How do we realistically stop harassment online?

[JimB]

Sorry. There was several layers of quotes and I must have made a mistake on where I trimmed it.

Don't worry about it; we've all been there. I just didn't want people thinking I'm the kind of person who hyphenates "overly defensive." My sterling reputation might never recover from such a blow!

 

[DrOswald]

Well, I made this point before, and possibly not as well as I should have. For long term change, it really does come down to peer pressure.

Here's the thing - consider for a moment why people don't act in the real world like they do online. If you're at a party and you get annoyed and declare you're going to rape the person you don't like, under most circumstances it is going to get very uncomfortable for you very quickly. That's because our standards of behaviour when we're dealing directly with other human beings are against such things, and doing these things have consequences. People might stare at you, you can lose friends, the police could get involved, etc.

Any community has these standards, and they exist by the collective will of the community. So, if somebody posts an abusive message in a community where this is against the standards of the community, there are consequences - the post could be deleted, the account could be banned, and if it's something criminal, the police could get involved. So, members of the community are less likely to do the things against the standards of the community.

This is peer pressure in action. I suppose you could also call it a form of peer-to-peer social contract, if you want. And it works.

So, if an entire forum community, for example, decides that it doesn't like a kind of behaviour, and enough people bring the matter up with the mods or admins, change happens. Posts that were previously not censured become censured. Those who were behaving against the new standards either leave or fall into line. There will still be some abuse, but it will be greatly reduced, harder to deal with, and much easier for the group to handle it when it does happen.

This doesn't involve taking away rights (believe me, taking away rights is a BAD idea). It involves the community coming together and deciding what it will and will not tolerate.

One of the ways of exerting this sort of pressure is just standing up and being counted. I signed the open letter against harassment - I stood up and was counted. And while that may not be as powerful as an entire community deciding that it won't put up with abusive posts and starting to enforce it, it's still a powerful message because of all the signatures.

As well, if a crime is committed, it should be treated as such. That's just common sense, but the reason law enforcement exists is to protect people from crimes (and yes, I know the irony of that statement considering Ferguson and the ongoing militarization of American police, but please bear with me). In #GamerGate, the people behind it committed a number of crimes to pull it off. If they are held to account and have to pay their debt to society for those crimes, those who follow them will have examples of real-world consequences, and be less likely to carry such actions out.

You're never going to be able to get rid of harassment. But, you can combat it, and nip it in the bud when it starts. None of this requires gross violations of privacy or the taking away of anybody's rights. It just takes people being willing to stand up, be counted, and push for a better community.

The problem is that most harassment does not happen in online communities. People are assholes there to be sure, but mostly they stick to their own corner of the internet and ***** to each other. The actual harassment usually occurs through communication tools like twitter or email, tools that have no community attached to them. You cannot stop this sort of harassment with peer pressure - there are no peers to put on the pressure. This is compounded by the fact that these communication tools offer near perfect anonymity. There is absolutely no possible way to bring any sort of pressure to these individuals. They can burn their internet identity forever and generate a new one with a few clicks of a button.

The idea that an online petition that says "harassing is bad, please stop" will have any positive effect seems, frankly, laughable and horribly naive to me. Though I admit it is better than the rabid outrage that we normally get, which I would bet real money only encourages harassment. Maybe if we can keep ourselves levelheaded for long enough the trolls and harassers will stop bothering us out of sheer boredom.

 

[Robert B. Marks]

DrOswald: I understand where you're coming from, but I have to disagree. Email and Twitter do have terms of service. Abuse can be reported, and accounts can be shut down. I remember reading that Twitter is right now in the process of tightening that stuff up, but the basic mechanisms to shut down abuse are there.

And, as far as a petition goes, public opinion does matter. People have forced dramatic changes to policy just by standing up and being counted. People just need to actually do it.

 

[Sticky]

Sticky: First, I posted two links, the second of which was to the full chat log. Second, I think this is the right thread, seeing as what happened to Quinn was a harassment campaign, and you're the one who brought Sarkeesian and conspiracy theories into the discussion. And, while you keep saying that all we have is Zoe Quinn's word, we also have the chat logs, and a post on 4chan telling everybody that they goofed this time, and to try again next year.

Now, I want to point something out about this particular case of harassment - this is very likely a special case. We now know that it was orchestrated, and that the reason it worked is that certain sections of our community has a talent for doing an impression of a swarm of angry hornets against a perceived threat.

Well, now the word is out. Something this big takes a while to process (it took about three days for it to sink in on my side), but people are realizing that they were played, and the community as a whole was fractured on purpose so that it would silence those the #GamerGaters (for lack of a better word) wanted silenced.

