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

 

[RFT]

jawlz[/url]":1i5c44ft]

sorrykb1[/url]":1i5c44ft]

Joao Sousa[/url]":1i5c44ft]
Neither should you pretend that most people who belong to gaming culture are socially inadequate basement dwellers, with little knowledge of the professional world. What Ms.Leigh said in her article.

Actually, Leigh was pointing out just the opposite, that the stereotype of "gamers" as socially inadequate basement dwellers was fading away as gaming's audience has expanded. This is a good thing.

It still relied on the stereotype of a 'hardcore gamer' being a basement dweller, poorly socialized, etc etc. Which was itself an inaccurate stereotype of the 'hardcore gamer;' before gaming's audience expanded to the size it is now, back when most of the games would have been considered 'hardcore,' the average gamer statistically was a high-middle-income man in his late 20s through mid 30s.

The main issue I have with much 'serious' or mainstream (ie a legitimate newspaper or magazine, not a trade magazine or special interest website) coverage of games these days is that most authors don't really acknowledge or understand the history of computer/video gaming going back 30 years, and assume that the industry and its audience in the past consisted exclusively of the inaccurate basement-dweller stereotype. That, I think, is unfortunate.

Dude, I was there 30 years ago. Gamers were on average socially inept male teenagers who disliked girls because they rejected them. The transition to gaming being a common and socially accepted pastime may happened maybe about 10 years ago.

 

[infernallexicon]

Jousle[/url]":1sjgl7f4]They were exposed and they still want to play the victim. This is madness

Source or GTFO.

 

[tjones2]

Gamergate brings out the best in the ars community , it seems. Three self described MRAs, a self described psychopath, and a bunch of gaters. Trog city.

 

[Grey Bird]

vlam[/url]":zkoktmje]

[snip]



For the more personal argument: I wouldn't say I revel in talking about myself. It is pertinent to the tangent I created when trying to comment about perspective and privilege. But I surely don't go about blurting my problems to people for fun. I've told exactly 0 people in the real world. And it is likely to stay that way for a good, long while. As for self diagnosis. This is certainly an assumption on your part.
paragraph p.s. I've been pretty forthcoming that I am in this discussion for amusement. Or perhaps more accurately, I'm in it to stave off boredom. Amusement implies giddiness where I simply mean "something to do."

The "assumption" of self-diagnosis was likely because several commenters asked whether you self-diagnosed or were professionally diagnosed and you completely ignored the question or, as here, sidestepped without actually answering the question. It's nobody's business but your own, but if you choose to not answer the question it isn't rational to then scold them for assuming they're correct in their assumption.

 

[sorrykb1]

jawlz[/url]":3pd99z0x]

sorrykb1[/url]":3pd99z0x]

Joao Sousa[/url]":3pd99z0x]
Neither should you pretend that most people who belong to gaming culture are socially inadequate basement dwellers, with little knowledge of the professional world. What Ms.Leigh said in her article.

Actually, Leigh was pointing out just the opposite, that the stereotype of "gamers" as socially inadequate basement dwellers was fading away as gaming's audience has expanded. This is a good thing.

It still relied on the stereotype of a 'hardcore gamer' being a basement dweller, poorly socialized, etc etc. Which was itself an inaccurate stereotype of the 'hardcore gamer;' before gaming's audience expanded to the size it is now, back when most of the games would have been considered 'hardcore,' the average gamer statistically was a high-middle-income man in his late 20s through mid 30s.

Which is why I used the word "stereotype", meaning a widely held but inaccurate or oversimplified view.

That view was fading as more and more people realized it was inaccurate... until Gamergate came along, the very embodiment of the stereotype that so many others had worked to dispel.

[Edited: grammar. My 9th grade English teacher was yelling at me in my head.]

 

[jawlz]

RFT[/url]":3c3zgah6]

jawlz[/url]":3c3zgah6]

sorrykb1[/url]":3c3zgah6]

Joao Sousa[/url]":3c3zgah6]
Neither should you pretend that most people who belong to gaming culture are socially inadequate basement dwellers, with little knowledge of the professional world. What Ms.Leigh said in her article.

Actually, Leigh was pointing out just the opposite, that the stereotype of "gamers" as socially inadequate basement dwellers was fading away as gaming's audience has expanded. This is a good thing.

It still relied on the stereotype of a 'hardcore gamer' being a basement dweller, poorly socialized, etc etc. Which was itself an inaccurate stereotype of the 'hardcore gamer;' before gaming's audience expanded to the size it is now, back when most of the games would have been considered 'hardcore,' the average gamer statistically was a high-middle-income man in his late 20s through mid 30s.

The main issue I have with much 'serious' or mainstream (ie a legitimate newspaper or magazine, not a trade magazine or special interest website) coverage of games these days is that most authors don't really acknowledge or understand the history of computer/video gaming going back 30 years, and assume that the industry and its audience in the past consisted exclusively of the inaccurate basement-dweller stereotype. That, I think, is unfortunate.

Dude, I was there 30 years ago. Gamers were on average socially inept male teenagers who disliked girls because they rejected them. The transition to gaming being a common and socially accepted pastime may happened maybe about 10 years ago.

I was there 30 years ago too. Of course there were socially inept teenagers involved in gaming, just as there are today. That said, if you actually looked at the statistics on game purchases, the average gamer was late-20s to early-30s and had a decent income. The stereotype then was just as inaccurate as it is now.

 

[lXilEl]

Hostage situations are very serious and have to be treated as such. No exceptions! Knocking with your hand can get someone killed. They rush in like they do to create a few seconds of shock so they can gain control of the situation.

 

[jawlz]

sorrykb1[/url]":12gdk393]

jawlz[/url]":12gdk393]

sorrykb1[/url]":12gdk393]

Joao Sousa[/url]":12gdk393]
Neither should you pretend that most people who belong to gaming culture are socially inadequate basement dwellers, with little knowledge of the professional world. What Ms.Leigh said in her article.

Actually, Leigh was pointing out just the opposite, that the stereotype of "gamers" as socially inadequate basement dwellers was fading away as gaming's audience has expanded. This is a good thing.

It still relied on the stereotype of a 'hardcore gamer' being a basement dweller, poorly socialized, etc etc. Which was itself an inaccurate stereotype of the 'hardcore gamer;' before gaming's audience expanded to the size it is now, back when most of the games would have been considered 'hardcore,' the average gamer statistically was a high-middle-income man in his late 20s through mid 30s.

Which is why I used the word "stereotype", meaning a widely held but inaccurate or oversimplified view.

That view was fading as more and more people realized it was inaccurate... until Gamergate came along, the very embodiment of the stereotype that so many others had worked to dispel.

[Edited: grammar. My 9th grade English teacher was yelling at me in my head.]

Fair enough; I don't think that stereotypes are necessarily inaccurate or *over*-simplified, hence my post. That said, I also think that Leigh's point (it's been a while since I read the article) was that the stereotype didn't fit because of the expanding pool of 'gamers,' not so much because it was inaccurate in the first place. Certainly many don't see the stereotype as being an inaccurate descriptor of 'hardcore' gamers (see RFT's reply to me as an example!), though as I've said, I believe it is.

