Doxing victim Zoe Quinn launches online “anti-harassment task force”

Service once tipped police a week ahead. Cops' memo: "Knock with your hand, not your boot."

Read the whole story

 

[Pitchguest]

The ironic thing is that none of what RFT is jibbering about has anything to do with Gamergate, to enact a more ethical standard in games journalism.

The only one -- and I stress, the only one -- who's tried to bully someone into believing that they are more of an authority as a gamer than anyone else, in this thread, is RFT. Neither Karmashock nor I have done so. The hypocrisy of this sort of behaviour is stunning when you consider that many women who are not gamers but have tried to join the gaming community have felt themselves as outsiders, because they felt that many of the people whom they interacted with -- men and women -- asserted their authority as "true" gamers so strongly that they felt intimidated. The sort of puerile pissing contest that RFT attempted with me. As it happens, I've been a gamer for over 20 years so I'm not falling for that shit. But it makes you wonder how many people RFT has driven away from the gaming community, by virtue of him thinking himself better than they are.

 

[Pitchguest]

Basil Forthrightly[/url]":3tqfsvob]Drift away. Just don't try to pass off a misogynistic attack as being about "ethics in journalism". It's the labeling of one thing falsely with the label of another thing that gets folk some folk so put out.

And we're back to this. How many times do we have to bring up how ridiculous this claim is, when supporters of Gamergate not only consist of women but have supported actual female game developers, before you let this go? More than twice the amount of men have been targeted for criticism by supporters of Gamergate than women, but this is somehow still a "misogynistic attack" - and even if the amount had been less, it still wouldn't have been "misogynistic" unless the sole criticism was, and wouldn't really be a criticism at all, "We hate them because they're women", which didn't happen and hasn't happened.

More topic drift - anyone who's actually serious about defending games should know at least a bit about who Jack Thompson is. He is a right wing Christian former attorney who was disbarred for his abuse during his jihad against games. His thing was mostly "protect impressionable kids from violence", though he also crusaded against sex (not sexism!!) and homosexuality. Besides crusading against games, he also attacked music (particularly rap), movies, television, and culture generally. He also attached himself to various anti-Clinton efforts, and particularly crusaded against Attorney General Janet Reno, making him a darling of the fringe right wing political world. He was sufficiently politically connected enough to be consulted by whack legislators who were introducing anti-game bills, and he was employed by both Oliver North and Newsmax at different times.

Thompson inserted himself into news about violent events by claiming that they were caused by video games. He filed lawsuits to that effect, and got foolish politicians, clueless law enforcement, and distraught parents to parrot his bullshit. He coined the phrase "murder simulator" to describe violent games he opposed, and argued that the First Amendment doesn't apply to such games. The truly dreadful "CSI: Miami" episode that had gamers acting out a FPS in the real world was inspired by his rhetoric. He also got some major retailers to enforce the age ratings on the sales of games, and inspired efforts to make it a crime to fail to enforce the ratings (which either have failed or been overturned by courts, I think).

In short, Jack Thompson is an anti-game critic who has had some limited real world impact and If not opposed by sensible folk - gamers, defenders of the First Amendment, and sane lawyers and politicians - he would have knocked a number of top titles out of the market.

He's still out there flailing away, but his abuse of the legal system and subsequent disbarment have seriously hampered his recent efforts and caused media to take him far less seriously.

I knew all about Jack Thompson. You're right. Jack Thompson was a kook. He was crazy. But he had clout with the mainstream media, he was invited several times for interviews on several news networks. They respected his input. If he hadn't overextended his hand and abused his privileges as a lawyer, who knows where his influence would have led. The fact that you now have a less insane version of Jack Thompson joining the airwaves is not a comfort.

Look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAyncf3DBUQ

"Violent depictions of women being beaten, raped and run over by cars." What a load of sensationalist bullshit. And this is what the new Jack Thompson endorses and espouses. Lucky us.

 

[Snarky Robot]

jawlz[/url]":2jza6gsr]

Operative Me[/url]":2jza6gsr]

Karmashock[/url]":2jza6gsr]

Operative Me[/url]":2jza6gsr]The thing that keeps getting home here is that GanderGnomes had really just become about... complaining about how it's represented and rehashing the same foolish points over and over. In the mean time the victims of GG have moved on to actually accomplish things. It's still telling that nobody here has named a single thing that they, personally, have done about the actual ethical issues. Instead, they waste time on defending their movement with rhetoric that doesn't make any sense.

I challenge all of the GG supporters: If you actually care about games journalism, stop posting here for 48 hours. Not here, not in any thread about Anita. Go send the time you devote to defending yourself to actually accomplishing the goal you claim to want. Go email the editors at Game Informer to make them change their advertising policy yo divorce themselves from the retailer. Go find out who, exactly, created the idea for press bans for Ubisoft. Go create a campaign against youtubers who accepted money for reviews-- even if you agree with their opinions.

GO DO SOMETHING that you claim to be doing, rather than bickering here. If you're here repeating the same talking points, you're not doing anything about journalism...so you lose the right to say that's what you care about.

Come back in two days and tell us what you accomplished. Or stay here and prove you don't actually want to accomplish anything.

You're so desperate to make this about insults and emotion. Listen to you trying to further demonize your hated enemy by further demeaning their designation. It is puerile.

As to your challenge, what would that prove? I might as well say "if you care about whatever it is you care about, send me 20 dollars." What does being quiet have to do with supporting our position?

As to the items you're cherry picking off Leigh Alexander's list... I addressed them already.

So....you're not interested in doing anything about them, you're interested in complaining about perceived slights against a sophomoric group you support and arguing about women.

Mystery solved.

If you're correct in this assumption, I would note that that characteristic (being more interested in complaining than doing something) is likely endemic to the vast majority of internet commenters, regardless of the topic or issue at hand. And to be perfectly honest, while it's not difficult to take a semi-Rooseveltian stance against critics and in favor of 'the man in the arena,' I don't think that the complete off-hand dismissal of criticism (and even the complete off-hand dismissal of complaints) is particularly useful. Criticism and complaints can help shape how we view a topic, and there's nothing wrong with that.

