GamerGate's Image Problem
- Thread starter entelechy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Very relevant. WHY the mob is angry is sort of important. That the mob is angry as a result of the actions of someone who removed all other options of addressing their concerns other then being a mob is very important to this discussion. Especially if trying to angry that the mob being angry is a bad thing since they are going after corrupt journalists. It is a world of difference betweenaliengmr said:
"Random angry mob harasses journalists"
and
"Consumers, angry at insults and complete refusal to address concerns, finally form a mob to pressure those who would otherwise deny, dismiss, deflect and demonize."
Tell me, why is it irrelevant why they are angry? Why is it only important that the mob is angry? And is it inherently a bad thing that they are angry, not just a concern that an angry mob can do damage.
I wrote a huge wall of text for you but, in the end. I'm just going to say...aliengmr said:
I don't blame you for not understanding what Gamergate is. It's complicated, there are many sides and many individuals many of which have their own reasons for being part in this culture war. It even goes beyond gaming and into academia where certain factions within the academic world are trying to wrest control of Wikipedia articles to spin them to their own end, using the conflict as a means to accomplish such.'
The head has been confused as to how to deal with it but in the end he will likely have to purge most of the Feminism portal as they're the ones that succesfully got rid of all opposing mods and now reign unchecked on many articles (And no, I'm a feminsit myself. These people in charge of the Feminism portal aren't Feminists. They're just powerhungry bigots using the name as a shield)
Hopefully once he's gotten rid of them we can get some neutral coverage from Wikipedia and that can be the beginning of the end of the abuse of Wikipedia.
Overall I hope that in the end, more good will come of Gamergate than bad. But as of now this war has not yet reached its high, it's going to get worse before it gets better. This conflict is increasing drastically in size to encompass more than just gaming and escalation has never meant that peace is around the corner.
I don't deny that the forum had assholes in the least. Though the assholes within were no different then the same sort you got for the average Anita, amazing atheist or thunderf00t video, so the reaction to it in this instance compared to others was extreme to say the least. Keep in mind, zoe herself DMCA'd a video, and a post that remarked on how that was bad by one of the most neutral voices you could imagine talking about it was deleted as was every comment. Seriously, if nothing else, I urge you to seek out the original totalbiskit post were he talks about his thoughts on the flagging and how that is bad, and then ask yourself if they honestly merited being deleted. That was what kicked this whole thing off from simply "the zoe post" and into "the quinnspiracy". Which does bring me into a worthwhile point here, as you can actually see the stages of escalation of things.RexMundane said:
1. The "zoe post" was just a jilted ex revealing she slept with people. Mundanematt did a video on it but most didn't notice.
2. The "quinnspiracy" started when she and friends of hers started to censor the discussion, including her file of a DMCA and the totalbiskit post being scrubbed from reddit. This led to people decrying her false DMCA and her journalist friends covering her back as unethical.
3. But "gamergate" started when the news media refused to acknowledge they did wrong in what they did and instead attacked gamers for questioning them.
My personal thought on this is that because of the unprofessionally close relationships between the gaming news media players and zoe, they used their reach to try to help keep her from being embarrassed by the reveal and didn't cover it in articles themselves in order to just protect her character. Not even going to get into the whole "Silverstring and digra" stuff, as no one knew about any connections there at the time, this seemed to be likely just friends in the industry trying to help each other through the contacts they had made. But in doing so, they revealed that they were willing to circumvent their duty as professionals and as ethical journalists in order to cover their ass or to protect their friends. This fueled the investigation of past issues with zoe in the media and everything else, revealing that the problem was far bigger then people had assumed and that it needed to be addressed. The resulting backlash against gamers, calls of misogyny, dismissal and rabid, venomous hate that resulted though changed a demand for better into the full anger we see now.
They may well have been well meaning in their endeavor, but that well meaning was a completely intentional dismissal of what their duty as a representative of gamers' desire for reported news and the ethical guidelines of journalism itself. It was a deliberate attempt to thwart free speech in the name of protecting a friend and while I can certainly understand the conflicting interest between the duty of the job and the relationship, it was that they chose the relationship that revealed they could no longer be trusted in any degree to perform the duty of being a journalist. It told everyone that if it comes down to it, they will choose personal relationships and friendships before reporting or even allowing discussion on a story. And that simply can not be tolerated in the job least we end up with, well, what we have currently with rampant incestuous ties between what should be rival competitors and a media that works in lock-step by releasing the same sort of article to push a message across 12 sites in the course of a day.
