On Dongles

[wulf3n]

For me that largely depends on the nature of the conference in question, and the type of dancer that is being employed does make a considerable difference.

If matthew lane is right however, this wasn't actually at the conference at all.

Therefore to be relevent; what are your opinions regarding female stage dancers (or over-zealous attendees?) at raves in nightclubs like the one organised by the IGDA?

Why did the IGDA need to organise a rave at a nightclub? is basically my opinion. I'm sure there are clubs in the general area, if attendees were so inclined, but specifically organising said event sends the message [intentional or not] you're the ones we care about.

Do you see a problem with the IGDA organising two different style of events for its members, or with the hiring of female stage dancers for its nightclub events, or game developers associating for night club events?

Or do you have a different concern?

Why are the IGDA organising raves?

Personally I see there might be some conflict of branding if you organise two very distinctly different kind of events. I can also understand why someone who worked for them might be concerned with the direction the IGDA is going if they were wanting it to be about professional events like conferences and debates, rather than general entertainment events like dancing nights.

Additionally, I despise raves. So such events would exclude me regardless of any additional factors.

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

Let's take a look at another industry with similar gender makeup. Most engineering disciplines are heavily male dominated, just like the video game industry. Last time I went to an Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) sectional, not once did I see any female performers, entertainers, strippers, or hired eye-candy. If you are having a professional get-together, why do you need female performers? It doesn't matter if all their clothes stay on. The simple fact you hired women for an event just because they are women is crass.

I already agreed that the dancers were inappropriate, but I really think you should look up what "afterparty" means. Afterparties can get pretty ridiculous no matter how "professional" the original event was. The dancers didn't come during the actual seminars/talks/presentations, they came when all that was over, the music was turned up, the drinks were handed out and people started having fun.

Can people please look up the actual incident and stop taking this comic literally??

 

[Snooder]

Absolutely nothing, but yours is an entirely fabricated scenario. There's no evidence to show that actually occurred. Other industries are probably smart enough not to pull stunts like this.

Quick google fu brings this up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=zFFGbi4CCvg&NR=1
Please note that it is, yes, a party organized by a company in the fashion industry that heavily features half-naked men mingling.

If a part of your audience are offended by said behaviour, whether you intend it or not you're excluding them.

Again, replace the principal actors in that statement and tell me it still makes sense. Is a party that offends a straight guy "exclusionary" just because he's uncomfortable around shirtless men? No. Ergo, a party that offends a straight female is not also "exclusionary" just because she's uncomfortable around women in skimpy dresses.

Spoken like someone who's always been a part of the majority. No ones saying these types of parties can't exist, just that their prevalence in GAMES CONVENTIONS is ridiculous and unnecessary. It detracts nothing of note if removed, yet discourages others when included.

First of all, it would be wildly incorrect to assume that I've always been part of a majority.

Second, it would be a different conversation if people were arguing for the addition of different types of parties or saying that it's cool if we have these events, but we ought to have other events as well. But they aren't. There's no call of, "hey, we've put up with your bro-zone for a while now, how about having a ladies night or family friendly events one night out of the week." Instead the statements made and the complaints are "this makes me uncomfortable and I should never have to see it." Which, by definition, means that it should never exist in the same space that you also exist.

Let's say that we concede that the proper place for informal parties like this are away from the GDC after-party. Cool, we can have an after-after-party. Guess what happens next? Everyone shows up to the after-after-party and suddenly that becomes the place where deals are made, connections happen, and the journalists have to come. Then we have news stories about dancers at the after-after-party.

And you wonder where "privileged straight males" comes from.

I don't wonder that at all. I simply think at some point people have to realize that they aren't always going to be the "face" of the particular group they happen to be included in. That the group as a whole tends to follow the tastes of the majority isn't "tyranny" or "privilege" it's just common sense.

There's nothing wrong with feeling dissatisfied as part of a minority. Or agitating for a little more focus on your personal needs. What's going on though isn't that. Or at least it's not being articulated that way.

There are plenty of places you can go for "informal events" if a group want to go to something like that they can. When you organise you're own event you need to think of the messages being sent to those that don't share your view of "fun". The fact that you don't understand [or don't care] is why the "privileged straight males" line gets thrown around.

Yes, and one of those places is an after-party at a conference.

 

[xorinite]

Why did the IGDA need to organise a rave at a nightclub? is basically my opinion. I'm sure there are clubs in the general area, if attendees were so inclined, but specifically organising said event sends the message [intentional or not] you're the ones we care about.

Why are the IGDA organising raves?

