You don't have to be afraid of taking a public stance against #GamerGate.

[Silvanus]

Sorry for cutting the quote, it's just that I am a little tired and I want to condense my argument as tightly as possible.

I want to point out that GamerGate is a Gaming related movement and us thus it belongs mainly in mainstream forums and media.

The fact is that of all the mainstream gaming sites only the Escapist has allowed open discussion of it and judging by how Ben Kuchera and co tried to 'convince' Greg Tito to stop the discussion here as well then I am certain that a small clique of people actively tried to suppress the discussion and limit the exposure of their audience to it.

I see this as censoring.

Yes the Internet is infinite but the places where the discussion has merit in are few and in most of them the discussion has been disallowed. The audience for this discussion are gamers and as I said already only the Escapist has allowed this discussion to go unabated.

Yes the evidence is tentative at best but I doubt that we could ever offer something as solid as the police cracking down on dissenters since everything is happening on the Internet and not in real life.

There are forums dedicated specifically to the movement. There is Reddit, the Escapist, Twitter.

The disallowing of discussion on these topics on /v/, NeoGAF, and Cracked (if it happened) are not terribly significant to the debate.

Please note, though, that I agree banning topics is a crappy way to go about it, and would only breed resentment.

Actually, the reason given is that discussion of GamerGate amounts to harassment. That is, indeed, the rationale which was used to try and shut down similar discussion here on The Escapist, a rationale which Greg Tito (hardly a fan of the movement) eschewed.

You appear to be misinformed.

No, that was not the reason given [http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/832/349/1f2.png]. He did not say that discussion in itself constitutes harassment; he didn't use the term 'harassment' at all.

sup·press
transitive verb \sə-ˈpres\

1: to put down by authority or force : subdue

2b: to stop or prohibit the publication or revelation of

Again, you appear to be misinformed. You would be more correct to admit the suppression, but to assert (as the suppressors have done) that the act was legal and not an infringement upon First Amendment rights.

I would argue that debate has not been put down, stopped or prohibited in any meaningful sense, as it is still going on in a thousand different outlets.

Private forums reserve the right to decide what will be discussed (or to enforce their own rules). To deem it "censorship" would be to lose perspective of the baggage that term carries, historically and culturally, and to devalue the word.

Your tone is patronising.

 

[laraem]

Sorry for cutting the quote, it's just that I am a little tired and I want to condense my argument as tightly as possible.

I want to point out that GamerGate is a Gaming related movement and us thus it belongs mainly in mainstream forums and media.

The fact is that of all the mainstream gaming sites only the Escapist has allowed open discussion of it and judging by how Ben Kuchera and co tried to 'convince' Greg Tito to stop the discussion here as well then I am certain that a small clique of people actively tried to suppress the discussion and limit the exposure of their audience to it.

I see this as censoring.

Yes the Internet is infinite but the places where the discussion has merit in are few and in most of them the discussion has been disallowed. The audience for this discussion are gamers and as I said already only the Escapist has allowed this discussion to go unabated.

Yes the evidence is tentative at best but I doubt that we could ever offer something as solid as the police cracking down on dissenters since everything is happening on the Internet and not in real life.

There are forums dedicated specifically to the movement. There is Reddit, the Escapist, Twitter.

The disallowing of discussion on these topics on /v/, NeoGAF, and Cracked (if it happened) are not terribly significant to the debate.

Please note, though, that I agree banning topics is a crappy way to go about it, and would only breed resentment.

Actually, the reason given is that discussion of GamerGate amounts to harassment. That is, indeed, the rationale which was used to try and shut down similar discussion here on The Escapist, a rationale which Greg Tito (hardly a fan of the movement) eschewed.

You appear to be misinformed.

No, that was not the reason given [http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/832/349/1f2.png]. He did not say that discussion in itself constitutes harassment; he didn't use the term 'harassment' at all.

sup·press
transitive verb \sə-ˈpres\

1: to put down by authority or force : subdue

2b: to stop or prohibit the publication or revelation of

Again, you appear to be misinformed. You would be more correct to admit the suppression, but to assert (as the suppressors have done) that the act was legal and not an infringement upon First Amendment rights.

I would argue that debate has not been put down, stopped or prohibited in any meaningful sense, as it is still going on in a thousand different outlets.

Private forums reserve the right to decide what will be discussed (or to enforce their own rules). To deem it "censorship" would be to lose perspective of the baggage that term carries, historically and culturally, and to devalue the word.

