GamerGate WTF?

[Andara Bledin]

It's obvious that people don't really care about ethics in gaming journalism or it would have reached critical mass on it's own. That it took a smokescreen by a crew of assholes to make anything happen is just proof that nobody really cares except as it can further their agendas. Particularly notable in the fact that since the vast majority of everybody understands that GG is about misogyny, the whole ethics fight has lost all visibility once more.

Unlike the assholes of GG, the EGJ crew really is small and fringe. For Doritosgate, people cared for a whole month and then it was on to the next thing.

Also, your comment about Nintendo Power burns in how utterly nonsensical it is. Or do you think that Macworld needs to cover Windows products, and Cat Fancy should include information on dogs, and Parents Magazine should include articles aimed at bachelors?

Plus, any mention of GAD articles "a day later" just indicates an utter and complete lack of understanding of the modern 24-hour news cycle. This happens with every popular story that hits the shelves (it happened with the Doritogate thing, too, for starters). That anyone thinks it's somehow new or related only to gaming journalism just means they need to get out more. >_>

[ZedOmega]

It's obvious that people don't really care about ethics in gaming journalism or it would have reached critical mass on it's own. That it took a smokescreen by a crew of assholes to make anything happen is just proof that nobody really cares except as it can further their agendas. Particularly notable in the fact that since the vast majority of everybody understands that GG is about misogyny, the whole ethics fight has lost all visibility once more.

This might surprise you, but it took months for a member of the SPJ to start showing interest in the entire mess. Their Florida offices have been setting up an event so that both sides can air their grievances directly to the SPJ.. The pro side of things is split between 'thanks for hearing us out' and 'it's not even worth it; the antis flat-out refused to show and are demanding that nobody pay any attention to it, but Michael Koretsky's offer still stands for them.

What does it say that almost a year later, the one thing that could potentially end this entire mess is being avoided like the plague by the one side that wants to see it end? (Other than 'this is going to be a clusterfuck one way or the other, might as well stock up on popcorn just in case?)

Unlike the assholes of GG, the EGJ crew really is small and fringe. For Doritosgate, people cared for a whole month and then it was on to the next thing.

Much like they did for any other major news story at the time.

Also, your comment about Nintendo Power burns in how utterly nonsensical it is.

That's why I said that peoples' opinions on it are going to vary. I laughed at the idea the first time I heard about it, simply because Nintendo Power was a combination of game previews/reviews, strategy guides and some decent comics. Of course, it was also the 80s/90s and a good number of people that've been gaming since childhood could honestly care less because WOO FINAL FANTASY III!

Or do you think that Macworld needs to cover Windows products, and Cat Fancy should include information on dogs, and Parents Magazine should include articles aimed at bachelors?

*snerks* I've seen stranger claims on Tumblr, trust me. That kind of a question might as well be 'how was your day?' compared to reading up on some of the stuff that appears in my dashboard on a daily basis.

Plus, any mention of GAD articles "a day later" just indicates an utter and complete lack of understanding of the modern 24-hour news cycle. This happens with every popular story that hits the shelves (it happened with the Doritogate thing, too, for starters). That anyone thinks it's somehow new or related only to gaming journalism just means they need to get out more. >_>

Searching for Doritogate on Google, using a filter starting on October 19, 2012 (the date of the video everyone really got a kick out of) and ending today shows that people are still referencing it, if not writing about it. There are stories that catch peoples' eye for a moment before they go back to their daily routines, and there's the kind of story that people either don't easily forget about or will look into once it's referenced just to find out what happened.

Speaking of which, I ran into this during my search on Doritogate to put the theory of 'people will forget about it' to the test. QuintinStone also thinks Doritogate is going to be discussed during the ethics portion of the panel. Also, I had to laugh at that 'It's a consumer revolt! No, it's a hashtag! No, it's a scandal! No, it's a movement! No, it's a dessert topping!' line.

[FArchivist]

All that one really needs to know:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gamergate
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Gamergate

[Rageaholic]

Sorry I'm late to this.

Most of what I've been seeing out of both of you and GK is 'they're still indefensible assholes' while at least one or two people have pretty much said 'yeah, I still don't feel comfortable saying if I'm for or against them, but at least I understand why one of their detractors isn't helping matters at all.' And as much as the argument with GK is doing wonders for both my temper and my blood pressure at this point, at least he's responding to at least some of the counterpoints I've given. The only thing I've seen from you once I posted my thoughts on this is 'yeah, fuck this zombie.'

