Journalism and bias in the gaming industry.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

I for one believe the media has a very large hand in the actions of a culture, and if you wanna talk about people being insanely paranoid or reactionary....? Perhaps it's because the media finds fear-mongering and hate-infusing narratives to be marketable, and guess who GamerGate is after? The media and their slanted narratives.

 

 

I can certainly get behind that and have experienced people worrying on my behalf (who watch a lot of TV news incidentally), more than I worry myself.

 

But as someone looking at GG objectively, I do see a lot of sensationalism on all sides - from fairly straight forward feminists agendas and/or misogyny, to big business corruption and nepotism... and while I can certainly understand the conclusions being drawn, I have to say that they often done so on rather flimsy evidence. And the entire debate seems to have been hijacked (and allowed to be hijacked) by the loudest 'I see a conspiracy!!' types.

 

As a 'pro-GG', do you feel your platform is being taken over by the same kind of hate-infused narrative (from other pro-GGs)?

edit: or rather, I guess my question is - what do the majority of 'pro-GG' see the issue as? From your perspective.

 

 

In what way?

 

Don't get me wrong, the conspiracy-happy crowd is definitely amidst GamerGate, but I would hardly say they've hijacked the debate. For example one little conspiracy I saw was that this was all a plot by that Common Core education system to integrate gaming into education or some crap. Read it, thought it sounded ridiculous, still is. You don't ever see that little conspiracy theory being the cornerstone of discussion though, because it's ridiculous. The stuff that does get discussed is, for example, Mark Kern's comments against the journalist actions and hopes that other devs will speak up and back him up.

Yeah, I don't pay attention to the conspiracy stuff tbh. The nepotism we've found, like Patricia Hernandez shilling for girlfriends and roommates, is more than enough to be pissed off about.

 

In related matters, Bobby Olivera is taking a break from heavy drug use to threaten dox a woman.

 

I'd report him if I had a Twitter, but I think a few of you do.

 

[Blarghagh]

About Cultural Marxism, is this the product of insane right wing thinking?

 

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sc1pi4

 

To clarify Meshugger's post, this isn't a random twitter post but research from Alexander Macris, founder (one of?) the Escapist.

 

 

 

 

I didn't see the video, but that study isn't very thorough either. A lot of methods and conclusions are questionable.

 

Adrienne Shaw is a fairly well known figure in game studies as an academic field (which remains small and underdeveloped). 

 

Its methods aren't a huge problem. Within cultural / media studies, where this study would fit, it is seen as sufficient (though whether those wider standards are OK is another issue).

 

'Identity' is often a very limited term, though, and when you use that word with your interviewees and to do your analysis you often end up getting into loops where it just catches too many things in its net. What does "I identify with this character" mean, anyway? A lot of things, depending on the circumstance.

 

Which is one of the reasons that paper boils down into something what most gamers know: playing or creating a character, LGBT or not, doesn't mean 'identifying' with them necessarily. *shrug*

 

 

That's essentially what I mean. The research isn't good enough to justify any conclusion, which is why the conclusion is mostly vague "doesn't neccesarily" stuff. Even at the terrible local college I went to, that wouldn't have flown. An example from my time there would be that I got an instant fail for asking people what they saw first on the screen, rather than doing or at least adding something scientific like eye tracking to confirm their statements. I assume this is an American college?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

My conclusions derive from giving lower ratings for games with questionable content, click-bait journalism and general disdain for the audience. No self-respecting person would conduct in such behaviour unless they want to the change/destroy the industry. Of course the customers did not agree and here we are. 

 

 

I just have no idea why you think the fact that you're not their audience and they make this quite clear must mean they have a general disdain for the people they do consider to be their audience.

 

Also, giving a game a lower rating based on "questionable content" is, ultimately, as much a subjective metric as giving a game a lower rating because it lacks a FOV slider. It's not like you a/ can't just read the article and adjust the final rating based on the fact that the complaints raised are irrelevant to you, and b/ are forced to only consume reviews by people who assign ratings based on criteria you feel are irrelevant. This is the beauty of the free market.

 

 

By that logic there are no reasons to join Greenpeace until one is personally affected by pollution or environmental damage. Things do not work that way.

 

 

 

I'm literally incapable of comprehending this analogy. Are gaming journalists destroying the environment? Is anybody forcing you to listen to their inane prattle?  "Hurr durr they're out there to take away our gaemz" doesn't count, unless proof is provided that they've made any progress in doing so.

