Flash Game Makes Players Beat Up "Tropes vs. Women" Creator

[Rainboq]

Fair enough. Although my bet is the majority of the money is for access to academic papers and similar expenses.

Academic papers are published, they are very cheap and often free to access.

She is making a VIDEO SERIES! She just needs to cite sources and no point in citing sources that people need to spend, the abstract is all she'd ever need that to cite and that is always freely available on the internet.

But in all her video series so far she has not given adequate sources, she has posted statistics... without sources. As with her analysis of Bayonetta she just says "a survey" and "another survey".

I'm not saying what she's doing is good or bad, but given her degrees, its been drilled into her to do a lot of research, additionally, there's travel expenses for interviews.

You make a series of videos at her levels of production and research with a budget of zero dollars and then your argument will have some validity in my eyes. Also, hyperbole isn't useful when making an argument, please knock it off.

You see how long my post are? How many I have made? The sources I have provided? I have a camera built into my laptop, I just have to read them out.

A HD camera and professional lighting is utterly superfluous to the message. And she has demonstrated in her kick-starter drive she ALREADY has the camera, and lighting and set. All you need is just needs open-office powerpoint creator and fraps - free programes - to record a sequence covering the relevant point.

She might need a HD capture card, but they are less than $100 and it functions for decades. She doesn't need kickstarter.

I used no hyperbole, you are again misusing words as pejoratives.

Length and volume of posts does not automatically mean your arguments are well thought out, your criticisms valid and your assumptions correct. Go watch one of her videos, there's a fairly high effects density, and someone probably has to get paid to make them.

 

[Chives on top of me]

Those women did not choose to dress like this, they were designed this way by MALE devs to cater to other MALE gamers.

Feminists don't have a problem with sexy women, just with the exploitation of female sexuality.

No. The character chose to dress that way in that story. As do women IN THE REAL WORLD. Go outside and you'll see women everywhere baring their arms and legs like Lara Croft. Why are you trying to escape the fiction that the world is set in, why does it matter what gender the writer is or who plays the game? There is NO REASON. It's an utterly hollow attack.

You realize how full of shit that reply is right?
The character makes NO "choice" real women (all real people) make choices. Whatever the character is wearing/not wearing is solely the responsibility of the person/group of people that decided to place the character in that outfit.

I see no reason why the creator should not be held to account or even forced to explain the "rational" behind any decision was made to dress their character in whatever manner.

(sorry for butchering the quotes still learning)

 

[Treblaine]

Fair enough. Although my bet is the majority of the money is for access to academic papers and similar expenses.

Academic papers are published, they are very cheap and often free to access.

She is making a VIDEO SERIES! She just needs to cite sources and no point in citing sources that people need to spend, the abstract is all she'd ever need that to cite and that is always freely available on the internet.

But in all her video series so far she has not given adequate sources, she has posted statistics... without sources. As with her analysis of Bayonetta she just says "a survey" and "another survey".

I'm not saying what she's doing is good or bad, but given her degrees, its been drilled into her to do a lot of research, additionally, there's travel expenses for interviews.

You make a series of videos at her levels of production and research with a budget of zero dollars and then your argument will have some validity in my eyes. Also, hyperbole isn't useful when making an argument, please knock it off.

You see how long my post are? How many I have made? The sources I have provided? I have a camera built into my laptop, I just have to read them out.

A HD camera and professional lighting is utterly superfluous to the message. And she has demonstrated in her kick-starter drive she ALREADY has the camera, and lighting and set. All you need is just needs open-office powerpoint creator and fraps - free programes - to record a sequence covering the relevant point.

She might need a HD capture card, but they are less than $100 and it functions for decades. She doesn't need kickstarter.

I used no hyperbole, you are again misusing words as pejoratives.

Length and volume of posts does not automatically mean your arguments are well thought out, your criticisms valid and your assumptions correct. Go watch one of her videos, there's a fairly high effects density, and someone probably has to get paid to make them.

She hasn't been educated very well as in her prior videos she cites statistics without listed sources... twice. Throughout her videos she gives very very poor citations if any at all. She lacks critical academic rigour. That is bad research and that is NOT caused by lack of money, that is caused by incompetence.

