Poll: I want to change the Gamer reputation.

[Lucem712]

[    ]|:{

Got a name for the movement, yet? Maybe as a starting point, you could create an Escapist User-group. As a rally point and that way you can discuss how to move forward with your members.

Currently debating on something simple.

It's an easy way to get a group of people together. Feel free to send me an invite if you create one.

 

[Mikeybb]

I fall in the maybe category here.

While for the moment I still support and will continue to support gamergate, elements within gamergate have become frustrating of late.
However, I won't elaborate further on that matter as it would be derailing to the topic of this thread.

The other reason I stand as a maybe is that a second movement would be a good test of the claim that was made by games journalists, in that a new tag would be engaged with enthusiasm by them.
It would be good to see if they are as good as their word in this regard and, should they prove to be willing to accept criticism from this second tag, as opposed to taking a dismissive stance toward their concerns, then it would not only legitimize the new movement, but the journalists in question.

However, I suspect there may be a pushback should some of the points brought up by this new movement parallel the ones brought up by gamergate, insofar as this new movement could be accused of simply being gamergate under a new name and subsequently be dismissed out of hand.

Suffice to say, it'd be interesting to see if a new tag was supported and effective.

 

[Davroth]

So, in other words. You're not welcomed if you decrying "dem sjws" or how much you hate them "feminists."
Those will NOT be what this movement is about.

The vast majority of GamerGate does nothing of the sort. What will you do to keep the "bad eggs" out? All it takes is a few people using your hashtag in combination with GamerGate or to harass someone, and it will be 'poisoned' in no time. Genuinely interested how you plan to avoid that from happening.

 

[Ragnar47183]

Maybe its because i never got into the whole social media thing but I cant take anything that says "hash tag" seriously.

Nor could I take a movement by the name of "gamer gate" seriously. There are two reasons for this:

1. You are associating the severity of your cause with Watergate and it just makes your movement look silly.

2. People are taking video games WAY to seriously. Who cares about journalist ethics in fucking video games? What? Magazine X took money to give game Y a higher score? Developer X slept with person Y to do thing Z?

Well its a good damn thing I can think for myself isnt it?

I guess its a good sign that people have so much free time to waste on such stupid things. It means they are well off enough to not be working to the point where they have no time for this.

I have a great idea actually. How about instead of wasting time on this crap, you fight for something that actually matters? I didn't realize that our world was such a utopia that we were at a point of making movements about fucking video games.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Some would argue that GamerGate is already doing that, and it does nothing to improve their credibility. But I see this is going to be a futile discussion since you seem pretty set on your opinion.

Trouble is, they're not doing it very well, because there is no concerted effort going on to address the real ethical problems of videogame journalism (everyone's already forgotten the Shadow of Mordor thing, the people who people are abandoning print websites in favour of due to their so called "authentic" voice are actually completely for sale unless they've got the market cloud of TotalBiscuit), the only concerted efforts are to suppress any feminist critique of games or the "gamer" identity based on an imagined persecution complex, and the tactics they're using to do so are going to bite them in the arse the next time a publication pumps the review score because the advertisers got on the phone, GamerGate is likely to create a world where advertisers have unprecedented control over the editorial because that's what "gamers" have shown they want. Remember, the next time a mediocre game gets a good review whilst the site was advertising it, you made that happen GamerGate, you established that power relationship between advertiser and editor.

 

[grassgremlin]

So, in other words. You're not welcomed if you decrying "dem sjws" or how much you hate them "feminists."
Those will NOT be what this movement is about.

The vast majority of GamerGate does nothing of the sort. What will you do to keep the "bad eggs" out? All it takes is a few people using your hashtag in combination with GamerGate or to harass someone, and it will be 'poisoned' in no time. Genuinely interested how you plan to avoid that from happening.

I understand what you're trying to say. It's something I've made an effort to think about.
The best honest to goodness way of combatting that would be to rally with people who are also against gamergate.

The purpose of the hashtag is common grown. There are people who disagree with the current gaming narrative who I could call out to support this, actually.

