well, the the escapist was just attacked.

Apr 5, 2008
3,736
0
0
I think it may have just happened again. A momentary *hiccup*, the site wasn't available for a short time literally in the last few minutes. DDoS?
 

SnakeTrousers

New member
Dec 30, 2013
219
0
0
The Lunatic said:
We know the threads which were DDOS'd were the threads featuring GG discussion. Given one side is trying to shut down debate of such things, and have actively tried to censor users on twitter and other websites. It stands to reason, at least to me, they were likely the cause.
The "one side" being referred to here could easily change depending on who's reading. Yes, I know you have examples. So do they.

MathHamy said:
Very well, I can accept that position. My argument was simply that the overwhelmingly most likely scenario is that anti-GG crazies did it. Of course, crazies are still crazies, whatever they believe.
My argument would be that it's not really overwhelming. As much as some insist on boiling everything down to GG vs. ANTI GG, my reading is that there are a lot of people involved and their motivations probably aren't nearly as in sync as many would like to believe.
 

Remus

Reprogrammed Spambot
Nov 24, 2012
1,698
0
0
KingsGambit said:
I think it may have just happened again. A momentary *hiccup*, the site wasn't available for a short time literally in the last few minutes. DDoS?
It did. I just looked back at the site and had 1008 messages in my inbox. I've only ever posted one short comment on the topic, and not even in the main thread - it was a reply to a Critical Miss comic last week.
 

Adam Lester

New member
Jan 8, 2013
91
0
0
KennardKId5 said:
This is frankly just getting insane. We all need to step back and reexamine what we're getting so pissy about: other people being wrong on the internet.

I think it goes a lot deeper than that. For the past few years, the gaming scene has been pretty much infected by non-gamers whose only interest was and still is nothing more than shouting down and shaming everyone or making paltry attempts to bend everyone to their will. The things that went down in Gamergate really blew the lid off the tensions that have been brewing between the gamer crowd and the SJWs' that seem have little to no interest in our hobby, but a lot of investment in calling us all privileged, white neckbeards from the ivory tower every time we so much as fart in a way they don't like.

I think one guy said it best to a SJW who confronted the board asking why they were so hated after they overran the message boards; "Eat shit and die. All I asked for was to be left alone."
 

Dante dynamite

New member
Mar 19, 2012
75
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
Dante dynamite said:
actually in arguments of language, word used are actually symbols which we as people or society as a whole give meaning to, words them selves are meaningless and we give meaning to them, and to do so in a way that people can successfully communicate it requires an authoritative source to define these words, so when a person uses the word with a different definition either that they apply themselves to the word or a different authoritative source for a conversation to occur must properly convey that to the other parties involved, this is because without a set authoritative detention words have no meaning at all just random symbols in sequence(also some would argue that a personal definition is useless because with no linguistic background they are someone without the full understanding and letting anyone just change or make their own definition means anyone can make everyday words have sinister meanings or cause problems like new English in 1984)
Except words don't have an authoritative source, they operate upon mutual consensus. This is why we define and agree upon terms in debates, in papers, etc. There is no one dictionary or one source for language except common uses, which the multiple dictionaries reflect and catalogue. It's a start point, not the end all. there are multiple bodies which "define" language within a given body of language.

Demonstrating my point, there are multiple definitions of misogyny. Which is THE definition? The one true definition? How can you determine that when people actively use multiple definitions and they are recognised? And how does the fact that we still manage to communicate without a unified definition not prove you wrong about the need for a set definition? How does language manage to evolve within such an authoritative structure? Why does "literal" now have a definition that means the exact opposite as codified by some dictionaries?

Words are often imprecise. For one person to say something is misogynistic and another to immediately jump on them for not knowing what the word means because they must have meant a particular definition is utter sophistry.
the Oxford dictionary and others are authoritative sources on language and many linguist reach on mutual definitions. in such cases many bodies define the word very similarly, and when a person uses a definition they usually state the definition they use but they always follow a certain structure or meaning, in all cases of misogyny they all are similar enough, that when laymen talk they mostly have similar definitions of the word, their is unity in this sense, and the authoritative make decisions on they definitions on words on their usage in the public, they still set the structure, before literally was added to mean an informal use for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true, it was used wrongly used even though many people used it didn't mean it was correct at that point in time, the authoritative sources gave it recognition, just because it is sounds like a autocratic system doesn't mean that it works strictly like that, many professionals gather to discuss and define word used in the public and give it merit.

for your example the blame falls on the first person for not clearly present their definition of the word instead of the more popular definition which the second person subscribes to, the second person can claim the first is ignorant because with no evidence to the contrary was presented at first, that the person has created their own detention of the word to fit their argument or context, the first person failed to reach to a consensus of the word.
 

MathHamy

New member
Sep 18, 2014
12
0
0
undeadsuitor said:
If people can believe that every female developer and reviewer is faking their own death threats, and that theres a large conspiracy of SJWs controlling gaming journalism for their own agenda, I can believe that the Gamergate people after being kicked out of 4chan would DDos their own threads in an effort to both bring Gamergate back into the public eye (which its been falling out of in the last weeks) and make the other side look worse
I highly doubt anybody is saying that.

The issue is more that people are naturally suspicious about people who they know have lied before (As shown in the so called "Zoe blog post", or as shown in the video where Anita says that she "isn't a fan of video games", which completely contradicts what she said in her kickstarter video).

Also, you can hardly claim that 4chan is behind GamerGate, as the whole thing started simultaneously in many places. 4chan just happened to be one of the few places where the discussion wasn't banned. At least until recently.

Further, the "bringing GamerGate back into the public eye" agenda doesn't really make sense, considering the GameJournoPros e-mail dump that took place this week.
 