Your tone is patronising.

Hell you can still talk about it on NeoGaf you just can't act like a massive conspiracy crackpot.

 

[Carrington666]

snip

snip

The only thing I argue for is that if one site publishes excactly one article/video etc. about a topic, than this article/video can be seen as the opinion of that site. If a site publishes multiple articles/videos about a topic that share the same tenor, but non with a contrary viewpoint, than this tenor can and probaby should be seen as the general opinion of that site.
If a site publishes multiple articles/videos about a topic with multiple viewpoints, than these viewpoints should be seen as the viewpoint of the author.

This is the same reason why I'd argue that the boycott of Gamasutra and other sites is perfectly valid. They published one opinion piece and none that contradicts it, so it's fair to boycott the whole site.
However you cannot hold one page accountable for one article and seperate another article from its page.
You either have to say that if one page publishes one article than this article represents the opinion of the page, or every article is divorced from the page it is published and it stands on its own. You cannot have it both ways.

 

[CymbaIine]

This is the same reason why I'd argue that the boycott of Gamasutra and other sites is perfectly valid. They published one opinion piece and none that contradicts it, so it's fair to boycott the whole site.

I think the boycott thing is fantastic. I mean I "boycott" The Daily Mail because I find it to be fucking toxic and I can't trust anything I read on it because of their politics. I think people who have a problem with the political leanings of a news site should absolutely not read it. What I don't understand is why they think nobody else should be able to.

 

[Jux]

-snip-

I'm still waiting on those quotes. Quote where I belittled minorities. Source where journalists 'set their fans' on people, or where I defended that. I'm tired of you lying about me. And any attempts at deflecting this back at me just isn't going to work, because I know how that game is played.

 

[Lilani]

-snip-

This is going to be my last post on the matter, as I've discovered the shorter one makes a discussion on gamergate the more can actually be said.

I will become sympathetic to gamergate when their actions match up with their claimed grievances. People keep shouting this is about journalistic integrity and keeping marketing out of game reviews. If that's the case, then why have I learned about corruption in game journalism from this week's Jimquisition [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/9782-Shadow-of-Mordors-Promotion-Deals-with-Plaid-Social] alone than from the entirety of the gamergate scandal? All Gamergate wants to talk about is Zoe Quinn's little known indie game she doesn't even charge for and Anita Sarkeesian, a figure who was a dead horse more than a year ago and is now just someone who very sad and angry people like to bang their frustrations against.

Why are they focused on such small fries when you've got marketing companies like Plaid Social writing contracts that require early reviewers of the Shadow of Mordor to make positive reviews? Why are they so determined to prove the little blurb that came of Zoe Quinn's tryst was some huge deal to prove games journalism is corrupt, when all they really have to do is point to every gaming web site that has big splash page ads for a game it also happens to have reviewed? Quinn's game doesn't even appear on the radar compared to the kind of money spent by AAA games, and while what happened with her is an absolute quagmire of speculation and distraction, what AAA marketing campaigns do to buy good reviews is pretty clear and unambiguous.

For a group dedicated to making sure gamers are heard and reviewers aren't getting bought, you sure aren't good at expressing yourselves or pointing out the largest and clear-cut cases of corruption.

 

[Something Amyss]

Why indeed. The GameJournoPros thought they were doing the same thing in gaming that JournoList was doing in politics (a good thing, by their reckoning). At least when JournoList was busted, David Weigel had the good sense to resign from the Washington Post the same day his emails were leaked.

And yet, it's still going on. And they're not getting the same criticism. Because ponies.

Hey, one guy resigned, though. That totally means 'mission accomplished.'

 

[Carrington666]

snip

snip

The only thing I argue for is that if one site publishes excactly one article/video etc. about a topic, than this article/video can be seen as the opinion of that site. If a site publishes multiple articles/videos about a topic that share the same tenor, but non with a contrary viewpoint, than this tenor can and probaby should be seen as the general opinion of that site.
If a site publishes multiple articles/videos about a topic with multiple viewpoints, than these viewpoints should be seen as the viewpoint of the author.

This is the same reason why I'd argue that the boycott of Gamasutra and other sites is perfectly valid. They published one opinion piece and none that contradicts it, so it's fair to boycott the whole site.
However you cannot hold one page accountable for one article and seperate another article from its page.
You either have to say that if one page publishes one article than this article represents the opinion of the page, or every article is divorced from the page it is published and it stands on its own. You cannot have it both ways.