I been trying to contact people like Matt Lees and Jim Sterling about it just to see there thoughts.
I'm also actively trying to talk to the people who have made articles against gamergate.
There are two sides to every issue so I want to stand in the middle to see which people we can try to get support and which not.

I'm mainly calling for the people who have remained very neutral, though.

 

[xPixelatedx]

I admire your goal to make a detached movement that appears less aggressive and wish you luck, but I don't believe anything will be accomplished. People originally made/joined the movement because they thought there was no other choice; that diplomacy had already failed on all fronts. I can't see a smaller movement work under a more neutral stance when the entire point GG exists is because all the people involved believe the force they fight isn't one that can be reasoned with.

But you can try anyway, and I wish you luck if you do. Just expect to be very limited in what you can call them on or disagree with, though. Just like Jonathan Mcintosh says in his twitter: "Centrism is dangerous. You can not meet somewhere in the middle between hate and justice. If you try, you will always surrender justice." In other words, if you disagree with them, you are the enemy.

 

[grassgremlin]

Some would argue that GamerGate is already doing that, and it does nothing to improve their credibility. But I see this is going to be a futile discussion since you seem pretty set on your opinion.

Trouble is, they're not doing it very well, because there is no concerted effort going on to address the real ethical problems of videogame journalism (everyone's already forgotten the Shadow of Mordor thing, the people who people are abandoning print websites in favour of due to their so called "authentic" voice are actually completely for sale unless they've got the market cloud of TotalBiscuit), the only concerted efforts are to suppress any feminist critique of games or the "gamer" identity based on an imagined persecution complex, and the tactics they're using to do so are going to bite them in the arse the next time a publication pumps the review score because the advertisers got on the phone, GamerGate is likely to create a world where advertisers have unprecedented control over the editorial because that's what "gamers" have shown they want. Remember, the next time a mediocre game gets a good review whilst the site was advertising it, you made that happen GamerGate, you established that power relationship between advertiser and editor.

This right here is the chief concept of what sets what I want do apart from what Gamergate does.

 

[grassgremlin]

I admire your goal to make a detached movement that appears less aggressive and wish you luck, but I don't believe anything will be accomplished. People originally made/joined the movement because they thought there was no other choice; that diplomacy had already failed on all fronts. I can't see a smaller movement work under a more neutral stance when the entire point GG exists is because all the people involved believe the force they fight isn't one that can be reasoned with.

But you can try anyway, and I wish you luck if you do. Just expect to be very limited in what you can call them on or disagree with, though. Just like Jonathan Mcintosh says in his twitter: "Centrism is dangerous. You can not meet somewhere in the middle between hate and justice. If you try, you will always surrender justice." In other words, if you disagree with them, you are the enemy.

Then we become another kind of Justice.

 

[Davroth]

So, in other words. You're not welcomed if you decrying "dem sjws" or how much you hate them "feminists."
Those will NOT be what this movement is about.

The vast majority of GamerGate does nothing of the sort. What will you do to keep the "bad eggs" out? All it takes is a few people using your hashtag in combination with GamerGate or to harass someone, and it will be 'poisoned' in no time. Genuinely interested how you plan to avoid that from happening.

I understand what you're trying to say. It's something I've made an effort to think about.
The best honest to goodness way of combatting that would be to rally with people who are also against gamergate.

The purpose of the hashtag is common grown. There are people who disagree with the current gaming narrative who I could call out to support this, actually.

I been trying to contact people like Matt Lees and Jim Sterling about it just to see there thoughts.
I'm also actively trying to talk to the people who have made articles against gamergate.
There are two sides to every issue so I want to stand in the middle to see which people we can try to get support and which not.

I'm mainly calling for the people who have remained very neutral, though.

If you want neutral people, Matt Lees and Jim Sterling are among the last people you should ask.

edit: So.. you want to ask anti-GG people but not pro-GG people? Who's that neutral then? :/

 

[grassgremlin]

So, in other words. You're not welcomed if you decrying "dem sjws" or how much you hate them "feminists."
Those will NOT be what this movement is about.