 

[RFT]

jawlz[/url]":2pq2t5n9]

RFT[/url]":2pq2t5n9]

jawlz[/url]":2pq2t5n9]

sorrykb1[/url]":2pq2t5n9]

Joao Sousa[/url]":2pq2t5n9]
Neither should you pretend that most people who belong to gaming culture are socially inadequate basement dwellers, with little knowledge of the professional world. What Ms.Leigh said in her article.

Actually, Leigh was pointing out just the opposite, that the stereotype of "gamers" as socially inadequate basement dwellers was fading away as gaming's audience has expanded. This is a good thing.

It still relied on the stereotype of a 'hardcore gamer' being a basement dweller, poorly socialized, etc etc. Which was itself an inaccurate stereotype of the 'hardcore gamer;' before gaming's audience expanded to the size it is now, back when most of the games would have been considered 'hardcore,' the average gamer statistically was a high-middle-income man in his late 20s through mid 30s.

The main issue I have with much 'serious' or mainstream (ie a legitimate newspaper or magazine, not a trade magazine or special interest website) coverage of games these days is that most authors don't really acknowledge or understand the history of computer/video gaming going back 30 years, and assume that the industry and its audience in the past consisted exclusively of the inaccurate basement-dweller stereotype. That, I think, is unfortunate.

Dude, I was there 30 years ago. Gamers were on average socially inept male teenagers who disliked girls because they rejected them. The transition to gaming being a common and socially accepted pastime may happened maybe about 10 years ago.

I was there 30 years ago too. Of course there were socially inept teenagers involved in gaming, just as there are today. That said, if you actually looked at the statistics on game purchases, the average gamer was late-20s to early-30s and had a decent income. The stereotype then was just as inaccurate as it is now.

I a) doubt that statistic, and b) if it is true, you need to consider that most purchases were done by people with purchasing power. Not kids. Gaming itself was largely done by kids, not by 30 year olds. If you want some citation, you can trawl through the Wikipedia article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_gami ... ted_States. A dead giveaway that teenagers were quite probably the most common gamers even in the 90s is the average age of a gamer today, and the average time they have gamed: 30 years, and 13 years. Today's average gamer 13 years ago was 17.

 

[vlam]

Grey Bird[/url]":3js3t16z]

vlam[/url]":3js3t16z]

[snip]



For the more personal argument: I wouldn't say I revel in talking about myself. It is pertinent to the tangent I created when trying to comment about perspective and privilege. But I surely don't go about blurting my problems to people for fun. I've told exactly 0 people in the real world. And it is likely to stay that way for a good, long while. As for self diagnosis. This is certainly an assumption on your part.
paragraph p.s. I've been pretty forthcoming that I am in this discussion for amusement. Or perhaps more accurately, I'm in it to stave off boredom. Amusement implies giddiness where I simply mean "something to do."

The "assumption" of self-diagnosis was likely because several commenters asked whether you self-diagnosed or were professionally diagnosed and you completely ignored the question or, as here, sidestepped without actually answering the question. It's nobody's business but your own, but if you choose to not answer the question it isn't rational to then scold them for assuming they're correct in their assumption.

I certainly agree with this. But I've this a few times. The conversation path is pretty predictable.

Me: I'm a sociopath
Them: yeah, OK. Liar.
Me: I've been diagnosed...
Them: sure whatever. People can say whatever they want on the internet. You aren't a sociopath.

So, what is the point? I certainly don't care if random person (or group) A believes me. It'd be easier to be open and accepted as different, but it doesn't bother me when people think I'm lying.

There was, however, one group that did believe me. Seems awkward that it was a sex worker and co.

 

[jawlz]

RFT[/url]":3u37mw16]

jawlz[/url]":3u37mw16]

RFT[/url]":3u37mw16]

jawlz[/url]":3u37mw16]

sorrykb1[/url]":3u37mw16]

Joao Sousa[/url]":3u37mw16]
Neither should you pretend that most people who belong to gaming culture are socially inadequate basement dwellers, with little knowledge of the professional world. What Ms.Leigh said in her article.

Actually, Leigh was pointing out just the opposite, that the stereotype of "gamers" as socially inadequate basement dwellers was fading away as gaming's audience has expanded. This is a good thing.

It still relied on the stereotype of a 'hardcore gamer' being a basement dweller, poorly socialized, etc etc. Which was itself an inaccurate stereotype of the 'hardcore gamer;' before gaming's audience expanded to the size it is now, back when most of the games would have been considered 'hardcore,' the average gamer statistically was a high-middle-income man in his late 20s through mid 30s.

The main issue I have with much 'serious' or mainstream (ie a legitimate newspaper or magazine, not a trade magazine or special interest website) coverage of games these days is that most authors don't really acknowledge or understand the history of computer/video gaming going back 30 years, and assume that the industry and its audience in the past consisted exclusively of the inaccurate basement-dweller stereotype. That, I think, is unfortunate.

Dude, I was there 30 years ago. Gamers were on average socially inept male teenagers who disliked girls because they rejected them. The transition to gaming being a common and socially accepted pastime may happened maybe about 10 years ago.

I was there 30 years ago too. Of course there were socially inept teenagers involved in gaming, just as there are today. That said, if you actually looked at the statistics on game purchases, the average gamer was late-20s to early-30s and had a decent income. The stereotype then was just as inaccurate as it is now.

I a) doubt that statistic, and b) if it is true, you need to consider that most purchases were done by people with purchasing power. Not kids. Gaming itself was largely done by kids, not by 30 year olds. If you want some citation, you can trawl through the Wikipedia article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_gami ... ted_States. A dead giveaway that teenagers were quite probably the most common gamers even in the 90s is the average age of a gamer today, and the average time they have gamed: 30 years, and 13 years. Today's average gamer 13 years ago was 17.

IIRC, the stats were coming from the ESA in 90s through today (see http://www.theesa.com/). Before that there were market studies that various hobbiest magazines would print. The average age of a gamer has actually been *decreasing* over the last 5-10 years. So the idea that you can just subtract however many years from the average age of gamers today to get the average age of gamers however many years ago doesn't really hold water.

 

[Plissken]

tjones2[/url]":3v7gvwzb]Gamergate brings out the best in the ars community , it seems. Three self described MRAs, a self described psychopath, and a bunch of gaters. Trog city.

Yeah, I figured the calls went out on the GG channels to swarm this thread (as well as every other article discussion CrashOverride) and attack something that has nothing to do with ethics in journalism while claiming to be for ethics in journalism. I intentionally avoided it until now because I can only tolerate so much BS...

Is the storm over? Can we get back to reasonable discussions about this?

 

[jawlz]

Peevester[/url]":1jya25id]Yep, totally called it on the upvote/downvote counts. The sad and pathetic GG invasion squad managed to upvote their crap for about 2 hours, then it all came crashing down. Miserable failure.

