Opinion: 'GamerGate' Legitimacy is an Illusion

GamerGate supporters may believe that by sheer numbers, or volume, they can take this toxic foundation and turn it into a legitimate movement. They can't. 

292

As the so-called "GamerGate" debacle has unfolded, we've considered whether, and how, to address it. We're a news site first and foremost, with recent expansion into more original feature content, but game culture has never been our focus. We're a community of gamers, especially as evidenced by our vocal Chatty community, and we certainly aim to appeal to our target audience. However, our site squarely focuses on games rather than gamers, and so we were never sure just how much engagement was necessary on our part.

(If you're not familiar with GamerGate, Gawker explains it well. Deadspin also covered the different factions of it in-depth, from a perspective outside the video game sphere.)

Just as GamerGate reached its first apex, though, it was delivered what I thought to be a crushing blow. Zoe Quinn, whose personal life had been the match that lit the firestorm, personally exposed the roots of the movement as bigoted trolls. Many of its broadest acts were part of a concerted effort to distract and defend their hate speech. The volume died down, and I thought it was over.

I was mistaken.

This belief had led me to ignore it entirely, even as the remaining GamerGate supporters celebrated minor victories. Recently they found that game journalists had been part of a social network, which they claimed as proof of collusion. This came alongside support from Brietbart, a well-known news source. Then they convinced Intel to pull ads from Gamasutra, following an opinion piece that criticized them. Intel quickly issued an apology, but retained its decision.

The continued momentum of GamerGate has convinced me that engagement is necessary, but not to expound on the virtues of game journalism or chastize the misogynistic elements. Most readers know, or at least should know, that game journalism isn't perfect and that issuing threats or gendered insults to women is never justified. Those subjects are well-worn.

Instead, I want to talk directly to the well-meaning people who honestly have concerns about journalistic ethics and want to improve game journalism as a whole. Your goals are noble, but you need a new flag.

You are building a house on a foundation of hatred, and it will never stand on its own until you start fresh.

I'm enough of an optimist to firmly believe that the well-meaning supporters outnumber the bigots by a wide margin. You probably believe that by sheer numbers, or volume, you can take this toxic foundation and turn it into a legitimate one. You cannot. You are building a house on a foundation of hatred, and it will never stand on its own until you start fresh.

It is easy to have our understanding of an ongoing event skewed by our own perceptions. Many who have joined the GamerGate cause may naturally feel that they are the founders and true gate-holders. By extension, they believe, those issuing ugly threats are fringe elements that have corrupted it. In truth, it is just the opposite. The ugliness is the original cause, and all of the outrage over journalistic ethics was brought up afterwards to act as a shield for bigots. 

I know you believe in the cause, but that doesn't matter. Even if the cause itself is just, it's playing a role in a greater injustice. You are, likely unwittingly, helping to provide cover for people who want to threaten, demonize, harass, and frighten minority voices into silence--particularly women. They are using you to further a goal that you probably don't agree with.

A jilted lover found a way to get back at his ex-girlfriend, and he recruited gamers to help. He and a small group of misognynists cynically played upon an actual debate that's been boiling under the surface of video game culture for years: journalistic ethics. But for them, this was never about ethics. It was about tricking people into extending the life of their hate campaign by giving it a legitimate front. Rejecting the "GamerGate" banner does not mean abandoning concerns about journalism. It means freeing those concerns from a taint that makes them easy to dismiss. 

You can't turn GamerGate legitimate. Any attempts to do so will only continue the smokescreen that is still allowing bigots to get away with death threats and hostility. You need to abandon them, leave them to fend for their own hate, and let the views espoused by a small group of cynical misogynists shrivel up on their own. Find a new banner that's based on inclusion, on welcoming more voices into gaming, on being unafraid of change. Then, continue asking journalists the hard questions. The very moment that one of the bigots from the old movement tries to join your new one, make sure he knows that his kind is not welcome. Not now, not ever.

To understand why the GamerGate label is beyond all hope, we only need to look at the events of last night. In the wake of a school shooting threat, one of the largest GamerGate hubs was gleefully fantasizing about murdering feminist commentator Anita Sarkeesian. The biggest problem in their eyes was the possibility that she'd become a martyr. 

Others, donning their tinfoil hats, speculated that someone opposed to them might carry out a murder to discredit and defame them. Different arms of the same group were simultaneously fantasizing about a murder and their own subsequent defense, just in case some unhinged reader actually did the unthinkable. Whether it's sincere death-wishing or a joke in poor taste doesn't matter. If you march to the beat of GG, these are your chief strategists. 

Pragmatically, if you are genuinely concerned about journalistic ethics, that tag isn't doing you any good anymore. It's become so linked to the hatred that any moderate message you want to send is being obscured. Even ignoring its origins and current controversies, it's simply not an effective way to convey your desires to game publishers and journalistic outlets. The more clearheaded supporters of GamerGate need to ask themselves if the title is more important to them than the cause, because right now the one is strangling the other.

To be clear, I am absolutely not suggesting that you stop looking critically, even skeptically, at game journalism practices. In fact, I would be disappointed if you did. This industry is young, and making the sometimes painful transition between enthusiast press that borders on advertorial, and legitimate fact-finding, analysis, and critique. To do that successfully, we need the community to hold us to certain ethical standards. For that community to have any weight behind its words, though, it needs the moral certitude that can only come from rooting out its less desirable elements. You can only keep us honest if you can keep yourselves honest.

These steps aren't easy, but they're not meant to be. They are the only way to salvage a semblance of respectability, which is necessary for the discourse you want to have. If anything good is ever going to come out of GamerGate, it will be from those wise enough to extract themselves from it.

We’d love to hear what you think about this topic on Chatty, and we’ll be there engaging with the community as usual. We want to make sure we can set an example for a clear, respectful dialogue about a tough topic.

Editor-In-Chief
Filed Under
From The Chatty
  • reply
    October 15, 2014 12:45 PM

    Steve Watts posted a new article, Opinion: 'GamerGate' Legitimacy is an Illusion

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 12:49 PM

      Obviously this is a touchy topic. As a video game site writing about an issue that is ostensibly critical of video game journalism, we're going to be paying special attention to the thread here. Feel free to ask whatever you like, critique, chatter, or what have you, but do it respectfully.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 12:50 PM

        We will answer questions as best we can.

        • reply
          October 15, 2014 12:52 PM

          Question: Have you already 100%'d KH1.5HDRM?

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 12:53 PM

            I think your connection broke up at the end of there, it just looks like line noise.

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 12:57 PM

            Pssh, hell no! Have you tried beating the Neverland Phantom in Proud Mode? HAVE YOU?

            • reply
              October 15, 2014 12:58 PM

              that's for people that like to bash their own jibbly bits with a hammer

      • reply
        October 16, 2014 3:35 AM

        Some editors just want to watch the world burn.

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 12:49 PM

      Well said, Steve. I'm glad to see you addressed the concerns about ethics as well as the harassment side.

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 12:58 PM

      Can someone explain the logic behind NOT leaving gamergate and starting fresh with an actual ethics-focused tag/movement? All I've heard is that they're afraid that splitting onto a new tag will cause the whole thing to fall apart, but isn't even that worst case scenario better than being lumped in with misogynists and harassers?

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 1:04 PM

        I think that in most cases, they'd probably be correct. When a tag has this much mindshare it would be silly, just from a PR perspective, to leave it behind. But a large and growing amount of that mindshare is being taken up by these really negative aspects, so it goes back to the falsehood of the old "all press is good press" adage.

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 1:00 PM

      A shooting threat? Their plan to refute her thesis is by exactly proving it? Idiots.

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 1:01 PM

      A 'game journalism' website doesn't agree that game journalism is corrupt? Color me surprised.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 1:02 PM

        To be clear, I am absolutely not suggesting that you stop looking critically, even skeptically, at game journalism practices. In fact, I would be disappointed if you did. This industry is young, and making the sometimes painful transition between enthusiast press that borders on advertorial, and legitimate fact-finding, analysis, and critique. To do that successfully, we need the community to hold us to certain ethical standards. For that community to have any weight behind its words, though, it needs the moral certitude that can only come from rooting out its less desirable elements.

        ...

        • reply
          October 15, 2014 1:08 PM

          By allowing themselves to be a part of the changing of the conversation (Which started as 'Hey guys, did you trade sex for reviews? Not cool') to 'All ya'll are misogynists!' they are making their stance clear. It is the internet, anyone can claim to be a part of 'GamersGate' (is that even a real organization? I wasn't aware they had a group homepage or some nonsense). So some random people claim to be a part of it and do awful things, and suddenly we can't actually talk about THE issue? You can say that oh, well, if you would just BEHAVE we could talk about real issues, but guaranteed the next time there is an issue, they will sweep it under the rug under the banner of protecting someone's frail frail feelings and call everyone raising any issue about gaming journalism some other name. Maybe racist next time, just to keep it varied.

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 1:10 PM

            You didn't read the article, did you?

            • reply
              October 15, 2014 1:19 PM

              Just because you say something is true doesn't make it true. It started because someone traded sex for good reviews. You can keep saying that it didn't, but it did. Yes, the catalyst was a spurned lover (if the genders were reversed, would we automatically assume them in the wrong?), but it doesn't change the facts of the matter. Now were some of those things made up? Yes, but some were also true. Some like her actually sleeping with some (not all) of the said people and getting subsequent good reviews for a mediocore not-game. Like her shutting down a game-jam with false allegations of sexism because she didn't like it taking attention away from her own. And yes, then misogynists used it as an excuse to continue their ways, but that would be true regardless.

              And they also try to act like it was Quinn alone who was nailed. Really? As if people didn't rally just as hard against the men who were accused of the favoritism?

              • reply
                October 15, 2014 1:22 PM

                Who traded sex for a good game review?

              • reply
                October 15, 2014 1:22 PM

                You just stated a fact that is incorrect. Her game was never reviewed by the person she had a relationship with as is pointed out in multiple articles. It is best you get your facts straight before replying.

                If you start from a lie, your entire point is suspect.

                • reply
                  October 15, 2014 2:00 PM

                  He didn't review her game, no. He did cover the indie "game jam" or what ever the hell they called it, and put mention of her and her game at the top of the article, calling her/her game an "indie darling" or some such, leading attention to her. In fact he zapped her name in at least two articles. When the thing started to blow up, he first denied knowing her before his articles, and when that was proven to be false, told his editor that they had no romantic relationship prior to the article. It isn't required a relationship be romantic to taint the wall that should be held between a story and its subjects. At the same time, yes, relationships are things that journalists foster. Woodward & Bernstein managed what they did because of a relationship they had with a contact, one that they kept anonymous, and who did not benefit from the coverage. The relationship that Woodward & Bernstein had with Deep Throat is not an issue, because of the anonymity they maintained for protecting him as a source. An entirely different <ahem> affair than ZQ. It's also okay if Tom Brokaw has dinner with Dan Rather either, but it can be problematic if they share with one another what they plan to work on and their editorial views at that dinner table.

                  Anyway, this really, really is about a great deal more now than months ago, not the least of it being the sanitizing of discussion surrounding it. I can completely agree with the need for maintaining civility. But squelching an audience that notices things, never blows over well. As much wrong as may be perceived in other areas, in the least, this is most offensive to the most that I see.

                  • reply
                    October 15, 2014 2:25 PM

                    Did you REALLY mention Woodward and Bernstein in the context of this bullshit?