Ultimately, what makes it so damning to people like totilo, kuchera and others specifically is not even that they made the mistake, but how they addressed the complaints and concerns when it was brought up to them. Remember, as I stated earlier.
The "zoe post" was just a jilted ex revealing she slept with people.
The "quinnspiracy" started when she and friends of hers started to censor the discussion
But "gamergate" started when the news media refused to acknowledge they did wrong in what they did and instead attacked gamers for questioning them.
That third part, the fuel for gamergate itself, was born out of the media's refusal to address a mistake. If you want a good parallel, look at how totilo handled the controversy compared to the escapist's own tito. Both happened during the "quinnspiracy" stage but with vastly different outcomes.
At the start, both were being called out for coverage of Zoe in the past. Tito in this case got criticized for reporting on a story without investigating and instead for just "signal boosting". People were pissed at him too, check the old quinn thread. But he talked with people, and his higher up acheon came in and talked too and they agreed to look over the policy. And you know what? People backed off and waited. They held back actively attacking or going after the escapist because they said they were going to look into it and try to do better, and they did that for about a solid week or two. During this time is also when I believe "gamergate" became a thing. But the escapist delivered and people saw they were willing to admit mistakes and were, as you put it, capable of improvement. And while people may not agree with tito's views on trying to help by "signal boosting", they did see he was willing to work with his audience in order to understand concerns and that was enough for people to be generally content about it. Go escapist.
In the mean time, totilo doubled down and sided with journalists that continued to slander and shame. And still does side with them it seems. We have seen no sign of remorse or admittance of wrongdoing and at this point, few would believe they are sincere if they started to, since the pressure has been on so long and since many feel that gamergate is winning simply by virtue of lasting this long and affecting the bottom line of the companies by contacting advertisers. And no one believes you suddenly gain integrity when you are forced to apologize.
So if you want to know why I and many others don't feel they are capable of improvement, it is because they have shown they don't want to be and would rather defame, dismiss, deflect and demonize instead. and because of their own actions in cutting off avenues of discussion, the last resort is to be an angry mob.
I've seen the TB post about it, and yes the video seemed fairly even handed about it, I seem to recall it being against harassment while also decrying false DMCA claims which, based on what little I know about this, seems to have been what happened. I've seen too the comment graveyard in that reddit post. So again, presuming the mods were overreacting (and I don't necessarily buy that they were, we don't know what the comments were, and I've seen enough threads go that way in real time to see how, in a case like this, as legit removals might have been going on, more and more comments become about "why is everyone being banned?" and the abusives become more agitated, but I digress) but presuming they were overreacting, is this because they made a series of mistake or because they're evil people who must be vanquished? Was there a discussion to be had? Arguably, but everything went directly to shit and people on both sides got vicious and defensive.runic knight said:
All this talk about journalistic integrity is valid and important. But like I say I keep looking in the mega and not seeing that much discussion about it all that much beyond a pithy copypasta or link to a generic list of ethical guidelines, no further discussion about how, for instance, since much of gaming "news" constitutes posting a press release or gameplay trailer, you can't really get "two sources minumum" for it, or how enthusiast press might, as a reaction to market forces alone, be in a position of having to operate differently than conventional journalism, etc. I've seen some of the new Gaming News sites to have sprung out of this as well, and many aren't adhering to much of an ethical standard either (GamerHeadlines for instance exposed itself as a fucking joke with how they handled Milo's "Anita never called the SFPD" bullshit stunt). As far as that "GG held off while they reviewed their ethics policies," I'm sorry, that's not what it looked like at the time, and considering the rage still being levied at some of escapist's more visible personalities, still doesn't. Instead I look in the thread (always regretfully) and see petty infighting, constant ragging on SJWs, just more and more angry bullshit. I don't see people working to improve the situation, I see them trying to make things worse for the crime of not being ideal.
And all this comes back to my point. Why is it so impossible to see the people and this system as flawed and capable of improvement? Why aren't we talking about possibilities of better behavior? Why are we only talking about punishing the wicked? If nothing else... look, I'm sorry, but if you think y'all can just shout loud enough to make Totilo lose his job over something that wasn't illegal? I don't think that's going to turn out well for you. And on the off chance it does, who the hell do you think they're going to appoint if not another flawed human?