In the appropriate fora, of course, discourse can help shape things. Complaining in the manner these individuals have, while outright refusing to answer basic questions, and intentionally choosing to forego an opportunity to take action, when presented with one, speaks louder than all of their comments combined.

I have asked, multiple times, for specifics about the actions taken in the name of ethics in journalism. I was met with vague "I participated in these tangential issues". I asked, directly again, what, specifically, they had done on the numerous issues regarding journalistic integrity that have been identified. A stone wall of silence greeted me. Why should I accept on faith the claim that they care about journalistic integrity? I am under no obligation to accept that what they claim their interests is an accurate representation of their actions.

Conversation can shape the way we feel about things, but the antagonistic, hostile, and utterlerly baffling inability to name a single thing they have done that has affected the BIG issues in journalism integrity leaves me unwilling to give them the benefit of the doubt.

So yes, if they care about ethics in journalism, I expect them to devote time to that, rather than try to argue pointlessly (and, more often than not, quite poorly) that the perception of their little club isn't fair. Yes, if they claim to care about ethics in journalism, I expect them to stop talking about Anita and Zoe and start focusing on actual journalists. Yes, if they want me to start believing that they're not concerned about women, they need to stop raging on and on about "feminists". You want me to change my perception? DO SOMETHING WORTHWHILE, rather than insulting me for not believing that a group which started out of a jilted ex-boyfriends rant is actually attempting to do something more than take on "feminists". (Edit the "you" above, is not directed at anyone in particular)

As I keep saying: dB(actions > dB(words)

 

[Karmashock]

Basil Forthrightly[/url]":3mm603oh]

Karmashock[/url]":3mm603oh]

Basil Forthrightly[/url]":3mm603oh]

"The cover up of Quinn matters."

Quinn's not a journalist.

I never claimed she was one.

Which means you're strawmanning again.

And really this is just the same old play book.

Talk about ethics in journalism and you say we're just avoiding what we really want to talk about which is the women and if we talk about the women you claim we never cared about ethics in game's journalism.

You're unworthy of further rebuttal.

I never claimed you claimed that Quinn was a journalist.

I was pointing out that the Gamergaters spend all their time and energy on Quinn, Quinn, Quinn, instead of talking about the allegedly unethetical journalist she slept with.

If it was about ethics in journalism, it would actually BOTHER you that I still don't know his name, and you would have provided it by now, because in Gamergates view, he's an unethical journalist.

So talk about ethics in journalism. Or continue whinging about how the world's so unfair to the poor misunderstood gamer, and be laughed at.

No, they spend all their energy talking to people like you and all you ever talk about is quinn.

Again. If we talk about journalistic ethics then you say we are avoid the issue of the women. if we talk about the women then you're saying we don't care about journalistic ethics.

It is circular logic.

We care about journalistic ethics. These people are evidence in that matter. As per my analogy above, the corruption issue made the industry weak and susceptible to cooption and subversion. Then these feminist groups exploited that weakness to gain undeserved influence.

Think a person with a damaged immune system nearly dying from the flu. The journalists are part of our immune system. They protected us from Jack Thompson. But they were weak... and the flu... these feminists infected the system and caused a lot of damage.

Gamer Gate is the fever that saves the host or dies trying.

 

[Karmashock]

Bicentennial Douche[/url]":w5nlvyqi]

Karmashock[/url]":w5nlvyqi]

Bicentennial Douche[/url]":w5nlvyqi]

Karmashock[/url]":w5nlvyqi]
Okay... so you don't like the name gamer dragged through the mud?... mmky... what about this:
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/2244 ... e_over.php

We didn't drag the name gamer through the mud. These fanatics attacked us. They attacked you too, sport. You just don't realize it.

We've mostly defeated them. They have almost no credibility left in gaming. So, you're welcome.

I have read that gamasutra-article several times, and I'm still not offended. I have played games longer than most people on these forums have been alive in fact (*. Were some people offended because it hit too close to truth? Maybe that's it.

And really, could you guys FINALLY decide what GamerGate is about? Is it about "ethics in journalism"? Is its"opposing ideological agendas in gaming"? Is it "defeating people who say anything negative about gamers"? What? Because the first of those is just BS, a coverup for campaign of harassment. And the latter two sure sound like campaigns of shutting up people who say things you disagree with.

Fact of the matter is that it was the assholes at GamerGate that really ruined the reputation of gamers. So Leigh Alexander wrote an article that said some things about gamers? Oh boo-fucking-hoo. Who read the article originally? People involved in gaming and that's it. I didn't recognize myself from the article, so I wasn't offended. But then fucking gaters crawled out of their shitholes, started (well, it was ongoing already, just with different target) a campaign of harassment and made ABSOLUTELY FUCKING SURE, that everyone outside of gaming would have their stereotypes of gamers reinforced as bunch of whiny man-babies who go on a pathetic temper-tantrum if somebody says something they don't like. Thanks a fucking lot, jerks! With friends like you, who needs enemies?

*) yeah, my gaming-creds... I think my first memories of gaming was playing games on my neighbors VIC-20 in 1981 or so. Soon we got Philips Videopac and a bit later we got C-64. Soon after that I started playing tabletop-RPGs as well. D&D mostly, but also 2300AD. And I have been gaming ever since.

As to GG ruining the reputation of gamers... not at all.

You do realize that we now have an episode of mainstream tv-show with fucking Ice-T that is inspired by GamerGate-asshattery? Yeah, good job guys!

In your circle-jerk you might seem like heroes. You might have deluded yourselves in to thinking that you somehow "saved" gaming and gamers. In reality we have mainstream-media telling stories in how women are being harassed by bunch of gamers, your enemies have been given a megaphone to tell their viewpoint. And here you are, telling how you have somehow "won". Do you actually live in the same reality as rest of us do?

We didn't attack the gamer identity. You did. And you did it because you wanted to destroy it so you could remake the culture in your image.

Are you fucking insane? So in your paranoid delusions, Leigh Alexander wrote the article with goal of "destroying" gaming and gamers, so it could be replaced by something "ideologically pure"? Wow. Just... Wow.

Like I said: the only reason why you or others could have gotten angry because of that article, it's because it hit too close.