Hooray for your group-think outvoting your opponents' group-think.

Attempting to judge comments based on their upvote/downvote counts, *especially* on a contentious topic like this, isn't a worthwhile pursuit.

 

[Plissken]

DrPizza[/url]":vzasxwbf]

epobirs[/url]":vzasxwbf]A bit disingenuous, Peter. Who claimed that Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu, or Anita Sarkeesian were journalists?

And you have the gall to call me disingenuous?

Nobody said that they were journalists. That's the entire point. They're not journalists, and yet it is they, above all others, that gamergate has attacked.

The complaint was regarding how journalists interacted with them.

Then attack the journalists.

Holy hell, this is PERFECT. Goes right to the heart of the hypocrisy of GG. And yet GG supporters still claim/believe that they're fighting for journalism ethics by targeting...non-journalists like Sarkeesian, Wu, Quinn, and other "LWs" (???). What absolute frauds....

 

[Alfonse]

jawlz[/url]":2gosxror]

RFT[/url]":2gosxror]

jawlz[/url]":2gosxror]

sorrykb1[/url]":2gosxror]

Joao Sousa[/url]":2gosxror]
Neither should you pretend that most people who belong to gaming culture are socially inadequate basement dwellers, with little knowledge of the professional world. What Ms.Leigh said in her article.

Actually, Leigh was pointing out just the opposite, that the stereotype of "gamers" as socially inadequate basement dwellers was fading away as gaming's audience has expanded. This is a good thing.

It still relied on the stereotype of a 'hardcore gamer' being a basement dweller, poorly socialized, etc etc. Which was itself an inaccurate stereotype of the 'hardcore gamer;' before gaming's audience expanded to the size it is now, back when most of the games would have been considered 'hardcore,' the average gamer statistically was a high-middle-income man in his late 20s through mid 30s.

The main issue I have with much 'serious' or mainstream (ie a legitimate newspaper or magazine, not a trade magazine or special interest website) coverage of games these days is that most authors don't really acknowledge or understand the history of computer/video gaming going back 30 years, and assume that the industry and its audience in the past consisted exclusively of the inaccurate basement-dweller stereotype. That, I think, is unfortunate.

Dude, I was there 30 years ago. Gamers were on average socially inept male teenagers who disliked girls because they rejected them. The transition to gaming being a common and socially accepted pastime may happened maybe about 10 years ago.

I was there 30 years ago too. Of course there were socially inept teenagers involved in gaming, just as there are today. That said, if you actually looked at the statistics on game purchases, the average gamer was late-20s to early-30s and had a decent income. The stereotype then was just as inaccurate as it is now.

Bullshit. 30 years ago was 1985. Back then, when the NES was just coming out, the vast majority of gamers were children. 10 years old, plus or minus 3 years. They were the people who financed (or rather their parents financed) the NES's debut and subsequent conquest of the USA.

PC gamers may have skewed older, but not very much. The vast majority of PC gamers were dependent on their parents for income. That's not to say that there weren't adult gamers, but they were by far the minority.

Remember: the first videogame most older people gained an addiction to was Tetris. Which didn't hit until the late 80s.

 

[Snarky Robot]

Jousle[/url]":2zrr4c6g]
Those decisions are not based on "outdated stereotypes about the limitations of women". Those decisions are based on basic biological differences between men and women . So, you need some reality check here.

Here's a reality check: Israel exists. Are Israeli women somehow magical unicorns who defy your vaunted biology? Are you willing to claim that the Israeli military is weaker because they require men AND women to serve? Another reality check: I served in the Marine Corps for 5 years. Trust me, there are female Marines I'd MUCH rather have had covering my ass than some of the men I did serve with. One guy I had to have expect to help pull my butt out of trouble was 6' 2" and couldn't keep his weight above 130 pounds. He couldn't do three damn pullups to save his life. Couldn't do three pull-ups, but talked shit all day and night. All that vaunted biology didn't mean a damned thing because guys like that were shitbirds. I have practical, first hand experience with women in the service. Do you?

As for women being better parents, I'm sure you want to tell that to every gay male couple that they shouldn't be raising children, right? Tell them that their child would be better off with another family because women are better at raising children, right? Shit, by that logic, EVERY child should be raised by lesbians. If women are better at raising children, then a family with nothing but female parents is the logically best situation for a child, correct?

Your "biological differences" are harmful stereotypes wrapped in a thin veneer of pseudoscience, disposable by basic logic and observation.

 

[Outrider/Ronin]

jawlz[/url]":92datuge]

sorrykb1[/url]":92datuge]

jawlz[/url]":92datuge]

sorrykb1[/url]":92datuge]

Joao Sousa[/url]":92datuge]
Neither should you pretend that most people who belong to gaming culture are socially inadequate basement dwellers, with little knowledge of the professional world. What Ms.Leigh said in her article.

Actually, Leigh was pointing out just the opposite, that the stereotype of "gamers" as socially inadequate basement dwellers was fading away as gaming's audience has expanded. This is a good thing.

It still relied on the stereotype of a 'hardcore gamer' being a basement dweller, poorly socialized, etc etc. Which was itself an inaccurate stereotype of the 'hardcore gamer;' before gaming's audience expanded to the size it is now, back when most of the games would have been considered 'hardcore,' the average gamer statistically was a high-middle-income man in his late 20s through mid 30s.

Which is why I used the word "stereotype", meaning a widely held but inaccurate or oversimplified view.

That view was fading as more and more people realized it was inaccurate... until Gamergate came along, the very embodiment of the stereotype that so many others had worked to dispel.

[Edited: grammar. My 9th grade English teacher was yelling at me in my head.]

Fair enough; I don't think that stereotypes are necessarily inaccurate or *over*-simplified, hence my post. That said, I also think that Leigh's point (it's been a while since I read the article) was that the stereotype didn't fit because of the expanding pool of 'gamers,' not so much because it was inaccurate in the first place. Certainly many don't see the stereotype as being an inaccurate descriptor of 'hardcore' gamers (see RFT's reply to me as an example!), though as I've said, I believe it is.

Perhaps because the definition of "hardcore gamer" is fairly nebulous.

Daily/Weekly time spent playing games?
Game Genre?
Difficulty/Complexity?
Platform?

If the definition were someone who plays 14+ hours daily, that would seem to preclude professional work or much non-gaming social interaction, making the stereotype fairly accurate.

Most of us, whether we admit it or not, have our assumption of what it means to be a real "gamer". To those looking from the outside, without a good understanding of the various genres/complexities/platforms, time spent is the easiest to latch onto.

 

[Peevester]

tjones2[/url]":18jdwexb]Gamergate brings out the best in the ars community , it seems. Three self described MRAs, a self described psychopath, and a bunch of gaters. Trog city.

It DOES bring out the best. What you listed are the asshats that the best are responding to.

Ars seems to have a pretty low tolerance for trolling, especially STUPID trolling. That's a good thing.

