Drama and games journalism, soggy leg joint edition

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

So now your problem is censorship, not "politicizing games". Make up your mind already.

 

 

See post #65.

 

 

Meh.

 

 

Which is nothing i have against in principle, anyone has an opinion about anything. It's just that i do not like when journalists collaborate in a conspiracy to declare that gamers are dead. 

[Zoraptor]

@Zoraptor Interestingly the Codex has pretty damn strong social control of expression. You guys just do it more like the old-style Usenet way of giving the nonconformers a clown nose (read: dumbf**k or "possibly retarded" tag) and then poking them with sticks, and only banning them if that fails. There's a lot less room there for dissenting opinion there than on most other forums I've hung out on IMO. You just have a rather... eccentric set of norms you're enforcing, bless your hearts.

 

Heh. I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the RPGCodex*. You could have left it at usenet though. And you'll be pleased to know I am a fully fledged member of the august brotherhood of the 'Watch with a reasonable number of posts there.

 

Really though, you're free pretty much completely to have any opinion you want at the Codex, so long as you can back it up, don't start crying about the big meanies being nasty and it isn't something contextually ridiculous like saying that CoD is the best game ever, on an RPG site. Plus, since it's been brought up, for a supposedly intolerant place there's a rather more varied selection of moderators and posters than in most other forums. People may tend to label it as a sexist, homophobic den of nazis, but then they'd have difficulty explaining the woman, the gay and the Jew moderating the place.

 

*I do read them fairly regularly but I've never found a compelling reason to actually register or post.

 

Essentially what PJ said. Just because a forum isn't banning dissenting voices, that doesn't mean unpopular opinions won't be sanctioned in other ways; the end result is an echo chamber filled with different people - occasionally, new voices might pop up, but they'll eventually leave if they're constantly shouted down for not conforming to the greater chorus of echoes.

 

 

That isn't a figurative echo chamber. An echo chamber in that sense is where you say something and it is repeated back to you multiple times after slight delays. If you've got multiple voices (/views) that cannot happen, you say something and you get something different back. Probably something incoherent, if we were talking literally.

 

In a more general sense all communities have 'soft' social control measures that are inherent because communities have a purpose, you won't tend to get big fps fans on a specialist RPG site, so the like minded tend to congregate in the same places anyway, and most people want to be liked. But that's a far cry from having supposedly fair and uncensored 'discussions' where you are obligated to take a particular position as that is the echo chamber as there is no chance to dissent at all without being silenced- and in some cases even insufficient enthusiasm for the party line is cause for being silenced.

[TrashMan]

"You're not agreeing with me hard enough, you filthy cur!"

 

Unfortunately, I've seen it happen.

[Elerond]

 

 

 

So one time out of a bajillion threats.

Go on.

 

There has been three mass shootings and one bombing of shopping center in past 12 years in Finland, in every of these cases except one (our newest one where perpetrator got angry in line to food kiosk and decided to get his guns and kill everybody) there has been threats from perpetrator that they will do these acts in internet beforehand and each case police deemed those threats to be nothing but empty talks in internet, so much so that in one case the even gave weapon buy permit to perpetrator for weapon that he use in his killing spree even though they knew that he had threaten to shoot his fellow students. Which is why I think that internet threats should be taken as seriously as those that are made to face to face. If we don't take threats in internet seriously they will work as mask that obscures us to see those threats from people that actually will commit acts they threat to do and changes our attitudes towards hostile language so that we don't even blink when people use crude and uncivil language when they speak to us, which just make our society so much less pleasant to live (but that maybe just me not everybody else).

 

 

And for every one of those there is a million that amount to nothing.

Statistically, you have a higher chance of being stuck by lighting while in a rubber suit between two metal buildings.

 

Problem with taking everything seriously then it doesn't leave room for everything else.

 

You talk about a pleasant society to live in? I for one don't consider police states pleasant.