How long do you think it will be before the people behind #GamerGate find themselves on the receiving end of the very anger and rage they tapped into to make it all work, now that we know that they effectively launched an operation against our entire community? What do you think will happen to the people who helped them, and ran interference for them in forums and the like?

Food for thought, don't you think?

Again, there are no facts to back up any of these claims, zero, none. We've entered movie-plot territory of how hyperbolic the entire situation has spun into when it really just started with a few guys in a chat room talking about a hash tag.

The ONLY source any of these claims you have made is Zoe Quinn, without her they're just a bunch of IRC quotes taken out of context. And again, we can't trust her words at face value because she has one of the biggest stakes in all of this. Plus she's already done underhanded tactics to her opponents (Fine Young Capitalists, anyone?) to try and bully and distort the issue at hand, so you're throwing out the opinion of an entire group of people just so you can support the equally baseless opinions of someone else. To make a historical analogy, asking Zoe Quinn to make a report on #gamergate is like asking Pravda to write an informational piece on NATO [http://english.pravda.ru/world/europe/10-09-2014/128496-nato_chaos-0/].

And these assumptions are also pretty alarmist; especially when you go as far as to claim that the '#Gamergaters' have somehow launched an operation against the public internet at large including this forum. Don't you think?

Stand back and ask yourself this question: Is it true that a small group of people that equal maybe a dozen in size is somehow posting all over the internet at once, or is it an issue that has seriously enraged people enough to respond? Considering the largest thread on The Escapist right now is a thread dedicated to gamergate, I find it really hard to believe that it's somehow the work of a few people. Reading the chat logs alone told me that it was just a chat room, of which many more just like it exist.

Let's look at this another way: The number one rule when it comes to shady operations, especially involving IRC, is "Only let people in you know". But we know #burgersandfries is a channel that has an open door policy. Anyone can go in and just start talking about anything until they leave or get banned. If Zoe is trying to spin #burgersandfries as a giant conspiracy against her. She shouldn't have labeled a channel that has an open-door policy this way where 'infiltrating' it is as simple as typing /join #burgersandfries while connected to the publicly available IRC server, something you could go do right now if you wanted. Because that very fact alone undermines every claim she's leveled against the chat as being a secret conspiracy (must be a very open secret!). This wouldn't be the first time she's leveled baseless claims against online communities if we look back at the Wizardchan fiasco. So we can safely assume that she's not a good source of information and that more investigation would be required to verify any of what you wrote.

How about this: If you believe Zoe Quinn is 100% truthful and it's a humongous conspiracy against her and against online communities in general, and that channel is the focal point. Then you should do some investigative journalism yourself. Greg Tito can't be the only unbiased journalist doing this, you should join in too. Just go to irc.rizon.net with an IRC client and type /join #burgersandfries. Take some notes on what they're talking about and who the ringleaders are, and report back to The Escapist with an exposé. People would praise you for doing this, for finally uncovering the gamergate conspiracy. You're a trained historian, so I'm sure you're well aware of how to document factual information in a clear and concise manner. People would be extremely happy that you finally got to the bottom of this yourself instead of having to go through a middle man. I would be the first person to apologize and admit you were right if you just went and did the leg work.

But, if the only reply you have to this is more opinion, I have to agree to disagree and step out of the argument because this discussion has long since left the original rails and has trailed far off into hypothetical territory. Which is a territory that neither of us should argue in because it's neither based in the facts of the matter and only pits our opinions against each other. Which is exactly the wrong way to discuss this and I think we've done the argument a disservice by going here.

And again, let's take this to the proper thread because this isn't about Zoe Quinn or Gamergate here as it is subject material that happens to be tangentially related.

 

[Sticky]

Here Comes Tomorrow: "By reacting to it, you give the people harrassing you power."

It really depends on how you react. One thing to think about is who is controlling the conversation - often this is just a matter of who is reacting to whom. Sometimes, if somebody's just emailing you and calling you names, the best thing to do is to add them to your ignore list. Other times, if it has reached a point of abuse, you want to shut them down - this can involve a message that basically dismisses them in such a way that anything they add you can then ignore (in short, your reaction takes control of the conversation away from them and makes it so that you no longer have to react to them at all).

