GamerGate's Image Problem

[Exley97_v1legacy]

Um, sure, I guess you could call them contrarians and skeptics. But behavior like this? Well, that's a little more than just being outside the mainstream. And it's not culture. It's f---ing sick. And it's pretty indicative of why 4chan, as it relates to GG, has an image problem that, in my humble opinion, has stained the movement.

That's on /b/. We don't go to Ravenholm anymore. Seriously, every other board hates /b/ with a passion (maybe even more than gawker media does!) There are 63 boards total. Mind you, /b/ sucks so much that it will probably be the site admin's doom one day.

/v/ is one of the fastest boards on a very large site. Only a small amount of people on /v/ were originally interested in journalistic/indie dev scandals and the rest of the board called them gossipy drama queens. This was before the "gamers are dead" articles whipped a much larger group into a frenzy across several sites.

You can't really go anywhere from here. No one is going to apologize for having posted on the same site where some script kiddie wants to play super villain. Just like no one on tumblr is going to apologize for posting on the same site that nearly drove Tom Siddell to suicide. This is why people need to move away from looking at things in black and white while repeating the genetic fallacy as their main argument. Both sides keep doing this. Everyone's stuck.

EDIT: messed up quotes

Sure, it's one of 63 boards on the site, but you can understand why that handful of users on one board hurts 4chan's rep (and GamerGate's for that matter, because the two ARE in fact linked). This is not to say the majority of folks subscribe to that kind of awful behavior, but as I've said on other threads here, this is the situation you create when you post on message boards anonymously behind screen names. You become identified with the site you're posting on, because there is no real name or identifiers for people to latch on to. It's easy to see why people are grouping what we might call a few bad apples in with the rest of the 4chan and GG crowd because they are HIDING in that crowd. And it's tough, if not impossible, to indetify them or at least distinguish them from the rest of the crowd. And that's the price of the anonymity they hide behind: you get to protect your good name, but you stain the reputation of the site that you frequent and the well-behaved members around you.

Points for the Ravenholm reference, BTW, it was excellent

 

[Thorn14]

Please tell me how you would identify them or distinguish them fromm the crowd, less of being a mod and releasing their information to the internet?

 

[doomrider7]

One thing I have to ask (and sorry if this has been covered already), but given GG tends to misrepresent and take anything negative said about hem as an attack, why are they hailing Milo Yiannopolous a hero when he wrote this [http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/08/14/Players-as-young-as-12-and-13-are-being-raped-by-dorky-weirdos-on-Grand-Theft-Auto] article on an unpleasent GTA Online mod?

I mean, in several places he's outright saying things a certain feminist hasn't said but is actively accused of saying.

Number 4 on this list pretty much explains it. No matter how much of blatant shill and an asshole he is, Milo gets attention and support by sheer virtue of saying something different. Using the same analogy as in the link, like a single red rose in a green field of grass or more appropriately a single dog turn in white tile floor. Pretty much the entire list is why GamerGate needs to die already ESPECIALLY Numbers 1 and 2.

http://www.cracked.com/article_21341_5-ways-every-conspiracy-theory-makes-world-worse.html

Which leads me to conclude that this is your view of the movement, and you are simply reinforcing what you would like to believe by asserting that it is fact.

Yes, it was meant as a loose theory/criticism, but I'm still sure I could go to any Gamestop in the area and, after polling consumers for a week, maybe present 5-10 people who have any opinion on this bullshit whatsoever (and further, I would predict 80% of that 5-10 subset are simply aware of the debate but don't actually care either way about it).

I get the same from Mormons who tell me I should read their Book.

Yeah, man, saying my off-the-cuff and half-improvised forum post is the same as the practices of an organized religious campaign totally isn't hyperbolic or ridiculous...

EDIT: Seriously, "purge" the game media? How the hell would we do THAT?!

From day one, I've imagined that nothing would make the Quinnspiracy or GG people happier than to see those proven 'corrupt' (i.e. Quinn, the people she supposedly slept with, Anthony Burch, etc...), as well as those dread SJWs (Moviebob, Jim Sterling, Leigh Alexander, Anita Sarkeesian), all deserved to be fired from game journalism firms , publicly shamed for doing the gaming world some 'gross' disservice (i.e. the only strategy that could apply to someone like Sarkeesian, who works for herself), or otherwise disenfranchised.

