And Now For Some Truth

[BillyBlackSheep]

snip

ok, i didnt read any of your post. i must admit cuz it's time for serious time. ive even borrowed the serious room from stanley principle and have filled it with a even more serious table. ive gone to the most serious store i could find, replaced that old worn out table and got a new even more serious table.

now im going to take off my central most gamergate hat(as this is officially politics now with centers). and im going to ask you this right here. did you really think a condescending cry to reason was going to work? right now im working on the assumption that all gamergaters are the extreme super misogynist working from the hollowed out volcano that is 4chan and im trying to process things. and im flummoxed why you though this was going to work. you basically start of insulting their entire cause and then proceed to talk down to the lot of the gamergate audience, with an idea that they will all fall in line afterward and obey your plea. im not trying to be mean, trust me i get the idea of "women are in danger, we must protect them" sentiment coming from my fellow anti(ive taken off my gg hat and put on an anti one). but seriously did you believe that undermining them would work? before you rebut with well they've been doing to us. i need to preemptively strike with "did that line of logic work in elementary school?" but man if you wanted to actually end some movement that you believe is truly wrong coming at the issue with understanding rather than pure contempt is the better way to go. don't point me to other peoples comments i care about yours. dude i get the attempt really, you believe people are in danger. i get it, this wasnt the right way to go about trying to get what you want. once again i dont care about others comments or someone else who did what, we start change with the man in the mirror. but then look at me I've taken a condescending tone when talking about another who has taken a condescending tone lol. lighten up dude.

ok anti hat off, central most gamergate hat back on. Mother **** gawker!!!!!!!!! yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

The simple answer is that I'd tried nothing and I was all out of ideas.

 

[blackmanon4chan]

snip

to be honest ive been noticing this ever since that convo with the 3 gamergate girls. what most people in this debate arent realizing is that they are having two different conversations. anti- hate misogyny and pro hate corruptions. these ideas are really independent of one another and you can have both at the same time. but im more along the pro-side in that i feel that these journalist could have ended this with a simple apology and change in policies and the whole thing would have been over(granted the change wouldn't have been adhered to but it would have been a sign of good faith), however they got scared to do this after they already established the misogyny narrative so they couldn't back down(im making my assumptions after the small backlash kotaku got for changing their ethics policy). another reason, idk it seems like gamergaters are putting their money were their mouth is i mean you see @_icze4r

one thing i really hate about all this is the fact that opposite sides of the political spectrum are starting to get involved. games used to be my escape from those people and their non-sense.

 

[BillyBlackSheep]

Le sigh, I really can't stand either side of this debate. It seems like neither side is willing to treat each other as actual human beings and actually discuss things civilly. Nope, the person one disagrees with is just an evil SJW or misogynist. The people in GamerGate can't possibly be genuinely upset at both the state of the game's media and the constant demonization of gamers as a whole, they just want to put women down. Nor can anyone disagree with GG without being part of the conspiracy to push an SJW agenda or just being too ignorant to know better. Clearly, what people say their opinion is isn't actually their opinion at all. Regardless of side, beliefs, or what they're actually stating, everyone on both sides of the fence is clearly just a bunch of harassment-endorsing haters. Strawman arguments are just a myth!
-_-

I know this looks like hyperbole, but this is honestly how both sides come across. Virtually everyone seems to be of the opinion that they don't have to hear out the other side or show them any respect because that other side is too vile to deserve it, which leaves us all in this fucked up scenario where everyone is guilty of hypocritical bs and absolutely nobody has the moral high-ground. No, shitting on people in GamerGate doesn't make you the better person. Nor does shitting on anti-GamerGate. It just leaves everyone covered in shit - that's why it's called a shitstorm.

I do genuinely hope I don't get mod-wrath for this, but I honestly feel like this needs to be said. Nobody seems to have any perspective or empathy at all for those they disagree with. There's also a massive tendency for both sides to ignore, downplay, or even attempt to justify full-on harassment of people on the other side. Yes, journalists and anti-GGers have been harassing people too, just as much as GG has. Seriously, just as much. There genuinely is not a better side in this.

Spoiler: At this point, I'm just tempted to side with Ganondorf. Compared to everyone in this debate, he seems downright classy.

At this point, I'm just tempted to side with Ganondorf. Compared to everyone in this debate, he seems downright classy.

