• ANTI-Gamer Speaks! Revealed: the true source of online harassment
    55 replies, posted
[QUOTE=TheWindow;46915105]why do people take video games so seriously like, holy shit[/QUOTE] I enjoyed the logic of "anyone who cares enough about games to do this is stupid." When they care just about as much about perpetuating their feelings against said movement as people supporting it do. It's not really the fact people are taking it so seriously that bothers me, it's more of the sense of them pretending to not care about it when they do.
[QUOTE=Wowza!;46915547]The image shows that there were Indie Fund members on the Grand Prize jury in 2011, but FEZ didn't win the grand prize until 2012. Is there any actual proof that there were Indie Fund members on the jury the year FEZ won the award?[/QUOTE] Yes, I said the money went directly into their bank accounts. I'll get the images of the receipts. Fez actually won two years in a row (one was in the category of best upcoming game at Indiecade and the second was for a game that was being released that year at IGF). The judges at both events were investors of the game. [img]http://gamesnosh.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/investors.jpg[/img] [url]http://gamesnosh.com/fez-investors-outed-judges-2011-igf-award/[/url] [QUOTE]Recent information that has come to light in wake of the hacking of Polytron’s website reveals that several investors of FEZ have a direct connection with the IGF and IndieCade and could potentially have had a hand in the allocation of the awards.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]In 2009 (the year of Polytron’s inception) the company received funding from a number of individuals to finance the development of the title FEZ. On Page 19 of the loan contract that was drafted up as a part of this deal; it lists all the people who had invested, how much they invested, and what profit percentage and voting rights they received for their investment. The 7 people (listed to the left) later went on to form Indie Fund, the “funding source for independent developers” who were “looking to encourage the next wave of game developers.” As FEZ was an investment prior to the creation of this group you can consider FEZ to have received the “Beta” Indie Fund, as such it is not listed on the official IndieFund website as a funded Project.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]In 2011, the Independent Games Festival (or IGF) had 5 members of Indie Fund on the finalists panel, and 3 members of Polytron’s staff. That’s 8 out of 10 judges. Mere days before IGF was to accept submissions, FEZ creator Philippe Poisson had to announce the delay of FEZ. Had Polytron finished FEZ on time, the game would have been a shoe-in to win the grand prize at IGF that year as they had a controlling interest. In 2012, FEZ gets through nominations and wins big. Of note here is the IGF anonymous nomination panel: all of the finalist judges are invited back to nominate games the following year. So the Indie Fund judges from 2011 would anonymously judge entrants for 2012. The nomination process is simple: a majority of people who vote on your game is all that is needed to push you through to the selection process. While judges are explicitly told that they can only vote on the games they are given, this is not the case, and any judge can vote on any game; for example, eight people who are members of a small clique can give one game a huge starting bias. In this instance FEZ would have started off with a bias of +8, and since it only takes a majority of people who voted to push a game through it would take at least 8 other judges to vote no, plus the number of judges that legitimately vote yes for FEZ. Even more interesting is that judges are not even required to play the game to submit a ruling on them. So, no time need be wasted by the submitting judges: they merely must say yes or no to continue the process. We know all of this thanks to leaked conversations of anonymous judges from past IGFs. We’d like to thank these judges for coming forward.[/QUOTE] Adding onto my previous post (since I can't edit it anymore). GamerGate also basically caused TechRaptor to become a new popular Gaming Journalism website, to the point where developers quote their reviews to advertise their games.
[QUOTE=ImperialGuard;46915368]I wish there was a middle ground in this stupid debate.[/QUOTE] The middle ground is to find points that go to balance in the spectrum. I think it'd go into finding a point to concede in terms of where one of the main layers of gamer gate is having informational media of mainly news be less colluded of flat sided arguments. As well as journalism looking into the varying parts of a conflict without trying to place a narrative of X vs Y, but instead clear conflicting viewpoints on a subject. Though another very vital point that is one of the layers to the movement is that rational discussion can not be had when irrational participants place clearly crude, poorly constructed, and all around volatile actions into a recipe that does not call for poison in the stew.
