• Turns out #gamergate was just a bunch of shitty 4channers out to destroy careers of people they don'
    92 replies, posted
Man this is just clickbait that I would never click on... wait... NOOOOOOO!!!
Even if your title was true, how is it even relevant after seeing what came out of it? The entire industry is better for it.
[QUOTE=StickyWicket;45921250]What a way to set the tone with that title. It's almost as if you knew that such a tone would preheat the oven so to speak, to put some ether in the engine of controversy. Certainly, this whole thread was designed just to get a few pages worth of reactions out of people.[/QUOTE] the entire section of sensationalist headlines was BUILT for that title
Like other people have said and what I said in another thread, it's like the highly vocal Pro-Quinn people on Facepunch and other sites in general are waiting like giddy little schoolgirls just waiting for a massive bombshell to be dropped that will entirely discredit #gamergate and #notyoursheild and then go like "Ha Ha I told you so! Victory is ours! (insert passive aggressive emoticon here)". It's like they looked at that screenshot and were like "Yes this is the big bombshell I've been waiting for, time to rub it in those neckbeards' faces!!" without really looking at the screenshot more closely.
It wasn't for being anti gamergate, it was for being an antagonistic shitposter just coming around to stir up shit as soon as he got off his previous ban for the same exact thing. The subject was anti gamergate, but just that wasn't the problem, it was his terrible posting about it.
tacosheller grasping at straws now, still hanging onto the "m-muh 4chan misogynist conspiracy"
[QUOTE=Eonart;45922083]Pretty much all anti gamergate people I've seen are like that, I find; stubborn non-stop shitposters.[/QUOTE] This is where we're at in the debate now folks "people who disagree with me just shitpost"
Well Zeke you certainly aren't very good evidence for the contrary.
[QUOTE=Eonart;45922132]I ask you to find someone that's anti gamergate that doesn't shitpost. I'd like to talk to them in a respectful and polite conversation.[/QUOTE] I've posted a lot in the "games industry corruption" thread in general discussion.
Zoe's fucked and now she's trying to lie her way out of it, what a great indie game dev.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;45922144]I've posted a lot in the "games industry corruption" thread in general discussion.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://puu.sh/bqnFw/73e33d81f2.png[/IMG] Contradiction detected.
[QUOTE=Manibogi;45922163][IMG]http://puu.sh/bqnFw/73e33d81f2.png[/IMG] Contradiction detected.[/QUOTE] Seriously? I was replying to someone who said I was the master of stealth shitposting. It's called a joke. Why does this whole forum have a giant rod up its ass all of a sudden
[QUOTE=Eonart;45922083]Pretty much all anti gamergate people I've seen are like that, I find; stubborn non-stop shitposters.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Eonart;45922045]Max got banned for essentially being anti #GamerGate quite a while ago. I don't think it was a brilliant idea to post this after he got banned, let alone posting it anytime. People like you are the problem; SJWs who are too stubborn to accept evidence or partake polite discussion[/QUOTE] Plenty of people have posted in the anti-corruption thread with an anti-gamergate stance without being banned. Max was just threadshitting.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;45922168]Seriously? I was replying to someone who said I was the master of stealth shitposting. It's called a joke.[/QUOTE] I was joking too. You really thought that was a serious post?
[QUOTE=Zeke129;45922144]I've posted a lot in the "games industry corruption" thread in general discussion.[/QUOTE] You know we can check that, right? It says you posted there seven times.
[QUOTE=Eonart;45922162]oh wait that's from the wrong thread my bad[/QUOTE] If there's a thread with actual discussion going on that I'm interested in, I'll discuss rationally. Facepunch has been quite the echo chamber as of late so if I think a thread is just going to disregard what I say I'll obviously come into it with a pretty great deal of apathy. This wasn't the case of the one in GD so I actually made lengthy, thoughtful posts in there. Not every single thread needs to be serious 100% of the time, especially when there's at least half a dozen of them devoted to the same thing at once. [editline]7th September 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Aredbomb;45922176]You know we can check that, right? It says you posted there seven times.[/QUOTE] If you're just going into a thread to shitpost you're not going to stay for 7.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;45922169]Plenty of people have posted in the anti-corruption thread with an anti-gamergate stance without being banned. Max was just threadshitting.[/QUOTE] I still think Craptasket's warning was going a bit too far. I know it's Max but the fact that he could be perma'd just for posting in a specific type of thread seems like too much imo.
[QUOTE=Manibogi;45922191]I still think Craptasket's warning was going a bit too far. I know it's Max but the fact that he could be perma'd just for posting in a specific type of thread seems like too much imo.[/QUOTE] I seriously hope the irony of facepunch complaining about reddit and 4chan stifling debate while simultaneously telling people that they can't post their views isn't lost on everyone here. That rod up the ass strikes again
[QUOTE=RichyZ;45922172]it isn't just all of a sudden[/QUOTE] It honestly feels like it. Even 3 months ago this place wasn't anywhere near as polarized as it is now. Now everything is black and white and you either agree or [i]get the fuck out[/i].
