BREAKING: Women of #GamerGate Make Breakthrough on HuffPo Live

[Andrey Sirotin]

But on the other hand we have now "graphics are shit because I PERSONALLY don't like the art-style". When people ask for "Objective reviews" they want reviewers to dismiss their own biases to see the bigger picture.

Sorry, what's the bigger picture? That the graphics were good?

You don't want reviewers to "keep their biases out of it". That's the whole point of anointing someone to review something. You want their perspective. You want them to be honest about what they think. Whether their opinions are relative to you and your interests as a gamer is for YOU to decide. It's why there is a multitude of critics and critical opinion out there. For you to think critically about and decide which ones speak to your preferences.

Sorry to butt in, but I think a lot of gamers(including myself) are tired of coordinated, overzealously sex-negative feminist attitudes in gaming media. I think that majority of gamers want moderate views when it comes to the hobby. Would you be offended(or dismissive) if the gaming media decided to pursue a Conservative Muslim, Puritanical Christian, Communist, or Anti-transexual Femenist ideological agendas for their coverage? Games like Beyond Good & Evil, Pokémon, Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age, COD4, Tomb Raider, Assassin's Creed, and Street Fighter would all be panned because they had elements that are viewed as undesirable and offensive to the reviewer. I think that in the environment where Metacritic scores=money(bonuses) it's rather easy for journalist with extreme views to propagate censorship of game by using the review as a gun.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Sorry to butt in, but I think a lot of gamers(including myself) are tired of coordinated, overzealously sex-negative feminist attitudes in gaming media. I think that majority of gamers want moderate views when it comes to the hobby.

Always fun when individuals claim to represent a "majority". How, might I ask, did you establish this? I imagine you spent years hiring polling firms and vigorously compiling statistics.

Would you be offended(or dismissive) if the gaming media decided to pursue a Conservative Muslim, Puritanical Christian, Communist, or Anti-transexual Femenist ideological agendas for their coverage? Games like Beyond Good & Evil, Pokémon, Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age, COD4, Tomb Raider, Assassin's Creed, and Street Fighter would all be panned because they had elements that are viewed as undesirable and offensive to the reviewer.

Reviewers can write about whatever they want, and from whatever perspective they want. I can decide for myself whether or not their reviews are relevant to me.

I think that in the environment where Metacritic scores=money(bonuses) it's rather easy for journalist with extreme views to propagate censorship of game by using the review as a gun.

There's that censorship word again. Fun to invoke colloquially, even though it doesn't remotely mean what you want it to mean. So your solution to hypothetical "censorship" of games is to "censor" criticism of them. Well done! Four syllable word. Rhymes with "Mipocrisy".

 

[DataSnake]

Basically I want as little of the reviewers bias in a review as possible. I don't care if Tropico 5 hurt your feelings because you play as a tyrant. I don't care if Bayonetta being sexy upsets you.

And what about the people who do care about those things? Why should your concerns matter and not theirs? Why is it you deserve reviews addressing your concerns and they don't? You already mentioned Mass Effect 3, so let's use that as an example: the ending doesn't affect gameplay any, as the game is pretty much over once you get past Marauder Shields. Does that mean that reviewers should have kept the fact that it was phenomenally unsatisfying to themselves in order to be "objective"? I would have felt let down by any reviewer who took that route. If you don't care about fanservice in Bayonetta or unfortunate implications in Tropico, there are plenty of reviews that don't touch on those. Why not just enjoy those, and leave the more socially-conscious reviews for people who do care about that kind of thing? You already have a majority of reviewers catering to your interests, why try to take away the few other people have reviewing games from their perspective?

In a world where Metacritic can affect the paycheck of a developer (which is bullshit) we must demand reviews be as objective as possible.

Yeah, no. A reviewer's job is to provide an honest critique, not pussyfoot around because the publisher might throw a hissy fit and cut the developer's salary. And as to "being as objective as possible", that's not going to work. Here's a fun thought experiment: you are a reviewer. You have been given a copy of Ride to Hell: Retribution. It's patched to the point that it has no crashes or glitches, but everything else is exactly the same. Name one objective criticism you can level at it. (Hint: complaints about the graphics, controls, difficulty, plot, map layout, AI, soundtrack, voice acting, weapons and vehicle physics are all subjective).