[QUOTE=AnnieOakley;46915647]The middle ground is to find points that go to balance in the spectrum. I think it'd go into finding a point to concede in terms of where one of the main layers of gamer gate is having informational media of mainly news be less colluded of flat sided arguments. As well as journalism looking into the varying parts of a conflict without trying to place a narrative of X vs Y, but instead clear conflicting viewpoints on a subject. Though another very vital point that is one of the layers to the movement is that rational discussion can not be had when irrational participants place clearly crude, poorly constructed, and all around volatile actions into a recipe that does not call for poison in the stew.[/QUOTE] You can agree with someone on a specific point without agreeing with them on everything, just like you can disagree with someone's actions or ideas without hating them personally or disliking everything they do.
[QUOTE=Zyler;46915507]There is, it's basically the neutral or anti-anti-gamergate position. You don't care that much about the issues itself, you just don't like the harassment being done by the anti-gamers towards everyone else who doesn't stand in line with their views.[/QUOTE] And I don't like gamergates actions the same way. I agree with gamergate on game journalism and I agree with gamerghazi on their views of the portrayal of women in gaming. There's nowhere for people with my views to actually go.
[QUOTE=Zyler;46915597][QUOTE]In 2011, the Independent Games Festival (or IGF) had 5 members of Indie Fund on the finalists panel, and 3 members of Polytron’s staff. That’s 8 out of 10 judges. Mere days before IGF was to accept submissions, FEZ creator Philippe Poisson had to announce the delay of FEZ. Had Polytron finished FEZ on time, the game would have been a shoe-in to win the grand prize at IGF that year as they had a controlling interest. In 2012, FEZ gets through nominations and wins big. Of note here is the IGF anonymous nomination panel: all of the finalist judges are invited back to nominate games the following year. So the Indie Fund judges from 2011 would anonymously judge entrants for 2012. The nomination process is simple: a majority of people who vote on your game is all that is needed to push you through to the selection process. While judges are explicitly told that they can only vote on the games they are given, this is not the case, and any judge can vote on any game; for example, eight people who are members of a small clique can give one game a huge starting bias. In this instance FEZ would have started off with a bias of +8, and since it only takes a majority of people who voted to push a game through it would take at least 8 other judges to vote no, plus the number of judges that legitimately vote yes for FEZ. Even more interesting is that judges are not even required to play the game to submit a ruling on them. So, no time need be wasted by the submitting judges: they merely must say yes or no to continue the process. We know all of this thanks to leaked conversations of anonymous judges from past IGFs. We’d like to thank these judges for coming forward.[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE] This proves that the Indie Fund members were part of the judging pool in 2012, but it doesn't prove that they were on the jury panel that actually chooses which game receives the grand prize. The vote advantage FEZ might have gained in the nomination phase as a result of the members being in the judging pool might have helped it get nominated, but I don't think it would have made much of a difference, considering that there are over 300 judges in the IGF judging pool. Also, FEZ was pretty much guaranteed to be nominated anyway, considering the fact that it was already an IGF winner the year before it received money from the Indie Fund. ([url]http://www.igf.com/2008finalistswinners.html#finalists[/url])
[QUOTE=ImperialGuard;46915722]And I don't like gamergates actions the same way. I agree with gamergate on game journalism and I agree with gamerghazi on their views of the portrayal of women in gaming. There's nowhere for people with my views to actually go.[/QUOTE] Honestly I think we're a silent majority. Most people I know in real life who've brought it up have the same opinion, it's just the extremists who make caps lock tweets and fight in comments.
