Corruption in gaming journalism discussion and update thread. - General

Be careful, in IM you can get pressured into saying stupid things in a rush to reply. Give everything you say a good ordeal of thought. Be compassionate, but take everything she says about others with a grain of salt.

[QUOTE=Tamschi;46168060]You can do it, but you should avoid any medium that doesn't give you a verifiable copy of both sides of the conversation. Otherwise the chance is exceedingly high that she will try to slander you, based on her previous behaviour. I'll see if I can find something that gives you solid proof...[/QUOTE] I'm veering towards Facebook or e-mail for that reason. I think real-time conversation is preferable though. Either way, it has to be something I can have a record of, or it's a no-go. [QUOTE=gudman;46168070]I say go for it. Private conversation can't hurt, especially since it's her who made the first move. But make sure (twice) to make it clearly known that the moment she or anyone she shares it with does something about it, you leak the whole thing as is, censoring the third parties, of course. Or not. Just warn her that the moment you feel threatened - the nuke goes down and everything that follows is on her. Just be safe yourself. I don't know, I don't want to know what mental state she's in, [b]she's still a manipulator who should only be trusted after taking every precaution measures possible.[/b][/QUOTE] Bolded for emphasis and this is the [i]biggest[/i] reason why I don't want to engage. I can see this ending in several dozen bad ways. I can also see it ending quite civily, like our twitter conversation. I don't know. I'm ready to be respectful towards Zoe, help her with stemming harassment, and meet her at the table for discussing things. But I don't want to be in a conversation where I feel manipulated. I agree too about boundaries. I don't think I want to make the boundaries sound offensive, but I will make it explicitly clear that we both agree on total privacy of the conversation and that this [b]must[/b] be honored, as the conversation will be saved.

[QUOTE=SuicideZ;46167913]Holyshit you guys, I've been following this thread for a while and this is slowly pissing me off. You're actively condemning Anti-GG people who attack people who don't agree with their views. But when someone says something that you don't agree with (regardless if it's true or not) you attack them, even though evidence was posted that contradicts what SPESSMEHREN said you're in no way entitled to attack them as a person. Although i've seen alot of good discussion in this thread it's slowly turning into a circlejerk and instead of discussing something you're alienating people and making epic "zingers", if not doing that is too hard you can always just ignore them. Grow the fuck up and keep the discussion going properly.[/QUOTE] ? A lot of Anti-GG arguments are entirely subjective. Claims that Eron started the call out because he was a bitter ex boyfriend. Can anyone objectively prove that? No, we only have to trust the sincerity of the claim. Max always made shit posts that were objectively wrong. They're been proven wrong time and time again. SPESSMEHREN made the objective claim that GG was entirely featuring arguments about a woman sleeping with male reviewers to get better scores and had no evidence. This whole thread has pages of evidence that there was a correlation between what the reviewers chose to review, and what score to give. There is evidence that shows reviewers are room mates or are in a relationship with developers whose games have been given recommendations or good scores in their period of intimacy. Tell me where I can find Anti-GG arguments that are backed by evidence with context. Because honestly the only thing that even came close was the IRC log and that was proven to be cherry picked statements chosen [B]out of context[/B].

[QUOTE=Wii60;46168000] good idea to talk to her since your skilled in this, but it would be great if you could make it public if she agrees to allow it. i like to see mindsets of the opposition and what they think.[/QUOTE] Whoops, will edit out the text post. I think it would be in both of our interests if it's a private conversation between the two of us. Completely. That way, she doesn't need to think about the public perception of what she says, which will let me understand a.) whether she is being genuine or not, and b.) whether she will do things like match my tone, parrot my emotions, say things that purposefully attempt to lower my guard, etc.

And don't let her fuck you. [editline]6th October 2014[/editline] oh no, new page :(

[QUOTE=gudman;46168194]And don't let her fuck you. [editline]6th October 2014[/editline] oh no, new page :([/QUOTE] Okay in all seriousness: I'd be a hypocrit if I didn't call this out. No offense gudman, this isn't just you or anything. Let's just stop the cheating jokes though. Especially because, as my videos show, the cheating actually happened in the context of emotional abuse. Let's cut this out. It's part of slut shaming and also it doesn't help at all if we bring those jokes in when trying to talk about whether I should approach Zoe Quinn to talk to her about her past and steps for the future ahead (or lack thereof). I don't mean to be harsh on you or anything, just... the Five Guys jokes happened, I didn't like them personally, let's keep them in the past and move forward. The Zoe Quinn issue itself is about emotional abuse now, not cheating.

