Corruption in Gaming Journalism Discussion V2 - Back from the dead!
5,003 replies, posted
At this point the gamergate wiki entry might as well be written by an internal wikimedia contributor who has researched gamergate from the origins and to where ever this rabbit hole has gone.
I mean, we must be getting to China soon right?
Jesus Christ.
Just ban Ryu already, they keep talking about other solutions but they've tried that with them several times and its never worked.
[QUOTE=JesseR92;46970291]Didnt someone start on something like that already if you team up you can share the workload and get it started back up.[/QUOTE]
I believe skeev wrote up statements that would be in a union. I've help start clubs, but there was a student body already in place, maybe I have to talk to people who start up self sufficient entities in worn torn areas with insurgency near by. This task involves, networking, connections, contacts, all which the opposition in question has lost their way in.
I need to contact the occupy people, and I want to know if any lgbt groups in SF could give us a voice (them being pro or neutral).
Wait, so Wikipedia is now trying to solve the major bias in the GG article? I can't wait for the accusations of Jimmy Wales being a misogynist racist transphobe to come in! :v:
Man, like, ive been avoiding the wikipedia article because i know better, but god damn.
[quote]Gamergate supporters have been unwilling to move beyond the unorganized, leaderless and anonymous origins which has resulted in an inability to control the behavior and messaging of those acting under the Gamergate hashtag. While some have said that they are concerned with ethics in video game journalism, some members launched a campaign to convince ad providers to pull support from sites critical of Gamergate and others continue to harass those they perceive as opponents. Gamergate's origins in false allegations of ethics violations and the subsequent harassment campaign targeting Quinn and others, its failure to identify significant ethical issues in games media, and its frequent criticism of game critics who discuss issues of gender, class, and politics in their reviews have also been cited as evidence that the ethics concerns are a front for a culture war against the diversification of video game demographics.[/quote]
Like how is this okay.
[quote] its failure to identify significant ethical issues in games media, and its frequent criticism of game critics who discuss issues of gender, class, and politics in their reviews have also been cited as evidence that the ethics concerns are a front for a culture war against the diversification of video game demographics.[/quote]
lol ok.
Slightly off topic, an indie focused site just published an article with this title, looking for new writers:
[URL="http://indiehaven.com/indie-haven-seeking-writers-other-than-straight-white-guys/"]Indie Haven Seeking Writers (Other Than Straight White Guys)[/URL]
The comments are a fun read, people are calling them out on it
[QUOTE=ZuXer;46971710]Slightly off topic, an indie focused site just published an article with this title, looking for new writers:
[URL="http://indiehaven.com/indie-haven-seeking-writers-other-than-straight-white-guys/"]Indie Haven Seeking Writers (Other Than Straight White Guys)[/URL]
The comments are a fun read, people are calling them out on it[/QUOTE]
I love how blatantly racist this is.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;46971716]I love how blatantly racist this is.[/QUOTE]
Also a little sexist.
the title is pretty gnarly but what they're looking for isn't really that bad. there shouldn't be a problem if some no-pay game blog wants writers who may have a different point of view on games.
if this were some big game journalism site, it'd be kinda messed up, but they say they're accepting all applications
[editline]20th January 2015[/editline]
had the title been different i don't think there'd be any problem
[editline]20th January 2015[/editline]
qll they're saying is that "hey, we want to present a diverse array of viewpoints, let's bring some diversity in". they don't seem to be hostile at all.
I'm fine with wanting more diversity, but they really went the wrong away about saying it.
the article itself isn't bad at all, they just really, really shouldn't have titled it as they have
[QUOTE=Indie Haven]To be clear, we have absolutely zero problem with anyone who is straight, cisgender, white or male, we just don’t want that to be the default state of our site.[/QUOTE]
What does it mean by 'the default state of out site'?
Why does it matter if a writer is male? Would it matter if they were female/trans?
Why does it matter if a writer is straight? Would it matter if they were gay/bi/whatever?
Why does it matter if a writer is white? Would it matter if they were ANY OTHER SKIN COLOUR?
