Corruption in gaming journalism discussion and update thread. - General

[QUOTE=Smt;46130948]I've only known about the quote since Totalbiscuit used it but "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is a very good thing to live by, Jim is so on the edge for me, sometimes I'm 100% with him and sometimes his tweets just make me eeeh[/QUOTE] I've always viewed jim as a rabid neckbeard, him sucking up to anti-gg surprises me not

I'm confused, which side is anti-gg?

[QUOTE=meazum;46130873]I don't mean to defend anybody who has breached their contract of ethics here. When we have a community as small as the games community is, with the interconnectivity of the internet, I assume it would be very difficult for people to not make new friends and acquaintances within that sphere. I guess that is why people are more willing to trust youtubers in this case, as they are self made journalists who never were exposed to the professional sphere before getting their audience, so they exist in their own separate space. For me, I assume it has helped to view the games media as enthusiast press rather than professional journalism, because all the people writing about these games play them and love them the same way every one of their readers do, but it has always been that way, as it started out with a fringe interest where the magazines wrote out of excitement about how amazingly cool the new monster or gun or breast physics were going to be, which is sad in its own way. I guess when it grew out of that and the press started talking about Bobby Kotick and Tim Schafer, we started getting something that more closely resembled professional journalistic reporting, but I don't know if we ever were there. It's important to keep in mind that journalists have always had relationships, professional and unprofessional, which affect their writing to various degrees, it's only human. I just think the circle gets much tighter in a nerd space with much more connectivity.[/QUOTE] It's been far worse than a simple lack of ethics for a while now. They're not just unprofessional or corrupt, but they actively have gone out of their way to spread misinformation, change the subject, and silence any opinion to the contrary. It might sound like hyperbole, but what else would you call, what was it, 14 "Gamers are dead" articles all coming out on the same day? Some crappy journalists is one thing, but having almost every voice in the gaming media spreading the same misinformation so that it's really all about mean ol' women hating neckbeards and getting away with it is another.

[QUOTE=Dermock;46130932]To be honest those last two tweets are very agreeable. First tweet is kinda dumb.[/QUOTE] I gotta say, Jim is a smart fella. The first two tweets quite clearly speak to both sides. Pro- and anti-GG alike. The last tweet feels like it's pretty much only there to cover his ass in case someone would call him out for that, because he is pretty deep in the anti-GG circles.

Call me a collaborator or whatever, but silencing the opposition is some serious conspiracy theorist talk. I doubt any board only tangentially related to these journalists would do that just to appease their cohorts in some shady alliance. Call me on this if you want to, but I think it's more likely to just be a case of moderating a particularly angry and loud group saying the same thing, because that is what this started out as, regardless of what it has become. As for the Gamers are dead stuff, I don't mind the sentiment even if it is hyperbolic and intentionally provocative. I've always played games but never considered myself a gamer, how they all managed to come out so close to eachother is interesting for sure, but I don't think it is some secret campaign to erase the love of games. The ones I've read on the topic don't seem opposed to games at all, only the insular attitude of a large part of the community surrounding them. And yes, I may be a gamer in terms of what the word in fact means, but to identify as a gamer and to empirically be a gamer are different things, as there is a supposed identity of those who view themselves as "gamers" that isn't necessarily there for people who just happen to really enjoy playing games.

[QUOTE=meazum;46131092]Call me a collaborator or whatever, but silencing the opposition is some serious conspiracy theorist talk. I doubt any board only tangentially related to these journalists would do that just to appease their cohorts in some shady alliance. Call me on this if you want to, but I think it's more likely to just be a case of moderating a particularly angry and loud group saying the same thing, because that is what this started out as, regardless of what it has become. As for the Gamers are dead stuff, I don't mind the sentiment even if it is hyperbolic and intentionally provocative. I've always played games but never considered myself a gamer, how they all managed to come out so close to eachother is interesting for sure, but I don't think it is some secret campaign to erase the love of games. The ones I've read on the topic don't seem opposed to games at all, only the insular attitude of a large part of the community surrounding them. And yes, I may be a gamer in terms of what the word in fact means, but to identify as a gamer and to empirically be a gamer are different things, as there is a supposed identity of those who view themselves as "gamers" that isn't necessarily there for people who just happen to really enjoy playing games.[/QUOTE] I think places like neogaf, 4chan, reddit, etc banning people for talking about something is the definition of silencing the opposition. Fuck I and many others were shadowbanned on reddit for upvoting a post (not even commenting) because that's "raiding". The connections the owners/moderators have are the explanation. I would post a bunch of shit to prove but im at college and cant access my puush. someone please post the tweets of the /r/games mod sucking SJW dick and moots "fuck off gamergate" as well as his gawker media/xoxo koolaid connections