                  • reply
                    October 16, 2014 3:09 AM

                    That whole non-issue is such a waste of time

              • reply
                October 15, 2014 1:23 PM

                Sex was never traded for good reviews. Please read up on the facts, thanks.
                http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=134397896&postcount=12285

                • reply
                  October 15, 2014 1:26 PM

                  >Facts
                  >From NeoGAF, known to be in on the whole scandal

                  Yeah, nah

                  • reply
                    October 15, 2014 1:27 PM

                    You really have no clue what you're talking about regarding this issue and appear to be grasping at straws.

                    • reply
                      October 15, 2014 1:28 PM

                      Well I have it on good authority from StormFront that the Holocaust was a hoax. I mean, everything on the internet is true, right?

                      • reply
                        October 15, 2014 1:30 PM

                        39 minutes to the first Hitler/Holocaust reference!

                        • reply
                          October 15, 2014 2:07 PM

                          He probably shares that video that the Chinese moon Rover didn't find any American moon landing sites (because it wasn't anywhere near them.)

                      • reply
                        October 15, 2014 7:55 PM

                        It would appear then that you have a chronic problem telling fiction from reality.

                      • reply
                        October 17, 2014 1:40 AM

                        you sure seem to act like it is, given how gullible you are about all this shit

                  • reply
                    October 15, 2014 1:34 PM

                    Where are you getting your facts that support this particular claim of wrongdoing? It's a pretty serious accusation so really I'd like to know what convinced you it's true.

                • reply
                  October 15, 2014 3:02 PM

                  So you're saying the time we shared didn't matter? YOU'RE DENYING OUR SPECIAL NIGHT UNDER THE OVERPASS IN CHINO

              • reply
                October 15, 2014 1:24 PM

                Read your first sentence and think really hard about whether the rest of your post holds up to your own criteria.

              • reply
                October 15, 2014 1:25 PM

                when is snopes going to get an entry for that quinn thing? cause jesus fucking christ

                • reply
                  October 15, 2014 7:56 PM

                  This has reached full-on conspiracy theory level. No amount of evidence will convince people like GigiLeCheshire

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 1:12 PM

            But we can agree that the question of 'Hey guys, did you trade sex for reviews? Not cool' has been answered as irrefutable "no" right?

            • reply
              October 15, 2014 1:21 PM

              Actually, no, a couple of the cases were confirmed, though of course you'd have to then make the stretch that her having sex with them then actually got her good reviews, which is an unwinnable debate. I can't see into the hearts of men.

              • reply
                October 15, 2014 1:25 PM

                Can you show me the articles they wrote?

                • reply
                  October 15, 2014 1:29 PM

                  Yes, of course, they left them up for everyone to see. It isn't like you can remove something from your website or anything.

                  • reply
                    October 15, 2014 1:30 PM

                    Well they'd be archived on google and archive.org right? You seem pretty knowledgeable so you must know where to find at least screen shots of the articles. We know you can't actually delete something from the internet so the articles must still be out there.

                  • reply
                    October 15, 2014 1:30 PM

                    https://archive.org/
                    Google cache.

                    There are ways.

                    • reply
                      October 15, 2014 1:32 PM

                      Uh google is a known collaborator, of course you won't find the info there.

                      • reply
                        October 15, 2014 1:35 PM

                        Nah, it is probably there somewhere. Let's both look for it! First one there is a hero of journalism.

                        • reply
                          October 15, 2014 1:37 PM

                          I'm not sure you're going to convince people to prove your point for you, especially when--if these articles were not written, as they assert--it would be a wild goose chase.

                        • reply
                          October 15, 2014 1:39 PM

                          I have a feeling you're just trying to cover up the fact that you didn't realize that the "sex for reviews" thing never actually happened :/ The article was never written, which is why gamergate isn't parading it around as proof.

                          • reply
                            October 15, 2014 1:41 PM

                            You keep speaking of GamersGate as if it is a organization. Is there some group home where these people are having meetings? I always assumed GamersGate was in reference to the scandal, not to the people. It is like calling Nixon 'WaterGate'

                            • reply
                              October 15, 2014 1:44 PM

                              You didn't respond to sammyl's post at all.

                              • reply
                                October 15, 2014 1:47 PM

                                He's just arguing past us because he has no actual foundation and he knows it. Close this subthread down.

                                • reply
                                  October 15, 2014 1:48 PM

                                  Oh no a third rate game news website is gonna shut my comment thread down =(

                                  • reply
                                    October 15, 2014 1:49 PM

                                    Just want to remind you that you've posted on this third rate game news site for 5 years.

                                  • reply
                                    October 15, 2014 2:09 PM

                                    Then why are you even here?

                                    • reply
                                      October 15, 2014 2:11 PM

                                      I wanted to be part of the shitstorm when Shacknews threw its hat into the new 'Dirty evil Misogynists trying to kill all women in video games!' trend

                                      • reply
                                        October 15, 2014 2:17 PM

                                        What shitstorm?

                                      • reply
                                        October 15, 2014 2:25 PM

                                        No it looks more like you decided to douse yourself in honey and then dive into an anthill in order to prove that someone else had sex but complain that no one is stepping up to say how cool your shoes are that don't even fit.

                                      • reply
                                        October 15, 2014 3:40 PM

                                        I'm actually pretty proud of our community for handling this so well. I had faith you guys were smart enough to take this seriously without being pandered to and my confidence has paid off.

                                      • reply
                                        October 15, 2014 11:44 PM

                                        Fuck me, are you unlikeable.

                                      • reply
                                        October 16, 2014 4:31 AM

                                        Man, this fire is out of control!. It's lucky we have this gasoline nearby to put it ou.... Whoa what the fuck? It just got bigger! :GigiLeChesire

                                  • reply
                                    October 15, 2014 9:40 PM

                                    I honestly don't know what passes as first rate in this business. Most of the competitors, while well funded, are pretty horrible.

                            • reply
                              October 15, 2014 2:52 PM

                              It's a movement and there is a lot of co-ordination both public and behind the scenes.

                    • reply
                      October 15, 2014 1:36 PM

                      Another way is SMing Vi...

                    • reply
                      October 15, 2014 1:37 PM

                      You guys are seriously suggesting that Way Back Machine and Google Cache are comprehensive enough to mean anything in this context? GigiLeCheshire not providing evidence says enough.

                      • reply
                        October 15, 2014 1:39 PM

                        >A single person won't get my info for me, so it must be a lie, because the oppossing side also shows no evidence but I agree with them more.

                        • reply
                          October 15, 2014 1:40 PM

                          The "other side" provided evidence. You claim the evidence is invalid. Evidence of the invalidity is requested. You are either unwilling or unable to provide that evidence.

                          • reply
                            October 15, 2014 1:42 PM

                            Show me receipts

                            • reply
                              October 15, 2014 1:43 PM

                              Do you have anything of substance to claim beside your specious reasons you have not defended with any actual evidence?

                              You seem to be just here to troll now instead of provide a discussion.

                            • reply
                              October 15, 2014 1:43 PM

                              Just to clarify - you're asking for proof that Zoe Quinn did not trade sex for reviews/coverage of her game?

                              • reply
                                October 15, 2014 1:50 PM

                                She had sex with two game industry insiders. This is known, this is admitted. She did this while still technically with her boyfriend, which is not really here or there, the moral failings of people isn't really my concern.

                                However, in any other field, we'd have a problem with someone sleeping with someone else who they are supposed to -cover- and -review-. Did they specifically review her games, those people? No. Did the websites they worked for? Yes. Nepotism is a bad thing, even if it is common.

                                • reply
                                  October 15, 2014 1:51 PM

                                  Did they specifically review her games, those people? No.
                                  So we're done here, right?

                                  • reply
                                    October 15, 2014 1:52 PM

                                    "Hey, pass through this article about the girl I'm banging, thanks. But don't put my name on it, that could REALLY come back to bite us."

                                    • reply
                                      October 15, 2014 1:54 PM

                                      And here we are again with you making completely spurious claims and refusing to provide any evidence for them.

                                      We can do this all night, this is Shacknews, you know? You think any of us have anything better to do?

                                    • reply
                                      October 15, 2014 1:55 PM

                                      "No, man, I'm not doing that, we're going to be knee deep in shitty tweets about how we're no better than an EA media day."

                                    • reply
                                      October 15, 2014 1:57 PM

                                      I understand how this can all look cloak-and-dagger, but asserting *another* possibility without any evidence isn't exactly helping your case here.

                                      Could one of those two journalists have given her a boost in the editorial room because of their relationships with her? Sure. But more likely, sites that cover indie games found an indie game that touched on an underutilized topic and thought it was interesting to write about. Occam's Razor comes into play here.

                                      • reply
                                        October 15, 2014 1:59 PM

                                        I'd also like to remind the court that Depression Quest is a free game that almost zero people have/will play, coverage or no coverage.

                                    • reply
                                      October 15, 2014 1:59 PM

                                      So you're saying the entire publishing company was in on this nefarious wink-wink-nudge-nudge setup to get their games reporters laid? That seems really tenuous. Why do you think that's the case? Just because the review was positive? I can't believe anyone sensible would jump to that far-fetched of a conclusion so there's gotta be more to it than that.

                                      • reply
                                        October 15, 2014 2:03 PM

                                        The Game Journalism is already too close to the things they report on, that is an ongoing problem. The whole system thrives on being paid off. People have been fired for giving poor reviews to sponsored games, sites have had their -privileges- revoked for review-copies because they wouldn't play ball. It isn't a giant conspiracy to get some guys laid, it is a normal-sized conspiracy to try and keep a good face when everyone is already fairly aware that game journalism is about as much journalism as infomercials are. Yes, the catalyst for the current uproar was one instance of a girl getting some dicks wet to get herself a better position in the industry, but the real complaint is about all of game journalism being built on cronyism.

                                        • reply
                                          October 15, 2014 2:08 PM

                                          Well you haven't convinced me that one girl "slept her way to a good game review for a free game" but at least you're targeting actual corruption now instead of just ranting about someone's sex life.

                                          What do you think of the stuff that's gone on at EA? Any comments for that? Any thoughts for how such conflicts could be addressed?

                                          • reply
                                            October 15, 2014 2:09 PM

                                            EA? EA should be burnt to the ground. Companies get that big and corruption just becomes par for the course. I mean, their inside-beef with journalism aside, their business practices alone are abominable. How they keep business going when they are so blatantly moustache-twirling all the time is beyond me.

                                            • reply
                                              October 15, 2014 2:15 PM

                                              See this is actually a big fish worth looking at. Assuming EA isn't going to just vanish into thin air, which specific practices do you think should be addressed first?

                                              Should they be addressed internally or should there be an external review board of some kind. If we do go the latter route, what kind of individuals should make it up, and how do up I go about drafting a set of "integrity standards" for the industry?

                                              Do you think there's a role to be played by gamers like us? Ideally, I think it would be a constructive one that amounts to something more concrete than yelling about stuff on the internet, but I'm interested in what kind of form it could take and whether/how it might interface with a 3rd party board of industry ethics.

                                              • reply
                                                October 15, 2014 2:21 PM

                                                The most powerful voice in entertainment is money. Every other industry can be -bailed out- these days it seems, but entertainment still lives and dies by the dollar. If we could convince people to stop supporting EA and its practices (Feature-gutting for DLC, micro-transaction pushing even in full-scale games, the consuming and destruction of smaller and usually better studios, their inability to properly intergrate voices other than straight-white-male without it being pandering and patronizing) and stop buying their games, however tantalizing they might be at base level, eventually they'd have to change or die.