'Purge' might be too strong a word...fine...I'll amend it to a call to 'purify' gaming media.

My question on the purging is why? What have they done that's so appalling? Say mean things about gamers? Have opinions? Be in contact with others in the same field? That all of these things are somehow considered signs of corruption just shows a MASSIVE lack of understanding in how journalism works since in the field, you're going to say mean things to and about people at some point, you're going to have opinions that are sometimes unpopular, and most of all you NEED to have contacts with other writers and people involved in whatever field you work on. They accuse people of censorship, yet their goal seems to be just that. To censor out people they disagree with to be the loudest dominant voice.

 

[Mouser_House]

(...)
You become identified with the site you're posting on, because there is no real name or identifiers for people to latch on to. It's easy to see why people are grouping what we might call a few bad apples in with the rest of the 4chan and GG crowd because they are HIDING in that crowd. And it's tough, if not impossible, to indetify them or at least distinguish them from the rest of the crowd. And that's the price of the anonymity they hide behind: you get to protect your good name, but you stain the reputation of the site that you frequent and the well-behaved members around you.

I think plenty of people are getting tired of it. If half of GG do believe themselves to be brave little Spartans fighting against some kind of SJW invasion then they are going to have to accept at some point that 4chan is a pretty lousy homeland. The mods are incompetent and inconsistent. The swarm logic is a double-edged sword. Worse still, 4chan is the perfect scapegoat that gives power to the opposition. /b/ should have been closed down seven years ago.

At the same time, people will just get even more paranoid about having to stay anonymous as much as possible when they hear about pro-GG getting doxxed on twitter.

 

[Davroth]

From day one, I've imagined that nothing would make the Quinnspiracy or GG people happier than to see those proven 'corrupt' (i.e. Quinn, the people she supposedly slept with, Anthony Burch, etc...), as well as those dread SJWs (Moviebob, Jim Sterling, Leigh Alexander, Anita Sarkeesian), all deserved to be fired from game journalism firms , publicly shamed for doing the gaming world some 'gross' disservice (i.e. the only strategy that could apply to someone like Sarkeesian, who works for herself), or otherwise disenfranchised.

'Purge' might be too strong a word...fine...I'll amend it to a call to 'purify' gaming media.

Actually you couldn't be more wrong on the "purge" part. At least if you are talking about anyone but the absolute nuttiest of nuts in the GG movement. But then, you fail to mention the actual corruption, like the stuff uncovered by the GameJournoPros mailing list. Instead, you seem to concentrate on the flashy figures, which are at the end of the day mostly meaningless.

Leigh Alexander is probably the only one out of the people you mentioned who I would like to see driven out of her job, not because she's a SJW (She certainly isn't a feminist by any modern definition of the movement), but because she's a terrible human being who used her influence to hurt people. Oh, and she's racist, too. What a class act. I've seen people driven out of their job for faaar less. But that's not really important either.

Wether you like it or not, the mailing list is a breach of trust between the journalist and the consumer. They are not doing journalism, they are doing agenda driven PR work. Now, I might or might not agree with their agenda (and believe me when I tell you that this whole thing hit very close to home since 90% of the games I play are indie titles), but that doesn't make it right. Based on the people on the list either admitting to be on it, or remaining silent on it, I don't see any reason to not believe the leaks are truthful. And they are pretty damning in my eyes. So yes, I will be very cautious not to give certain "news" outlets any more clicks in the future. And I am willing to fight to give this breach of trust they have committed all the publicity it can get. But that has nothing to do with purging or purifying the gaming media.

Actually, it's the other way around. From my perspective, certain individuals tried to purify the gaming media from gamers for whatever reason. I'm only trying to push back. And that is true for a lot of the people I talked to about it. If you insist on concentrating on the nut jobs, well, I can't stop you. But it wont accomplish anything.

 

[wetnap]

Removing/distancing yourself from harassers
No.

You are playing into their game when you do that. They wish to control you when the fact is that their charge was never valid to begin with. Its not our job to police the super tiny fraction of our population which is a problem. We are hundreds of millions, its not our job to police the 1 or 2 who actually make a threat, its absurd to claim its our responsibility.

