GamerGate's Image Problem

[aliengmr]

It is pretty pointless to argue anything at this point. There may have been at some point, but we're really passed that. Those accused of corruption aren't going to say anything as long GG takes anything they say as an indictment of something.

There will be no dialog so nothing on the "integrity" side of things will get done. As for the rest, well, the vast majority of the industry is against, more so after this whole business. GG upset a lot of developers, and not all had any sort of agenda. Christ, GG made EA look good.

So, yea, I'll be sincere here, people, gamers, got hurt. I get it, it sucks. I'm sorry that happened to you, but I also believe it goes much deeper than that. Deeper than any opinion. I'll just say this, make sure to know and understand why you're angry and who you are really angry at.


Also:
Conspiracies suck and so does Twitter.

 

[Caostotale]

Whether you like it or not, the mailing list is a breach of trust between the journalist and the consumer.

Again, you need to be specific about what 'consumer' you are talking about. Is it the 99% of people who buy games and don't take the gaming media that seriously (including most of the indie-gaming scene) or is it that remaining 1% who are so extraordinarily precious about their consumption habits that they've let their preference for 'gaming' become inextricably wrapped in with their sense of being and social belonging?

I've been playing, collecting, and talking about games with people for the better part of three decades and yet I feel utterly alienated from all of the activity related to GG. The way I see it (and I'm purposely being simplistic, since I'm more interested in bluntly expressing my distaste), games (as they are, mind you, not as they might be if those fictional feminazi hordes succeed in overrunning the hobby) must really be pretty dissatisfying to you lot, since you've opted to spend this much less time actually playing and talking about them, rather making up a lame-ass 'game' out of re-educating and overturning the gaming industry itself (or rather, a strict subset of the industry that is much more vulnerable...I'll expect none of you to be scrutinizing any of the triple-A companies, Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Activision, EA, etc..., i.e. any of the firms responsible for 90%+ of gaming products and 99% of its business).

I really hope GG's knight-in-shining-armor from Breitbart ends up taking this to the Alex Jones alternate reality where the air contains more pure outrage and paranoia than oxygen. That's where the movement deserves to retire.

 

[Davroth]

At worse, it's pretty corruption which occurs at a smaller scale and within established social frameworks and governing norms. Examples include the exchange of small improper gifts or use of personal connections to obtain favours. This form of corruption is particularly common in developing countries and where public servants are significantly underpaid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption

But THAT has been an issue since '09 when Ubisoft tried to bribe a German publication for good reviews on AC2, and please, there's no collusion or cabal like many of you like to claim since there's nothing illegal or even very secretive at all so and using terms like that just makes the whole thing look childish and wanting t desperately believe there's some kind of NWO Conspiracy.

I condemn all corruption, not only the big one. Just because you say there's no collusion doesn't make it true. We have the evidence. Also, if it's no big deal, why was it a secret to begin with? Why indeed did /they/ feel it should be a secret? And since you like Wikipedia articles so much, maybe you find this one enlightening on my issue with corruption and collusion in journalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards

Unethical is not the same is illegal. And noone is pressing legal charges against the people on the mailing list. Their ethics are put into question, and in my opinion rightfully so. Transparency has been one of the key ethical standards for journalism historically. Secret mailing lists aren't very transparent, now, are they? I'm honestly not sure what you are even trying to argue here.

 

[Impulse725]

Gamergate has an image problem like Batman has an image problem.

That depends. Are we talking Early Frank Miller or Current-Day Frank Miller? -:3

Okay, seriously, yeah, I'm pro-GG, but think about that for a second. Can anyone think of a more misogynistic person currently working in comics... and if this discussion were about "comics culture" instead of games, can anyone think what Anita Sarkeesian's videos would look like?.

I hope this isn't unacceptably late to jump in here, but Frank Miller is not a terribly active creator anymore and his reputation in the comics community could politely be described as mixed. His projects for the last ten years or so have not been well regarded, and the impression I get from forums and blogs is that his image has shifted from the cool uncle to the uncle that rants about conspiracy theories at thanksgiving. Year One still pretty universally regarded as the perfect story though.

While comics culture certainly has it's share of people who obsess about unimportant details and hate change, we've also considered them legitimate art for 20-30 years, and part of being considered legitimate arts is accepting literate criticism. Feminist and other lens looking at comics are not uncommon, and to the best of my knowledge, there's not the pushback that gamers have to it. I may not agree with Anita, but her work, right or wrong, takes games seriously as a medium and legitimates it as art. Gamers are foolish to oppose her, at least if any of them have talked about games being art before.