[QUOTE=Manibogi;45922191]I still think Craptasket's warning was going a bit too far. I know it's Max but the fact that he could be perma'd just for posting in a specific type of thread seems like too much imo.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;45906622]whoops, looks like #gamergate and #notyourshield got exposed for what they really are... [highlight](User was banned for this post ("" - Craptasket))[/highlight] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Was just banned - stop posting in threads about journalism/feminism/misogyny. LAST WARNING" - Craptasket))[/highlight][/QUOTE] Blatant threadshitting in every thread about this issue. It's not the mods censoring anti-gamergate stuff.
[QUOTE=Manibogi;45922191]I still think Craptasket's warning was going a bit too far. I know it's Max but the fact that he could be perma'd just for posting in a specific type of thread seems like too much imo.[/QUOTE]Not really. He had done it just a couple weeks prior. Then he did it again and got banned, then literally the moment he got unbanned he came back and started doing it again. Max has a very well known history, and since he lost his mod status he has been on basically a constant downward spiral in regards to these topics.
[QUOTE=Eonart;45922200]your views are still wrong[/QUOTE] This is what's wrong with facepunch now. Can't you disagree with someone without just handwaving everything they say as wrong? I'm probably one of the most entrenched people in this debate and I'm still able to listen to the opposing argument without immediately dismissing it as wrong. [editline]8th September 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Rangergxi;45922205]Blatant threadshitting in every thread about this issue. It's not the mods censoring anti-gamergate stuff.[/QUOTE] Max's post was low quality but how is it of any lower quality than most of the replies on this thread's first page? "who cares" "nice title lol" "lmao shilling" Those posts are shit too but people shouldn't be banned for making them, this is a web forum not a graduate thesis
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;45922205]Blatant threadshitting in every thread about this issue. It's not the mods censoring anti-gamergate stuff.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying it is, but telling someone "if you post in these types of threads I'll perma you" is the equivalent of "if you look at me funny I'll beat you up", and it causes the same problem: Who's to judge whether he looked at him funny or not? No one but the guy that just beat him up, that's who. What I'm trying to say is that he's likely to get banned for his opinion alone, even if he somehow stops shitposting, and I'm not okay with that.
[QUOTE=Eonart;45922220]I said that because you actually didn't look into any of what's going on. Perhaps the start of this whole controversy may have been about misogyny but iirc it started like this: 1) Ex comes out saying she's a cheat 2) People sympathize with him and start to look into Zoe 3) People find a rabbit hole deeper than her cooch, finding journalist corruption and so many connections that no one person can comprehend it now 4) People are now trying to disassemble the clique that contains all these connections 5) Zoe literally doesn't matter anymore unless she can be connected to anything else we find The only people who still care about her are shitposters and shills.[/QUOTE] Yeah I've followed the start of this rather thoroughly because I had nothing better to do at the time. I legitimately believe that if a man had slept with a female journalist to promote his game the journalist would bear the brunt of the internet's anger and that quite a few people only participated in this argument because they wanted a woman to hate. I do not believe that this would have blown up as much as it did, or mattered as much as it did to so many people, had a woman not been involved. I'm not saying you feel this way, and I'm not saying that most people who disagree with me feel this way, but aside from a few people who either agree with me or are still sitting on the fence, I've been repeatedly denied a debate on this forum. I would very much have liked to have a good discussion with someone who disagrees with me but when most people on both sides think the other side is radical SJW/raging misogynist a debate is impossible. You're a prime example of this, having demonstrated hostility toward me from the very start in this thread. Did I insult you beforehand or something? Did I reciprocate the hostility? No, I didn't. So what's your deal?
[QUOTE=Zeke129;45922235]Yeah I've followed the start of this rather thoroughly because I had nothing better to do at the time. I legitimately believe that if a man had slept with a female journalist to promote his game the journalist would bear the brunt of the internet's anger and that quite a few people only participated in this argument because they wanted a woman to hate. I do not believe that this would have blown up as much as it did, or mattered as much as it did to so many people, had a woman not been involved. I'm not saying you feel this way, and I'm not saying that most people who disagree with me feel this way, but aside from a few people who either agree with me or are still sitting on the fence, I've been repeatedly denied a debate on this forum. I would very much have liked to have a good discussion with someone who disagrees with me but when most people on both sides think the other side is radical SJW/raging misogynist a debate is impossible.[/QUOTE] The only reason it wouldn't have blown up is because you wouldn't half the industry leaping to his defense.