I've spent several hours today debating GamerGate on multiple forums across the internet. After several months of getting slapped in the face with conspiracy mongering and blatant misogyny in the most random of places (I'm sorry, why did someone feel the need to derail a picture of a cute kitten on Imgur into an anti-SJW rant?) I'd finally had enough. I didn't want to debate people reasonably. I wanted to freaking scream in someone's face. And the post that I made here was pretty tame compared to how I was feeling.

That being said, I've now had the opportunity to discuss the issues with the GamerGate crowd and I must admit to being impressed with SOME of them. SOME. There are a small contingent of people who are primarily holed up in their online bases of operation who seem genuinely interested in making a gradual, grassroots and positive change in gaming journalism ethics. I still don't think it's worth the effort and they're clearly the minority of their side but I can understand how a group of generally intelligent people who came into the movement after all of the Zoe Quinn and doxxing madness had died down could become slowly more and more resentful of being tied personally to the actions of what are technically also a minority of harassers. That makes sense to me.

It doesn't excuse GamerGate's blatant attempts to rewrite its own history or the cynical PR move of distancing itself from its own previous campaigns of harassment. And it doesn't make their cries of foul play any more genuine. I still think that GamerGate members complaining about getting doxxed is like a thief complaining about getting shot while breaking into someone's house.

But I can understand how the disconnect between the movement's more intelligent members and its more blatantly stupid majority can send out a lot of confusing mixed messages that can be really off-putting and ultimately dangerous. And I sympathize with that at least.

 

[blackmanon4chan]

It doesn't excuse GamerGate's blatant attempts to rewrite its own history or the cynical PR move of distancing itself from its own previous campaigns of harassment. And it doesn't make their cries of foul play any more genuine. I still think that GamerGate members complaining about getting doxxed is like a thief complaining about getting shot while breaking into someone's house.

But I can understand how the disconnect between the movement's more intelligent members and its more blatantly stupid majority can send out a lot of confusing mixed messages that can be really off-putting and ultimately dangerous. And I sympathize with that at least.

so you not see the irony in your own statement? ok going based on your logic , "Cynical pr move of distancing itself from its own previous campaigns of harrassment" and "It doesn't excuse GamerGate's blatant attempts to rewrite its own history". ok so in order for gamergate to evolve and focus on ethics they need to focus on the one woman that everyone says they are all about? but if they do that wont they get "See, see it was always about women this entire time!!!"

next line "I still think that GamerGate members complaining about getting doxxed is like a thief complaining about getting shot while breaking into someone's house." and the line "But I can understand how the disconnect between the movement's more intelligent members and its more blatantly stupid majority can send out a lot of confusing mixed messages that can be really off-putting and ultimately dangerous". so your saying these people deserve the doxxing and death threats for the actions that the "blatantly stupid majority" have done right? or are you saying the people complaining about doxxing are the same exact people making the death threats... but that cant be true cause you said "There are a small contingent of people who are primarily holed up in their online bases of operation who seem genuinely interested in making a gradual, grassroots and positive change in gaming journalism ethics." meaning you obviously think that they aren't doing the harassing and doxxing. and you switch from "they're clearly the minority of their side" ,referring to the rational people, to "what are technically also a minority of harassers". so im at a loss to what you mean.

to be honest from your original statement of " I still think that GamerGate members complaining about getting doxxed is like a thief complaining about getting shot while breaking into someone's house." off puts me in taking you seriously man. maybe you need another analogy but this one? secondly im guessing your making the same mistake many on the "anti" make, you know that using the term "SJW" as a derogatory label. isnt an anti-feminist sentiment right?

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

Its just gotten to the point where a Sub-Forum would ease a lot of anxiety around here.

I think it would be nice if we could put GG and social justice topics in the one sub-forum. Half the people posting in these are pretty confrontational, so it'd be fun to keep them in one place. I've been told it would "ghettoise" it, but that's only if you stop it from appearing on the front page.

OT: As someone who isn't part of GG but supports the general premise, I used to think exactly like you did. The people in gaming media are just reviewers. However Jim Sterling goes above and beyond that. He brings insider info, and issues to our attention. If he didn't uphold a sort of journalistic standard, he could lie through his teeth and call the CEO of Ubisoft a rapist or something. The point I'm trying to make is, many of these people don't JUST do reviews.