I only agree with some part of this, but I think you have the right idea. Being reactionary to people who are fishing for reactions is the worst thing anyone can do and anyone who has posted out of anger or rage because of the trolls antagonizing him (like Phil Fish, and by the way, this is by far not the only time he's given up and 'quit twitter', like when he canceled fez 2 because some guy in a video called him a hack) I feel have become one part of the two-part problem harming online communities at large. It takes two to argue, and every time a troll feels that he's gotten a 'rise' out of someone, then that troll has won in his efforts. Taking control of the conversation may be a viable solution if the victim has enough time to invest, the problem is that the troll has all the time in the world to invest harassing someone if they want to do it enough. So any attention they receive is like pouring even a little bit of kerosene onto a fire. Taking control of the conversation would only work if one went in with a level head and a cool attitude, which is rarely the case when it comes to harassment.

Sometimes, such as if they're posting death threats with enough information to be credible, you have to go to the police and protect yourself. If they're trying to silence you, it is then worthwhile to speak out and draw attention to it - again, this is a form of taking control of the conversation and forcing them to react to you, rather than the other way around, providing them with a failure in the process.

But, it is situational.

I agree, which is why I think Anita should have gone to the police and kept this a private matter. Publicly announcing the act of putting her life on hold because of someone on twitter has not only emboldened the troll who did it, but also emboldened the other trolls who share similar tactics.

 

[Davroth]

Use the block button. That's the only way to combat online harassment. Don't draw attention to yourself by publicly sharing the ways you are getting trolled/harassed helps, too. That's just the kind of attention trolls want, so you basically invite more harassment by doing so. And if you feel seriously threatened, go to the police. If the thread is credible, they will surely help you. Those, I'd say, are the steps to successfully deal with harassment online.

 

[Thaluikhain]

And if you feel seriously threatened, go to the police. If the thread is credible, they will surely help you.

In theory, yes...but the police often have strange ideas about what constitutes a credible threat.

Of course, that's a generalisation, police forces vary a lot around the world, but there are a lot of complaints that various police forces aren't taking this sort of thing seriously until something happens IRL.

 

[This is re-great-table]

My oh my-- I came in here laughing.. I mean, realistically you can't stop online harassment but I'm sure many have already put out the most extreme ideas.
One can also point out The Escapist's method of weeding out undesirables.

However what I found inside this thread's page 4 interest me far more than the actual topic.
I do hope to hear what you have to say in response to Sticky's argument, Mr. Robert B. Marks.
Cause so far I've haven't seen anyone actually make a good argument for Zoe's conspiracy "evidence."

Edit: Actually, I haven't seen anyone even try.

 

[angrykirby]

You don't. Censorship of expression and opinions is always wrong no matter what reasoning you try to use to justify it. If you don't like the internet adapt to it or don't use it.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

If its purely online. Ignore it.
This probably comes across as cold but seriously get over it. Nobody cares if someone called you a ******, and nobody will even notice it until you give it attention and credibility by reacting to it.

If it gets physical, such as swatting or acting out threats, then there are already measures in place to stop this.

On a side, and more personal, note. If you think a kid insulting you on Xbox Live counts as harassment, you are just being ridiculous. Next up you be installing digital swear jars to forums and make showering naked illegal. If your tender sensibilities can't handle trash talk, either use the mute button or go play games with a community more to your style. Don't try and force you ideals on others.

 

[Rattja]

I'd love to say there was a good way to do it, but there isn't.
Basically the only way is the same way as with everything else. How do you stop something from happening? Don't give it the opportunity to happen in the first place.
It's sad, but the only way to win here is not to play.

Teaching people to better deal with conflict at an early age might help the situation though, as people born today head face first into a world of hate. Last time I checked there were a bigger focus on punishmet of the wrongdoers more than anything else. It may suck, but people need to grow some thicker skin, but nobody actually teach that.
I mean, if all it takes is some signs on a computer to piss you off or make you cry, you have a rather big problem.

It's a shame it is this way, but that is the world that we have made, oh the pride of humanity.

 

[Padwolf]

Really I think the only way is to get rid of anonymity, but we all know here just how that would go down and how it has gone down every time it comes up as an option.

Sadly, I don't think there is a way of dealing with it. I don't think teaching people to deal with hate at an early age is a good idea. I just don't think it's right or it's good to teach kids that the world hates everyone.

The problem is that this is human nature. Humans can be selfish, greedy, nasty, competitive and a whole lot of other bad things. The only thing you can do to stop them targeting you specifically is hit the magical "block" or "ignore" buttons. Otherwise, the only thing you can do is accept that you are going to meet utter assholes online. If they start making death threats or rape threats then you can report them to the police as that is actually a crime. It's sad but that is the way the online world is.

Though I guess it also applies for people in person too, because people can be utter dickheads in person too.