I can see what they trying to achieve, and while it may be noble for their goals of diversity (that's already debatable), they are still using a 3-pronged method of discrimination.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/G6LIwpq.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Jamsponge;46968228]In other news, AGG people all of a sudden talking about SWATting now that it's happened to a couple of their own. Funny how they never seemed to talk about it when it was only pro-GG people getting their lives put at stake.
SWATting is disgusting, no matter whom it happens to.[/QUOTE]
It may have something to do with that ridiculously bad Guardian article a few days ago :downs:
[editline]20th January 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Dick Slamfist;46969060]My mother who is not a gamer by any means but vehemently feminist and strongly anti gamer gate was explaining that swatting was only done to gamergate opposers
there's no denying it's happened but its been done to both sides, didn't kingofpol get it?
It's an awful prank to pull seriously[/QUOTE]
KoP got firemanned :v:
Chernovich had someone publicly call for others to swat him, it's really well documented and a few people did try it.
He obviously stayed at a hotel for a few days. It's all on his blog.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;46971794]the article itself isn't bad at all, they just really, really shouldn't have titled it as they have[/QUOTE]
I don't know, replace the white cisgender stuff with anything else and it's pretty ugly
[quote]The problem is, with a recent turn over of writers at the new year, we’ve swung back toward being a site dominated by Jewish/Black/Disabled writers. To be clear, we have absolutely zero problem with anyone who is Jewish/Black/Disabled we just don’t want that to be the default state of our site.[/quote]
This is the same as saying "I'm not racist but..."
Having diversity for the sake of having diversity is wrong, your skin color or sex, or sexual orintation shouldn't be the thing you get hired for, you should get hired for your skill as a writer.
[QUOTE=ZuXer;46971883]This is the same as saying "I'm not racist but..."
Having diversity for the sake of having diversity is wrong, your skin color or sex, or sexual orintation shouldn't be the thing you get hired for, you should get hired for your skill as a writer.[/QUOTE]
One of their users responded with this:
[quote=Bryan Rumsey]This isn't about qualifications or journalism experience but more about perspective and life experiences. Including people from diverse backgrounds can provide new outlooks or entirely new topics of discussion. I don't see how including perspectives from different walks of life can hinder a publication at all, especially not in innovation. For instance, Joe Parlock wrote an eye opening article here about the representation of disability in gaming. As an ablebodied person I hadn't realized that some disabilities are commonly misrepresented in games and thus would never have written about the topic.[/quote]
[QUOTE=ZuXer;46971883]I don't know, replace the white cisgender stuff with anything else and it's pretty ugly
This is the same as saying "I'm not racist but..."
Having diversity for the sake of having diversity is wrong, your skin color or sex, or sexual orintation shouldn't be the thing you get hired for, you should get hired for your skill as a writer.[/QUOTE]
Right, how it's presented is absolutely cringeworthy but technically they aren't doing anything terrible.
Yes, having writers come from different backgrounds is neat, but they really make it sound like they only want more diverse people because they have too much white and straight males currently working, and they only just put one sentence there that yeah , uh, we need more viewponts. Then they go list that really they just want someone who can do reviews and news posts, not because they want to offer a different outlook at things, or editorials or something. The way they wrote that article suggests that they want to have more people because they're like ashamed of what their readers might think that "oh shit we're too white and cis male". It almost sounds like they only want more diversity to fit in a certain group and pander to them by saying that they only have a few white guys working for them. But that's impossible isn't it?
[QUOTE=ZuXer;46972057]Yes, having writers come from different backgrounds is neat, but they really make it sound like they only want more diverse people because they have too much white and straight males currently working, and they only just put one sentence there that yeah , uh, we need more viewponts. Then they go list that really they just want someone who can do reviews and news posts, not because they want to offer a different outlook at things, or editorials or something. The way they wrote that article suggests that they want to have more people because they're like ashamed of what their readers might think that "oh shit we're too white and cis male". It almost sounds like they only want more diversity to fit in a certain group and pander to them by saying that they only have a few white guys working for them. But that's impossible isn't it?[/QUOTE]
Oh right, I missed that because I'm not fully awake. Sorry.
In that case yes, this is most definitely racist and sexist.