 

[Conner42]

Jemma just used the term "Fair and balanced"...

Oh my god, am I so glad I wasn't the one doing the interview because I wouldn't have been able to hold my laughter in...holy shit!

Sorry! I understand what she's trying to say, but it's hard for me not to think of Fox News whenever I hear that term. Nothing against her on this one, just an unfortunate association.

With that said, this video was exactly the sort of thing I needed to confirm my stance on this whole issue...it's so bad...I mean, this movement is so misplaced and misfired and wrong...just so wrong...

It's so telling when they keep talking about "corruption in journalism" but everything they talk about for the corruption is so damn vague. How is it corrupt? What are those websites doing?

The interviewer asks about why Gamergate is about fixing journalism while also wanting no reviewer to bring in their own viewpoint, but they never really got around to answering that question. They just say "We want Journalistic integrity." but they never get around to answering how we should come about that. I mean, the interviewer talked about reading film critics that do the same thing these Gamergate supporters are against...what's the difference there? Is film journalism inherently corrupt now?

I'm sorry, this is all vague bullshit! All I'm really getting here (taking this whole issue out of the context of misogyny, feminism, harassment, and all of the other things that Gamergate keeps on saying that they're not about) is that people are afraid of there being any kind of critical discussions towards games, because that's not "Journalism."

"We just want to know if the game is good."

Good luck trying to get to that point with the whole Gamergate agenda your pushing...

 

[Andrey Sirotin]

Sorry to butt in, but I think a lot of gamers(including myself) are tired of coordinated, overzealously sex-negative feminist attitudes in gaming media. I think that majority of gamers want moderate views when it comes to the hobby.

Always fun when individuals claim to represent a "majority". How, might I ask, did you establish this? I imagine you spent years hiring polling firms and vigorously compiling statistics.

Would you be offended(or dismissive) if the gaming media decided to pursue a Conservative Muslim, Puritanical Christian, Communist, or Anti-transexual Femenist ideological agendas for their coverage? Games like Beyond Good & Evil, Pokémon, Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age, COD4, Tomb Raider, Assassin's Creed, and Street Fighter would all be panned because they had elements that are viewed as undesirable and offensive to the reviewer.

Reviewers can write about whatever they want, and from whatever perspective they want. I can decide for myself whether or not their reviews are relevant to me.

I think that in the environment where Metacritic scores=money(bonuses) it's rather easy for journalist with extreme views to propagate censorship of game by using the review as a gun.

There's that censorship word again. Fun to invoke colloquially, even though it doesn't remotely mean what you want it to mean. So your solution to hypothetical "censorship" of games is to "censor" criticism of them. Well done! Four syllable word. Rhymes with "Mipocrisy".

I didn't not claim knowledge, I merely hold a belief that majority of gamers are moderate and thusly want moderate opinions. And what is so wrong about moderate views?

You did not answer my question, would you be offended if these extreme perspectives would have being injected into gaming media coverage?

Where did I state that I want to censor the reviewer? I do want gaming sites to focus on gameplay, AI, graphics, value, and length(a consumer report) rather than on social viewpoint. I think that social critique should be left to the websites that specialize in them because their audience is looking for that perspective. I'm not going to go to Rottentomatoes to look for Christian reviews of "A Land before Time," but I will go there to check out film buff's opinion on it.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I didn't not claim knowledge, I merely hold a belief that majority of gamers are moderate and thusly want moderate opinions. And what is so wrong about moderate views?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with moderate views. There is most certainly something wrong with operating under the presumption that a faceless unverified "majority" shares them, and that this makes them "right".

You did not answer my question, would you be offended if these extreme perspectives would have being injected into gaming media coverage?

Uh, I thought I did champ. I thought it was pretty clear that the answer was "no". I do not get offended by people holding opinions that differ from mine.