And... here I'm probably going to have to shut myself out of the discussion for a while. I'm glad for it to have been broadly civil during this portion of it, but I don't think we're going to see eye-to-eye on anything at this point, not least of all because we seem to be arguing whether an angry mob can possibly be a productive source for good, and given my awareness of human history and how infrequently that pans out, I don't even know how to have that debate. So for my own sake I'm blocking the forums from myself for a while, obsessing over this has just robbed me of time I could be better spending actually enjoying my damn day and working in Construct2.
final megathread update for a while: I'm seeing Raph Koster of all people catching shit now for walking into r/KotakuInAction and just trying to hold a reasonable discussion, a Topsy graph that I think is meant to prove that there are more people in #Gamergate than there are Obama voters, and the Quinn-Apology thread has gotten sufficiently contentious that a "Hey, lets apologize to Jack Thompson too!" letter has been started by the same guy who wanted to shit in Devin Faraci's skull [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.861618-Poll-A-public-apology-to-Jack-Thompson#21443445]. This is what anger does. This is what seems reasonable when you're worked into this kind of lather. This is insanity.
"Everybody, y'all stay sane." Thus had spoken RexMundane.
Hey Runic, nice to see you're still around.runic knight said:
This is a question that aliengmr has been repeating time and time again on the forums. Last time, I answered it by giving the example of how Greg Tito and Alexander Macris engaged with the Megathread and how that put any criticism (or anger) #GGers had towards TheEscapistMagazine website to rest. Since he has yet to answer, I've given up on even believing that the guy will respond to anything other than what feeds into his confirmation bias.
You saw the post, agree it was moderate and civil, yet you still felt that the possible bad comments(that you don't have any evidence of outside of supposition to justify the action taken I might reiterate) was enough to warrant full removal of all posts in that thread, including what you already defined as a moderate and civil starting post? "Overreaction" seems an understatement at that point, unless you'd like to argue that reddit has a history of such mass deletion of entire monolith threads by well respected posters promoting civility and decrying censorship.RexMundane said:
As I said before, it is not that they were "Evil", just they choose friendships/relationships they made over the duty of their positions. They abused the authority that was invested in them.
Hard to have a talk about ethics in journalism when the people who actually have to do the leg work of it refuse to sit at the table. Though in all honesty, look back over the mega threads around the tito and acheon posts and you will see people engaging with them about ethical suggestions. at this point it is obvious people want improvements and less hate thrown at them as excuse to avoid facing up to the fact they screwed up. Why go into deeper detail then that when the ones who screwed up refuse to even address that they did?
You mentioned an item from a list that was abandoned over a week ago as not a very well thought-out idea. That "two sources minimum" was more a reference to an existing model within the journalistic world and was, as sort of happens in such threads, suggested and discussed by individual, rather then taken and accepted instantly by the entire thread. Hell, the lack of embracing the lists themselves in the thread show that no, we aren't a uniform hivemind so it makes your references to actions of individuals as representative of the whole as a bit unfair. Such as your reference to the rage directed at 2 escapist personalities that have spoken on the subject. Moviebob, who has done as much active hate and shaming as the major press and Jim, who's entire shtick is based on backing the consumers who has ducked the issue entirely. Not everyone in gamergate hates them, but because some are vocal in the thread about it, regardless of their justifications, you keep trying to present it as though evidence to people not reacting to the escapist fairly. Did you miss where the big thread was the target of a DDoS the other day by chance? Would not by your logic, that action of individuals be damning to the entirety of anti-gamergate if we were going to use that logic?
People do see the system is flawed and capable of improvement. The problem is that people are not the system and thus sometimes it requires the removal of trouble makers and corrupted individuals in order to fix the system. People repeatedly say that if this was any other field those journalists implicated would already be fired and the truth of that statement has been ignored time and again by people trying to rebut the gamergate stances. Sleeping with a news source, regardless if it resulted in a positive story, would still result in the appearance of impropriety and conflict of interest and would have very likely resulted in being fired wholesale, but even assuming it didn't, the follow up actions of contacting friends and associates in order to stifles and censor all mention of it being blown up like it has here surely would have. acheon and tito showed that some journalists were capable of recognizing a mistake and addressing it. totilo and kuchera and their like have shown they are unwilling. And yes, people CAN shout loud enough to cost people jobs, or did you forget "donglegate" where, ironically enough, 2 men lost their jobs for making a joke about dongles that a woman in front of them, who wasn't the target or participant of the joke, heard the remark and ran to twitter to protest their humor.
As for "appointing another flawed human", never said people can't be flawed, please don't misunderstand. Hell acheon and tito are flawed individual and gamergate made a thread thanking them for how they acted in response to requests to censor the discussion. But the other journalists have to be willing to learn and improve when they do make mistakes if they want to retain their positions. That is the problem with the current crop we are protesting. Why do you keep overlooking that when I said that over a half dozen times now?