 

[Robert B. Marks]

This is re-great-table: Sticky would have to make an argument before I'd bother to reply to it. He's still claiming that I only posted excerpts when the second link I posted was the full log provided by the chat members themselves (and all you need to do is follow the link to verify that). And, an ad hominem declaration (attacking the person rather than the evidence they have presented) is not evidence, it's an effort to deflect attention away from it.

Now, there are times when bias comes into play. Part of my education was learning to detect that bias (for example, there is one quote where Quinn says that her ex is trying to coach them in how to attack her, when it really does look like he's trying to get them to stop instead - that is a case of bias, but you never know...there could be something she left out wherein he actually does start giving them instructions). But, you need to look at all of the evidence. I started reading the full log released by the chat members days before I read all of Quinn's excerpts and from what I read, the full chat log is more damning than the excerpts were.

But think of it in terms of science for a moment. Bias is a potential source of error, but there must first be that error. Shifting to the larger topic, the degree to which this started as an attack on Quinn herself and her sex life, and then shifted to declarations about integrity in games journalism was enough to set off BS detectors across the 'net, including in the mainstream media (and my own). And there's the fact that even though the movement was supposedly focused on journalistic integrity, the journalist Quinn supposedly slept with was treated as a side note, and it took very little time to reveal that said journalist had not, in fact, given her any coverage at all after beginning a relationship with her, and precious little before. So, the supposed flashpoint for the "campaign against corruption" didn't even turn out to exist.

Then there's also the fact that few, if any, of the allegations of professional victimhood make any damn sense to begin with. Somebody with a history of being the victim of public harassment campaigns would have to be a bloody idiot to fake a death threat and post their OWN real address to do it. Think of Occam's Razor - what makes more sense? That Anita Sarkeesian received a number of death threats with her home address from a sock puppet on Twitter, got her family to safety, called the police, and then decided to draw some attention to it as a "F*** you!" to the stalker, or that she decided she needed more publicity, faked a death threat in public using her own address (thus endangering her family), filed a false police report (exposing herself to criminal charges and jail time), and then draws attention to it all on Twitter (increasing the odds of her family being endangered and the scam being exposed)?

This isn't something you should even have to think about - the second scenario is just ludicrous. But here's a big nail in the coffin to the entire thing:

This was supposed to be about ethics in game journalism. So, approach this from scratch - where is collusion and corruption between the video game industry and the video game media going to manifest? That's simple: reviews and previews. You'd see games that shouldn't get good scores get good reviews. You'd see game features that should be condemned get praised instead. And yet, most of the invective was against "SJWs" - "Social Justice Warriors" - the people most critical of what the game industry is doing and most likely to push for diversity and reform. Think about it - how many previews and reviews were actually mentioned in this entire thing? And of those that were mentioned, how many of them were actually glowing reviews to undeserving games (for example, Joystiq gave The Sims 4 an average review, and got accused of collusion - if there was collusion, wouldn't the game have gotten at least a 4/5)?

I've seen good smokescreens - my MA was in military history as a civilian student at a military college, and I took a signals intelligence course. The Ultra (British codebreaking effort in WW2) smokescreen was so good that not only did it fool the Germans, but until it was declassified in the 1970s historians for decades after the fact couldn't figure out what was missing from the Battle of the Atlantic, even though they knew that their picture of it made no sense. #GamerGate is NOT a good smokescreen. It's an obvious one. It declares it cares about journalistic corruption while launching concentrated attacks against unrelated targets. That's why it got called out so quickly by so many, and only gained any measure of credibility once people who actually did care about games journalism jumped on the bandwagon.

Coming back to your original point, Quinn's evidence and the chat log released by the chat members works because it fills in gaps while remaining consistent with the picture we already have, without contradicting any of it. That ridiculous graphic Sticky posted was an argument from absence - it was based on things supposedly missing rather than things being present. The evidence from Quinn and the full chat log is based on things people ARE saying in the chat.

And THAT is an argument for accepting Quinn's evidence.

 

[Fappy]

-Snip-

Spoiler: My reaction if I didn't want to wake up my cat

You summed up most of my criticisms of the movement quite well. Definitely could not have said it better myself.

I emphasize with those who were calling for positive change, but I think #gamergate's outlived its usefulness in that regard.

 

[Sticky]

Snip

And again, you continue to misconstrue and misrepresent my argument, why is that? If my argument had anything to do with gamergate at large and not you accepting Zoe Quinn's baseless interpretation of it, then your post would make a lot of sense and be very insightful.