Expressing your opinion is one thing. Pulling plays out of communist playbooks and trying them out on the internet is fucked up.

Is this the fucking fifties again? Fucking red scare? No wonder the right-wing douche-nozzles are so prominent in your "movement": either they found a bunch of like-minded morons, or they found gullible morons, who are now parroting their paranoid ramblings about commies.

Unless you have a coherent counter argument that isn't just more sputtering and insults... why are you even talking? From what I can tell, you're only posting so as to give the impression to idiots that you're not going dark. You are not however responding substantively to anything anyone else is saying in the thread.

I'm engaging with you so others can see your and your "movements" lunacy first-hand. "It's communists! They are going to take away our precious bodily.... Games!".

That your media allies can run hit pieces is not relevant.

 

[Karmashock]

[trollhide=personal attacks]

Bicentennial Douche[/url]":dadvocb4]

1. I didn't say people couldn't speak. I was saying people can't censor, coerce, threaten, bribe, extort etc.

Luckily GG does not extort, threaten or coerce. No, wait...

2. Some games are male things just as some books are female things. Claiming otherwise is just ignorance. And whining that a given game which is clearly designed for men

Which game would that be? Hitman, again?

Should every action movie appeal equally to women as to men? Should every romantic comedy be as popular amongst men as with women? Obviously not. Demanding that every game suit both sexes equally is just going to make both sexes unhappy and make shitty games.

Problem is that games tend to be made sexist for no good reason. Like bikini-armor. Your average fantasy-RPGS would not turn "shitty" if the women had realistic armor.

3. If there is a mass deletion, ban, shadow ban, and blacklist campaign then yeah it is censorship.

You are not entitled an audience or podium. If your thread is deleted, it's not "censorship".

The rest of your post was just strawmen and things I had rebutted a dozen times already.

Uh-huh.[/quote]
1. I note you didn't claim that GG tried to censor anyone. You're not having an honest discussion with me. You're just arguing to argue.

2. As to which games are male?... Which books are female? Is Fifty Shades of Gray a book for women? Is that wrong?

The absolutely moronic double standards out of you people are beneath contempt. You'll say one thing out of your mouth and with no sense of irony will contradict yourself almost immediately. You're so dishonest I don't think you even realize it.

As to sexy armor being sexist, depends on the woman that you ask. If you ask women that actually play games and not women that say they don't play games... they like the sexy armor. And in fact, the women that don't play games only say they don't play them because of the sexy armor. There is no evidence that if females in gaming wore sweaters that those women that do not play would play. You're taking the word of NON-gamers and allowing NON-gamers to control the market.

Again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYqBdCmDR0M

It is art. You are trying to censor art. You are a fascist fanatic fruitcake.

3. So if I just deleted all your posts everywhere, forbade you from making any comment anywhere on the internet, lied about you in the media, issued reports that never asked for your side's perspective... that would be totally fine?

You're a textbook fascist.[/trollhide]

 

[Snarky Robot]

Karmashock[/url]":1mvf12sb]
Gamer Gate is the fever that saves the host or dies trying.

And a lot of the host is telling you it doesn't think it needs saving, and would prefer the latter option. You're not our savior. We don't want what you want. Save yourselves, if that's your goal, but quit pretending you're doing it for anyone but yourself.

 

[Karmashock]

thegrommit[/url]":1gu1jfpl]

Bicentennial Douche[/url]":1gu1jfpl]

Karmashock[/url]":1gu1jfpl]

As to no one taking my games away, the journalists are deducting review points from games on ideological grounds.

Reviews are inherently subjective. You need to find the reviewers whose tastes align closest with yours.

LMAO, this is what it ultimately boils down to. Gonorrheagate is upset about review scores, and can't handle that someone might not like the same things they do.

Telling them to find reviewers who they agree with? MIND. BLOWN. :high:

[edit] and before someone talks about the role metacritic plays in developer compensation - why isn't GG pursuing that issue? Why aren't they going after metacritic to reveal the algorithm they use? Why aren't they going after publishers who base developer bonuses on some opaque number generator?

No, the issue is giving ideological reviews.

lets say we had a bunch of christian reviewers or something that all reviewed games based on whether they were respectful to jesus or whatever. And lets say that effected the international scoring enough that games that would otherwise get a 9 rating would instead get an 8.5 rating. No big deal? Except for 9 is basically where the devs get bonuses.

Look, this is why we can't have nice things. You idiots are abusing Metacritic. Clearly we just need to do away with all number based rating systems and just have it be your up or down opinion like rotten tomato. Then there is less room for your political nuance to creep into an issue. You'll either have to say the game is entirely bad because of your politics or admit that it was good despite that. And that generalizing should largely remove the relevance of those distortions from the rating system.

 

[Karmashock]

Operative Me[/url]":g2if9pyq]

Karmashock[/url]":g2if9pyq]

Operative Me[/url]":g2if9pyq]The thing that keeps getting home here is that GanderGnomes had really just become about... complaining about how it's represented and rehashing the same foolish points over and over. In the mean time the victims of GG have moved on to actually accomplish things. It's still telling that nobody here has named a single thing that they, personally, have done about the actual ethical issues. Instead, they waste time on defending their movement with rhetoric that doesn't make any sense.

I challenge all of the GG supporters: If you actually care about games journalism, stop posting here for 48 hours. Not here, not in any thread about Anita. Go send the time you devote to defending yourself to actually accomplishing the goal you claim to want. Go email the editors at Game Informer to make them change their advertising policy yo divorce themselves from the retailer. Go find out who, exactly, created the idea for press bans for Ubisoft. Go create a campaign against youtubers who accepted money for reviews-- even if you agree with their opinions.

GO DO SOMETHING that you claim to be doing, rather than bickering here. If you're here repeating the same talking points, you're not doing anything about journalism...so you lose the right to say that's what you care about.

Come back in two days and tell us what you accomplished. Or stay here and prove you don't actually want to accomplish anything.

You're so desperate to make this about insults and emotion. Listen to you trying to further demonize your hated enemy by further demeaning their designation. It is puerile.