[QUOTE=ImperialGuard;46915722]And I don't like gamergates actions the same way. I agree with gamergate on game journalism and I agree with gamerghazi on their views of the portrayal of women in gaming. There's nowhere for people with my views to actually go.[/QUOTE] Gamerghazi isn't the authority on portrayal of women in gaming or any media. Go look up some actual professional media analysts and socialogists, check out Reimu (Who created "Understanding the Zoe Post) and Kazerad (Creator of the Prequel webcomic) who both follow Social Justice but are pro-gamergate. Be aware of the dangers of kafka trapping: [url]http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122[/url] Kazerad's blog: [url]http://kazerad.tumblr.com/[/url] [QUOTE]See, I’m looking at this through the scope of activism. For better or for worse, GamerGate and its opponents have together drawn a [url=http://kazerad.tumblr.com/post/90791732678/solutions]lot[/url] [url=http://kazerad.tumblr.com/post/92214013593/power]of[/url] [url=http://kazerad.tumblr.com/post/86930556353/activism]issues[/url] [url=http://kazerad.tumblr.com/post/95781560733/empowerment]I[/url] [url=http://kazerad.tumblr.com/post/93560425088/underdog-thoughts]care[/url] about into a public spotlight. There are significantly large groups of people who are finally talking about these things. Given how many problems existed with them beforehand, a little turmoil around these topics isn’t unwelcome. I know a lot of people are like “god I can’t wait until this all blows over”, but these are topics that affect me personally and I’m pretty glad conflict is arising over them. That is far, far more than was happening before.[/QUOTE] I strongly believe that no matter what you believe, you can find equally minded people who agree with you, you just need to start looking. [editline]13th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Wowza!;46915793]This proves that the Indie Fund members were part of the judging pool in 2012, but it doesn't prove that they were on the jury panel that actually chooses which game receives the grand prize. The vote advantage FEZ might have gained in the nomination phase as a result of the members being in the judging pool might have helped it get nominated, but I don't think it would have made much of a difference, considering that there are over 300 judges in the IGF judging pool. Also, FEZ was pretty much guaranteed to be nominated anyway, considering the fact that it was already an IGF winner the year before it received money from the Indie Fund. ([url]http://www.igf.com/2008finalistswinners.html#finalists[/url])[/QUOTE] Okay first of all, it proves that collusion happened at Indiecade since 8 out of 10 judges were a part of this group. Secondly, I don't know if you understand how the IGF voting process worked but there were many games nominated and every nominated game needed a certain number of judges approving it to succeed and go into the finals. [b]There would have to be an equal number of neutral judges voting no to Fez in order for it to not win[/b]. That means that because [b]eight judges who had an undisclosed invested interest in the game voted for it, it was almost mathematically impossible for it not to win.[/b]
[QUOTE=ImperialGuard;46915722]And I don't like gamergates actions the same way. I agree with gamergate on game journalism and I agree with gamerghazi on their views of the portrayal of women in gaming. There's nowhere for people with my views to actually go.[/QUOTE] Ghazi's views on women in gaming are outright distorted though. Sexualization of ONLY women is for some reason thought of as a major sin there. It's alright to criticize developers for making sexualized characters for no apparent reason as it's just terrible game design, doesn't make anyone a sexist though. Everytime I visit Ghazi it makes my stomach churn, their mentality of "Be radical like us OR BE THE ENEMY" always sickens me. The amount of logical fallacies used as justification so always enormous too. But that's my perspective on it. Besides, the Pro-Gamers (As in people who defended the gaming identity in the wake of the "Gamers Are Dead" scandal) of Gamergate don't really care if sexualization is added in or not, they care if journalists use their positions to further their agenda that no women should be sexualized. Game Journalists tend to attack and harm sales of games that don't share their political ideology, which is not what they should be doing.
Any prize the game received was ill-gotten through unethical practices, those same judges who voted for it for the grand prize consisted of the same eight people that gave it a mathematical advantage over every other game in the draw. Edit: Lost my automerge.