Her kickstarter campaign was analysing video games' CONTENT, the characters within them. Not a globe trotting documentary travelling to France, Germany, Japan and all over the United States to interview directors and writers and programmers of video games. Again, citing academic papers is free but she doesn't even do that already.

Oh but my argument IS well thought out. I have made no assumptions and my criticism speak for themselves. Read my arguments for yourself and you'll see.

I have watched her videos: ratings disabled with censored comments. A bad sign. Only place else I see that is for creationist videos. I have watched other feminists (and female ones if you care) on youtube, rating enabled and positive rated, and full of positive comments in comments sections.

The effects are superfluous but easily achieved with cheap or free software. A good argument shouldn't depend on whizz-bang effect to be effective. A lawyer arguing in court doesn't need Industrial Light And Magic Studios to create special effects to help make a case of the accused's guilt or innocence.

She needs very few things that cost money to make this project:
-A computer with a webcam (that she likely already has)
-A major games console (she has shown she already has that)
-A HD capture card (costs around $100, but is not essential, only for DIRECTLY demonstrating parts of a game)
-A gamefly membership.

Not even close to $6000

After that it's hard work of playing games, making notes, thinking, writing, polishing a script and then reading it to camera and using free software from there to edit it then upload to youtube.

She is not in a position to interview people, where is her journalistic background? Being a journalist is NOT easy, you have to be very good at asking probing questions without ending the interview and then responsibly editing the transcript, removing the "umms" and "aaahs" and various flubs and accounting for inconsistencies that are most likely mistakes.

 

[him over there]

Fair enough. Although my bet is the majority of the money is for access to academic papers and similar expenses.

Academic papers are published, they are very cheap and often free to access.

She is making a VIDEO SERIES! She just needs to cite sources and no point in citing sources that people need to spend, the abstract is all she'd ever need that to cite and that is always freely available on the internet.

But in all her video series so far she has not given adequate sources, she has posted statistics... without sources. As with her analysis of Bayonetta she just says "a survey" and "another survey".

I'm not saying what she's doing is good or bad, but given her degrees, its been drilled into her to do a lot of research, additionally, there's travel expenses for interviews.

You make a series of videos at her levels of production and research with a budget of zero dollars and then your argument will have some validity in my eyes. Also, hyperbole isn't useful when making an argument, please knock it off.

You see how long my post are? How many I have made? The sources I have provided? I have a camera built into my laptop, I just have to read them out.

A HD camera and professional lighting is utterly superfluous to the message. And she has demonstrated in her kick-starter drive she ALREADY has the camera, and lighting and set. All you need is just needs open-office powerpoint creator and fraps - free programes - to record a sequence covering the relevant point.

She might need a HD capture card, but they are less than $100 and it functions for decades. She doesn't need kickstarter.

I used no hyperbole, you are again misusing words as pejoratives.

Length and volume of posts does not automatically mean your arguments are well thought out, your criticisms valid and your assumptions correct. Go watch one of her videos, there's a fairly high effects density, and someone probably has to get paid to make them.

She hasn't been educated very well as in her prior videos she cites statistics without listed sources... twice. Throughout her videos she gives very very poor citations if any at all. She lacks critical academic rigour. That is bad research and that is NOT caused by lack of money, that is caused by incompetence.

Her kickstarter campaign was analysing video games' CONTENT, the characters within them. Not a globe trotting documentary travelling to France, Germany, Japan and all over the United States to interview directors and writers and programmers of video games. Again, citing academic papers is free but she doesn't even do that already.

Oh but my argument IS well thought out. I have made no assumptions and my criticism speak for themselves. Read my arguments for yourself and you'll see.

I have watched her videos: ratings disabled with censored comments. A bad sign. Only place else I see that is for creationist videos. I have watched other feminists (and female ones if you care) on youtube, rating enabled and positive rated, and full of positive comments in comments sections.

The effects are superfluous but easily achieved with cheap or free software. A good argument shouldn't depend on whizz-bang effect to be effective. A lawyer arguing in court doesn't need Industrial Light And Magic Studios to create special effects to help make a case of the accused's guilt or innocence.