 

 

 

Should speeding not be a offence or thing that is treated seriously as there is every day billions of occurrences of speeding that don't lead accidents or road deaths and statistically those to happen compared to number of speedings is so marginal that people die more probably to meteoroid hit than it is to one occurrence speeding to cause accident. I have used BBS/internet as way to communicate nearly every day with people from beginning of 1990s and I have not received even single death threat against me or anybody close to me in all this time. So I don't necessary believe that number of death threats in internet is necessary in uncontrollable numbers as most of them focus on small set of people. Of course I could be privileged person who can't understand real scope of the problem. 

 

If we take every threat seriously there is high change that number of threats will drop, because people can't yell their threats without risk that there is consequences. 

 

If you think that state become police state when there are consequences when you threat to kill somebody, then we have different meanings for that word.

 

Latest from twitter. Polygon has written editorial about gamergate, journalistic ethics, corruption of gaming media and gaming culture. 

http://www.polygon.com/2014/10/17/6996601/on-gamergate-a-letter-from-the-editor

[Nonek]

Hmmm reading these articles, replete with the same lies and bias, and the same messages that the gaming press are standing up for games and gamers, despite condemning millions of gamers and developers as sexist, misogynist, yadda, yadda, blah, blah. One thing becomes apparent, that they are simply unfit for purpose. They're corrupt uncontestably, their criticsim of games is pathetically infantile to the point where they condemn interactivity, their taste in games peaks at non interactive graphical picture books, they have no professional grasp of ethics that do not suit their purposes and that of their cronies, they do not hold their jobs to be important in any way despite the size of the market, they are entirely self interested, they rely on lies and intellectually bankrupt excuses to maintain their position, and they will never once answer any criticism or acknowledge any wrongdoing because in their self righteous minds they are correct, and the usual pathetic deflections will be used against the audience they despise.

 

These are the people whom some want to dictate how games should change, stupid, corrupt and tasteless hatemongers? Sorry but as a moderate i'm totally with gamergate on this, and against the SJF's. There can be no dialogue with such people while apologies are not made to all gamers, while their doxxing, censorship, hatemongering, death threats, attempts at firing and harassment continue. Until such time personally I will continue my boycott and urging of sponsors to withdraw support from these hate groups.

 

As a neutral moderate that is not part of any cultiure, let alone Twitter or Facebook, I believe that this is the only way to end their vicious campaign against the innocent consumer, and stop these toxic people gaining any influence over a much enjoyed passtime that they also despise.

 

And of course I shall have a nice cup of tea and a biscuit, secure in my patriarchal magnificence, and watch their repetitious tirades against all recreational gamers continue. As their simple one track minds makes for some extremely humorous quotes.

Edited October 18, 2014 by Nonek

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

So one time out of a bajillion threats.

Go on.

 

There has been three mass shootings and one bombing of shopping center in past 12 years in Finland, in every of these cases except one (our newest one where perpetrator got angry in line to food kiosk and decided to get his guns and kill everybody) there has been threats from perpetrator that they will do these acts in internet beforehand and each case police deemed those threats to be nothing but empty talks in internet, so much so that in one case the even gave weapon buy permit to perpetrator for weapon that he use in his killing spree even though they knew that he had threaten to shoot his fellow students. Which is why I think that internet threats should be taken as seriously as those that are made to face to face. If we don't take threats in internet seriously they will work as mask that obscures us to see those threats from people that actually will commit acts they threat to do and changes our attitudes towards hostile language so that we don't even blink when people use crude and uncivil language when they speak to us, which just make our society so much less pleasant to live (but that maybe just me not everybody else).

 

 

And for every one of those there is a million that amount to nothing.

Statistically, you have a higher chance of being stuck by lighting while in a rubber suit between two metal buildings.

 

Problem with taking everything seriously then it doesn't leave room for everything else.

 

You talk about a pleasant society to live in? I for one don't consider police states pleasant.

 

 

 

Should speeding not be a offence or thing that is treated seriously as there is every day billions of occurrences of speeding that don't lead accidents or road deaths and statistically those to happen compared to number of speedings is so marginal that people die more probably to meteoroid hit than it is to one occurrence speeding to cause accident. I have used BBS/internet as way to communicate nearly every day with people from beginning of 1990s and I have not received even single death threat against me or anybody close to me in all this time. So I don't necessary believe that number of death threats in internet is necessary in uncontrollable numbers as most of them focus on small set of people. Of course I could be privileged person who can't understand real scope of the problem. 