 

[Caostotale]

I'm talking about the character of Batman, not the writer or associated publication that is Batman.

Regardless of the writer, the most general characteristics of Batman are still completely ludicrous when squared with the human reality we all inhabit.

 

[doomrider7]

At worse, it's pretty corruption which occurs at a smaller scale and within established social frameworks and governing norms. Examples include the exchange of small improper gifts or use of personal connections to obtain favours. This form of corruption is particularly common in developing countries and where public servants are significantly underpaid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption

But THAT has been an issue since '09 when Ubisoft tried to bribe a German publication for good reviews on AC2, and please, there's no collusion or cabal like many of you like to claim since there's nothing illegal or even very secretive at all so and using terms like that just makes the whole thing look childish and wanting t desperately believe there's some kind of NWO Conspiracy.

I condemn all corruption, not only the big one. Just because you say there's no collusion doesn't make it true. We have the evidence. Also, if it's no big deal, why was it a secret to begin with? Why indeed did /they/ feel it should be a secret? And since you like Wikipedia articles so much, maybe you find this one enlightening on my issue with corruption and collusion in journalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards

Unethical is not the same is illegal. And noone is pressing legal charges against the people on the mailing list. Their ethics are put into question, and in my opinion rightfully so. Transparency has been one of the key ethical standards for journalism historically. Secret mailing lists aren't very transparent, now, are they? I'm honestly not sure what you are even trying to argue here.

Then where's the collusion and the evidence?

 

[RexMundane]

What on earth do you base that on? What historical precedent for an event like this do you assume that will be the outcome? History full of movements with leadership and clearly stated goals that succeed in the end, but you're going the other way because that's the smart thing? Why do you believe that?

When I went to George W. Bush's first inauguration in 2001 to protest; I was there with disenfranchised Gore supporters and communists- and I was neither. That was the same story to all of the demonstrations I went to in the late 90's, mixed political interest groups and strange bedfellows. Someone takes charge of Gamergate, you may not like or agree with them.

The other problem with centralizing leadership is it gives all the people who have been trying to shut this down a nice fat target to focus on. They will be attacked, and any demands they make will be placated. No, an angry mob is better if you can keep it going. Albeit, an angry internet mob is far less effective- but if it keeps up you'll see changes after quartlery earnings in October.

Oh Jesus tell me you aren't saying that. Tell me you aren't all of you saying "just give it another month and a half of being vicious and angry at everyone who isn't us, and not really explaining why too clearly, then we'll start getting what we want, whatever the hell that is."

That's like a child throwing a tantrum, just expecting to be given what it wants because it can scream so loud. They'll just wait you out, because of course they will, and it will work. You'll get tired of it, you'll get bored, you'll go back to buying the games you boycotted [http://static1.gamespot.com/uploads/original/1433/14330981/2618689-0264945701-Boyco.jpg] and return to visiting the sites [http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/kotaku.com] you've declared purest of evil [http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/polygon.com], because that's what always happens. I've been in the megathread just watching people leave from exhaustion [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.860762-GamerGate-Discussion-Debate-and-Resources?page=235#21427361], and who can blame them? This kind of sustained rage for the promise of having demands met you have yet to make? It's madness. It's unhealthy.

All you have is your anger, and it's going to run out. Everyone else is done with trying to pacify you, they've made several attempts to do so and you've just gotten angrier. They've learned their lesson. And the quicker you learn yours, and quit the angry mob schtick, the better off we all are.

 

[Davroth]

Whether you like it or not, the mailing list is a breach of trust between the journalist and the consumer.

Again, you need to be specific about what 'consumer' you are talking about. Is it the 99% of people who buy games and don't take the gaming media that seriously (including most of the indie-gaming scene) or is it that remaining 1% who are so extraordinarily precious about their consumption habits that they've let their preference for 'gaming' become inextricably wrapped in with their sense of being and social belonging?

I've been playing, collecting, and talking about games with people for the better part of three decades and yet I feel utterly alienated from all of the activity related to GG. The way I see it (and I'm purposely being simplistic, since I'm more interested in bluntly expressing my distaste), games (as they are, mind you, not as they might be if those fictional feminazi hordes succeed in overrunning the hobby) must really be pretty dissatisfying to you lot, since you've opted to spend this much less time actually playing and talking about them, rather making up a lame-ass 'game' out of re-educating and overturning the gaming industry itself (or rather, a strict subset of the industry that is much more vulnerable...I'll expect none of you to be scrutinizing any of the triple-A companies, Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Activision, EA, etc..., i.e. any of the firms responsible for 90%+ of gaming products and 99% of its business).

