Corruption in Gaming Journalism Discussion V2 - Back from the dead!
5,003 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Wii60;46969065]the founder of /r/gamerghazi has a IMGUR account made in march 2014.
some of the things found
[url]http://imgur.com/a/ZyApu[/url][/QUOTE]
Ill doers are ill deemers.
hey guys i like girls but i also like games what do i do??? is there a gamergate side for me???
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitpost" - Craptasket))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Raidyr;46969057]What I do wonder is how far your staunch views on language would get you in the professional world, when you are representing a company as an employee or setting the example as a manager or supervisor.[/QUOTE]
People adopt different speech habits in different contexts, I don't see how that's news.
[QUOTE=mokkan;46969179]hey guys i like girls but i also like games what do i do??? is there a gamergate side for me???[/QUOTE]
Nope. Pro-Gamergate hates women, minorities, and queers and is mostly made up of far-right fascists. Anti-Gamergate hate video games and want to institute a radical feminist matriarchal form of government that will completely censor everything forever.
[editline]19th January 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=_Axel;46969185]People adopt different speech habits in different contexts, I don't see how that's news.[/QUOTE]
I should hope so for his sake. The problem with his post is the focus on "intent".
[QUOTE=mokkan;46969179]hey guys i like girls but i also like games what do i do??? is there a gamergate side for me???[/QUOTE]
na sorry you gotta fill your "harrassing women" quota every week.
you need to get 20 women harrassed to get your scout badge
Wikipedia's ArbCom for the GamerGate article is underway.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Proposed_decision[/url]
Four voters in and I think they are going to clean house at both sides of the scandal, unless they decide to do a massive asspull right now to let Ryulong and his cohorts off with a slap on the wrist.
EDIT: Damned ninja's.
In other news, Ryulong is also editing the Gamergate article at RationalWiki. [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/2swlm6/rational_wiki_corruption_yes_its_ryulong/[/url]
[quote]Ryulong banned
4.3) Ryulong (talk · contribs · logs · edit filter log · block log) is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.[/quote]
Was surprised at the amount of support for this.
[editline]20th January 2015[/editline]
FYI basically they are banning everybody. They all deserve it, honestly.
Wikioprah
"you get a ban, you get a ban, everyone gets a ban!"
So satisfying.
Pretty amazed Loganmac wasn't on that list, although he never edited, he was still pretty active in the talk pages. I guess there wasn't any evidence of wrongdoing. Not that he really did any, this just seemed to be a "get rid of all the war and replace it with editors who give a shit about ethics."
[QUOTE=Wii60;46969065]the founder of /r/gamerghazi has a IMGUR account made in march 2014.
some of the things found
[url]http://imgur.com/a/ZyApu[/url][/QUOTE]
I'm glad since it shows that we're all human. We unintentionally loosen up and lose polite tact.
I like how their only defense is that by getting banned they're doing us a favor, they aren't even trying to disprove they've been pushing their agenda the entire time
I like this one the most
[quote]Roger: What admin is going to risk taking those actions under DS, knowing that if they make decisions which Gamergate supporters oppose, they will be targeted for a vicious harassment campaign by an anonymous off-wiki mob and dragged before ArbCom with entire chanboard threads devoted to crowdsourcimg evidence against them? You are setting admins up to be GamerGate's next harassment targets, with the visible scalps of myself and others providing proof of the efficacy of their tactics. It is unsurprising that most admins have declined to put themselves in such a position, and I applaud Gamaliel and HJ Mitchell for being willing to step up and make decisions which invite such abuse. I would not wish upon anyone what I have been subjected to. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[/quote]
Using fear mongering tactics to intimidate administrators into voting to his favor, fucking pathetic
[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;46969877]So satisfying.
Pretty amazed Loganmac wasn't on that list, although he never edited, he was still pretty active in the talk pages. I guess there wasn't any evidence of wrongdoing. Not that he really did any, this just seemed to be a "get rid of all the war and replace it with editors who give a shit about ethics."[/QUOTE]
He didn't edit it since he felt that he was biased. It's awesome that he did that, considering that it's rare to see that people with that type of humility anymore.
