GamerGate's Image Problem

[KokujinTensai]

This just occurred to me. Does image even matter to a consumer revolt? That's essentially what this is. Businesses vs. their consumers. Most of the time businesses capitulate rather quickly but since there are a lack of alternatives when it comes to games media this one has gone on longer than it needed to. Honestly in this case all that matters is are these businesses hurting from the boycott? Consumers usually end up being victorious in these revolts because well businesses hate losing money.

 

[RexMundane]

This just occurred to me. Does image even matter to a consumer revolt? That's essentially what this is. Businesses vs. their consumers. Most of the time businesses capitulate rather quickly but since there are a lack of alternatives when it comes to games media this one has gone on longer than it needed to. Honestly in this case all that matters is are these businesses hurting from the boycott? Consumers usually end up being victorious in these revolts because well businesses hate losing money.

It's near impossible to measure the effect GG is directly having. You'll see Alexa graphs being brought out now and again, but it's a fairly incomplete dataset that doesn't directly measure pageviews, trends, seasonal fluctiations, or the general public's attitude toward the sites, much less how much revenue they're losing. Stranger still, by those same graphs, Kotaku has been on the upswing all month [http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/kotaku.com] despite being one of the most despised enemies of GG, so in addition to Alexa being a bad metric for this in the first place, it's currently disproving the case of there even being an effect.

And as far as a boycott of games directly, well... gamers don't really have so good a history of pulling through on that front.

Ideally, yes, there would have been a big public discussion about policy clarifications (for instance, in all honesty, yes, the whole dev/journo cross-crowdfunding thing did need to be resolved, though I believe it would have been anyway in the long run, GG or no) and things been resolved. However policies were changed at Kotaku, Polygon, etc. weeks ago and nobody's let up. This is no longer about the "product" but about the conduct of the "producers," so calling this a "consumer revolt" doesn't really apply in the same sense.

And as much as I can even look at people I otherwise respect on the anti-GG side and say "oh, yeah, they really shouldn't have said that," I'm not inclined to harshly judge people who've been on the receiving end of this kind of beating for a month for saying unpleasent things on twitter. Christ, I should be so lucky to never have to put up with that kind of noise, or to not react yet worse. It's never a good idea to only judge people at their worst.

 

[aliengmr]

The IGF thing keeps being nebulous, but the best I can suss out is that Indie Devs allegedly used the context of an award show to vote for one another and give one another press and cash rewards. I don't know what's been conclusively proven, and most of the information they've gathered is largely from what was made publically available by the parties involved in the first place, so so not exactly grand coverup perhaps? But they've been talking about racketeering charges for two weeks now and... I mean look, by now, if there were an actual law broken the cops would've been notified and an investigation started, right? So I dunno. Otherwise it basically reads like how the Oscars for instance are voted on by actors, producers, etc., who tend to be friendly with one another. You can read it as corrupt collusion if you wish, but there's so little at stake there's really not much "there" there.

Never quite understood the galactic importance of this either, which heavily goes into the image of gamergate in my opinion.

Lets say its true, and? I mean, okay "Yay! down with corruption", but what about everything else? Its like overlooking a battlefield, seeing various points with which to intercede, and directing your artillery on an anthill. Well that's great, those ants could have been quite the minor inconvenience, but...

Its kind of been the same over and over again. What's the outcome here? GG can go back and forth about insults, detailing who said what, in what context until the cows come home, but it ultimately comes down to the outcome.

It sounds like GG wants social issues out of gaming. I keep coming to that. Basically no more criticizing games that way and no more "non-games" with an agenda. So censorship. That's it. Leigh Alexander fired for insulting gamers. Journalists fired for not talking about Zoe Quinn enough and insulting gamers. Everybody fired for thinking bad thoughts about GG.

From the very beginning this is what I've seen. And from the beginning I've been struggling to see how it benefits gamers that aren't as easily offended and don't care for the GG agenda.

 

[aliengmr]

This just occurred to me. Does image even matter to a consumer revolt? That's essentially what this is. Businesses vs. their consumers. Most of the time businesses capitulate rather quickly but since there are a lack of alternatives when it comes to games media this one has gone on longer than it needed to. Honestly in this case all that matters is are these businesses hurting from the boycott? Consumers usually end up being victorious in these revolts because well businesses hate losing money.