Unfortunately, this seems to be another repeat of you continuing to insist that her interpretation and claims are law and then making lots of speculation regarding it. Which again, is like asking Pravda their opinion on NATO and then assuming Pravda must be correct on their interpretation.

Then, at the end, you insist she must be absolutely correct in her interpretation because of your opinion that #gamergate is a dishonest movement full of dishonest and viscous people. Most of your post is an attack on gamergate instead of anything I said, which I'm sure I don't have to explain to the trained history major is a dishonest tactic meant to mislead the casual reader of our conversation. Especially when you claim that Zoe must be a trustful source of information BECAUSE of the other side also being distrustful, when in reality you just proved what I've been saying all along: We can't take either side at face value because they both have a history of lying. Your opinion on #gamergate doesn't make Zoe Quinn any more of an angel when we've seen her attack her opponents in the past with dishonest and underhanded framing of information.

We've gone fully into the territory where you're arguing with your opinion and attacking strawmen you've made of your opponents. Nothing you posted, again, is telling or damning of any kind of 'online conspiracy' outside the realm of your opinion. If that's the argument you wish to play, that your opinion on #gamergate is enough evidence on its own to label members of #burgersandfries with a bunch of mean terms and labels, then we shouldn't be having this conversation in this thread. Or any thread for that matter.

But, I will respond to your post, even if most of it doesn't address my points, just so you can feel that I have read and paid attention to what you said.

Now, there are times when bias comes into play. Part of my education was learning to detect that bias (for example, there is one quote where Quinn says that her ex is trying to coach them in how to attack her, when it really does look like he's trying to get them to stop instead - that is a case of bias, but you never know.

If you have to end your argument with 'but you never know', you can assume there's probably a baseless claim inside of it [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability]. Here, again, is a quote taken out of context from an IRC chat channel, a PUBLIC IRC chat channel. Why you think this anonymous person in the IRC channel is an informational authority is honestly, quite baffling. Reading the same quote, it seems to me like he was actually asking for information if that was true or not, and was quickly corrected. Again, for someone who prides himself so much on his history major, you seem to have immediately made up your mind on the context of what he said and assumed that it must be the only way to interpret it.

Which is, again, your opinion pulling ahead of the facts.

But think of it in terms of science for a moment. Bias is a potential source of error, but there must first be that error. Shifting to the larger topic, the degree to which this started as an attack on Quinn herself and her sex life

I don't support Gamergate, but this is the biggest attempt at confusing the argument I've ever seen.
No, it didn't begin as an investigation into her sex life, it began as a leak about the Indie Scene giving each other favors. I don't even care that much about gamergate and that's information that I know from just lightly reading about it on forums. Again, you've taken a piece of information and liberally applied your opinion to it until it became another argument entirely. The facts that were found afterwards were part of the larger investigation into corruption in the indie scene.

Then there's also the fact that few, if any, of the allegations of professional victimhood make any damn sense to begin with. Somebody with a history of being the victim of public harassment campaigns would have to be a bloody idiot to fake a death threat and post their OWN real address to do it.

I don't know where 'faking it' came into account in this argument. I never posted that as my argument and trying to construe it as mine is extremely dishonest on your part. It seems to me that you're just ranting at this point about things that belong in the gamergate thread instead of responding to my post. Please tell me how any of what you just wrote here relates to a big conspiracy happening in #burgerandfries.

This was supposed to be about ethics in game journalism. So, approach this from scratch - where is collusion and corruption between the video game industry and the video game media going to manifest? That's simple: reviews and previews. You'd see games that shouldn't get good scores get good reviews. You'd see game features that should be condemned get praised instead. And yet, most of the invective was against "SJWs" - "Social Justice Warriors" - the people most critical of what the game industry is doing and most likely to push for diversity and reform. Think about it - how many previews and reviews were actually mentioned in this entire thing? And of those that were mentioned, how many of them were actually glowing reviews to undeserving games (for example, Joystiq gave The Sims 4 an average review, and got accused of collusion - if there was collusion, wouldn't the game have gotten at least a 4/5)?

Are you seriously suggesting that there's no collusion in the games industry based on one example? I think Jim Sterling would like to have a few words with you on that. Maybe you can go talk to that nice Phil Fish person who won the Indie Games Fund twice in a row while being financed by the judges of the indie games fund.

Maybe #gamergate is the wrong way to approach this, but saying it's nonexistent because you don't want to look at it is another very dishonest attempt to slander based on your own biases.