I really hope GG's knight-in-shining-armor from Breitbart ends up taking this to the Alex Jones alternate reality where the air contains more pure outrage and paranoia than oxygen. That's where the movement deserves to retire.

So if you think that all gaming media is PR bullshit, why do you care to argue against GG so vehemently?

What does that say about yourself if you spend time bickering with the GG crowd? Are games dissatisfying to you? Also, the press is accountable for themselves, not the one they report on. What do triple-A developers have to do with this at all? If they attempt to bribe a journalist, the journalist would be insane to take that bribe and make themselves complicit. Even if it doesn't ever come out, a honest to god bribery story is way more valuable for any serious journalist then the bribe itself.

Again with Milo. I hate Milo. Why do you Anit-GG people keep bringing up Milo like he's our designated driver?

 

[Davroth]

Then where's the collusion and the evidence?

You read the mails. You said so yourself. It's talk about collusion and the evidence itself in one. What more do you want?

 

[Calbeck]

I apply the ethics of journalism to them because /they/ tell us that they are journalists, and want to be treated as such. Being a journalist comes with perks and respondsabilities. They make use of the perks, but don't want to be held accountable for it.

So.
Very.
Much.

THIS.

Attack Milo for being Breitbart, but it took him to bring Kotaku et al clean on the mailing list. When you have a Senior Editor saying journalistic ethics are "bull****", and the founder of the list actually citing JournoList as his inspiration, there is a problem to be addressed.

Filthy loudmouthed jerks acting like scum of the earth a problem? Yes... AND THIS, TOO.

God forbid this gaming community we supposedly all love can walk and chew bubblegum without gnawing its leg off.

 

[doomrider7]

Then where's the collusion and the evidence?

You read the mails. You said so yourself. It's talk about collusion and the evidence itself in one. What more do you want?

If that's your big major proof of their being a cabal and collusion in the gaming industry then we have nothing more to discuss.

 

[Davroth]

Then where's the collusion and the evidence?

You read the mails. You said so yourself. It's talk about collusion and the evidence itself in one. What more do you want?

If that's your big major proof of their being a cabal and collusion in the gaming industry then we have nothing more to discuss.

It really doesn't matter if you have anything to discuss or not. The evidence luckily stands for itself. If you'd like to back out without trying to make a case against it, it's perfectly within your right to do that.

 

[Thorn14]

What on earth do you base that on? What historical precedent for an event like this do you assume that will be the outcome? History full of movements with leadership and clearly stated goals that succeed in the end, but you're going the other way because that's the smart thing? Why do you believe that?

When I went to George W. Bush's first inauguration in 2001 to protest; I was there with disenfranchised Gore supporters and communists- and I was neither. That was the same story to all of the demonstrations I went to in the late 90's, mixed political interest groups and strange bedfellows. Someone takes charge of Gamergate, you may not like or agree with them.

The other problem with centralizing leadership is it gives all the people who have been trying to shut this down a nice fat target to focus on. They will be attacked, and any demands they make will be placated. No, an angry mob is better if you can keep it going. Albeit, an angry internet mob is far less effective- but if it keeps up you'll see changes after quartlery earnings in October.

Oh Jesus tell me you aren't saying that. Tell me you aren't all of you saying "just give it another month and a half of being vicious and angry at everyone who isn't us, and not really explaining why too clearly, then we'll start getting what we want, whatever the hell that is."

That's like a child throwing a tantrum, just expecting to be given what it wants because it can scream so loud. They'll just wait you out, because of course they will, and it will work. You'll get tired of it, you'll get bored, you'll go back to buying the games you boycotted [http://static1.gamespot.com/uploads/original/1433/14330981/2618689-0264945701-Boyco.jpg] and return to visiting the sites [http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/kotaku.com] you've declared purest of evil [http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/polygon.com], because that's what always happens. I've been in the megathread just watching people leave from exhaustion [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.860762-GamerGate-Discussion-Debate-and-Resources?page=235#21427361], and who can blame them? This kind of sustained rage for the promise of having demands met you have yet to make? It's madness. It's unhealthy.

All you have is your anger, and it's going to run out. Everyone else is done with trying to pacify you, they've made several attempts to do so and you've just gotten angrier. They've learned their lesson. And the quicker you learn yours, and quit the angry mob schtick, the better off we all are.

