I have been visiting the Escapist since late 2007/early 2008 when I was introduced to Yahtzee by a friend. Ever since I have been a regular visitor, mainly for the different video series, but I usually check out the most recent forum threads when visiting. I never bothered to actually create an account, since I'm already wasting too much time posting online as is and I didn't want to add yet another forum to the list of time sinks. Not even the 800+ pages mega thread on GamerGate made me create an account, although I have closely followed that discussion since page 30 or so. But this, this finally convinced me to sign up.
Dear Mr. Tito,
When initially reading your comments [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.858347-Zoe-Quinn-and-the-surrounding-controversy?page=31#21285187] in the original GamerGate thread I was less than pleased. Not only did I find the little fig-leaf disclaimer on the original WC article to be somewhat lacking (usually factual changes to old articles, especially if they involve allegations of wrongdoing that turn out to not be true, are addressed with a redaction that is published in a way that is visible to regular viewers, not only those searching in the archive) but I also deeply disagreed with your "We will always default towards helping out people who are the subject of harassment on the internet" line. As understandable as it might be from an emotional point of view, I don't think such clear bias has any place in factual reporting. Allegations of harassment are not enough for me turn around at the alleged harasser and call them out. The consequences of this are to severe, as we saw in the WC case. Innocent people actually became the victims of very real harassment, only because someone pointed their finger at them (I'm not saying there never was any harassment in the first place, this is the internet after all, but calling out a perceived perpetrator without any substantiating evidence seems somewhat unbefitting of a true journalist for me).
I also attributed the fact that the thread remained open more to the influence of Mr. Macris, since he expressed far more sympathy to our cause. Seeing the recent release of your conversation with Mr. Kuchera I now realize, that my assumption was false. I hereby would like to apologize for assuming that the thread was kept open against your preferences and not in fact because of your active contribution to keep alive a civil discussion, even though you seemingly agreed with very little of what was expressed in it.
Thank you very much for putting the principles of open discussion and the right to express dissenting opinions above your personal opinions on the matter and even actively defending our right to have this discussion against Mr. Kuchera (and others). You have my deepest respect, not because our opinions on this matter agree, but precisely because they don't but you never choose to abuse your powers on this site to make a point.
Regards,
a long-time visitor from Germany
Velventian said:
I mean fuck, according to his twitter he´s pretty much as anti-gg as it gets, so can someone please tell me i have the wrong twitter or i am missing some big joke here...
That's the point. If he would agree with out position(s), leaving the thread open would not be much of a sign of integrity. He would simply let us present a point of view he himself supports anyway. But seeing that he actually doesn't agree with us very much makes his decision to keep the thread open -while facing harsh criticism for doing so from his "peers"- all the more important. He put his principles about free speech above his personal opinion on the matter despite being influenced to not do so. He didn't choose the easier way, but the right way, even though it was harder. For that we rightfully applaud him.
Velventian said:
Well thats the question for me, if he was as strongly opposed to gg as his twitter would indicate i would like to know his reasons for letting us keep the discussion.
If its because of a deep founded believe in free speech? Fucking awesome, in that case even more kudos since that takes actual integrity.
What if its just for clicks and money?
Seeing his posts on the mailing list, I strongly tend to believe that this decision was not made for clicks, but because of a fundamental believe in free speech:
If there is harassment, I would shut it down immediately. And we?ve banned/warned on posts in those threads that are even close to that line.
I?m talking about the discussion. If I followed your logic, we should also shut down Twitter and the rest of the internet for being a platform for discussion.
[...]
There?s also many people in both the threads who are working to educate the OP and others about these things. That?s a dialogue. That?s how change happens, I think. Or I hope, at least.
[...]
I don?t think factual errors in a forum post on the internet, however, are a huge area of concern for me.
The conversation may be distasteful to some of us, but I don?t know if the answer is to delete the thread. The Escapist is not giving harassment a home, but allowing civil discussion on a matter that people are emotional about. As long as it stays within our rules of conduct, and yeah James I don?t think anything stated has violated the rules you posted, then pushing this down would only serve my own tastes and opinions. That?s not what a public forum is designed to be, in my opinion.
[...]
The Escapist is set up a bit differently than some other outlets in that we have a large forum community which operates separately from the editorial side of things, although I do have oversight. I agree there are statements and opinions in that thread which I disagree with, but that?s true of a lot of the world. I could be easily justified in shutting it down, however, I think removing the ability for public discourse is the opposite of creating an environment for growth and learning. I don?t feel that keeping a thread open constitutes endorsing the opinions within, and allowing people to discuss the issues might actually do some good and change some minds.