Its like claiming that before every time obama talks he has to lecture black people on crime. And it would still be more justified than with gamers, 7.7% of african americans are felons, how many gamers are sending threats as a %? Its a thousandth of a % at most if that. So if putting the responsibility on black people to control some random criminal element out there who happens to be black is a bigoted smear, it should be called as such as well when leveled at us. Its simply unjustifiable based on the numbers, and the more you concede, the more they win at painting yourside in a negative light. This is the mistake so many gamers have made to be "nice" to these people over the years. And now we are paying for it.


Unpacking Post-Modernism: Jordan Owen's Debate with Evan Tognotti
Davis M.J. Aurini

 

[doomrider7]

From day one, I've imagined that nothing would make the Quinnspiracy or GG people happier than to see those proven 'corrupt' (i.e. Quinn, the people she supposedly slept with, Anthony Burch, etc...), as well as those dread SJWs (Moviebob, Jim Sterling, Leigh Alexander, Anita Sarkeesian), all deserved to be fired from game journalism firms , publicly shamed for doing the gaming world some 'gross' disservice (i.e. the only strategy that could apply to someone like Sarkeesian, who works for herself), or otherwise disenfranchised.

'Purge' might be too strong a word...fine...I'll amend it to a call to 'purify' gaming media.

Actually you couldn't be more wrong on the "purge" part. At least if you are talking about anyone but the absolute nuttiest of nuts in the GG movement. But then, you fail to mention the actual corruption, like the stuff uncovered by the GameJournoPros mailing list. Instead, you seem to concentrate on the flashy figures, which are at the end of the day mostly meaningless.

Leigh Alexander is probably the only one out of the people you mentioned who I would like to see driven out of her job, not because she's a SJW (She certainly isn't a feminist by any modern definition of the movement), but because she's a terrible human being who used her influence to hurt people. Oh, and she's racist, too. What a class act. I've seen people driven out of their job for faaar less. But that's not really important either.

Wether you like it or not, the mailing list is a breach of trust between the journalist and the consumer. They are not doing journalism, they are doing agenda driven PR work. Now, I might or might not agree with their agenda (and believe me when I tell you that this whole thing hit very close to home since 90% of the games I play are indie titles), but that doesn't make it right. Based on the people on the list either admitting to be on it, or remaining silent on it, I don't see any reason to not believe the leaks are truthful. And they are pretty damning in my eyes. So yes, I will be very cautious not to give certain "news" outlets any more clicks in the future. And I am willing to fight to give this breach of trust they have committed all the publicity it can get. But that has nothing to do with purging or purifying the gaming media.

Actually, it's the other way around. From my perspective, certain individuals tried to purify the gaming media from gamers for whatever reason. I'm only trying to push back. And that is true for a lot of the people I talked to about it. If you insist on concentrating on the nut jobs, well, I can't stop you. But it wont accomplish anything.

Question, since I really have to ask, but what on that mailing list was so damning and appalling to be considered a smoking gun since I read it and saw nothing particularly bad or wrong. As for Leigh Alexander, the same can be easily applied to Milo whom has NUMEROUS potshots at gamers and had very low opinion on it, UNTIL he could politicize it all and push a right-wing anti-feminist agenda. I'm fairly neutral on Alexander, but at least to her credit she's actually been a member of the gaming community ad not just jumped in when she saw a convenient time to push an agenda.

 

[Davroth]

Question, since I really have to ask, but what on that mailing list was so damning and appalling to be considered a smoking gun since I read it and saw nothing particularly bad or wrong. As for Leigh Alexander, the same can be easily applied to Milo whom has NUMEROUS potshots at gamers and had very low opinion on it, UNTIL he could politicize it all and push a right-wing anti-feminist agenda. I'm fairly neutral on Alexander, but at least to her credit she's actually been a member of the gaming community ad not just jumped in when she saw a convenient time to push an agenda.