Well if your only concern why organise a rave; I would assume they arrange it for entertainment purposes. While I dislike raves, the last time I attended one the people there appeared to be enjoying themselves and might enjoy attending them with members of an association group if they belonged to one.

Is there some reason they shouldn't organise raves?

I don't see why a rave has less right to exist than a conference or any other kind of company outing. There are doubtlessly people who dislike conferences to the same degree I dislike raves.

I'd have a different opinion if they made the events mandatory (which they sometimes do for conferences)

 

[wulf3n]

Again, replace the principal actors in that statement and tell me it still makes sense. Is a party that offends a straight guy "exclusionary" just because he's uncomfortable around shirtless men? No. Ergo, a party that offends a straight female is not also "exclusionary" just because she's uncomfortable around women in skimpy dresses.

While you're not prohibiting people from attending, you're creating an environment that certain groups feel uncomfortable in ergo exclusionary.

Instead the statements made and the complaints are "this makes me uncomfortable and I should never have to see it." Which, by definition, means that it should never exist in the same space that you also exist.

Should it exist at an Industry event? after party or otherwise? The purpose of these is a gathering of Professionals, not let's get drunk, listen to loud music, and look at half naked woman. There are already places for that.

Let's say that we concede that the proper place for informal parties like this are away from the GDC after-party. Cool, we can have an after-after-party. Guess what happens next? Everyone shows up to the after-after-party and suddenly that becomes the place where deals are made, connections happen, and the journalists have to come. Then we have news stories about dancers at the after-after-party.

How about this. Don't organise after-after-parties.

There's nothing wrong with feeling dissatisfied as part of a minority. Or agitating for a little more focus on your personal needs. What's going on though isn't that. Or at least it's not being articulated that way.

Really? despite what most might think, The issue isn't "Female developer/organise doesn't like seeing half naked woman", rather "Female developer/organiser doesn't like the idea of her "gender" being used solely for entertainment" at a supposed gathering of professionals.

Yes, and one of those places is an after-party at a conference.

That's arguable, which is why we're arguing it.

Well if your only concern why organise a rave; I would assume they arrange it for entertainment purposes. While I dislike raves, the last time I attended one the people there appeared to be enjoying themselves and might enjoy attending them with members of an association group if they belonged to one.

Is there some reason they shouldn't organise raves?

There's no need. If the attendees want entertainment they can go to a rave after. The conference should be about the conference.

I don't see why a rave has less right to exist than a conference or any other kind of company outing. There are doubtlessly people who dislike conferences to the same degree I dislike raves.

It doesn't have less right to exist. It's just not something that should be a part of the conference. You're not at the conference for "fun" you're there to confer with other developers.

I'd have a different opinion if they made the events mandatory (which they sometimes do for conferences)

While not "mandatory", like Snooder mentioned deals are made at these after parties, and not attending can be quite damaging for an individual/company [at least in other industries, I'm not sure about the Games industry].

 

[wulf3n]

Should it exist at an Industry event? after party or otherwise? The purpose of these is a gathering of Professionals, not let's get drunk, listen to loud music, and look at half naked woman. There are already places for that.

Except it didn't happen at an industry event, it happened at a night club open to the public, held by people who were not the convention organisers.

Really? [http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolpinchefsky/2013/03/28/igda-responds-to-the-gdc-party-faux-pas/]

It was a party organised by YetiZen [http://yetizen.com/] a company that organises game development workshops and co-presented by the IGDA [http://www.igda.org/]

They didn't just go to some random party afterwards, they went to an after-party organised by the organisers of the conference.

Now you may say "Oh, but it was "wargaming" who organised the party, YetiZen had nothing to do with it" [http://yetizen.com/2013/03/30/official-statement-by-the-yetizen-ceo-on-the-yetizen-igda-gdc-party/2/], to which I reply standard marketing BS, if you put your name on something you better make sure its something you agree with

 

[Snooder]

It doesn't have less right to exist. It's just not something that should be a part of the conference. You're not at the conference for "fun" you're there to confer with other developers.

While not "mandatory", like Snooder mentioned deals are made at these after parties, and not attending can be quite damaging for an individual/company [at least in other industries, I'm not sure about the Games industry].

I don't think you really understand how these sorts of events come about. The whole after-party thing starts as a way for people to unwind and relax informally a bit outside the strictly professional environment of the conference itself.