Okay, so by that logic, ZP's critiques on a lot of games must be the opinion of the escapist. You can't have it both ways, you said.

Often, there are other articles about the games ZP critiques. They could be reviews, comics, opinon pieces etc and sometimes they share their opinions, sometimes they contradict each other. So it should be clear, that ZP is not the unified foice of the Escapist when it comes to games.

If Zero Punctuation were the only show on the Escapist that speaks about games, than you could argue that ZP can be seen as the opinion of the Escapist.
And please take note of the "can be seen", I never said it "must be seen".

 

[Carrington666]

Often, there are other articles about the games ZP critiques. They could be reviews, comics, opinon pieces etc and sometimes they share their opinions, sometimes they contradict each other. So it should be clear, that ZP is not the unified foice of the Escapist when it comes to games.

And in the cases where they aren't?

Then his opinion is the opinion of The Escapist, right?

Like how MovieBob's opinion on movies that aren't written about elsewhere on the site is the opinion of The Escapist, right?

No, because, as I have just written, there are many instances which make it clear, that his opion is just his, since there are articles that contradict him. The same with MovieBob, there are other people on this site that create content which may or may not contradict him.
If ZP was the only thing on this site about games and MovieBob was the only person writting about movies than yes, they could be seen as the voice of the Escapist. Again could be seen, not must be seen.

 

[Lilani]

I suppose I'll respond to you, since you aren't the guy I was talking to.

^You're clueless.

Gamergate people specifically go out of their way not to mention AS or ZQ.

Youtubers are also not game journalists so this has nothing to do with gamergate, but even if it did Gamergate can hardly be responsible for every single piece of corruption in video games.

Yours is a non-argument.

Have you forgotten what that long clusterfuck of a thread that is now so infamous as the birthplace of the gamergate discussion on the Escapist is called?

Zoe Quinn and the Surrounding Controversy. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.858347-Zoe-Quinn-and-the-surrounding-controversy#21277867]

And excuse me, Gamergate--a group which purports to be the gamer's voice against corruption in games journalism--can hardly be responsible for the BIGGEST, most OBVIOUS, and MOST MONETIZED instances of corruption in games media? I'm not saying they should draw attention to EVERY instance, I'm saying they should at least draw attention to the biggest and most unambiguous cases of it. That would definitely give you the most credibility and the most support. Zoe Quinn is not a big case, and nor is what happened with her unambiguous.

Perhaps YOU'RE not going after Quinn, but Phlunkies the person I was just talking to certainly has a mind to go after her.

Really? You want to play this game?

And what about Leigh Alexanders hateful and racist tirades? Her repeated doxxing of critics? The constant stream of articles over the last several years calling gamers misogynists and how games promote rape? The syringe sent to Milo? A writer at the verge threatening to punch gamergate supporters at comic-con? TB still receiving harassment while recovering from surgery? Indie devs like Jason Miller losing their jobs due to harassment? Gearbox claiming a bomb threat near their office was from gamergate when, as it turned out, had absolutely nothing to do with them? The DDOSing of this very forum? The censorship of multiple sites? The refusal to report on the Zoe Quinn scandal after smearing Max Temkin with no evidence on a bogus rape claim?

I can go on all day.

Zoe Quinn's attacks on TFYC. IndieCade's completely corrupt judges. Phil Phish's racketeering scheme. Brianna Wu harassing GamerGate supporters with a sock account while still trying to claim victimhood, baseless attacks on Intel calling them sexist, gaymerx harassed for mere neutrality, the polygon writer harassed for neutrality, Matt Lees calling Christina Sommers scum, Alex Lifschitz saying gamers should have their backs broken on racks among other crazy things, the bullying that went on in the gamejournopro group, George Reese comparing gamergate supporters to ISIS, Ian Miles Chong falsely accusing a gamergate supporter of being a rapist, the doxxing of Kingofpol and internetaristocrat, the dmca claims on thunderfoot....

I'm choosing to stop but it goes on and on and on....http://i.imgur.com/4JWl6sF.jpg

Not to mention every person, just like you, who blames every individual event on gamers as a whole, even though if you replaced "gamers" with a race, gender, religion, lifestyle, country, political leaning, etc. you'd sound absolutely ridiculous.

Most of the things he listed have nothing to do with corruption in games journalism, or if it does it's such a tiny and unclear thing it isn't enough for anybody who isn't determined to be angry about it to get worked up about. It's the culmination of a bunch of Internet feuds which have been going on forever and brought together because apparently sites not wanting to report on such train wrecks is now "censorship."