Alfonse[/url]":18jdwexb]

jawlz[/url]":18jdwexb]

RFT[/url]":18jdwexb]

jawlz[/url]":18jdwexb]

sorrykb1[/url]":18jdwexb]

Joao Sousa[/url]":18jdwexb]
Neither should you pretend that most people who belong to gaming culture are socially inadequate basement dwellers, with little knowledge of the professional world. What Ms.Leigh said in her article.

Actually, Leigh was pointing out just the opposite, that the stereotype of "gamers" as socially inadequate basement dwellers was fading away as gaming's audience has expanded. This is a good thing.

It still relied on the stereotype of a 'hardcore gamer' being a basement dweller, poorly socialized, etc etc. Which was itself an inaccurate stereotype of the 'hardcore gamer;' before gaming's audience expanded to the size it is now, back when most of the games would have been considered 'hardcore,' the average gamer statistically was a high-middle-income man in his late 20s through mid 30s.

The main issue I have with much 'serious' or mainstream (ie a legitimate newspaper or magazine, not a trade magazine or special interest website) coverage of games these days is that most authors don't really acknowledge or understand the history of computer/video gaming going back 30 years, and assume that the industry and its audience in the past consisted exclusively of the inaccurate basement-dweller stereotype. That, I think, is unfortunate.

Dude, I was there 30 years ago. Gamers were on average socially inept male teenagers who disliked girls because they rejected them. The transition to gaming being a common and socially accepted pastime may happened maybe about 10 years ago.

I was there 30 years ago too. Of course there were socially inept teenagers involved in gaming, just as there are today. That said, if you actually looked at the statistics on game purchases, the average gamer was late-20s to early-30s and had a decent income. The stereotype then was just as inaccurate as it is now.

Bullshit. 30 years ago was 1985. Back then, when the NES was just coming out, the vast majority of gamers were children. 10 years old, plus or minus 3 years. They were the people who financed (or rather their parents financed) the NES's debut and subsequent conquest of the USA.

PC gamers may have skewed older, but not very much. The vast majority of PC gamers were dependent on their parents for income. That's not to say that there weren't adult gamers, but they were by far the minority.

Remember: the first videogame most older people gained an addiction to was Tetris. Which didn't hit until the late 80s.

Dude. 1985 was more than a decade after the mass-market start of video gaming. My octogenerian grandmother (rest her soul) played video games before 1985. If you're going to make sweeping pronouncements without supporting data, at least make ones that aren't trivially disproven.

 

[grommit!]

Plissken[/url]":1ie7nnvv]

tjones2[/url]":1ie7nnvv]Gamergate brings out the best in the ars community , it seems. Three self described MRAs, a self described psychopath, and a bunch of gaters. Trog city.

Yeah, I figured the calls went out on the GG channels to swarm this thread (as well as every other article discussion CrashOverride) and attack something that has nothing to do with ethics in journalism while claiming to be for ethics in journalism. I intentionally avoided it until now because I can only tolerate so much BS...

Yep, the initial reaction from GG was pretty much as expected:

https://storify.com/adulus/gamergate-co ... -zoe-quinn

 

[RFT]

Peevester[/url]":2jo3dbuo]

tjones2[/url]":2jo3dbuo]Gamergate brings out the best in the ars community , it seems. Three self described MRAs, a self described psychopath, and a bunch of gaters. Trog city.

It DOES bring out the best. What you listed are the asshats that the best are responding to.

Ars seems to have a pretty low tolerance for trolling, especially STUPID trolling. That's a good thing.

Alfonse[/url]":2jo3dbuo]

jawlz[/url]":2jo3dbuo]

RFT[/url]":2jo3dbuo]

jawlz[/url]":2jo3dbuo]

sorrykb1[/url]":2jo3dbuo]

Actually, Leigh was pointing out just the opposite, that the stereotype of "gamers" as socially inadequate basement dwellers was fading away as gaming's audience has expanded. This is a good thing.

It still relied on the stereotype of a 'hardcore gamer' being a basement dweller, poorly socialized, etc etc. Which was itself an inaccurate stereotype of the 'hardcore gamer;' before gaming's audience expanded to the size it is now, back when most of the games would have been considered 'hardcore,' the average gamer statistically was a high-middle-income man in his late 20s through mid 30s.

The main issue I have with much 'serious' or mainstream (ie a legitimate newspaper or magazine, not a trade magazine or special interest website) coverage of games these days is that most authors don't really acknowledge or understand the history of computer/video gaming going back 30 years, and assume that the industry and its audience in the past consisted exclusively of the inaccurate basement-dweller stereotype. That, I think, is unfortunate.

Dude, I was there 30 years ago. Gamers were on average socially inept male teenagers who disliked girls because they rejected them. The transition to gaming being a common and socially accepted pastime may happened maybe about 10 years ago.

I was there 30 years ago too. Of course there were socially inept teenagers involved in gaming, just as there are today. That said, if you actually looked at the statistics on game purchases, the average gamer was late-20s to early-30s and had a decent income. The stereotype then was just as inaccurate as it is now.

Bullshit. 30 years ago was 1985. Back then, when the NES was just coming out, the vast majority of gamers were children. 10 years old, plus or minus 3 years. They were the people who financed (or rather their parents financed) the NES's debut and subsequent conquest of the USA.

PC gamers may have skewed older, but not very much. The vast majority of PC gamers were dependent on their parents for income. That's not to say that there weren't adult gamers, but they were by far the minority.

Remember: the first videogame most older people gained an addiction to was Tetris. Which didn't hit until the late 80s.

Dude. 1985 was more than a decade after the mass-market start of video gaming. My octogenerian grandmother (rest her soul) played video games before 1985. If you're going to make sweeping pronouncements without supporting data, at least make ones that aren't trivially disproven.

How does your one anecdote disprove the statement "most older people"? Is your grandmother most older people? Purely from a logic perspective, you haven't done anything.

 

[Peevester]

RFT[/url]":35vrau13]

How does your one anecdote disprove the statement "most older people"? Is your grandmother most older people? Purely from a logic perspective, you haven't done anything.

She wasn't the only one. My whole family, 3 generations sometimes, went to the arcades at least weekly. And first generation consoles were wildly popular for every age at the time.

I think it's complete bullshit to say that video gamers in 1985 were mostly children. That's certainly not how I remember it!

 

[Peevester]

Blergh random double post. We really need a delete button, at least one that we can use for a few minutes after posting.

 

[jawlz]

RFT[/url]":35pic4wt]

Peevester[/url]":35pic4wt]

tjones2[/url]":35pic4wt]Gamergate brings out the best in the ars community , it seems. Three self described MRAs, a self described psychopath, and a bunch of gaters. Trog city.

It DOES bring out the best. What you listed are the asshats that the best are responding to.

Ars seems to have a pretty low tolerance for trolling, especially STUPID trolling. That's a good thing.

Alfonse[/url]":35pic4wt]

jawlz[/url]":35pic4wt]

RFT[/url]":35pic4wt]
Dude, I was there 30 years ago. Gamers were on average socially inept male teenagers who disliked girls because they rejected them. The transition to gaming being a common and socially accepted pastime may happened maybe about 10 years ago.

