderate.

[Blarghagh]

Who's this Jonathan McIntosh guy?

 

He's the white cis male who puts Anita Sarkeesian's words into her mouth.

[Elerond]

 

People become so radicalized that even Anita can appear a moderate.

 

 

I must say that Anita's public views are quite moderate

 

Her views paraphrased by me

"I want developer's use less tropes, especially those I see to be degrading towards women"

"I want developer's to use more active female protagonists"

"I want more games that don't focus so much on violence"

"I think using tropes that I think to be sexist and not giving women as many active roles as men shows that our society is still leans towards patriarchy"

"I want/hope that game developers start to make more games for my tastes"

 

Her vision for what direction games as medium and art form should develop don't wholly correspond with my vision, but I don't think that her vision is anyway radical. 

[TrashMan]

You know, when this whole GamerGate thing started I had no idea what it was about. So I went about looking into this, trying to remain neutral.

 

The experience was sour, to say the least. Both sides harrasing, insulting and producing fake evidence. Or at least elements from both sides. Generalisation is an anathema to a productive and honest discussion, yet it comes natural to us. The world is a complex place. Millions of people with million of wants, ideas and experiences that make them who they are. But such complexity holds too many variables. It's too much to deal with, so our brain simplifies things. Hence why we have generalized groups. Stereotypes.

Feminist. Gamer. Otaku. Mysgonist. Liberal. Democrat. Etc... And yes, #gamersgate suporters and anti-#gamersgaters.

Each word carries in itself more than just the meaning. It carries a mental image of a member of that group. Usually a negative one, hence why such descriptors are often used as a insult in discussions.

The problem is when people start believing those stereotypes and apply them without thought. When people aren't treated as individuals, but rather as some gestalt monstrosity. It's a binary thing. Black and white. If you're with me you're a good guy, if you're against me you're an evil d***!

When you think that every member of group X is the same, you fallen into a deep pit.

 

But even worse is a total lack of doubt seen in some discussions on gamersgate. Doubt is useful. It is what keeps us from falling into extreemes, into fanaticism. It's what drives us to re-evaluate our position and hold back from zealotry. And many people I've seen involved show a complete lack of doubt. Not only in their cause, but in everything  they do - their methods, their manners. In their eyes, they can do no wrong, for their cause is just. Double standards and hypocrisy is the order of the day.

And the saddest part - even total lack of any doubt about knowledge of the other person. The sheer conviction some people have displayed in knowing their "opponents" thoughts, motivations and desires is staggering. Acting like an omniscent mind-reader and disregarding or outright denying anything contrary.

They created a mental image of you the second you disagreed with them. And that mental image is absolute.

It got to the point of redicule with people claiming to fight for minorities attacking and insulting members of minorities as liers, brainwashed slaves, sell-outs, and so on.

I honestly didn't know if I should laugh or cry.

 

I said I tried to be neutral before. Keyword "tried".

After days on many forums and reading many discussions, the choice was made for me. Simply put, the #gamersgate side proved (at leasts to me, in my experience) to be one one could have a normal, honest discussion with a lot easier. The anti-gamersgate crowd (the ones I met at least - again, generalisation is bad) do not tolerate neutrality. Heck, I got attacked even when agreeing with them for not agreeing hard enough!

No discussion can be had with a side that already believes knows everything, is beyond criticism and is not interested in talking at all.

 

From my experience, #gamergate is not against women or minorities, nor is it for harrasement despite all the talk.

So the crusade, fought from noble intentions, ends up misguided and pointless and using horrible methods, ultimatively attacking all who oppose it, even those it claims to protect.

[Longknife]

 

 

People become so radicalized that even Anita can appear a moderate.

 

 

I must say that Anita's public views are quite moderate

 

Her views paraphrased by me

"I want developer's use less tropes, especially those I see to be degrading towards women"

"I want developer's to use more active female protagonists"

"I want more games that don't focus so much on violence"

"I think using tropes that I think to be sexist and not giving women as many active roles as men shows that our society is still leans towards patriarchy"

"I want/hope that game developers start to make more games for my tastes"

 

Her vision for what direction games as medium and art form should develop don't wholly correspond with my vision, but I don't think that her vision is anyway radical. 

 

 

 

The issue comes about in two seperate ways:

 

 

1) Anita CAN be radical. Find a video she did on sexist Christmas songs. Have fun with it.

 

2) Anita lies. Check how she misrepresents Fallout New Vegas (and others) in her women as backround decoration video.

 

 

Those two combined, you actually start to wonder if there aren't ulterior motives, moreso with the second one than the first. Either she's soooo radical she pulls ridiculous claims out of thin air here and there (unlikely, as other times she IS quite reasonable), or the girl honestly is just trying to profit off of this situation she's found herself in, leading to profit > truth and thus she'll do misleading or half-assed pieces to gain profit.

[Longknife]

 

 

Good thing GamerGate thought to pay Tyrone for scripted videos first!