In fact, the closest thing I've seen to a neutral response to the issue over the past months' worth of posts in this thread got met with a reaction of 'yeah, you're still a fuckface for supporting them.' The logic behind it? 'Well, if Sarkeesian and Quinn were guys, you'd have never even heard of them.' Yeah, let's continue making assumptions on what someone's reaction would be to an issue if the genders were flipped, yet claim to be the reasonable ones. That'll win points in the long run...

This is the problem I have with some of the anti GGers. You can make it crystal clear that you don't support the harassment or that you're not even part of GG, but are still labeled as all those things if you even say "yeah, I understand why they're pissed". I despise this, and I've been seeing it a lot lately. Someone who doesn't support one side 100% is treated as if they're some kind of apologist for the worst of the other side.

With that said, I think this makes a good point. As someone who occassionally gets crap for liking cheesy action and comedy movies over the heavy drama stuff, I can relate to this. I can understand why people wouldn't be drawn to artsy games (especially if the gameplay isn't very good). And dismissing critics as bigots just because they don't like games that happen to deal with certain social issues is absolute bullshit. I should repeat, this does not even come close to justifying the horrific harassment of Sarkeesian and Quinn. Nor does it justify homophobia or misogyny. But that doesn't make it any less bullshit when people say that not liking a video game makes someone a bigot. Especially if they're being banned for discussing it.

[the_std]

But the problem is still identifying with the "GG" tag, even though it's been almost fully consumed by the misogynistic haters who, as Nekojin's timeline shows, created the group to attack and harass.

If you truly do care about "ethics in journalism", why continue to use a tag that is used primarily by a group with a different agenda?

[Andara Bledin]

If you truly do care about "ethics in journalism", why continue to use a tag that is used primarily by a group with a different agenda?

This.

The "GG" tag is toxic. Full stop.

To cling to the tag while fighting for ethics in journalism means that you have an investment in GG and the toxicity that infuses every part of it in addition to any interest, real or feigned, in ethics in journalism. Because if all you really cared about was ethics in journalism, you'd be distancing yourself from GG and creating a non-toxic banner to rally around and not clinging ever-harder to a movement that is all about hate and abuse and only uses ethics in journalism as a paper-thin smokescreen to prey upon the public's credulous simplicity.

[Rageaholic]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't associate myself with gamergate (I'm an outside observer). I just think that there's a legit complaint when they are getting banned for not praising some shitty game. I also understand why Anita Sarkeesian can rub people the wrong way. GG went about this in one of the worst possible ways they could have with their harassment campaign. Because of this, I agree that the GG label needs to die. It's just hard to discuss this stuff without that elephant in the room, which is why I think otherwise decent people cling to GG.

[Nekojin]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't associate myself with gamergate (I'm an outside observer). I just think that there's a legit complaint when they are getting banned for not praising some shitty game.

Not sure which game you're talking about. Depression Quest? *shrug* Nobody really cares who likes or dislikes the game. What sites cared about was people making a huge fuss about her, in the most offensive ways possible. THAT was what got people banned from sites, not just saying, "I played it, it sucks."

As far as Site X went, the first I heard of it was when the site did a review of the game... and people in the forums with absolutely bat-shit crazy over the fact that the review was only about the game, and completely ignored the drama surrounding it. One guy even made his very first post to the site to declare that he'd been reading the site for TEN YEARS (and never made an account to post in all of ten years, apparently), and was so outraged over the fact that we WEREN'T commenting on the "controversy." And for that, he was DELETING THE BOOKMARK TO OUR SITE.

That showed us, I guess?

Also worth noting is that when the Depression Quest "controversy" spread like wildfire, the rumor mill was saying that she'd slept with "a number of" journalists for good reviews, so that her game would sell better. And in that review that Site X wrote, at least one person had the balls to ask, "So what's your involvement with her?" - implying, of course, that the writer was one of the mystery journalists who'd gotten laid for reviewing it.

I also understand why Anita Sarkeesian can rub people the wrong way.

Andara and I both seriously dislike Sarkeesian. I was actually eager to check out her Kickstarter when I first heard about it, and when Andara and I both got home that night, we watched the first video she had as part of the "sales pitch."

We backed away from supporting the Kickstarter. While we absolutely acknowledge that she's got points that are absolutely valid, she takes a terrible method of delivering it, with a hopelessly tunnel-visioned look at gaming.