Well no, however, while much of GG is indeed a consumer revolt, its got an agenda attached. Hence the heavy focus on indie game development, not to mention the high profile folks in the revolt. That much was obvious from the start.

I mean, yea there will be some victory but GG is on life support, unless anybody really thinks ddosing The Escapist was going to kill GG. I'm willing to bet more shit like will happen when the tag starts its decline. Just an opinion.

 

[RexMundane]

As a minor in-real-time observation of what seems to be happening at the moment, the people saying "You know, this has gone on for a month or so, maybe we should work together and decide what we actually want" are, if I'm reading this right, shouted out and banned from 8chan as shills. Bit of drastic infighting between people who want "sensible" goals (and I've read them, they're sort of not, but that's a separate discussion) and the I'm sure very sane people who just want to burn everything to the ground. And... well that's the whole thing, isn't it? The sensible voices don't have the control over the angry mob who just wants blood, doesn't matter who's, over personal grievances.

I mean forget the beginnings with FiveGuys, the anti-SJW obsession, the abuse, the harassment, the death threats, your Milos, your Aurinis, your Baldwins, and your "Literally Whos 1-?". This right here? The bit you have left when you cut all the bad stuff out? The vague goals, petty infighting, and lack of any organization? This is what looks bad to people who want to believe there's some kind of reasonable argument here.

 

[Calbeck]

...so has this just become a secondary thread for the Megathread?

Nope, OP identified themselves in the first post as anti-GG, presenting suggestions for the non-existent leadership of GamerGate. This entire thread is about somehow imposing standards on a sprawling, uncontrollable movement so as to quash commentary which many consider embarrassing to the movement.

Of course, the reason it is embarrassing is that even before GamerGate formed, the journo groups which kicked this whole mess off defined the gaming community AS A WHOLE as being overrun with such people. This magnification from "a small but vocal minority" (which even anti-GG posters have agreed it is) not only set the controversy, but guaranteed that the journos would focus ONLY on that minority in order to continue their misrepresentations.

It is the same "narrative" style and drive which, in the mainstream media, has produced such dopey material as "first-person shooters are training programs for murderous teens".

TL;DR: even if there were only one vocal misogynist in the whole of the gaming community, that one person would become the total focus of the journos, because that is the narrative.

 

[Calbeck]

You can't be mad at gaming journalists for condemning a movement you don't support.

I most certainly can, particularly when the condemnation is manufactured. Similarly, I can be angry at racists for condemning a particular black politician, even if I don't plan to vote for that politico. See how that works?

For this analogy to work you would have to be claiming that gaming journalists condemned the anti-Quinn movement for bad reasons.

Ah, I see you have not been paying attention. Can you find ANY coverage of "the anti-Quinn movement" --- seriously, when was there ever a movement specific to Quinn and nothing else --- which has not condemned it for bad reasons? You have a small forest of straw-men on fire that you might want to see about...

 

[Calbeck]

Regardless of the good that GG might do and regardless of how important the topics the majority of those involved may be talking about there is still a problem with the image the world in general is getting of gamers because of it.

Quite the contrary. It is, in fact, because the allegations being suddenly ramped up against gamers by the press which ostensibly serves them are so extreme, that I for one began looking into the controversy.

I've been familiar with issues of fifth-estate partisanship going back to the '90s, whether it's Fox News acting as the rah-rah mouthpiece for the Republican Party, MSNBC doing the same for the Democrats, or New York Times reporters making up news stories from whole cloth just to fill their print quotas.

A common way to spot propaganda like that is:

1) An opinion piece is presented as news, as though the two were interchangeable.

2) The opinion starts making universalist statements --- "the Christian community is full of secret child-beaters", for example.

The clincher is when, on reviewing the data presented to support the opinion, you start finding it's been cherry-picked. The more it has been, the more desperate the author is to convince you of their position regardless of reality.

This is, in fact, the "image of gamers" presented to the world by the journos in question. You are complaining about the small portion of gamers who do in fact fit that mold as being held up to the world by GamerGate, when in fact it has been the journos doing that from the beginning of this controversy.

Please direct your complaints about misrepresentation to Kotaku et al.