Gamergate is not a movement wanting to stamp out corruption in games. It's a group of people who are determined to be angry about a lot of things and use "journalistic integrity" as a way of telling themselves they're right if they ever begin to doubt their legitimacy. Those who are truly concerned about journalistic integrity are being smothered by all the other shit, and they aren't focusing on the big, unambiguous cases which could lend their claims of corruption true legitimacy.

 

[Nikolaz72]

-focusing on the big, unambiguous cases which could lend their claims of corruption true legitimacy.

You mean the cases reported on by the gaming sides who stand accused of said corruption?

Yea, the Anti-GG's trump that out a lot. Just because the people accused of murder say they haven't commited murder doesn't mean the evidence doesn't point to it.

In this case the accused just has more media power, but it's temporary. It is beginning to lean in the consumers favor.

 

[Biran53]

I shouldn't be afraid of taking a stance against GamerGate you say ?

Alright then, I'm gonna lay down some truth words right now:

If you're a lovely person, going through your day reading people's twitter and articles written by some random guy/gal and thinking to yourself that is how you should spend your time, I'm sorry but you have fucked up priorities.

I remember some people on this website saying that GamerGate is the most interesting thing that happened in a long while in their life.
If that's the case, if that's really how you feel, you must have the most boring life imaginable.

If what I said doesn't concern/targets you, good.
If it does, take a few days off the internet, call some buddies (If you have any), go out in the wood for a couple days, live with nature and enjoy your time there.

Have a nice day

GamerGate is something you become involved with when you have a tenuous grasp on what's important in life.

lol

You know what? Thank you. You're fucking right.

Even just casually following this now seems like a waste of my time.

I'm not "afraid" to take any stance in this silly mess.

Hey, if you want to "fight" for something noble, great. Just try not to lose sight of what silliness you're actually fighting over.

I'm out.

 

[Colour Scientist]

I don't recommend doing it in the mega thread unless you want several people to gang up on you and mock what you say.

Awesome place, that thread is.

So welcoming. XD

 

[Thorn14]

I don't recommend doing it in the mega thread unless you want several people to gang up on you and mock what you say.

Awesome place, that thread is.

So welcoming. XD

We can follow you here you know ;D

But seriously, I can see why the mega thread is intimidating. But at least you don't get banned for having the dissenting opinion unlike say, Neogaf.

 

[Thorn14]

Zoe Quinn and the Surrounding Controversy. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.858347-Zoe-Quinn-and-the-surrounding-controversy#21277867]

Zoe Quinn predates Gamergate, so it only makes sense that the "birthplace" of Gamergate also happens to be closely related to Zoe Quinn. After all, she's ground zero. It would be silly to deny her role in this whole thing. Nobody does.

She's an important historical figure, but she's not the central figure.

Seriously? How many times in the past few days in several threads dedicated to the GamerGate stuff (the Dev writeup, the "is Anita a Gamer thread, Fuck it I'm outta here thread) has people said "GamerGate has nothing to do with Zoe! It was started with Adam Baldwin, and we don't even talk about her!"

The thread gave her another name. Literally Who? And Literally Who 2 for Anita? As if giving them code names was going to take away some sort of relevancy? I think there's people in THIS thread that says she has nothing to do with GamerGate, and she is never brought up.

This is why no one can take GG seriously, because one minute one person says the sky is blue, the next person says it's green, the next it's purple, and the next that it's yellow with tangerine spots. And each one is just as sincere as the other. No one seems to know what the other hand is doing, and it's a train wreck to watch. And for anyone that tries to come in to have a dissenting opinion, we get slapped about by each and every one of those opinions that don't match each other.

So not only do we have to defend ourselves, we have to defend ourselves from 10 different ideologies that are supposed to come down to journalistic integrity and ethics. But I don't see that. I see back biting and yelling and anger and frustration, and everyone yelling to be heard, and when it's all over people claiming they won. It's no place I would want to be, but still I tried.

Lots of people have different opinion on things. Whodathunk? #GG is a consumer movement, not an exclusive club with a purity test, people are going to have different opinions about it.

Me, if everyone involved in #GG would shut up about ZQ and Anita I'd be a happy gamer, they can write and produce whatever they want, I won't stop them, but I'm so sick of everyone going "#GG is about those 2!" and then me having to repeat myself "No it isn't, you all just keep bringing them up again."