                                                As for their internal business ethics, that is sadly something that no one can really -force- on them, considering they are based in the US and in the US rules only apply to you if you can't buy out of them.

                                                • reply
                                                  October 15, 2014 2:32 PM

                                                  I don't know about that. Other industries have had their internal practices reformed over time by various means. Granted, it takes decades but if it's something we care about as gamers change can be effected.

                                                  The reason I brought up the concept of an external & independent ethical board is because the practice of law used to be far more internally corrupt than it is today (it's not like it's been completely cured, but it was much worse a few decades ago) and the Bar Association largely fills the role of a go-to center for ethical review. Now obviously there are some differences in that game dev doesn't require a license to practice, but that isn't to say that an independent organization where people can report ethical violations & have them investigated, maybe in a Better Business Bureau style, wouldn't ultimately influence the internal practices at large devs.

                                                  I'm kinda curious about your mention of micro-transactions in games, though. How do you figure that ties into internal ethical corruption in terms of the review/reporting of games?

                                                  Your point about not purchasing tempting titles until devs enforce ethical standards within their organizations is pretty salient. Are there any titles you plan to pass on (or have passed on) this year? What specific unethical actions motivated you to pass on them?

                                                  • reply
                                                    October 15, 2014 2:35 PM

                                                    Also, I know it's buried in the subthreads but I'm kinda hoping one of the Shacknews staff will chime in here with some thoughts.

                                                  • reply
                                                    October 15, 2014 2:44 PM

                                                    I gave up on two games in particular with EA that had me very excited

                                                    Mass Effect 3 - Because of the excessive cut-content DLC and their ham-handed approaching at include gay characters that were just normal characters in gay-face. It was so poorly written (even excluding the homosexual romance) that it was insulting. They were obviously just pandering to a base. They had been doing that for some time, but it just came to a full tempo at Mass Effect 3

                                                    Sims 4 - I don't think I really need to elaborate on the sins of SimCity2013 and Sims 4

                                                    And I don't think micro-transactions are -corrupt- or -unethical- in the purest sense, but they speak of a disdain and a disrespect for the consumer.

                                                    • reply
                                                      October 15, 2014 3:16 PM

                                                      You weren't the only one upset at how characters were handled in ME3 and I think that's a totally legit gripe. But boycotting a product because the company did a poor job of representing minorities is a bit different from doing so because of ethical violations & conflicts of interest, and that's really the discussion I thought we were aiming for.

                                                      Micro-transactions are worrying in games not just because they're sometimes "hidden" or designed to trap clueless demographics like children into racking up large bills, but because I personally don't want it to become a standard game mechanic where I have to pay additional $$ beyond the purchase-price of a game to level (I might feel a bit different if the game is free). But that's really not about game journalism either unless someone is getting kickbacks to specifically not highlight that kind of feature in a review article.

                                                      To kinda shift gears a bit, there was a post farther down in this thread (god help me, I can't find it now, this thing is huge) about the casual way that indie game devs go about making the kinds of connections in their industry in order to get published and become successful. I tend to really like the creativity that comes out of smaller and indie devs and I want them to have the opportunities to network and put their products out there. But I'm not sure how you would simultaneously make sure those relationships are ethically sound. This isn't to mean that I don't think larger companies are the REAL problem when you're going to look at conflicts of interest, journalistic ethics, etc.. But if gamers want to continue seeing small & indie dev products and creativity coming into the market we have to make sure they're able to actually do so and aren't smothered by illegitimate or tenuous accusations of wrongdoing. So the question is how we should strike a balance between allowing small devs to network, ensure those relationships are kept ethical, and still allow them the resources to bring their games to market.

                                                      Really, I feel like there are 2 separate spheres of issues here that need addressing: the special and very difficult situation of allowing indie devs to exist and grow and put out products while still keeping them ethical, and the perhaps even more difficult situation of the large EA style devs who have the money and resources to blatantly buy and/or ignore ethical conflicts & conflicts of interest. I think the conversation about integrity in game development and journalism really needs to address each of these matters as two separate issues that require separate strategies.

                                                      In a larger context I just think the online conversation about all this is terribly suspicious when people yell loudly about journalism and integrity and then most of their issues center on a tiny indie dev and her free game and some unsubstantiated assertions of wrongdoing while saying little to nothing about the huge & blatant violations of large developers. Nobody's really talking about those, at all.

                                                      • reply
                                                        October 15, 2014 3:49 PM

                                                        I gotta go pick up my godmother to a dinner but hopefully someone else will chime in here because this subthread is one of the few to cut through the bullshit.

                                                    • reply
                                                      October 17, 2014 1:46 AM

                                                      wow look at this! You are sort of doing what the article suggested: criticizing games journalism without resorting to slut shaming and baseless accusations of sex for reviews!

                                        • reply
                                          October 15, 2014 3:34 PM

                                          Even if all of what you said was true, it's fucking videogames, not civil rights. Get some perspective.

                                      • reply
                                        October 15, 2014 2:05 PM

                                        Honestly I'm surprised you're not more worked up about the conflicts of interest that go on between the big game devs and games promoters. Those are even more blatant and wide-scale ethical violations than this one, assuming this one even happened. But this tenuous and relatively small-time alleged incident is the one you're ranting on about, not even providing evidence for your position and desperately jumping after snarky comebacks when others rationally ask you to support your claims. I hope you appreciate how weak and emotional that makes you look.

                                        • reply
                                          October 15, 2014 2:08 PM

                                          Weak and emotional???

                                          ARE YOU CALLING ME HYSTERICAL?

                                          I will not tolerate this level of misogyny

                                          • reply
                                            October 15, 2014 2:16 PM

                                            Yeah, see, this is "sad lol" levels of weak.

                                          • reply
                                            October 15, 2014 2:23 PM

                                            This is really the most interesting response you could come up with?

                                          • reply
                                            October 16, 2014 7:04 AM

                                            Oh dear.

                                    • reply
                                      October 15, 2014 2:00 PM

                                      So who do you accuse or suspect of being the fake-authors of these supposed articles (also please point to some articles you feel could meet this description)? At some point you need to have more than "oh, well, THIS other thing could have maybe happened..." as evidence.

                                  • reply
                                    October 15, 2014 2:07 PM

                                    I am thinking that the notion Nathan Grayson reviewed her game comes from folks who read about this in places other than the source. It's easier to say "he reviewed her game" than to say he did write two articles about indie games and mentioned her & her game in each. Being an indie game developer, exposure is important. Just being in the first caption of the piece colours what a reader will look for through the rest of the article. Anyway, he didn't review her game in the sense that you are thinking. He did call her name & game as a standout of the competition she was in. "SO?" I hear you ask, well... another pair of eyes aware of an indie game, yes even a free one, is certainly beneficial for her.

                                    • reply
                                      October 15, 2014 2:14 PM

                                      No. That was before the relationship. The notion that he reviewed her game came from her disgruntled ex performing a character assassination, it was the very start of this whole thing.

                                      • reply
                                        October 15, 2014 2:15 PM

                                        It was before "the relationship," of a romantic nature. It's been verified that they knew one another prior to him writing the article.

                                        • reply
                                          October 15, 2014 2:18 PM

                                          Well holy shit, that means I've fucked hundreds of people.

                                        • reply
                                          October 15, 2014 2:24 PM

                                          Oh my gods, he said "hi" to her.

                                        • reply
                                          October 15, 2014 2:24 PM

                                          That would seem to dispel the "trading sex" thing. I agree that mentioning indie developers with whom you have friendly relationships is tricky ground, but that's sort of how indie devs work. You don't have layers of PR managers to go through. You just show up at PAX and try out a game and suddenly you're speaking to one of the four people who made it.

                                          Less barriers means more back-and-forth, which generally leads to a more casual kind of relationship. I've never been out drinking with an indie dev or anything, but my communications with them are definitely a more casual tone than when trying to talk to a PR person about talking to another person who's in charge of a team of 60 people.

                                      • reply
                                        October 15, 2014 9:40 PM

                                        This might be hearsay that's stuck in my head for whatever reason, but wasn't the "before" in this case literally something like one day?

                                • reply
                                  October 15, 2014 8:01 PM

                                  Holy shit, you're telling me that a game industry insider had sex with other people in her industry? HOLD THE FUCKING PRESSES PEOPLE!!

                        • reply
                          October 15, 2014 1:41 PM

                          I'm pretty interested in knowing if something unethical happened, but I'm not just going to believe some guy on the internet who can't give anything more than his word.

                          • reply
                            October 15, 2014 1:42 PM

                            Stop calling me a guy, it is sexist. You guys are OPPRESSING me with your sexist patriarchal assault on my femininity.

                            • reply
                              October 15, 2014 1:44 PM

                              [deleted]

                            • reply
                              October 15, 2014 1:48 PM

                              You just called me a guy and I'm not, so knock it off.

                              I'm here with an open mind willing to take your side but you can't seem to show me anything to support the claim that Michael Jackson just came to your house to use the bathroom. Just screaming real loud isn't going to sell your point.

                              • reply
                                October 15, 2014 2:51 PM

                                He just stormed in and slammed the door shut. I yelled in and asked him if he was ok but for the next 5 minutes all I heard him do was play 'Beat it'.

                                I don't think my bathroom will ever be clean again.

                        • reply
                          October 15, 2014 1:45 PM

                          If you're making an accusation, the onus to provide proof is on you, isn't it? Are you asking us to prove the non-existence of something?

                        • reply
                          October 15, 2014 1:46 PM

                          > toolbag using futaba-style quotes on other websites

                      • reply
                        October 15, 2014 1:39 PM

                        Yeah, he's committing a logical fallacy (Burden of Proof) of making a claim, then telling others to refute it.

                        Proper logic is to make a claim, and prove it.

              • reply
                October 15, 2014 2:50 PM

                Evidence please.

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 1:16 PM

            I can say with utter certainty that I have never traded sex for reviews, in case you were curious.

            But as others have pointed out, the thesis of the piece is that GamerGate's foundations were based upon a jilted ex, so it was misogynistic from the start. Whatever actual concerns have popped up afterwards deserve to be heard, but they're getting drowned out by the misogyny. And that's not particularly surprising, because that's how it all started.

            • reply
              October 15, 2014 1:18 PM

              Trade reviews for sex? I wish!!!

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 2:00 PM

            You mean that thing that didn't happen?

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 1:03 PM

        A poor comment.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 1:06 PM

        Corrupt is probably too strong a word, but there are definitely a lot of things we can do to improve. I think that's a discussion worth having, but it's hard to have that moderate, reasonable discussion when a movement is so broad and poorly defined that clear-headed supporters are flying under the same flag as radical bigots.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 1:06 PM

        Obvious troll is obvious. lol

        • reply
          October 15, 2014 1:10 PM

          yeah I mean the name is a dead giveaway

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 1:50 PM

        you guys who claim things are "corrupt" have no critical eye to the industry surrounding covering ANY enthusiast/hobby, do you?

        go look at any hobby or market people spend their time in: hunting, fishing, cars, quilting, cycling, cooking. the list literally goes on forever. Now that you have done this, try and see if any of these publications you have looked at which contain reviews, opinions, guides, etc are all able to withstand the alleged keen eye you have for integrity and that they lack the corruption you claim exists in gaming. You won't find it anywhere. This problem is inherent to all industries.

        The gamergate movement has latched on to this idea that games are somehow so horribly corrupt. People are misled into thinking that this is a unique problem and so horrific in gaming, but it isn't. Gamers are too blind to see the larger problem and big picture of how this is not in any way, shape or form uncommon.