The existence of such a mailing list is absolutely unacceptable for anyone who takes the concept of journalism seriously. Yeah, sure, completely unbiased journalism is a lofty ideal, but that doesn't mean a journalist shouldn't strive to be as objective as he can be. And this is not the case with the people on the mailing list, and the leaked emails made their MO abundantly clear. A select few dictate a narrative which the rest of the press then follows, no matter if it's objective or not. There is no excuse for that. It's the death of journalism. If you don't find that objectionable, then you don't want journalism. And that is fine. I, however, wont stand for it. And I wont support sites that engage is such activities, and I will make sure to let as many people know about it as I can. Because you don't get to dress up PR as journalism, no matter how well intended it is, or how much you might like or dislike someone. It's simple as that to me.

I don't care about Milo's political agenda. And I honestly don't know why you bring him into this. I'm about as far away from him politically as I can be. But that doesn't discounts the information he provided us with. Game 'journalists' don't even deny it. Rather, some actually confirmed it. On what basis would I discredit his work on GamerGate, or rather, what bearing does it have?

Also, I don't understand your logic on LA.. She made racist comments, which she curiously deleted as soon as they came into public light (not that that actually removes it from the internet or anything), and abused her power try and intimidate people into silence. That's both deplorable. How does her being a true gamer redeem her in any way?

 

[aliengmr]

Pretty sure Gamergate isn't in the hundreds of millions.

And a pro-gg post brings in Aurini prove a point. Wow, no image problems there/s.

I personally make it a point not to take what some racist has to say seriously on really anything so...

 

[doomrider7]

Question, since I really have to ask, but what on that mailing list was so damning and appalling to be considered a smoking gun since I read it and saw nothing particularly bad or wrong. As for Leigh Alexander, the same can be easily applied to Milo whom has NUMEROUS potshots at gamers and had very low opinion on it, UNTIL he could politicize it all and push a right-wing anti-feminist agenda. I'm fairly neutral on Alexander, but at least to her credit she's actually been a member of the gaming community ad not just jumped in when she saw a convenient time to push an agenda.

The existence of such a mailing list is absolutely unacceptable for anyone who takes the concept of journalism seriously. Yeah, sure, completely unbiased journalism is a lofty ideal, but that doesn't mean a journalist shouldn't strive to be as objective as he can be. And this is not the case with the people on the mailing list, and the leaked emails made their MO abundantly clear. A select few dictate a narrative which the rest of the press then follows, no matter if it's objective or not. There is no excuse for that. It's the death of journalism. If you don't find that objectionable, then you don't want journalism. And that is fine. I, however, wont stand for it. And I wont support sites that engage is such activities, and I will make sure to let as many people know about it as I can. Because you don't get to dress up PR as journalism, no matter how well intended it is, or how much you might like or dislike someone. It's simple as that to me.

I don't care about Milo's political agenda. And I honestly don't know why you bring him into this. I'm about as far away from him politically as I can be. But that doesn't discounts the information he provided us with. Game 'journalists' don't even deny it. Rather, some actually confirmed it. On what basis would I discredit his work on GamerGate, or rather, what bearing does it have?

Also, I don't understand your logic on LA.. She made racist comments, which she curiously deleted as soon as they came into public light (not that that actually removes it from the internet or anything), and abused her power try and intimidate people into silence. That's both deplorable. How does her being a true gamer redeem her in any way?

It discredits Milo's additions since it's clear he doesn't care about the medium and is only using it as a podium to ush his agenda. I don't know what the full deal is wit Alexander, but at least she's been part of the community before this and not using it to push political agendas that have nothing to do with gaming. As for the mailing list, Journalism s dead then since lists like that have existed for quite some time on top the Reporter's Privilege which means grants protections of sources.

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

 

[Davroth]

It discredits Milo's additions since it's clear he doesn't care about the medium and is only using it as a podium to ush his agenda. I don't know what the full deal is wit Alexander, but at least she's been part of the community before this and not using it to push political agendas that have nothing to do with gaming. As for the mailing list, Journalism s dead then since lists like that have existed for quite some time on top the Reporter's Privilege which means grants protections of sources.

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

What agenda exactly, exactly? And if you don't know about LA and don't care to look into it, why do you even bother bringing it up? And even if it discredits Milo, it doesn't discredit the information he provided us with. For that the information would have to be proven false, which it hasn't been. So what is your point in all of this?