[QUOTE=meazum;46131092]Call me a collaborator or whatever, but silencing the opposition is some serious conspiracy theorist talk. I doubt any board only tangentially related to these journalists would do that just to appease their cohorts in some shady alliance. Call me on this if you want to, but I think it's more likely to just be a case of moderating a particularly angry and loud group saying the same thing, because that is what this started out as, regardless of what it has become. As for the Gamers are dead stuff, I don't mind the sentiment even if it is hyperbolic and intentionally provocative. I've always played games but never considered myself a gamer, how they all managed to come out so close to eachother is interesting for sure, but I don't think it is some secret campaign to erase the love of games. The ones I've read on the topic don't seem opposed to games at all, only the insular attitude of a large part of the community surrounding them. And yes, I may be a gamer in terms of what the word in fact means, but to identify as a gamer and to empirically be a gamer are different things, as there is a supposed identity of those who view themselves as "gamers" that isn't necessarily there for people who just happen to really enjoy playing games.[/QUOTE] The censoring is real and it certainly doesn't cater to hate speech, rather to any kind of opposition to the narrative they seek to set up. And the "Gamers are dead" propaganda is very toxic as well, regardless of whether or not you identify as one. It tries to depict video game players as inherently misogynistic, socially awkward and nerdy people, something which ironically perpetuate the same kind of labelization they seem so keen to suppress. It perpetuates negative stereotypes for the sake of avoiding the real issue. Imagine if in the wake of Martin Luther King Jr.'s movement, every journalistic outlets started publishing articles stating "Black people are thieves" to divert from the actual topic. Would you be okay with that?

Ugh, it's October, why hasn't this ended yet? Let's start guessing when this will end, hmm, I am gonna guess December-January next year, if it doesn't end then (good god if it doesn't end there), then it will end around or before E3. Also I find it funny that Anti-GamerGate/SJW's are still pulling the "I'm a victim seriously, I am not lying!!!" skit even though we know it's bullshit most of the time.

[QUOTE=Xonax;46131205]Also I find it funny that Anti-GamerGate/SJW's are still pulling the "I'm a victim seriously, I am not lying!!!" skit even though we know it's bullshit most of the time.[/QUOTE] I mean, WE know it's bullshit, but the people they're pandering it too are probably lapping it up

[QUOTE=_Axel;46131202]The censoring is real and it certainly doesn't cater to hate speech, rather to any kind of opposition to the narrative they seek to set up. And the "Gamers are dead" propaganda is very toxic as well, regardless of whether or not you identify as one. It tries to depict video game players as inherently misogynistic, socially awkward and nerdy people, something which ironically perpetuate the same kind of labelization they seem so keen to suppress. It perpetuates negative stereotypes for the sake of avoiding the real issue. Imagine if in the wake of Martin Luther King Jr.'s movement, every journalistic outlets started publishing articles stating "Black people are thieves" to divert from the actual topic. Would you be okay with that?[/QUOTE] I'm going to ignore that last line. I have a hard time understanding why all of these people would do so much to set up their forums and imageboards and everything just to further opinions relating to a social change or agenda that is not even explicitly expressed by the forum owners or admins themselves? Is the assumption that they are in the pockets of the social justice campaigners? I really want to avoid going into this, but I find it hard to look past the possibility that this was done to defend people against potential harassment. I believe there has been real harassment, and I don't really believe people hack or dox themselves to become a more convincing victim when they already are under fire. That sounds a bit far fetched. What is a satisfactory outcome of this that would please members of the Gamergate movement? You don't need to describe all of what you think everyone wants, only what you yourselves feel.

[QUOTE=meazum;46131240]I'm going to ignore that last line. [/QUOTE] I'm going to ignore all lines bar this one.