I was there 30 years ago too. Of course there were socially inept teenagers involved in gaming, just as there are today. That said, if you actually looked at the statistics on game purchases, the average gamer was late-20s to early-30s and had a decent income. The stereotype then was just as inaccurate as it is now.

Bullshit. 30 years ago was 1985. Back then, when the NES was just coming out, the vast majority of gamers were children. 10 years old, plus or minus 3 years. They were the people who financed (or rather their parents financed) the NES's debut and subsequent conquest of the USA.

PC gamers may have skewed older, but not very much. The vast majority of PC gamers were dependent on their parents for income. That's not to say that there weren't adult gamers, but they were by far the minority.

Remember: the first videogame most older people gained an addiction to was Tetris. Which didn't hit until the late 80s.

Dude. 1985 was more than a decade after the mass-market start of video gaming. My octogenerian grandmother (rest her soul) played video games before 1985. If you're going to make sweeping pronouncements without supporting data, at least make ones that aren't trivially disproven.

How does your one anecdote disprove the statement "most older people"? Is your grandmother most older people? Purely from a logic perspective, you haven't done anything.

The only things posted so far that *haven't* been anecdotes as far as the average age of gamers have been your link to wikipedia and mine to the ESA's website. I have been trying to find things online going back more than 10 years, but without much success so far (mainly because people haven't digitized and uploaded stuff from the 80s and 90s). Everything from '04 through today suggests that the average gamer has been aged between 30 and 38, which tracks my original post about the average gamer age ranging from the late 20s to the mid 30s.

 

[RFT]

jawlz[/url]":buwabt2g]

RFT[/url]":buwabt2g]

Peevester[/url]":buwabt2g]

tjones2[/url]":buwabt2g]Gamergate brings out the best in the ars community , it seems. Three self described MRAs, a self described psychopath, and a bunch of gaters. Trog city.

It DOES bring out the best. What you listed are the asshats that the best are responding to.

Ars seems to have a pretty low tolerance for trolling, especially STUPID trolling. That's a good thing.

Alfonse[/url]":buwabt2g]

jawlz[/url]":buwabt2g]

RFT[/url]":buwabt2g]
Dude, I was there 30 years ago. Gamers were on average socially inept male teenagers who disliked girls because they rejected them. The transition to gaming being a common and socially accepted pastime may happened maybe about 10 years ago.

I was there 30 years ago too. Of course there were socially inept teenagers involved in gaming, just as there are today. That said, if you actually looked at the statistics on game purchases, the average gamer was late-20s to early-30s and had a decent income. The stereotype then was just as inaccurate as it is now.

Bullshit. 30 years ago was 1985. Back then, when the NES was just coming out, the vast majority of gamers were children. 10 years old, plus or minus 3 years. They were the people who financed (or rather their parents financed) the NES's debut and subsequent conquest of the USA.

PC gamers may have skewed older, but not very much. The vast majority of PC gamers were dependent on their parents for income. That's not to say that there weren't adult gamers, but they were by far the minority.

Remember: the first videogame most older people gained an addiction to was Tetris. Which didn't hit until the late 80s.

Dude. 1985 was more than a decade after the mass-market start of video gaming. My octogenerian grandmother (rest her soul) played video games before 1985. If you're going to make sweeping pronouncements without supporting data, at least make ones that aren't trivially disproven.

How does your one anecdote disprove the statement "most older people"? Is your grandmother most older people? Purely from a logic perspective, you haven't done anything.

The only things posted so far that *haven't* been anecdotes as far as the average age of gamers have been your link to wikipedia and mine to the ESA's website. I have been trying to find things online going back more than 10 years, but without much success so far (mainly because people haven't digitized and uploaded stuff from the 80s and 90s. Everything from '04 through today suggests that the average gamer has been aged between 30 and 38, which tracks my original post about the average gamer age ranging from the late 20s to the mid 30s.

Yeah, I haven't found any hard evidence either. I'm just basing it on my recollection of people at my schools, and what games were popular in the 80s and 90s.

 

[passivesmoking]

adrianovaroli[/url]":2it3a8r3]

Joao Sousa[/url]":2it3a8r3]

Operative Me[/url]":2it3a8r3]

Joao Sousa[/url]":2it3a8r3]
You are expecting a mob to act rationaly? Ok...

So you admit, GamerGate isn't rational.

That works for me.

I said a mob isn't rational. If you want to give more importance to the amount of anonymous gamergate tweets, then to the words of articulate defenders of Gamergate, some of them women, it's your choice.

Yes, he's calling a spade a spade. What GG does to AS, ZQ, etc. is not "engaging". Sending death threats and slurs is not "engaging".

Reducing gamergate to death threats and slurs is falacious.

Who's reducing? I can count on the fingers of one hand the times I've discussed civilly with gaters. They're mostly here, and they still won't admit they lack basic English comprehension, like you. On the other hand, the times I've been insulted by GG, told by them I was a beta faggot, a cuck, a "needle dicke" (sic.), a race traitor (some latin-american in GG) , a sexist pig (that one from a woman in GG. Apparently, telling her GG was not doing much good means I'm sexist), a paedo face (really...)... the list goes on, and on, and on.

You forgot SJW! Seriously, hasn't anyone called you that yet? I got called that plenty for drawing a picture of Vivian James as a sock puppet.

 

[tjones2]

thegrommit[/url]":3nxc5f9u]

Plissken[/url]":3nxc5f9u]

tjones2[/url]":3nxc5f9u]Gamergate brings out the best in the ars community , it seems. Three self described MRAs, a self described psychopath, and a bunch of gaters. Trog city.

Yeah, I figured the calls went out on the GG channels to swarm this thread (as well as every other article discussion CrashOverride) and attack something that has nothing to do with ethics in journalism while claiming to be for ethics in journalism. I intentionally avoided it until now because I can only tolerate so much BS...

Yep, the initial reaction from GG was pretty much as expected:

https://storify.com/adulus/gamergate-co ... -zoe-quinn

There is worse https://storify.com/a_man_in_black/baphomet

"/baphomet/, 8chan's Black Board
If you criticize #gamergate or 8chan, they will use any tactic they can to retaliate. Up to and including trying to get you killed."

 

[tjones2]

passivesmoking[/url]":2eghmilj]

adrianovaroli[/url]":2eghmilj]

Joao Sousa[/url]":2eghmilj]

Operative Me[/url]":2eghmilj]

Joao Sousa[/url]":2eghmilj]
You are expecting a mob to act rationaly? Ok...

So you admit, GamerGate isn't rational.

That works for me.

I said a mob isn't rational. If you want to give more importance to the amount of anonymous gamergate tweets, then to the words of articulate defenders of Gamergate, some of them women, it's your choice.

Yes, he's calling a spade a spade. What GG does to AS, ZQ, etc. is not "engaging". Sending death threats and slurs is not "engaging".