As to your challenge, what would that prove? I might as well say "if you care about whatever it is you care about, send me 20 dollars." What does being quiet have to do with supporting our position?

As to the items you're cherry picking off Leigh Alexander's list... I addressed them already.

So....you're not interested in doing anything about them, you're interested in complaining about perceived slights against a sophomoric group you support and arguing about women.

Mystery solved.

Liar.

I addressed the list above. Which of the things in the list do you think I did not address. I will contradict you as I addressed every single one of them... and then you'll be in the position of holding your dick looking like an idiot... as usual.

Name the issue you think I ignored. Dare you.

 

[Karmashock]

dragonlord[/url]":2pmtp8ez]I wonder how long this thread has until victory through exhaustion occurs.

It is tedious.

 

[Karmashock]

[trollhide=personal attacks]

RFT[/url]":byb2aj9v]<<No replies to my challenges>>

So after making your pathetic attempt to browbeat me backfired hilarious you're going to just pretend I didn't offer you some challenges you slimy little internet troll?

Very well, let me repeat them:

1. How many years must one play games to opine about them. You said I didn't have enough time without knowing anything about me. For all you know I could have more time. But I'd love to hear the exact number of years required. Because pretty much all the stupid idiots f'ing up gaming would fail your stupid test. Meaning that by YOUR argument they don't have a right to comment.

2. How many games must I have played, in what genres, and on what platforms? You also implied you had a broader grasp of gaming by paying more games. So what is the required number of games to be considered worthy of being allowed to comment? Because again, by your own stupid logic the people that are f'ing up gaming would be incompetent to comment on gaming.

This is what I hate about you people. You issue a lot of challenges. You swing your dicks around. You make a lot of bold statements like you're in the know about anything.

Then when you run into anyone with half a brain you turn out to be complete cowards that run away, change the subject, and devolve into petty insults rather then just admitting that you were full of crap in the first place.

Respond, scum.
http://youtu.be/moxbamZrstc?t=6m31s
and so you know how that scene ends...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DLOVFJCODo[/trollhide]

 

[Snarky Robot]

Karmashock[/url]":19624q6e]

Operative Me[/url]":19624q6e]

Karmashock[/url]":19624q6e]

Operative Me[/url]":19624q6e]The thing that keeps getting home here is that GanderGnomes had really just become about... complaining about how it's represented and rehashing the same foolish points over and over. In the mean time the victims of GG have moved on to actually accomplish things. It's still telling that nobody here has named a single thing that they, personally, have done about the actual ethical issues. Instead, they waste time on defending their movement with rhetoric that doesn't make any sense.

I challenge all of the GG supporters: If you actually care about games journalism, stop posting here for 48 hours. Not here, not in any thread about Anita. Go send the time you devote to defending yourself to actually accomplishing the goal you claim to want. Go email the editors at Game Informer to make them change their advertising policy yo divorce themselves from the retailer. Go find out who, exactly, created the idea for press bans for Ubisoft. Go create a campaign against youtubers who accepted money for reviews-- even if you agree with their opinions.

GO DO SOMETHING that you claim to be doing, rather than bickering here. If you're here repeating the same talking points, you're not doing anything about journalism...so you lose the right to say that's what you care about.

Come back in two days and tell us what you accomplished. Or stay here and prove you don't actually want to accomplish anything.

You're so desperate to make this about insults and emotion. Listen to you trying to further demonize your hated enemy by further demeaning their designation. It is puerile.

As to your challenge, what would that prove? I might as well say "if you care about whatever it is you care about, send me 20 dollars." What does being quiet have to do with supporting our position?

As to the items you're cherry picking off Leigh Alexander's list... I addressed them already.

So....you're not interested in doing anything about them, you're interested in complaining about perceived slights against a sophomoric group you support and arguing about women.

Mystery solved.

Liar.

I addressed the list above. Which of the things in the list do you think I did not address. I will contradict you as I addressed every single one of them... and then you'll be in the position of holding your dick looking like an idiot... as usual.

Name the issue you think I ignored. Dare you.

I asked you, specifically, to list YOUR ACTIONS taken on those things. Not platitudes of "yes those are important", I want you to address, specifically, what you've done.

As to the calls of "liar"...like a child, this seems to be your go-to way of viewing the world. If you did post such a reaction, giving me specifics regarding what you've personally done, I missed it. Honest mistake. Your insistence on being a reactionary tool is not working for you. Because EVEN IF YOU'RE RIGHT, you discredit yourself by not comprehending that someone thinking something you don't agree with, or someone not seeing every single one of your posts is a lie.

I swear, it's like talking to a hormonal 14 year old.

And again, you're sort of proving my point. You COULD spend the time arguing with me working on important issues regarding journalistic ethics. Instead, you're here. Clearly, ARGUING about GamerGate is more important to you than actually DOING ANYTHING WORTHWHILE.

 

[Karmashock]

Operative Me[/url]":2pxwb8mw]

Karmashock[/url]":2pxwb8mw]
Gamer Gate is the fever that saves the host or dies trying.

And a lot of the host is telling you it doesn't think it needs saving, and would prefer the latter option. You're not our savior. We don't want what you want. Save yourselves, if that's your goal, but quit pretending you're doing it for anyone but yourself.

Spoken like someone that thinks the cancer should win.

 

[Snarky Robot]

Karmashock[/url]":2etkiozw]

Operative Me[/url]":2etkiozw]

Karmashock[/url]":2etkiozw]
Gamer Gate is the fever that saves the host or dies trying.

And a lot of the host is telling you it doesn't think it needs saving, and would prefer the latter option. You're not our savior. We don't want what you want. Save yourselves, if that's your goal, but quit pretending you're doing it for anyone but yourself.

Spoken like someone that thinks the cancer should win.

Actually, spoken like someone who thinks GamerGate IS the cancer. That's the point, bud. YOU are what's wrong with gaming to many, many gamers. Getting rid of GamerGate IS beating the cancer. That's the point-- you don't get to claim you're rescuing gaming, because what you're actually doing is pissing off a lot of gamers who don't WANT gaming to be what you want it to be. THIS is why you're being accused of attempting to speak for all Gamers-- because you clearly can't comprehend that the people you think you're trying to "save" were doing just fine before you showed up.