[QUOTE=meazum;46131240]and I don't really believe people hack or dox themselves to become a more convincing victim when they already are under fire. That sounds a bit far fetched. [/QUOTE] [url]http://kazerad.tumblr.com/post/96703506118/this-excerpt-from-a-4chan-post-really-sums-up-what[/url] [url]http://kazerad.tumblr.com/post/96825192318/great-and-apparently-those-irc-logs-that-werent[/url]

[QUOTE=meazum;46131240]I'm going to ignore that last line. I have a hard time understanding why all of these people would do so much to set up their forums and imageboards and everything just to further opinions relating to a social change or agenda that is not even explicitly expressed by the forum owners or admins themselves? Is the assumption that they are in the pockets of the social justice campaigners? I really want to avoid going into this, but I find it hard to look past the possibility that this was done to defend people against potential harassment. I believe there has been real harassment, and I don't really believe people hack or dox themselves to become a more convincing victim when they already are under fire. .[/QUOTE] Of course people have been harassed, on both sides, but pinning it to a singular entity is stupid (same with all of 4chan, or all of reddit, or even every writer of a site), there's bad apples as well as people who legitimately want to sort things out properly on both sides though people definitely dox them selves, I don't know if there's proof and if there is I don't know if it's actually good proof, but it would be pretty easy to set up a release of personal info and just scream "look at me I am being doxed by these bad people because of my opinions"

It's less of a "there might be a conspiracy" and more of "a reddit thread that had roughly 33,000 replies got nuked from orbit and people got shadowbanned for upvoting." And 4chan out of all the places banning related threads.

[QUOTE=Wii60;46129569]-snip, fake-[/QUOTE] Just source your stuff already.

[QUOTE=meazum;46130633]I really wish you would say something more than varieties of "you wouldn't get it" because I'm not sure why I wouldn't.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=meazum;46131092]Call me a collaborator or whatever, but silencing the opposition is some serious conspiracy theorist talk.[/QUOTE] I think people get the feeling you've already made up your mind. You could easily have found evidence contradicting your conspiracy theorist theory if you'd take some time and read the thread or watch any one of those popular videos on the youtubes. You shouldn't refer to it as a "dumb campaign" and expect people to greet you with open arms.

A satisfactory outcome would be enough of the hypocrisy and lack of integrity be brought to light that they'll no longer able to change the subject or throw out red herrings. If just a few major voices were forced to admit that they mischaracterized a group of people via a philosophy that most of thier side couldn't uphold, then suddenly the narrative that it's all about woman hating neckbeards becomes a lot harder to keep up.

[QUOTE=Wii60;46130028][...] by the way about nick statt this is part of the CBS business conduct handbook [IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/By7aICkIgAA6exf.jpg:large[/IMG][/QUOTE] It only takes 2.5 seconds as a maximum to see that that passage is totally unrelated. You really are getting dangerously close to shitposting now. (Also this is unsourced again.) Btw: [URL="https://archive.today/LPi0j"]He just apologised (for the form, not the intention; which is enough in my eyes).[/URL] (I archived it to get a snapshot of his time line with source and time stamp.)

[QUOTE=meazum;46131240]I'm going to ignore that last line.[/QUOTE] Why? I was just trying to illustrate my previous statement. [QUOTE]I have a hard time understanding why all of these people would do so much to set up their forums and imageboards and everything just to further opinions relating to a social change or agenda that is not even explicitly expressed by the forum owners or admins themselves? Is the assumption that they are in the pockets of the social justice campaigners? I really want to avoid going into this, but I find it hard to look past the possibility that this was done to defend people against potential harassment. I believe there has been real harassment, and I don't really believe people hack or dox themselves to become a more convincing victim when they already are under fire. That sounds a bit far fetched.[/QUOTE] Regardless of their motives, it is something that happens and it is not a good thing by any stretch of the meaning. They seem to put so much effort into it, they're almost certainly doing it for a reason, not just to kill boredom. The impression that they're doing it to support harassment victims is noble, but I can't help but think that if that was the case they'd do it in an nondiscriminatory manner, like denouncing the death threats Brad Wardell and his family received as well, for example. As it stands it seems they are only supporting people they have ties with while trying to promote their work/increase their popularity. It looks more like an advertising trick than an act of good will to me. And doxxing oneself can be worthwhile if you can cash in on the ensuing victimization. Not saying it happened, but it's a viable strategy. [QUOTE]What is a satisfactory outcome of this that would please members of the Gamergate movement? You don't need to describe all of what you think everyone wants, only what you yourselves feel.[/QUOTE] An end to the blatant hypocrisy spouted by those in-name-only "Social Justice Warriors", an end to the personal attacks against supporters of both sides. That actual proponents of social justice, those who are actually open to discussion and strive for progress become more visible than con artists who use it as a way to gain some form of absolute authority on what should and shouldn't be done. A genuine investigation into the ties that bond developers and journalists, and if possible a remodeling of the journalistic medium that prevents conflicts of interest. (Even though at this point we might as well burn it to the ground and restart from scratch.)