Reducing gamergate to death threats and slurs is falacious.

Who's reducing? I can count on the fingers of one hand the times I've discussed civilly with gaters. They're mostly here, and they still won't admit they lack basic English comprehension, like you. On the other hand, the times I've been insulted by GG, told by them I was a beta faggot, a cuck, a "needle dicke" (sic.), a race traitor (some latin-american in GG) , a sexist pig (that one from a woman in GG. Apparently, telling her GG was not doing much good means I'm sexist), a paedo face (really...)... the list goes on, and on, and on.

You forgot SJW! Seriously, hasn't anyone called you that yet? I got called that plenty for drawing a picture of Vivian James as a sock puppet.

I've gotten SJW, "classic beta male",misandrist, and a handful of actually civil GGers. And this was before I switched to the total dickhead tone towards GG.

Edit: and the insults are really funny, because here, and other places I've been quite skeptical and critical of feminism. I'm not a tumblr using radfem SJW by any means.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

thegrommit[/url]":322n5yt8]

Plissken[/url]":322n5yt8]

tjones2[/url]":322n5yt8]Gamergate brings out the best in the ars community , it seems. Three self described MRAs, a self described psychopath, and a bunch of gaters. Trog city.

Yeah, I figured the calls went out on the GG channels to swarm this thread (as well as every other article discussion CrashOverride) and attack something that has nothing to do with ethics in journalism while claiming to be for ethics in journalism. I intentionally avoided it until now because I can only tolerate so much BS...

Yep, the initial reaction from GG was pretty much as expected:

https://storify.com/adulus/gamergate-co ... -zoe-quinn

:facepalm:

 

[Alfonse]

Peevester[/url]":2lsxz74b]

RFT[/url]":2lsxz74b]

How does your one anecdote disprove the statement "most older people"? Is your grandmother most older people? Purely from a logic perspective, you haven't done anything.

She wasn't the only one. My whole family, 3 generations sometimes, went to the arcades at least weekly. And first generation consoles were wildly popular for every age at the time.

I think it's complete bullshit to say that video gamers in 1985 were mostly children. That's certainly not how I remember it!

Yes, and among my whole family in the 80s, three generations of them, videogames were ignored by everyone who was above 18. So?

Furthermore, "mostly children" means at least 50%. Are you honestly telling me that over 50% of regular players of videogames in the 80s were adults?

jawlz[/url]":2lsxz74b]

RFT[/url]":2lsxz74b]

Peevester[/url]":2lsxz74b]

Dude. 1985 was more than a decade after the mass-market start of video gaming. My octogenerian grandmother (rest her soul) played video games before 1985. If you're going to make sweeping pronouncements without supporting data, at least make ones that aren't trivially disproven.

How does your one anecdote disprove the statement "most older people"? Is your grandmother most older people? Purely from a logic perspective, you haven't done anything.

The only things posted so far that *haven't* been anecdotes as far as the average age of gamers have been your link to wikipedia and mine to the ESA's website. I have been trying to find things online going back more than 10 years, but without much success so far (mainly because people haven't digitized and uploaded stuff from the 80s and 90s). Everything from '04 through today suggests that the average gamer has been aged between 30 and 38, which tracks my original post about the average gamer age ranging from the late 20s to the mid 30s.

I doubt anyone was seriously collecting age data on videogame usage in the 80s. So I take my stand based on my memories of the time period, augmented by the commercials that focused entirely on children. If adults were such an important demographic to the videogame industry of the mid-80s, then they would have made ads targeting them. But nope; videogame ads ran primarily on children's television, kid's magazines, and (for PC games) tech magazines.

Again, I'm not saying that videogames weren't played by people over 18 in those days. I'm just saying that the majority of gamers were children. They were the ones marketed to and sold to. Periphery demographics did exist, but they were primarily periphery, not the focus.

Unlike today, when there are games that directly target specific age groups.

 

[gijames1225]

This may be the most productive and level-headed thing to come out of all the crap last year. Props to them for actually working to make things better and not just keeping the shitstorm going like a lot those involved on both sides.

 

[DoomHamster]

thegrommit[/url]":10pdwl1x]

Plissken[/url]":10pdwl1x]

tjones2[/url]":10pdwl1x]Gamergate brings out the best in the ars community , it seems. Three self described MRAs, a self described psychopath, and a bunch of gaters. Trog city.

Yeah, I figured the calls went out on the GG channels to swarm this thread (as well as every other article discussion CrashOverride) and attack something that has nothing to do with ethics in journalism while claiming to be for ethics in journalism. I intentionally avoided it until now because I can only tolerate so much BS...

Yep, the initial reaction from GG was pretty much as expected:

https://storify.com/adulus/gamergate-co ... -zoe-quinn

Sad to see that Ben is squarely in their crosshairs.

 

[gijames1225]

jawlz[/url]":2ugqaavv]

Peevester[/url]":2ugqaavv]Yep, totally called it on the upvote/downvote counts. The sad and pathetic GG invasion squad managed to upvote their crap for about 2 hours, then it all came crashing down. Miserable failure.

Hooray for your group-think outvoting your opponents' group-think.

Attempting to judge comments based on their upvote/downvote counts, *especially* on a contentious topic like this, isn't a worthwhile pursuit.

This is America: popularity > veracity

Edit: Lest that be seen as supporting the absurd, (i.e. GG) I'm more peeved at how people think that something being popular (or having lots of upvotes) is somehow laudable on its own terms, which is about as superficial and illogical as you can get (although it does make excellent sense of this country's electorate).

 

[tjones2]

What to know what GG is really like. Lets look into /baphomet/ a bit more http://8ch.net/baphomet/index.html Note that /baphomet/ is just behind /gamergate/ on the top 25 list of 8chan fora
Top thread is this guy

We need to develop beyond ddos and learn how to be a true terror to the SJW menace.

I'll upload a few of my hacking ebooks here, simply beginnger guides anyone can learn from.

Here is a good set of sites to use:
....

Oooh... Cool. Terrorizing SJWs. Lets open that thread. (under the spoiler)

Spoiler

>We need to develop beyond ddos
I agree, OP.
Doxing, Raiding, and DDOS are fine– but every "battle" we're currently enduring would be over by now if at least some of us knew how to hack/crack/program

Currently, I only know (x)html(5) & css(3). [and some c++, but not enough to really do anything with…]

If you haven't noticed, a couple targets got their servers rooted (one hasn't noticed yet) and few got their mail hacked too (most haven't noticed, last time I checked).

You are free to fuck with colleges if you're so inclined. /baphomet/ has no particular cause or position on any given issue besides the position that we should raid people we want to raid because we think it's funny to do so. There have been debates about whether or not we're just pretending like we don't have a purpose, but ultimately it doesn't matter.