        • reply
          October 15, 2014 9:54 PM

          Can we not expect more from the reporters of our chosen hobby while acknowledging that pretty much all hobbyist reporting is a shitshow?

          • reply
            October 16, 2014 12:02 AM

            Sure, go for it, but GamerGate hasn't ever been about that nor will it ever be.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 2:56 PM

        which stoofooer are you?

        • reply
          October 15, 2014 3:08 PM

          All of them. They had to combine and form a Shack Ban Voltron Katamari.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 3:14 PM

        I bet they think women are people with legitimate opinions, too!

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 1:05 PM

      Very thoughtful.

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 1:12 PM

      I don't have much to say about the content of the article but I just want to let you know I think it's awesome to see you guys taking a stand on the issue and letting your opinions known. Some outlets seem to be scared of approaching the issue, and this is definitely a thing that should be openly talked about.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 1:15 PM

        I think it speaks volumes that people are afraid to take a stand because of the bullying that follows.

      • reply
        October 16, 2014 12:05 PM

        Indeed, more and more these articles are starting to look similar to an Editor hiding in the bushes with fishing line tied to a hundred dollar bill.

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 1:15 PM

      Thanks for standing up to this.

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 1:17 PM

      A little disappointed to see that the perception behind Gamergate is that the well-intentioned people supporting it are inheriting a mantle of hatred and discrimination, when it's the other way around. The idiots and moronic trolls are the ones appropriating the Gamergate movement to further their own stupid agenda, and also sad to say that the bigoted anti-GG critics have definitely used it as cover to make themselves professional victims so they can make themselves look better.

      Gamergate has never been, is not, and never will be about the harassment of women in the industry, or a movement to keep diversity out of gaming. Anyone who has been paying close attention since day 1 could see that.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 1:21 PM

        The basic foundation of the movement has been irreversibly corrupted, much to the pleasure of the idiots and moronic trolls, unfortunately for the well-intentioned people.

        • reply
          October 15, 2014 1:29 PM

          I don't see how it's corrupted. The SJWs and feminists like Anita focus on nothing but 'death threats' and the fringe elements(if they even are originally part of the GG movement because there have been alot of false flags) to illustrate to the more moderate people that the GG movement is misogynistic and evil. Drawing attention to those idiots just makes the issue seem bigger than it is.

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 1:33 PM

            Its history is mentioned because that is where the movement started as covered at multiple sites like ars technica: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/08/the-death-of-the-gamers-and-the-women-who-killed-them/ gawker, kotaku, Giantbomb, even Badass Digest got into it here: http://badassdigest.com/2014/08/26/video-games-misogyny-and-terrorism-a-guide-to-assholes/

            That's why that is brought up, it's the history of the movement you are trying to defend.

            • reply
              October 15, 2014 1:55 PM

              Every site you referenced has been 100% outspoken against Gamergate since day 1, I have no reason to put any stock in anything they have to say, especially considering what some of these writers have been calling Gamergate supporters on social media.

              I was pretty much there since day 1, in every GG thread on /v/ and /pol/ that I could find. It was never about anything these people are saying it is. These people that write for these sites have just as much of an agenda as the idiots appropriating Gamergate do. Those sites are the very reason GG exists.

              • reply
                October 15, 2014 2:00 PM

                This whole thing has been posted here in the chatty every step of the way, so we know it was never legitimate, and we know every single claim GG has made has proven to be false. Your bullshit doesn't work here.

              • reply
                October 15, 2014 2:01 PM

                Once again you bring up a motive fallacy as I noted to you previously. And worse, this time you make an argument from authority.

                Neither of these refute the actual evidence that these articles provide for anyone to peruse. You've said you were there from the start, but I'm not seeing any evidence in this thread? And worse, that still does not contest with the point under discussion, that GG started with misogynist roots and has continued all while veiling behind a legitimate (and valid concern!) about integrity. Of which none of the actual evidence was ever mentioned, like Gamespot firing Jeff Gerstman.

              • reply
                October 15, 2014 8:09 PM

                Every site you referenced has been 100% outspoken against Gamergate since day 1

                Well yeah, all those sites are vaguely reasonable.

              • reply
                October 16, 2014 7:11 AM

                That's hardly an argument

                "These reasonable news sites have been against this overblown bullshit from day one so clearly aren't fair sources"

                Or maybe, the movement was terrible from inception.

            • reply
              October 17, 2014 1:52 AM

              GG is pretty terrible and it's clear but I really fucking wish sites covering gaming would stop with the horrible "The death of the “gamers”" headlines. Each one of those headlines is just clickbait trollishness

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 1:33 PM

            To make sure my perspective is clear, let me just say that I don't think "SJWs" is a term casually thrown around by the moderate supporters, unless it's being used sarcastically to mock how silly the accusation is.

            • reply
              October 15, 2014 1:36 PM

              I like how a lot of sites, like Giantbomb, have banned using that term dismissively. Yesterday they released their new rules guidelines: http://www.giantbomb.com/forums/general-discussion-30/some-notes-on-the-new-community-rules-1496921/#129

              Dismissive labeling: If you disagree with another poster’s opinion, politely respond to them and give them specifics as to why. Use of terms like “social justice warrior,” “MRA,” “neckbeard,” “hipster,” “weeabo” and any other pejorative label intended to disregard someone’s statement without actually engaging with it will be considered dismissive and your comment will likely be deleted.

              • reply
                October 15, 2014 9:56 PM

                Yeah, I can see how a neckbeard hipster weeabo like yourself would agree with that.

              • reply
                October 15, 2014 10:51 PM

                Oh come on, anyone who gets salty over weeaboo needs to relax.

                • reply
                  October 15, 2014 11:11 PM

                  It has nothing to do with the specific words. The issue is using a label to dismiss a person.

            • reply
              October 15, 2014 1:58 PM

              It's not, because they don't have a full perspective on the people being labeled as such. If you paid attention to how these people act on social media, your perspective might be different. They're just as hateful and bigoted as the people they 'crusade' against.

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 1:34 PM

            Are you saying that death threats and doxxing aren't that big a deal? Like, that they should just be ignored by everyone, hoping they don't actually happen?

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 2:01 PM

            lol. they wrote in the original IRC channel that gamergate came from about spreading false flag rumors so that folks like you would argue on your behalf. You got duped son.

            https://twitter.com/TheQuinnspiracy/status/508190351190798337/photo/1

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 2:11 PM

            Anyone who uses the term SJW in a serious manner is a bad person. The WORST thing you could say about some supposed SJW is they would rather err on the side of being nice to people in general. Sure it can be coddling nanny state nonsense as well, but it's well meaning. People railing against this supposed SJW army are fighting to keep harassing women, calling people fags on Xbox Live, and being man cave dwelling babies. They bring NO redeeming argument of any value to the conversation. Period.

            People do not have to humor bad people, or entertain some imaginary "all sides" to an argument. There can, and in this case is, a right and wrong side.

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 8:07 PM

            I'm pretty sure if you were getting death threats the way someone like Anita does, you'd probably focus on those as a problem with the movement too. And you'd be right to do that because it's clearly a problem with the movement.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 1:28 PM

        I think it's difficult to say what a movement is "about" when it doesn't have a leader. It has no centralized voice to define what the movement is about, which is why extremist noise is so damaging to more moderate voices. By nature, the loudest voices become the defining trait of something that nebulous.

        • reply
          October 15, 2014 1:35 PM

          And that's 100% just as applicable to the other side of the argument. The loudest voices condemning Gamergate are people who are just as suspect as the people they speak out against.

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 1:38 PM

            I like to think I'm not particularly suspect. And the movement is being condemned by voices like MSNBC and the BBC at this point.

            • reply
              October 15, 2014 2:22 PM

              Not you, but alot of the people who have spoken out against it early on were proven to all be in collusion and trying to steer the narrative.

              I don't care who the movement is being condemned by. I don't let my opinion be dictated by something someone else says. I have the stance I do because I happened to be in one of the original Zoe Quinn threads on /v/ and I followed everything since then, even the stuff that I didn't agree with. I've made my own decision based on everything out there, that's all everyone needs to do instead of jumping on board with whatever some internet site says.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 1:29 PM

        it was the other way around. it appropriated from the start. gamergate accumulated a few gullible but well-intentioned people who were duped due to their general lack of critical thinking.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 1:38 PM

        Obviously that is not the case when you have women canceling public speaking events because of GG. You should take a step back from your personal point of view and really examine the facts. The Opinion piece spells out exactly the opposite of what you said. The Opinion piece of this site. The community you participate in is specifically saying "Why is the Emperor naked?", and you are saying "I never have been, currently am not, nor will I ever be naked"

        • reply
          October 15, 2014 1:43 PM

          Obviously that is not the case when you have women canceling public speaking events because of GG.

          You're making this association without proof. Here's the email that was sent before Sarkeesian's cancelled speech.
          http://www.standard.net/.media/1/2014/10/14/f43adaf9-0a46-46d6-9026-cc0f0acf8df0.jpg

          No mention of gamergate.

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 1:44 PM

            I agree with GBD here. Even Anita pointed out this had nothing to do with the GG group on her twitter.

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 1:45 PM

            must be a coincidence!!!

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 1:50 PM

            yeah how could the misogynist associated troll movement be associated with the threat of a montreal massacre style attack on the person that the first group has been relentlessly targeting.

            • reply
              October 15, 2014 1:58 PM

              I understand that it's hard to think critically on hot button topics. This is a pretty egregious threat, but it does no one any good to witch hunt GG for every negative thing that happens.

              • reply
                October 15, 2014 2:09 PM

                I totally love your posts. They are like the talking points of that weird Uncle that randomly shows up over the years at family events only to talk about the Philadelphia Experiment and that he's totally seen the H1B visa form that Obama filled out to come over to America.

                • reply
                  October 15, 2014 2:22 PM

                  I'm not advocating for GG here Peters. This isn't conspiracy level thinking. It's about attributing things reasonably. Demonizing GG for events that don't seem to be influenced by it are more like the actions of an angry mob than the actions of reasoned people.

                  • reply
                    October 15, 2014 2:49 PM

                    No you aren't advocating GG. I never said you were. Here is what you are doing:

                    "You're making this association without proof."

                    I'm making this association off of the actual context of the problem of GG. The fact that a woman is being harassed by a small group of under-cultured individuals because of her view of an industry that clings to it's narrow-minded tropes. That is the issue of GG. It is being said plainly in pretty much every thread I've seen today.

                    "I'm not advocating for GG here Peters. This isn't conspiracy level thinking. It's about attributing things reasonably. Demonizing GG for events that don't seem to be influenced by it are more like the actions of an angry mob than the actions of reasoned people."

                    The Opinion piece and the Deadspin article talk about this in detail. GG was demonized from the word go, period. The fact that it has now become an argument about journalistic integrity to defend the initial attack on Quinn is exactly the behavior of an Angry Mob that realized it isn't made up of Reasoned People.

                    The problem is that there is a minority of people who believe that this kind of behavior is acceptable. Not realizing that the other side is having this conversation amicably. They continue to push hard on this topic because you can do so very easily on the internet. If you want to talk about journalistic integrity then do so, just don't even bring up GG, because they are NOT the same thing.

                  • reply
                    October 15, 2014 11:40 PM

                    clearly the timing and similarity between the two events is mere coincidence

                  • reply
                    October 16, 2014 7:16 AM

                    So you believe its totally a coincidence? Seems strange to rule out the email sender was in no way influenced

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 2:04 PM

            Are you being serious? I can't tell.