 

[Thorn14]

Okay so one minute you're not a hive mind, but the next you are. He/She says:

I don't get what you're saying, what about a hive mind?

But the majority of the Gamergate people do. I was calling out this person on this. It's nice that you feel the need to defend them, but the fact is, that statement is not even remotely true.

People don't deny the ZQ started off everything with the whole Zoepost nonsense. (And if they do deny it I disagree with them.) I didn't give a shit back then at all.

But that was just the spark. The gasoline was the massive "Gamers are Dead" article attacks and the mass censorship. Thats when I believe #GamerGate exploded.

And guess what? Since then? ZQ hasn't been relevant at all except when people bring her up in discussions. She hasn't made any news, or said or done anything new because we simply don't care.

We're after dishonest video game journalists now, not ZQ, and yet people constantly want to bring her up.

And yeah, the Franz Ferdinand comparison is apt. It was the trigger but this consumer revolt was brewing for a long time. (See the Mass Effect 3 and "Entitled Gamers" fiasco)

 

[Lunar Archivist]

This is why no one can take GG seriously, because one minute one person says the sky is blue, the next person says it's green, the next it's purple, and the next that it's yellow with tangerine spots. And each one is just as sincere as the other. No one seems to know what the other hand is doing, and it's a train wreck to watch. And for anyone that tries to come in to have a dissenting opinion, we get slapped about by each and every one of those opinions that don't match each other.

Okay, you know what? Let's settle this argument once and for all by going back in time:

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/2014/08/25/gamers-revolt-another-take-on-the-zoe-quinn-scandal/

This is an article written by Derek Strickland for the Bright Side of News on August 25, 2014. Before the #GamerGate hashtag broke out. Before Adam Baldwin, Christine Hoff Sommers, or Milo Yiannopoulos stepped into the ring. Before the "Gamers are dead" article crapstorm. It's one of a handful of articles about this revolt as it was in its infancy but still one of the most accurate summaries of the events that created this powder keg for Zoe Quinn to sit on in the first place, something that the anti-Gamergate people have been doing their best to bury under a mountain of lies, misinformation, and claims about misogyny. And while we're at it, here are more articles about Strickland written at every milestone of this fiasco:

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/2014/09/19/inside-the-secret-world-of-games-journalism/
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/2014/09/26/how-sensationalism-continues-to-ignite-gamergate/
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/2014/10/11/gamergate-does-games-journalism-have-a-liberal-bias-problem/

And just for good measure, here's an article by Carol Young which debunks most claims that anti-GamerGate supporters have been making for the last six weeks:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/10/09/the_gender_games_sex_lies_and_videogames_124244.html

 

[Something Amyss]

However: Gamergate is not ABOUT Zoe anymore than WWI was ABOUT Archduke Ferdinand.

I wonder how often speeches in WW1, especially from other countries, actually addressed Ferdinand. Because, you know, Soe comes up all the time. As does She Who Must Not Be Named. It's not about them, but they're invoked constantly. And talked about heavily. They're practically GamerGate's Godwin's Law, in that the odds of them being invoked approaches 1:1 the longer the thread goes.

I'm betting that Gamergate is significantly more about Zoe (and Anita, though you didn't name her) than WW1 is about Ferdinand.

 

[AndrewEB]

OP: Have you considered that maybe we respect your opinion to disagree with us as long as its done in a professional and non inflammatory manner?

I welcome discussion. When Erik Kain got others to discuss the round table, I disagreed with Greg Tito's stances but he was polite and willing to discuss so I applauded him.

Uh dude, pot calling the kettle black much? People on the pro gamergate side have been unprofessional and extremely inflammatory as well.

 

[Thorn14]

OP: Have you considered that maybe we respect your opinion to disagree with us as long as its done in a professional and non inflammatory manner?

I welcome discussion. When Erik Kain got others to discuss the round table, I disagreed with Greg Tito's stances but he was polite and willing to discuss so I applauded him.

Uh dude, pot calling the kettle black much? People on the pro gamergate side have been unprofessional and extremely inflammatory as well.

Of course there are buttholes on the Pro Side as well, but I don't want people to believe the narrative being spun that #GG is nothing but a misogynistic hate movement while those against it are shining paragons of tolerance and peace.

We need to shout down those who would harass and abuse, and support peaceful dialogue and discussion. And if some of us who get overly emotional at times need a slap on the head, so be it.