The general idea I'm trying to drive at here, is that the journalistic standard of ethics is based around the idea of, 1. Don't lie, 2. Don't omit facts to spin things, tell the whole story 3. Don't spin some sort of personal or political bias into things (although this might be different for reviews alone). It's just about being honest, regardless of what you're doing, and I think that's a standard of ethics everyone should uphold.

 

[BillyBlackSheep]

It doesn't excuse GamerGate's blatant attempts to rewrite its own history or the cynical PR move of distancing itself from its own previous campaigns of harassment. And it doesn't make their cries of foul play any more genuine. I still think that GamerGate members complaining about getting doxxed is like a thief complaining about getting shot while breaking into someone's house.

But I can understand how the disconnect between the movement's more intelligent members and its more blatantly stupid majority can send out a lot of confusing mixed messages that can be really off-putting and ultimately dangerous. And I sympathize with that at least.

so you not see the irony in your own statement? ok going based on your logic , "Cynical pr move of distancing itself from its own previous campaigns of harrassment" and "It doesn't excuse GamerGate's blatant attempts to rewrite its own history". ok so in order for gamergate to evolve and focus on ethics they need to focus on the one woman that everyone says they are all about? but if they do that wont they get "See, see it was always about women this entire time!!!"

next line "I still think that GamerGate members complaining about getting doxxed is like a thief complaining about getting shot while breaking into someone's house." and the line "But I can understand how the disconnect between the movement's more intelligent members and its more blatantly stupid majority can send out a lot of confusing mixed messages that can be really off-putting and ultimately dangerous". so your saying these people deserve the doxxing and death threats for the actions that the "blatantly stupid majority" have done right? or are you saying the people complaining about doxxing are the same exact people making the death threats... but that cant be true cause you said "There are a small contingent of people who are primarily holed up in their online bases of operation who seem genuinely interested in making a gradual, grassroots and positive change in gaming journalism ethics." meaning you obviously think that they aren't doing the harassing and doxxing. and you switch from "they're clearly the minority of their side" ,referring to the rational people, to "what are technically also a minority of harassers". so im at a loss to what you mean.

to be honest from your original statement of " I still think that GamerGate members complaining about getting doxxed is like a thief complaining about getting shot while breaking into someone's house." off puts me in taking you seriously man. maybe you need another analogy but this one? secondly im guessing your making the same mistake many on the "anti" make, you know that using the term "SJW" as a derogatory label. isnt an anti-feminist sentiment right?

Your, um, English is a little rough but I think I've got the gist of what you're getting at. I suppose I'll try to add a little context and explain myself again as a courtesy. Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired but I still think we can bridge that gap if you give it a little effort. Here goes.

Firstly, when I say that GamerGate is distancing itself from its past of harassment what I mean is that it is DENYING IT EVER HAPPENED. Every single time that I talked to someone from GamerGate they made sure to specifically, and with much the same language as each other, inform me that no, nobody was ever doxxed by them. Even though there's miles of evidence that that happened they wanted it known that history played out according to their own very selective memories and that they were never guilty of even the slightest bit of antagonism. It was completely surreal.

As far as the very plain and easily understandable statements that I made on the makeup of their movement go, what I said was that there were a minority of intelligent people and a minority of ACTIVE harassers and a big majority of idiots between them. The foundation for that entire movement is the minority of harassers. Then that attracted the big pile of stupid. Then finally the intelligent people hooked up with the movement and are trying to steer it in a different direction. That's my understanding of events. And yes, with a history like that, which they REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE, it is completely silly that they are complaining about getting doxxed themselves. Regardless of what a few good eggs are trying to do right now, the foundation of their movement is still harassment. Their founding moment as a group was when a bunch of people decided to be super mean to Zoe Quinn. That hasn't changed.

As far as your last paragraph goes... I don't even know, man. I don't know if English is your second language but it's clearly your worst language. You're going to have to figure out some way to fix that mess if you want me to answer... whatever it is that you're trying to ask me.

 

[Davroth]

I'd like to have the ethics standards food and movie reviewers have in video game journalism. I don't think that is too much to ask.

 

[BillyBlackSheep]

I'd like to have the ethics standards food and movie reviewers have in video game journalism. I don't think that is too much to ask.