            Not mentioning GG does not mean that it does not fall in the exact same realm of this whole issue.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 1:57 PM

        Sorry dude.

        https://twitter.com/TheQuinnspiracy/status/508199211251142656/photo/1

        The gamers gate hashtag was taken from an Adam Baldwin tweet by the dudes in the chan op IRC channel dedicated to ruining Zoe Quinn and *THEN* it was used later on when folks started saying it was just about journalism. Zoe Quinn had an account that no one knew about and sat in on the 'ops' against her just copying logs to the police. Thems just the facts.

        Besides, was sitting on a train reading the 1st few tweets about this shit when it went down. The focus wasn't on the bad journalists for days, in the beginning it was GIRL SUCKS DICK FOR GAME REVIEWS. To this day, no one is talking about Geoff Keely and doritos halo cross marketing, they're only talking about girls in video games and 'social justice warrioring'.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 4:31 PM

        I have been paying attention since day one and its been harassment and threats from the start. I suspect you are a come-lately to the movement and now you're trying to distance yourselves from the unsavory and frankly indefensible parts of it but that ship has sailed. You're never going to convince me that this is about collusion between the games media and the publishers.

        FWIW I agree that most games media is an extension of the Marketing departments at the game publishers but gamer gate doesn't have anything to do with that anymore. You need to abandon it.

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 1:19 PM

      GamerGate is a huge load of crap. Paying even the slightest big of attention to the "discussion" makes it quite clear that at no point was it ever about journalism ethics.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 1:26 PM

        Please elaborate.

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 1:39 PM

            thanks. that saved me a lot of typing. i feel bad for anyone who's been wrapped up in this.

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 1:52 PM

            You are aware of the nature of how 4chan works, right? That anyone could go in and say anything they want? I could go in and pose as 10 different people and discuss assassinating the President if I wanted and then turn around and plaster it all over the internet. Doesn't make it true.

            • reply
              October 15, 2014 2:01 PM

              It's the only documented collusion in this whole ordeal.

              • reply
                October 15, 2014 2:09 PM

                http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/17/Exposed-the-secret-mailing-list-of-the-gaming-journalism-elite

                Except it isn't. There's been alot more collusion on the anti-GG side than anything else. And in this case it can't be explained away.

                You should genuinely read into some of the things that have been coming out of the pro-GG side the past few months. I don't mean that in a condescending way. There's alot of interesting things that would give people pause.

                • reply
                  October 15, 2014 2:13 PM

                  That gave me exactly zero pause when I read it because 1) Breitbart and 2) this shit happens everywhere in industry.

                  • reply
                    October 15, 2014 2:15 PM

                    Breitbart is Stormfront in a suit and tie.

                    • reply
                      October 15, 2014 2:18 PM

                      I mean I delivered so fucking well on my last major project the project supervisor took me aside and told me if I was ever looking to move around he could find a nice engineering job for me at his company.

                      I smiled, told him thanks, I'm probably staying put for a while, and we parted ways.

                      This shit is EVVVVVERYWHEREEEEEEEEE

                      • reply
                        October 15, 2014 2:21 PM

                        [deleted]

                        • reply
                          October 15, 2014 2:29 PM

                          Even if I had taken the offer, during no point of the project did I compromise my current employer's standing to collude or "get" some kind of benefit.

                          Now imagine I'm a games journalist; laymen could come along and point at certain aspects of the project and invent a narrative that points to me colluding with the customer to get that benefit, despite a history of otherwise. Of course, that would involve a certain amount of revisionism, which I think is in play here.

                • reply
                  October 15, 2014 2:16 PM

                  what gives fucking pause is mother fuckers threatening to shoot up a fucking audience.

                  who are these motherfuckers? I'm getting fucking pissed off at people hijacking underlying issues into their own grandstanding and attention whoring. they think Anita is the problem? they need to look in the fucking mirror. who is worried about Anita? now we have to worry about psychotic motherfuckers that are crossing a line.

                  everything is obfuscated and laundered through shit like 4chan. ok fine.

                  what isn't laundered is direct death threat language. how the fuck do things go this far?

                • reply
                  October 15, 2014 2:19 PM

                  The mailing list isn't collusion. It's just a mailing list. Just like all of other "interesting things" the accusation is completely baseless.

                  It's been repeated again and again and again, there actually are many clear and obvious examples of questionable ethics and GG doesn't give any of them attention. Why? Because it involves games you like, as opposed to far fringe indie games made by women.

                  • reply
                    October 15, 2014 2:55 PM

                    So I guess the shitstorm Gamergate caused over the fact that 40,000 EA customer accounts were hacked then covered up because some journalists were friendly with people at EA is totally because some woman somewhere used some entry-level coding program to make a text-based Choose Your Own Adventure. Right.

                    • reply
                      October 15, 2014 2:58 PM

                      first i've heard of this. what did GG uncover exactly?

                    • reply
                      October 15, 2014 4:48 PM

                      Firstly, "Gamergate is a hashtag, so its just as responsible for the things you said as it is for the death threats and/or abuse against female game developers, writers, journalists, etc. Nice try taking credit for something I don't believe you or your group had anything to do with. You're not all junior investigative journalists out to save us all from the evil corporations, you're just like the rest.

                      Your post reeks of misogyny and I am done reading you. Maybe stop posting.

                • reply
                  October 15, 2014 2:55 PM

                  I have read that and none of it gives me any sign that the group was anything but a place where they could talk about their industry with other journalists. 1. It wasn't secret. 2. It's insane to think that they should have no contact with each other.

                  Journalists in every other medium will have some sort of relationship with each other. Hell, people in every industry do this. There are a couple impassioned voices but just because one person says something doesn't mean the rest will follow. Your smoking gun is a wet fart.

                • reply
                  October 15, 2014 4:32 PM

                  Gamergate is six weeks old. How could people have been saying stuff for months?

                • reply
                  October 16, 2014 4:31 AM

                  Have you actually read any of the stuff in the mailing list?

                • reply
                  October 16, 2014 7:22 AM

                  Look at your source. Its a hotbed of sexism and racism. Not really helping your argument

            • reply
              October 15, 2014 2:04 PM

              Well that's very convenient, but I'm sure it would never occur to the perfect little angels of 4chan to use that fact as a defense

              • reply
                October 15, 2014 2:12 PM

                Except they have. I find it amusing that the idea of someone like Zoe Quinn or Anita utilizing 4chan to further their agenda is out of the question, but when circumspect evidence of 4chan 'colluding' comes out, it's treated as ironclad. Don't be so naive.

                • reply
                  October 15, 2014 2:35 PM

                  Naive would be taking someone from 4chan, a site with a massive history of this kind of abuse going back many years, at their word that they didn't do this thing that they are very good at doing and that instead it was done by someone else without any history like that at all.

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 1:21 PM

      Also, that link to Zoe Quinn 'blowing' Gamergate open has been disproven multiple, multiple times. I'm a little disappointed to see Shacknews both referencing that article as if it were legitimate, AND offering Gawker's take on Gamergate, when Kotaku(one of the sites openly opposed to Gamergate) and Gawker are both subsidiaries of Vox Media.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 1:25 PM

        It is best to not fall for motive fallacies when replying here. Just because some sites may be owned by others does not make their points any less valid.

        If you'd like further information on motive fallacies, read: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Appeal_to_motive

        Address the issue at hand, don't try to ad hominem the speaker.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 1:29 PM

        Disproven as in she fabricated all the irc logs and 4/8chan posts? Like, did gamergate supporters not actually type the things in the logs and screenshots posted?

        • reply
          October 15, 2014 1:41 PM

          Pretty much. She cherrypicked snapshots of the log out of context. The 4chan posts were probably actual posts, but if you followed the course of the discussion over any of the threads, anything like that was immediately shouted down and told to fuck off. It's real easy to spin the narrative the way you want it to when you can go in and say these things anonymously. She's the SJW who cried wolf.

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 1:44 PM

            Haha no

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 1:45 PM

            I just provided you a link that examined the entire logs in full, with context. Look at my ars technica post above.

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 3:23 PM

            The logs are out there. They've even been linked in threads here on the Shack. You can find what was in the gg post bye zoe in those logs, and even worse shit.

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 4:42 PM

            Can someone else LOL this since I can't LOL it twice.

          • reply
            October 16, 2014 4:32 AM

            Even if it is "out of context" or "cherrypicked" I don't see how stating your goal is to cause someone to commit suicide is ever OK.

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 1:22 PM

      What's the background picture b/w the two women?

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 1:23 PM

        That would be USU, the campus that Anita Sarkeesian was set to speak at before the death threat.

        • reply
          October 15, 2014 1:23 PM

          Ah, ok. Thanks. I'm surprised she isn't speaking at UCB or UCLA. Perhaps she already has?

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 1:42 PM

            I'm actually not sure where she's spoken. I don't follow her career extremely closely, but I welcome feminist critique to the industry. Every mass media has critique from every kind of "-ist" that exists, why should we be any different?

            • reply
              October 15, 2014 1:59 PM

              Gaming media can be great, but it can't excel until it grows beyond what it is now.

              Don't get me wrong. I love being enthusiast press, because I love video games. But the medium can't grow until it grows beyond "enthusiast."

          • reply
            October 16, 2014 12:48 PM

            Lol, I was going to say, if you're at Cal, this is a wonderful experiment that the Psych and Sociology depts. can get involved with. Grad school gold.

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 1:31 PM

      So why isn't this tagged tangent?

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 1:35 PM

        Because this is an article from the staff of this site, and marking it anything other than ontopic or interesting breaks the new layout so it doesn't show comments on the article page.

        • reply
          October 15, 2014 1:37 PM

          Not showing comments to those who opt in was the intention wasn't it? Why not just create another thread for discussion?

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 1:43 PM

            Content by shack is by its very definition on topic

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 1:43 PM

            It doesn't show it to anyone who comes to this site, logged in, logged out, opt out'd or opt in'd. We don't mod staff articles beyond the occasional inf or double post nuke.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 5:26 PM

        because it is on topic. and because some gamergate losers would claim by tagging it they were trying to muzzle the discussion or some other equally retarded bullshit.

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 1:36 PM

      I wonder if GamersGate is getting a lot of business because of this these days.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 2:10 PM

        must be rough working marketing for them right now, heh. don't envy them their job!

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 1:43 PM

      The only issue I have is you referencing the supposed talk that was cancelled because the "police wouldn't do pat-downs". If the police don't think the threat is credible, then why did she cancel the talk? Obviously cancelling the talk gets bigger headlines than police vetted the threat and found it not credible. I don't think we all know everything we need to about that particular incident.

      There are lots of issues at play here, and all of them need to be looked at, but separately.

      Are there some scummy practices going around between game publishers and content sites? Absolutely. Is that the norm? I'm not sure.

      Are there a bunch of assholes on the Internet? Undoubtedly. But how do you police that while also allowing freedom of speech? How do you talk about charged topics (like this one) without it devolving into threats and name calling?

      Is there a coordinated effort to call all gamers sexist and mysoginic? I don't know, but it sure seems like it when several sites run similar stories with the same vague fact-checking and reporting going on.

      I'm glad you guys want us looking at this ourselves, but this really seems like nothing more than a click-bait piece and a rehashing of Fox News' old "We report, you decide" bologna.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 1:50 PM

        The issue, from what I understand, is that under Utah state law, they couldn't legally prevent anyone from entering the talk with a concealed weapon. All it would take is one lunatic. I've personally known people who can tell you that police may not think a threat is credible, but they often won't until something actually happens.