The fact that deals are made and stuff happens isn't the reason for the after-party's existence, it's simply a side-effect of getting various people together in the same room. The reason those people are there in the first place is to have fun. It's pretty simple. Conference ends, some friends get together to hang out and talk shop a bit. The next year people hear about how awesome that party was and more people show up. Then the next year some marketing agency hears about all those people getting together and decides to promote their product in the same place. Then the next year another company decides to replicate the success of the first party and hosts their own event. Ten years down the line you end up with multiple companies "sponsoring" different parties and different events and it ends up being the place to be, where even more deals are made than at the primary event.

Saying "oh it's too big now, you're not here for fun anymore" defeats the whole purpose.

 

[wulf3n]

It was a party organised by YetiZen [http://yetizen.com/] a company that organises game development workshops and co-presented by the IGDA [http://www.igda.org/]

They didn't just go to some random party afterwards, they went to an after-party organised by the organisers of the conference.

Yetizen were not co-producers. Yetizen were nothing more then content providers for the convention. To say that yetizen was a co-presenter is kind of like me saying i'm in charge of gencon because i ran a D&D module at one, that one time.

Yetizen sponsored an event at a local nioght club open to the public, it was not a con event. The party sponsored by the convention itself was the following night. People keep on conflating the two events. They are not the same event.

No IGDA were the co-sponsers. But I will concede that there were 2 parties, the Tuesday and the Wednesday. The one that gets the most flak [and is lumped in with YetiZen] was organised by wargaming [whoever that is]. However both included questionable actions.

The line "YetiZen did not hire dancers. We hired avid gamers, who happened to be models, to discuss gaming with the invited guests."

Why would you need to "hire" avid gamers, and why hire those that are also models.

Now you may say "Oh, but it was "wargaming" who organised the party, YetiZen had nothing to do with it" [http://yetizen.com/2013/03/30/official-statement-by-the-yetizen-ceo-on-the-yetizen-igda-gdc-party/2/], to which I reply standard marketing BS, if you put your name on something you better make sure its something you agree with

/facepalm. The lihnk you've posted actually proves my point. Actually go back & read what it says.

did you read it all?

 

[wulf3n]

It doesn't have less right to exist. It's just not something that should be a part of the conference. You're not at the conference for "fun" you're there to confer with other developers.

While not "mandatory", like Snooder mentioned deals are made at these after parties, and not attending can be quite damaging for an individual/company [at least in other industries, I'm not sure about the Games industry].

I don't think you really understand how these sorts of events come about. The whole after-party thing starts as a way for people to unwind and relax informally a bit outside the strictly professional environment of the conference itself.

The fact that deals are made and stuff happens isn't the reason for the after-party's existence, it's simply a side-effect of getting various people together in the same room. The reason those people are there in the first place is to have fun. It's pretty simple. Conference ends, some friends get together to hang out and talk shop a bit. The next year people hear about how awesome that party was and more people show up. Then the next year some marketing agency hears about all those people getting together and decides to promote their product in the same place. Then the next year another company decides to replicate the success of the first party and hosts their own event. Ten years down the line you end up with multiple companies "sponsoring" different parties and different events and it ends up being the place to be, where even more deals are made than at the primary event.

Saying "oh it's too big now, you're not here for fun anymore" defeats the whole purpose.

I'm not seeing anything that shows the after-parties are a good thing. I know why/how they exist, I'm merely questioning should they exist [more specifically should they be organised/sponsored by the conference itself]

 

[xorinite]

There's no need. If the attendees want entertainment they can go to a rave after. The conference should be about the conference.

Which is what they did. There was an optional rave event arranged which they could attend after the conference if they wanted to, which some people took advantage of.

I mean you can say there is no 'need' for any form of after party, or entertainment based company outings. Various companies however find that company outings for entertainment events are something that is desirable.

It doesn't have less right to exist. It's just not something that should be a part of the conference. You're not at the conference for "fun" you're there to confer with other developers.

That is a matter of preference and opinion.
I do not see any compelling rational why a company shouldn't arrange an outing for the entertainment of their staff if they so wish, nor why a conference cannot be fun, nor why associations/people/companies cannot arrange an optional after party for the purposes of entertainment.

If you make a conference which specifically excludes fun you will both have a smaller turn out for the conference as well as having a less successful conference. An event organiser who produces unsuccessful events will simply not be used in the future.

While not "mandatory", like Snooder mentioned deals are made at these after parties, and not attending can be quite damaging for an individual/company [at least in other industries, I'm not sure about the Games industry].

This is true in all forms of optional group activities, the only way to prevent this is to not have any form of group activity, including conferences and all forms of after parties.
On somewhat of a tangent, how can anyone arrange any kind of deal at a rave, you can barely hear what anyone else is saying and only that if they shout in your ear.