I've seen good smokescreens - my MA was in military history as a civilian student at a military college, and I took a signals intelligence course. The Ultra (British codebreaking effort in WW2) smokescreen was so good that not only did it fool the Germans, but until it was declassified in the 1970s historians for decades after the fact couldn't figure out what was missing from the Battle of the Atlantic, even though they knew that their picture of it made no sense.

Great, this has nothing to do with our conversation at hand. Please stay on topic.

#GamerGate is NOT a good smokescreen. It's an obvious one. It declares it cares about journalistic corruption while launching concentrated attacks against unrelated targets. That's why it got called out so quickly by so many, and only gained any measure of credibility once people who actually did care about games journalism jumped on the bandwagon.

I would call a gigantic post that doesn't address a single point in any post I've made so far as 'smokescreen'. Instead, you've tried to veer the conversation off into gamergate at large with it. When again, we aren't talking about gamergate at large, we're talking about Zoe Quinn's basis into her claim that #burgerandfries represents part of a larger conspiracy. In which you haven't even tried reinforcing those claims and have instead made a huge post ranting about gamergate. And that doesn't belong in this thread to begin with. If you wish to talk about that, there is a nice big thread that we can move to if you don't wish to continue the conversation on if the IRC chat room is part of a shadowy conspiracy.

Coming back to your original point, Quinn's evidence and the chat log released by the chat members works because it fills in gaps while remaining consistent with the picture we already have, without contradicting any of it.

Please prove this point, you're letting your bias slip into the argument again. If you're going to paint #gamergate as merely a puppet by the people in this chat room because you, personally, think #gamergate is made by a bunch of scumbags. Then I shouldn't even have to explain to the history major about how this is both slander and a strawman.

That ridiculous graphic Sticky posted was an argument from absence - it was based on things supposedly missing rather than things being present. The evidence from Quinn and the full chat log is based on things people ARE saying in the chat.

And you know what's missing the chat logs? Proof that everything about gamergate links back to the people in this chat room. In which none exists, because the log only shows people talking about gamergate in the chatroom about gamergate.

Then, to top it all off, you insist Zoe Quinn must be a factual, accurate source of information because you don't like the other side of the argument. DESPITE the fact that Zoe Quinn has proven to have, in the past, used underhanded tactics against her opponents. Even if we can't trust the opinion of the chat room, that doesn't mean we can support the opinion of Zoe Quinn. Your attempt to conflate the two and insist that Zoe Quinn's word can be taken as truth because you think #gamergaters are being dishonest

If your next post will be another attack on gamergate instead of the argument at hand: If #burgersandfries represents a larger conspiracy, then you should take it to the gamergate thread where arguments against gamergate belong.

 

[Robert B. Marks]

Sticky, I am going to ask you one question - precisely what are you trying to accomplish here? Even if you don't answer the question in the thread, I think you'll need to consider it regardless.

At this point, you have just posted a rant. A rant against my answer to a post that wasn't a reply to you in the first place, and frankly, a fairly incoherent rant. A rant that declares that there's no proof in the chat logs literally the day after Dave Futrelle, who is doing an in-depth analysis of them (the 3,000+ page chat logs, not the Quinn excerpts) over at WeHuntedTheMammoth, posted a piece wherein he illustrates a bunch of places where a number of chatters talk explicitly about creating sock puppets, "doxxing," and their efforts to manipulate and control the situation: http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/09/10/spamming-doxxing-and-sockpuppeting-4channers-dirty-tricks-straight-from-their-irc-log/#more-13205

Now, I don't really care whether or not you want to fight the revelations about just how much of #GamerGate was engineered. That's up to you. I've read your posts, and while I think you are passionate about this (albeit still with a lot to learn, but that will be fixed with life experience), I don't think you're trolling the thread. But, if you're attempting to remain relevant, this isn't the way to do it.

As far as my previous thought about the backlash against the people behind #GamerGate goes, I actually hope that won't happen. Our entire community just had its reputation dragged through the mud by this, and our first priority has to be to get out of the mud pit and put on clean clothes, so to speak. Retaliating won't accomplish that. The people behind this committed very real crimes, and they need to be held accountable for their actions. But that is a law enforcement matter, not a place for another harassment campaign.

Or, to bring this properly back on topic, one of the ways to prevent harassment online is for those who have been given reason to harass for whatever cause to know when to step back and let cooler heads prevail.

 

[Robert B. Marks]

Padwolf: There is something else that can be done on a basic level - make sure people have a stake in the community.

I wish I could remember which community did this - it may have been the Something Awful site, but don't quote me on this - but after seeing some truly horrible behaviour on the forums, they did one thing that changed everything: they implemented a $5.00 fee to sign up. So, now anybody posting had money committed, even if it was a small amount.