[QUOTE=Reimu;46168243]Okay in all seriousness: I'd be a hypocrit if I didn't call this out. No offense gudman, this isn't just you or anything. Let's just stop the cheating jokes though. Especially because, as my videos show, the cheating actually happened in the context of emotional abuse. Let's cut this out. It's part of slut shaming and also it doesn't help at all if we bring those jokes in when trying to talk about whether I should approach Zoe Quinn to talk to her about her past and steps for the future ahead (or lack thereof). I don't mean to be harsh on you or anything, just... the Five Guys jokes happened, I didn't like them personally, let's keep them in the past and move forward. The Zoe Quinn issue itself is about emotional abuse now, not cheating.[/QUOTE] But wouldn't the cheating kinda be part of the emotional abuse, or did I miss a point? Not saying that all the focus on her cheating isn't bad, but still.

I'm finding Greg to be very agreeable when he talks about how boycotting is being used and I really didn't think about it before until now. There probably are people at Gamasutra, Polygon, Kotaku, etc that don't necessarily support AGG or GG, or support the idea that "gamers are dead". Thinking about it now, maybe getting advertisers pulled isn't the best idea unless these companies are legitimately infested with toxic people.

[QUOTE=Stents*;46168108]Be careful, in IM you can get pressured into saying stupid things in a rush to reply. Give everything you say a good ordeal of though. Be compassionate, but take everything she says about others with a grain of salt.[/QUOTE] [U]IM[/U] is a [B]really[/B] bad choice for this, since it's also extremely easy to forge and impossible to verify. Since Reimu is the party who is likely to play more fair they are likely to be at a disadvantage here. (Kind of, they're definitely really hard to attack due to previous work and general reasonableness.) If you use [U]email[/U] you [B]may[/B] be able to get proof, but only if she uses a provider that uses DKIM. If she quotes you you get proof of your side of the conversation too, otherwise you only have the message ID which could be used to prove the possibility missing messages. Proving it would also force you to reveal the full emails including your address. Also if she uses something that doesn't use DKIM while you do she ends up with proof allowing her to cherry-pick (if you don't quote everything she says). That's definitely dangerous. There's probably no safe way to talk with her in private except a phone call that's recorded. (Those are actually close to 100% verifiable against manipulation due to grid hum being recorded. Proving that stuff is a matter for the courts though, you can't do it yourself.) This topic is actually really interesting, I know a few mathematical principles that can be used to add easily verifiable time codes to conversations (but I'm not sure how to make them difficult to filter out, though that's a solvable problem. Making it not too obnoxious is more difficult :v:). Definitely going to look into this a bit more, there's a [I]serious[/I] lack of software in that area. [editline]edit[/editline] I just remembered that I'm on a crypto messaging list (and probably in the NSA database by now :tinfoil:). I'll ask if anyone there knows a solution. [editline]edit[/editline] Actually there is one: You can ask her to use PGP (e.g. with [URL="http://www.gpg4win.de/index.html"]GPG4Win[/URL], [URL="https://addons.mozilla.org/de/thunderbird/addon/enigmail/"]Enigmail[/URL] and [I]maybe[/I] [URL="https://www.mailvelope.com/"]Mailvelope[/URL] if that now supports signatures.) You'd have to check how each of these behaves before you can tell whether they are usable. It also would be difficult to selectively withhold information (but that's a general problem with signatures, it would be easy to break them unless you know which parts will be censored in advance). You both would have to publish your public keys first though and you'd have to quote messages and extend the signature over them, which is not exactly smooth I think.

[QUOTE=Mr. N;46168282]But wouldn't the cheating kinda be part of the emotional abuse, or did I miss a point? Not saying that all the focus on her cheating isn't bad, but still.[/QUOTE] It's a two fold problem: 1.) The cheating needs to be understood as feeding into a larger pattern of withholding, manipulation, etc. 2.) The slut shaming jokes end up diverting attention from the former, and encouraging people to focus on Zoe Quinn's cheating... instead of the abusive behavior that she did to Eron that [b]cheating played a role in[/b] The GameJournoPros folks are making the same problem, because they're all bad at identifying emotional abuse. They focused on the cheating right away, instead of the cheating in relation to emotional abuse.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46168294]I'm finding Greg to be very agreeable when he talks about how boycotting is being used and I really didn't think about it before until now. There probably are people at Gamasutra, Polygon, Kotaku, etc that don't necessarily support AGG or GG, or support the idea that "gamers are dead". Thinking about it now, maybe getting advertisers pulled isn't the best idea unless these companies are legitimately infested with toxic people.[/QUOTE] I don't agree with this, because this is sort of missing the point - if the company refuses to remove a toxic article or something which a great many people don't like, the way it's going to be removed or at the very least fixed is through protesting it, which includes boycotting. Your getting mad at the company for refusing to do anything to fix it, not getting mad at the random people who work there. Boycotts can be avoided by listening to your majority, not your minority.