Where did I state that I want to censor the reviewer? I do want gaming sites to focus on gameplay, AI, graphics, value, and length(a consumer report) rather than on social viewpoint.

That is correct sir. You want them to focus on saying the things you want them to say, and to stop saying the things you don't want them to say. Gamer Gate wants to accomplish this through black lists and email campaigns designed to get people fired and/or bring down websites. How would you characterize that?

I think that social critique should be left to the websites that specialize in them because their audience is looking for that perspective.

That's fine. That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it.

I'm not going to go to Rottentomatoes to look for Christian reviews of "A Land before Time," but I will go there to check out film buff's opinion on it.

I'm glad you brought up film, because film critics inject their personal politics and beliefs into their reviews all the time.

 

[Calbeck]

There are precedents set up in the federal courts that if a privately owned site that allows online bullying, harassment, sexual harassment, or other such things, that the person in question can take you to civil court and sue.

Quite the contrary, actually. The reality is, anyone can sue anyone for any reason, but that doesn't mean the court will tolerate it past the initial case-meeting, or that it will succeed. You merely need to have the resources to go to court in the first place.

In terms of the actual law, the existing language is that websites are NOT liable for any of the things you mention, any more than they are legally liable for censoring speech by prohibiting persons from visiting their sites. They are not required to exercise censorship, nor prohibited from doing so. The only thing they ARE prohibited from allowing is specific illegal activity.

So unless you are going to argue that a specific person is engaged in actual lawbreaking, your position holds no water, nor does it provide cover for total bans of discussing GamerGate on specious allegations that "the whole movement is about misogyny".

Even if that's your point of view, it's not a matter of adherence to any law.

Did reddit go overboard? Maybe. Were they covering their asses so they couldn't be held liable in case Quinn decided to start holding people accountable for people harassing her? Yes.

Factually speaking, nope. From Findlaw http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/harassment.html

Criminal Harassment versus Civil Harassment

Criminal harassment should not be confused with how "harassment" is often used in contexts such as workplace discrimination lawsuits. Federal and state laws ban discrimination against certain types of people in certain situations, such as at work or in housing decisions. In these non-criminal contexts, the victim can sue the harasser in a private civil lawsuit, alleging that the harassment constitutes discrimination.

On the other hand, criminal harassment is usually confined to state law. States vary in how they define criminal harassment. Generally, criminal harassment entails intentionally targeting someone else with behavior that is meant to alarm, annoy, torment or terrorize them. Not all petty annoyances constitute harassment. Instead, most state laws require that the behavior cause a credible threat to the person's safety or their family's safety.

Though state harassment laws vary, they often take different levels and methods of harassment into account. Separate penal statutes or a general harassment statute may list various ways to communicate harassment, including telephone calls, emails, and other forms of communication. Whether there was any legitimate reason for the communication becomes a factor under many states' harassment laws.

Note the particulars.

1) Unless you're claiming criminal harassment, you must show that the person's misconduct arises from a position of power they hold over you, such as being an employer or a government worker causing harm to your work environment or benefits. Nasty comments on an Internet forum do not otherwise qualify.

2) Law enforcement, not the complainant, is the determinator of whether a credible threat to safety exists.

a) Right now, of three allegations where the person fled their home out of a safety concern, one has not bothered to involve the police. This alone would undermine an actual court case when a lawyer would ask why the police were not immediately, or at least quickly, notified.

b) All three have undermined their cases somewhat by exploiting the threats for sympathy and plugging their personal professional projects into the discourse while doing so. Similarly their supporters --- both journalistic and otherwise --- have done so as well, claiming that criticism of their work amounts to harassment even when there is no vitriol directed at them personally. No less than Kyle Orland of Ars Technica, the originator of the GamesJournoPros mailing list, provided a key example when he called for his fellow journalists to use the controversy surrounding ZQ "as an excuse" to provide her game with coverage. Not incidentally, this also happens to be something GamerGaters call out routinely as an example of journalistic failings within the game industry. In court cases, this behavior is usually called out by the defense as "grandstanding" and often makes obtaining a conviction much harder... especially when the alleged victim is publically pointing fingers despite not knowing who the actual perpetrator is.