 

 

 

...So, I actually spent 17 minutes of my life on watching that unbearably inane video of the guy essentially reading this paper aloud.

 

After reading what the paper actually says, I have concluded that the guy has utterly failed to comprehend it on the most basic level, and his smug announcement of "see, gamers don't need diversity" only sheds light to the extent of his ignorance, not the fact that gamers, indeed, have no need of diversity.

 

So what i got out of your two points is that Sargon has doubtful connections (what do you even mean by that?), inane opinions (how?) and fail to comprehend anything (what?). Do you even have an argument? Because you're not saying anything at the moment.

 

 

Basically this:

 

I didn't see the video, but that study isn't very thorough either. A lot of methods and conclusions are questionable.

 

 

Let's start with the fact that a sample size of 27 is laughable. 1000 would be optimal, or, if it's unfeasible, 300 gives a reasonably reliable data pool. You just can't make any far-reaching statements based on the opinion of 27 people. "Gamers don't need diversity" definitely counts as a far-reaching statement.

 

But even if, miraculously, it wasn't sloppy research, you're still faced with the problem that you're trying to justify that diversity isn't necessary. One of the core arguments (a fairly inane one, but still) for diversity is that people who feel they aren't represented will simply not play games. Surely you must understand how asking people who already play games might not be the most reliable way of assessing how truthful that assertion is.

Another one is that non-diverse games reinforce the marginalization of... well, marginalized groups, but since the effect is subtle, self-reporting is not going to let you see the extent of that.

 

Essentially, Sargon fails to understand why we need diversity, and is trouncing a paper utterly irrelevant to the discussion as ultimate proof of him being right. It would be entertaining in a bumbling way, if it didn't eat 20 minutes of my free time.

 

 

About Cultural Marxism, is this the product of insane right wing thinking?

 

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sc1pi4

 

 

Yes, I'd say the idea of fairly obscure ideologues who were mainly active in the '80s not only being relevant in the public consciousness, but having an iron grip over today's media is definitely the product of insane right wing thinking. It's pretty much the equivalent of saying "researchers of the WNT4 gene's effects on the promotion of ovarian development are the secret masters of the world", except with political science instead of genetics.

[Malcador]

Why do we need diversity in NPCs, exactly?

 

Is just odd to want to identify with the soldiers in COD or the PC in an RPG - it is a game, right?

Edited March 2, 2015 by Malcador

[Tigranes]

That's essentially what I mean. The research isn't good enough to justify any conclusion, which is why the conclusion is mostly vague "doesn't neccesarily" stuff. Even at the terrible local college I went to, that wouldn't have flown. An example from my time there would be that I got an instant fail for asking people what they saw first on the screen, rather than doing or at least adding something scientific like eye tracking to confirm their statements. I assume this is an American college?

 

 

That's a difference of discipline and methodology - that would be equivalent to 'failing' a Pew survey (the authoritative institution for polling American political beliefs) because they didn't do eye tracking, or because they didn't do a long-form interview with each person about what they mean about 'democracy'. It's also naive if you think every study is or should be 'scientific' - because our society doesn't consider science the only way to knowledge.

 

Getting away from the generals, just asking people about what they see and how they interpret things can be a valid way to do research - it just changes what kinds of questions you can answer. In this study, it looks like the point was to discover how gamers interpret their own experience and how they think about their own approach to games.

 

Oh, and you can't do long form interviews and observations with 300 (the accepted N for quantitative, survey-based social science) unless you are a huge institution and you want to spend a huge amount of money on every single study like this. 

 

Not to be provocative but purely to be accurate, if we use existing academic standards, it is you or aluminium that has "failed to comprehend it on a basic level", because you are expecting it to answer questions on a different level then accusing it of having no methodology. After all, I'm assuming the author didn't write this study as an answer to the GamerGate controversy or its attendant questions. 

 

It is a valid, if not stellar, study that makes a basic, preliminary examination: do LGBT, etc. gamers take their avatars in games to be a 1:1 representation of themselves, or any such kinds of 'identification'? Findings suggest this does not seem necessarily the case. Presented in a conference by the way, and not in an academic journal. If a more finished study is available I assume that would be more helpful to anyone in this thread. My criticism would be, as I said, that 'identification' means so little, and most gamers knew this already. 