 

[wulf3n]

However both included questionable actions.

Define these questionable actions? I see a company that hired attractive spokes people, adequately dressed for a rave. I see a different company hire female idols, also adequately dressed. I see nothing at all questionable about either set of actions.

Why would you need to "hire" avid gamers, and why hire those that are also models.

Because models are extroverts & spokes people need to be extroverts... Unfortunately there is no such thing as an extrovert store.

Theres an entire cottage industry around this mate. Models are used as sales spokes people for any amount of products mate. Again, this is in no way "questionable"

Obviously people are going to see what they want. But if you can't see how hiring "avid gamers" in furry crop tops and/or mini skirts isn't exclusionary then nothing I say is going to change that.

Thats cool, there are any amount of things i don't think are good. Guy on guy gay porn, romantic comedies, any number of stupid american tv shows about hunting for bargins in other peoples trash, the jersey shore, the hills, the kardashians... None of these things have any value to me... Doesn't mean they cease to exist because i personally see no value in them.

The question is whether or not it has any place in a professional context.

The world doesn't adapt to suit your personal preferences Wulf3n

And that is why the world fails >:|

...stuff...

We're going round in circles. You'll find responses to your questions in my previous posts.

 

[danon]

At convention changes to optional afterparty. Yeah nothing like some good fact twisting and obscuring to make it fit a agenda. We really need gender topics to be fused with politics and religion btw.

 

[wulf3n]

Theres actually nothing exclusionary about it. A group of people got paid to be spokes people. These people happened to be female & attractive. How is that exclusionary? I mean thats like calling a car dealer sexist & exclusionary because they only had male sales people & that you feel excluded from purchasing a car because of it.

Who do you think these people were hired to spoke to? I can't tell if you're intentionally seeing only surface elements, or if you really can't see why people find this type of thing offensive.

Mate its a rave, the only way it has any professional context is if you are a party organiser looking to throw a rave. The rave exists specifically not to be professional.

When it has the sponsorship of the Industry it is now a Professional event.

Its meant to be fun; you remember fun right? Its that time when people let there hair down & just relax.

Yeah, to a select group of people. Sucks to be you if you're not who they're targeting.

Oh wow, you officially lose the right to ever say anyone else has privilege.

Oh wow, you officially can't recognize sarcasm.

Really people. You're that desperate for a little eye candy?

This is an Industry sponsored event that's supposed to be "fun" for everyone, stop being selfish and give up the pandering BS so that others can have fun as well.

 

[wulf3n]

They would have spolen to anyone willing to listen.

Ok, you really can't see why it's considered offensive.

It wasn't sponsored by an industry, it was sponsored by "A" company: I hate to tell you this, but all raves are sponsored by a company (usually its sponsored by the clubs management, but sometimes its sponsored by a particular company).

Organised by YetiZen, approved by IGDA. Also known as Industry Sponsored.

edit: It would seem there's confusion around my usage of "Industry Sponsored" by which I don't mean sponsored by the entire industry, merely An event regarding the industry sponsored by those within the industry.

The group that was being targetted is people who like terrible dubstep music & seizure inducing flashing lights. This is the main draw of a rave.

And attractive woman wearing skimpy clothing, paid to talk to you. In the case of this rave.

You know what they say; "beware those truths said in jest."

I don't know what they say, and I've never actually heard any one say that other than Marshall Mathers

Dude, no one gives a shit about them being eye candy.

Except the people that were offended enough to notify Brenda Romero, and Brenda Romero who felt she couldn't work for an organisation that would approve such an event.

Personally i find it to be pandering & silly.

Then why are you so against its removal to appeal to a wider demographic?

But you know what, when people come along screaming sexism about something thats not sexism & making hyperbolic bullshit statements where they have to lie by ommission to try to make a point, that pissess me off even more.

I've never claimed sexism, made no Hyperbole, ommited only what people should have already researched prior to arguing. Who are you talking about?

When you take those lies of ommission & then try to smear an entire industry,

Who's smearing? What? Am I missing parts of this conversation?

so you can feel better about the arse backwards generalisations you already hold, as you try to justify them against demonstrable fact, that torques me up from generally pissed off, to down right ornery.

What generalisations do I hold?

Your views are demonstrably wrong: Which is why you continue to feel the need to misrepresent demonstrable fact.

Please enlighten me as to your demonstrable "fact"

 

[xorinite]

We're going round in circles.

Oh I don't think so. I asked you a number of questions and I think you have made your position reasonably clear.