c) We then have ZQ publically tweeting who she was going to be staying with, after declaring she was fleeing for her safety on grounds that someone had outed her real-world location. Any lawyer would ask her why she then outed her own real-world location. Add to this BW's circumstances of having a sock-puppet account (who else is going to use "DeathToBrianna" as their account name?) pop up and spam a half-dozen tweets at her just in time for her to turn on her computer and go to Twitter. Not a quarter-hour had passed between the oldest threats and her screencap of same. Their timing, specificity, lack of followup threats, and lack of any actual real-world threat manifesting itself in so much as garbage being picked through or vandalism, would undermine the credibility of these threats in the eyes of a court.

3) Criticism of a person's work is neither civil nor criminal harassment, even if it is intended to be nasty. Indeed, a number of critics in games journalism frequently resort to epithets. Yet, such criticism has been the vast majority of comments on websites which have chosen to shut down all such talk, with folks such as Stephen Totilo trying to badger the Escapist's Greg Tito into doing likewise --- on blanket grounds of harassment.

No privately-owned website is required to allow ANY speech, public or private, to be conducted through their websites. Neither, however, are they legally liable for same, nor expected to "police" such.

 

[Calbeck]

I'm glad you brought up film, because film critics inject their personal politics and beliefs into their reviews all the time.

And are usually derided for it, especially the more ideological the comments and the more removed from the actual film their comments become.

Should a movie reviewer, for example, talk about Brokeback Mountain in terms of their beliefs as a Fundamentalist Christian, their peers would savage him or her for it and rightly so. Should they speak of Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" by going on a tirade about obesity in America or school curriculae, the same would happen.

So when someone writes a review about a game, but spends half their word-count deploring the game as sexist --- indeed, that being their only point of negativity, and yet docking the game 25% of a full 10/10 as other reviews did --- then you have a crippling ideological bias in evidence.

But if you REALLY want to see a reviewer go wholly off-the-cliff in that regard, here's a review of the Hitman: Absolution trailer from more than two years ago --- interestingly enough, even though Leigh Alexander provided no direct input, she is credited by the author for initially quashing his desire to do a review at all:

http://critdamage.blogspot.com/2012/05/quit-pretending-there-isnt-videogame.html

So yes, this kind of thing has been a problem for literally years before the "Gamers are Dead" articles, but it's clear that this is the sort of language and direction which contributed to creating an openly-hostile atmosphere in the gaming community on the part of journalists.

 

[Andrey Sirotin]

I didn't not claim knowledge, I merely hold a belief that majority of gamers are moderate and thusly want moderate opinions. And what is so wrong about moderate views?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with moderate views. There is most certainly something wrong with operating under the presumption that a faceless unverified "majority" shares them, and that this makes them "right".

You did not answer my question, would you be offended if these extreme perspectives would have being injected into gaming media coverage?

Uh, I thought I did champ. I thought it was pretty clear that the answer was "no". I do not get offended by people holding opinions that differ from mine.

Where did I state that I want to censor the reviewer? I do want gaming sites to focus on gameplay, AI, graphics, value, and length(a consumer report) rather than on social viewpoint.

That is correct sir. You want them to focus on saying the things you want them to say, and to stop saying the things you don't want them to say. Gamer Gate wants to accomplish this through black lists and email campaigns designed to get people fired and/or bring down websites. How would you characterize that?

I think that social critique should be left to the websites that specialize in them because their audience is looking for that perspective.

That's fine. That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it.

I'm not going to go to Rottentomatoes to look for Christian reviews of "A Land before Time," but I will go there to check out film buff's opinion on it.

I'm glad you brought up film, because film critics inject their personal politics and beliefs into their reviews all the time.

No, it actually does make them right because majority rules.

I'm not part of GG, but I share some views with them (not enough to identify myself as part of their movement+ I hate twitter). They have some interesting points, but some are very unrealistic. I'd say that it's more of a boycott(a la Chick-fil-a), rather than censorship(but you can call it that). They can't cause censorship w/o majority of site's visitors/advertisers being in agreement with GG.