You're doing this all for yourself. You're not a hero, you're a self-serving individual who wants others to thank him for a job that they are actively asking him not to do, and whines incessantly about "feminists" like they're some evil cabal bent on world destruction. Your little martyr complex is adorable, though.

 

[Karmashock]

[trollhide=personal attacks]

Operative Me[/url]":2w2k4ryk]

Karmashock[/url]":2w2k4ryk]

Operative Me[/url]":2w2k4ryk]

Karmashock[/url]":2w2k4ryk]

Operative Me[/url]":2w2k4ryk]The thing that keeps getting home here is that GanderGnomes had really just become about... complaining about how it's represented and rehashing the same foolish points over and over. In the mean time the victims of GG have moved on to actually accomplish things. It's still telling that nobody here has named a single thing that they, personally, have done about the actual ethical issues. Instead, they waste time on defending their movement with rhetoric that doesn't make any sense.

I challenge all of the GG supporters: If you actually care about games journalism, stop posting here for 48 hours. Not here, not in any thread about Anita. Go send the time you devote to defending yourself to actually accomplishing the goal you claim to want. Go email the editors at Game Informer to make them change their advertising policy yo divorce themselves from the retailer. Go find out who, exactly, created the idea for press bans for Ubisoft. Go create a campaign against youtubers who accepted money for reviews-- even if you agree with their opinions.

GO DO SOMETHING that you claim to be doing, rather than bickering here. If you're here repeating the same talking points, you're not doing anything about journalism...so you lose the right to say that's what you care about.

Come back in two days and tell us what you accomplished. Or stay here and prove you don't actually want to accomplish anything.

You're so desperate to make this about insults and emotion. Listen to you trying to further demonize your hated enemy by further demeaning their designation. It is puerile.

As to your challenge, what would that prove? I might as well say "if you care about whatever it is you care about, send me 20 dollars." What does being quiet have to do with supporting our position?

As to the items you're cherry picking off Leigh Alexander's list... I addressed them already.

So....you're not interested in doing anything about them, you're interested in complaining about perceived slights against a sophomoric group you support and arguing about women.

Mystery solved.

Liar.

I addressed the list above. Which of the things in the list do you think I did not address. I will contradict you as I addressed every single one of them... and then you'll be in the position of holding your dick looking like an idiot... as usual.

Name the issue you think I ignored. Dare you.

I asked you, specifically, to list YOUR ACTIONS taken on those things. Not platitudes of "yes those are important", I want you to address, specifically, what you've done.

As to the calls of "liar"...like a child, this seems to be your go-to way of viewing the world. If you did post such a reaction, giving me specifics regarding what you've personally done, I missed it. Honest mistake. Your insistence on being a reactionary tool is not working for you. Because EVEN IF YOU'RE RIGHT, you discredit yourself by not comprehending that someone thinking something you don't agree with, or someone not seeing every single one of your posts is a lie.

I swear, it's like talking to a hormonal 14 year old.

And again, you're sort of proving my point. You COULD spend the time arguing with me working on important issues regarding journalistic ethics. Instead, you're here. Clearly, ARGUING about GamerGate is more important to you than actually DOING ANYTHING WORTHWHILE.

As to personal actions I have taken on a lot of social issues? What have you done about world hunger?

What have you personally done to preserve world peace?

Have you ever personally stopped someone from being raped?

Can I assume you are therefore not interested in ending world hunger, preserving world peace, or stopping rape?

Your line of reasoning is specious. You cannot judge the validity of a movement based on whether a specific individual has done.

That said, I have partipated in many of the email campaigns for all the issues I felt were important. I've occasionally written public officials when that was relevant. And I of course debate douchebags like you that ultimately front for fascism.

If enough of you are shut down on the internet by people like me then it should keep your deluded group from getting the idea it can do whatever it wants.

Listen, scum, I don't care what you do and I don't care what opinions you have. I don't even care if you express them or where you express them. What I won't allow is for you to censor all dissent, bribe, extort, threaten, and bully people out of discussions. And basically jack boot your way through the internet.

Think whatever you want. Hold any belief you want. Express that belief to anyone you want. But the instant you start slapping people around... you cross a line. And that line morally allows people to return the favor.

You are setting the very rules by which this game is played. Your every expansion and escalation of the conflict merely raises the bar.

We go from Defcon 5 to Defcon 4 to Defcon 3 to Defcon 2 to Defcon 1. Every time because lackwits like you don't understand that you keep escalating the situation.

Some women had sex with some guys... Shocking. It was a small thing.

Then you locked, banned, and lied. Okay.

The discussion went to 4chan etc to get out of your reach.

Then Journalists through Games Journos Pros pushed out a bunch of crap attack articles all synchronized. Media manipulation and more lies.

That required a campaign to expose the corruption as well as the use of alternative media.

Then the journalists reached out to the mainstream media.

Then we reached out to anyone outside gaming to help us. We found the right wing people were willing to fight the left wing news outlets and the MRAs were willing to fight the feminists. Quid pro quo.

on and on.

What you need to understand is that we have as many chips to throw into the middle of the table as you if not more.

*takes a puff on his tobacco product of choice*

Do you really want to keep playing this game? You're getting hurt by this a lot worse then we are. Our supporters are largely doing quite well. You're even making IGN look good. Where as your media buddies are increasingly struggling.

We can keep this up forever. You can't. Your allies beyond gaming have already lost interest in you. MSNBC etc aren't doing reports about you anymore. But our allies from beyond are writing books about you.

You're f'ed.

Good Game.[/trollhide]

 

[Karmashock]

Operative Me[/url]":3qqcgn4f]

Karmashock[/url]":3qqcgn4f]

Operative Me[/url]":3qqcgn4f]

Karmashock[/url]":3qqcgn4f]
Gamer Gate is the fever that saves the host or dies trying.

And a lot of the host is telling you it doesn't think it needs saving, and would prefer the latter option. You're not our savior. We don't want what you want. Save yourselves, if that's your goal, but quit pretending you're doing it for anyone but yourself.

Spoken like someone that thinks the cancer should win.