[QUOTE=ZuXer;46971710]Slightly off topic, an indie focused site just published an article with this title, looking for new writers:
[URL="http://indiehaven.com/indie-haven-seeking-writers-other-than-straight-white-guys/"]Indie Haven Seeking Writers (Other Than Straight White Guys)[/URL]
The comments are a fun read, people are calling them out on it[/QUOTE]
Wow this is some Jim Crow laws level shit right here. Colored folks only, whites are not served.
[QUOTE=Wii60;46967970][...] [URL="http://www.16personalities.com/intj-personality-and-emotions"]INTJ[/URL] Personality [...][/QUOTE]
Since this came up and I've been wondering for a while:
When did these become so popular anyway, and why did they (and other things like it) become popular?
Do people really like to put themselves into categories [I]that[/I] much? (Nothing against you Wii60, just surprised in general.)
Maybe it's because they usually more or less average-out for me (on average 15% inclination on this test), but I never feel that these are more than facets of myself that I'd use depending on the situation I'm in... aside from the descriptions being obvious clickbait flattery.
(I can only say with relative safety that I'm to varying degrees incompatible with the ES descriptions.)
Or is it the "Hey I'm like this famous person!" thing? Because that's something I really don't get.
(Somewhat (un)relatedly, [URL="http://www.16personalities.com/articles/on-the-topic-of-ambiversion"]this site's view on "ambiversion" is also total garbage.[/URL]
I haven't yet heard of a single personality trait that didn't look Gaussian scattering around a single point.
If they want to do away with the gradients then please by citing proper research.
In this case, [URL="http://www.eharmony.com/blog/2014/07/29/personality-type-doesnt-matter/"]they aren't just wrong, they are even more or less provably so with a few minutes of research.[/URL]
The graph that link is barely asymmetrical, so if you did separate it into two Gaussian distributions they would be so indistinct that even mentioning them as such would be meaningless.
/rant)
[QUOTE=Tamschi;46972373]Since this came up and I've been wondering for a while:
When did these become so popular anyway, and why did they (and other things like it) become popular?
Do people really like to put themselves into categories [I]that[/I] much? (Nothing against you Wii60, just surprised in general.)
Maybe it's because they usually more or less average-out for me (on average 15% inclination on this test), but I never feel that these are more than facets of myself that I'd use depending on the situation I'm in... aside from the descriptions being obvious clickbait flattery.
(I can only say with relative safety that I'm to varying degrees incompatible with the ES descriptions.)
Or is it the "Hey I'm like this famous person!" thing? Because that's something I really don't get.
(Somewhat (un)relatedly, [URL="http://www.16personalities.com/articles/on-the-topic-of-ambiversion"]this site's view on "ambiversion" is also total garbage.[/URL]
I haven't yet heard of a single personality trait that didn't look Gaussian scattering around a single point.
If they want to do away with the gradients then please by citing proper research.
In this case, [URL="http://www.eharmony.com/blog/2014/07/29/personality-type-doesnt-matter/"]they aren't just wrong, they are even more or less provably so with a few minutes of research.[/URL]
The graph that link is barely asymmetrical, so if you did separate it into two Gaussian distributions they would be so indistinct that even mentioning them as such would be meaningless.
/rant)[/QUOTE]
It depends on a number of things.
At it's core, the Meyers-Briggs personality typing test is used for constructing a meaningful outline of a person's identity without having to form a subjective impression.
There are a lot of click-bait or public level copies of Meyers-Briggs floating around. When it's administered at a professional level (say, for the purposes of a job) it's typically a 2-hour test done in sections under strict scrutiny.
The idea is that the personality outlines can give meaningful information that will helpfully predict some, but not all, elements of a person's character. Typically a MB profile isn't supposed to change but can, usually in correspondence with formative life events (marriage is one.) For this reason people under 25 are not usually considered to have meaningful MB profiles yet (there are a lot of formative life events taking place around there) but the MB profile can still be useful for understanding the person at that given time.
An important element is also consistency, particularly with the less intensive or rigorous tests. A person who gets 4 or 5 different results, perhaps even across different tests, does not have a meaningful MB profile in that sense. A person who over several years generates the same result multiple times, across multiple tests, likely has a more meaningful result which means more useful predictive information.
That's what it is at the end of the day. Predictive information for discovering the future behavior, inclinations and patterns, without any mucky intuition or guessing.