[QUOTE=Ryo Ohki;46969919]I like how their only defense is that by getting banned they're doing us a favor, they aren't even trying to disprove they've been pushing their agenda the entire time
I like this one the most
Using fear mongering tactics to intimidate administrators into voting to his favor, fucking pathetic[/QUOTE]
It amazes me how low they stoop when their reputations are at stake. They are trying everything in the "professional victim" book to stop themselves getting banned, from victimizing themselves to guilt tripping arbitrators.
[quote]We've put very robust steps in place to deal with any new incoming SPAs. But we don't have the resources or the mandate to deal with serious and systemic off-wiki harassment issues. You really need to take them to the WMF and/or law enforcement. Roger Davies talk 00:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[/quote]
Roger telling it like it is, wikipedia isn't a front for your political view.
[editline]20th January 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;46969932]He didn't edit it since he felt that he was biased. It's awesome that he did that, considering that it's rare to see that people with that type of humility anymore.[/QUOTE]
It wouldn't look good considering hes a mod on KiA now.
[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;46969843]Was surprised at the amount of support for this.
[editline]20th January 2015[/editline]
FYI basically they are banning everybody. They all deserve it, honestly.[/QUOTE]
theres only 3 supporting votes right now and zero opposing
it needs at least 8 to pass right now
this wikipedia arbitration shit is hard to read
[QUOTE=Wii60;46969953]theres only 3 supporting votes right now and zero opposing
it needs at least 8 to pass right now[/QUOTE]
I have a high hope the other administrators will not oppose it, they all agree that battlefield tactics are being used, which usually means that somebody is getting banned, and the initial votes can show for that - and are often an influential factor. The fact they are voting so quickly is a show of general agreeance between them.
Just know that :
Principles to enact upon :
The stuff that was happening between the editors
Proposed finding of fact:
The stuff that they agree happened as undeniable fact
Proposed Decision/Remedies:
What to do about it
Finally, at the bottom of the page is a total tally of the votes and the requirements.
[editline]a[/editline]
It's still incredibly stupid it needs to be unanimous to ban people. Basically I know three people are defenitely convinced, while the others might be a bit harder to get the votes out of.
[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;46969971]
It's still incredibly stupid it needs to be unanimous to ban people. [/QUOTE]
You say that now when they're banning people on the other side, but imagine if a few crazy SJW admins had the power to ban dissenters. Free speech and corruption works both ways.
[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;46970027]You say that now when they're banning people on the other side, but imagine if a few crazy SJW admins had the power to ban dissenters. Free speech and corruption works both ways.[/QUOTE]
I guess. I still think it should be like, 7/8 people required though - it'd be pretty hard to elect hardcore SJW's to a majority vote.
[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;46969843]Was surprised at the amount of support for this.
[editline]20th January 2015[/editline]
FYI basically they are banning everybody. They all deserve it, honestly.[/QUOTE]
Wales will be pleased for once.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;46969057]Sure, this might work in your casual life. I never understood why people hold this attitude but it's your prerogative to associate with the people you want to associate with and there is nothing I can do about it.
What I do wonder is how far your staunch views on language would get you in the professional world, when you are representing a company as an employee or setting the example as a manager or supervisor.
Easy to mistake it like that when you directly quote someone before making the post, just saying.
Yes I read your entire post. You do mention that it's fine to be cautious around people who might be "genuinely hurt" by the language we use but immediately walk it back by saying we shouldn't refrain from using those words. It seems like you are establishing a grey area ethically, trying to have your cake and eat it too as it were. You want to maintain the moral high ground by establishing some vague level of "genuine hurt" while at the same time allowing circumstances to use hurtful language to describe people who are hurt somehow disingenuously by the things you say.
Call me naive, but if someone has a problem with the words I use in a conversation with them I generally take their criticism to heart, and would rather deal with people amicably than set up walls, even if that means not being able say a few words from the massive lexicon of English at my disposal.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I meant purely in my normal social life. Business life is completely separate, and if you don't want to get fired you're gonna have to censor yourself constantly.
