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

 

[Snarky Robot]

Kevin G[/url]":1y6tcnf4]
The gamer gate community certainly has a shit storm orbiting around but they have gotten results regarding ethics in journalism. For example, this happened a few days ago.

Care to point me to the evidence that that was GamerGate's work alone? Or is this a "well if some of our folks take part in this and it helps us, it's part of GamerGate, but if some of our folks participate in it and it's bad, it's they're totally not 'Real' GamerGaters"?

 

[adrianovaroli]

Kevin G[/url]":yabithyz]The gamer gate community certainly has a shit storm orbiting around but they have gotten results regarding ethics in journalism. For example, this happened a few days ago.

I could swear I just posted something like "there are better ways to achieve stuff than bullying people so they do what you want. http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp, which GG loves to quote, specifically says journalists should "Deny favored treatment to advertisers, donors or any other special interests, and resist internal and external pressure to influence coverage." So GG is pushing journalists to act unethically." Must be time for a nap.

And like most things on the internet involving trolls, it would have simply faded away if they were left alone. The thing is that not only was the hornets nest poked with a stick with various 'death of gamers' articles, the nest was knocked down with a heavy hand of censorship on sites like reddit, NeoGAF and surprisingly even 4chan. The topic became a taboo overnight. The Streisand Effect took hold and things quickly spiraled out of control. One thing the Streisand Effect doesn't do is guarantee honesty when the message spreads. That's pretty much why it still persists today.

Ah, still not knowing what censorship is. And I don't mean "Only gubmint can censor!" I mean GG had zero problem commenting and being public elsewhere. Being told "You can't crap in _this_ garden anymore" is not censorship. Get over it.

 

[adrianovaroli]

0bliv!on[/url]":23qqmft4]

DrPizza[/url]":23qqmft4]

0bliv!on[/url]":23qqmft4]Again, I concede that Ars has editorial control over what it decides to report on and what not to report on, but I don't think even you'd deny that Ars coverage on the wider issue has been fairly one-sided. Even assuming that 90% of Gamergate is scum of the earth (and that may actually be fairly accurate), in the dozens of articles on the issue, there has not been a single article exploring their valid concerns.

They have no valid concerns. Gamergate was constructed as a harassment campaign, and harassment is what gators do.

"But what about ethics in games journalism?" gators may cry. What about them? Gamergate has no interest in "ethics in games journalism" beyond using it as a pretext to attack people. There is no serious interest in "ethics in games journalism" from gators, which is why their biggest targets have been Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu, and Anita Sarkeesian, not one of whom is a games journalist. The gator interest in ethics begins and ends in the gator's ability to use ethics to attack people.

In the same vein as Alfonse saying that doxxing from the anti-Gamergate side is partially justified (even if still wrong) due to it being done in defence after being attacked, forgive me for having sympathy for the "Gamers" who started the Gamergate group, despite its myriad of flaws, after being attacked by the wider media. And it's an attack that really hasn't stopped, even if the criticisms have become less hysterical and more evenly tempered.

Gamers weren't attacked. Assholes were attacked. They responded by being assholes.

Just because something is used as a pretext doesn't necessarily invalidate the issue itself.

There have been changes in disclosure guidelines because of Gamergate pressure - whether of relationships between authors and their subjects, or affiliate links being advertised next to articles on the product etc.

Man, my posts must not be showing up. Bummer.

And the round of articles from the end of August didn't say "Gamers who are assholes are dead", they just said "Gamers are dead." I'm not sure that you can post hoc redefine what was written.

I don't know about you, but I just opened the Gamasutra article, and it describes the subset of "asshole gamers" pretty specifically. So does the Ars article on the death of the "gamers" (note the quotes, they're there for a reason).

 

[Snarky Robot]

0bliv!on[/url]":2nl34otu]
And the round of articles from the end of August didn't say "Gamers who are assholes are dead", they just said "Gamers are dead." I'm not sure that you can post hoc redefine what was written.

And I'm not sure a person who still hasn't internalized that that wasn't an attack on all gamers has the mental faculty to function as an adult in an intelligent conversation.