This has actually nothing to do with the protection of sources.. but since you bring it up, in order to be protected by that somehow, they'd have to be journalists in the first place. But they are not. They are advocates who try to disguise their bias as objective journalism. Colluding among a large number 'news' sites to synchronise the narrative and push an agenda is a mockery of journalism, nothing else. But then, if we can't agree on what constitutes a journalist, I think we will just have to agree to disagree right here.

 

[Maddhaus]

Pretty sure Gamergate isn't in the hundreds of millions.

And a pro-gg post brings in Aurini prove a point. Wow, no image problems there/s.

I personally make it a point not to take what some racist has to say seriously on really anything so...

You and me both. I pretty much apply similar reasoning to the rest of the GG crowd: how can we possibly take their bleating about "journalistic integrity" seriously when they don't appear to know the first goddamned thing about it? Hell, we're over a month into this whole goat rope and they still haven't figured out that most members of the games press aren't even journalists.

I've had biscuits with my coffee that I take more seriously than this gong show.

No leadership nor organization?
No clearly defined goals nor plan to reach said goals?
Unable to root out agitators in the ranks nor condemn their actions unconditionally?
Trumpeting shoddy, mischaracterized, or false "information" as the latest "smoking gun"?
Established on the unsubstantiated allegations of an ex-boyfriend's attempt to slut shame his former girlfriend?

Yeah, this is why I can't take this whole "movement" seriously.

 

[xDarc]

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.

 

[doomrider7]

It discredits Milo's additions since it's clear he doesn't care about the medium and is only using it as a podium to ush his agenda. I don't know what the full deal is wit Alexander, but at least she's been part of the community before this and not using it to push political agendas that have nothing to do with gaming. As for the mailing list, Journalism s dead then since lists like that have existed for quite some time on top the Reporter's Privilege which means grants protections of sources.

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

What agenda exactly, exactly? And if you don't know about LA and don't care to look into it, why do you even bother bringing it up? And even if it discredits Milo, it doesn't discredit the information he provided us with. For that the information would have to be proven false, which it hasn't been. So what is your point in all of this?

This has actually nothing to do with the protection of sources.. but since you bring it up, in order to be protected by that somehow, they'd have to be journalists in the first place. But they are not. They are advocates who try to disguise their bias as objective journalism. Colluding among a large number 'news' sites to synchronise the narrative and push an agenda is a mockery of journalism, nothing else. But then, if we can't agree on what constitutes a journalist, I think we will just have to agree to disagree right here.

If they aren't journalists then why do we care and are discussing journalistic ethics as if it applies to them then. The point of LA is that at least she writes about games because she's actually fan and cares while Milo is using it as anti-feminist agenda. I mean shit, his first piece had this written as it's headline, ?Feminist Bullies? are ?Tearing The Video Game Industry Apart.?, and this as an excerpt,

"There is a platoon of irritants in the media whose talents are vanishingly slight, but who generate column inches by the thousand for victimising innocents and manipulating their way around an over-sensitive industry. Some of them, such as Anita Sarkeesian, have no discernible higher purpose in life, except to bother innocent games developers.

These women purposefully court ? and then exploit ? boisterous, unpleasant reactions from astonished male gamers and use them to attract attention to themselves. What?s remarkable is how deeply unpleasant the skeletons lurking in their own closets often are, how completely those skeletons give the lie to their public image, and how uncritically their claims are repackaged by credulous games journalists."

The entire thing was so blatantly biased and agenda driven against feminists and feminism that I can't believe people are taking this as actual journalism and not for what it actually is, and opinion fluff piece meant to garner hits for his page.

Edit: Another of it's pieces uses links to it's OWN website as citations istead of deferring to more reliable and noteworthy ones. That's how fucking bad it is and something not legitimate news site would EVER do since it's the ultimate evidence of bias.

 

[Davroth]

If they aren't journalists then why do we care and are discussing journalistic ethics as if it applies to them then. The point of LA is that at least she writes about games because she's actually fan and cares while Milo is using it as anti-feminist agenda. I mean shit, his first piece had this written as it's headline, ?Feminist Bullies? are ?Tearing The Video Game Industry Apart.?, and this as an excerpt,

"There is a platoon of irritants in the media whose talents are vanishingly slight, but who generate column inches by the thousand for victimising innocents and manipulating their way around an over-sensitive industry. Some of them, such as Anita Sarkeesian, have no discernible higher purpose in life, except to bother innocent games developers.