This is first and foremost a haven for old, even ancient anons who remember what Anonymous was a decade ago and are reviving–as best we can–that same spirit. We are not political in any sense. If /pol/ would like to raid a target, /pol/ ought to raid a target. If it will be particularly funny, they're welcome to come ask us to help out, but if it looks like it's going to be a bore, or if it isn't funny but is simply a matter of supporting an abstract cause, this isn't really the place for it. For example, tensions between us and gamergaters are now fairly high because they can't seem to choose just one target, they–or whomever it is posting all these fucking requests–basically want us to destroy all SJWs everywhere for them.

We don't care about SJWs for the sake of ideology, we raid them because they're easily offended and react with sob stories. That they overwhelmingly are deserving of raids is beside the point.

However, if you can find a lelworthy way to fuck with schools, go ahead and share.

A /baphomet/ take on the LOIC seems like the right way to go, in my opinion.


If there ever WAS a /baphomet/-endorsed DDoS client, I think it would need to be able to help resolve the common retarded mistakes that occur with planned ddossing; timezones, primary/secondary targets, fallbacks for meetups if everything turns to shit, etc.

My suggestion would be thus:

The new LOIC would only be able to function if it was connected to a host, ie the raid leader's own little server, who could update the variables (such as countdown timer, specific URLs, the required number of clients attacking each IP address so maximum DoS occurs across a few places, I dunno…) on people's clients (I'm thinking that the client should be alerted if the leader changes a variable, but they'd have to be edited by the user manually. I don't really want to just surrender my PC to a botnet that could be aimed at ANYTHING…) if/when they changed (by working in conjunction with the driving force of the raid in IRC, ie people from /baphomet/).

Being able to generate a session should require an additional piece of software to act as a barrier to fucktards, that newfag idiots would be too retarded to find / too shitscared to download if they found it. That would leave the important shit in the hands of people who actually cared about it, while allowing anyone to join the public botnet (but not fire until the countdown timer hit 0 / other parameters were met)

This would allow widespread advertisement of the raid and new LOIC to anywhere that would listen, generating a large group of people all under the 'guidance' of /baphomet/, or a proxy group such as 4chan's /b/ for max lulz and 0 blame

Sorry if this makes no sense, I'm slightly very drunk. Anyway, I seem to recall Anonymous using something like this a few years back, but I don't know enough about this shit to be able to pass judgement. Regardless, I think the best way for us to actually advance ourselves as social justice warrior warriors is to gain the (unknowing) support of others.

Side note, would it be possible to encourage SJWs into ddossing what they thought was 8chan with a program like I suggested, but really have them hit their own shitty sites? We could then post proof to the owners / domain providers for lulz

 

[jawlz]

Alfonse[/url]":jyr1anrq]

Peevester[/url]":jyr1anrq]

RFT[/url]":jyr1anrq]

How does your one anecdote disprove the statement "most older people"? Is your grandmother most older people? Purely from a logic perspective, you haven't done anything.

She wasn't the only one. My whole family, 3 generations sometimes, went to the arcades at least weekly. And first generation consoles were wildly popular for every age at the time.

I think it's complete bullshit to say that video gamers in 1985 were mostly children. That's certainly not how I remember it!

Yes, and among my whole family in the 80s, three generations of them, videogames were ignored by everyone who was above 18. So?

Furthermore, "mostly children" means at least 50%. Are you honestly telling me that over 50% of regular players of videogames in the 80s were adults?

jawlz[/url]":jyr1anrq]

RFT[/url]":jyr1anrq]

Peevester[/url]":jyr1anrq]

Dude. 1985 was more than a decade after the mass-market start of video gaming. My octogenerian grandmother (rest her soul) played video games before 1985. If you're going to make sweeping pronouncements without supporting data, at least make ones that aren't trivially disproven.

How does your one anecdote disprove the statement "most older people"? Is your grandmother most older people? Purely from a logic perspective, you haven't done anything.

The only things posted so far that *haven't* been anecdotes as far as the average age of gamers have been your link to wikipedia and mine to the ESA's website. I have been trying to find things online going back more than 10 years, but without much success so far (mainly because people haven't digitized and uploaded stuff from the 80s and 90s). Everything from '04 through today suggests that the average gamer has been aged between 30 and 38, which tracks my original post about the average gamer age ranging from the late 20s to the mid 30s.

I doubt anyone was seriously collecting age data on videogame usage in the 80s. So I take my stand based on my memories of the time period, augmented by the commercials that focused entirely on children. If adults were such an important demographic to the videogame industry of the mid-80s, then they would have made ads targeting them. But nope; videogame ads ran primarily on children's television, kid's magazines, and (for PC games) tech magazines.

Again, I'm not saying that videogames weren't played by people over 18 in those days. I'm just saying that the majority of gamers were children. They were the ones marketed to and sold to. Periphery demographics did exist, but they were primarily periphery, not the focus.

Unlike today, when there are games that directly target specific age groups.

You can doubt it as much as you want, it doesn't change the fact that there *were* studies and surveys that collected data on the average demographic information of gamers in the 80s and 90s. I recall (very clearly) reading about them and their results in magazines of the time. It's not like people didn't collect data before Nate Silver came along.

You can go ahead and ignore this post if you want - I don't particularly care; but making assumptions that your own past experiences are clearly representative of the experience of others, and that people 20-30 years ago were so unsophisticated that they didn't bother to seriously collect or look at data, is a rather dubious approach to take.

 

[Marcos2247]

dragonlord[/url]":27chbk4k]The problem with a lot of mens rights issues isn't that they don't exist, it's that they typically aren't opposed by women, rather by other men.

It doesn't matter WHO oppresses!

If Yahoo! doesn't pay equal salary to women, are you pointing to the CEO and saying, "Well, Marissa is a woman, so no issue."

It doesn't even matter who is oppressed.

Or do you think white-on-black racism is different from black-on-asian racism?

Equal pay is not just a woman issue. Black people aren't paid the same as white people. And unattractive people aren't paid the same as attractive people.

Women rights, black rights, gay rights ... no, HUMAN RIGHTS.

Everythings else is just 'Divide and Conquer'.

Telling millions of underpriviledged white people their underpriviledge doesn't matter isn't going to help one bit.

 

[Outrider/Ronin]

tjones2[/url]"0eotk9p]What to know what GG is really like. Lets look into /baphomet/ a bit more http://8ch.net/baphomet/index.html Note that /baphomet/ is just behind /gamergate/ on the top 25 list of 8chan fora
Top thread is this guy

We need to develop beyond ddos and learn how to be a true terror to the SJW menace.

I'll upload a few of my hacking ebooks here, simply beginnger guides anyone can learn from.

Here is a good set of sites to use:
....

Oooh... Cool. Terrorizing SJWs. Lets open that thread. (under the spoiler)

Spoiler

>We need to develop beyond ddos
I agree, OP.
Doxing, Raiding, and DDOS are fine– but every "battle" we're currently enduring would be over by now if at least some of us knew how to hack/crack/program

Currently, I only know (x)html(5) & css(3). [and some c++, but not enough to really do anything with…]

If you haven't noticed, a couple targets got their servers rooted (one hasn't noticed yet) and few got their mail hacked too (most haven't noticed, last time I checked).