 

If we take every threat seriously there is high change that number of threats will drop, because people can't yell their threats without risk that there is consequences. 

 

If you think that state become police state when there are consequences when you threat to kill somebody, then we have different meanings for that word.

 

Latest from twitter. Polygon has written editorial about gamergate, journalistic ethics, corruption of gaming media and gaming culture. 

http://www.polygon.com/2014/10/17/6996601/on-gamergate-a-letter-from-the-editor

 

 

I also don't consider that a police state, it would be a very pleasant and reasonable place to live in actually

[TrashMan]

 

 

 

Should speeding not be a offence or thing that is treated seriously as there is every day billions of occurrences of speeding that don't lead accidents or road deaths and statistically those to happen compared to number of speedings is so marginal that people die more probably to meteoroid hit than it is to one occurrence speeding to cause accident.

 

 

Speeding actively endangers others.

Trash talk does not.

Big difference.

 

 

 

I have used BBS/internet as way to communicate nearly every day with people from beginning of 1990s and I have not received even single death threat against me or anybody close to me in all this time.

 

Then you must have never played competetive multiplayer or been in heated debates.

 

 

 

[Fighter]

So in a world where every threat is treated completely seriously how long will it take for people to be getting jailed over trash talking? How long will it take for a-holes to start exploiting that to ruin other people?

 

The worst thing that could happen is to let typical SJWs to write these laws. Because with their hypersensitive interpretation of things a police state is exactly what would happen. It will be like those University sexual harassment policies that are going around in the western world where presumption of guilt is what seems to rule the day.

[Meshugger]

Truth, justice and the american way!

 

 

 

http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2014/10/gamergate-destructoid-corruption-and-ruined-careers/

 

http://pastebin.com/nnR5gqdX

[Elerond]

 

 

Should speeding not be a offence or thing that is treated seriously as there is every day billions of occurrences of speeding that don't lead accidents or road deaths and statistically those to happen compared to number of speedings is so marginal that people die more probably to meteoroid hit than it is to one occurrence speeding to cause accident.

 

 

Speeding actively endangers others.

Trash talk does not.

Big difference.

 

Then you must have never played competetive multiplayer or been in heated debates.

 

One could easily claim that speeding don't in most cases endanger others. 

And one could also claim that trash talk can cause depression, anxiety and other mental (health) issues that endanger others.

 

I have played competitive multiplayers even when players needed to use same computer to play them.

I have been heated debates regularly, but maybe I have selected forums that with care and shield myself from realities of World (I have doubts that is the case, but it is also hard to judge your own behavior).

Edited October 18, 2014 by Elerond

[Malcador]

Nothing like enforced politeness.

[Elerond]

"'GameJournoPros' is a private mailing list which the owners of competing game publications use to communicate outside of public eye"

 

There are forums mailing lists, events, sauna evenings (informal private gatherings), etc. in every industry, political circle including all forms of media, which people with similar interest organize, so that they can talk and share information with people in same field. This is not corruption in any form, but normal social behavior that most people participate in their own lives (of course interest and topics of this gatherings change depending on interest and work that people do). Of course these social can lead problems, like make it harder for new people get in the field, as they need to get access on these things to build their social standing in community/ies of their field and get access to information that is shared in these things. And these things can cause formation of Old boy network where members of network have better change to get better positions in the field.

 

So it is not corruption or unethical thing to have private mailing list where you speak with other people of your field (even those that are you direct competition), but of course it can lead to favouritism and way to make things more difficult to new people to get in the business if it becomes too dominant social club/circle in the said business. 

[Malcador]

Other than the emails saying they need to help Quinn and Kuchera's usual whiny nonsense, that list has been pretty meh. Well other than the fun value of any sense of betrayal they feel

[Meshugger]

Errr, the whole Hyvä-veli mentality and sauna-evening meetings is one of the reasons why Finland has such bad competitiveness in the global market and why we have a state run by beaurocrats (think of the whole beer-festival on facebook-fiasco) to begin with. It is a ****ty practice no matter if you call not unethical or legal. 