The behaviour on the forum changed overnight. Everything became more civil. As far as the site could tell (I remember this because they posted an article about it), once the forumites had committed money to it, even the smallest amount, they cared a lot more about whether it was a good place to post.

That's one of the reasons I keep coming back to the peer pressure argument, if you want to call it that. If the entire community comes together in question of community standards, they have a stake in it. They'll care. And that makes them more likely to come down on bad behaviour.

 

[Sticky]

Sticky, I am going to ask you one question - precisely what are you trying to accomplish here? Even if you don't answer the question in the thread, I think you'll need to consider it regardless.

Because first we had this conversation about if a giant conspiracy has erupted around #burgerandfries, an argument I've seen before but seen no conclusive proof for. And furthermore, I think people are taking Zoe Quinn to be an arbiter of truth and justice in this whole debacle, when frankly she has been extremely dishonest throughout the whole thing.

Then you leveled a couple of claims against me that I found unsavory and without base. Again, if you can't prove that there is a conspiracy surrounding that chat channel, as per our original conversation. We can simply agree to disagree and let that be it.

At this point, you have just posted a rant. A rant against my answer to a post that wasn't a reply to you in the first place, and frankly, a fairly incoherent rant. A rant that declares that there's no proof in the chat logs literally the day after Dave Futrelle, who is doing an in-depth analysis of them (the 3,000+ page chat logs, not the Quinn excerpts) over at WeHuntedTheMammoth, posted a piece wherein he illustrates a bunch of places where a number of chatters talk explicitly about creating sock puppets, "doxxing," and their efforts to manipulate and control the situation: http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/09/10/spamming-doxxing-and-sockpuppeting-4channers-dirty-tricks-straight-from-their-irc-log/#more-13205

If it wasn't a reply to me, why did you format it as a reply to me in the first paragraph and THEN tried to spin around your post to act as if it's proof Zoe Quinn can be taken at face value? Here are your words:

This is re-great-table: Sticky would have to make an argument before I'd bother to reply to it

Coming back to your original point, Quinn's evidence and the chat log released by the chat members works because it fills in gaps while remaining consistent with the picture we already have, without contradicting any of it. That ridiculous graphic Sticky posted was an argument from absence - it was based on things supposedly missing rather than things being present. The evidence from Quinn and the full chat log is based on things people ARE saying in the chat.

Both your opening and closing paragraphs are directly relating to my post and addressing me, by name. You cannot deny that post was addressed to me when you do that.

Furthermore, as we discussed, two wrongs do not make a right, so Zoe Quinn's opponents being scumbags do not make her to be a reliable source of information. Which is what you are trying to say; that because you think that the people behind gamergate (assuming it's a small group of people) are scum, that somehow makes Zoe Quinn to be a trustworthy person. And my entire post was to point out to you that it does not, that is a complete fallacy.

All you've done is prove that maybe some groups (not even the same ones we've been talking about) have been using dishonest and spiteful tactics against opponents of #gamergate (they should join the dishonest tactics club with Zoe Quinn), but I never challenged that they might not be trustworthy people. There are too many people involved in #gamergate in the first place to make sweeping generalization about them and their intentions and desires. Which, I might add, is something your postings have done already, so kudos to generalizing hundreds of people without any evidence of their intentions. My challenge was to prove that Zoe Quinn's words that it's a huge conspiracy against her and against the gaming media could be trusted. No proof has surfaced of this throughout our conversation, so I can only assume that you may not have any proof of which and only continue to post excerpts from chat logs of nameless, public chat rooms that have no conclusive relationship to #gamergate as a whole aside from more baseless speculation.

And again, if you want to post links to people who apparently 'solved the riddle', maybe you shouldn't post links to people who are still falsely claiming that 4chan is behind it all when none of the chat rooms in question have ANY LINK with 4chan. Nothing we've discussed so far has brought 4chan into the mix because, again, most of these channels are on Rizon and Rizon is not funded or affiliated with 4chan in any way. So I have hard time taking your links seriously when they get the most simple, basic fact of the matter incorrect that anyone who bothered connecting to the IRC server and examining the channel wouldn't have made a mistake on.

Thanks for that jab at me I might add. I hope your goal wasn't to converse with me in a mature fashion in order to influence my viewpoint, because adding a sarcastic jab and a dismissal of my entire argument without addressing a single one of my points is yet another extremely dishonest tactic that only makes it seem like you're evading my argument. I'm sure you have a very good reason to hold the opinion way you do, but at the same time, you don't have the right to snipe at me when we're in the middle of a conversation about a volatile topic matter and expect me to not take offense at it.