She needs very few things that cost money to make this project:
-A computer with a webcam (that she likely already has)
-A major games console (she has shown she already has that)
-A HD capture card (costs around $100, but is not essential, only for DIRECTLY demonstrating parts of a game)
-A gamefly membership.

Not even close to $6000

After that it's hard work of playing games, making notes, thinking, writing, polishing a script and then reading it to camera and using free software from there to edit it then upload to youtube.

She is not in a position to interview people, where is her journalistic background? Being a journalist is NOT easy, you have to be very good at asking probing questions without ending the interview and then responsibly editing the transcript, removing the "umms" and "aaahs" and various flubs and accounting for inconsistencies that are most likely mistakes.

I would like to add on to your great points treblaine, that she asked for $6000 yet continued to accept donations after reaching her goal. There is zero reason for her to do this and totally calls her motives and the use the money is being put to into question. There is a staggeringly superfluous amount of money and no transparency regarding its use.

 

[Rainboq]

Fair enough. Although my bet is the majority of the money is for access to academic papers and similar expenses.

Academic papers are published, they are very cheap and often free to access.

She is making a VIDEO SERIES! She just needs to cite sources and no point in citing sources that people need to spend, the abstract is all she'd ever need that to cite and that is always freely available on the internet.

But in all her video series so far she has not given adequate sources, she has posted statistics... without sources. As with her analysis of Bayonetta she just says "a survey" and "another survey".

I'm not saying what she's doing is good or bad, but given her degrees, its been drilled into her to do a lot of research, additionally, there's travel expenses for interviews.

You make a series of videos at her levels of production and research with a budget of zero dollars and then your argument will have some validity in my eyes. Also, hyperbole isn't useful when making an argument, please knock it off.

You see how long my post are? How many I have made? The sources I have provided? I have a camera built into my laptop, I just have to read them out.

A HD camera and professional lighting is utterly superfluous to the message. And she has demonstrated in her kick-starter drive she ALREADY has the camera, and lighting and set. All you need is just needs open-office powerpoint creator and fraps - free programes - to record a sequence covering the relevant point.

She might need a HD capture card, but they are less than $100 and it functions for decades. She doesn't need kickstarter.

I used no hyperbole, you are again misusing words as pejoratives.

Length and volume of posts does not automatically mean your arguments are well thought out, your criticisms valid and your assumptions correct. Go watch one of her videos, there's a fairly high effects density, and someone probably has to get paid to make them.

She hasn't been educated very well as in her prior videos she cites statistics without listed sources... twice. Throughout her videos she gives very very poor citations if any at all. She lacks critical academic rigour. That is bad research and that is NOT caused by lack of money, that is caused by incompetence.

Her kickstarter campaign was analysing video games' CONTENT, the characters within them. Not a globe trotting documentary travelling to France, Germany, Japan and all over the United States to interview directors and writers and programmers of video games. Again, citing academic papers is free but she doesn't even do that already.

Oh but my argument IS well thought out. I have made no assumptions and my criticism speak for themselves. Read my arguments for yourself and you'll see.

I have watched her videos: ratings disabled with censored comments. A bad sign. Only place else I see that is for creationist videos. I have watched other feminists (and female ones if you care) on youtube, rating enabled and positive rated, and full of positive comments in comments sections.

The effects are superfluous but easily achieved with cheap or free software. A good argument shouldn't depend on whizz-bang effect to be effective. A lawyer arguing in court doesn't need Industrial Light And Magic Studios to create special effects to help make a case of the accused's guilt or innocence.

She needs very few things that cost money to make this project:
-A computer with a webcam (that she likely already has)
-A major games console (she has shown she already has that)
-A HD capture card (costs around $100, but is not essential, only for DIRECTLY demonstrating parts of a game)
-A gamefly membership.

Not even close to $6000

After that it's hard work of playing games, making notes, thinking, writing, polishing a script and then reading it to camera and using free software from there to edit it then upload to youtube.

She is not in a position to interview people, where is her journalistic background? Being a journalist is NOT easy, you have to be very good at asking probing questions without ending the interview and then responsibly editing the transcript, removing the "umms" and "aaahs" and various flubs and accounting for inconsistencies that are most likely mistakes.

I'm not saying she's competent, but I can what she's trying to accomplish, and nor is she globe trotting, she's probably trying to get interviews with people nearby who work in the industry, but still, she'd need to travel to do so.