It might not be meaningful in relation to you, per se, but there are institutions that swear by it. I can easily imagine that a corporation looking to identify certain traits in manager track applicants may want certain personality types.
It may be that the inkblot/forer effect is in full effect in some cases, but when you're using a version of MB that's sufficiently descriptive you can get useful results. Particularly if you're remembering to have an independent and thoroughly neutral party judge the outcomes, rather than playing granny's clickbait game.
By and large the most important thing to remember is that it is sensitive to change and observation. It is not saying [I]You ARE[/I] it is saying [B]It seems to be.[/B]
Sorry if this was a little off-topic but sharing is fun!
[QUOTE=Tamschi;46972373]Since this came up and I've been wondering for a while:
When did these become so popular anyway, and why did they (and other things like it) become popular?
Do people really like to put themselves into categories [I]that[/I] much? (Nothing against you Wii60, just surprised in general.)
Maybe it's because they usually more or less average-out for me (on average 15% inclination on this test), but I never feel that these are more than facets of myself that I'd use depending on the situation I'm in... aside from the descriptions being obvious clickbait flattery.
(I can only say with relative safety that I'm to varying degrees incompatible with the ES descriptions.)
Or is it the "Hey I'm like this famous person!" thing? Because that's something I really don't get.
(Somewhat (un)relatedly, [URL="http://www.16personalities.com/articles/on-the-topic-of-ambiversion"]this site's view on "ambiversion" is also total garbage.[/URL]
I haven't yet heard of a single personality trait that didn't look Gaussian scattering around a single point.
If they want to do away with the gradients then please by citing proper research.
In this case, [URL="http://www.eharmony.com/blog/2014/07/29/personality-type-doesnt-matter/"]they aren't just wrong, they are even more or less provably so with a few minutes of research.[/URL]
The graph that link is barely asymmetrical, so if you did separate it into two Gaussian distributions they would be so indistinct that even mentioning them as such would be meaningless.
/rant)[/QUOTE]
In the case for INTJ and those personality generalized exams, they're a good say to START figuring out who b you are. After b that though and you should be slapped because it does nothing more than a horoscope.
Also, it's my birthday. A victory would be nice. (Now I wanna play AC4)
[QUOTE=ZuXer;46972057]Yes, having writers come from different backgrounds is neat, but they really make it sound like they only want more diverse people because they have too much white and straight males currently working, and they only just put one sentence there that yeah , uh, we need more viewponts. [/QUOTE]
Consider for a moment that a big part of why Gamergate exists is because gaming news sites overwhelmingly composed of straight, white, young, wealthy, liberal, feminist men decided to use their platform to push political views, not realizing that their views are not shared with all of their audience.
I am 100% for any journalism organization, which should consider all perspectives to best address their audience, maximizing diversity and trying to make sure they don't become culturally homogenous and lose touch with people outside their own demographic. The Indie Haven Seeking Writers post is just a really badly-written way to go about doing that.
[QUOTE=catbarf;46972879]Consider for a moment that a big part of why Gamergate exists is because gaming news sites overwhelmingly composed of straight, white, young, wealthy, liberal, feminist men decided to use their platform to push political views, not realizing that their views are not shared with all of their audience.
I am 100% for any journalism organization, which should consider all perspectives to best address their audience, maximizing diversity and trying to make sure they don't become culturally homogenous and lose touch with people outside their own demographic. The Indie Haven Seeking Writers post is just a really badly-written way to go about doing that.[/QUOTE]
Personally, I am here less for the social views and more for the balant stupid paying off review sites for a better score/review this well or we don't send you an early review copy/ favorable reviews & coverage to games they deem "socially appropriate" or "push a political end."
shits dumb yo
I wish people would just realize and focus on that instead of journalists pushing this whole thing. Like, if she wasn't a feminist/female/a minority this crap would have been over in a month.
[QUOTE=catbarf;46972879]Consider for a moment that a big part of why Gamergate exists is because gaming news sites overwhelmingly composed of straight, white, young, wealthy, liberal, feminist men decided to use their platform to push political views, not realizing that their views are not shared with all of their audience.