 

But that's another discussion, back to topic.

Edited October 18, 2014 by Meshugger

[TrashMan]

 

One could easily claim that speeding don't in most cases endanger others. 

 

I have played competitive multiplayers even when players needed to use same computer to play them.

I have been heated debates regularly, but maybe I have selected forums that with care and shield myself from realities of World (I have doubts that is the case, but it is also hard to judge your own behavior).

 

Every time you are speeding you are knowingly putting people in danger.

Granted, in some places the speed limit is set really low and the danger is minimal. But driving and loosing control or reacting too slowly DOES endanger others. It's considered a minor crime and you'll get a ticket (unless you actually run over somebody)

 

Trash talk does that ONLY if you a) actually mean it and b) actually go trough with it.

I can trash talk a million times but as long as I never meant it or was able to do it, no person was ever - EVER - in danger.

Talking does not endanger him, only if I act is there danger. And that is 100% in my control.

 

In comparison speeding IS an action that endangers others every single time and the danger is not completely under your control either.

 

 

 

 

And one could also claim that trash talk can cause depression, anxiety and other mental (health) issues that endanger others.

 

Oh no!

Well, best make laws to stop people from interacting with each other completely.

We wouldn't want bad vibes to totally shatter our oh-so-fragile psyche.

 

Come to think of it, if my girflriend dumps me, that can put me in depression... ATTEMPTED MURDER!!!!

Edited October 18, 2014 by TrashMan

[Ganrich]

Quoting Ghostbusters 2 "Being miserable and treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker's God given right."

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Essentially what PJ said. Just because a forum isn't banning dissenting voices, that doesn't mean unpopular opinions won't be sanctioned in other ways; the end result is an echo chamber filled with different people - occasionally, new voices might pop up, but they'll eventually leave if they're constantly shouted down for not conforming to the greater chorus of echoes.

 

 

That isn't a figurative echo chamber. An echo chamber in that sense is where you say something and it is repeated back to you multiple times after slight delays. If you've got multiple voices (/views) that cannot happen, you say something and you get something different back. Probably something incoherent, if we were talking literally.

 

In a more general sense all communities have 'soft' social control measures that are inherent because communities have a purpose, you won't tend to get big fps fans on a specialist RPG site, so the like minded tend to congregate in the same places anyway, and most people want to be liked. But that's a far cry from having supposedly fair and uncensored 'discussions' where you are obligated to take a particular position as that is the echo chamber as there is no chance to dissent at all without being silenced- and in some cases even insufficient enthusiasm for the party line is cause for being silenced.

 

 

*shrug* Well, if we define "echo chamber" that way, then I guess strictly moderated places aren't echo chambers either, because within the confines of moderation, there are still separate views.

[Longknife]

http://m.imgur.com/0glwCyY

 

 

My reaction:

Edited October 19, 2014 by Longknife

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

http://m.imgur.com/0glwCyY

 

 

My reaction:

I don't think he knows what "literal" means.

[Longknife]

https://medium.com/@evanderkoogh/so-i-read-the-1500-mentions-anita-sarkeesian-and-brianna-wu-got-in-the-last-20-hours-f0bbc27f3ac4

 

 

There's multiple reasons to go "wtf" in this.

[TrashMan]

https://medium.com/@evanderkoogh/so-i-read-the-1500-mentions-anita-sarkeesian-and-brianna-wu-got-in-the-last-20-hours-f0bbc27f3ac4

 

 

There's multiple reasons to go "wtf" in this.

 

 

Any opinion that isn't supportive must be stopped! Forever!

[Malcador]

Not many Twitter funnies, Cheong is being idle today

 

[Fighter]

Illustrates SJW-ism perfectly

 

- You can't count.

- You're attacking women.

 

/logic

[licketysplit]

Isn't Wu transgender? Muddles her retort a bit.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Isn't Wu transgender? Muddles her retort a bit.

I'm not sure, I thought it though when I saw her in video.