Honestly, I give her credit for trying to do what she's trying and to the people who are supporting her. But do I think she's the best choice at what she's trying to do? No.

 

[Treblaine]

Those women did not choose to dress like this, they were designed this way by MALE devs to cater to other MALE gamers.

Feminists don't have a problem with sexy women, just with the exploitation of female sexuality.

No. The character chose to dress that way in that story. As do women IN THE REAL WORLD. Go outside and you'll see women everywhere baring their arms and legs like Lara Croft. Why are you trying to escape the fiction that the world is set in, why does it matter what gender the writer is or who plays the game? There is NO REASON. It's an utterly hollow attack.

You realize how full of shit that reply is right?
The character makes NO "choice" real women (all real people) make choices. Whatever the character is wearing/not wearing is solely the responsibility of the person/group of people that decided to place the character in that outfit.

I see no reason why the creator should not be held to account or even forced to explain the "rational" behind any decision was made to dress their character in whatever manner.

(sorry for butchering the quotes still learning)

Yes, but is it not CONCEIVABLE that a character would decide to dress that way? And that there wouldn't be a problem if they did choose to dress that way. Why would Lara Croft have to cover her arms and legs? Surely if her character would want to wear shorts and a tank top then she would.

You see women who make such a decision every day.

Why should a writer have to explain a rationale as banal as why they dress a certain way. When you see a woman wearing shorts and a top that exposes her arms do you accost her and demand an explanation of why she decided to bare her arms and legs, she'd call you a crazy person and try to avoid you. CLearly women have their own reasons for dressing the way they dress.

You have to realise work of fiction only work if you are able to consider the characters motivations, if you only see this as a director ordering actors around then NOTHING WORKS.

So Solid Snake never made any decisions in any of the Metal Gear Solid games, Hideo Kojima did. No. Snake has motivations for doing what he does, as does every character.

 

[MarlonBlazed]

You have to realise work of fiction only work if you are able to consider the characters motivations, if you only see this as a director ordering actors around then NOTHING WORKS.

So Solid Snake never made any decisions in any of the Metal Gear Solid games, Hideo Kojima did. No. Snake has motivations for doing what he does, as does every character.

I never really thought of it like that, I mean I knew it but it never clicked before because I never cared so thanks, this is going to help a lot when I'm working on my characters.

 

[Treblaine]

I'm not saying she's competent, but I can what she's trying to accomplish, and nor is she globe trotting, she's probably trying to get interviews with people nearby who work in the industry, but still, she'd need to travel to do so.

Honestly, I give her credit for trying to do what she's trying and to the people who are supporting her. But do I think she's the best choice at what she's trying to do? No.

Well then she can get a taxi, that's a couple of bucks or some gas or a lift from a friend, you do not need Kickstarter to do this.

And again, what makes her remotely qualified at conducting any interview, I'll tell you it is REALLY REALLY HARD! It's not just something you can dive into, you are interacting with someone trying to get information out of them that they may not want to fully disclose. And you have to be so careful. Interviews are extremely volatile situations, they can very quickly turn into an interrogation, people get defensive and things end messily with the interviewer walking out.

Any communication should be done via email correspondence. A DOCUMENTARY on video games should be done by someone with qualifications in journalism that Ms Sarkeesian doesn't have even close to. Journalism is a real profession in how to accountably handle interviews which is no trivial task and the smallest mistakes can have terrible outcomes when things are misconstrued or one falls for the temptation to deliberately misrepresent.

I am not going to give her credit for asking for so much money and then accepting so much more but not actually just knuckling down and doing it.

The "support" she needs is nice comments which she gets in spades, not money. And I wouldn't support her as she is less of a feminist (promoting women) and more of a Sex-Negative reactionary (attacking sexual women), there is no value in such a perspective on video games.

 

[Rainboq]

I'm not saying she's competent, but I can what she's trying to accomplish, and nor is she globe trotting, she's probably trying to get interviews with people nearby who work in the industry, but still, she'd need to travel to do so.

Honestly, I give her credit for trying to do what she's trying and to the people who are supporting her. But do I think she's the best choice at what she's trying to do? No.