 

(Actually, this reflects a lot of the problems with studies on games - it's still so underdeveloped that they're still having to 'test' things many gamers would say is already obvious, because, you know, to be 'scientific' you can't just go by gamers' common sense, which isn't uniform anyway...)

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Why do we need diversity in NPCs, exactly?

 

 

"Verisimilitude" would be a big reason, for example. If you go by the fact that about 80-90% of important NPCs are white in games set in today's America, whereas in reality, the percentage of non-Hispanic whites is 63%, it's kind of understandable if minorities feel underrepresented.

 

 

 

Not to be provocative but purely to be accurate, if we use existing academic standards, it is you or aluminium that has "failed to comprehend it on a basic level", because you are expecting it to answer questions on a different level then accusing it of having no methodology. After all, I'm assuming the author didn't write this study as an answer to the GamerGate controversy or its attendant questions. 

 

 

 

...Actually, what I took issue was that the maker of that video took the study out of context and tried to use it to prove a statement it simply can't be used to prove. I wasn't saying the study failed at its aims, I was saying Sargon of Akkad failed to interpret it correctly.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Why do we need diversity in NPCs, exactly?

Is just odd to want to identify with the soldiers in COD or the PC in an RPG - it is a game, right?

We don't need it. IMO it would be nice to see more interesting and varied NPCs, but expecting that from AAA games is a bit...strange.

 

And no it isn't odd. People play games differently, just do whatever works for you.

[Malcador]

"Verisimilitude" would be a big reason, for example. If you go by the fact that about 80-90% of important NPCs are white in games set in today's America, whereas in reality, the percentage of non-Hispanic whites is 63%, it's kind of understandable if minorities feel underrepresented.

Yeah but a lot of the whining about isn't looking at a game set in today's America or how it affects realism (funny enough the way some use realism as well to whine, heh) or it as part of development rather than it being something "driving" people away. Plenty of Asians, Blacks, Latinos, homosexuals, people that identify with blenders, etc play games and somehow manage to not need to be one with the protagonist, just find it odd.

 

Then again, in most all cases "need" is just "I am pouting and want this".

[Amentep]

I'm literally incapable of comprehending this analogy. Are gaming journalists destroying the environment? Is anybody forcing you to listen to their inane prattle?  "Hurr durr they're out there to take away our gaemz" doesn't count, unless proof is provided that they've made any progress in doing so.

I think the argument would be that if a metacritic score is an important thing for a developer (and I believe that it has been, with regard to developer-publisher contracts) then there is an important weight to a game critics critique beyond whether one listens to it or not. 

 

That's a difference of discipline and methodology - that would be equivalent to 'failing' a Pew survey (the authoritative institution for polling American political beliefs) because they didn't do eye tracking, or because they didn't do a long-form interview with each person about what they mean about 'democracy'. It's also naive if you think every study is or should be 'scientific' - because our society doesn't consider science the only way to knowledge.

When I was doing an undergraduate sociology course, 27 people was considered too few. You could get 27 people in the class and still have 70 left over.

 

Mind you that's why I never did any stuff involving people directly...

 

Anyhow, this is one of those studies - regardless of what you think of the methodology or the sample size - where I think we can all agree that further study would be necessary before any really strong hypothesies could be developed.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Amentep

[Blarghagh]

 

That's essentially what I mean. The research isn't good enough to justify any conclusion, which is why the conclusion is mostly vague "doesn't neccesarily" stuff. Even at the terrible local college I went to, that wouldn't have flown. An example from my time there would be that I got an instant fail for asking people what they saw first on the screen, rather than doing or at least adding something scientific like eye tracking to confirm their statements. I assume this is an American college?

 

 

That's a difference of discipline and methodology - that would be equivalent to 'failing' a Pew survey (the authoritative institution for polling American political beliefs) because they didn't do eye tracking, or because they didn't do a long-form interview with each person about what they mean about 'democracy'. It's also naive if you think every study is or should be 'scientific' - because our society doesn't consider science the only way to knowledge.

 

Getting away from the generals, just asking people about what they see and how they interpret things can be a valid way to do research - it just changes what kinds of questions you can answer. In this study, it looks like the point was to discover how gamers interpret their own experience and how they think about their own approach to games.