I've been thinking, besides trying to start an union which is difficult to a point where I don't know an expert that could tackle it right away. I think there should be some sort of proclamation from the FP community on ethical standards in the tech world and some organization not exclusive to FP to go with it, something that could be in place to pave the way for a successful vg union to be started.
[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;46969971]
It's still incredibly stupid it needs to be unanimous to ban people. Basically I know three people are defenitely convinced, while the others might be a bit harder to get the votes out of.[/QUOTE]
[quote]For this case there are 14 active arbitrators, not counting 5 who are inactive, so 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Ogopogo;46970259][/QUOTE]
Ah
That makes muuch more sense.
[QUOTE=BigPalooka;46970182]Yes, I meant purely in my normal social life. Business life is completely separate, and if you don't want to get fired you're gonna have to censor yourself constantly.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that anti-GG types don't understand the difference between personal and business lives. They think they can get away scott-free shitposting on Twitter accounts with their name like they were posting on an anime forum or IRC back in 2002. Many of the things I've seen these people tweet I would never, EVER post under an account with my personal name. For all their talk about language and shit they are awful at it themselves. Like I'm going to fucking listen to some well-to-do white girl or guy try to lecture me about the values of watching one's language when they throws temper tantrums and have meltdowns on a Twitter account that not only has their real name on it, but is also linked to news articles and opinion pieces they writes on professional websites. If you don't understand the basics of professionalism, you have no business telling people to watch their language and how much words can hurt people.
[QUOTE=Ithon;46970241]I've been thinking, besides trying to start an union which is difficult to a point where I don't know an expert that could tackle it right away. I think there should be some sort of proclamation from the FP community on ethical standards in the tech world and some organization not exclusive to FP to go with it, something that could be in place to pave the way for a successful vg union to be started.[/QUOTE]
Didnt someone start on something like that already if you team up you can share the workload and get it started back up.
[QUOTE=Ziron;46970285]The problem is that anti-GG types don't understand the difference between personal and business lives. They think they can get away scott-free shitposting on Twitter accounts with their name like they were posting on an anime forum or IRC back in 2002. Many of the things I've seen these people tweet I would never, EVER post under an account with my personal name. For all their talk about language and shit they are awful at it themselves. Like I'm going to fucking listen to some well-to-do white girl or guy try to lecture me about the values of watching one's language when they throws temper tantrums and have meltdowns on a Twitter account that not only has their real name on it, but is also linked to news articles and opinion pieces they writes on professional websites. If you don't understand the basics of professionalism, you have no business telling people to watch their language and how much words can hurt people.[/QUOTE]
No, I think they don't understand that my personal life is different from my business life. I could be the world's largest bigot in my personal life, but be the nicest most respectful person in my business life. They can't compute this, which is why they keep calling people's bosses to file complaints against something completely non-related to their job performance.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;46970389]No, I think they don't understand that my personal life is different from my business life. I could be the world's largest bigot in my personal life, but be the nicest most respectful person in my business life. They can't compute this, which is why they keep calling people's bosses to file complaints against something completely non-related to their job performance.[/QUOTE]
Depends on who you work for. My company has a social media policy.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;46970553]Depends on who you work for. My company has a social media policy.[/QUOTE]
Mine doesn't.
But even though mine doesn't, they would still be trying to get me fired. And that's the difference.
The fact that you think you have to make someone economically and financially suffer because of their opinions means that you're not accepting nor do you believe in equality for everyone.
[QUOTE=Jamsponge;46967062]Honestly I feel just as disgusted reading the tweets from these kind of people as I do reading the ones from transphobic/ racist/ all-around bigoted people. It's the same kind of vibe of 'We think some people should be treated differently from others, not because they are disadvantaged in society, but because we think the majority populations are inherently disgusting due to their position of power'. To me it just reeks of a plan with no endgame- what do you do once everybody's equal? Take it further?[/QUOTE]
It really feels like instead of trying to bring those with less opportunity up, they're trying to drag the "privleged" down. It doesn't feel like the right way to handle it at all.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;46970876]It really feels like instead of trying to bring those with less opportunity up, they're trying to drag the "privleged" down. It doesn't feel like the right way to handle it at all.[/QUOTE]
I agree you get no where tearing others down you have to build others up .
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.