I could go on for paragraphs - and have, in the past - but this thread isn't about her, and shouldn't be about her.

GG went about this in one of the worst possible ways they could have with their harassment campaign. Because of this, I agree that the GG label needs to die. It's just hard to discuss this stuff without that elephant in the room, which is why I think otherwise decent people cling to GG.

The biggest problem with gaming journalism isn't exactly a gaming journalism problem - it's a journalism problem. Gaming isn't the sole place it exists. It's even in politics, for crying out loud - very few people getting interviews with politicians will ask anything but the softest of the softball questions (or use a pre-written "interview" script), for fear that they might be black-balled from political journalism ever again.

[KabeRinnaul]

Every time I see someone insisting that it's never been about misogyny or attacks, and that the other side just doesn't understand the big picture, I can't help but imagine a guy in white robes going, "It's about our problems with illegal immigration, urban violence, left-wing media's anti-white narrative, and the decline of traditional values. You don't understand the full story. The KKK isn't about racism."

[Gravekeeper]

Also worth noting is that when the Depression Quest "controversy" spread like wildfire, the rumor mill was saying that she'd slept with "a number of" journalists for good reviews, so that her game would sell better.

The thing is her game is free. So it makes even less sense.

I could go on for paragraphs - and have, in the past - but this thread isn't about her, and shouldn't be about her.

Honestly, the thing with her is that its kind of a Striesand Effect. She would have remained a random person on Youtube if she didn't have a vagina and she certainly wouldn't have reached this level if she hadn't been attacked en mass.

The biggest problem with gaming journalism isn't exactly a gaming journalism problem - it's a journalism problem.

This is the most revealing thing about GG. The worst of the tit for tat and manipulating of gaming journalism occurs from publishers. Leaning on sites they advertise on, enforcing review embargoes until release day, etc. Remember the whole thing with Gamespot and Kane & Lynch? Thats the sort of shit GG should be after if it was legitimately about anything.

Instead its obsessed with a woman that made a freeware game because they think she used her evil vagina to get things. Which is the running theme. Women getting things they don't "deserve" because they're women. All of their primary targets are women and/or indie developers. Which is no where near the real problems with gaming journalism. The worst any male critic of GG got was some Twitter abuse. Meanwhile, Wu made fun of them once and to this day she doesn't go anywhere without a security detail.

[Rageaholic]

Not sure which game you're talking about. Depression Quest? *shrug* Nobody really cares who likes or dislikes the game. What sites cared about was people making a huge fuss about her, in the most offensive ways possible. THAT was what got people banned from sites, not just saying, "I played it, it sucks."

As far as Site X went, the first I heard of it was when the site did a review of the game... and people in the forums with absolutely bat-shit crazy over the fact that the review was only about the game, and completely ignored the drama surrounding it. One guy even made his very first post to the site to declare that he'd been reading the site for TEN YEARS (and never made an account to post in all of ten years, apparently), and was so outraged over the fact that we WEREN'T commenting on the "controversy." And for that, he was DELETING THE BOOKMARK TO OUR SITE.

Yeah, I'm even more confused now.

I mean, from what I heard, the site was banning people for not liking the game. Unless that was after the trolls brought up Quinns past? In which case, the zero tolerance might have been more understandable (though still zero tolerance).

[Gravekeeper]

I mean, from what I heard, the site was banning people for not liking the game. Unless that was after the trolls brought up Quinns past? In which case, the zero tolerance might have been more understandable (though still zero tolerance).

As I recall a number of sites went zero tolerance because of the shitstorm of harassment going on. Which led to a lot of primate like screeching about censorship, etc etc.

[ZedOmega]

This is the problem I have with some of the anti GGers. You can make it crystal clear that you don't support the harassment or that you're not even part of GG, but are still labeled as all those things if you even say "yeah, I understand why they're pissed". I despise this, and I've been seeing it a lot lately. Someone who doesn't support one side 100% is treated as if they're some kind of apologist for the worst of the other side.

Thank you. And the fact that the 'can't be neutral on a moving train' mentality can be spotted in... goddamn near everything nowadays is something that doesn't help any discussion, let alone this particular one.

With that said, I think this makes a good point. As someone who occassionally gets crap for liking cheesy action and comedy movies over the heavy drama stuff, I can relate to this. I can understand why people wouldn't be drawn to artsy games (especially if the gameplay isn't very good).