Actually, spoken like someone who thinks GamerGate IS the cancer. That's the point, bud. YOU are what's wrong with gaming to many, many gamers. Getting rid of GamerGate IS beating the cancer. That's the point-- you don't get to claim you're rescuing gaming, because what you're actually doing is pissing off a lot of gamers who don't WANT gaming to be what you want it to be. THIS is why you're being accused of attempting to speak for all Gamers-- because you clearly can't comprehend that the people you think you're trying to "save" were doing just fine before you showed up.

You're doing this all for yourself. You're not a hero, you're a self-serving individual who wants others to thank him for a job that they are actively asking him not to do, and whines incessantly about "feminists" like they're some evil cabal bent on world destruction. Your little martyr complex is adorable, though.

Your "I'm rubber you're glue" rebuttals have grown tiresome.

Do you have something to say that an 8 year old couldn't have come up with or is this really all you've got?

 

[Snarky Robot]

Karmashock[/url]":rodqvf4v]

Operative Me[/url]":rodqvf4v]

Karmashock[/url]":rodqvf4v]

Operative Me[/url]":rodqvf4v]

Karmashock[/url]":rodqvf4v]

Operative Me[/url]":rodqvf4v]The thing that keeps getting home here is that GanderGnomes had really just become about... complaining about how it's represented and rehashing the same foolish points over and over. In the mean time the victims of GG have moved on to actually accomplish things. It's still telling that nobody here has named a single thing that they, personally, have done about the actual ethical issues. Instead, they waste time on defending their movement with rhetoric that doesn't make any sense.

I challenge all of the GG supporters: If you actually care about games journalism, stop posting here for 48 hours. Not here, not in any thread about Anita. Go send the time you devote to defending yourself to actually accomplishing the goal you claim to want. Go email the editors at Game Informer to make them change their advertising policy yo divorce themselves from the retailer. Go find out who, exactly, created the idea for press bans for Ubisoft. Go create a campaign against youtubers who accepted money for reviews-- even if you agree with their opinions.

GO DO SOMETHING that you claim to be doing, rather than bickering here. If you're here repeating the same talking points, you're not doing anything about journalism...so you lose the right to say that's what you care about.

Come back in two days and tell us what you accomplished. Or stay here and prove you don't actually want to accomplish anything.

You're so desperate to make this about insults and emotion. Listen to you trying to further demonize your hated enemy by further demeaning their designation. It is puerile.

As to your challenge, what would that prove? I might as well say "if you care about whatever it is you care about, send me 20 dollars." What does being quiet have to do with supporting our position?

As to the items you're cherry picking off Leigh Alexander's list... I addressed them already.

So....you're not interested in doing anything about them, you're interested in complaining about perceived slights against a sophomoric group you support and arguing about women.

Mystery solved.

Liar.

I addressed the list above. Which of the things in the list do you think I did not address. I will contradict you as I addressed every single one of them... and then you'll be in the position of holding your dick looking like an idiot... as usual.

Name the issue you think I ignored. Dare you.

I asked you, specifically, to list YOUR ACTIONS taken on those things. Not platitudes of "yes those are important", I want you to address, specifically, what you've done.

As to the calls of "liar"...like a child, this seems to be your go-to way of viewing the world. If you did post such a reaction, giving me specifics regarding what you've personally done, I missed it. Honest mistake. Your insistence on being a reactionary tool is not working for you. Because EVEN IF YOU'RE RIGHT, you discredit yourself by not comprehending that someone thinking something you don't agree with, or someone not seeing every single one of your posts is a lie.

I swear, it's like talking to a hormonal 14 year old.

And again, you're sort of proving my point. You COULD spend the time arguing with me working on important issues regarding journalistic ethics. Instead, you're here. Clearly, ARGUING about GamerGate is more important to you than actually DOING ANYTHING WORTHWHILE.

As to personal actions I have taken on a lot of social issues? What have you done about world hunger?

What have you personally done to preserve world peace?

Have you ever personally stopped someone from being raped?

Can I assume you are therefore not interested in ending world hunger, preserving world peace, or stopping rape?

Your line of reasoning is specious. You cannot judge the validity of a movement based on whether a specific individual has done.

That said, I have partipated in many of the email campaigns for all the issues I felt were important. I've occasionally written public officials when that was relevant. And I of course debate douchebags like you that ultimately front for fascism.

If enough of you are shut down on the internet by people like me then it should keep your deluded group from getting the idea it can do whatever it wants.

Listen, scum, I don't care what you do and I don't care what opinions you have. I don't even care if you express them or where you express them. What I won't allow is for you to censor all dissent, bribe, extort, threaten, and bully people out of discussions. And basically jack boot your way through the internet.

Think whatever you want. Hold any belief you want. Express that belief to anyone you want. But the instant you start slapping people around... you cross a line. And that line morally allows people to return the favor.

You are setting the very rules by which this game is played. Your every expansion and escalation of the conflict merely raises the bar.

We go from Defcon 5 to Defcon 4 to Defcon 3 to Defcon 2 to Defcon 1. Every time because lackwits like you don't understand that you keep escalating the situation.

Some women had sex with some guys... Shocking. It was a small thing.

Then you locked, banned, and lied. Okay.

The discussion went to 4chan etc to get out of your reach.

Then Journalists through Games Journos Pros pushed out a bunch of crap attack articles all synchronized. Media manipulation and more lies.

That required a campaign to expose the corruption as well as the use of alternative media.

Then the journalists reached out to the mainstream media.

Then we reached out to anyone outside gaming to help us. We found the right wing people were willing to fight the left wing news outlets and the MRAs were willing to fight the feminists. Quid pro quo.

on and on.

What you need to understand is that we have as many chips to throw into the middle of the table as you if not more.

*takes a puff on his tobacco product of choice*

Do you really want to keep playing this game? You're getting hurt by this a lot worse then we are. Our supporters are largely doing quite well. You're even making IGN look good. Where as your media buddies are increasingly struggling.

We can keep this up forever. You can't. Your allies beyond gaming have already lost interest in you. MSNBC etc aren't doing reports about you anymore. But our allies from beyond are writing books about you.

You're f'ed.

