Drama in indy gaming and games journalism

[Fighter]

Well off to fight ISIS then cause this means they like represent you and stuff.

[Meshugger]

Codexian made this great post about gaming journalism, gamergate and everything surrounding it:

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/worst-thread-ever-general-gaming-sjw-dumping-ground-currently-airing-gamergate.90469/page-367#post-3542787

It's long as life itself, but it is the best thing I have read in a while. Better yet it was written not by someone paid to write, but a forum monkey like us. 

 

Now that is some writing, i tell you.

[Nonek]

 

Okay let me try to explain this a different way

 

What is the objective of GG? Everyone can respond, give me the 2-3 main objectives that GG endeavors to achieve

 

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.

 

 

Excellent points, and I mostly agree. Unlike others whom want gaming journalism to not be covered by ethical standards, I believe that it must be, as it involves advising consumers on investment in arguably one of the largest entertainment diivisions in existence. To be treated as a mature, responsible and respected artform it must have ethical journalistism, that is fit for purpose. That respects its customers and does not hold them in contempt, that would never think about insulting and condemning millions of them, and of course that would fire those like Mr Grayson and Ms Hernandez whom have been caught practising unethical behaviour.

 

How to go about doing that, forming a press that is reliable and has integrity while getting rid of the social justice fascists whom are currently poisoning much of the current industry is a perplexing issue however. Perhaps those whom have proven themselves to have integrity and ethics in this current climate, Mr Kain, Mr Bain, maybe Mr Yiannopoulous if his former political leanings are not too apparent could form some manner of independent watchdog, somewhat like Metacritic (though i'm aware of Mr Bain's dislike of said service) but focused on consumer service and ethical standards in gaming sites rather than game quality.

 

Funding for such a product would remain a problem however, how to remain viable, independent and most of all not beholden to any single body whom could possibly sway such an institution?

 

Edit: Mr Decado used to post on here didn't he? Clever chap from what I remember.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Nonek

[Longknife]

How to go about doing that, forming a press that is reliable and has integrity while getting rid of the social justice fascists whom are currently poisoning much of the current industry is a perplexing issue however.

 

 

No it's not.

 

Don't visit gaming journalism websites. Let 'em burn.

Done deal.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

These women need a SJW to mansplain what gg is actually about.

[Blarghagh]

Yiannopopoulous would not be fit to judge a dog on ethics, I'm sorry to say. He published the e-mails but that doesn't mean he isn't a biased journalist himself. The only reason he hitched his name to GG is to get publicity. Nobody cared who he was before this and his earlier views on Gamers aren't exactly kosher.

 

Bain and Kain, Ombudsmen Extraordinaire would be awesome, however, since they have proven to be men of outstanding integrity and intelligence.

[Malcador]

Nah, they'd be disregarded as anti-feminists.

[Elerond]

BBC coverage about threats against USU and Anita and it also covers GamerGate, writer seems to do his best to keep neutral tone.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29626809

[Blarghagh]

I decided to look into Brianna Wu's games (I and pretty much everyone else would never have heard of her if not for her "involvement") and found Revolution 60.

 

It's a game about well-endowed barbie dolls, apparently.

[Nonek]

Yiannopopoulous would not be fit to judge a dog on ethics, I'm sorry to say. He published the e-mails but that doesn't mean he isn't a biased journalist himself. The only reason he hitched his name to GG is to get publicity. Nobody cared who he was before this and his earlier views on Gamers aren't exactly kosher.

 

Bain and Kain, Ombudsmen Extraordinaire would be awesome, however, since they have proven to be men of outstanding integrity and intelligence.

 

Yes I largely agree and have thought fairly much the same, however as an investigative journalist he has done sterling work on this issue. Investigative work might also form a large part of such an organisation, but as you say previous bias may render him unsuitable.

[Longknife]

I decided to look into Brianna Wu's games (I and pretty much everyone else would never have heard of her if not for her "involvement") and found Revolution 60.

 

It's a game about well-endowed barbie dolls, apparently.