I'm sure they do, but how many of them downgrade an entire movie because of problematic themes? Michael Corleone punches a woman in the face- 4/10.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

And are usually derided for it, especially the more ideological the comments and the more removed from the actual film their comments become.

Derided? Sure. People get derided for their opinions all the time. You state your opinion in a public space, it might get derided.

Blacklisted and subject to a mass mailing campaign trying to drum them off the internet? Nooooot so much.

But if you REALLY want to see a reviewer go wholly off-the-cliff in that regard, here's a review of the Hitman: Absolution trailer from more than two years ago --- interestingly enough, even though Leigh Alexander provided no direct input, she is credited by the author for initially quashing his desire to do a review at all:

Yup, that's an over the top article alright. I thought that trailer was puerile and worthy of extreme ridicule, but I don't share the volume of that critic's outrage. I do, however, support their right to pen that opinion of it.

No, it actually does make them right because majority rules.

Heh...heh...okay...okay guy. I think it's probably best for both of us if we call our little discussion quits here. If this is truly your belief, there really isn't much point on us discussing anything further. Divide is too great.

 

[Andrey Sirotin]

No, it actually does make them right because majority rules.

Heh...heh...okay...okay guy. I think it's probably best for both of us if we call our little discussion quits here. If this is truly your belief, there really isn't much point on us discussing anything further. Divide is too great.

Fair enough. I didn't figure that either of us would change our perspectives, but the conversation was enjoyable nonetheless.

 

[DeimosMasque]

That being said, why didn't the recent Shadow of Mordor early review guidelines cause a huge uproar within GG? If journalistic ethics is really the driving force of GG, then this event should have caused the biggest reaction. That did not happen and Shadow of Mordor essentially got a free pass even with its well known and well documented shady practices.

The argument I saw put forth is that youtubers aren't journalists even if they do reviews thus it wasn't a gamergate issue.

 

[Wasted]

The argument I saw put forth is that youtubers aren't journalists even if they do reviews thus it wasn't a gamergate issue.

If that is the case, what defines a journalist?

If it is someone that has actual training in journalism, then how many people in the gaming media actually have such training? I would figure that it is not a large number. If you need an actual bachelor's degree in journalism to be considered a journalist, then I would think the number would be even smaller.

Should people with no journalism training be expected to follow ethical guidelines like traditionally trained journalists?

When I graduated from my master's program, I was required to take the Hippocratic Oath. I do not expect anyone not in the medical/mental health field to know or follow such ethical rules even when they are second nature to me.

 

[Calbeck]

And are usually derided for it, especially the more ideological the comments and the more removed from the actual film their comments become.

Derided? Sure. People get derided for their opinions all the time.

Then you agree that banning someone for commenting derisively on a review or other journalistic piece is poor editorial activity?

Blacklisted and subject to a mass mailing campaign trying to drum them off the internet? Nooooot so much.

You have just described what happened to people who commented negatively on reviews and other journalistic pieces. It seems we are largely if not wholly in agreement.

Of course, I am referencing an actual organization claiming journalistic credibility, and not a mass of people on the Internet who make no such claims. Trying to equate the two would destroy any standard by which journalism could in fact be held to.

Yup, that's an over the top article alright. I thought that trailer was puerile and worthy of extreme ridicule, but I don't share the volume of that critic's outrage. I do, however, support their right to pen that opinion of it.

Certainly. And as it was a review worthy of negative comment, similar to the "Gamers are Dead" articles, it clearly makes no sense to ban all such comment as "harassment". Not unless the actual concern is to quash public dissent against such articles. This is doubly troubling when attempts are made to extend such quashing to other sites, and triply so when refusal to quash is met with accusations of "supporting harassment".

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Then you agree that banning someone for commenting derisively on a review or other journalistic piece is poor editorial activity?

Banning someone from a website? I suppose that's up to individual website code of conducts and how they like to mediate their comments section. It doesn't really have hide nor hair to do with "journalism" whatsoever.