I'm sorry if you feel that way CcZero, I'm legitimately doing my best to stay as diplomatic as possible. Of course I have made my mind up, I would think all of us have, and if not I would like to talk to people who have switched sides. I'm just saying I'm willing to read any argument that opposes mine. Seems like the problem with all this is that while there may be convincing facets of the argumentation, it's rarely solid evidence to such a degree that somebody could step into the light and admit their wrongdoings, because it is unclear whether they actually have happened or not, and please give me info on the opposite if I am wrong in thinking this. From what I've seen the issue with this movement or campaign, is that both sides largely want to dismiss the ideas of the other, either with spiteful comments or continually bothering somebody for an answer to a question they may not know anything about. And this leads to the camps being entrenched fairly deep in their own ideas to sch an extent that any joke or facetious remark gets taken out of context to further their cause. The sides have different views of what is acceptable conduct within this discourse, because they are not engaged on even ground. One side is a couple of public figures and one side is a lot of more or less anonymous people from their potential audience. I'm sorry I won't be able to read this thread because it is pretty huge.

[QUOTE=meazum;46130556] EDIT: please don't do organised campaigns to take people down, it will reflect very poorly on all of you.[/QUOTE] nobody's doing that except the sjw's though

[QUOTE=meazum;46131436]One side is a couple of public figures and one side is a lot of more or less anonymous people from their potential audience.[/QUOTE] The public figures have the responsibility of acting in a way beneficial to society, because, you know, they're the public figures and they're the ones with thousands and millions of people listening to them. The moment they start acting in ways that are not beneficial to everyone (by releasing gamers are dead articles, for instance) they're using their position to do more harm than good. Do you really want people like that to be able to have influence in the game's industry?

[QUOTE=JesseR92;46130023]I am still confused about the whole left right argument being put into everything.[/QUOTE] It may be because groups outside of gaming tend to be more homogeneous or going with the flow. That's probably the reason why gamers react to "feminism" differently and why everyone just plain ignores the political alignment stuff... or at least I like to think so: Since the one common takeaway games give is that it's possible to make a difference through own actions, gamers are more likely to stand up for their own beliefs as individuals and are a bit less likely to budge or get swept away. I think this "not budging" part is was what made Yiannopoulos notice it (iirc he said so), but he hasn't quite gotten that the demographic is in large parts not interested at all in that "right/left battle" stuff he keeps trying to inject into it. Either that or he is building a case for the conservatives outside of gaming, which is something that seems quite likely from the way he uses political language in that context. [editline]2nd October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Wii60;46129636]people tend to forget one of the most important rules in the internet pics or it didn't happen.[/QUOTE] That's really only for IRL stuff though. Screenshots of digital content only have informational value at best and basically no power as proofs. There are enough free services that can "witness" stuff though, like the archival sites. Actually... It would be really cool to have a service that just downloads the site, gives you an archive and then only keeps providing the hashes for that archive together with a timestamp and the origin URL. It wouldn't be quite as convenient as displaying it directly, but it would also be immune to DMCAs etc.

[QUOTE=adnzzzzZ;46131498]The public figures have the responsibility of acting in a way beneficial to society, because, you know, they're the public figures and they're the ones with thousands and millions of people listening to them. The moment they start acting in ways that are not beneficial to everyone (by releasing gamers are dead articles, for instance) they're using their position to do more harm than good. Do you really want people like that to be able to have influence in the game's industry?[/QUOTE] Short answer: yes. I think anything that will cause a change in what games are or what people think games can be, is interesting. The people in charge always have opinions too. Just this time you don't agree with them. Also I think it is the case that these people are perceived as far more influential than they actually are, if you look at the industry as a whole, and not just indie games. Bringing this up at a major event like E3 I'm not even sure people would know what you were talking about. We have to keep in mind our ideas about what's visible and prevalent is heavily coloured by the social media we engage with. I don't think it is a sound ideology to assume influential public figures will do what's best for their audience, because that would be a recipe for stagnation and also quite frankly impossible, as no large group can be completely homogenous. People on facepunch think a certain thing because they are here, people on twitter think a different thing because they are there. All of them are what you'd call gamers, but they are not of the same mind.

[QUOTE=meazum;46130933]I suppose I actually mean the games community as in the people who are interested beyond wanting a trailer to build hype and a metacritic score to justify a purchase. It is a large entertainment business for sure, but with an audience largely akin to that of Mark Wahlberg or marvel films. (gotta love marky mark though)[/QUOTE] That's only because Marvel films are ridiculously humongous though, not because gaming is small. The problem here is also not people "who know (of) each other" but "who are in a tight clique that trades favours". That's illegal in politics (at least in Germany), and politics is smaller than gaming if you look at people who are actually active and not just reading about it. In that light, I think it's safe to say that's a good reason not to want it, especially when that clique engages in organised character assassination against a group of people.