        • reply
          October 15, 2014 1:53 PM

          They could only have a concealed weapon with a permit.

          "If a person has a valid concealed firearm permit and is carrying a weapon, they are permitted to have it at the venue," the school said in a statement to CNN.

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 1:58 PM

            I feel like you're getting at the notion that someone with a valid permit is going to be 100% trustworthy with that gun and not be a lunatic murderer. Whether or not that's true, I don't think you can really blame Anita for not wanting to take the chance.

            • reply
              October 15, 2014 2:04 PM

              She's entirely free to cancel her appearances for whatever reason she sees fit.

              But obviously the authorities there didn't think this was a credible threat, and they were going to have security at the event. Believe it or not, there are probably people you encounter every day with a CCW that you don't even know that they have. Could they go crazy and shoot everyone up? Sure, but there are checks and things that are in place to keep that to as small of a risk as possible.

              Could she slip on the soap in the shower and die? Yea, but I bet she still takes showers.

              You can't dismiss me all you want, but I'm skeptical that she canceled this event because of a credible threat, and more because it was a favorable talking point that is now being spread around the Internet.

              • reply
                October 15, 2014 2:13 PM

                Why do people consistently think she's doing this type of thing for attention? Do you think she really needs or wants constant death threats that badly?

                I'd be pretty fucking scared too if people were constantly giving me death threats to the point where I needed to contact the FBI.

                • reply
                  October 15, 2014 2:17 PM

                  Because the attention is the only thing that pays her bills. She has no marketable talents other than churning out poorly made YouTube videos.

                  • reply
                    October 15, 2014 2:18 PM

                    I'd level that directly against the mouthbreathers that are escalating to death threats. Not worried about what Anita is or isn't doing. What kind of a useless shitheel are we dealing with that would shoot up a school audience? cat is out of the bag on that one. Really marketable talents those folks must have.

                  • reply
                    October 15, 2014 2:21 PM

                    She has a BA in communication studies and an MA social and political thought.

                    • reply
                      October 16, 2014 7:12 AM

                      Yet she's chosen to make short YouTube videos ripping off other people's work and cry on Twitter instead of using her education to effect real change.

                      • reply
                        October 16, 2014 7:32 AM

                        You know she apologized for the times when she used someone's artwork incorrectly, right? That was the only case of her 'ripping off' other people's work. Her own research is entirely original.

                  • reply
                    October 15, 2014 2:25 PM

                    You do realize you spent half the thread arguing GG is not about being a dickbag to people, its about ethics.

                    You are being a dickbag to people. That and that fuckin breitbart link have given you 0 credibility.

                    • reply
                      October 16, 2014 7:11 AM

                      If what I've been saying has made you think I'm a dickbag, then you have the thinnest skin of any person alive. When I resort to the name-calling and dismissive attitudes that I've gotten in response to my posts, then you can call me a dickbag.

                      As far as the Breitbart link, I don't care about where it came from. I linked it because of the content. If you don't want to take anything it says into consideration as far as the topic at hand, that's your choice, but to criticize people who do is just narrow-minded and silly.

                      • reply
                        October 16, 2014 7:31 AM

                        You don't care when it's opinion agrees with you. You do seem to care when it doesn't - http://www.shacknews.com/chatty?id=32592710

                        So which is it? Does the site's history actually matter as you said when I linked you to informative articles, or does it only matter when it doesn't agree with you, as you are saying directly here, defending Breitbart?

                  • reply
                    October 15, 2014 2:26 PM

                    You've got that a bit wrong. People are paying her bills because they enjoy her videos and want her to make more. You may not enjoy them, but that doesn't mean that other people don't.

                • reply
                  October 15, 2014 11:22 PM

                  Well it is helping her career. I don't know if she would prefer to have no death threats and have no one pay attention to her or have the death threats but be he go to person for commenting on sexism in games and the game industry. It is what she does for a living though right? Or does she do something else to make money?

                  • reply
                    October 15, 2014 11:46 PM

                    it'll be a kind of poetic justice if it winds up helping her out long-term simply by getting her broader visibility.

              • reply
                October 15, 2014 2:17 PM

                America is known for it's strict gun laws. No way we let crazy people buy weapons!











                /s

                • reply
                  October 17, 2014 2:07 AM

                  concealed carry permits are a bit harder to come by than a gun, but I can still see why she'd be nervous

              • reply
                October 15, 2014 10:02 PM

                I don't know about you but I wouldn't want to take that chance if I were her and I think anyone who thinks less of her or thinks she's doing this for publicity is being naive.

                She could DIE. She's just critiquing video games, for fuck sake, and she has to worry about people murdering her.

                How is that even something to debate? Nothing about video games is important enough to ever worry "will I get shot if I say this" ever.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 1:52 PM

        Thanks mancide. I embedded Sarkeesian's tweet partly because she's in the thick of it, partly because it helped break up the wall-o-text. There's a lot we don't know about the threat, so I wasn't attempting to make any certain judgments of what happened there. What we do know is that she says that one of the people threatening her referenced GamerGate, and she voluntarily canceled it because she didn't feel the security measures went far enough. Anything else is developing.

        As to your questions! Which thanks for actually asking some.

        >>Are there some scummy practices going around between game publishers and content sites? Absolutely. Is that the norm? I'm not sure.

        Having spent about 8 years in this industry, I would say that it's really not the norm. I've never been party to anything remotely resembling the crummy practices, nor have I personally seen it happening to any colleagues. I know it does happen, but it's rare, and I think a lot of people assume these isolated instances mean that they're just the ones we hear about and there's really rampant corruption under the surface. If that's true, I must not be on the list.

        >>But how do you police that while also allowing freedom of speech?

        I don't think we're in any danger of Congress making a law abridging the right of people to peacefully assemble.

        >>Is there a coordinated effort to call all gamers sexist and mysoginic?

        Not as far as I know. I will say that the "gamers are dead" articles that got people so up-in-arms felt to me like a silly thing to worry about. It's a common rhetorical device. I think people should be able to handle such a device being used to illustrate a point about the changing norms of a previously niche culture.

        >>I'm glad you guys want us looking at this ourselves, but this really seems like nothing more than a click-bait piece

        Everybody likes clicks, but when we're brainstorming content it really doesn't come up. We have the leeway to write about things that interest us or are on our minds. I wrote this because I honestly felt sad and a little guilty that game sites, the people in the best position to have a dialogue with readers about this issue, were being so quiet about it while bigger news outlets were doing our speaking for us.

        • reply
          October 15, 2014 2:00 PM

          I know Congress isn't going to make a law about any of this. That's just silly. Like, I know here we could easily say talk like this is not allowed and people will get mad and a few might leave but otherwise the chatty will go on.

          I'm sorry I used the charged term click-bait. I get you guys wanted to "voice your opinion" on the subject and not "let other sites do the talking for you" but what was your voice in this article? That this stuff is bad? It shouldn't happen?

          What are you guys going to do to specifically address any legitimate concerns about relationships and who reviews what content? Are you guys going to come out and say, like GiantBomb did, we are friends with the guys making Bastion, so we'll not review it since we are going to do some content about it's development.

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 2:08 PM

            >>what was your voice in this article? That this stuff is bad? It shouldn't happen?

            The article's thesis is that the legitimate concerns about the industry are being drowned out because of their association with bigoted elements, so the moderates should strike out on their own. Make their own clubhouse, put up a big "No Bigots" sign, and keep right on doing what they're doing.

            Currently we're not able to have a constructive dialogue, because we have two captains steering the GamerGate ship. One is trying to keep it on-course and the other is constantly yanking it towards the rocks. But you can't throw that captain overboard, because it was his ship to start with, so bail out yourself. Get your own ship and let him destroy himself.

            >>What are you guys going to do to specifically address any legitimate concerns about relationships and who reviews what content?

            We've actually been making an attempt to be as transparent as possible for the last few years. We always disclose when an event or review game was provided by the publisher.

            As for friendly relationships like the one Giant Bomb has with SuperGiant, I don't think that's really in our DNA. I'm not buddy-buddy with any developers, on a personal level. I don't live near them, we don't go out drinking, etc. Giant Bomb has that kind of culture embedded in it, because it's all personality-focused and they invite devs onto their shows where they drink. That's a cool approach, but it isn't really our approach. And if we ever do become friendly on that level, we would of course be open about it. If it came to reassigning to a different staff member or farming it out to a freelancer, so be it.

            • reply
              October 15, 2014 2:13 PM

              Then why not strike out a series of article talking about some of the legitimate concerns and how Shacknews or other sites are handling them. Good and bad. That would be a great series of content I'd love to read, and I'm sure many others would as well. A "line in the sand" so to speak. Here are things we think were legitimate complaints, and here is what we are going to do to never have these issues.

              That's great you guys are going to be that honest and transparent if anything ever approaches a buddy-buddy level of a relationship. I know a lot of people look at certain things they do as the "gold standard" right now, but you are right their approach probably doesn't adapt to everyone equally.

              • reply
                October 15, 2014 2:20 PM

                That sounds like a good idea. I'm not quite sure where to start with it, though. Maybe some kind of Q&A? Gather questions from Chatty about ethics and put our responses all together in one place?

                • reply
                  October 15, 2014 2:23 PM

                  Might be a good place to start. Might want to keep it focused to certain topics too at the beginning. I don't know. I'm just spitballing here.

              • reply
                October 15, 2014 5:36 PM

                Because gamergate isn't about those legitmate concerns. Because writing about those concerns while discussing gamergate lends credence to the "movement" or whatever you want to call it, giving further cover to the misogynists who have used it to sling abuse and threats at anyone they disagree with. Because the point of writing an article like this is to draw a line in the sand and then declare which side of it you are on.

                You can debate the value of that and that's perfectly ok. No one made you read the article, and by reading it your life was not altered in any significant way. Stop talking like we're all on a slippery slope to the loss of free speech. this is a gaming website and a private business where you do not have freedom of speech. you don't have freedom from the consequences of speech either, so I'd be careful allying yourself with the (honorable) goals of Gamergate because I frankly don't believe anyone allied with that movement has anything to say that is worth listening to. You can thank your fellow travellers in the "movement" for that.

                • reply
                  October 15, 2014 5:53 PM

                  I'm not aligning myself with any part of this, I've thought giving it any bit of attention was stupid from the get go. My whole point was, and I think he got this and somehow you didn't, was I he felt there were actual issues that needed deeper discussion, lets have that deeper discussion. Lets stop this echo chamber of half-assed articles and actually address any real points we think are there.

                  But no, instead we repeated the same old crap of some idiot made a threat against Anita and now we all can't have nice things. Should that threat have been made? No, and if you think I'm justifying that was ok then you are sadly mistaken. But there is nothing pointing to the fact that anyone was not taking the safety of that talk lightly. In fact, now we have a bunch of people here saying anyone with a CCW could shoot up a crowd. Well yea, someone could also bring a knife in there as well. The authorities had obviously looked into it and felt the event could continue. The article stated she's the one that called it off. Now what are the headlines circulating? Not police looks into threat and determines it wasn't credible.

                  That's the whole problem with this whole stupid thing. No one can offer a dissenting opinion because they get lumped in with a bunch of other scum they have no desire to associate with. I liked that they hadn't commented on this at all. I think the intent of this article was good, but the execution was poor, but after the conversation I had with Sporky I felt better about it.