Good Game.

So, you haven't done anything noteworthy about any of the real issues of gaming journalism that you claim to care about, you're actively antagonistic, which is helping to perpetuate the image of GamerGate as a bunch of angry little man-toddlers, and you're making grand pronouncements about how much good you're doing WHILE actively hurting the image of your group and demonstrating that you haven't actually done anything about the stated goal. Seriously, you rage on and on and on and on about how this really is about gaming ethics, but you have yet to name a single action you've taken to facilitate that, and you refuse to actually, you know...go do that, instead of sitting here acting like a baby.

Yeah, with supporters like you, I'm sure GamerGate is just going to be massively successful.

 

[Karmashock]

[trollhide=personal attacks]

Operative Me[/url]":a1v26iyv]
So, you haven't done anything noteworthy about any of the real issues of gaming journalism

Wrong. I have participated in campaigns that have gotten publications to change ethics policies.

I have helped expose corrupt journalistic practices.

I have helped break down the links between corrupt organizations and the people that pay them or as often are extorted by them.

So... wrong.

What have you done? You asked me... I answered... now... tell me... what did you do? And know that any issue you didn't personally do something for apparently is evidence that you don't care about it and aren't sincerely supporting it. Your own logic. I do so enjoy beating people with their own idiot arguments.

Please... craft another weapon for me to use against you. You're too stupid to know how to make an argument that can't be reversed on you. It is just too easy.[/trollhide]

 

[Basil Forthrightly]

Karmashock[/url]":1sgtohwe]
No, they spend all their energy talking to people like you and all you ever talk about is quinn.

No, talking about whether or not someone (A) is or is not talking about someone else (B) is not "talking about B". That's short-circuiting. I'm talking about the behavior and speech of you and other 'gaters.

Again. If we talk about journalistic ethics then you say we are avoid the issue of the women. if we talk about the women then you're saying we don't care about journalistic ethics.

The bolder bit is a fabricated strawman. Talk about actual journalists and I'll happily STFU.

It is circular logic.

After you add a strawman, it certainly is.

We care about journalistic ethics. These people are evidence in that matter.

Sure, for people who think that a journalist gave favorable treatment to someone in exchange for sex, the sex partner and the favorable treatment are relevant evidence. But everything ELSE that sex partner does is irrelevant, because the sex partner is not the journalist and everything the sex partner did before or after the favorable treatment is not journalism either. If you want your "movement" to be taken seriously, focus on the journalists.

The original article that this interminable thread is attached to has nothing to do with journalism and its ethics. Why are you here?

Edit:spelling
Edit: added reason for the circular logic
Edit: and fixed close quote... That was embarrassing

 

[grommit!]

Basil Forthrightly[/url]":2ina1phy]
The original article that this interminable thread is attached to has nothing to do with journalism and its ethics. Why are you here?

He thinks this is a video game, and he's the plucky protagonist fighting against all odds to save the world. Any discussion of Zoe Quinn is considered a boss fight.

 

[RFT]

thegrommit[/url]":ympi24gn]

Basil Forthrightly[/url]":ympi24gn]
The original article that this interminable thread is attached to has nothing to do with journalism and its ethics. Why are you here?

He thinks this is a video game, and he's the plucky protagonist fighting against all odds to save the world. Any discussion of Zoe Quinn is considered a boss fight.

I'm also reminded of communists talking about "the revolution of the proletariat is right around the corner", as well as libertarians going on about how "Galt's gulch is about to happen!" The only thing that bugs me is that I have to explain ignorant marketers and ad people how Sarkeesian and Leigh aren't trying to kill gaming, that most gamers are just fine, thank you, and could you please do some research before you respond to some letter campaigns.

Otherwise, I could ignore the entire raging, hypocritical, and quite frankly cultish lot. Seriously - "victory is almost here! Darkness is deepest right before sunrise!" It all sounds like Hitler in his Bunker in 1945.

 

[Peevester]

RFT[/url]":3a14cx30]

thegrommit[/url]":3a14cx30]

Basil Forthrightly[/url]":3a14cx30]
The original article that this interminable thread is attached to has nothing to do with journalism and its ethics. Why are you here?

He thinks this is a video game, and he's the plucky protagonist fighting against all odds to save the world. Any discussion of Zoe Quinn is considered a boss fight.

I'm also reminded of communists talking about "the revolution of the proletariat is right around the corner", as well as libertarians going on about how "Galt's gulch is about to happen!" The only thing that bugs me is that I have to explain ignorant marketers and ad people how Sarkeesian and Leigh aren't trying to kill gaming, that most gamers are just fine, thank you, and could you please do some research before you respond to some letter campaigns.

Otherwise, I could ignore the entire raging, hypocritical, and quite frankly cultish lot. Seriously - "victory is almost here! Darkness is deepest right before sunrise!" It all sounds like Hitler in his Bunker in 1945.

Can't resist posting this again. Old meme that somehow still makes you laugh when it's done right. Gamergate downfall.

 

[Basil Forthrightly]

Peevester[/url]":2njdrdtv]

RFT[/url]":2njdrdtv]

thegrommit[/url]":2njdrdtv]

Basil Forthrightly[/url]":2njdrdtv]
The original article that this interminable thread is attached to has nothing to do with journalism and its ethics. Why are you here?

He thinks this is a video game, and he's the plucky protagonist fighting against all odds to save the world. Any discussion of Zoe Quinn is considered a boss fight.

I'm also reminded of communists talking about "the revolution of the proletariat is right around the corner", as well as libertarians going on about how "Galt's gulch is about to happen!" The only thing that bugs me is that I have to explain ignorant marketers and ad people how Sarkeesian and Leigh aren't trying to kill gaming, that most gamers are just fine, thank you, and could you please do some research before you respond to some letter campaigns.

Otherwise, I could ignore the entire raging, hypocritical, and quite frankly cultish lot. Seriously - "victory is almost here! Darkness is deepest right before sunrise!" It all sounds like Hitler in his Bunker in 1945.

Can't resist posting this again. Old meme that somehow still makes you laugh when it's done right. Gamergate downfall.

Thanks was too busy first time around.