This is the other thing that weirds me out. Because I think you've already got that. Yes, publishers frequently attempt to bribe reviewers or lock them into contracts that all but guarantee a good review.

But film critics go to private screenings and attend Hollywood parties and often receive other perks as part of their job.

In every circumstance where there is a critical community it is actively engaged with the creators of whatever it is criticizing and those creators try their darnedest (and sometimes their shadiest) to get good reviews.

 

[Otakun]

"Journalistic integrity" has been the fig leaf over the flaccid, disfigured, wart-covered genitalia that is the GamerGate movement since its inception. I come here to remove it.

The problem with asking for journalistic integrity is that you're not asking for it from actual journalists. Does Yatzhee have a degree in journalism? Do any of the guys at Giant Bomb or Destructoid? Guys, this isn't some Woodward and Bernstein level stuff here. Nobody's going to get beheaded for uncovering the secret munitions factories being built by Activision as part of their new viral marketing campaign for Call of Duty.

These people are product reviewers. The only events that they cover are trade shows. The only stories that they break are reposting PR packets from AAA studios. The standards you're asking for don't apply to them because they're not important enough to be that rigorous. Seriously, this is a hobby. These guys aren't Time Magazine. They're Fisherman's Weekly. They're maybe a step up from Cosmo and a step down from Parade. And that's being generous.

If you seriously think that "journalistic integrity" is an issue here then you don't understand what either of those words mean. And you clearly don't understand the relative lack of importance that your hobby has next to real news.

Let me list where you failed:

First, insulting the movement in the first sentence will cause people to ignore your whole post.
Second, Some are Journalists which they claimed to be.
Third, Yatzhee is an entertainer that people listen to, not the samething.
Forth, Denouncing a hobby doesn't support your argument, it makes you look stupid. People take hobbies seriously since when you waste your time on something means you care about it.
Firth, Questioning the intelligence of your readers when it's been explained by the ones you are posting against constantly shows your lack of intelligence.

 

[BillyBlackSheep]

"Journalistic integrity" has been the fig leaf over the flaccid, disfigured, wart-covered genitalia that is the GamerGate movement since its inception. I come here to remove it.

The problem with asking for journalistic integrity is that you're not asking for it from actual journalists. Does Yatzhee have a degree in journalism? Do any of the guys at Giant Bomb or Destructoid? Guys, this isn't some Woodward and Bernstein level stuff here. Nobody's going to get beheaded for uncovering the secret munitions factories being built by Activision as part of their new viral marketing campaign for Call of Duty.

These people are product reviewers. The only events that they cover are trade shows. The only stories that they break are reposting PR packets from AAA studios. The standards you're asking for don't apply to them because they're not important enough to be that rigorous. Seriously, this is a hobby. These guys aren't Time Magazine. They're Fisherman's Weekly. They're maybe a step up from Cosmo and a step down from Parade. And that's being generous.

If you seriously think that "journalistic integrity" is an issue here then you don't understand what either of those words mean. And you clearly don't understand the relative lack of importance that your hobby has next to real news.

Let me list where you failed:

First, insulting the movement in the first sentence will cause people to ignore your whole post.
Second, Some are Journalists which they claimed to be.
Third, Yatzhee is an entertainer that people listen to, not the samething.
Forth, Denouncing a hobby doesn't support your argument, it makes you look stupid. People take hobbies seriously since when you waste your time on something means you care about it.
Firth, Questioning the intelligence of your readers when it's been explained by the ones you are posting against constantly shows your lack of intelligence.

My "lack of intelligence".

"Firth".

You are a brilliant comedic mind.

 

[Otakun]

"Journalistic integrity" has been the fig leaf over the flaccid, disfigured, wart-covered genitalia that is the GamerGate movement since its inception. I come here to remove it.

The problem with asking for journalistic integrity is that you're not asking for it from actual journalists. Does Yatzhee have a degree in journalism? Do any of the guys at Giant Bomb or Destructoid? Guys, this isn't some Woodward and Bernstein level stuff here. Nobody's going to get beheaded for uncovering the secret munitions factories being built by Activision as part of their new viral marketing campaign for Call of Duty.