These women purposefully court ? and then exploit ? boisterous, unpleasant reactions from astonished male gamers and use them to attract attention to themselves. What?s remarkable is how deeply unpleasant the skeletons lurking in their own closets often are, how completely those skeletons give the lie to their public image, and how uncritically their claims are repackaged by credulous games journalists."

The entire thing was so blatantly biased and agenda driven against feminists and feminism that I can't believe people are taking this as actual journalism and not for what it actually is, and opinion fluff piece meant o garner hits for his page.

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.

Also, this again? Why do you so desperately try to discredit Milo? I don't have to like him, his information is what counts. I read all of his articles on GamerGate. How does is discredit his information? You basically admit that you outright discredit information based on the source, no matter if it holds up to scrutiny or not, in other words you apply personal bias above reason. I have nothing to add to that. If that's your mindset, I don't see why you care one way or the other. You are welcome to come back if you want to make actual arguments instead of focusing solely on that Milo fellow. His character is not important in the slightest. His information is what counts. Do you have anything to discredit his intel? I'd love to see it if you do.

Also, realise who you are trying to cover here. The ones to loose are not the feminists (although the modern definition of feminism has not a lot in common with what the gaming press describes as such), but the media outlets who decided to throw their objectiveness into the wind. They fed us their propaganda. And just because you like their propaganda doesn't make them ethical journalists. And as such they don't deserve the power and perks that come with that position.

 

[doomrider7]

If they aren't journalists then why do we care and are discussing journalistic ethics as if it applies to them then. The point of LA is that at least she writes about games because she's actually fan and cares while Milo is using it as anti-feminist agenda. I mean shit, his first piece had this written as it's headline, ?Feminist Bullies? are ?Tearing The Video Game Industry Apart.?, and this as an excerpt,

"There is a platoon of irritants in the media whose talents are vanishingly slight, but who generate column inches by the thousand for victimising innocents and manipulating their way around an over-sensitive industry. Some of them, such as Anita Sarkeesian, have no discernible higher purpose in life, except to bother innocent games developers.

These women purposefully court ? and then exploit ? boisterous, unpleasant reactions from astonished male gamers and use them to attract attention to themselves. What?s remarkable is how deeply unpleasant the skeletons lurking in their own closets often are, how completely those skeletons give the lie to their public image, and how uncritically their claims are repackaged by credulous games journalists."

The entire thing was so blatantly biased and agenda driven against feminists and feminism that I can't believe people are taking this as actual journalism and not for what it actually is, and opinion fluff piece meant o garner hits for his page.

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.

Also, this again? Why do you so desperately try to discredit Milo? I don't have to like him, his information is what counts. I read all of his articles on GamerGate. How does is discredit his information? You basically admit that you outright discredit information based on the source, no matter if it holds up to scrutiny or not, in other words you apply personal bias above reason. I have nothing to add to that. If that's your mindset, I don't see why you care one way or the other. You are welcome to come back if you want to make actual arguments instead of focusing solely on that Milo fellow. His character is not important in the slightest. His information is what counts. Do you have anything to discredit his intel? I'd love to see it if you do.

Also, realise who you are trying to cover here. The ones to loose are not the feminists (although the modern definition of feminism has not a lot in common with what the gaming press describes as such), but the media outlets who decided to throw their objectiveness into the wind. They fed us their propaganda. And just because you like their propaganda doesn't make them ethical journalists. And as such they don't deserve the power and perks that come with that position.

And why shouldn't informational sources be questioned for validity ESPECIALLY one such as Breibart which has falsified information numerous times. Not to mention that I'm not discrediting his info purely based on source, but also on the grounds that it really is shit and hardly some kind of revelation of corruption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitbart_(website)#Controversies

His supposed intel has in my eyes been very weak and lacking as signify some kind of corruption in gaming and you still haven't commented on his blatantly biased piece, "Feminist Bullies" are "Tearing The Video Game Industry Apart.". If you want my final opinion on this, GamerGate was ridiculously stupid idea that to some it MAY have been about journalistic ethics, but to a number of people both inside and outside of the gaming sphere it was nothing more than an excuse to be a misogynistic asshole and peddle right-wing anti-feministic bullshit.