It isn't the initial mistake that caused gamergate, it was the stalwart refusal to address it and instead the dismissing, deflecting, demonizing bullshit they do to avoid it.
Hey.R0guy said:
I really don't get how so many people seem to be unable to separate that gamergate wants the corruption out, not the people and it is just that the people are corrupt and refuse to address it or improve themselves that is the problem. Greg Tito is a prime example of how to react to this situation right. He kept the discussion going even if he disagreed, he reached out and talked with people and asked about their concerns, and he understood that the audience wanted improvements, which then happened. No censorship, no deflecting complaints as "misogynistic", no saying all gamers are dead to dismiss them as voices, no demonizing them as all harassers or evil perpetrators, just treated the group like the diverse bunch of individuals they were and addressed the concerns and apologized for any professional wrongdoing such as lack of due diligence about the wizardchan story.
Compare that to the outright abusive behavior we get from kotaku or polygon where gamers are demonized, conversations heavily censored, all responsibility denied massively and the behavior and attitude that fuels the fires is only encouraged.
And yet people still feel that it is bad that gamergate is a mob of angry people? As if we had any other option at this point outside of outrage?
Yep, but I'd like to add to that because it's important to note:runic knight said:
Greg Tito did all this, and successfully defused the situation, without apologising or comprimising his beliefs/ideals. Nor did he have to write an article entitled "Mysoginists/harassers are alive and they're the audience we want", publicly slander some women in particular or women in general, or even just claim that he's become pro-#GG. Because that seems to be where all the concerns and fears from Anti-#GG are coming from. Or also the fear of somehow being seen as validating Harrassement and Death threats by giving an inch to #GG, of which many journos and people have been guilty of attempting to turn this issue into, through Scapegoating.
I believe he did apologies for the lack of due diligence in investigating the story before pushing it through. Which, since that was the journalistic side of the reason people were upset, was enough to defuse things. I think the actual statement was something to the effect of "I wont apologize for what I did, I think it was the right thing to do to signal boost the story, but I will apologize for not making sure the story was up to standards before running it and for any negative repercussions that caused". Thus while some did and probably still do think that the ideals he has influenced his decisions, they aren't saying he is irredeemable because he still realized that the duty of the job requires a certain degree of ethical and professional behavior and he realized his actions were in er to that and sought to improve. In spite of how often I see it said otherwise, gamergaters generally aren't made at the political leanings various journalists have but rather the tactics and behaviors they do in the name of those ideals.R0guy said:
Good post.Nikolaz72 said:
And I am sorry for mocking and belittling GG. I'll direct this to everyone.
I see gender issues, not only in this industry, but pretty much the world. They exist. I'm not going to be hostile about it or jump down everyone's throats with a string of insults. Misogyny isn't the right word to describe whats been going on. I've said this previously. It exists, but I'm not sure if it all can be interpreted in that way. It more akin to ignorance and naivete. Basically a lot of gamers, mostly male, genuinely don't see an issue but don't hate or mistrust women. It's confusing, and to then be attacked for this causes anger. I was there once. I didn't see any issues and had no problem placing all the onus on women for their own safety, because that make sense. But it never occurred to me to say that men should grow up and stop acting like assholes. I am not arguing this point, just illustrating my point of view. I've come to understand that trying to view many situations through my personal "lens" distorted much of how I viewed those situations. I started seeing strange things, like pretty heavy reactions to women having opinions. Being the naive fool I responded "Grow the fuck up!". You can imagine the response. Apearently the internet (as I knew it) frowned on such a display. This was being an SJW, I guess.
So shit starts happening. I see a lot of awful things. The Zoe Post really angered me. Posting that shit was dangerous. But more than that, it wasn't the internet's business. This is the prequel.
So GG starts and it already intense and has so much shit going on that its hard to keep track. Shit-slinging back and forth, a mess. But I'm also seeing a lot of "there's no gender issues here" stop attacking my games. I am also seeing the journalism stuff too, I agree its there, but the other stuff keeps getting in the mix. Ultimaetly this is the problem for me.
Where on one hand we have the ethics and transparency issues an the other is the "click-bait" stuff. Click-bait is a funny concept. I mean is click-bait still click-bait if you don't click it? This is the side that rages against the articles or reviews that are "biased". My response to that is:
1. They are just opinions that can be ignored, everyone has them.
2. They have no power in and of themselves. AAA market doesn't respond to one article, but the market. Sex sells, when hasn't it?