These people are product reviewers. The only events that they cover are trade shows. The only stories that they break are reposting PR packets from AAA studios. The standards you're asking for don't apply to them because they're not important enough to be that rigorous. Seriously, this is a hobby. These guys aren't Time Magazine. They're Fisherman's Weekly. They're maybe a step up from Cosmo and a step down from Parade. And that's being generous.

If you seriously think that "journalistic integrity" is an issue here then you don't understand what either of those words mean. And you clearly don't understand the relative lack of importance that your hobby has next to real news.

Let me list where you failed:

First, insulting the movement in the first sentence will cause people to ignore your whole post.
Second, Some are Journalists which they claimed to be.
Third, Yatzhee is an entertainer that people listen to, not the samething.
Forth, Denouncing a hobby doesn't support your argument, it makes you look stupid. People take hobbies seriously since when you waste your time on something means you care about it.
Firth, Questioning the intelligence of your readers when it's been explained by the ones you are posting against constantly shows your lack of intelligence.

My "lack of intelligence".

"Firth".

You are a brilliant comedic mind.

lol, shows your lack of argument where your big comeback is pointing out a slip of a finger and act like mistyping means anything to intelligence.

 

[psijac]

Stephen Totilo, EiC of Kotaku does in fact have a journalism degree. When you call yourself a journalist, which he, along with Jason Scherier and others at that site, you should be held to a certain standard of ethics.

Also, I have yet to see anyone attack Yahtzee, as he is a comedian first and reviewer second. His job isn't to provide a quality opinion, it is to provide us laughs and he has made no attempt to hide that.

This comment pretty much blows your entire argument out of the water. Checkmate, game over, press start to return to title screen.

its kinda sad that it took the entire page to get to it

 

[Belaam]

This is the other thing that weirds me out. Because I think you've already got that. Yes, publishers frequently attempt to bribe reviewers or lock them into contracts that all but guarantee a good review.

But film critics go to private screenings and attend Hollywood parties and often receive other perks as part of their job.

In every circumstance where there is a critical community it is actively engaged with the creators of whatever it is criticizing and those creators try their darnedest (and sometimes their shadiest) to get good reviews.

Indeed. In a world where journalists at Fox News can bill themselves as Fair and Balanced, getting Kotaku to tell their reviewers to stop investing in games they review is mind-blowingly ethical. Hell, game journalism is at least as transparent and ethical than several major news outlets.

 

[Grottnikk]

"Journalistic integrity" has been the fig leaf over the flaccid, disfigured, wart-covered genitalia that is the GamerGate movement since its inception. I come here to remove it.

The problem with asking for journalistic integrity is that you're not asking for it from actual journalists. Does Yatzhee have a degree in journalism? Do any of the guys at Giant Bomb or Destructoid? Guys, this isn't some Woodward and Bernstein level stuff here. Nobody's going to get beheaded for uncovering the secret munitions factories being built by Activision as part of their new viral marketing campaign for Call of Duty.

These people are product reviewers. The only events that they cover are trade shows. The only stories that they break are reposting PR packets from AAA studios. The standards you're asking for don't apply to them because they're not important enough to be that rigorous. Seriously, this is a hobby. These guys aren't Time Magazine. They're Fisherman's Weekly. They're maybe a step up from Cosmo and a step down from Parade. And that's being generous.

If you seriously think that "journalistic integrity" is an issue here then you don't understand what either of those words mean. And you clearly don't understand the relative lack of importance that your hobby has next to real news.

*Monocle pops out*

My word! What an odious, uncouth statement!

To the docks with you, you rapscallion!

I thought that was the best part of the whole post! It was a very colourful metaphor that encapsulated his argument quite articulately . And yes, it was also rather odious .

 

[Davroth]

I'd like to have the ethics standards food and movie reviewers have in video game journalism. I don't think that is too much to ask.

This is the other thing that weirds me out. Because I think you've already got that. Yes, publishers frequently attempt to bribe reviewers or lock them into contracts that all but guarantee a good review.

But film critics go to private screenings and attend Hollywood parties and often receive other perks as part of their job.

In every circumstance where there is a critical community it is actively engaged with the creators of whatever it is criticizing and those creators try their darnedest (and sometimes their shadiest) to get good reviews.

/Attempt/ to bribe reviewers? Don't delude yourself. Bribes are happening all the time.