 

Oh, and you can't do long form interviews and observations with 300 (the accepted N for quantitative, survey-based social science) unless you are a huge institution and you want to spend a huge amount of money on every single study like this. 

 

Not to be provocative but purely to be accurate, if we use existing academic standards, it is you or aluminium that has "failed to comprehend it on a basic level", because you are expecting it to answer questions on a different level then accusing it of having no methodology. After all, I'm assuming the author didn't write this study as an answer to the GamerGate controversy or its attendant questions. 

 

It is a valid, if not stellar, study that makes a basic, preliminary examination: do LGBT, etc. gamers take their avatars in games to be a 1:1 representation of themselves, or any such kinds of 'identification'? Findings suggest this does not seem necessarily the case. Presented in a conference by the way, and not in an academic journal. If a more finished study is available I assume that would be more helpful to anyone in this thread. My criticism would be, as I said, that 'identification' means so little, and most gamers knew this already. 

 

(Actually, this reflects a lot of the problems with studies on games - it's still so underdeveloped that they're still having to 'test' things many gamers would say is already obvious, because, you know, to be 'scientific' you can't just go by gamers' common sense, which isn't uniform anyway...)

 

 

 

That's all true, especially that science shouldn't be the sum of human knowledge, but I do think a certain point of factual confirmation is neccesary when dealing with asking people how they "feel" about something (which is essentially what this study did) because if my experience with cognitive therapy have taught me anything it's that what people say or even think they're feeling is not neccesarily what they are feeling. Add that to the fact that the simple action of asking a question often puts people in the mind of reconsidering and thinking about what their answer should be pretty much means that such a study is never going to amount to any useful information. This study and many others (especially, as you say, in the game industry) are never going to amount fo anything but mere speculation using such methods. My experience is very limited, of course, so I'm totally open to being told I'm wrong.

Edited March 2, 2015 by TrueNeutral
added quote

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

I'm literally incapable of comprehending this analogy. Are gaming journalists destroying the environment? Is anybody forcing you to listen to their inane prattle?  "Hurr durr they're out there to take away our gaemz" doesn't count, unless proof is provided that they've made any progress in doing so.

I think the argument would be that if a metacritic score is an important thing for a developer (and I believe that it has been, with regard to developer-publisher contracts) then there is an important weight to a game critics critique beyond whether one listens to it or not. 

 

 

 

Well, absolutely, but why should game journalists be held responsible for actually acting with integrity for once and assigning a score they feel is appropriate, regardless of the consequences for the dev team, as opposed to the publisher who made bonuses contingent on Metacritic scores, a notoriously unreliable way of assessing quality?

Edited March 2, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Amentep]

 

 

I'm literally incapable of comprehending this analogy. Are gaming journalists destroying the environment? Is anybody forcing you to listen to their inane prattle?  "Hurr durr they're out there to take away our gaemz" doesn't count, unless proof is provided that they've made any progress in doing so.

I think the argument would be that if a metacritic score is an important thing for a developer (and I believe that it has been, with regard to developer-publisher contracts) then there is an important weight to a game critics critique beyond whether one listens to it or not.

 

 

 

Well, absolutely, but why should game journalists be held responsible for actually acting with integrity for once and assigning a score they feel is appropriate, regardless of the consequences for the dev team, as opposed to the publisher who made bonuses contingent on Metacritic scores, a notoriously unreliable way of assessing quality?

 

Well I'd argue that trying to get the game journalists to be responsible would be the better way to "improve" the system as it improves several things, but YMMV.

[Blarghagh]

There's a certain amount of power in journalists that comes with affecting such scores, regardless of who gave them that power. IMO. That concern is essentially being dealt with, however, with so many websites dropping scores and initiatives like BasedGamer coming up.

Edited March 2, 2015 by TrueNeutral

[Nonek]

Exactly the gaming press as well as being corrupt, unethical and poor writers are simply unfit for the purposes of their role, so I agree no one should base anything upon their inane ramblings, they hold no weight and are regressive and harmful to the medium. Hopefully developers and publishers will soon stop dealing with them, and their advocation of harassment and demonisation of the innocent paying customers whom have made this industry will soon be forgotten.

[Amentep]

^I'm not sure its fair to lump all of the gaming press together as being "corrupt, unethical and poor writers" anymore than it is to do the same with gamers and the position that they are "mysoginistic neckbeards who stand for the harrassers of women and minorities in video games, trying to keep it an all boys club".