Hell, the entire article raised a lot of good points.

And as far as arthouse games go, people just go for different genres. I could go into a rant as to why that particular genre of game is a necessity nowadays, but this thread's not the best time for it. TL;DR on that: aesthetics and themes may have a lot to do with that.

And dismissing critics as bigots just because they don't like games that happen to deal with certain social issues is absolute bullshit. I should repeat, this does not even come close to justifying the horrific harassment of Sarkeesian and Quinn.

Or anyone, for that matter. On either side of the issue or even if they don't pick a side. The size of someone's audience isn't even a factor.

Nor does it justify homophobia or misogyny. But that doesn't make it any less bullshit when people say that not liking a video game makes someone a bigot. Especially if they're being banned for discussing it.

Now that last sentence is a bit of a tricky point to discuss.

The reason why banning discussions on a game itself is such a big issue is that normally, rules-lawyering becomes a massive part of it. It's one thing to not like a game because of technical flaws, bugs in the game that didn't get hammered out before release or anything like that, provided the forums and the board set aside for that kind of thing have guidelines in place and said OP follows them. They'll allow 'By-The-Numbers FPS X has shitty netcode making multiplayer impossible' or 'The writers for Navel Gazer 3 missed an opportunity to expand on the story between Pam Playersurrogate and Steve Storyadvancement', but they usually won't let a thread talking about how 'Template Clicker's devs are all jackasses because completely-inane-reason-here' or 'the marketing team for World of Jumpscares (insert loony logic here); don't give them money' go on for very long.

Most of the discussion on the forums I first started hearing about this issue in focused more on the scandal than the game itself, eventually merged into a megathread that was meant to both allow unfettered discussion of the issues involved in it and keep it into a contained area so the rest of the board could breathe. Whether or not it was a good idea to combine every thread related to the scandal into one massive one is one I'll leave to the philosophers to figure out, but I'll admit it did help out in keeping my and other members' ears to the ground. Eventually, that megathread got closed down and another one that was intended solely for GG discussion/criticisms/accusations opened up and went on for... hell, about ten months or so before the forums opened up a board dedicated to the issues.

Now, there's a rule in place about not being a general asshole, and the bannings I saw related to both the megathreads and the board in general were due to flat-out insults instead of discussion of the issue, with a generous number being due to intentional derailing and only a small number due to the other things listed in the no-douchebaggery category (targeted harassment, trolling, [up until recently] ban-jumping, whatever). But remembering that moderators are people with opinions also, they could find ways to justify banning someone under that particular catch-all if they wanted to and say 'this is the rule they broke' even if there wasn't anything in the post that showed the rule being violated to begin with.

Pre-emptive apology for breaking the string of responses up into multiple posts; multi-quoting seems to be broken for me and I'm pretty sure it's an issue with Chrome.

[ZedOmega]

...or I could've plain-out forgotten how.

Because of this, I agree that the GG label needs to die. It's just hard to discuss this stuff without that elephant in the room, which is why I think otherwise decent people cling to GG.

That's why I got so pissed off the other day. The ethics issue does need to be discussed, but the links to possible corruption that need to be addressed are unfortunately mixed in with all the (at minimum) shitposting. That just leaves the question of how to carry the discussion over to a new home. As it is, there's been a schism over the past couple of months whether it's really about ethics or if it's about driving ideologues out. And I can guarantee there's a few interested parties watching this whole side argument and watching who's going to ultimately hold the majority in that debate.

If it does end up being purely anti-ideologue (oh, alright, anti-SJW and please don't make me say that again), I may end up having a change of heart. They may be loud and obnoxious for the most part, but I tend to agree with what Evelyn Beatrice Hall said about Voltaire when it comes to that.

Not sure which game you're talking about. Depression Quest?

Nowadays it could be anything on the market, but DQ was the flavor of the month around that time.

*shrug* Nobody really cares who likes or dislikes the game. What sites cared about was people making a huge fuss about her, in the most offensive ways possible. THAT was what got people banned from sites, not just saying, "I played it, it sucks."

As far as Site X went, the first I heard of it was when the site did a review of the game... and people in the forums with absolutely bat-shit crazy over the fact that the review was only about the game, and completely ignored the drama surrounding it. One guy even made his very first post to the site to declare that he'd been reading the site for TEN YEARS (and never made an account to post in all of ten years, apparently), and was so outraged over the fact that we WEREN'T commenting on the "controversy." And for that, he was DELETING THE BOOKMARK TO OUR SITE.