And considering nobody got fired for favourably reporting on a project their roommate was working on, no, I don't believe I have that. That would be a career ending move in both of those fields.

As for your examples, private screenings are not a perk, it's a necessity to review a movie. So what are those well known perks that movie critics receive? I'd like some examples. Other then getting invited to parties, which, honestly, means they are usually there in a professional function, not to party. So I fail to see how that's even a perk.

Also, here, something I feel is worth sharing for context: http://afjonline.com/ethics.cfm

Why do I want those kinds of ethics for game journalism? Two reasons.

1. It's a giant, billion dollar industry, and a global spanning community. We, those who play them and those who make them, deserve better then shady backroom deals and clickbait-articles.

2. Those scandals, though they usually don't really make it out to the mainstream, hurt the credibility of the whole medium in the public eyes.

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

I've spent several hours today debating GamerGate on multiple forums across the internet. After several months of getting slapped in the face with conspiracy mongering and blatant misogyny in the most random of places (I'm sorry, why did someone feel the need to derail a picture of a cute kitten on Imgur into an anti-SJW rant?) I'd finally had enough. I didn't want to debate people reasonably. I wanted to freaking scream in someone's face. And the post that I made here was pretty tame compared to how I was feeling.

That being said, I've now had the opportunity to discuss the issues with the GamerGate crowd and I must admit to being impressed with SOME of them. SOME. There are a small contingent of people who are primarily holed up in their online bases of operation who seem genuinely interested in making a gradual, grassroots and positive change in gaming journalism ethics. I still don't think it's worth the effort and they're clearly the minority of their side but I can understand how a group of generally intelligent people who came into the movement after all of the Zoe Quinn and doxxing madness had died down could become slowly more and more resentful of being tied personally to the actions of what are technically also a minority of harassers. That makes sense to me.

It doesn't excuse GamerGate's blatant attempts to rewrite its own history or the cynical PR move of distancing itself from its own previous campaigns of harassment. And it doesn't make their cries of foul play any more genuine. I still think that GamerGate members complaining about getting doxxed is like a thief complaining about getting shot while breaking into someone's house.

But I can understand how the disconnect between the movement's more intelligent members and its more blatantly stupid majority can send out a lot of confusing mixed messages that can be really off-putting and ultimately dangerous. And I sympathize with that at least.

The thing to keep in mind is that the very way you are feeling now is precisely how many in GamerGate feel as well, just with a different perpetrator for a lack of a better term. As I said in another thread, both sides feel like they're the little guy getting bullied around by a bigger, hate-driven group. Neither side wants a reasonable debate because of this, preferring to just scream in the others' faces, which needless to say is exactly what's been happening. Both sides have become the thing they hate. Fuck, I became the thing I hate at one point. This is something too many have done, often without even trying.

About that bolded part of your quoted post there, I'm going to say something that's likely quite rude: Stop. Please stop doing that. That very attitude is the main reason I left GamerGate, as they were pulling the same crap (and likely still are). The idea that anyone deserves the hell they may get put through because of what side they're on is absolutely terrible. It's pretty much victim blaming and is a prime reason why "Us vs Them" mentalities are the most toxic of all. I know I'm pretty much talking down to you here, and I do apologize for my arrogance. However, I do still insist that this is an attitude that needs to die on both sides of the field. This idea that any of the harassment, doxxing, or other bs is made even slightly more acceptable because of who it's towards, even if it's towards truly malicious people (which is not the case the vast majority of the time)... it's horrifying.

Sorry again for any hostility I may be displaying. Like I said, the idea that the other side shouldn't be heard out and that they deserve some of the bad things that happen to them is why I dropped out of GG, despite still believing in most of it's core ideals. I simply couldn't get behind how overly hostile people were behaving, myself included. Needless to say, seeing people against GG pulling the exact same crap starts to bring out the worst in me, especially as someone who kept preaching civility since the beginning.

 

[Slayer4472]

I'd like to have the ethics standards food and movie reviewers have in video game journalism. I don't think that is too much to ask.

This is the other thing that weirds me out. Because I think you've already got that. Yes, publishers frequently attempt to bribe reviewers or lock them into contracts that all but guarantee a good review.

But film critics go to private screenings and attend Hollywood parties and often receive other perks as part of their job.