What a load of bull. I've had no problem avoiding companies who piss me off, I can rent their games or buy them used if I really really want their games, and I haven't visited Kotaku in a long ass time.

Why is the consumer telling publishers and journalists "We do not like how you act and will no longer purchase your product and partake in your services" a tantrum? If I said I don't buy Nike products because they use child workers in terrible conditions to make their products, is that throwing a temper tantrum?

You seem to forget that the publishers and journalists serve US the consumer, and not the other way around. We are not beholden to them or whatever garbage they spew out.

 

[RexMundane]

Oh Jesus tell me you aren't saying that. Tell me you aren't all of you saying "just give it another month and a half of being vicious and angry at everyone who isn't us, and not really explaining why too clearly, then we'll start getting what we want, whatever the hell that is."

That's like a child throwing a tantrum, just expecting to be given what it wants because it can scream so loud. They'll just wait you out, because of course they will, and it will work. You'll get tired of it, you'll get bored, you'll go back to buying the games you boycotted [http://static1.gamespot.com/uploads/original/1433/14330981/2618689-0264945701-Boyco.jpg] and return to visiting the sites [http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/kotaku.com] you've declared purest of evil [http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/polygon.com], because that's what always happens. I've been in the megathread just watching people leave from exhaustion [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.860762-GamerGate-Discussion-Debate-and-Resources?page=235#21427361], and who can blame them? This kind of sustained rage for the promise of having demands met you have yet to make? It's madness. It's unhealthy.

All you have is your anger, and it's going to run out. Everyone else is done with trying to pacify you, they've made several attempts to do so and you've just gotten angrier. They've learned their lesson. And the quicker you learn yours, and quit the angry mob schtick, the better off we all are.

What a load of bull. I've had no problem avoiding companies who piss me off, I can rent their games or buy them used if I really really want their games, and I haven't visited Kotaku in a long ass time.

Why is the consumer telling publishers and journalists "We do not like how you act and will no longer purchase your product and partake in your services" a tantrum? If I said I don't buy Nike products because they use child workers in terrible conditions to make their products, is that throwing a temper tantrum?

You seem to forget that the publishers and journalists serve US the consumer, and not the other way around. We are not beholden to them or whatever garbage they spew out.

No, pal, if you're telling them that you refuse to consume their product, then they emphatically do not serve you. They owe you exactly nothing. They serve the people actually consuming their product, and you are entitled to precisely zero.

 

[Impulse725]

I'm talking about the character of Batman, not the writer or associated publication that is Batman.

Regardless of the writer, the most general characteristics of Batman are still completely ludicrous when squared with the human reality we all inhabit.

Oh course, but in his universe, he has an "image problem" where little kids are scared of him and people think he's unhinged.

The point of the comparison is this: The "image problem" is of no consequence and is mostly perpetuated by those who are either ignorant or the superstitious and cowardly lot that rightly fear it's brand of vigilante justice.

It's more important for Batman's appearance to strike fear into the hearts of criminals than it is to keep little children from crying. It's for the greater good.

Is there not much crossover between comics and gaming? Batman doesn't have an image problem, he actively cultivates it to make his job easier. The first Nolan movie got that part pretty much spot on.

Where Batman and Gamergate diverge is that Batman actively manages his spin, so to speak, to make his job easier.

 

[Davroth]

No, pal, if you're telling them that you refuse to consume their product, then they emphatically do not serve you. They owe you exactly nothing. They serve the people actually consuming their product, and you are entitled to precisely zero.

Haha, I love that. Because that's the entire point. If I don't give them money anymore, I don't care that they don't serve me. And if they don't want my business, then everyone is happy. I don't understand why people throw such a tantrum over people advocating a boycott. That's the one thing the consumer can make his voice heard. I don't see why this is supposed to be condemned.

 

[aliengmr]

No, pal, if you're telling them that you refuse to consume their product, then they emphatically do not serve you. They owe you exactly nothing. They serve the people actually consuming their product, and you are entitled to precisely zero.

Haha, I love that. Because that's the entire point. If I don't give them money anymore, I don't care that they don't serve me. And if they don't want my business, then everyone is happy. I don't understand why people throw such a tantrum over people advocating a boycott. That's the one thing the consumer can make his voice heard. I don't see why this is supposed to be condemned.

Ohh its not, believe me.

Could do without some of the rhetoric though. Mainly in regards to censoring of opinions and developers being able to make a game with social issues if they so choose. Same deal if they want to exclude those issues.

Seriously, boycott away.