The vast majority of GamerGate does nothing of the sort. What will you do to keep the "bad eggs" out? All it takes is a few people using your hashtag in combination with GamerGate or to harass someone, and it will be 'poisoned' in no time. Genuinely interested how you plan to avoid that from happening.

I understand what you're trying to say. It's something I've made an effort to think about.
The best honest to goodness way of combatting that would be to rally with people who are also against gamergate.

The purpose of the hashtag is common grown. There are people who disagree with the current gaming narrative who I could call out to support this, actually.

I been trying to contact people like Matt Lees and Jim Sterling about it just to see there thoughts.
I'm also actively trying to talk to the people who have made articles against gamergate.
There are two sides to every issue so I want to stand in the middle to see which people we can try to get support and which not.

I'm mainly calling for the people who have remained very neutral, though.

If you want neutral people, Matt Lees and Jim Sterling are among the last people you should ask.

edit: So.. you want to ask anti-GG people but not pro-GG people? Who's that neutral then? :/

I'll just declare it.
This movement isn't neutral when it comes to Gamergate and anything related to it.
So yes, this is a anti-gamer gate movement.

The reason I'm being passive about it is the assumption will be I agree with everyone on the anti-gg side, which is not the same. I only agree with some of the people. This is based on what I believe in more then what others believe in.

 

[Davroth]

So, in other words. You're not welcomed if you decrying "dem sjws" or how much you hate them "feminists."
Those will NOT be what this movement is about.

The vast majority of GamerGate does nothing of the sort. What will you do to keep the "bad eggs" out? All it takes is a few people using your hashtag in combination with GamerGate or to harass someone, and it will be 'poisoned' in no time. Genuinely interested how you plan to avoid that from happening.

I understand what you're trying to say. It's something I've made an effort to think about.
The best honest to goodness way of combatting that would be to rally with people who are also against gamergate.

The purpose of the hashtag is common grown. There are people who disagree with the current gaming narrative who I could call out to support this, actually.

I been trying to contact people like Matt Lees and Jim Sterling about it just to see there thoughts.
I'm also actively trying to talk to the people who have made articles against gamergate.
There are two sides to every issue so I want to stand in the middle to see which people we can try to get support and which not.

I'm mainly calling for the people who have remained very neutral, though.

If you want neutral people, Matt Lees and Jim Sterling are among the last people you should ask.

edit: So.. you want to ask anti-GG people but not pro-GG people? Who's that neutral then? :/

I'll just declare it.
This movement isn't neutral when it comes to Gamergate and anything related to it.
So yes, this is a anti-gamer gate movement.

The reason I'm being passive about it is the assumption will be I agree with everyone on the anti-gg side, which is not the same. I only agree with some of the people. This is based on what I believe in more then what others believe in.

So then your OP is pretty much a lie, since it clearly is political. Good to know. This makes me a lot less hopeful for the future of this endeavour. Straight anti-gg movements have come and gone in a matter of days or sometimes hours. I fail to see how this one is going to different if you wanna foster the whole "us vs them" mentality even further. :/

 

[grassgremlin]

le snip

Gamergate is REALLY good at doing that.
I mean atleast those you call SJW's accept when people disagree with them.
Gamergate has the same narrative. If I'm not for you I am against you.
I can't speak like a rational adult to Matt Lees or Jim Sterling because they are your enemies.

They're not mine. They're other human beings I can talk to about human beings things.
I don't peg people as enemies for the crime of disagreeing with me.
But the thing is I also agree with them on various points. That is how I can connect to them.
I see value in some of there opinions.

 

[Davroth]

le snip

Gamergate is REALLY good at doing that.
I mean atleast those you call SJW's accept when people disagree with them.
Gamergate has the same narrative. If I'm not for you I am against you.
I can't speak like a rational adult to Matt Lees or Jim Sterling because they are your enemies.

They're not mine. They're other human beings I can talk to about human beings things.
I don't peg people as enemies for the crime of disagreeing with me.
But the thing is I also agree with them on various points. That is how I can connect to them.
I see value in some of there opinions.