In every circumstance where there is a critical community it is actively engaged with the creators of whatever it is criticizing and those creators try their darnedest (and sometimes their shadiest) to get good reviews.

/Attempt/ to bribe reviewers? Don't delude yourself. Bribes are happening all the time.

And considering nobody got fired for favourably reporting on a project their roommate was working on, no, I don't believe I have that. That would be a career ending move in both of those fields.

As for your examples, private screenings are not a perk, it's a necessity to review a movie. So what are those well known perks that movie critics receive? I'd like some examples. Other then getting invited to parties, which, honestly, means they are usually there in a professional function, not to party. So I fail to see how that's even a perk.

Also, here, something I feel is worth sharing for context: http://afjonline.com/ethics.cfm

Why do I want those kinds of ethics for game journalism? Two reasons.

1. It's a giant, billion dollar industry, and a global spanning community. We, those who play them and those who make them, deserve better then shady backroom deals and clickbait-articles.

2. Those scandals, though they usually don't really make it out to the mainstream, hurt the credibility of the whole medium in the public eyes.

Regarding the bolded section- there's a rumor running around on /v/ and /gg/ that EA may have bribed the Anti-GG websites (Kotaku, Polygon, RockPaperShotgun) in order to recieve favorable reviews for Dante's Inferno (like God of War But: Italian Literature Edition). So, we'll be cleaning house in more than one way with GamerGate.

 

[BillyBlackSheep]

I'd like to have the ethics standards food and movie reviewers have in video game journalism. I don't think that is too much to ask.

This is the other thing that weirds me out. Because I think you've already got that. Yes, publishers frequently attempt to bribe reviewers or lock them into contracts that all but guarantee a good review.

But film critics go to private screenings and attend Hollywood parties and often receive other perks as part of their job.

In every circumstance where there is a critical community it is actively engaged with the creators of whatever it is criticizing and those creators try their darnedest (and sometimes their shadiest) to get good reviews.

/Attempt/ to bribe reviewers? Don't delude yourself. Bribes are happening all the time.

And considering nobody got fired for favourably reporting on a project their roommate was working on, no, I don't believe I have that. That would be a career ending move in both of those fields.

As for your examples, private screenings are not a perk, it's a necessity to review a movie. So what are those well known perks that movie critics receive? I'd like some examples. Other then getting invited to parties, which, honestly, means they are usually there in a professional function, not to party. So I fail to see how that's even a perk.

Also, here, something I feel is worth sharing for context: http://afjonline.com/ethics.cfm

Why do I want those kinds of ethics for game journalism? Two reasons.

1. It's a giant, billion dollar industry, and a global spanning community. We, those who play them and those who make them, deserve better then shady backroom deals and clickbait-articles.

2. Those scandals, though they usually don't really make it out to the mainstream, hurt the credibility of the whole medium in the public eyes.

It's interesting to me that multiple GamerGate people have linked me to that same site today. Especially when it's for the Association of Food Journalists of all things.I guess you people have been sharing links.

I remember reading a story about how a collection of critics were up in arms because their exclusive, advanced screening of The Avengers wasn't catered to their liking. They ended up raiding the hotel bar. I found that mental image amusing.

Now here's the part of the conversation that GamerGate folks tend to conveniently ignore. The line between entertainer/product reviewer/rumor mill attendant is incredibly blurry in every medium. How else do you explain a website like latino-review? What is the code of ethics to be applied to them, a site that features their own film reviews, considering that not only do they know people in the industry but their entire website depends on keeping those connections healthy because that's how they get all of their pre-release scoops?

And how is that any less of a bed buddies situation than the one that sites like the Escapist find themselves in?

 

[BillyBlackSheep]

I've spent several hours today debating GamerGate on multiple forums across the internet. After several months of getting slapped in the face with conspiracy mongering and blatant misogyny in the most random of places (I'm sorry, why did someone feel the need to derail a picture of a cute kitten on Imgur into an anti-SJW rant?) I'd finally had enough. I didn't want to debate people reasonably. I wanted to freaking scream in someone's face. And the post that I made here was pretty tame compared to how I was feeling.