Except that Leigh Alexander's article isn't opinion based, it's borderline hate speech. TB talked about the article on his podcast a few weeks ago: [url]http://youtu.be/m27xldtB7-w?t=2h4m44s[/url]

[QUOTE=uber.;46131629]Except that Leigh Alexander's article isn't opinion based, it's borderline hate speech.[/QUOTE] Not surprising coming from Leigh "All the Reich Moves" Alexander.

[QUOTE=meazum;46131562]Short answer: yes. I think anything that will cause a change in what games are or what people think games can be, is interesting. The people in charge always have opinions too. Just this time you don't agree with them. Also I think it is the case that these people are perceived as far more influential than they actually are, if you look at the industry as a whole, and not just indie games. Bringing this up at a major event like E3 I'm not even sure people would know what you were talking about. We have to keep in mind our ideas about what's visible and prevalent is heavily coloured by the social media we engage with. I don't think it is a sound ideology to assume influential public figures will do what's best for their audience, because that would be a recipe for stagnation and also quite frankly impossible, as no large group can be completely homogenous. People on facepunch think a certain thing because they are here, people on twitter think a different thing because they are there. All of them are what you'd call gamers, but they are not of the same mind.[/QUOTE] I actually agree with them. I'm a big believer in games being more than what they are now and I'm an amateur game developer too. But there's a difference between trying to push your idea in a fair and responsible way and doing what they're doing. If you're going to complain about sexism in the game's industry and community, don't just say gamers are to blame, actively do things to promote more women to become game developers. No game journalist does that, and when a project comes along (TFYC) that tries to do just that it gets shut down by journalists. How serious are they about solving the sexism problem if they don't support people who wanna help more women become game developers? What they're doing is just complaining about social issues using gaming as a platform, but they're never really proposing any real solutions. It's just complaining and complaining and complaining. It doesn't add anything and it doesn't help anyone. And it actually makes situations like #gamergate happen, which makes everything worse in the long run. How many people do you think after this will just outright discard any social issues talk in gaming? Way more than before. How sexist do you think the gaming community will become after this? Way more than before. All they did was damage. By trying to help they made things worse. If you're a public figure you have the responsibility to act in a way that is beneficial to society. If you can't do that then you shouldn't be in a position of power. If you can't see the damage they've done and you actually support them then you're being just as blind as they are to how massively they fucked up and how much they've made things worse for women, gay people, trans people and whatever else. After this there's not going to be much more talk about social issues because they fucked up.

meazum, from a non-GG perspective, part of the problem is that there is an enormous network of abuse enabling coming from these "social justice" developers and journalists. Most of GG isn't focusing on Zoe anymore, but the indie scene has an enormous history of sweeping abuse under the rug. See: Porpentine. The industry is built around protecting each Dev, including silencing survivors in order to protect an abuser. That's a fundamental flaw in the industry that has got to end. [editline]2nd October 2014[/editline] Also, as a survivor myself, it's extremely clear that Zoe Quinn is abusive towards Eron. She shows multiple patterns if abuse within the published chat logs. I highly suggest watching my series on the post. It's 2 hours long, but you should see what you need within 10 or 12 apiece: [Media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM6u-ZPVmSw[/media] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_UKErD0uGQ[/media]

[QUOTE=meazum;46131562]Also I think it is the case that these people are perceived as far more influential than they actually are, if you look at the industry as a whole, and not just indie games. Bringing this up at a major event like E3 I'm not even sure people would know what you were talking about. We have to keep in mind our ideas about what's visible and prevalent is heavily coloured by the social media we engage with.[/QUOTE] These people may have little to no influence on big AAA games, but if what we've seen so far is any indication, they seem to be very influential in the indie scene. A lot of people from the VG press or from the VG industry have reported that any mention of the whole fiasco could put an end to their career. There has also been a lot of info coming out about the IGF recently indicating the contest was rigged, and favored games developed by persons who had relationships with the judges/with which the judges had a financial connection with, to the detriment of the other candidates. It's worth noting that IGF winners are given quite some visibility on the media afterwards, which as a result has an impact on the game's sales. In the end, you've got a game festival which portrays itself as something serious and impartial, and which indie devs and the general public sees as such, but which select its winner on the basis of personal interest instead of actual talent and quality. It's even worse considering that the indie scene is so popular partly because it is perceived as being exempt of such corruption.