3. Ultimately criticism is better than no criticism. Agree - Disagree - Ignore. If you seek to validate that criticism by all means keep responding to it. That's not me saying "If you disagree you hate women", nope. That's me saying you eventually become free publicity. Hence how click-bait works.
(Edit: As far as metacritic bombing, that's an industry issue that really shouldn't exist.)
This is what keeps me away from GG mostly. Its this element to it. Not saying its everyone but its part of it. There was also the labeling that really got on my nerves. And then there's that scum Milo.
I'm not ignoring the good intentions and haven't been but being the mess that it is, its hard. If I had to pick the one issue I have with gg, it would be the element that wants to ignore the gender issues. I am not saying we have to force a mandate on games in fact I'm against that, but I am just not cool sweeping things under the rug. This stuff is real and we need to handle it like adults. I'm not saying everyone is like this but its there and I would really feel guilty if I didn't, at the very least, say "I see it". I can't do anything else. Which is totally pathetic.
Runic
Again, sorry for my tone, I was out of line. My post about the angry mob was meant to illustrate that debating over why the mob is angry is less important that what you are going to do about it. Journos aren't going to engage you and spending an eternity trying explain it is a waste. Fix it. You understand why the anger, stop convincing me and convince everyone else. I'm a lost cause.
Rex is spot on about the anger, that is what's happening. We can go over every single piece of evidence but its all confusing the issue. The back and forths are getting no one anywhere at all. I was frustrated because that's all it was. Yes facts are important, but too many are a burden especially if you have to constantly debate them.
Drop the tag, focus and peruse a goal. It can be done. In my opinion there is enough unresolved feeling for something to happen. I know, I know, But its all I have left now. Fixing GG or explaining it better is a waste IMO. I bid you all good luck, but I'm spent.
Dropping the tag will loose us far more than it'll gain. Any new tag taken on by us will be latched onto by the same people, both for and against Gamergate as before. It wont do anything but reduce momentum and as supporters of Gamergate that is the last thing we want.aliengmr said:
As for ignoring articles... Yes, the articles represent the opinions of the journalists, however- once the articles begin getting presented as facts, as in fact: gamers are misogynistic. There is cause for concern. And that's exactly what is happening (Before and still is until the guy who promised to fix it, fixes it)
If I had a choice I reckon I'd go- Nevermind, you're bowing out of the debate and that's fine. Hope you took something away from it all.
If you want my honest opinion about that, I'll say that I'm not sure. In a lot of ways megathread was a good idea but in others I'm not sure. I don't think it did many favors for GG to be honest. I've said before that I'm unsure about that.R0guy said:Hey Runic, nice to see you're still around.runic knight said:
This is a question that aliengmr has been repeating time and time again on the forums. Last time, I answered it by giving the example of how Greg Tito and Alexander Macris engaged with the Megathread and how that put any criticism (or anger) #GGers had towards TheEscapistMagazine website to rest. Since he has yet to answer, I've given up on even believing that the guy will respond to anything other than what feeds into his confirmation bias.
It could work, sure. Or it could devolve in to a giant circular argument.
I concede, fair point.
I'm just ending the text wall BS, I'm tired of circular arguments in general.Nikolaz72 said:
I don't think GG has much momentum left, personally. I understand what you are getting at though.
More I think about it the more I think R0guy has the better idea. "opening the floodgates" (assuming I got the right idea) More than one megathread may help.
I think the "articles" situation was a bad move overall. But you can't stop people from having opinions. Furthermore, despite the harshness and the reaction (which I sympathize with) It doesn't mean there wasn't an issue. And like I said there is an issue. Not all gamers.
Fair enough, although:aliengmr said:
1) The megathread wasn't "a good idea", it's just one of many #GG threads that popped up all over the net in a panic during the "Great Forum Culling", like the 30.000 comment deletion of TotalBiscuits reddit when he mentioned how bad youtube copyright take-downs are if the allegations are true, and to be weary of 4CHAN since it's a "Blunderbuss of crap". The mods asked us to keep all relevant conversation in one singular thread and anything loosely attached was merged to it, even anti #GG threads, which created alot of confusion and shouting.
Since then, it's become a hang out place of it's own. I'm sure you've noticed how the thread reads more like a chatroom than an actual forum thread at times, with 10 different conversations happening at once.
2) About your previous post about gender and hashtags, what do you think of #NotyourShield? Is this more of what you would like to see? Any criticism or suggestions are welcome.