While I laughed quite a bit, I was also disturbed at how well it captured the flavor of events from my perspective, and ultimately sad.

 

[Pitchguest]

Observe how the anti-Gamergate contingent in this thread, when their arguments dry up they instead resort to ad-hominem.

Then again, some of them were coding before I was born so I'm sure they know what they're doing.

 

[dimhue]

Operative Me[/url]":3izghvsx]
So, you haven't done anything noteworthy about any of the real issues of gaming journalism that you claim to care about, you're actively antagonistic, which is helping to perpetuate the image of GamerGate as a bunch of angry little man-toddlers, and you're making grand pronouncements about how much good you're doing WHILE actively hurting the image of your group and demonstrating that you haven't actually done anything about the stated goal. Seriously, you rage on and on and on and on about how this really is about gaming ethics, but you have yet to name a single action you've taken to facilitate that, and you refuse to actually, you know...go do that, instead of sitting here acting like a baby.

Yeah, with supporters like you, I'm sure GamerGate is just going to be massively successful.

Hey come on man, give credit where credit is due. GamerGate did help convince Intel to invest $300M into diversity and to partner with Anita Sarkeesian after all

 

[Snarky Robot]

darkshade[/url]":ef0ywmvf]

Operative Me[/url]":ef0ywmvf]
So, you haven't done anything noteworthy about any of the real issues of gaming journalism that you claim to care about, you're actively antagonistic, which is helping to perpetuate the image of GamerGate as a bunch of angry little man-toddlers, and you're making grand pronouncements about how much good you're doing WHILE actively hurting the image of your group and demonstrating that you haven't actually done anything about the stated goal. Seriously, you rage on and on and on and on about how this really is about gaming ethics, but you have yet to name a single action you've taken to facilitate that, and you refuse to actually, you know...go do that, instead of sitting here acting like a baby.

Yeah, with supporters like you, I'm sure GamerGate is just going to be massively successful.

Hey come on man, give credit where credit is due. GamerGate did help convince Intel to invest $300M into diversity and to partner with Anita Sarkeesian after all

Hey, when I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

Thank you, GamerGate, for the $300,000,000.00 for diversity in technical fields and for your finding new supporters for Anita. We couldn't have done this without you, honestly.

 

[Pitchguest]

Intel partnering with Anita Sarkeesian just means they are misinformed, however the key aspect of them doing so is business. The initiative itself, $300M to improve diversity in tech is great. I'm not sure how they will go about it considering throwing money at something won't just magically make more women interested to get into the tech field, and I don't think the concept of looking at someone's gender first and their credentials second is any better, but if they think this will help and they want to do something about it, then great. I'm all for it. However I think it's more than a bit insufferable to suggest that this came about because of Gamergate, a diversity drive even (Gamergate is plenty diverse), because that usually implies something bad and looking back, yep, writers at Ars Technica were hard at work to pin this on Gamergate, as assumed by Andrew Cunningham in this article.

To quote Andrew, "Krzanich and Intel's soul-searching on this issue was prompted at least in part by the "GamerGate" movement that coalesced last year."

No, it wasn't. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest this. Intel's CEO Brian Krzanich said nothing at all about Gamergate in his keynote speech at CES, nor does the statement from Intel say anything about Gamergate. It is completely and utterly baseless. Stop pulling this shit! You're supposed to be journalists!

Oh, and because this thread is derailed already as it is, I might as well tell you about the most recent development from the anti-Gamergate contingent. David Gallant of Gamasutra wrote a libellous article about TotalBiscuit (John Bain), accused him of being a horrible person because he, among other things, had expressed his support for Gamergate, and basically tried to get him blacklisted by urging his readers and those on Gamasutra (that is to say, other game developers) to "stop enabling him", which meant they should stop talking to him, stop inviting him to events and stop watching his videos. In the wake of this looming boycott, vocal anti-Gamergate warrior Arthur Chu coined the hashtag #ZeroBiscuit. Needless to say, fans of TotalBiscuit weren't amused, least of TotalBiscuit himself. However, because Gamergate proponents are such horrific human beings, they decided to push back - with a charity drive. For the hungry. $2,200 so far. And of course the anti-bullying charity drive members of Gamergate started when Sam Biddle and Max Read of Gawker said people of Gamergate should be bullied raised roughly $17,000. What a bunch of pricks.

 

[dimhue]

Brian Krzanich[/url]":30ymg7tt]
A confluence of industry events has brought [the lack of women and minorities in technology] to the center stage, from the threats and harassment that have characterized the debate in the gaming world to the publication of hiring data and diversity statistics in the tech industry

Yeah, totally not about gamergate at all.

 

[Snarky Robot]

Pitchguest[/url]":39vendeo]
Oh, and because this thread is derailed already as it is, I might as well tell you about the most recent development from the anti-Gamergate contingent. David Gallant of Gamasutra wrote a libellous article about TotalBiscuit (John Bain).

Rather than respond to each point, I'm going to limit this to a single point. Claiming an article is libelous sounds like a serious claim. Which parts of the article, specifically, are fabricated entirely (i.e., not open to interpretation). Please provide evidence that each such claim is false, and doesn't fall under the fair comment and criticism exception. I'm not even going to bring in the "actual malice" standard here, so the bar is actually set fairly low for your accusation.

 

[grommit!]

darkshade[/url]":3skm28lc]

Brian Krzanich[/url]":3skm28lc]
A confluence of industry events has brought [the lack of women and minorities in technology] to the center stage, from the threats and harassment that have characterized the debate in the gaming world to the publication of hiring data and diversity statistics in the tech industry

Yeah, totally not about gamergate at all.

If there's one thing gonorrheagate has demonstrated, it's that the ability to recognize subtext is not as common as you'd think.

 

[dragonlord]

Ok, so new twist, it looks like there's now a chance that there could be a victory through moderation condition.

I'm not sure what's more likely at them moment, exhaustion or moderation

 

[Pitchguest]

I'm going to go with exhaustion. I think I know why the others left. They couldn't deal with the constant stream of bullshit. It starts to stink.

 

[dimhue]

That's a perfect summary of everything Gamergate represents: A constant stream of bullshit.