                  • reply
                    October 15, 2014 6:23 PM

                    If you think any actual discussion about the issues that gamergate supposedly cares about can happen in an article about gamergate, I think you're mistaken. I agree there is a point worth looking at where games media and the publishers they cover are too cozy. Doritos and Mountain Dew shill man Geoff Keighley for example. But gamergaters don't talk about those issues, they talk about feminist writers and they talk about games journalists who disagree with them.

                    See the Devin article from badassdigest above for more about that.

                    The fact that you are still talking about Anita (while claiming that has nothing to do with the real problems gamergate has identified means you're part of the problem. Why should I care whether you believe the threat against her or her audience are real? Does someone have to die for you to take the threats seriously? Or are you implying they are all made up to get attention?

                    All of those are equally foul.

                    • reply
                      October 15, 2014 6:36 PM

                      Thank you for helping me realize this is no longer a place I want to spend my energy.

            • reply
              October 15, 2014 2:16 PM

              Sporky, clarify something for me. What's your role here on Shack?

              • reply
                October 15, 2014 2:19 PM

                He's the editor in chief

              • reply
                October 15, 2014 2:21 PM

                Yes, as Riki said twice, I'm the Editor-in-Chief. As of fairly recently.

                • reply
                  October 15, 2014 2:27 PM

                  Didn't catch it before, thanks. I've always liked Shack for being straightforward and their laser focus on games. Don't take anything you see me say in here as an attack on you or your work. You guys all do a great job. I just want to see the quality stay consistent.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 1:52 PM

        It wasn't that the threat wasn't credible, it was a 2nd amendment issue.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 1:56 PM

        Is there a coordinated effort to call all gamers sexist and mysoginic? You decide!!!
        What the goddamned flying fuck mancide, this is thinking of the worst clickbait style I can imagine.

        • reply
          October 15, 2014 2:13 PM

          Except there was a coordinated effort calling all gamers sexist and misogynistic.

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 2:18 PM

            What effort would that be?

            • reply
              October 15, 2014 2:22 PM

              well #gamergate has done a good job of making gamers look misogynistic so you might try starting there.

            • reply
              October 15, 2014 2:24 PM

              The dozen or so articles coming out within hours of each other, calling for the 'death of gamers' and the obsolescence of our identity.

              • reply
                October 15, 2014 2:27 PM

                Whoa whoa. Let's clarify some terms here. "Calling for" the death of gamers means the writers were literally saying that gamers should be murdered.

                They were using the term as an illustrative rhetorical device, stating that as the medium expands to a wider audience the niche culture around it is becoming less influential. Which is true.

              • reply
                October 15, 2014 2:27 PM

                'gamers are dead' is not 'calling for the death of gamers'. Its a turn of phrase saying the TERM in its relation to the old culture is dead.

                It means games are for everyone now. You don't have a small sect of people calling themselves moviegoers, everyone is into cinema.

                • reply
                  October 15, 2014 2:31 PM

                  YES.

                  THIS.

                  A LOT.

                • reply
                  October 15, 2014 2:35 PM

                  'You don't have a small sect of people calling themselves moviegoers'

                  Yes you do. They're called cinephiles.

                  • reply
                    October 15, 2014 2:37 PM

                    And no one likes those people either.

                  • reply
                    October 15, 2014 2:39 PM

                    Funny story. Anita Sarkeesian had a series of youtube videos about women in MOVIES for years before she had a women in games series. Its what got her her kickstarter money.

                    Maybe your gamers should be more like cinephiles.

                    • reply
                      October 15, 2014 2:42 PM

                      Got a link to any of those videos?

                        • reply
                          October 15, 2014 2:47 PM

                          Thanks. Looks to me like this was an attempt to dip her toes into the waters of YouTube critique. Doesn't look like she succeeded. If you're interested, you should read this:

                          http://anongamer.tumblr.com/

                          • reply
                            October 15, 2014 2:49 PM

                            Again, why are you so concerned with Anita Sarkeesian? I thought Gamergate was about journalistic integrity?

                            • reply
                              October 15, 2014 2:56 PM

                              Because she's someone who influences the narrative that the journalists put out. All she has to do is scream 'Death threat!!' on Twitter and everyone drops what they're doing and is suddenly writing articles about how sexist gamers are. She cares nothing for reason or objectivity. She wants her beliefs put out there, no matter the method.

                              • reply
                                October 15, 2014 3:01 PM

                                So let's back up here a sec. I'll Devil's Advocate with you here. Are you really saying that she is making up the abuse and threats? That the hard hitting investigative team of Call of Duty players couldn't suss out the truth behind this and find out if any criminal complaints have been made? Or are you saying this did happen, but stupid jerk writers are "pretending" to oppose death threats for page hits? I'm not sure where you are trying to drag this point from and to....

                              • reply
                                October 15, 2014 3:02 PM

                                adamp117, answer me this. Do you think she is getting death threats?

                                • reply
                                  October 16, 2014 12:32 AM

                                  FALSE FLAG FALSE FLAG FALSE FLAG ASDFVKLAFJVKADFJKLVBJ

                                • reply
                                  October 16, 2014 7:05 AM

                                  No, I don't. I haven't seen anything to convince me that she has.

                              • reply
                                October 15, 2014 3:03 PM

                                Im just gonna jump in here on a side note, but has anyone noticed that GamerGate essentially "Nickelback'd" Anita Sarkeesian in the video game news domain? We had years and years of reporting, concerns about publisher and media outlet collusion (The whole Gerstmann-Gamespot-Kane-and-Lynch thing, which got Eidos' forums bombed by some really filthy shit), and other stuff which predates her involvement in this area of gaming by YEARS.

                                GG did a pretty good job of immortalizing her.

                              • reply
                                October 15, 2014 4:25 PM

                                Because she's someone who influences the narrative that the journalists put out.

                                On what planet?

                              • reply
                                October 15, 2014 11:45 PM

                                she's like the Illuminati of gaming! Pulling all those strings and making an entire industry dance. How did I not see it before?

                                /eyeroll

                          • reply
                            October 15, 2014 2:51 PM

                            Not interested. i've read the mad ramblings on that tumblr before. Half a million views on a youtube video is a failure?

                            We weren't even talking about if it was a failure or success. My point was she was able to critique (and call it a failure if you want, but her videos have views) women in movies without death threats.

                            • reply
                              October 15, 2014 3:00 PM

                              That probably has something to do with the fact that critiquing the movie industry doesn't give her a visible platform like it does with gaming. Like I mentioned in another comment, she's made herself visible to the point where people fall all over themselves to write about whatever she speaks out about, whether it's true or not.

                              As far as the link goes, I wouldn't dismiss the entirely of the links provided within it as 'mad ramblings'. It's entirely plausible to assume that she's a front for pushing an agenda.

                              • reply
                                October 15, 2014 3:02 PM

                                Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr even the dumbest of silly movie fanatics doesn't call in a motherfucking bomb threat because Transformers 4 got a bad review and complaints of sexism and racism against Bay.

                              • reply
                                October 15, 2014 5:42 PM

                                Everyone is pushing their own agenda. You are doing it in all of your posts here. Do you deserve death threats for sharing your opinion and critique of Anita Sarkeesian here on the internet?

                • reply
                  October 15, 2014 2:36 PM

                  The games that are marketed to 'gamers' aren't the games that the majority of the gaming audience plays. The majority of the audience is playing Angry Birds or Clash of the Clans. What we consider AAA games are what are for the "gamer" audience.

                  So, to say that the audience of "gamers" are irrelevant is to deny the sales of all the major console and PC games that get released every year. Now, if the discussion is about marketing the latest big mobile game then yes "gamers" don't really matter.

                • reply
                  October 15, 2014 2:41 PM

                  'gamers are dead' is not 'calling for the death of gamers'.

                  I don't think he was confused about this?

                  • reply
                    October 15, 2014 7:23 PM

                    Then I'd like to see the articles he's referring to that were calling for the death of gamers. Because that claim is fucking ludicrous.

                    • reply
                      October 15, 2014 7:47 PM

                      Uh. The articles referred to are a known entity, as is what was said, "gamers are dead," I just don't read what he said and think that he thought they want to kill him.

                      • reply
                        October 15, 2014 8:17 PM

                        I didn't say he thought that either and neither did squigiliwams. In fact, the quote you replied to is specifically accurate. Calling for the end of something and recognizing the end of something are completely different. The articles in question recognized the end of "gamers" as a group. They weren't calling for it.

                • reply
                  October 17, 2014 2:12 AM

                  I like the conclusions they reached a hell of a lot more than those headlines

              • reply
                October 15, 2014 3:57 PM

                Mine identity! mrrooorrrr

              • reply
                October 15, 2014 5:38 PM

                you understand the "death of gamers" was figurative and not literal, right? Maybe the internet is too hard for you and you need to go back to English class to do some more reading?

                • reply
                  October 15, 2014 6:00 PM

                  I keep seeing this so let's clear things up. adamp711? Did the late August articles from Leigh Alexander and company put you in fear for your life?

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 4:15 PM

        Show me the "SJW" equivalent of #Gamergate.

        • reply
          October 15, 2014 4:19 PM

          Let's not pretend there aren't some shitty SJW people out there though.

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 4:32 PM

            Absolutely. Big difference between disparate randos and a few thousand people emailing your workplace to try to get you fired.

            • reply
              October 17, 2014 2:14 AM

              disparate randos all of tumblr it seems like sometimes. With some pretty nasty things to say sometimes. But nowhere near the level of the stuff I've been seeing from GG

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 11:19 PM

        I saw an article about the talk she was supposed to give on the front of the NYT websites a long with another article about women being constantly harassed in he game industry and then asking for people to write in with their experiences. The more threats she gets the more famous she gets and the more eyeballs on these kinds of articles for or worse.

        The only thing I know is it is a constant topic of discussion, the discussions are VERY popular, and articles and videos about the subject get A LOT of hits.


        I suspect most people making content about these topics don't give a shit about helping anyone and just want to generate traffic.

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 1:58 PM

      I don't read every post/thread, but it is evident that the new direction of Shacknews is to be more inclusive. Do you believe that Shacknews views these issues as something it needs to be proactive on (banning contextless porn, which I will admit I've totally posted here and will never do again because I understand the reasoning behind the ban), or will it let the community deal with the subject matter and then officially take a stand after a clear community consensus is made?

      Thank you for making a statement at all on the Gamergate topic. I approve of this breakdown of bullying/harassment of females by a hateful few, and the error of taking up the of GG 'real' stance to confront the conflict of interests in gaming journalism

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 2:07 PM

        Policies change over time. Nothing is static. What was acceptable 15 years ago may not be so much acceptable now and vice-versa. Gay marriage wasn't a thing 15 years ago. Nobody batted an eye at the name "Redskins" 15 years ago. And yes, the idea of addressing social issues through video games was barely relevant 15 years ago.

        So as far as site policies, that's why we have a wonderful group of mods to collaborate with one another and discuss ideas critically, amongst themselves and amongst the community. Staff and Moderation is Shacknews' equivalent of Separation of Church and State. Rarely shall the twain ever meet. But that's not to say that we aren't all part of the same Shacknews and that we can't learn from one another. The goal is to help this community grow and make it welcoming to everyone, while still having a good time. We can do that together as a collective community.

        • reply
          October 15, 2014 2:10 PM

          Okay, I am fine with that.

          How about Beyond Earth? Do you think it will 0WN?