Well then she can get a taxi, that's a couple of bucks or some gas or a lift from a friend, you do not need Kickstarter to do this.

And again, what makes her remotely qualified at conducting any interview, I'll tell you it is REALLY REALLY HARD! It's not just something you can dive into, you are interacting with someone trying to get information out of them that they may not want to fully disclose. And you have to be so careful. Interviews are extremely volatile situations, they can very quickly turn into an interrogation, people get defensive and things end messily with the interviewer walking out.

Any communication should be done via email correspondence. A DOCUMENTARY on video games should be done by someone with qualifications in journalism that Ms Sarkeesian doesn't have even close to. Journalism is a real profession in how to accountably handle interviews which is no trivial task and the smallest mistakes can have terrible outcomes when things are misconstrued or one falls for the temptation to deliberately misrepresent.

I am not going to give her credit for asking for so much money and then accepting so much more but not actually just knuckling down and doing it.

The "support" she needs is nice comments which she gets in spades, not money. And I wouldn't support her as she is less of a feminist (promoting women) and more of a Sex-Negative reactionary (attacking sexual women), there is no value in such a perspective on video games.

I suppose, I suspect that she's trying to do the interviews in a professional manner, or those who are willing to do interviews aren't very accessible by car. And I never said she was qualified, but she's perfectly entitled to try. And if people want to give her money to do so, who are you to tell them otherwise?

 

[Treblaine]

I suppose, I suspect that she's trying to do the interviews in a professional manner, or those who are willing to do interviews aren't very accessible by car. And I never said she was qualified, but she's perfectly entitled to try. And if people want to give her money to do so, who are you to tell them otherwise?

She's entitled to ask for an interview but everyone has every reason to refuse as any person without expertise in interviewing is likely to hugely screw up an interview, and end up publishing something that they didn't actually mean. Interviews are done with accountable and internally regulated journalists for a reason.

She said she "needed" the money for this project and they believed her. But I've made clear she doesn't need the money for the project. That means she lied, and got money. They were lied to, they gave money under the impression it would help the project when it would only help her personal wealth. Most other Kickstarter project STOP accepting donations when they reach their target, she went 2600% above what she said she actually needed.

I DO have a problem when people give over money on false pretence, that is fraud in principal if not in legal actuality. I don't like it when people give thousands of dollars to a church like the church of Scientology as well under the pretext that a church needs thousands of dollars, even though they gave it up "willingly" they were manipulated. It's not a fair deal.

 

[him over there]

I suppose, I suspect that she's trying to do the interviews in a professional manner, or those who are willing to do interviews aren't very accessible by car. And I never said she was qualified, but she's perfectly entitled to try. And if people want to give her money to do so, who are you to tell them otherwise?

She's entitled to ask for an interview but everyone has every reason to refuse as any person without expertise in interviewing is likely to hugely screw up an interview, and end up publishing something that they didn't actually mean. Interviews are done with accountable and internally regulated journalists for a reason.

She said she "needed" the money for this project and they believed her. But I've made clear she doesn't need the money for the project. That means she lied, and got money. They were lied to, they gave money under the impression it would help the project when it would only help her personal wealth. Most other Kickstarter project STOP accepting donations when they reach their target, she went 2600% above what she said she actually needed.

I DO have a problem when people give over money on false pretence, that is fraud in principal if not in legal actuality. I don't like it when people give thousands of dollars to a church like the church of Scientology as well under the pretext that a church needs thousands of dollars, even though they gave it up "willingly" they were manipulated. It's not a fair deal.

I'd just like to stop here and say, She has made over $100k? There is no way in hell that this project could possibly warrant that much money, especially when I could accomplish what she is setting out to do for under $100. I refuse to believe that there is any way that she is not keeping even a small amount of that money, especially since there is no other motive I can possibly think of for accepting donations past your goal.

 

[Rainboq]

I suppose, I suspect that she's trying to do the interviews in a professional manner, or those who are willing to do interviews aren't very accessible by car. And I never said she was qualified, but she's perfectly entitled to try. And if people want to give her money to do so, who are you to tell them otherwise?

She's entitled to ask for an interview but everyone has every reason to refuse as any person without expertise in interviewing is likely to hugely screw up an interview, and end up publishing something that they didn't actually mean. Interviews are done with accountable and internally regulated journalists for a reason.