That being said, I've now had the opportunity to discuss the issues with the GamerGate crowd and I must admit to being impressed with SOME of them. SOME. There are a small contingent of people who are primarily holed up in their online bases of operation who seem genuinely interested in making a gradual, grassroots and positive change in gaming journalism ethics. I still don't think it's worth the effort and they're clearly the minority of their side but I can understand how a group of generally intelligent people who came into the movement after all of the Zoe Quinn and doxxing madness had died down could become slowly more and more resentful of being tied personally to the actions of what are technically also a minority of harassers. That makes sense to me.

It doesn't excuse GamerGate's blatant attempts to rewrite its own history or the cynical PR move of distancing itself from its own previous campaigns of harassment. And it doesn't make their cries of foul play any more genuine. I still think that GamerGate members complaining about getting doxxed is like a thief complaining about getting shot while breaking into someone's house.

But I can understand how the disconnect between the movement's more intelligent members and its more blatantly stupid majority can send out a lot of confusing mixed messages that can be really off-putting and ultimately dangerous. And I sympathize with that at least.

The thing to keep in mind is that the very way you are feeling now is precisely how many in GamerGate feel as well, just with a different perpetrator for a lack of a better term. As I said in another thread, both sides feel like they're the little guy getting bullied around by a bigger, hate-driven group. Neither side wants a reasonable debate because of this, preferring to just scream in the others' faces, which needless to say is exactly what's been happening. Both sides have become the thing they hate. Fuck, I became the thing I hate at one point. This is something too many have done, often without even trying.

About that bolded part of your quoted post there, I'm going to say something that's likely quite rude: Stop. Please stop doing that. That very attitude is the main reason I left GamerGate, as they were pulling the same crap (and likely still are). The idea that anyone deserves the hell they may get put through because of what side they're on is absolutely terrible. It's pretty much victim blaming and is a prime reason why "Us vs Them" mentalities are the most toxic of all. I know I'm pretty much talking down to you here, and I do apologize for my arrogance. However, I do still insist that this is an attitude that needs to die on both sides of the field. This idea that any of the harassment, doxxing, or other bs is made even slightly more acceptable because of who it's towards, even if it's towards truly malicious people (which is not the case the vast majority of the time)... it's horrifying.

Sorry again for any hostility I may be displaying. Like I said, the idea that the other side shouldn't be heard out and that they deserve some of the bad things that happen to them is why I dropped out of GG, despite still believing in most of it's core ideals. I simply couldn't get behind how overly hostile people were behaving, myself included. Needless to say, seeing people against GG pulling the exact same crap starts to bring out the worst in me, especially as someone who kept preaching civility since the beginning.

I believe that it's critically important who fired the first shot. Or shots, in this case. It's not important to ending the discussion but it's very important to having the discussion. And especially going over the morality of it. You believe that nobody deserves that kind of harassment regardless of what they've done. Even if they engaged in the exact same behaviors against someone else. That's a noble sentiment and I respect you for it but it's one that I simply don't share.

If that makes me just as bad as the worst of the lot in the eyes of other people then that's just something I'll have to live with. But it's not a careless or thoughtless decision on my part.

 

[Davroth]

It's interesting to me that multiple GamerGate people have linked me to that same site today. Especially when it's for the Association of Food Journalists of all things.I guess you people have been sharing links.

I remember reading a story about how a collection of critics were up in arms because their exclusive, advanced screening of The Avengers wasn't catered to their liking. They ended up raiding the hotel bar. I found that mental image amusing.

Now here's the part of the conversation that GamerGate folks tend to conveniently ignore. The line between entertainer/product reviewer/rumor mill attendant is incredibly blurry in every medium. How else do you explain a website like latino-review? What is the code of ethics to be applied to them, a site that features their own film reviews, considering that not only do they know people in the industry but their entire website depends on keeping those connections healthy because that's how they get all of their pre-release scoops?

And how is that any less of a bed buddies situation than the one that sites like the Escapist find themselves in?

It was the first link I got when googling "Food critic ethics", so, uh, blame google?

If you can give me a link to the story, I'll read it and form an opinion on it. Can't really comment on it like that.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with latino-review. It's a reviews site for latinos? I guess it's kinda sad that we apparently need this since other websites don't cater enough to that demographic? Honestly, I don't see what you mean, though. Do they live in the same apartment with their sources and healthy contacts?

What bed buddies situation with sites like The Escapist? Mind elaborating on that? You are being kind of vague here.