You are free to fuck with colleges if you're so inclined. /baphomet/ has no particular cause or position on any given issue besides the position that we should raid people we want to raid because we think it's funny to do so. There have been debates about whether or not we're just pretending like we don't have a purpose, but ultimately it doesn't matter.

This is first and foremost a haven for old, even ancient anons who remember what Anonymous was a decade ago and are reviving–as best we can–that same spirit. We are not political in any sense. If /pol/ would like to raid a target, /pol/ ought to raid a target. If it will be particularly funny, they're welcome to come ask us to help out, but if it looks like it's going to be a bore, or if it isn't funny but is simply a matter of supporting an abstract cause, this isn't really the place for it. For example, tensions between us and gamergaters are now fairly high because they can't seem to choose just one target, they–or whomever it is posting all these fucking requests–basically want us to destroy all SJWs everywhere for them.

We don't care about SJWs for the sake of ideology, we raid them because they're easily offended and react with sob stories. That they overwhelmingly are deserving of raids is beside the point.

However, if you can find a lelworthy way to fuck with schools, go ahead and share.

A /baphomet/ take on the LOIC seems like the right way to go, in my opinion.


If there ever WAS a /baphomet/-endorsed DDoS client, I think it would need to be able to help resolve the common retarded mistakes that occur with planned ddossing; timezones, primary/secondary targets, fallbacks for meetups if everything turns to shit, etc.

My suggestion would be thus:

The new LOIC would only be able to function if it was connected to a host, ie the raid leader's own little server, who could update the variables (such as countdown timer, specific URLs, the required number of clients attacking each IP address so maximum DoS occurs across a few places, I dunno…) on people's clients (I'm thinking that the client should be alerted if the leader changes a variable, but they'd have to be edited by the user manually. I don't really want to just surrender my PC to a botnet that could be aimed at ANYTHING…) if/when they changed (by working in conjunction with the driving force of the raid in IRC, ie people from /baphomet/).

Being able to generate a session should require an additional piece of software to act as a barrier to fucktards, that newfag idiots would be too retarded to find / too shitscared to download if they found it. That would leave the important shit in the hands of people who actually cared about it, while allowing anyone to join the public botnet (but not fire until the countdown timer hit 0 / other parameters were met)

This would allow widespread advertisement of the raid and new LOIC to anywhere that would listen, generating a large group of people all under the 'guidance' of /baphomet/, or a proxy group such as 4chan's /b/ for max lulz and 0 blame

Sorry if this makes no sense, I'm slightly very drunk. Anyway, I seem to recall Anonymous using something like this a few years back, but I don't know enough about this shit to be able to pass judgement. Regardless, I think the best way for us to actually advance ourselves as social justice warrior warriors is to gain the (unknowing) support of others.

Side note, would it be possible to encourage SJWs into ddossing what they thought was 8chan with a program like I suggested, but really have them hit their own shitty sites? We could then post proof to the owners / domain providers for lulz

They want to be Panther Moderns so bad....but totally fail at capturing that stylish swagger.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

gijames1225[/url]":nskg0e5p]This may be the most productive and level-headed thing to come out of all the crap last year. Props to them for actually working to make things better and not just keeping the shitstorm going like a lot those involved on both sides.

Brianna Wu is also setting up a legal defense fund to defend women targeted by #Gamergate.
Funny how two of the most "notorious" Literally Whos are the ones making a stand against online bullying, harassment, and doxxing. I've suggested several times that the best way #GGers could shake their reputation would be to do the same, especially for the Literally Whos that have been the subject of so much #GG harassment. Objections from #GGers are usually along the lines of "those bitches got what they deserved, why should I help them?"

 

[Flit]

Alfonse[/url]":3a6qcvz4]

Peevester[/url]":3a6qcvz4]

RFT[/url]":3a6qcvz4]

How does your one anecdote disprove the statement "most older people"? Is your grandmother most older people? Purely from a logic perspective, you haven't done anything.

She wasn't the only one. My whole family, 3 generations sometimes, went to the arcades at least weekly. And first generation consoles were wildly popular for every age at the time.

I think it's complete bullshit to say that video gamers in 1985 were mostly children. That's certainly not how I remember it!

Yes, and among my whole family in the 80s, three generations of them, videogames were ignored by everyone who was above 18. So?

Furthermore, "mostly children" means at least 50%. Are you honestly telling me that over 50% of regular players of videogames in the 80s were adults?

jawlz[/url]":3a6qcvz4]

RFT[/url]":3a6qcvz4]

Peevester[/url]":3a6qcvz4]

Dude. 1985 was more than a decade after the mass-market start of video gaming. My octogenerian grandmother (rest her soul) played video games before 1985. If you're going to make sweeping pronouncements without supporting data, at least make ones that aren't trivially disproven.

How does your one anecdote disprove the statement "most older people"? Is your grandmother most older people? Purely from a logic perspective, you haven't done anything.

The only things posted so far that *haven't* been anecdotes as far as the average age of gamers have been your link to wikipedia and mine to the ESA's website. I have been trying to find things online going back more than 10 years, but without much success so far (mainly because people haven't digitized and uploaded stuff from the 80s and 90s). Everything from '04 through today suggests that the average gamer has been aged between 30 and 38, which tracks my original post about the average gamer age ranging from the late 20s to the mid 30s.

I doubt anyone was seriously collecting age data on videogame usage in the 80s. So I take my stand based on my memories of the time period, augmented by the commercials that focused entirely on children. If adults were such an important demographic to the videogame industry of the mid-80s, then they would have made ads targeting them. But nope; videogame ads ran primarily on children's television, kid's magazines, and (for PC games) tech magazines.

Again, I'm not saying that videogames weren't played by people over 18 in those days. I'm just saying that the majority of gamers were children. They were the ones marketed to and sold to. Periphery demographics did exist, but they were primarily periphery, not the focus.

Unlike today, when there are games that directly target specific age groups.

You're sort of selectively removing the major huge swath of gaming - PC gaming in the 80's and 90's. I can counter your anecdote with my anecdote that *all* the adults in my life were cracking open their PC's, spending hours configuring and and playing games. Consoles were kiddie stuff for people who didn't know how to configure a soundcard. PC's weren't advertised with flashy commercials, they were where the nerds went to play the best games.

Yes, the console wars brought in a ton of new, younger players, but I'd argue that until the NES and Genesis, the age of a gamer would have been significantly higher, making gamer demographics during the time an anomaly, rather than the norm.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

Marcos2247[/url]":virzrhf6]Telling millions of underpriviledged white people their underpriviledge doesn't matter isn't going to help one bit.

You don't seem to understand what privilege even means here.

 

[grommit!]

Outrider/Ronin[/url]":17wlpk2i]

tjones2[/url]":17wlpk2i]What to know what GG is really like. Lets look into /baphomet/ a bit more

Do you really want to give them any more publicity by directly linking to them? Screenshots would be just as effective. Especially if accompanied by red boxes drawn in MS paint