Once again, since it seems to pass you by, the "Gamers are dead" article was not an insult to Gamers. It was an acknowledgement that the hardcore gamers are becoming less and less important as more and more people game. It was an acknowledgement that "people who game" is an group that is INCREASING in both size and relevancy. That gaming is becoming so popular and normal that the "hardcore" gamer, especially the ones that give gaming a bad name in the first place, are losing control of what it means to be a gamer because soon EVERYONE will be one.

The "Death of Gamer" articles were about the GROWTH of gaming in the cultural zeitgeist. They were a celebration of gaming, not a condemnation of it. And the fact that this hasn't sunk in yet for you means one of two things:

1) You didn't read the articles yourself, and are relying upon the interpretation of others;
2) You have serious problems with reading comprehension

The fact that you are still harping on this point, months after that very basic concept has been explained in damn near every thread on the subject, is a greater insult to you than ANYTHING those articles actually did say about you as a gamer.

 

[ralphnobody]

MattEvansC3[/url]":3n0tyiwk]

Alfonse[/url]":3n0tyiwk]

Marcos2247[/url]":3n0tyiwk]

mattand[/url]":3n0tyiwk]

Marcos2247[/url]":3n0tyiwk]

mattand[/url]":3n0tyiwk]There's nothing good associated with Gamergate and the MRA movement. You can't demonize a movement that already is fairly awful to start with.

So we're lumping in MRM with Gamergate now?

Men's rights is a valid issue.

Stuff like "You shouldn't hit girls." - "No, you shouldn't hit people. Most men don't like to be hit either."

Or drafting young men to send them to war.

Aaannd we're off...

Off to where?

Are you saying (white) men don't have issues worth talking about?

I'm all for feminism (although I'd like find a word not ending in -ism for it), equal participation. I have nothing against Zoe Quinn, I find that anti-harassment task-force a nice idea, I don't use words like fag in online chat.

But you're saying Men's rights issues have nothing good associated with them. How about cirumcision? That's an MRI. Okay, maybe we can make it a minority issue by focussing on the jews first...

I'm sorry that I as a white man have issues too. And saying "Doesn't matter, women have it worse" is like countering a complaint about doxxing with #firstworldproblems.

You're right that mattand should not have equated MRIs with GamerGate, which is when the derailment happened.

That being said, men's rights activism has a similar stigma to it to GamerGate. Not nearly as bad, but there are people who support it for reasonable reasons, and quite a few people who are sexist twats. That's not your fault, but that association is real and it's something you have to deal with.

Men's Rights Activism is a weird one. Lets split general problems into three broad categories;

A) Problems that can only be resolved through action.
B) Problems that can be solved through education.
C) Problems that are really just annoyances.

Most Rights groups have a plethora of class A issues. An end to Apartheid or the LGBT right to marry are class A. What class A issues do us men, especially the white heterosexual men, have? What is denied to us?

This isn't particular to "white" men, but any married man making more than his spouse is right to be concerned, especially when children are in the mix.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3672474

This happens all the time in family courts, but it gets brushed off and ignored as being from deadbeats and whack jobs

 

[Gary Patterson]

Can all the "men's rights" people please stop going off-topic? Seriously guys, start a thread about this elsewhere. There may be real issues out there, but this thread is about the wash-up from some of the GamerGate debacle.

 

[DrPizza]

Just because something is used as a pretext doesn't necessarily invalidate the issue itself.

It does, however, mean that there is no value in talking about the issue in this context. It just gives credence to the assholes that they do not deserve.

And the round of articles from the end of August didn't say "Gamers who are assholes are dead", they just said "Gamers are dead." I'm not sure that you can post hoc redefine what was written.

I'm not redefining a damn thing. I'm demonstrating the ability to read and understand.

 

[tjones2]

Gary Patterson[/url]":wjqyhewt]Can all the "men's rights" people please stop going off-topic? Seriously guys, start a thread about this elsewhere. There may be real issues out there, but this thread is about the wash-up from some of the GamerGate debacle.

Yah. That seems off topic to me. Try the Soap Box subforum for that viewforum.php?f=24 things have been a bit boring there recently :devious:

Or better, yet; Realize that MRA crap is sexist bullshit.

 

[Gary Patterson]

0bliv!on[/url]":1ai2p6uj]
I read the articles, especially the Ars one. Communication requires two parties, if a significant portion of your readerbase, whether of Ars or of gaming media generally, understands the articles to mean A, and that understanding is not wholly unreasonable, then surely the author is just as responsible for that message, even if personally they meant B?

