Journalism and sexism in the games industry

[Gorth]

Start of old thread

End of old thread

 

Like the death scene in a bad stage play... it just goes on and on

 

Edit: Last words in the previous discussion by ChilloutMan:

 

---

 

 

Guys dont get sidetracked - this is not problem of hookers, male or female, killing of people, oppresing people, purple people. Does Not Matter. Problem is censorship and where cencorship leads...

Who's being censored, and by whom?

 

Noone yet - but that guy wanted Rockstar to change their product because of his opinion/political agenda - it is censorship if it goes through and Bruce promoting censoring game content on moraly questionable actions

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Well it looks like LW might have stolen a dev's code.

https://twitter.com/CodeusaSoftware/status/543299860599177216/photo/1

 

Chances this will be reported on?

[Orogun01]

Well it looks like LW might have stolen a dev's code.

https://twitter.com/CodeusaSoftware/status/543299860599177216/photo/1

 

Chances this will be reported on?

I don't think this is as big a blow to Wu's image as Revolution 60

[Blarghagh]

Think that's Quinn, not Wu.

[Tale]

Well it looks like LW might have stolen a dev's code.

https://twitter.com/CodeusaSoftware/status/543299860599177216/photo/1

 

Chances this will be reported on?

I think it's cute how you have to resort to codenames so you can pretend you're not obsessing over women who aren't even journalists, in a movement that's supposed to be about journalism.

 

"Cute" is probably not the right word, though.

 

Noone yet - but that guy wanted Rockstar to change their product because of his opinion/political agenda - it is censorship if it goes through

Consumers asking people to make changes to their games isn't censorship. It wasn't censorship when Retake does it, it's not censorship when Sensuki does it, and I'm going to presume it's not censorship when this person does it unless they're organizing e-mail campaigns and petitions to retailers or governments.

 

It's censorship when an authority does it. If the government gets involved, then it becomes censorship. Arguably when Target or K-Mart do it, too. But that's their prerogative. Target and K-Mart aren't free speech zones.

 

Now I guess it's kind of a fine line. Because people trying to get advertising pulled because of editorials and reviews they don't like, well that's also censorship. But for some reason, the movement doesn't have a problem with that censorship.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I think how it's cute how you handwave away theft.

[Tale]

Here's how that's going to go down. The creator of the code is going to contact her, ask her to put in the appropriate comment or readme, she's going to do it, and the creator will say everything's good now.

 

But you're still going to be obsessing over a women who's not a journalist in a movement that's about ethics in journalism.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Yes one post is clearly obsessing, you've found me out. It clearly has nothing to do with someone using someone else's work without credit, or the lack of reporting on such.

[BruceVC]

Yes one post is clearly obsessing, you've found me out. It clearly has nothing to do with someone using someone else's work without credit, or the lack of reporting on such.

 

To be fair you guys obsess about many topics and basically all the time, this whole thread and the previous ones are testimony to that

[Nonek]

Reminds me I need some new pots and kettles for christmas, any recommendations.

Edited December 12, 2014 by Nonek

[BruceVC]

Reminds me I need some new pots and kettles for christmas, any recommendations.

 

 

Nonek I don't like what you are insinuating

[Tale]

Yes one post is clearly obsessing

One post about someone your movement talks about so much you had to come up with a codename for her.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Yes one post is clearly obsessing, you've found me out. It clearly has nothing to do with someone using someone else's work without credit, or the lack of reporting on such.

 

To be fair you guys obsess about many topics and basically all the time, this whole thread and the previous ones are testimony to that

That's generally how threads dedicated to a topic work Bruce.

 

However, I believe this is this first time I've mentioned her in over two weeks, and would not be doing so if it was not something I feel should be known by the community. If it was Daniel Varva doing it, I would post the info as well because not crediting someone for their work is akin to stealing it, which is wrong. The press should notify consumers of this, as we have a right to know if the developer of a game stole someone else's work.

 

 

Yes one post is clearly obsessing

One post about someone your movement talks about so much you had to come up with a codename for her.

Yes one post. Compared to many more about Gawker, Kotaku, the Guardian, Polygon, and The Verge, who my movement talks about much more than her.

Edited December 12, 2014 by KaineParker

[Blarghagh]

Obsessing. He got the wrong one. It's also not a codename, it's a response. Somebody else talks about them, you go "literally who?"

 

Either way, I'd rather not mention them sooner than I would. It's a pointless subject that leads to pointless discussions like this. Because engaging with people who consistently engage #GamerGate on their own accord is harassment and "obsessing".

Edited December 12, 2014 by TrueNeutral

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

https://twitter.com/RaveofRavendale/status/543332679178289152/photo/1

 

Dev is allegedly offered a review on exchange for money.

 

http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/451/451.html

 

I found this relevant to the GTAV situation.

 

Obsessing. He got the wrong one.

http://youtu.be/-p5TFsUbR0A

Edited December 12, 2014 by KaineParker

[Blarghagh]

Yeah, mobile games are rife with false reviews. You practically have to buy them to get any traction unless you go viral. I've sadly gained a lot of experience with this, being literally ordered to negotiate with these people. Never trust a review is doubly true for mobile games. Apple literally sells them themselves.