That showed us, I guess?

It's more worrying that he supposedly ragequit because a review of a game didn't have any mention of the controversy the developer was involved in. Oh, speaking of...

Also worth noting is that when the Depression Quest "controversy" spread like wildfire, the rumor mill was saying that she'd slept with "a number of" journalists for good reviews, so that her game would sell better. And in that review that Site X wrote, at least one person had the balls to ask, "So what's your involvement with her?" - implying, of course, that the writer was one of the mystery journalists who'd gotten laid for reviewing it.

I wonder if he did the Google search that would've shown that aside from raising awareness of the game (promotion doesn't equal review, as far as I'm concerned), it was Patricia Hernandez who reviewed it, not Grayson. Granted, it wasn't until recently that disclosures regarding her friendship with Quinn and her living situation with Anna Anthropy were added to her own articles once the controversy broke out.

Andara and I both seriously dislike Sarkeesian. I was actually eager to check out her Kickstarter when I first heard about it, and when Andara and I both got home that night, we watched the first video she had as part of the "sales pitch."

We backed away from supporting the Kickstarter. While we absolutely acknowledge that she's got points that are absolutely valid, she takes a terrible method of delivering it, with a hopelessly tunnel-visioned look at gaming.

I could go on for paragraphs - and have, in the past - but this thread isn't about her, and shouldn't be about her.

And let's be perfectly frank here (don't worry, this is the last thing I'm going to say regarding Feminist Frequency unless it gets brought up again later on), most of my own criticism of FemFreq is solely due to the fact that the research she does on the subjects of their (not her) videos tends to fail under the slightest scrutiny. Just off the top of my head, there's the infamous Hitman example (she claimed that there was a level specifically designed to ogle and hurt women; in reality, the target of the mission she showcased was the club owner, and getting there through the dressing room alone was one of the worst ways to complete that hit) and the Super Princess Peach example (Peach was presented as being unable to control her emotions, when the game's story showed that she was the only one in the Mushroom Kingdom who could do exactly that).

The issue with her blocking comments on her videos, though, is that I'm willing to admit she really didn't have a choice, considering the fact that any valid criticisms of her videos was buried under the wave of (at minimum) insults and harassment; eventually she just declared any criticism of her work harassment whether it really was or not.

The less said about Jonathan McIntosh, though, the better. Seriously, his Twitter feed reads like Bobby Fischer without the chess skills. But that's enough about that subject.

The biggest problem with gaming journalism isn't exactly a gaming journalism problem - it's a journalism problem. Gaming isn't the sole place it exists. It's even in politics, for crying out loud - very few people getting interviews with politicians will ask anything but the softest of the softball questions (or use a pre-written "interview" script), for fear that they might be black-balled from political journalism ever again.

True. And let's be fair, it's not only on both sides of the fence at this point, it has been for years. That unfortunately means that addressing the corruption in political journalism is going to be a lot tougher than trying to address it in gaming journalism. But if great strides are made to at least warn people that the articles they're reading may have been paid for by insert-dev-team-here, then the best-case scenario is that that scrutiny gets applied to other forms of journalism.

Looking at both of you, Breitbart and MSNBC.

[Rageaholic]

Thank you. And the fact that the 'can't be neutral on a moving train' mentality can be spotted in... goddamn near everything nowadays is something that doesn't help any discussion, let alone this particular one.

Yeah, that's becoming a huge pet peeve of mine. You could agree on 9 out of 10 things, but disagree or even become undecided on one issue and it's DIE COMMIE SCUM!!!

What I think needs to happen are for those who are really all about the video games to rid themselves of the GG label and fund their own review site. A sort of drama free place. If it becomes popular enough, it could be profitable. Unfortunately, the most outspoken people seem to be the ones who are the biggest assholes. This post from reaxxion is so OTT that if I didn't know better, I'd say it's a parody. The person behind this is Roosh V, an extremely misogynistic douchebag who has several other sites spouting his bullshit. He sounds like a complete nutcase and total scumbag.

Oh and Nekojin, the game I was talking about was Gone Home. It dealt with LGBT issues, but from what I hear, it was a very boring game. Depression Quest doesn't sound very good either, but it's free so you get what you pay for.