1. Yes I agree that the "censorship" (meaning everything that happened) was in hindsight not a very good. I personally see why it was happening and don't think it was nefarious. I don't think they were hiding but reacted to a situation they feel passionate about in the wrong way.R0guy said:
That said, I'll concede again that it was a bad idea overall.
As for megathread, I do think it was a good idea for the overall situation, but may or may not have been for GG. I think it produced an echo chamber of sorts which given the paranoia and anger derailed the movement. That isn't to say its still harmful. I still think it could mobilize people to certain goals if goals.
2. The gender issue, this is tough. http://comicsalliance.com/sexual-harassment-women-comics-games-fear-way-of-life/
I think this piece illustrates what I as a man could never begin to accurately describe. Race is another issue that I am aware of, but for the purposes of my own sanity I'm focusing on gender. I'm not being a crazy activist about it or trying to shame anyone. Its the subtlies of it that I hope people will internalize and think about personally. I see now that throwing it in peoples faces may not have been the answer. I do hope you read that, it likely won't be unfamiliar as its really a common theme. Again, I'm not generalizing.
That being said, #notyourshield sent a mixed message to many folks. It was not too unlike the "articles" in so much as it produced a "combative" reaction to it. That's not to say its intentions were bad just that the reactions are mixed about it.
I wouldn't even begin to know how to deal with the gender issue. See, gamers are very opinionated and confrontational about everything, there are reasons for it, understandable ones. This makes approaching something like gender so hard. But its NOT just gamers, its all over. This is why I think being in people's faces about it may not be the best option. Like I said I can't begin to understand it fully, best I or anyone else can do is recognize it. Also recognize it doesn't mean that anyone is bad for not seeing this sort of thing.
Overall, my personal opinion is I'd prefer to see gamergate focus on the journalism side of things maybe even take aim at the combative nature of gamers.
Also, for the record I'll agree that dropping the tag is not a great idea but adding one might be. Megethread seemed to be doing something along those lines. Just make sure its something easy to express on twitter.
#GamerGate is so huge at this point, that a spin-off movement (#NotYourShield) went over 120,000 members. No one is going to argue that even so much as 1% of those people were involved in the original nastiness, nor did they get on board to endorse it.
In case you don't want to bother with the math, 1% of #NotYourShield, alone, would be over 1200. Is anyone claiming that, at the start of this, you could count 1200 people who were doing anything unacceptable to any other hotly-debated forum on the Internet?
Anyone who tars with such a massive brush is arguing an extremist position... regardless of the movement being slandered.
In point of fact, if this were being argued before a court in the US, it would be thrown out instantly --- because "sins of the father" is a doctrine expressly outlawed by the United States Constitution.
In case you don't want to bother with the math, 1% of #NotYourShield, alone, would be over 1200. Is anyone claiming that, at the start of this, you could count 1200 people who were doing anything unacceptable to any other hotly-debated forum on the Internet?
Anyone who tars with such a massive brush is arguing an extremist position... regardless of the movement being slandered.
In point of fact, if this were being argued before a court in the US, it would be thrown out instantly --- because "sins of the father" is a doctrine expressly outlawed by the United States Constitution.
Hi, let me introduce myself.
I discovered The Escapist forums because of the Gamer Gate issue, and have read up on it extensively.
I think both sides of the issue have made some good points, but for me, the key issue is the following - What's best for the future of video gaming, and the entertainment world in general? This key issue is ultimately what prompted me to join this forum, and put forward my own ideas on it.
As general principles, I support the following:
1. People who are journalists for Entertainment Industry X should ideally be at least cordial with fans of that Entertainment Industry. It's not good for an entertainment industry's journalists and the same entertainment industry's fans to hate each other.
2. Healthy entertainment industries are welcoming and inclusive. They should also seem fun and inviting.
3. The primary purpose of entertainment is to be entertaining. It's nice if entertainment can also contain positive pro-social ideas and/or be thought-provoking, but the primary measure of entertainment should be how much fun people get out of it. That should definitely be reflected in entertainment reviews.
4. There should be a clear wall of separation between reporter and report subject. Perfect objectivity may not be possible, but that doesn't mean that objectivity shouldn't be aimed for in news reports.
5. You catch more bees with honey than you do with vinegar.
With the above being said, I'm clearly sympathetic to much of what Gamer Gate supporters hope to achieve, but your current tactics could probably use some work.
To be fair, many (probably most) Gamer Gate supporters have been put in a tough position. The movement is inextricably tied to incidents and comments that seem abusive, harassing, and anti-woman to many people. I'm certainly well-aware that the GG movement has loads of supporters that aren't abusing, harassing, or anti-woman. But the anti-woman perception is out there, and that perception is something that GG supporters should probably strive to combat.