[Chilloutman]

Consumers asking people to make changes to their games isn't censorship. It wasn't censorship when Retake does it, it's not censorship when Sensuki does it, and I'm going to presume it's not censorship when this person does it unless they're organizing e-mail campaigns and petitions to retailers or governments.

 

It's censorship when an authority does it. If the government gets involved, then it becomes censorship. Arguably when Target or K-Mart do it, too. But that's their prerogative. Target and K-Mart aren't free speech zones.

 

Now I guess it's kind of a fine line. Because people trying to get advertising pulled because of editorials and reviews they don't like, well that's also censorship. But for some reason, the movement doesn't have a problem with that censorship.

I see where you are heading and I kinda agree with you, but it doesnt have to be any higher authority to do so. However I see it little differently. If someone asking developer to change something because its not working, is poor quality or hindering way to use product its completly fine, however asking to change something based on morality or ideology is called censorship (especialy when media are now starting to be involved). It may result of self-censorship of author.

 

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.

 

Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of their own works or speech, it is called self-censorship. Censorship may be direct or it may be indirect, in which case it is called soft censorship. It occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel.

[Blarghagh]

I don't feel Target is doing real censorship, but I feel it's the goal of the petition that caused Target to take this position. Have you guys read it? It is explicitly stated that the goal is to have eventually all other stores follow suit and such morally wrong content can no longer be sold anywhere. It's not "I won't shop where this stuff is available, listen to me your consumer", it's "I won't stop as long as this stuff is available, don't listen to this product's consumers".

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I don't feel Target is doing real censorship, but I feel it's the goal of the petition that caused Target to take this position. Have you guys read it? It is explicitly stated that the goal is to have eventually all other stores follow suit and such morally wrong content can no longer be sold anywhere. It's not "I won't shop where this stuff is available, listen to me your consumer", it's "I won't stop as long as this stuff is available, don't listen to this product's consumers".

I really don't want to argue semantics over censorship and banning. Rather, this is objecting to art(I realize this term may open a huge can of worms) because you find its content objectionable. On its own that isn't a problem, but when you start urging entities to stop carrying art because you don't like the content, you're attempting to force your views on others and stifle creative freedom. I don't like GTA but their right to make the content they want supersedes my right not to be offended.

 

Now if the same group had instead put their efforts to something more positive, like promoting an existing game they found to be acceptable that would be quite a different matter, and frankly something I wouldn't mind seeing as I don't play GTA. But when you start clamoring to shut something you disagree with down, you're attacking someone's creative freedom. Not only is this bad for freedom, but it's also ineffective at stopping the spread of GTA and will probably end up increasing its popularity. The best way to combat GTA is to make an alternative that consumers will buy instead.

[Meshugger]

Topical:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m3ojn325H0#t=227

 

[bruce-mode]You guys should really see this! it is quite insightful and he has a reasonable opinion[/bruce-mode]

Edited December 12, 2014 by Meshugger

[Blarghagh]

Okay, since too many people are going on about it, let's get out some specific definition. When I accuse something of being censorious, I refer to this definition:

 

Merriam-Webster defines "to censor" as the following: To examine books, movies, letters, etc., in order to remove things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc.

 

Can we all agree that while Target is not guilty of this, it is definitely the goal of the petition that caused Target's decision and that by this definition censorship is not, by any stretch of the word, excluded to any entities other than government?

[Tale]

And now look what I found.

http://www.quinnspiracy.com/clone/

 

The attribution is at the bottom. So has the problem been solved or was it always there? Simple mistake or campaign of misinformation by an online mob against a woman they've been targetting for, what, 4 months now?

 

Does it still make sense to want to cover? Because that's the line you're looking at.

[licketysplit]

This Zoe chick really needs to get over herself. GG was never about her and it's evolved way beyond her tryst with Grayson.

Edited December 12, 2014 by licketysplit

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Okay, since too many people are going on about it, let's get out some specific definition. When I accuse something of being censorious, I refer to this definition:

 

Merriam-Webster defines "to censor" as the following: To examine books, movies, letters, etc., in order to remove things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc.

 

Can we all agree that while Target is not guilty of this, it is definitely the goal of the petition that caused Target's decision and that by this definition censorship is not, by any stretch of the word, excluded to any entities other than government?

Absolutely. There was a similar petition to ban the game in Canada using the same arguments. I see the same attitudes from "Family-Values" conservatives, such as One Million Moms(laughably founded by a dude) getting Mistresses pulled off the air.

[Blarghagh]

Hey, don't look at me. I don't care what she does at all. I recall that when this was "The Quinnspiracy" before #GamerGate even existed that I viciously condemned her harassment. The problem is that every time #GamerGate has forgotten her, somebody has to bring her back up. Sometimes it's a "pro-#GamerGater" (because the downside of being an amorphous blob of people is that anyone can claim to be one) and sometimes it's an "anti-#GamerGater" and most of the time it's herself, such as with the article adressing #GamerGate she recently posted (if you're really being harassed by someone, I'd say the correct response is not to legitimize them by engaging).

 

In other news, I find it very irritating that the Apple store has declined to carry Papers, Please. I understand why, the uncensored nudity obviously, but it's completely and utterly nonsexual. Slap a parental warning on it and you're good to go. Now you're just censoring an incredibly engaging and educational experience.

Edited December 12, 2014 by TrueNeutral