[QUOTE=Zyler;46915846] Okay first of all, it proves that collusion happened at Indiecade since 8 out of 10 judges were a part of this group. Secondly, I don't know if you understand how the IGF voting process worked but there were many games nominated and every nominated game needed a certain number of judges approving it to succeed and go into the finals. [B]There would have to be an equal number of neutral judges voting no to Fez in order for it to not win[/B]. That means that because [B]eight judges who had an undisclosed invested interest in the game voted for it, it was almost mathematically impossible for it not to win.[/B][/QUOTE] That's not how the IGF voting process works. The judges "recommend" games that they like, then a separate jury panel uses the recommendations as a metric to help decide which games get nominated for an award. There's no set number of approvals from judges to guarantee a game a nomination. [url]http://igf.com/2014/09/igf_statement_re_judging_proce.html[/url] [QUOTE]All submitted games are assigned to a random set of judges (nearly 375) from our 'large' judging pool. It's possible to see how the random assigning works, and third parties have verified that it's truly random - based on the game platforms the judge owns. Judges are given around 4-6 weeks to play and recommend any game they believe should be a finalist in any category. Over time, games are randomly assigned to even more judges, to ensure a breadth of opinion. Judges can then communicate with one another to recommend games, schedule multiplayer sessions, and raise any technical issues directly with a game's developer, as well as debate the positives and negatives of specific titles. There is plenty of positive (and negative) debate on specific titles. After judges finish recommending their assigned games, they are free to explore the rest of the entered games, and vote for any additional game they believe deserves a recommendation. At the end of the 'large' judging period, we then enter a jurying phase. There's is a different jury for each award, made up of subject matter experts - except the Audience Award, which has public votes. Here, for example, are all members that made up [URL="http://igf.com/2012juries.html"]2012's juries[/URL]. They are given access to the total number of recommendations each game received for their particular category. They also receive another metric that they look at: a percentage that represents how many recommendations each game got from assigned judges. This helps to bring less well-known titles to light and guards against judges 'swarming' games they might have heard of. Each jury, made up of 7-15 members, takes another 4-6 weeks to play and discuss the games in private. At the end of this discussion, each individual juror puts forward their list of nominations for the specific award they are judging - as many or as few as they like (often called 'approval voting'). [B]These nominations may include the games that received many recommendations from the judges, but often includes titles with less recommendations as well. [/B](Think of the juries as film festival panels, such as the Cannes Palme D'Or). The jury nominations are then tallied, and the games which received the most nominations are then decided as the finalists and honorable mentions. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Wowza!;46915921]That's not how the IGF voting process works. The judges "recommend" games that they like, then a separate jury panel uses the recommendations as a metric to help decide which games get nominated for an award. There's no set number of approvals from judges to guarantee a game a nomination. [url]http://igf.com/2014/09/igf_statement_re_judging_proce.html[/url][/QUOTE] If a single game gets more recommendations than any other AND it won the previous Indiecade award, what do you think the award process is going to be? That's what I meant when I said any prize the game received was ill-gotten. Plus, the same judges who nominated Fez are also a part of the voting process for the Grand Prize and therefore influenced the voting process by acting as a group when everyone else acted individually. I don't know what you're trying to prove here, if there's ANY level of collusion and corruption, then surely there's a cause for alarm.
All of the comments in the video are retarded. "If I ever have a kid who is a gamer, I will drown him"? Yes, you'd make a fine parent Mr. Ignorant-I-Assume-Games-Are-Evil-Because-Of-The-Media. "We should eradicate all gamers" No, we should eradicate people like YOU. Fucking idiot dumb cunts who think they're being politically correct by sharing their hatred, stupid opinion, which, mind you, is by their own controversial beliefs. Not a nations. Anywho. Fucking ridiculous people.
[QUOTE=ChronoBlade;46916012]All of the comments in the video are retarded. "If I ever have a kid who is a gamer, I will drown him"? Yes, you'd make a fine parent Mr. Ignorant-I-Assume-Games-Are-Evil-Because-Of-The-Media. "We should eradicate all gamers" No, we should eradicate people like YOU. Fucking idiot dumb cunts who think they're being politically correct by sharing their hatred, stupid opinion, which, mind you, is by their own controversial beliefs. Not a nations. Anywho. Fucking ridiculous people.[/QUOTE] This video is very relevant: [video=youtube;HLNhPMQnWu4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLNhPMQnWu4[/video]
[QUOTE=Zyler;46916022]This video is very relevant: [video=youtube;HLNhPMQnWu4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLNhPMQnWu4[/video][/QUOTE] While I agree with it, I only make temporary enemies on our little, creative and fun past-time known as "the internet". Meaning, I often forget that they're there and when I do, I'm like "oh... You're THAT cunt". But no problem. This is why on YouTube I can just "block" and never see he/she ever again. And by the way, while extremists piss me off, I don't cyber-stalk (or whatever the proper term is) and post hateful shit like "go kill yourself" and what not. I usually post my reply to argue against their controversial opinion, and wait. That's all.