With that in mind, I think you should speak to *why* Gaming Journalism matters to you. It might be helpful to explain what impact it would have on video games, and why you think it will have that impact. Instead of focusing strictly on what you hate, speak up for what you love (in gaming) and what you want to defend.
I get the impression that for many GG supporters, this is about stopping the politization of video games. Which, I think, is something that most gamers would agree with.
There are a few specific ideas I'd like to share.
1. Start a #GamesR4Fun hash-tag on Twitter. Encourage GG supporters to talk about which games they found fun, and would encourage other gamers to try on that basis. Use your GG platform for something clearly positive - promoting games that you love because you find them fun, which also effectively combats some of the attitudes you're against.
2. Encourage GG supporters on Twitter to talk about "Their 10 favorite female characters in video games". It would be a 10 tweet list, including a short reason for each character mentioned. This could easily have the bonus effect of causing the GG hashtag itself to start trending more, for obvious reasons. It could also help make it clear that many GG supporters are supportive of female video game characters.
3. Encourage GG supporters on Twitter to talk about their favorite women video game developers.
4. Start a cheeky #NotDead series attached to GG on Twitter. GG supporters would take two selfies and post them up on twitter. One selfie would be of them taking their own pulse. The other selfie would be the person giving a big, cheesy grin and thumbs up, making it clear that this person is still alive! "Phew, I'm glad I'm not dead!" and "Rumors of my demise were greatly exaggerated" could be added on afterwards. Have some fun with this, and it'll probably make you seem more good-humored and likeable to neutral observers or even people on the other side.
I hope these ideas may prove helpful.
I discovered The Escapist forums because of the Gamer Gate issue, and have read up on it extensively.
I think both sides of the issue have made some good points, but for me, the key issue is the following - What's best for the future of video gaming, and the entertainment world in general? This key issue is ultimately what prompted me to join this forum, and put forward my own ideas on it.
As general principles, I support the following:
1. People who are journalists for Entertainment Industry X should ideally be at least cordial with fans of that Entertainment Industry. It's not good for an entertainment industry's journalists and the same entertainment industry's fans to hate each other.
2. Healthy entertainment industries are welcoming and inclusive. They should also seem fun and inviting.
3. The primary purpose of entertainment is to be entertaining. It's nice if entertainment can also contain positive pro-social ideas and/or be thought-provoking, but the primary measure of entertainment should be how much fun people get out of it. That should definitely be reflected in entertainment reviews.
4. There should be a clear wall of separation between reporter and report subject. Perfect objectivity may not be possible, but that doesn't mean that objectivity shouldn't be aimed for in news reports.
5. You catch more bees with honey than you do with vinegar.
With the above being said, I'm clearly sympathetic to much of what Gamer Gate supporters hope to achieve, but your current tactics could probably use some work.
To be fair, many (probably most) Gamer Gate supporters have been put in a tough position. The movement is inextricably tied to incidents and comments that seem abusive, harassing, and anti-woman to many people. I'm certainly well-aware that the GG movement has loads of supporters that aren't abusing, harassing, or anti-woman. But the anti-woman perception is out there, and that perception is something that GG supporters should probably strive to combat.
With that in mind, I think you should speak to *why* Gaming Journalism matters to you. It might be helpful to explain what impact it would have on video games, and why you think it will have that impact. Instead of focusing strictly on what you hate, speak up for what you love (in gaming) and what you want to defend.
I get the impression that for many GG supporters, this is about stopping the politization of video games. Which, I think, is something that most gamers would agree with.
There are a few specific ideas I'd like to share.
1. Start a #GamesR4Fun hash-tag on Twitter. Encourage GG supporters to talk about which games they found fun, and would encourage other gamers to try on that basis. Use your GG platform for something clearly positive - promoting games that you love because you find them fun, which also effectively combats some of the attitudes you're against.
2. Encourage GG supporters on Twitter to talk about "Their 10 favorite female characters in video games". It would be a 10 tweet list, including a short reason for each character mentioned. This could easily have the bonus effect of causing the GG hashtag itself to start trending more, for obvious reasons. It could also help make it clear that many GG supporters are supportive of female video game characters.
3. Encourage GG supporters on Twitter to talk about their favorite women video game developers.
4. Start a cheeky #NotDead series attached to GG on Twitter. GG supporters would take two selfies and post them up on twitter. One selfie would be of them taking their own pulse. The other selfie would be the person giving a big, cheesy grin and thumbs up, making it clear that this person is still alive! "Phew, I'm glad I'm not dead!" and "Rumors of my demise were greatly exaggerated" could be added on afterwards. Have some fun with this, and it'll probably make you seem more good-humored and likeable to neutral observers or even people on the other side.