It was pretty clear that the "gamers are dead" thing was about a certain culture and was more of a "Gamers are dead! Long live gamers! We're all gamers now!" thing than a death-knell.

I've asked a few people and they all saw those articles in the same way. That's not much of a poll, I admit, but it's pretty clear to me that the message was straightforward.

 

[adrianovaroli]

0bliv!on[/url]":2474u17q]

I read the articles, especially the Ars one. Communication requires two parties, if a significant portion of your readerbase, whether of Ars or of gaming media generally, understands the articles to mean A, and that understanding is not wholly unreasonable, then surely the author is just as responsible for that message, even if personally they meant B?

No. You're arguing for every word to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. I'm sorry that you feel hurt, but it doesn't work like that. You just admit that you didn't get the joke, and move on. And here's the thing: your understanding _is_ wholly unreasonable to anybody with a basic level of reading comprehension.

 

[Snarky Robot]

0bliv!on[/url]":1k558dug]
I read the articles, especially the Ars one. Communication requires two parties, if a significant portion of your readerbase, whether of Ars or of gaming media generally, understands the articles to mean A, and that understanding is not wholly unreasonable, then surely the author is just as responsible for that message, even if personally they meant B?

No.

It means that those people are idiots. No matter how many people believed that the Bible tells them it's okay to murder black people for dating white people, that never made it a reasonable, intelligent interpretation. The fucking book never said that, and to say "well, some people believed it did, so really it's the author's fault" is a bullshit cop-out.

No, those idiots are wholly responsible for their misinterpretation, AND SO ARE YOU.

And while clarifications are useful, clarifications that come after the fact and after being criticised for the message are justifiably seen as being post hoc rationalisations instead of being representation of the true intent at the time.

No. You interpreted it wrong. You're not owed an apology for your own inability to comprehend a basic sentiment before reacting emotionally to a point that no one raised.

I don't see why the authors of these articles get away with generalising just because they clarified afterwards, but others are rightfully lambasted for generalising against other groups.

Because the problem is with you and people like you, whose emotional "I'm a gamer, too and now I am mad" hissy fits are neither rational, nor justified.

You reacted, emotionally, based on your own misunderstanding. Fine. Now, blaming everybody but yourself for it is also a choice that you are making. You are responsible for both. So you have a choice: step back, own up to a mistake, and move on with your life, or sit here trying to rationalize away the fact that you supported a shifty movement because you didn't actually think about what you were reading before acting.

As with the initial misinterpretation, the responsibility for your actions is wholly on you.

 

[DrPizza]

Operative Me[/url]":1yj5xx2q]

Kevin G[/url]":1yj5xx2q]
The gamer gate community certainly has a shit storm orbiting around but they have gotten results regarding ethics in journalism. For example, this happened a few days ago.

Care to point me to the evidence that that was GamerGate's work alone? Or is this a "well if some of our folks take part in this and it helps us, it's part of GamerGate, but if some of our folks participate in it and it's bad, it's they're totally not 'Real' GamerGaters"?

PC Gamer wrote an article critical of the use of the "PC Master Race" label by idiots who don't think that being associated with Nazis is a bad thing.

This caused GG to flip its shit and investigate the author of the article.

They then discovered (because it was not kept secret) that the author was in a relationship with someone who worked for Ubisoft PR.

PC Gamer's policy was apparently that the guy would never review Ubisoft products, but was still permitted to write news about them. Gators flipped out at the lack of disclosure.

This betrays two things: (1) gators are only interested in ethics to the extent that they can use them as a cudgel to attack people with; they only gave a shit about this issue when someone had made themselves a target (2) gators don't actually understand journalistic ethics at all; disclosure was never the appropriate response. It should always have been recusal.

This is what PC Gamer ultimately decided on; the writer in question cannot write about Ubisoft in any capacity, which is as it should be. PC Gamer really fucked up, and how anyone felt the previous situation was excusable is baffling.

 

[DrPizza]

0bliv!on[/url]":1czjyyjh]
I read the articles, especially the Ars one. Communication requires two parties, if a significant portion of your readerbase, whether of Ars or of gaming media generally, understands the articles to mean A, and that understanding is not wholly unreasonable, then surely the author is just as responsible for that message, even if personally they meant B?