[QUOTE=Reimu;46168325]It's a two fold problem: 1.) The cheating needs to be understood as feeding into a larger pattern of withholding, manipulation, etc. 2.) The slut shaming jokes end up diverting attention from the former, and encouraging people to focus on Zoe Quinn's cheating... instead of the abusive behavior that she did to Eron that [b]cheating played a role in[/b] The GameJournoPros folks are making the same problem, because they're all bad at identifying emotional abuse. They focused on the cheating right away, instead of the cheating in relation to emotional abuse.[/QUOTE] Surely it'd play a very large role with the other instances of manipulation and abuse though right? I mean when it comes to emotional impact, a cheating loved one hits harder than being yanked around and bullied in a general way. Not disagreeing with you by the way, it is used too much of a kneejerk thing, but I think people downplaying the cheating aspect is a tad silly in an emotional sense yknow.

Great discussion with great points. These people deserve attention.

[QUOTE=Mr. N;46168390]Surely it'd play a very large role with the other instances of manipulation and abuse though right? I mean when it comes to emotional impact, a cheating loved one hits harder than being yanked around and bullied in a general way. Not disagreeing with you by the way, it is used too much of a kneejerk thing, but I think people downplaying the cheating aspect is a tad silly in an emotional sense yknow.[/QUOTE] Oh! Definitely. I want people to identify emotional abuse through cheating. I just want it done in good faith, not through slut shaming. It's very hard to say "I'm having a good faith conversation" when I'm surrounded by bad faith people weaponizing the issue into a justification to make the Five Guys jokes, etc. Which, to be honest, isn't happening that often... but still does.

[QUOTE=usaokay;46168405][url]http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/10/06/news/interview-adam-baldwin-gamergate-politics-ranger/[/url][/QUOTE] The following quote is [quote]In the educational programs, in elementary schools, in colleges, they teach a curriculum of being “change agents.” They teach you to “be the change you wish to see in the world.” So you get these game journalists, journalists in general, who want to change the world by invoking social justice, which really just means “have the government be bigger, take more money from people, and institute fairness quotas”— or whatever the hell they define fairness as that day! But that’s what they’re doing, and they’re caught out, and they don’t like it. They don’t like sunlight.[/quote] The rest of the article is basically about how Liberals are bad. guys, please don't let this guy be the face of Gamergate. I don't care if he did "invent the term".

[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;46168329]I don't agree with this, because this is sort of missing the point - if the company refuses to remove a toxic article or something which a great many people don't like, the way it's going to be removed or at the very least fixed is through protesting it, which includes boycotting. Your getting mad at the company for refusing to do anything to fix it, not getting mad at the random people who work there. Boycotts can be avoided by listening to your majority, not your minority.[/QUOTE]I agree completely with this point, and believe that Greg Tito's establishment itself is a great example. The Escapist isn't really being subjected to this anymore - and in fact is on fairly good terms with Gamergate as a whole - even though their past article concerning a certain group of wizards resulted in some of the most horrible fallout and moral issues right when things were starting to get heated and nasty. How did they climb out of their hole and patch things up? 1: They decided to treat the issue fairly, allowing open discussions. 2: They owned up to their mistakes, worked to fix them, and went into detail on both what went wrong, how they plan to make amends for affected parties, and how they intend to avoid future problems of the sort. This step was very detailed, and although they also acknowledged that no one on any side was squeaky-clean they did so in a non-inflammatory manner and with hope that everyone could come out better for learning from this. 3: They did not double-down against their audience. Contrast with publications who have not budged an inch from the stance of "I'm right in everything you're wrong", and in many cases have graduated into "I'm right in everything you're a nerd/misogynist/terrorist" and "That charity is terrible because you donated to it and you are terrible."