 

[aliengmr]

Well, it really seems the discussion is really over. GG on the ideological warpath. Had hoped to kind of avoid that shit and focus on real issues with the hope of keeping some bridges up, no chance of that.

Truth be told, should have given up long ago. Just another hashtag

 

[Alphakirby]

I can attest to Gamergate needing some form of better image. I got into a Twitter argument today with someone who seems to have good intentions in mind but refuses to support the movement due to the fact that the catalyst was Zoe Quinn's ex posting about the Five Guys incident.
I feel as though helping the image would help us convert more people, people who may WANT what we're fighting for but don't want to take the chance of taking up a stigma due to it.

 

[Calbeck]

I can attest to Gamergate needing some form of better image. I got into a Twitter argument today with someone who seems to have good intentions in mind but refuses to support the movement due to the fact that the catalyst was Zoe Quinn's ex posting about the Five Guys incident.
I feel as though helping the image would help us convert more people, people who may WANT what we're fighting for but don't want to take the chance of taking up a stigma due to it.

The only way to fix that is to point out to such people that GamerGate WASN'T catalyzed by the ZQ issue. It was catalyzed by a broad-based accusation, levied by most of the gaming journalism world, stereotyping gamers as a whole as terrible people.

As someone validly pointed out, WWI may have been sparked by the death of Archduke Ferdinand, but that spark first had to land on a giant pile of oily rags that had been sitting out for quite some time.

 

[aliengmr]

I can attest to Gamergate needing some form of better image. I got into a Twitter argument today with someone who seems to have good intentions in mind but refuses to support the movement due to the fact that the catalyst was Zoe Quinn's ex posting about the Five Guys incident.
I feel as though helping the image would help us convert more people, people who may WANT what we're fighting for but don't want to take the chance of taking up a stigma due to it.

Quite a few want the same things, probably even more than that. But the movement/revolt thing sees only SJWs, schills, and concern trolls. They want nothing to do with any of them. That's the "enemy".

The more they've divided the sides the more people want nothing to do with it. The more unsavory types that have attached themselves to this movement thing also didn't help.

Image-wise its here to stay, and their at the brink of just not caring.

 

[aliengmr]

I can attest to Gamergate needing some form of better image. I got into a Twitter argument today with someone who seems to have good intentions in mind but refuses to support the movement due to the fact that the catalyst was Zoe Quinn's ex posting about the Five Guys incident.
I feel as though helping the image would help us convert more people, people who may WANT what we're fighting for but don't want to take the chance of taking up a stigma due to it.

The only way to fix that is to point out to such people that GamerGate WASN'T catalyzed by the ZQ issue. It was catalyzed by a broad-based accusation, levied by most of the gaming journalism world, stereotyping gamers as a whole as terrible people.

As someone validly pointed out, WWI may have been sparked by the death of Archduke Ferdinand, but that spark first had to land on a giant pile of oily rags that had been sitting out for quite some time.

Wrong. Everyone was pissed they couldn't talk about it. Everyone is mad now they sympathized with her. Were there other things, yes. But unfortunately the less than desirable element decided to say and do horrible shit. Quinnspiracy? That was gamergate pre-Baldwin.

 

[Calbeck]

Sorry, but I've never put any stock in "Quinnspiracy" for the same reason I never put stock in the "vast right-wing conspiracy" or "Clinton-era death lists".

In all cases, these sorts of things boil down to cherry-picking data in order to attack a person or movement, and VERY often to try and derail criticism of oneself. It boils down to "they're all ganging up on me just because they are evil people".

Because that latter line effectively paraphrases most of what the anti-GamerGate reaction has been, I take it with the requisite half-ton of salt.

 

[Calbeck]

The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy was at least smart enough not to post its chat logs to the Internet.

Presumptive argument, logical circle, five yards. Third down.

Also, your tinfoil hat is on crooked. -

 

[Calbeck]

The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy was at least smart enough not to post its chat logs to the Internet.

Presumptive argument, logical circle, five yards. Third down.

Also, your tinfoil hat is on crooked. -

So for a start, whats up with this? http://imgur.com/a/4VOcx

You mean the same thing you posted to me in another thread on the same topic, and which has more to do with anti-GG folks pushing an image of GGs than vice-versa?