If you're reasonably literate, your understanding is wholly unreasonable. I do not think that writers should be writing for the illiterate.

And while clarifications are useful, clarifications that come after the fact and after being criticised for the message are justifiably seen as being post hoc rationalisations instead of being representation of the true intent at the time.

I don't see why the authors of these articles get away with generalising just because they clarified afterwards, but others are rightfully lambasted for generalising against other groups.

Bullshit. Leigh Alexander made it explicitly clear in the very article that made the gator idiots flip their lids.

An important quote from the article that you claim is somehow reasonable to misinterpret:

Right, let’s say it’s a vocal minority that’s not representative of most people. Most people, from indies to industry leaders, are mortified, furious, disheartened at the direction industry conversation has taken in the past few weeks. It’s not like there are reputable outlets publishing rational articles in favor of the trolls’ ‘side’. Don’t give press to the harassers. Don’t blame an entire industry for a few bad apples.

It was abundantly clear that it wasn't everyone who was at fault. Just the kind of people who attacked Zoe Quinn and pretended that this was a crusade for ethics in games journalism.

 

[4KrkF]

Gary Patterson[/url]":a07y72eq]

0bliv!on[/url]":a07y72eq]
I read the articles, especially the Ars one. Communication requires two parties, if a significant portion of your readerbase, whether of Ars or of gaming media generally, understands the articles to mean A, and that understanding is not wholly unreasonable, then surely the author is just as responsible for that message, even if personally they meant B?

It was pretty clear that the "gamers are dead" thing was about a certain culture and was more of a "Gamers are dead! Long live gamers! We're all gamers now!" thing than a death-knell.

I've asked a few people and they all saw those articles in the same way. That's not much of a poll, I admit, but it's pretty clear to me that the message was straightforward.

"Gamers are dead! Long live gamers! We're all gamers now!"
That's exactly how I (and those others I discuss the topic with) interpreted it too.
(and thus there are a few people running around yelling the equivalent of "but I liked them before they were popular" or "you're not a real fan").

 

[DrPizza]

You're reading and understanding from the perspective of the authors. Others not privy to behind the scenes discussions may not have the same understanding because their perspective or the context in which they're reading the articles is different.

I'm not privy to any "behind the scenes discussion". I am, however, able to read.

 

[Snarky Robot]

DrPizza[/url]":2ile2t3c]

Operative Me[/url]":2ile2t3c]

Kevin G[/url]":2ile2t3c]
The gamer gate community certainly has a shit storm orbiting around but they have gotten results regarding ethics in journalism. For example, this happened a few days ago.

Care to point me to the evidence that that was GamerGate's work alone? Or is this a "well if some of our folks take part in this and it helps us, it's part of GamerGate, but if some of our folks participate in it and it's bad, it's they're totally not 'Real' GamerGaters"?

PC Gamer wrote an article critical of the use of the "PC Master Race" label by idiots who don't think that being associated with Nazis is a bad thing.

This caused GG to flip its shit and investigate the author of the article.

They then discovered (because it was not kept secret) that the author was in a relationship with someone who worked for Ubisoft PR.

PC Gamer's policy was apparently that the guy would never review Ubisoft products, but was still permitted to write news about them. Gators flipped out at the lack of disclosure.

This betrays two things: (1) gators are only interested in ethics to the extent that they can use them as a cudgel to attack people with; they only gave a shit about this issue when someone had made themselves a target (2) gators don't actually understand journalistic ethics at all; disclosure was never the appropriate response. It should always have been recusal.

This is what PC Gamer ultimately decided on; the writer in question cannot write about Ubisoft in any capacity, which is as it should be. PC Gamer really fucked up, and how anyone felt the previous situation was excusable is baffling.

So basically "we don't like you, so we're going to tear apart your personal life to find something we can attack" is turned into a moral victory for these guys because they found a non-secret that had already been disclosed, and are now celebrating a "victory" that has nothing to do with ethics, all so they can say they accomplished something?

GG, guys. GG.

 

[Snarky Robot]

0bliv!on[/url]":234su7b9]
You're reading and understanding from the perspective of the authors. Others not privy to behind the scenes discussions may not have the same understanding because their perspective or the context in which they're reading the articles is different.