It also looks like it was made with one of those fancy schmancy Crayola Crayon boxes that has 48 crayon colors instead of 16. Edited October 15, 2014 by Longknife

[Orogun01]

 

I decided to look into Brianna Wu's games (I and pretty much everyone else would never have heard of her if not for her "involvement") and found Revolution 60.

 

It's a game about well-endowed barbie dolls, apparently.

It also looks like it was made with one of those fancy schmancy Crayola Crayon boxes that has 48 crayon colors instead of 16.

 

Actually it was done on the Unreal Engine.

 

I know this because me and some classmates saw it featured on the UDN website, for reasons that we assumed were political (game was being publicized as having been developed by women) rather than because it does a good job of showcasing the engine (it looks like crap)

[Zoraptor]

Heh, Faraci et alia's ISIS comparisons have finally got results, ISISbot has taken notice of their attention.

 

But why this ethical mistake?  It's a teeny-tiny story about a teeny-tiny game in a multi-billion-dollar industry.  Is is so far-fetched to conclude that folks' focusing on this incident has something to do with the fact it's a salacious story about a woman who made a game that the traditional gaming audience didn't like?

 

 

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.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Zoraptor

[Ganrich]

That RPGCodex "Wall-O-Text" is amazing.

[Elerond]

I decided to look into Brianna Wu's games (I and pretty much everyone else would never have heard of her if not for her "involvement") and found Revolution 60.

 

It's a game about well-endowed barbie dolls, apparently.

 

In interviews in past few days she has said that she is sex positive feminist and said that she don't think that there is anything wrong in sexualized women in video games if it's not done in derogatory way and women don't only exist to be objects of desire, etc. things.

 

Revolution 60 seems to be quite liked in iTunes, reviews in magazines seems to be more mixed.

 

It seems that critics whose reviews don't fit in party line should be blacklisted from reviewing games.

https://twitter.com/JimSterling/status/522507578665074688

 

It is very interesting to see people to ask publishers to make sure that reviews of their game in launch day are positive by blacklisting publications that would give them poor reviews. I though the idea was something about make things more ethical or something like that, not to find ways to maximize big publishers' profits. 

https://twitter.com/Ex_nihilo_0/status/522498689399402496

Edited October 15, 2014 by Elerond

[Darth InSidious]

Yiannopopoulous would not be fit to judge a dog on ethics, I'm sorry to say. He published the e-mails but that doesn't mean he isn't a biased journalist himself. The only reason he hitched his name to GG is to get publicity. Nobody cared who he was before this and his earlier views on Gamers aren't exactly kosher.

 

Bain and Kain, Ombudsmen Extraordinaire would be awesome, however, since they have proven to be men of outstanding integrity and intelligence.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Yiannopoulos

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/jul/08/milo-yiannopoulos-kernel-technology-interview

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/mar/01/the-kernel

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/mar/05/kernel-close-debts-unpaid-sentinel-media

http://www.londonlovesbusiness.com/business-news/politics/sophie-hobson-why-milo-yiannopoulos-makes-me-want-to-swear-profusely-a-note-on-women-in-tech-and-feminism/5840.article

https://twitter.com/nerowatch

[Enoch]

Heh, Faraci et alia's ISIS comparisons have finally got results, ISISbot has taken notice of their attention.

 

But why this ethical mistake?  It's a teeny-tiny story about a teeny-tiny game in a multi-billion-dollar industry.  Is is so far-fetched to conclude that folks' focusing on this incident has something to do with the fact it's a salacious story about a woman who made a game that the traditional gaming audience didn't like?

 

 

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? 

Edited October 16, 2014 by Enoch

[Elerond]

Somebody has added #gamergate and #notyourshield on twitter bot Eliza's keyword list. Eliza is bot that uses primitive AI algorithm with same name from 1960s that simulates Rogerian psychotherapist and it seems that it has had nice talks with people using those hastags. New Statesman has  published article which writer seems be quite glad over fact that people have been wasting their time by talking with bot.

http://www.newstatesman.com/future-proof/2014/10/ultimate-weapon-against-gamergate-time-wasters-1960s-chat-bot-wastes-their-time

[BruceVC]

 

Heh, Faraci et alia's ISIS comparisons have finally got results, ISISbot has taken notice of their attention.