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

For some reason 'tep's avatar reminds me of Trotsky.

 

[Nonek]

There are a few that stand out, but the majority are simply unfit for purpose, best to start again with new guidelines and an oversight body in my opinion. The lies that have been used against all gamers are just that, while the uselessness of the gaming press is by and large true.

[Blarghagh]

That seems like desperate measures. Amentep is completely correct. I think the problems in general lie more with the editors and policy makers. There are few journalists I actually have a problem with, but I'm more concerned with what the editors allow. The repeated refusals to adequately update ethics policies on some sites, that's what I think is problematic. I'm completely fine keeping a majority of writers who have never done anything wrong, as long as the policy changes and there is a clearer divide between op-ed and consumer advocacy.

[Amentep]

For some reason 'tep's avatar reminds me of Trotsky.

 

If Trotsky had been a a female jazz pianist and singer, that is.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Well I'd argue that trying to get the game journalists to be responsible would be the better way to "improve" the system as it improves several things, but YMMV.

 

 

Well, in my opinion, gaming journalism is a joke, but it's essentially a harmless joke. On the other hand, publishers being incompetent, greedy and risk-averse to the point of games in certain genres being essentially interchangeable has harmed and will continue to harm the industry as a whole.

[Amentep]

 

Well I'd argue that trying to get the game journalists to be responsible would be the better way to "improve" the system as it improves several things, but YMMV.

 

Well, in my opinion, gaming journalism is a joke, but it's essentially a harmless joke. On the other hand, publishers being incompetent, greedy and risk-averse to the point of games in certain genres being essentially interchangeable has harmed and will continue to harm the industry as a whole.

 

Most entertainment producers are about maximising profits while minimzing risks. Its part of the creation of commercial art without the ability to predict what the public will want or be interested in (particularly with the long development cycles).

 

I agree that a more diverse (in terms of plots, theme, gameplay) game development environment is a better one, but I'm not sure how much we can expect that from a big publisher.

[Nonek]

That seems like desperate measures. Amentep is completely correct. I think the problems in general lie more with the editors and policy makers. There are few journalists I actually have a problem with, but I'm more concerned with what the editors allow. The repeated refusals to adequately update ethics policies on some sites, that's what I think is problematic. I'm completely fine keeping a majority of writers who have never done anything wrong, as long as the policy changes and there is a clearer divide between op-ed and consumer advocacy.

 

Personally I hold that it's gone too far for that, they have damaged their integrity through years of corruption and publisher over consumer advocacy, and they remain commited to nepotism, regressive gaming and unethical behaviour. They have tainted their entire profession and alienated the average consumers whom they look down upon as untermensch, better now to have publishers and developers pull all advertising and pioneer a new more efficient and fit for purpose model, that is worthy of a multi billion dollar industry.

 

If innocent writers are consumer focused rather than hatemongering and unethical, then they will have a place in the new model, free of the taint of their old profession.

[Blarghagh]

Well I'd argue that trying to get the game journalists to be responsible would be the better way to "improve" the system as it improves several things, but YMMV.

Well, in my opinion, gaming journalism is a joke, but it's essentially a harmless joke. On the other hand, publishers being incompetent, greedy and risk-averse to the point of games in certain genres being essentially interchangeable has harmed and will continue to harm the industry as a whole.

 

I don't consider them a harmless joke. They may not hold power over publishers, but they hold power over independent developers which, to me personally, is a far bigger deal than whoever is making gaming's version of Transformers. It's why I care about this at all.

 

 

 

That seems like desperate measures. Amentep is completely correct. I think the problems in general lie more with the editors and policy makers. There are few journalists I actually have a problem with, but I'm more concerned with what the editors allow. The repeated refusals to adequately update ethics policies on some sites, that's what I think is problematic. I'm completely fine keeping a majority of writers who have never done anything wrong, as long as the policy changes and there is a clearer divide between op-ed and consumer advocacy.

 

Personally I hold that it's gone too far for that, they have damaged their integrity through years of corruption and publisher over consumer advocacy, and they remain commited to nepotism, regressive gaming and unethical behaviour. They have tainted their entire profession and alienated the average consumers whom they look down upon as untermensch, better now to have publishers and developers pull all advertising and pioneer a new more efficient and fit for purpose model, that is worthy of a multi billion dollar industry.