That's just... straight not true. The us vs them mentality is something that was forced upon GamerGate by the opposition, mostly the press.And people don't bother discussing with people like Matt Lees or Jim Sterling because they have shown time and time again that they are not open for discussion. In time you will experience that for yourself if you truly plan on pushing the issues you say you want to push. This isn't a oneway street. It is not that noone would be willing to talk to people like Matt Lees or Jim Sterling like adults, it's that they already decided that GamerGate has nothing worth talking about. They branded GamerGate as their enemy, not the other way around.

On what basis do you brand GamerGate your enemy? I get the destinct feel that you do, and if it's not based on disagreeing with you, then based on what is it? It is a clearly politically motivated choice, is it not? You don't like the way that some fringe parts of GamerGate have been vocal against what I'd refer to as "tumblr feminists" (a group of people I don't think are actually in the spirit of modern feminism, but who am I to judge), I get that. But I don't know... that seems like you are willing to disregard someone's argument solely based on your perception of them, and not based on the quality of the argument.

And finally, stating that some other group fosters a us vs them mentality is not a good reason to foster one yourself. Two wrongs never make a right.

 

[JediMB]

Well, not so much a new "movement" as a new platform for public and easily accessible discussion of the ethics of the industry.

Overall it would be nice to be able to criticize the AAA sections of the industry without capitalism coming up as an excuse.

 

[JoJo]

This sounds like a good idea, my main advice is to stick to this point of the OP like glue:

8) Extract ourselves completely from Gamergate. Gamergate will not be mentioned or apart of our narrative.

If you frame yourself as an anti-GG movement, in any way, most GGers will dismiss you as a distraction or even an undercover plot. That's simply the way us humans work, it's well-known that we tend to be much more inclined to dismiss evidence if it's perceived to be coming from the "other" side. If you want this to take-off and actually take wind out of the sails of Gamergate, you need to be draw your userbase from both sides, you need to give out a unifying message. This sort of statement:

I'll just declare it.
This movement isn't neutral when it comes to Gamergate and anything related to it.
So yes, this is a anti-gamer gate movement.

The reason I'm being passive about it is the assumption will be I agree with everyone on the anti-gg side, which is not the same. I only agree with some of the people. This is based on what I believe in more then what others believe in.

Makes you sound partisan and will drive away any potential support from Gamergaters. Don't even let yourself be drawn into debate about GG, just focus on the ethics and welcome anyone in who wants to do the same. Do that and you may have a supporter in me.

 

[grassgremlin]

snip

I don't like harrassment.
I don't like seeing women deciding they don't want to belong as gamers.
I don't like to see queer people feel like they don't belong as gamers.
I don't like to see minorities feel like they don't belong as gamers.

The problem you guys seem to miss is that "tumblr feminisms" is caused by decades of abuse.
I understand why people have extreme views.
Why women hate men.
Why black people hate whites.
Why queer folk hate straight or cis-gendered people.

Yeah, it's is crazy. I agree. I wish these people get help.

It's tough to feel like you belong when everyone tells you you're not.
It's hard not to see it as misognistic when Gamergate grabbed Zoe Quinn by the throat and told her she was a "whore, a slut, a ****" for sleeping with men. Not it wasn't enough just point out collusion. You had to call it five guys. You had to joke about her sex life. Whether it's true or not didn't matter. Whether she is a good person or not didn't matter.

You turned someone who did something wrong on the internet into public enemy number one.
The you shout ethics. I would believe it if four women weren't getting death threats so conveniently when these issues are hottest. The reason why we connect them to you is because these are convenient.

If you can call 12 articles of "Gamers are Dead" out as some collusion, despite most of them being taken way out of context, then I can call you out for death threats made during these past three months.

It's tough. You hear me. Freaking tough to go. Okay, GG isn't that bad when you prove me wrong 1000% of the time.
There was a time I was for GG, you know. I still sympathize with GG. I still talk to them. It's hard. Way hard when people still hurl the same lies around and I'm trying to show facts. I get a few people I reason with.

It's hard talking to a leaderless group when everyone is so different in what they want. Yesterday, all I got was calls to have all journalists fired and how Anita Sarkeesian is the devil. I lost a friend because I did not agree with him when he said I had no right to be offended.