You have just described what happened to people who commented negatively on reviews and other journalistic pieces. It seems we are largely if not wholly in agreement.

No, we are in disagreement over a false equivalence. If two people write an editorial, the right for both those editorials to exist is equal. If two people write comments on a website, whether or not those comments remain is entirely up to the people who run the website. It's sort of the difference between you making a speech about your ideological beliefs in your living room, or in a stranger's living room. You don't enjoy the same "rights" in both places.

Of course, I am referencing an actual organization claiming journalistic credibility, and not a mass of people on the Internet who make no such claims. Trying to equate the two would destroy any standard by which journalism could in fact be held to.

Generally speaking I find if I'm in an argument where I'm demanding a certain level of behavior from someone, I like to demonstrate that same behavior myself.

Certainly. And as it was a review worthy of negative comment, similar to the "Gamers are Dead" articles, it clearly makes no sense to ban all such comment as "harassment". Not unless the actual concern is to quash public dissent against such articles. This is doubly troubling when attempts are made to extend such quashing to other sites, and triply so when refusal to quash is met with accusations of "supporting harassment".

You and I are publicly dissenting about those articles right now, and we are not being "quashed". I'm also far, far too tired of this debate to get into this rhetorical merry go round where we pretend there was never any actual bullshit going on, and it was all just furrowed-brow criticism issued by reasonable people. I used to be a regular visitor to Rock Paper Shotgun back when they were a funnier, more consistent website, and I recall the comments section before they locked it down. I would've locked mine, too. I also recall Total Biscuit's comment section, and what it was like before he locked it down.

People can do whatever they want with their own websites. If you want to make a website today, and rage about SJWs and their sinister agendas, and lock down your comments section so no one can censure you for it, I will applaud your right to do that.

 

[Calbeck]

Then you agree that banning someone for commenting derisively on a review or other journalistic piece is poor editorial activity?

Banning someone from a website? I suppose that's up to individual website code of conducts and how they like to mediate their comments section. It doesn't really have hide nor hair to do with "journalism" whatsoever.

Except when it is used to suppress criticism of journalism. Is it their right to do so? Absolutely. Does it have a chilling effect on a free marketplace of ideas, particularly when absent any actual harassment? Also absolutely.

Of course, I am referencing an actual organization claiming journalistic credibility, and not a mass of people on the Internet who make no such claims. Trying to equate the two would destroy any standard by which journalism could in fact be held to.

Generally speaking I find if I'm in an argument where I'm demanding a certain level of behavior from someone, I like to demonstrate that same behavior myself.[/quote]

You just spoke out about false equivalencies: if random people on the Internet are required to adhere to professional journalistic standards when commenting on journalistic material, then clearly they are due journalistic considerations. Which would argue against the right to suppress dissent, as a matter of simple professional courtesy.

You and I are publicly dissenting about those articles right now, and we are not being "quashed".

Specifically, because this website resisted calls from other websites to so quash. The effort to do so was nonetheless made; you seem to suggest that is irrelevant because the effort was unsuccessful.

I'm also far, far too tired of this debate to get into this rhetorical merry go round

Suppression and censorship, particularly in response to poor journalistic practices, are far from rhetorical matters.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Except when it is used to suppress criticism of journalism. Is it their right to do so? Absolutely. Does it have a chilling effect on a free marketplace of ideas, particularly when absent any actual harassment? Also absolutely.

How so? Why is it a "chilling effect"? You were all quite free to find a different platform to express yourselves on, and you did so. You've been talking non stop about it for months. I barely even follow it and yet every time I pop in here there are six new Gamer Gate threads and 37 news updates. What chilling effect, exactly?

You just spoke out about false equivalencies: if random people on the Internet are required to adhere to professional journalistic standards when commenting on journalistic material, then clearly they are due journalistic considerations.

Who is talking about "professional journalistic standards"? Is that the only shortcoming you've observed in some of the "criticism" levied against the hypothetical perpetrators? A lack of professional journalistic standards? That's...interesting, if so.

Specifically, because this website resisted calls from other websites to so quash.