 

If innocent writers are consumer focused rather than hatemongering and unethical, then they will have a place in the new model, free of the taint of their old profession.

 

 

Who is "they"? They remain committed to nepotism? You keep generalizing. That's not helpful. That's what anti-#GamerGate does. Wasn't #GamerGate about personal accountability? Isn't this whole thing about how guilt by association isn't a thing?

Edited March 2, 2015 by TrueNeutral

[Meshugger]

 

 

I'm literally incapable of comprehending this analogy. Are gaming journalists destroying the environment? Is anybody forcing you to listen to their inane prattle?  "Hurr durr they're out there to take away our gaemz" doesn't count, unless proof is provided that they've made any progress in doing so.

 

They are universally wrong and i do not need to be personally affected to point out that they are full of ****.

 

 

Let's start with the fact that a sample size of 27 is laughable. 1000 would be optimal, or, if it's unfeasible, 300 gives a reasonably reliable data pool. You just can't make any far-reaching statements based on the opinion of 27 people. "Gamers don't need diversity" definitely counts as a far-reaching statement.

 

Agreed.

 

 

 

But even if, miraculously, it wasn't sloppy research, you're still faced with the problem that you're trying to justify that diversity isn't necessary. One of the core arguments (a fairly inane one, but still) for diversity is that people who feel they aren't represented will simply not play games. Surely you must understand how asking people who already play games might not be the most reliable way of assessing how truthful that assertion is.

 

Fair enough. But why would it matter for people that are not interested in games to begin with? they have zero market value and offer no value for the hobby itself.

 

Another one is that non-diverse games reinforce the marginalization of... well, marginalized groups, but since the effect is subtle, self-reporting is not going to let you see the extent of that. Essentially, Sargon fails to understand why we need diversity, and is trouncing a paper utterly irrelevant to the discussion as ultimate proof of him being right. It would be entertaining in a bumbling way, if it didn't eat 20 minutes of my free time.

 

Why?

 

Diversity is a result of an organic process of people liking the same thing. Trying to force it in any way is tyranny. Surely you understand that people will not give up their freedom of creativity and choice to satisfy an abstract notion such as that?

 

 

 

Yes, I'd say the idea of fairly obscure ideologues who were mainly active in the '80s not only being relevant in the public consciousness, but having an iron grip over today's media is definitely the product of insane right wing thinking. It's pretty much the equivalent of saying "researchers of the WNT4 gene's effects on the promotion of ovarian development are the secret masters of the world", except with political science instead of genetics.

 

 No said anything about an iron grip. It is definately the most popular one among authoritarian ones.  

[Nonek]

 

 

That seems like desperate measures. Amentep is completely correct. I think the problems in general lie more with the editors and policy makers. There are few journalists I actually have a problem with, but I'm more concerned with what the editors allow. The repeated refusals to adequately update ethics policies on some sites, that's what I think is problematic. I'm completely fine keeping a majority of writers who have never done anything wrong, as long as the policy changes and there is a clearer divide between op-ed and consumer advocacy.

 

Personally I hold that it's gone too far for that, they have damaged their integrity through years of corruption and publisher over consumer advocacy, and they remain commited to nepotism, regressive gaming and unethical behaviour. They have tainted their entire profession and alienated the average consumers whom they look down upon as untermensch, better now to have publishers and developers pull all advertising and pioneer a new more efficient and fit for purpose model, that is worthy of a multi billion dollar industry.

 

If innocent writers are consumer focused rather than hatemongering and unethical, then they will have a place in the new model, free of the taint of their old profession.

 

 

Who is "they"? They remain committed to nepotism? You keep generalizing. That's not helpful. That's what anti-#GamerGate does. Wasn't #GamerGate about personal accountability? Isn't this whole thing about how guilt by association isn't a thing?

 

 

Anyone whom has conspired to preach at their mature audience, anyone whom has used disparaging language against any game player, anybody remotely involved in the twelve articles arguing that gamers are dead, those whom have misused their positions of authority to demonise rather than serve the consumer, etcetera. I assume the names of those whom have argued against ethical behaviour can soon be dug out and their offences brought to light, they make no effort to hide such actions, and one can easily hang them with their own words.

 

There shouldn't be a future for such people, and their own words can serve to inform the industry why.

 

Edit: What the devil happened to all our names, most erratic. Oh they're back now, never mind.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Nonek