I feel like GG wants the entire internet to be 4chan. We hurl racial and homophobic slurs around. When you criticize someone, make sure to call them a "****, fag, ******" just to get the point across how much you hate their guts for having a opinion.

My gosh, I can't stand Davis "Why Blacks Fail" Aurini and Milo Yolo-long-last-name. The latter, his trangenderism article broke me as a human being. http://yiannopoulos.net/2014/08/15/transgenderism-is-a-psychiatric-disorder-its-sufferers-need-therapy-not-surgery/

You literally expect me to support this?
We may have similar opinions. Tumblr feminism IS brutally insane. I agree with that sentiment, but hell no will I follow a group with people like that as there "Based" friends.

Edit: Look. I'm gonna change my stance non-gamergate instead of Anti. Is that acceptable? I refuse to derail this conversation by arguing with GG. I want to have reasonable discussion. This movement will not be apart of gamergate. That's my main stance. I'll accept people from both sides as long as they are willing to talk about the real issues of ethics. No SJWs, No feminists, No conservative leaning agendas, no liberal leaning agendas.

 

[grassgremlin]

It's good to see you're doing a website, consider anything you need from me on the admin side, or marketing, behind you 100%. I'll see if there is anything else I can garner. I'll start emailing people to see if they're interested in helping out.

I'll also ask my husband, who does CS stuff on the side (though not web design) if he has any tips on how to get up a webpage, and any tips or tricks he has for moderating. He may be able to help out in that regard. He likes doing that kind of stuff, though he's not very good with the look side of it.

Oh, thank you very much. Really, that is much appreciated. I'm working on a list of goals for it and figuring out how I can make sure the message is clear. Thank you.

 

[Silvanus]

Gamergate is REALLY good at doing that.
I mean atleast those you call SJW's accept when people disagree with them.
Gamergate has the same narrative. If I'm not for you I am against you.
I can't speak like a rational adult to Matt Lees or Jim Sterling because they are your enemies.

They're not mine. They're other human beings I can talk to about human beings things.
I don't peg people as enemies for the crime of disagreeing with me.
But the thing is I also agree with them on various points. That is how I can connect to them.
I see value in some of there opinions.

It would be interesting to see this lead somewhere positive, but I would encourage you not to start fisticuffs with GamerGate. I would urge that people just call it pro-ethics, or whatever you wish, and make clear that it is disassociated from GamerGate. Nobody can get (validly) mad about disassociation.

On what basis do you brand GamerGate your enemy? I get the destinct feel that you do, and if it's not based on disagreeing with you, then based on what is it? It is a clearly politically motivated choice, is it not? You don't like the way that some fringe parts of GamerGate have been vocal against what I'd refer to as "tumblr feminists" (a group of people I don't think are actually in the spirit of modern feminism, but who am I to judge), I get that. But I don't know... that seems like you are willing to disregard someone's argument solely based on your perception of them, and not based on the quality of the argument.

GamerGate has been defined variously, and very differently, by different people. As far as I understand it, grassgremlin wants a hashtag specifically about the points mentioned in the OP, without association with the various other causes/ definitions/ aspects.


OT: Not sure what relation point #3, about ending review scores, has to do with ethics. That's just a matter of taste.

 

[grassgremlin]

Gamergate is REALLY good at doing that.
I mean atleast those you call SJW's accept when people disagree with them.
Gamergate has the same narrative. If I'm not for you I am against you.
I can't speak like a rational adult to Matt Lees or Jim Sterling because they are your enemies.

They're not mine. They're other human beings I can talk to about human beings things.
I don't peg people as enemies for the crime of disagreeing with me.
But the thing is I also agree with them on various points. That is how I can connect to them.
I see value in some of there opinions.

It would be interesting to see this lead somewhere positive, but I would encourage you not to start fisticuffs with GamerGate. I would urge that people just call it pro-ethics, or whatever you wish, and make clear that it is disassociated from GamerGate. Nobody can get (validly) mad about disassociation.

OT: Not sure what relation point #3, about ending review scores, has to do with ethics. That's just a matter of taste.

Okay. Cool heads prevail