I am reading and understanding from the perspective of a person who is able to comprehend the English language and who is able to understand things written in it.

Your interpretation was foolish. Blaming others for your inability to comprehend things is more foolish. Want to stop people thinking you're a fool? STOP DOING THE LATTER.

 

[Relto]

I knew this thread was going to be another piece of solid gold, and I haven't been disappointed.

 

[adrianovaroli]

Kevin G[/url]":3mmgs9uo]

adrianovaroli[/url]":3mmgs9uo]
I could swear I just posted something like "there are better ways to achieve stuff than bullying people so they do what you want. http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp, which GG loves to quote, specifically says journalists should "Deny favored treatment to advertisers, donors or any other special interests, and resist internal and external pressure to influence coverage." So GG is pushing journalists to act unethically." Must be time for a nap.

That also says that "Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts." Thus the proper course of action when a conflict of action appear is to call them out on it. PC Gamer did the correct thing by properly disclosing the relationship of that author to a developer that he was covering.

Otherwise, the alternative is simply upholding the status quo and letting it slide.

Weird. I remember GG bullying journalists through ad money instead of "calling people out on it". Must have been me. I also remember GG not knowing what conflict of interest even means, see Peter's posts in this thread. So you'll pardon me if I don't trust you deciding what's what.

Such massive amounts comments removed clearly means that there was a message that really offended those running those site. And sure, some of those comments likely should have removed due to doxing and threats but the raw numbers were so massive that is improbable they were all of that nature. Instead of exercising precision, they simply nuked the whole conversation and we left wondering why all the discussion afterward was radio active.

Again, the proper course of action would have been let the movement lose is own inertia while pruning the cases of threats and doxing. What remained may have been mostly shit but that's something you can use to fertilize the garden to grow something better down the road.

You are being cavalier with other people's money. That's real easy. It costs money, time and sanity to moderate a forum with the precision you suggest. Did you pay those sites? If not, why are you telling them how to run their communities?

 

[falsoman]

Operative Me[/url]":y40o0sd7]

0bliv!on[/url]":y40o0sd7]
You're reading and understanding from the perspective of the authors. Others not privy to behind the scenes discussions may not have the same understanding because their perspective or the context in which they're reading the articles is different.

I am reading and understanding from the perspective of a person who is able to comprehend the English language and who is able to understand things written in it.

Your interpretation was foolish. Blaming others for your inability to comprehend things is more foolish. Want to stop people thinking you're a fool? STOP DOING THE LATTER.

Seriously. English is not even my first language and that was exactly my takeaway... they were calling out asshole gamers, not calling gamers assholes... there's a big difference there.

This idea that criticizing games, or telling developers that they don't need to cater to the stereotype male douchebag gamers is NOT calling male gamers douchebags. It's saying that they don't need to cater to douchebags because the market is grown past that. That is a GOOD thing!

It's also telling how GGers seem to think they are the spokespeople and gatekeepers of gaming culture. I'm willing to bet most don't agree with them or they don't even know/care.

 

[Rubel]

Put this on in the background to help get you in the mood for being "swatted."
Drug Raid at 4AM

 

[noops]

Gamergate is simultaneously a repressed minority but also a majority voice for gaming.

Gamergate is whatever gamergate wants in any particular moment. Is the action good? It's gamergate. Is it bad? It's not gamergate.

Schrödinger's gamergate.

 

[Kevin G]

adrianovaroli[/url]":7w9oamxk]

Kevin G[/url]":7w9oamxk]

adrianovaroli[/url]":7w9oamxk]
I could swear I just posted something like "there are better ways to achieve stuff than bullying people so they do what you want. http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp, which GG loves to quote, specifically says journalists should "Deny favored treatment to advertisers, donors or any other special interests, and resist internal and external pressure to influence coverage." So GG is pushing journalists to act unethically." Must be time for a nap.

That also says that "Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts." Thus the proper course of action when a conflict of action appear is to call them out on it. PC Gamer did the correct thing by properly disclosing the relationship of that author to a developer that he was covering.

Otherwise, the alternative is simply upholding the status quo and letting it slide.