I hope these ideas may prove helpful.
The theory is a sound one, but in practice, the negativity that comes with being in the spotlight can make one jaded. That's not to say journalists should not be cordial, but the negativity feeds on itself.Shadowalker said:
And if the subject matter effects the fun factor what then? And why should a review withhold certain opinions? I mean you can, and should, disregard the review and go elsewhere. And as for Metacritic, that is a development and publishing issue that I fully support being addressed.
But this is the problem, define "separation"? Its really hard to define since friendships can produce access, which can lead to more depth in reporting. Also trying to define the boundary in which bias may or may not occur is hard to do.
And who is to say one cannot be critical of a friend's work? Personally I think unbiased critique is more important than friendship to an artist. The worst thing for an artist is telling them what they want to hear, as they may be unable to see the differences between good and bad critique. In art critique is everything, its as important as the piece itself.
As for objectivity, that's very tough to do as reviews are viewed for their subjectivity.
That really depends on what you mean. That stance alone is a political view to begin with. Its asking that an industry of and based almost entirely on opinions to censor their opinions.
I would say most gamers are for not censoring games. Unfortunately criticism is seen as censorship. People getting upset over other's opinions about AC Unity not having a female character in the game and that being proof of what must stopped. Never mind the ridiculous excuse for it. The problem is it did nothing, Why? Ubisoft has already looked at all its data and has shown this will sell. They might alter their stance if the bottom line was going to be effected, which would require the consumers "revolting". Is it okay if the consumers overwhelmingly want something? I think so.
Censoring opinions will kill an industry already steeped in stagnation. How is ending political views you don't agree with in games or opinions not censorship? There is the option to not to click the "click-bait".
I would suggest transparency here. If a journalist does have ties to a developer or a publisher and they are either unable or unwilling to recuse themselves from the subject, then it's as simple as making your relationship publicly known. "I have such high hopes for this developer's game that I personally put my own money behind it, but that it no way means that it is perfect. Here are a few places where I hope that they improve going forward." Just for example. There are a myriad of ways that a journalist can address this particular ethical minefield directly and honestly, without obfuscating it in any way.
Yes, but getting some critical or negative attention from *some* of the fans in the entertainment industry you're covering doesn't mean it's acceptable to bash *all* of them in reply to that. Attacking "gamers" in general is like attacking "sports enthusiasts" in general. If 10 different sports journalists writing for a variety of pro sports magazines all wrote "sports enthusiasts are dead", what do you think the response would be from sports enthusiasts?aliengmr said:
I never said it should. I implied that the *primary* focus should be on entertainment value. In the case of video game reviewers, that would mean focusing on how enjoyable the game mechanics and controls made the game to play, how much the visuals and sounds contributed to the enjoyment of the game, and (where applicable) how effective the game's narrative and characters were in engaging/entertaining the reviewer. If there were certain elements of the game that were offensive, or even just problematic, to the reviewer, then sure, mention it. Maybe take a point or 2 off the game when you rate it. But harshly bashing an otherwise well-made game just because a particular element or two offended you does not make for a good video game review, in my opinion.
MailOrderClone's reply here was pretty good, I felt. So I concur with his thoughts.
Well let me clarify then. I don't consider "politization" to be briefly mentioning how your political viewpoints impacts on your experience with a particular game. What I do consider "politization" is putting those political viewpoints ahead of *everything* else (i.e. quality of the game mechanics, quality of the art design, quality of the BGM and sound effects, etc...) when evaluating a game.
Ideally, a video game reviewer should be trying to be as helpful as possible to people considering buying the game. And that means exploring every major element of the game, and focusing mostly on things that all (or at least most) gamers care about, like game mechanics, visual quality, audio quality, etc... If something offends the reviewer, then by all means, mention it, because the reviewer probably isn't the only person that would be put off by that. But by the same token, many other people may not care about that particular element, and as consumers, it's up to them whether or not they care about whatever it is that offends a reviewer.
The recent Tropica 5 review that has many GG supporters upset is a clear example of this. The reviewer felt bad playing the game because of the role the game has you play. It's fine if that gets a mention, but the reviewer ought to remember that loads of video game players are comfortable playing as "the bad guy" in video games. So just because a game seemingly makes you do that isn't a good enough reason, in my view at least, to come down harshly on a game.