Edit: I don't believe in the existence of gaming journalism no matter what ANYONE in the industry calls themselves. Reporters yeah sure, but not journalists. This piece pretty much sums most of it up.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/10/26/all-the-pretty-doritos-how-video-game-journalism-went-off-the-rails/

 

[Davroth]

And why shouldn't informational sources be questioned for validity ESPECIALLY one such as Breibart which has falsified information numerous times. Not to mention that I'm not discrediting his info purely based on source, but also on the grounds that it really is shit and hardly some kind of revelation of corruption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitbart_(website)#Controversies

His supposed intel has in my eyes been very weak and lacking as signify some kind of corruption in gaming and you still haven't commented on his blatantly biased piece, "Feminist Bullies" are "Tearing The Video Game Industry Apart.". If you want my final opinion on this, GamerGate was ridiculously stupid idea that to some it MAY have been about journalistic ethics, but to a number of people both inside and outside of the gaming sphere it was nothing more than an excuse to be a misogynistic asshole and peddle right-wing anti-feministic bullshit.

So you believe that the leaks are untruthful then? Is that what you are on about? On the basis that you don't like the political agenda of the source? May I remind you that several of the 'journalists' in question have confirmed their involvement in the list, and so far none of them have denied it? So on what logical basis are you trying to discredit the information here really?

And you know what? If you think it's signs of corruption doesn't change if it's corruption of not. And it is, by any sensible definition of the word. They were colluding. And the people you are trying to defend here are just as guilty of the things you condemn Breitbart for doing. But when Kotaku does it, it's not bad, huh? I can't say I care much for that kind of double standard.

The fun part is that the people who actually matter in this do listen. And that's all I care about. If you don't care for unbiased journalism, then that's fine. Knock yourself out. Don't expect anyone to be persuaded without actual arguments beyond an attempt at character assassination against an easy target though. You'll have to do better, I'm afraid.


Edit: Concerning Doritogate or whatever you wanna call it.. your argument is that you are desillusionized and don't believe the cause of GamerGate can actually do anything? That's not really a reason to stop fighting for unbiased press coverage.. that's just a defeatist attitude you sport there. But then that doesn't really have anything to do with GamerGate, and I'm not sure why you are interested in discrediting this movement so much. Makes no sense to me. If you believe that he situation can't be salvaged, why bother to fight for or against it?

 

[doomrider7]

And why shouldn't informational sources be questioned for validity ESPECIALLY one such as Breibart which has falsified information numerous times. Not to mention that I'm not discrediting his info purely based on source, but also on the grounds that it really is shit and hardly some kind of revelation of corruption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitbart_(website)#Controversies

His supposed intel has in my eyes been very weak and lacking as signify some kind of corruption in gaming and you still haven't commented on his blatantly biased piece, "Feminist Bullies" are "Tearing The Video Game Industry Apart.". If you want my final opinion on this, GamerGate was ridiculously stupid idea that to some it MAY have been about journalistic ethics, but to a number of people both inside and outside of the gaming sphere it was nothing more than an excuse to be a misogynistic asshole and peddle right-wing anti-feministic bullshit.

So you believe that the leaks are untruthful then? Is that what you are on about? On the basis that you don't like the political agenda of the source? May I remind you that several of the 'journalists' in question have confirmed their involvement in the list, and so far none of them have denied it? So on what logical basis are you trying to discredit the information here really?

And you know what? If you think it's signs of corruption doesn't change if it's corruption of not. And it is, by any sensible definition of the word. They were colluding. And the people you are trying to defend here are just as guilty of the things you condemn Breitbart for doing. But when Kotaku does it, it's not bad, huh? I can't say I care much for that kind of double standard.

The fun part is that the people who actually matter in this do listen. And that's all I care about. If you don't care for unbiased journalism, then that's fine. Knock yourself out. Don't expect anyone to be persuaded without actual arguments beyond an attempt at character assassination against an easy target though. You'll have to do better, I'm afraid.