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;46168467]The following quote is The rest of the article is basically about how Liberals are bad. guys, please don't let this guy be the face of Gamergate. I don't care if he did "invent the term".[/QUOTE] thats the beauty of gamergate no one is the face of gamergate. everyone has different ideologies and minor goals but the major goal here is to reveal and fix corruption in the gaming industry.

Reimu here's a failsafe scheme you can use to talk with Quinn, that will protect both of you against false or incomplete logs: 1. Get OpenPGP with one of the programs [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1421478&p=46168317&viewfull=1#post46168317"]above[/URL] (they should be compatible). 2. Generate keys. 3. [U]Make it clear publicly that leaking the private key would be in bad faith.[/U] 4. Each publish the public key only. 5. Send signed emails quoting the previous message you received [U]only[/U] (doesn't matter if you break the signature on that), with the signature stretching across the quoted message (at least Enigmail should do this by default). (If someone splits the email thread the other side should quote both messages in the same message to merge the paths, otherwise there will be some asymmetry.) 5b. Verify all incoming messages! Ignore the content of those without valid signature. 5c. Make sure you don't quote identical messages at two points in the conversation! Doing so would allow omission without notice. That way you can - publish any signed area, and have it verified if complete. - omit information as necessary (but that block will become unverifiable). - be sure that people will notice missing messages. This is suboptimal in terms of ease-of-use though, and I doubt she'll speak freely if you can prove what she said. I'll ask on the mailing list if there's something better...

I'm a little confused, Tamschi, but that sounds like a fucking killer idea. Thanks, you're saving me a lot of hardship. Once my head is outside of my Shakespeare exam, I'll look through this in detail and think about it. [editline]6th October 2014[/editline] fitting: [quote]If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you leak logs, do we not cry? and if you wrong us, shall we not make videos on YouTube? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.[/quote] [editline]6th October 2014[/editline] So important to note: my intention isn't to post any information that Quinn and I discuss. Just to talk about things privately and confidentially. I wouldn't discuss what happened between us no matter what and no matter who asked. Even President Obama (I'm on the phone with him right now, he's really interested in my twitlong)

UAT may have pulled advertisements from Gamasutra. Waiting for confirmation. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/HmXRqvM.jpg[/IMG] Silverstring employee tweets [img]http://i.imgur.com/6xARcvK.png[/img]

[QUOTE=Thlis;46169059]UAT may have pulled advertisements from Gamasutra. Waiting for confirmation. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/HmXRqvM.jpg[/IMG] Silverstring employee tweets [img]http://i.imgur.com/6xARcvK.png[/img][/QUOTE] "Oh yeah well...You're a stupid poopy diaper pants! nyeh nyeh nyehnyeh nyah!" Same thing except with slightly more advanced vocabulary. Related: [img_thumb]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/20247526/KindergartenNavySeal.jpg[/img_thumb]

[QUOTE=Reimu;46168780]I'm a little confused, Tamschi, but that sounds like a fucking killer idea. Thanks, you're saving me a lot of hardship. Once my head is outside of my Shakespeare exam, I'll look through this in detail and think about it.[/QUOTE] There's also a bad-faith approach for securing the private keys btw: If you wrap each message in a layer of encryption (no idea if the default mode allows decryption without verification...) you can dump the whole encrypted convo onto the net afterwards. Then, if someone leaks their private key everything becomes public :v: (It's fine to destroy it when you don't need it any more to prevent accidental leaks, if you keep the decrypted logs around. The public part is enough for verification and encryption but not decryption.) [U]However if you plan to do that you really need to choose a good key length and algorithm.[/U] Anyway, the major issue is that any redaction makes a block of at least two messages not-unilaterally-verifiable. It would be nice if there was a better (and fully automated) solution, otherwise this is going to land on my to-do list for stuff that I'll do whenever I feel like it. (The algorithm is fairly trivial though, so it's not really interesting. The main issue is getting a connection.)

[QUOTE=Thlis;46169059]UAT may have pulled advertisements from Gamasutra. Waiting for confirmation. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/HmXRqvM.jpg[/IMG] [/QUOTE] was this confirmed?

[QUOTE=Reimu;46167956]Serious question based on the Zoepost videos: What's everyone's opinion on actually talking to Zoe? Do you think I should ask her if she privately (& completely confidentially) wants to talk to me about everything? The more I think about it, the more I think I should. I saw her following/posting in a conversation I had with someone explaining the purpose of my videos; she posted an out of context tweet Eron made, then removed the tweet after I favorited someone's explanation about them. Either way, I'm under the impression she's definitely watching out for conversations about the videos.[/QUOTE] k, I waited like five hours until I got home to respond to this. You can talk to her, sure, but you are not a psych and I don't think you should have a confidential talk about "everything". I think she needs to talk to someone proper about "everything". If you wanna talk about your videos, go for it. If you wanna talk about the things she said in relation of Eron and you analyzing them, sure. I don't think you should be her shoulder to cry on though.