As far as I can ascertain from your answers you do not believe that there should be organised after parties which exist for the purposes of fun. You simply feel that this is the way it should be, as a matter of personal preference and have not presented a rational why companies who participate in these events should cease arranging them.

given that I have suggested a good reason why companies may want their events to be fun, in terms of success of both attendance and positive word of mouth, they appear to have some rational to retain the current arrangements.

You have suggested you think that raves are somehow by their nature exclusitory, yet haven't presented a reason why a rave is any less exclusitory than any other kind of event.

And attractive woman wearing skimpy clothing, paid to talk to you. In the case of this rave.

I think you mean paid to dance, if they were dancers hired for the stage. I doubt they were paid to talk at the rave, on the basis that nobody can hear what anyone is saying at a rave.

Why did you exclude this point in your discussion with me, you didn't raise this as a problem when I asked you what you objected to, instead you made what I consider to be confusing arguments against people having fun.

You'll find responses to your questions in my previous posts.

I only asked you one question in my last post and that was rhetorical. So I am not sure what you questions you are referring to.

We may have to ultimately agree to disagree, however I believe this presents a larger problem for you than it does for me. The reason being that my position is the status quo, that after parties for entertainment are fine. Your position requires that companies change their behaviour yet without a compelling rational for them to do so they will default to the status quo.

(edit some addition and clarifications offered, which syncronised after your reply, also windows did a forced shut down on me while I was writing.)

 

[wulf3n]

...stuff...

I really don't have a problem with "after parties" in general, but feel there more useful as networking as opposed to merely fun.

I've never said you can't have fun, or that fun should be banned.

Nor have I ever said they shouldn't do "after-parties" merely that if purely "fun" parties are the only reason you're attending a conference you probably shouldn't be there.

And it's not about the "rave" it's about the hiring of female models used solely for pandering.

I think you mean paid to dance, if they were dancers hired for the stage. I doubt they were paid to talk at the rave, on the basis that nobody can hear what anyone is saying at a rave.

According to YetiZen they were only hired to mingle, the danced on stage because the "rappers" asked them to. Also the "rave" was more the Wargamers event held the next day.

Why did you exclude this point in your discussion with me, you didn't raise this as a problem when I asked you what you objected to, instead you made what I consider to be confusing arguments against people having fun.

I'm fighting battles on several fronts here, so it's hard to keep track of what I say to who.

 

[wulf3n]

...stuff...

I had this really long retort that got "lost" by the internet so I'll give a brief recap as I really can't be bothered constantly repeating myself to those who don't want to listen. Here we go:

HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHHAHHAHHAA...
Strawman, Strawman, Disingenuous assertion, Another Strawman...
HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHAHA...
REALLY?...
HAHHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHA.

not necessarily in any particular order.

However one statement sums up everything.

Brenda Romero (who ever the hell that is)

You don't know the person who brought up the entire Issue for which we've been arguing for the past 2 pages! Well that's been an incredible waste of time, I've been arguing with someone who doesn't even know the fundamentals of the issue.

I would be pretty ornery if it weren't such a laugh.

 

[wulf3n]

You don't know the person who brought up the entire Issue for which we've been arguing for the past 2 pages!

I'm aware of there part in the narrative, i just have no clue who they are outside of the narrative.

You claim I'm facetious and that I lie by omission but you don't even bother to find out the facts.

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

Brenda Romero was a game developer and up till recently was the co-chair of the IGDA?s Women in Games special-interest group. So it's literally her job to be a feminazi and get offended by pretty much everything, so her opinions/actions really mean fuck-all in this.

 

[xorinite]

According to YetiZen they were only hired to mingle, the danced on stage because the "rappers" asked them to. Also the "rave" was more the Wargamers event held the next day.

If I were an event organiser who had to arrange a night clubbing for what must be a very large group of mostly males. Then one of my primary concerns would be in bringing the number of males to females in the club back to, or at least closer to parity.

I've looked at this during some of my education as well as having seen it 'in the wild' as it were. In general clubs tend to do this through drinks promotions, free door entry, even free mini bus services arranged to increase the amount of females in clubs.

YetiZen apparently went the route of simply paying women to attend. I guess thats.. uh.. straitforward.
I'm not sure how I feel about that. In some ways its a logical extention of the typical incentive system used by nightclubs. On the other hand when you change the incentive to an overt payment it has a very different social context to it.

As you said, its more like being paid to talk to someone, rather than simply being incentived to attend an event.

I'm fighting battles on several fronts here, so it's hard to keep track of what I say to who.

Fair enough it happens to all of us. Its just a bit frustrating when it looks like we have been spinning our wheels talking about things which aren't even relevant.