Asking for unbiased journalism is like asking for water that isn't wet. There's no such thing. EVERY form of journalism has bias in it simply because it's in our human nature to be that way towards thing we like and dislike. I never said the leak wasn't truthful only that it's not the smoking gun of corruption that it was painted as or even a sign of corruption at all and I ask you how it is corruption in any way. If Kotaku wants to shutout any discussion it doesn't like for any number of reasons in this case the discussion leading to hate speech then they as the providers of the podium have that right. To my memory the editor of here asked them on their opinion on what to do about discussions on GamerGate and they though he should shut it down. He went in, he asked, and they answered. He didn't since we're here talking about this and nobody showed any hostility that I remember towards him for the decision. As for a lot of them not having similar mindsets on many things, that's just the way it is. People with similar hobbies and similar jobs are gonna have similar opinions. If you don't like that then start your OWN site and publication. A lot of people have no issue using that as the go to excuse for when they want games to be more inclusive or have something that current games are lacking in so I se no reason to not apply the same at them especially with how much cheaper it is.

 

[Davroth]

Asking for unbiased journalism is like asking for water that isn't wet. There's no such thing. EVERY form of journalism has bias in it simply because it's in our human nature to be that way towards thing we like and dislike. I never said the leak wasn't truthful only that it's not the smoking gun of corruption that it was painted as or even a sign of corruption at all and I ask you how it is corruption in any way. If Kotaku wants to shutout any discussion it doesn't like for any number of reasons in this case the discussion leading to hate speech then they as the providers of the podium have that right. To my memory the editor of here asked them on their opinion on what to do about discussions on GamerGate and they though he should shut it down. He went in, he asked, and they answered. He didn't since we're here talking about this and nobody showed any hostility that I remember towards him for the decision. As for a lot of them not having similar mindsets on many things, that's just the way it is. People with similar hobbies and similar jobs are gonna have similar opinions. If you don't like that then start your OWN site and publication. A lot of people have no issue using that as the go to excuse for when they want games to be more inclusive or have something that current games are lacking in so I se no reason to not apply the same at them especially with how much cheaper it is.

Your definition doesn't fit my definition of corruption. I'd argue my definition is closer to what the word means, but I can tell discussing this is a fruitless endeavour since we keep going in circles.

Luckily I don't have to find or make a different site. The Escapist has me covered. They showed the kind of integrity I was looking for when noone else seemed to be willing to. And they stood up against the attempts of collusion in the e-mails. I already found my home. No need to make my own site quite yet (though there are quite a lot of industries people who make just those attempts).

 

[doomrider7]

Asking for unbiased journalism is like asking for water that isn't wet. There's no such thing. EVERY form of journalism has bias in it simply because it's in our human nature to be that way towards thing we like and dislike. I never said the leak wasn't truthful only that it's not the smoking gun of corruption that it was painted as or even a sign of corruption at all and I ask you how it is corruption in any way. If Kotaku wants to shutout any discussion it doesn't like for any number of reasons in this case the discussion leading to hate speech then they as the providers of the podium have that right. To my memory the editor of here asked them on their opinion on what to do about discussions on GamerGate and they though he should shut it down. He went in, he asked, and they answered. He didn't since we're here talking about this and nobody showed any hostility that I remember towards him for the decision. As for a lot of them not having similar mindsets on many things, that's just the way it is. People with similar hobbies and similar jobs are gonna have similar opinions. If you don't like that then start your OWN site and publication. A lot of people have no issue using that as the go to excuse for when they want games to be more inclusive or have something that current games are lacking in so I se no reason to not apply the same at them especially with how much cheaper it is.

Your definition doesn't fit my definition of corruption. I'd argue my definition is closer to what the word means, but I can tell discussing this is a fruitless endeavour since we keep going in circles.

Luckily I don't have to find or make a different site. The Escapist has me covered. They showed the kind of integrity I was looking for when noone else seemed to be willing to. And they stood up against the attempts of collusion in the e-mails. I already found my home. No need to make my own site quite yet (though there are quite a lot of industries people who make just those attempts).

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 there have been other more flagrant cases that raised no arms like this has, 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.