I am 100% for any journalism organization, which should consider all perspectives to best address their audience, maximizing diversity and trying to make sure they don't become culturally homogenous and lose touch with people outside their own demographic. The Indie Haven Seeking Writers post is just a really badly-written way to go about doing that.[/QUOTE]
It really should've just been, "Indie Haven is looking to Hire Writers" and then left the rest of the story.
[editline]20th January 2015[/editline]
Like shit, the issue here isn't social justice. There's nothing wrong with the idea, just like any political ideal on paper. It sounds fucking great.
We're up against a practice of using Social Justice as a shield to be an asshole, against white, straight males trying to get laid or to seem wise or intelligent by spouting and quoting or protecting women at all points of the road because 'they need it.'
We're up against people willing to throw those very ideals they preach under the bus when it becomes inconvenient and these people are making money in both gaming and the world larger because of this.
They don't represent diversity, they don't represent social justice. They represent the perversion and corruption of both. And now this horrific disease is looking to Gaming, just like it did Atheism before, to do the same damn thing.
But we've dealt with corruption before, its just another fucking Blight.
[QUOTE=Swilly;46972655]In the case for INTJ and those personality generalized exams, they're a good say to START figuring out who b you are. After b that though and you should be slapped because it does nothing more than a horoscope.
Also, it's my birthday. A victory would be nice. (Now I wanna play AC4)[/QUOTE]
I fidn that it is a helpful base, all things considered. When me and some of my friends did the test and cross referenced eachother, a lot of it turned out surprisingly accurate, but of course it only covers certain narrow-ish aspects of one's personality. One's bias towards themselves can also skew the result when filling out the survey
[QUOTE=Swilly;46973041]It really should've just been, "Indie Haven is looking to Hire Writers" and then left the rest of the story.
[editline]20th January 2015[/editline]
Like shit, the issue here isn't social justice. There's nothing wrong with the idea, just like any political ideal on paper. It sounds fucking great.
We're up against a practice of using Social Justice as a shield to be an asshole, against white, straight males trying to get laid or to seem wise or intelligent by spouting and quoting or protecting women at all points of the road because 'they need it.'
We're up against people willing to throw those very ideals they preach under the bus when it becomes inconvenient and these people are making money in both gaming and the world larger because of this.
They don't represent diversity, they don't represent social justice. They represent the perversion and corruption of both. And now this horrific disease is looking to Gaming, just like it did Atheism before, to do the same damn thing.
But we've dealt with corruption before, its just another fucking Blight.[/QUOTE]
There's also the incredibly American centric "straight white males" thing, which is hugely insulting. I would wager I, a relatively poor Irishman, would have a very different perspective to a middle class white guy from middle America, who would have a different point of view from from a poor white guy from New York.
[editline]20th January 2015[/editline]
I think if we want more diversity in games journalism they should look outside San Francisco.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;46973317]There's also the incredibly American centric "straight white males" thing, which is hugely insulting. I would wager I, a relatively poor Irishman, would have a very different perspective to a middle class white guy from middle America, who would have a different point of view from from a poor white guy from New York.[/QUOTE]
I think the dominance of Americans in the whole scene does have a bit to answer for.
I'm for diversity. I welcome realistic proportions of minorities in media as much as anyone else; the thing is, though, that what "realistic" means to one person isn't the same as to another.
You know how many black people there were in my year in highschool? Three. Out of ~120. There was a single indian girl, and [I]no[/I] [far east] asians. In primary school we were [I]all [/I]white, except that same indian girl.
When I play a video game without a single black character, I generally don't notice. Not because I'm a racism who doesn't [I]want[/I] black people in my video games, but because I've spent my entire life here getting used to a 1/40 ratio of black:white.
The US' largest ethnic minority is African American, at 12.6%.
The UK's largest is Asian, at 6.2% (black is 3.01%).
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;46973317]There's also the incredibly American centric "straight white males" thing, which is hugely insulting. I would wager I, a relatively poor Irishman, would have a very different perspective to a middle class white guy from middle America, who would have a different point of view from from a poor white guy from New York.
[editline]20th January 2015[/editline]
I think if we want more diversity in games journalism they should look outside San Francisco.[/QUOTE]
That's why its hollow and empty, they only seek validation not true diversity.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.