I recall a single sourced call to quash, specifically to quash discussion of Zoey Quinn's sex life. Do you have other incidents? Which websites? What specifically were they called on to quash?

Suppression and censorship, particularly in response to poor journalistic practices, are far from rhetorical matters.

Ah, good old censorship. We're back to GamerGate's definition of censorship, I presume, as opposed to the actual one? Which is to muffle or silence any voice, including on your own privately owned website? So, again I will ask, what's with the blacklist, chum? What's with the attempts to get people fired, to drum them out of the industry? What's with the calls for "objective reviews" and a silencing of anyone's "personal bias"? That seems to be a bizarre deviation from form.

 

[Calbeck]

How so? Why is it a "chilling effect"?

I suggest you look up any discussion of free speech which has ever entered a court of law in the United States and Britain. That, or consult a lawyer so they can give you a blank stare and then toss a legal brief on the subject in your lap.

Protip: "forced into going somewhere else" is one of the side-effects of a "chilling effect". Hence the reason I realize you have no idea what you're responding to.

Who is talking about "professional journalistic standards"? Is that the only shortcoming you've observed in some of the "criticism" levied against the hypothetical perpetrators?

Hm, let's see: lack of connective material, leaping to conclusions strictly on basis of he-said/she-said, and making assertions without any support. Well, if that's the kind of journalism you don't think should be "criticized"...

I recall a single sourced call to quash, specifically to quash discussion of Zoey Quinn's sex life.

Except for the reality: by that time, ZQ's personal affairs were barely 1% of posts on the GamerGate subject --- ASIDE from people opposing the group, who almost without fail brought it up.

So, clearly, it seems to me that you feel Stephen Totilo was ONLY calling for GamerGate's opposition to be quashed. Interesting interpretation, that.

Not to mention that by the time of the "single sourced call" we're talking about, most other gamer-related venue of speech had already been censored by their site owners. So at this point, they were exporting their quashing to sites they had no control over, but you seem to want to minimize that fact.

Do you have other incidents? Which websites? What specifically were they called on to quash?

The whole of Reddit and 4chan immediately come to mind, neither of which limited quashing to "Zoe Quinn's sex life" either.

Ah, good old censorship. We're back to GamerGate's definition of censorship

You mean the dictionary's definition, I presume: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor

[/i]a person who examines books, movies, letters, etc., and removes things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc... to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable [/i]

You react to the term as though it, itself, is a crime: it is not. It is merely an accurate description of the mods of those websites conducting lawful actions to suppress speech of which they did not approve --- regardless, in fact, of actual content, since discussion of the movement was itself censored.

Now, you respond by saying GamerGaters are wrong to blacklist, condemn, and seek the firing of people who in any other field of endeavor would already be fired for having dramatically embarrassed their parent company with broad-stroke insults of a core demographic.

I cannot agree. But since we're on the Escapist, I'm free to do that and so are you.

 

[Calbeck]

I find it interesting that people who insist GamerGate does nothing but talk about "Zoe Quinn's sex life" are routinely oblivious to the fact that it is virtually never talked about... EXCEPT when the movement's opposition bring it up themselves in order to complain that GamerGate talks about nothing else.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

I'll jump back to the olive branch and we can end this here then. I get riled up too easily about this. In general I'm calm on the Internet, just condescending, but complaints about ME3 using things that aren't proper criticism (like trying to misquote that A,B,C thing) make me go from zero to ten. I have strong feelings about Mass Effect because it got me into university and changed my life (long story).

So yeah I'll take that olive branch. We'll just end it on your post.

That'll teach me to fall asleep, then be immature and avoid the boards since I didn't want to continue fighting due to being exhausted with the subject.

Mutual olive branch it is and I get exactly what you mean. I'm usually fairly calm here on the internets, occasional snark aside, but certain things get me going. ME3 was a depressingly big gut punch, considering the hundreds of hours I'd invested writing, playing, posting, and talking about it. But we can definitely leave off, especially given the whole "not at all on topic" thing.

I will now go and take solace in the objective awesomeness that is the Sword Fleet scene.