Now, I don't really care whether or not you want to fight the revelations about just how much of #GamerGate was engineered. That's up to you. I've read your posts, and while I think you are passionate about this (albeit still with a lot to learn, but that will be fixed with life experience), I don't think you're trolling the thread. But, if you're attempting to remain relevant, this isn't the way to do it.

Then why did you bother responding to my posts at all? If that was the whole reason you responded in the first place, then we should just end the conversation right now because neither of us have anything to add except vitriol and anger.

Thanks for that little ad-hominem at the end of your post leveled at me, again for a second time. If your goal was to look like that you have nothing to hide and everything to discuss in a rational manner, then the continued name calling and insinuations isn't helping your argument and has no place in this topic.

As far as my previous thought about the backlash against the people behind #GamerGate goes, I actually hope that won't happen. Our entire community just had its reputation dragged through the mud by this, and our first priority has to be to get out of the mud pit and put on clean clothes, so to speak. Retaliating won't accomplish that. The people behind this committed very real crimes, and they need to be held accountable for their actions. But that is a law enforcement matter, not a place for another harassment campaign.

Or, to bring this properly back on topic, one of the ways to prevent harassment online is for those who have been given reason to harass for whatever cause to know when to step back and let cooler heads prevail.

I'm glad we can find common ground here, because I agree with you. At the same time, for cooler heads to prevail, the hotheads have to step down. Which is something that I think has been fueling the entire #gamergate tag in itself is the continued prevalence of anger and ego.

EDIT: If your next post is going to be filled with a bunch of namecalling again and insistence that you're right without proving your suppositions, you can just save it for yourself.

 

[MerlinCross]

Padwolf: There is something else that can be done on a basic level - make sure people have a stake in the community.

This basically. You can't stop hate(welcome to humanity), even more so on the net. But you can try to regulate it by calling people on it or kicking them out of your community. Of course there'll always be places where you can speak your mind freely without fear, but we really have to knock it off on other sites/groups.

Sadly most ideas I know are applicable to games, not forums/blogs/etc. I mean if you get banned from a site, they could easily make a new account and continue spewing hate. And if they really want to keep voicing their ideas there, pretty sure they'd find a way around IP address bans.

But nothing is going to stop people from posting their views somewhere on the net. That is a fact and that's something people actually have to accept.

 

[carnex]

-snip-

And you missed by a mile. But never the less good resoning for the most part.

Of course there are people who went in flinging excrement left and right. This is internet. Expecting that not to happen is expecting going into the water naked and not getting wet (bot are possible but both demand extreme measures). People use all this fuss for various purposes, including personal attacks, harassment, trolling etc. But that is just a background noise that is always there.

Also there are people who really in for journalistic purposes. People who are idealistic and see groups that propel each other to the determent of others. And let's not lie to ourselves, that is bloody reality. In every industry that happens and the younger the industry the more pronounced are the results of collusion is. Indie game development is not indie anymore in sense we are used to think about it. More and more of it is industry in itself.

Also, let's not ignore the idea of professional victimhood. That's nothing new, but never the less that's despicable as it always was. It drains the resources towards one person that could do much more good. Nobody sane can say with straight face that both Anita and Zoe didn't receive threats (everyone does, even I, internet nobody did) but they used their status of righteous victims for personal benefit. But that is another huge clusterfuck of discussion that I'm currently not willing to dive into.

So what's my point then? Well, most people involved are in for one form of personal benefit or another. It's always about that. And I would say that most people that are in are in because of following reasons

- being insulted, shamed and humiliated simply because of their hobby or fact that they are combination of certain race, gender and sexual orientation
- being abused as weapon against the first group through generalizations, exaggerations and lies while at same time being marginalized and pronounced irrelevant or nonexistent
- being told what to say, think and feel or being told that someone else know better than you what you actually are saying, thinking and feeling.

And all that by persons that are often shown morally worse than people they verbally attack.

Now that I can stand behind. Because I want freedom of thought, freedom of word and freedom of expression. Real freedom. I'm willing to pay the price. For millenniums people died for those same ideals because for millenniums people actually felt what oppression means.

If I continue with this I will get worked up so I will leave for at least a moment with one of the greatest and most important quotes of all times by Evelyn Beatrice Hall through the mouth of Voltaire in his biography

You know how you will end harassment and threats online. Without violating these basic principles of freedom you won't. That's the price of your freedom. Nothing come free.