She said she "needed" the money for this project and they believed her. But I've made clear she doesn't need the money for the project. That means she lied, and got money. They were lied to, they gave money under the impression it would help the project when it would only help her personal wealth. Most other Kickstarter project STOP accepting donations when they reach their target, she went 2600% above what she said she actually needed.

I DO have a problem when people give over money on false pretence, that is fraud in principal if not in legal actuality. I don't like it when people give thousands of dollars to a church like the church of Scientology as well under the pretext that a church needs thousands of dollars, even though they gave it up "willingly" they were manipulated. It's not a fair deal.

You could, I don't know, ask her for a break down of how the money would be spent.

 

[Treblaine]

You could, I don't know, ask her for a break down of how the money would be spent.

That is part of the problem. When I say "her project does not have adequate transparency" I mean she is no showing where this money she has accepted from the public is going, "transparency" is used a lot in British media to describe when an organisation shows they aren't misappropriating money, services or selection or whatever.

Also she is refusing to address any cutting criticism of her such as how she her project is not "transparent", only giving undue attention to trolls posting hate mail (classy thing is to discretely report them to police) for straw-man arguments or pandering to her sycophants.

 

[Rainboq]

You could, I don't know, ask her for a break down of how the money would be spent.

That is part of the problem. When I say "her project does not have adequate transparency" I mean she is no showing where this money she has accepted from the public is going, "transparency" is used a lot in British media to describe when an organisation shows they aren't misappropriating money, services or selection or whatever.

Also she is refusing to address any cutting criticism of her such as how she her project is not "transparent", only giving undue attention to trolls posting hate mail (classy thing is to discretely report them to police) for straw-man arguments or pandering to her sycophants.

Have you tried asking? Have you asked her if she could display that info or disseminate it?

 

[Chives on top of me]

You realize how full of shit that reply is right?
The character makes NO "choice" real women (all real people) make choices. Whatever the character is wearing/not wearing is solely the responsibility of the person/group of people that decided to place the character in that outfit.

I see no reason why the creator should not be held to account or even forced to explain the "rational" behind any decision was made to dress their character in whatever manner.

(sorry for butchering the quotes still learning)

I'm sorry but can reword your entire post? It is really confusing on your stance especially the second paragraph of your statement. A bit of clarity would be appreciated.

Hmm... Lets see.. First paragraph: Pixels in a game do not make decisions.....

Second paragraph: Put a character in a bikini...be prepared to defend that action if it offends someone...

Clear?

 

[him over there]

I suppose, I suspect that she's trying to do the interviews in a professional manner, or those who are willing to do interviews aren't very accessible by car. And I never said she was qualified, but she's perfectly entitled to try. And if people want to give her money to do so, who are you to tell them otherwise?

She's entitled to ask for an interview but everyone has every reason to refuse as any person without expertise in interviewing is likely to hugely screw up an interview, and end up publishing something that they didn't actually mean. Interviews are done with accountable and internally regulated journalists for a reason.

She said she "needed" the money for this project and they believed her. But I've made clear she doesn't need the money for the project. That means she lied, and got money. They were lied to, they gave money under the impression it would help the project when it would only help her personal wealth. Most other Kickstarter project STOP accepting donations when they reach their target, she went 2600% above what she said she actually needed.

I DO have a problem when people give over money on false pretence, that is fraud in principal if not in legal actuality. I don't like it when people give thousands of dollars to a church like the church of Scientology as well under the pretext that a church needs thousands of dollars, even though they gave it up "willingly" they were manipulated. It's not a fair deal.

I'd just like to stop here and say, She has made over $100k? There is no way in hell that this project could possibly warrant that much money, especially when I could accomplish what she is setting out to do for under $100. I refuse to believe that there is any way that she is not keeping even a small amount of that money, especially since there is no other motive I can possibly think of for accepting donations past your goal.

Kickstarter usually has stretch goals, things where "if we make this much over our target we'll add this thing to our project"

How much can a webcam series possibly add to justify $100k? the point is there is zero reason for this kickstarter to exist in the first place and the superfluous amount of money combined with the lack of transparency regarding its use screams misspending scam.