[QUOTE=Banned?;46170087]You can talk to her, sure, but you are not a psych and I don't think you should have a confidential talk about "everything". I think she needs to talk to someone proper about "everything". If you wanna talk about your videos, go for it. If you wanna talk about the things she said in relation of Eron and you analyzing them, sure. I don't think you should be her shoulder to cry on though.[/QUOTE] Don't get me wrong, I definitely agree. I think I worded my response wrong - I basically meant discussing the videos, Zoepost, Eron, myself, how she feels about the videos, etc etc. I'm not even sure if that's what she would want to talk about. Also, I don't expect her to open up. Abusive people rarely open up about their personalities and experiences, because their behavior is often a steel shield around themselves (basically - using and replicating abusive behavior in order to protect your inner self).

[QUOTE=Tamschi;46169172]There's also a bad-faith approach for securing the private keys btw: If you wrap each message in a layer of encryption (no idea if the default mode allows decryption without verification...) you can dump the whole encrypted convo onto the net afterwards. Then, if someone leaks their private key everything becomes public :v: (It's fine to destroy it when you don't need it any more to prevent accidental leaks, if you keep the decrypted logs around. The public part is enough for verification and encryption but not decryption.) [U]However if you plan to do that you really need to choose a good key length and algorithm.[/U] Anyway, the major issue is that any redaction makes a block of at least two messages not-unilaterally-verifiable. It would be nice if there was a better (and fully automated) solution, otherwise this is going to land on my to-do list for stuff that I'll do whenever I feel like it. (The algorithm is fairly trivial though, so it's not really interesting. The main issue is getting a connection.)[/QUOTE] Ah right, another approach: If you have the conversation in plaintext, you can put everything into an archive and encrypt it [I]to[/I] the other party (while making sure you disable encrypting to yourself). That way your key is irrelevant but if they release theirs the archive becomes public. The same is possible the other way around of course. This should be easier than sorting out the signatures from the encryption in the conversation.

Everyone might want to signal boost this link btw. Was tipped off to it being very influential. If the federal government sees that GGers are getting doxxed, they will start to take antiGG harassment more seriously: [url]http://www.ic3.gov/default.aspx[/url]

[QUOTE=Reimu;46168243]Okay in all seriousness: I'd be a hypocrit if I didn't call this out. No offense gudman, this isn't just you or anything. Let's just stop the cheating jokes though. Especially because, as my videos show, the cheating actually happened in the context of emotional abuse. Let's cut this out. It's part of slut shaming and also it doesn't help at all if we bring those jokes in when trying to talk about whether I should approach Zoe Quinn to talk to her about her past and steps for the future ahead (or lack thereof). I don't mean to be harsh on you or anything, just... the Five Guys jokes happened, I didn't like them personally, let's keep them in the past and move forward. The Zoe Quinn issue itself is about emotional abuse now, not cheating.[/QUOTE] Oh you'd be surprised, but I totally agree with you. I just basically couldn't help myself, but I immediately felt bad. These jokes got old. I'd also have to defend myself, it wasn't meant as a "slut shaming". I've no problem with people's sexuality, fuck as much as you want. I ain't even got big problems with cheating if it ain't a pattern - shit happens sometimes. I've got problem with people using their sexuality as means to an end, and that was what joke was directed at. I didn't 'warn', say, Palooka about the 'possibility', I 'warned' you, because you already kinda feel uneasy about interacting with her, and rightly so.

Don't worry. I just feel like I should have been more active about calling it out ages ago, and I really should be doing it more now.

[QUOTE=Reimu;46171553]Don't worry. I just feel like I should have been more active about calling it out ages ago, and I really should be doing it more now.[/QUOTE] It's you who shouldn't worry, haha. Twice in one post you said "no offense", even though you meant no, and conveyed no such thing. You're one hell of delicate person. Myself, I basically had to explain my reasoning, because I really-really don't have problems with people having an active sexual life and don't want to come across as anything else. [sp]even though explaining jokes makes me feel like an asshole in and of itself[/sp]