 

But why this ethical mistake?  It's a teeny-tiny story about a teeny-tiny game in a multi-billion-dollar industry.  Is is so far-fetched to conclude that folks' focusing on this incident has something to do with the fact it's a salacious story about a woman who made a game that the traditional gaming audience didn't like?

 

 

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

[BruceVC]

Somebody has added #gamergate and #notyourshield on twitter bot Eliza's keyword list. Eliza is bot that uses primitive AI algorithm with same name from 1960s that simulates Rogerian psychotherapist and it seems that it has had nice talks with people using those hastags. New Statesman has  published article which writer seems be quite glad over fact that people have been wasting their time by talking with bot.

http://www.newstatesman.com/future-proof/2014/10/ultimate-weapon-against-gamergate-time-wasters-1960s-chat-bot-wastes-their-time

 

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

[Volourn]

The bot itself is funny and gave me chuckles. The article, itself, is pure garbage. Only racist sexist pieces of crap nazi wananbes would support the article or the writer of said article. Pure evil.

 

 

"I know I shouldn't be laughing but you guys must admit it is funny when someone gets conned like that under those circumstances"

\

Definitely. Which is why I laugh at the fools who got conned by hateful feminists who hate females. :D

[Oerwinde]

 

 

 

 

And, also, where was all this rage back when it was just AAA developers shoveling money at the IGNs and Gamespots of the world?

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.

[Valmy]

A unorganized non-accountable anonymous mob who cannot held responsible for their actions in any way who claim they are going to police the internet for ethics.  Arbitrary ethics that are not defined or codified anywhere but whatever ethics each member of the mob thinks should be policed.  And forget about anybody they accuse having a fair shake at defending themselves, as #Gamergate has no leadership or anybody to appeal to.  Mob vigilante justice.

 

Possibly the worse idea ever.  I cannot believe gamers, who have lived their lives on the internet, cannot see why this was a trainwreck waiting to happen.  You cannot police ethics on the internet and certainly not with this type of organization. Is it any wonder all kinds of unsavory characters have used this to justify their actions?  If people are really concerned about ethical gaming journalism, they should organize themselves and create a gaming journalism site with clear ethical standards that produce a great product that draws clicks from their competitors.  That is the sort of idea that might actually work instead of an obviously horrible one.  Again I am just amazed this was conceived as a good idea for a movement.  Ah well another black eye for my hobby. 

[BruceVC]

The bot itself is funny and gave me chuckles. The article, itself, is pure garbage. Only racist sexist pieces of crap nazi wananbes would support the article or the writer of said article. Pure evil.

 

 

"I know I shouldn't be laughing but you guys must admit it is funny when someone gets conned like that under those circumstances"

\

Definitely. Which is why I laugh at the fools who got conned by hateful feminists who hate females. :D

 

"Pure Evil "

 

 

 

 

 

And, also, where was all this rage back when it was just AAA developers shoveling money at the IGNs and Gamespots of the world?

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 ?

[BruceVC]

A unorganized non-accountable anonymous mob who cannot held responsible for their actions in any way who claim they are going to police the internet for ethics.  Arbitrary ethics that are not defined or codified anywhere but whatever ethics each member of the mob thinks should be policed.  And forget about anybody they accuse having a fair shake at defending themselves, as #Gamergate has no leadership or anybody to appeal to.  Mob vigilante justice.

 

Possibly the worse idea ever.  I cannot believe gamers, who have lived their lives on the internet, cannot see why this was a trainwreck waiting to happen.  You cannot police ethics on the internet and certainly not with this type of organization. Is it any wonder all kinds of unsavory characters have used this to justify their actions?  If people are really concerned about ethical gaming journalism, they should organize themselves and create a gaming journalism site with clear ethical standards that produce a great product that draws clicks from their competitors.  That is the sort of idea that might actually work instead of an obviously horrible one.  Again I am just amazed this was conceived as a good idea for a movement.  Ah well another black eye for my hobby. 

 

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