[QUOTE=Mr_Awesome;45920935]great shill article, [B]im lovin it[/B][/QUOTE] This aint McDonalds
[QUOTE=Zeke129;45922235]Yeah I've followed the start of this rather thoroughly because I had nothing better to do at the time. I legitimately believe that if a man had slept with a female journalist to promote his game the journalist would bear the brunt of the internet's anger and that quite a few people only participated in this argument because they wanted a woman to hate. I do not believe that this would have blown up as much as it did, or mattered as much as it did to so many people, had a woman not been involved. I'm not saying you feel this way, and I'm not saying that most people who disagree with me feel this way, but aside from a few people who either agree with me or are still sitting on the fence, I've been repeatedly denied a debate on this forum. I would very much have liked to have a good discussion with someone who disagrees with me but when most people on both sides think the other side is radical SJW/raging misogynist a debate is impossible. You're a prime example of this, having demonstrated hostility toward me from the very start.[/QUOTE] i think that zoe was the target of criticism because she didn't sleep with just one journalist but five, which put her in the center of the ordeal as the primary offender and then there was that one ex of her's calling her abusive and manipulative and such but zoe was just the lid on the whole can of worms, to paraphrase another user
[QUOTE=Zeke129;45922235]Yeah I've followed the start of this rather thoroughly because I had nothing better to do at the time. I legitimately believe that if a man had slept with a female journalist to promote his game the journalist would bear the brunt of the internet's anger and that quite a few people only participated in this argument because they wanted a woman to hate. I do not believe that this would have blown up as much as it did, or mattered as much as it did to so many people, had a woman not been involved. I'm not saying you feel this way, and I'm not saying that most people who disagree with me feel this way, but aside from a few people who either agree with me or are still sitting on the fence, I've been repeatedly denied a debate on this forum. I would very much have liked to have a good discussion with someone who disagrees with me but when most people on both sides think the other side is radical SJW/raging misogynist a debate is impossible. You're a prime example of this, having demonstrated hostility toward me from the very start in this thread. Did I insult you beforehand or something? Did I reciprocate the hostility? No, I didn't. So what's your deal?[/QUOTE] This kind of hostility isn't new Zeke, it follows these topics around everywhere and an opportunity to argue things in a sensible manner is incredibly rare. Maybe the difference here is that there's more people on the side of dismissing your arguments than dismissing the opposing side's arguments. Still, the [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1421478]thread over in GD[/url] has quietened down and I'm sure if you made some reasonable arguments people would try to address them. I at least try to have a go if I'm around, I've even [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1421478&p=45915101&viewfull=1#post45915101]addressed as best I could[/url] your issue with Zoe being the trigger for all this.
[QUOTE=No_0ne;45922272]i think that zoe was the target of criticism because she didn't sleep with just one journalist but five, which put her in the center of the ordeal as the primary offender but zoe was just the lid on the whole can of worms, to paraphrase another user[/QUOTE] This is where the core of our disagreement comes from probably. It was never Quinn's job to hold journalists to their standards. She tried sleeping with people, and succeeded. Aside from the cheating (which doesn't have anything to do with games) that's where the moral issues on Quinn's part ends. It was those journalists who made the decision to ignore the standards they claimed to hold themselves to. But guess what? I don't really care about that either. And that's why I'm against this whole #gamergate thing. Not out of some desire to protect Quinn, but because [i]gaming journalism doesn't matter[/i]. There's so much misplaced anger here it's comical. There will never be a Cronkite or a Woodward of the games industry. No gaming journalist will influence world politics, start or end a war, or topple governments. In the end, these people help us decide what $10-$60 thing we'll buy. They're basically food critics. Instead of treating this situation like I'd treat a similar one at CNN, I'm doing what I'd do if I found out my favourite food critic was getting free pork chops on the side - find a new food critic. I seek out games journalists who offer perspectives on things that matter to me. And yes, that means I end up reading Polygon's reviews. If that makes me a SJW killing gaming, sue me. Other people can find their own reviewers that focus on topics that matter to them. But when I see people running around harassing people (not only journalists, but mostly journalists), not only for being involved in "#gamergate" but for daring to demonstrate even slightly feminist leanings in their reporting/posting, I get really bloody mad at gamers and it becomes incredibly hard to come into these discussions with good faith anymore. I want to read articles about cool games that do something new. Maybe make a social or political statement, or maybe just come up with gameplay concepts that haven't been seen before. But now anyone who wants to talk about the former needs to look over their shoulder because it very well could be the end of their career if a few high profile people on reddit/4chan/facepunch catch wind of it and decide to make them their next target. Remember that "journalists to avoid" thing circulating on 4chan? That's what I'm talking about. So yeah, thanks a lot. (Not you in particular, No_0ne)
[QUOTE=Zeke129;45922340]This is where the core of our disagreement comes from probably. It was never Quinn's job to hold journalists to their standards. She tried sleeping with people, and succeeded. Aside from the cheating (which doesn't have anything to do with games) that's [B]where the moral issues on Quinn's part ends[/B].[/QUOTE] Except, you know, trying to kill/dox an indigogo campaign, made to help get women into the industry, which she then threw Maya under the bus for.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.