Weird. I remember GG bullying journalists through ad money instead of "calling people out on it". Must have been me. I also remember GG not knowing what conflict of interest even means, see Peter's posts in this thread. So you'll pardon me if I don't trust you deciding what's what.

It is your prerogative to trust me or not. Though I do request that you verify. Was there a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest with the relationships of that PC Gamer author? What impact would bullying or not have on the truth of that statement? PC Gamer themselves believed that it would appear as a conflict of interest.

adrianovaroli[/url]":7w9oamxk]

Such massive amounts comments removed clearly means that there was a message that really offended those running those site. And sure, some of those comments likely should have removed due to doxing and threats but the raw numbers were so massive that is improbable they were all of that nature. Instead of exercising precision, they simply nuked the whole conversation and we left wondering why all the discussion afterward was radio active.

Again, the proper course of action would have been let the movement lose is own inertia while pruning the cases of threats and doxing. What remained may have been mostly shit but that's something you can use to fertilize the garden to grow something better down the road.

You are being cavalier with other people's money. That's real easy. It costs money, time and sanity to moderate a forum with the precision you suggest. Did you pay those sites? If not, why are you telling them how to run their communities?

I was under the impression that most large forums incorporate a league of volunteers to assist in moderation. This has been requested of me elsewhere and I have accepted this role before. This didn't cost me anything nor other peoples money, just my time for a community I enjoyed. The other level of moderation is done by end users in reporting posts that go against guidelines. Those two things take care of the majority of the moderation burden and they're remarkably cost effective compared to paid staff as you suggest. Generally there are moderation tools that can help control a situation instead of just out right deleting everything: locking topics and communicating why a topic has been closed in a public fashion go a long way to bringing order to chaos.

 

[tesseractive]

DrPizza[/url]":24ws5k90]

Operative Me[/url]":24ws5k90]

Kevin G[/url]":24ws5k90]
The gamer gate community certainly has a shit storm orbiting around but they have gotten results regarding ethics in journalism. For example, this happened a few days ago.

Care to point me to the evidence that that was GamerGate's work alone? Or is this a "well if some of our folks take part in this and it helps us, it's part of GamerGate, but if some of our folks participate in it and it's bad, it's they're totally not 'Real' GamerGaters"?

PC Gamer wrote an article critical of the use of the "PC Master Race" label by idiots who don't think that being associated with Nazis is a bad thing.

This caused GG to flip its shit and investigate the author of the article.

They then discovered (because it was not kept secret) that the author was in a relationship with someone who worked for Ubisoft PR.

PC Gamer's policy was apparently that the guy would never review Ubisoft products, but was still permitted to write news about them. Gators flipped out at the lack of disclosure.

This betrays two things: (1) gators are only interested in ethics to the extent that they can use them as a cudgel to attack people with; they only gave a shit about this issue when someone had made themselves a target (2) gators don't actually understand journalistic ethics at all; disclosure was never the appropriate response. It should always have been recusal.

This is what PC Gamer ultimately decided on; the writer in question cannot write about Ubisoft in any capacity, which is as it should be. PC Gamer really fucked up, and how anyone felt the previous situation was excusable is baffling.

I think it's clear that if you write about games, you should have to publicly disclose every person you've ever slept with or even just had a friendly conversation with so that any dumbass who can draw lines in MS Paint can go through and vet every article for "conflicts of interest".

 

[Gary Patterson]

Kevin G[/url]":2z173ayd]It is your prerogative to trust me or not. Though I do request that you verify. Was there a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest with the relationships of that PC Gamer author? What impact would bullying or not have on the truth of that statement? PC Gamer themselves believed that it would appear as a conflict of interest.

The journo never reviewed a Ubisoft game, so no, there was no conflict of interest.

He did write some news stories apparently, but I've not looked into them. Can you show they were not factual?

Lastly, why was this specific journo picked to receive the GG treatment? Was it just that he was the only journo in the industry with the "appearance of a conflict of interest", or as someone said earlier, a result of him being critical of the GG movement and being targeted for a revenge attack? If the former, then the industry is pretty clean!

 

[noops]

tesseractive[/url]":19d17to7]
I think it's clear that if you write about games, you should have to publicly disclose every person you've ever slept with or even just had a friendly conversation with so that any dumbass who can draw lines in MS Paint can go through and vet every article for "conflicts of interest".