Bruce

New member
Jun 15, 2013
276
0
0
BobDobolina said:
undeadsuitor said:
If people can believe that every female developer and reviewer is faking their own death threats, and that theres a large conspiracy of SJWs controlling gaming journalism for their own agenda, I can believe that the Gamergate people after being kicked out of 4chan would DDos their own threads in an effort to both bring Gamergate back into the public eye (which its been falling out of in the last weeks) and make the other side look worse
The board that was their erstwhile home, and which is obviously incredibly sick of their shit and populated with people perfectly at home with such tactics, still seems the likeliest suspect to me. Most of that kind of stuff has been happening to GamerGaters since 4chan booted their threads and they started yammering about Moot's "betrayal" and 4chan's "hypocrisy" and crusading to take back the homeland from the "SJWs."

Could of course be someone else, who knows.
What gets me is even after 4Chan booted them, these guys think that anybody out there thinks they are in the least bit reasonable or even vaguely likeable.

Even 4chan isn't having any more of their shit.
 

Stats ^1

New member
Aug 28, 2014
55
0
0
Josh12345 said:
Stats ^1 said:
I.

Don't.

Care.

Your ridiculous ramblings are no excuse to make a separate thread for this issue. It already has a huge thread dedicated to it.
Oh you don't care?
Then why are you here?

Nice job discrediting my post there by addressing nothing about it in a throwaway comment, mad props.
And yeah there's a separate thread dedicated to this issue, but then YOU should have posted your initial comment there if you gave enough of a crap.
And the ENTIRE SITE was down for a few hours, I didn't make this thread, but it seems A LOT of people deemed such a thread necessary.
Sorry, I don't feel like addressing some bullshit.

This thread shouldn't even exist. The only reason this thread exists is because someone felt like being "here's bullshit about this whole debate for people who don't want to be part of it"

This issue isn't as big as the average escapist user would have you believe.
 

MathHamy

New member
Sep 18, 2014
12
0
0
Bruce said:
What gets me is even after 4Chan booted them, these guys think that anybody out there thinks they are in the least bit reasonable or even vaguely likeable.

Even 4chan isn't having any more of their shit.
So in other words you think it's unreasonable to demand that gaming websites have a publicly displayed ethics policy?

To be honest, I find that most people are completely reasonable and agreeable if approached the right way.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Caiphus said:
Well, actually you're wrong.

Words can only have one meaning, and that meaning shall henceforth be primarily determined by its Latin roots.

So the next time someone uses, say, "terrific" when referring to anything positive, they should immediately be attacked with a wet fish.
Can we do it to "bemused," too?

I sort of wonder how people with this issue describe black people, as they're not literally black.

Dante dynamite said:
the Oxford dictionary and others are authoritative sources on language and many linguist reach on mutual definitions. a
Bodies which don't necessarily agree on definitions, often employ multiple definitions for the same word, and include things like history and usage notes. Further, they don't codify the language, they reflect it. That's why "literally" has a new definition in dictionaries. Because the dictionaries are deciding to reflect the diction employed by people, not set edicts about it.

I'm sorry, but your idea of language authorities is completely backward.
 

laggyteabag

Scrolling through forums, instead of playing games
Legacy
Oct 25, 2009
3,301
982
118
UK
Gender
He/Him
Oh no! How dare people talk about a touchy subject on a public internet forum! We must stop their activities immediately! /sarcasm

I dont really get it, some people really need to take a step back and really think about what they are really getting so angry about. I understand that there are two sides to this argument, but I really don't see how a DDoS attack on a forum is really going to help anything. Not that I have been paying much attention to the whole thing anyway; I know the basics, but I just cannot see why or how anyone outside of those involved would get so angry at a place of discussion over the events, and then resort to attacking it.
 

Stats ^1

New member
Aug 28, 2014
55
0
0
MathHamy said:
-unnecessary wall of text-
No, this discussion is a GG discussion, to a point where the OP even admitted that a replica of the discussion is going on in the big thread.

Don't blatantly lie.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
undeadsuitor said:
If people can believe that every female developer and reviewer is faking their own death threats, and that theres a large conspiracy of SJWs controlling gaming journalism for their own agenda, I can believe that the Gamergate people after being kicked out of 4chan would DDos their own threads in an effort to both bring Gamergate back into the public eye (which its been falling out of in the last weeks) and make the other side look worse
Wait, was GamerGate ever in the public eye? I've seen like one mention of it outside gaming news sites and other gaming sources. I think you're giving the "movement" more credit than it deserves.
 

MathHamy

New member
Sep 18, 2014
12
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
Wait, was GamerGate ever in the public eye? I've seen like one mention of it outside gaming news sites and other gaming sources. I think you're giving the "movement" more credit than it deserves.
There's been talking about it on The Young Turks, actually.
 

Stats ^1

New member
Aug 28, 2014
55
0
0
MathHamy said:
Stats ^1 said:
MathHamy said:
-unnecessary wall of text-
-blatant public display of illiteracy and stupidity-
I can be snarky as well.

OP opened this thread for people who are unwilling to delve through the GG Megathread but want to talk about why Escapist was down. Again, the GG thread is for GG things. This thread is for the DDoS attack. Some people in this thread even question whether or not the DDoS was related to GG at all.

So how does "ignore stuff you don't like" sound as a personal policy?
I can ignore the large thread, but that's the point. this should be kept to the large thread.

How ignorant does one have to be to not understand that point? The reason there's one big thread is so that discussions are kept on that thread, allowing others to ignore it. When the entire website is flooded with the same discussion, it's incredibly annoying.

And insults, really? Are you stooping that low?

Finally, no. This thread is not about DDoS attacks, this is a GG discussion, again, you need to stop lying, it's not a good quality to have.