[QUOTE=ChronoBlade;46916012]All of the comments in the video are retarded. "If I ever have a kid who is a gamer, I will drown him"? Yes, you'd make a fine parent Mr. Ignorant-I-Assume-Games-Are-Evil-Because-Of-The-Media. "We should eradicate all gamers" No, we should eradicate people like YOU. Fucking idiot dumb cunts who think they're being politically correct by sharing their hatred, stupid opinion, which, mind you, is by their own controversial beliefs. Not a nations. Anywho. Fucking ridiculous people.[/QUOTE] Giving them this kind of attention is exactly the goal they had when they made those posts. They want a violent reaction from pro-gg to prove their point. Don't feed the trolls.
[QUOTE=ImperialGuard;46915722]And I don't like gamergates actions the same way. I agree with gamergate on game journalism and I agree with gamerghazi on their views of the portrayal of women in gaming. There's nowhere for people with my views to actually go.[/QUOTE] GamerGhazi is not about the potrayal of women in video games. It's contrarian circlejerking in a hug box purely for the sake of it. They even wear that on their sleeves. Depending on which community you visit (Facepunch, Escapist, KiA, 8chan, etc.) you'll have a different list of topics that is being discussed in a various ways, with many views and opinions. And that's the best way to describe gamergate, it's that you have many online communities that can be considered to be a part of this, but because there are so many, there is no clear focus on what exactly "they" want. I agree with a lot of arguments that were brought up during gamergate, but I still consider myself neutral because a lot of people, even journalists, are quick to label you as a "gamergater". Which is ridiculous. And most people are pretty sick of this, THEY wanted to talk about problems with game journalism and instead those journalists decided to libel their own audience, because they're butthurt about more and more consumers relying on YouTube instead of traditional press.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46915373]Why is it because they're games, it's a worthless endevour?[/QUOTE] Not at all, I thin you misunderstood what I meant. It's that they make anything they can grasp at a problem and something to fight over. I don't know if it's that they're trying to make video games a more serious, respectable art form, which is fine, but doxxing, death threats, and this whole shit flinging contest in general is [B]not[/B] the way to do it. I absolutely love video games, and I think they can be art, but neither side is right in this, in my opinion.
[QUOTE=TheWindow;46921797] I absolutely love video games, and I think they can be art, but neither side is right in this, in my opinion.[/QUOTE] When you say stuff like this it just sounds like you're saying because it's video games that people's freedom of expression, their careers, their reputations and they're livelihoods are not important. Did you read that bit where I said that this is a 65 billion dollar industry? Gamergate isn't the first time gaming journalism websites have written unfounded hit pieces on people, causing them to get harassed and bullied online. Isn't the side that's fighting against that stuff better than the side that's abusing people for profit?
[QUOTE=Zyler;46915281]See the previous posts by me and uber. [B]It's a 65 billion dollar industry bigger than the movie industry[/B]. People's jobs and reputations are on the line and their freedom of expression is being threatened. 50% of Americans play video games. There are more hardcore video game players than star wars fans. Why does anyone take anything seriously? Money and Art.[/QUOTE] 90. [quote] but neither side is right in this, in my opinion. [/quote] Telling me what I can and cannot create as character and game designer is fundamentally wrong, period. You're either ill informed or just don't give a shit what you play and how you receive it.
Pro-GG doesn't really mind Neutrals at all. Remember Pakman? Dude was trying extremely hard to be neutral, and GG loved that. It was anti-GG People that attacked him for being neutral.
[QUOTE=DuCT;46927061]Pro-GG doesn't really mind Neutrals at all. Remember Pakman? Dude was trying extremely hard to be neutral, and GG loved that. It was anti-GG People that attacked him for being neutral.[/QUOTE]Total Biscuit started out neutral, got shit heaped on him for it, and decided being neutral wasn't the way to go. The Anti-crowd are the only ones who believe no one can be neutral.
There are anti gg who literally believe there is no such thing as neutrality in this debacle, and they will phrase the situation as gamergate versus everyone else. A disturbingly blatant with us or against us mentality.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.