Gaming journalism is very serious business.

 

[Gary Patterson]

0bliv!on[/url]":27wgc55k]

Gary Patterson[/url]":27wgc55k]

Kevin G[/url]":27wgc55k]It is your prerogative to trust me or not. Though I do request that you verify. Was there a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest with the relationships of that PC Gamer author? What impact would bullying or not have on the truth of that statement? PC Gamer themselves believed that it would appear as a conflict of interest.

The journo never reviewed a Ubisoft game, so no, there was no conflict of interest.

He did write some news stories apparently, but I've not looked into them. Can you show they were not factual?

Lastly, why was this specific journo picked to receive the GG treatment? Was it just that he was the only journo in the industry with the "appearance of a conflict of interest", or as someone said earlier, a result of him being critical of the GG movement and being targeted for a revenge attack? If the former, then the industry is pretty clean!

Why are you persisting in saying there's no conflict, when even PC Gamer is conceding there may have been one?

And I'm pretty sure GG has picked on a lot of authors and reviewers and publications. Hell, there's probably more publications that they've picked on than ones that they haven't.

Saying it once is not "persisting" and the PC Gamer article talked about the appearance, not the actuality of a conflict of interest. They clearly want to remove even the merest hint that there could be a conflict of interest. All I'm saying is that there never seems to have been an actual case.

I hope this case isn't the 'big win' for GG. That it's the only one being brought to the table doesn't show GG has made any impact at all, unless this was all there was.

And no, gaming journalism is the least serious of any type of journalism outside animal shows. If you're going to start taking journalism seriously, start with something that matters - political journalism, or sports if you want to get into real conflicts of interest. The entire thing is a storm in a very small teacup.

 

[sonolumi]

Relto[/url]":e02zbeo8]I knew this thread was going to be another piece of solid gold, and I haven't been disappointed.

You know, I'm seeing the fun the others are having and I am kind of regretting not taking part now.

If I hadn't had the good sense to not be drinking while reading this, several posters would be owing me a new keyboard and monitor. And yes, I've learned this from experience....

 

[Andara]

Sugoi-Senpai-Kun[/url]":1txfp9a1]Good for her I guess, however, I still have no respect for her or people like her.

People like what? What is she like that's so horrible?

Sugoi-Senpai-Kun[/url]":1txfp9a1]Also, these people should know (as should everyone) that if you put yourself out there, especially on the internet, bad things ill be said about you.

Mmm... was wondering when we'd get a dose of victim-blaming. Can't have a thread that touches on sexism without at least one.

 

[noops]

0bliv!on[/url]":2ql0wurg]
Considering how much revenue gaming sites make, yes, yes it is.

Oh hey you are still here. So what would an 'equal coverage' article look like for the gamergate side? This is in regards to fighting harassment.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

Andara[/url]":gj44k3ea]

Sugoi-Senpai-Kun[/url]":gj44k3ea]Good for her I guess, however, I still have no respect for her or people like her.

People like what? What is she like that's so horrible?

Sugoi-Senpai-Kun[/url]":gj44k3ea]Also, these people should know (as should everyone) that if you put yourself out there, especially on the internet, bad things ill be said about you.

Mmm... was wondering when we'd get a dose of victim-blaming. Can't have a thread that touches on sexism without at least one.

If she didn't want to be harassed, she shouldn't have worn that online identity!

 

[Batmanuel]

vlam[/url]":ditipxvc]

adrianovaroli[/url]":ditipxvc]Ah, right. But I see no obvious ways to support CO directly. And she does makes games. Maybe you think she shouldn't?

If depression quest is what she's making, no. She shouldn't. She should stick with her campaigning. She is, very clearly, much better at it than at making a video game.



And to all you silly peoples complaining about mens rights, feminists, lgbt issues. Fucking cake walk. Try being a sociopath. At least half of society will jump down your throat if you're an asshole to women or gender-fluid people. Ever see people defend sociopaths?

You people and your privilege. You get to be who you are. If I told people I wouldn't bat an eye at their misery because I'm just incapable of caring, I'd have the whole of society at my throat. Simply for being who I am. Must be great to have all that privilege, or at least champions for your cause.

You could just be an asshole, you know.