        • reply
          October 15, 2014 2:11 PM

          Yeah. As EIC I'm not that involved in the day-to-day modding policies, but if anything came to making a major shift, I would make sure we involved the community. As it is, I trust the mods to know where the line needs to be to make sure this place is welcoming to newcomers while still keeping its raucous spirit. It just wouldn't be Chatty without some of that intact.

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 3:07 PM

            Good to hear. I like the idea of a separation of "Church and State", and I think it would help to set an inviting tone to all if there were more Opinion pieces like this one. I felt like it did a great job of describing the view of the situation, and the opinion of Mr. Watts on the matter. It makes me feel more comfortable to know that it is a topic that Shacknews is willing to speak up about, but also in a manner that doesn't threaten the opposing views of readers.

            Personally, I would like to see more. The Chatty is evidence that this site is more than just talk about games, and having real conversations about topics that are at least tangentially connected to gaming is intellectually stimulating to me.

            • reply
              October 15, 2014 6:00 PM

              Separation is fine as long as there is accountability.

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 2:05 PM

      I don't really care to spend the time forming an opinion on GamerGate. Bunch of worked up navel gazing as far as I can tell.

      Only thing I can say is they should really stop harrassing that woman. I saw her called a "far left feminist" on another site, but I find it difficult to blame her for broadcasting strong opinions given the crap she's subjected to.

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 2:13 PM

      This all needs to take a pause. When some mouthbreathers threaten an entire audience with a mass shooting, the whole fucking thing needs to idle. I mean this is a record scratch moment. No more talk about 'cultivating culture' or whatever bullshit for a while. We have a NEW serious problem and discussion shouldn't continue until the NSA and FBI handle some shit.

      We often talk about internet warning signs, well here are some pretty obvious fucking signs. Gamergate is losing all meaning, now that we have domestic terrorists at hand. Who the fuck are these people? It's not clever, snarky, tactical, or anything. You have no message at all other than threatening to commit mass homicide.

      I still can't believe people are going beyond full retard on this. I hope Anita just lets this new narrative play out - gamers distancing themselves from complete shitheels that are openly saying they'll commit mass murder over this. This is surreal. What perceived threat is triggering these people to this level of panic?

      I get there's still underlying issues. I'm not walking away from that discussion. However, everyone needs to chill the fuck out and let law enforcement arrest some folks. This is just surreal. Often I wouldn't side with Anita or the folks that want to say gamers are "over". There's a lot of condescending bullshit left to tackle. However, given this new situation, now I side with Anita. Everything is losing meaning because it's been corrupted by a psychotic minority.

      it's time to deal with that psychotic minority now, and table the underlying matters.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 2:19 PM

        Good points, Downforce. The one thing I would say, which I said elsewhere, is that I don't think the "gamers are dead" articles were meant to be condescending. It's just a rhetorical device. A few days after those popped up, I think New York Times did "the death of the man" or something. It's a quick hook to illustrate changing social norms.

        To the extent that journos can be catty and condescending sometimes, though, that's why I like this place. Chatty is such an active community that we get to be in the thick of it with you guys, instead of speaking from a gilded throne. It's more of a dialogue here.

        • reply
          October 15, 2014 2:59 PM

          As a rhetorical device it is deeply flawed though. Shacknews is trying to be more inclusive, but I am guessing you realize that telling those older gamers that their taste is game is irrelevant now is telling your core market to go away.

          I think that is essentially the issue with Leigh's piece (I didn't read many others). It decries a subset of a hobby (hardcore gamers) who are actually the only ones who would read her piece outside the industry. (Gamasutra is a weird mix of industry and not readership). That makes it befuddling.

          Do games journalists want to be writing for only industry magazines?

          Do they actually think that their writing is read by the "new" gamers?

          This is all tangential to the Gamersgate stuff, but I think that the gamers are dead bit may actually show that games journalists are sick of their audience and believe they have bigger better things to report on. I am not sure who they think will read their "reporting" otherwise though.

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 3:07 PM

            Goddammit. but I am guessing you realize that telling those older gamers that their taste is game is irrelevant now is telling your core market to go away is that really what you people think the problem is? REALLY????? Fucking really for real? No one gives any shit in any way at all that you like to play fucking Doom 2 or whatever on a 14"CRT. That isn't even remotely in any way at all related to what these articles are about. If you boil it down, and have any comprehension at all in any way, it's "People other than straight white men/boys wanna play too. Be nicer please." with a dash of "grow up".

            • reply
              October 15, 2014 3:51 PM

              Game culture’ as we know it is kind of embarrassing -- it’s not even culture. It’s buying things, spackling over memes and in-jokes repeatedly, and it’s getting mad on the internet.

              It’s young men queuing with plush mushroom hats and backpacks and jutting promo poster rolls. Queuing passionately for hours, at events around the world, to see the things that marketers want them to see. To find out whether they should buy things or not. They don’t know how to dress or behave. Television cameras pan across these listless queues, and often catch the expressions of people who don’t quite know why they themselves are standing there.


              http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/224400/Gamers_dont_have_to_be_your_audience_Gamers_are_over.php

              You can boil it down to something nice that you agree with, but this is what she said that became a point of outrage. She is probably right that as a demographic, hardcore gamers are less important now. Additionally she is right that game sites probably needed to start moderating and acting socially responsible.

              She loses me entirely though in trying to proclaim that these people, the readership and the people who play the games that are oft criticized (Sarkeesian's video deals with Facebook games? Mobile games? Casual games? Nope.) So, hardcore gamers probably do still matter. No one else will read this stuff.



              • reply
                October 15, 2014 4:15 PM

                It is embarrassing as a grown ass man. That still has nothing to say about what games are being played by who, that specific quote is a critique of a moniker taken on by a subset of people based almost entirely on consuming product and simultaneously shunning any new aspects of it opening up. The machine needs to be fed money, and straight white boys are no longer the sole source of it.

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 3:48 PM

            Hm, I think there's a difference between telling older (or male, or white, or whatever) gamers that their tastes are "irrelevant," and being honest about changing market realities regarding video games. The hardcore subset isn't going anywhere, but it's less influential than it was before, because the hobby is growing.

            As we welcome a greater variety of voices into the hobby, maybe some of them will get into the so-called "hardcore" subset too. Most won't, but that's okay. This isn't a zero-sum game where they have to lose so we win.

            • reply
              October 15, 2014 4:01 PM

              I agree generally, gaming is more mainstream and more inclusive. Gaming sites should be more inclusive. But to say it is less influential in games journalism? That is where I would like to see more analysis.

              After a TI4 where DOTA 2 was on ESPN in the U.S., many sites I visit have permanent DOTA 2 columns now. That is something going mainstream and still being driven by the hardcore element though as TI4 was diverse, but still very much populated by the people described at the top of Leigh's article.

              Hardcore gamers may be less influential in the market at large, but the hardcore market has expanded and it is still the home of games journalism.

              Like I said, I am all for more moderation and inclusiveness. This just seems like wishful thinking that the indie scene and those elements these journalists are invovled in are more important than they actually are. EA, Blizzard, Valve, and Activision are probably not writing off the "It’s young men queuing with plush mushroom hats and backpacks and jutting promo poster rolls. " Any time soon and they will probably be giving interviews to the sites that gather the most of that type of gamer readership.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 2:20 PM

        What perceived threat is triggering these people to this level of panic? The threat of the status quo changing. Typically people are afraid of and resistant to change.

        • reply
          October 15, 2014 2:26 PM

          Ajax are you a fan of the "good ole days"?
          http://youtu.be/am9BqZ6eA5c

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 2:30 PM

            /grits teeth

            • reply
              October 15, 2014 2:33 PM

              I wish Chuck D would show back up and just kick Drake in the dick.

              • reply
                October 15, 2014 2:43 PM

                I imagine Drake doing that thing that the really scared/shook dudes do in mobster movies when they're brought before the boss but don't have the sack to look him in the eye. They're just staring at the floor, wringing their hands and hoping beyond hope that they get a pass. Then Terminator X walks up from the side and puts a 40 cal on his temple and Drake starts screaming like he's in church.

        • reply
          October 15, 2014 2:46 PM

          More specifically the change to consider more demographics as target audience for games instead of only white manchildren.

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 2:48 PM

      I'm glad Shacknews isn't pretending like both sides of this 'argument' merit serious reflection. I mentioned it the other day on the /r/shacknews, but #gamergate is a opportunistic spin on what was at first an absolutely horrid personal attack by an internet army on a single female developer, for highly dubious reasons.

      There is no investigation, it is a witch hunt.

      There is absolutely no smoking gun that confirms any kind of serious ethics breach. Every 'proof' is unsubstantiated, based on spurious assumptions, or relates back to incidents from 2011-2012 involving negligible financial stakes - when the 'indie' game industry was a small-time business growing in fits and spurts, learning as it goes.

      Gamergate advocates don't seem to understand how adults, professionals, or press work. They are angry at journalists but completely ignore how companies like EA and Ubisoft spend millions and millions on influencing the press. There's outrage about Fez winning an award a few years ago, but not about the Call of Duty series scoring 90% every year while IGN sells tons of banner space to Activision.

      When, as a response to the 'end of the traditional gamer demographic' articles, #gamergate claimed conspiracy on behalf of gaming journalism to divert attention away from ethics abuses to false misogyny, it's almost disheartening to me because it shows how deluded this 'movement' is.

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 2:52 PM

      Great. Just created an account to express how disappointed I am. I've been reading this site for months, ever since this whole Gamergate thing started....after pro-Gamergate supporters recommended it.
      And now it has joined the ranks of sites that supports corruption in gaming media with poor arguments Another site I won't visit anymore. :C

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtzrUsi6Y1s
      (of course, this is something you will never report, since it contradicts your propaganda)

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 2:53 PM

        I'll be damned someone actually came here because we were on the opposite side of that list, hahahahaha

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 2:53 PM

        CYA!

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 2:57 PM

        http://youtu.be/yhQql-ZbZmg

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 2:57 PM

        I cannot express the sadness I feel at your departure.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 2:57 PM

        Well, you certainly are puzzling. buh-bye.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 3:01 PM

        The worst part is more this username is taken

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 3:03 PM

        As you are a pro-gamergate supporter I'm sure that you're used to a life full of disappointments.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 3:03 PM

        http://i.imgur.com/N3cya.gif

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 3:12 PM

        protip: this isn't part of any corruption... real or perceived. p.s. you are part of a propaganda machine as well. did you realize that? are you a sheeple? what ranks are you in? what sites do you visit? probably something you will never report...

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 3:13 PM

        yeah I think you kind of need to update the information from which you've been working

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 3:38 PM

        Door, ass, on the way out.

        • reply
          October 15, 2014 3:41 PM

          BTW, there was someone bragging about coaching the 3 women that appeared in that interview apparently. So, color me crazy when I say I'll take everything they say with a small boatload of salt. I am going to try and find it.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 3:48 PM

        Goodbye

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 3:52 PM

        As EIC, I apologize for ever letting you have the mistaken assumption that we were in any way "pro-GamerGate."

        • reply
          October 15, 2014 3:53 PM

          I've actually seen SN listed several times as a "safe" place to get news that isn't GG related.

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 3:57 PM

            Oh, believe me, this isn't the new normal by any stretch. This is something we felt the need to express in the wake of the increasing hostility of the last week, because the harassment that has gone on is not ok.

            We now return you to your regularly scheduled gaming news and features.

            • reply
              October 15, 2014 4:00 PM

              Oh, sorry I wasn't clear. I meant I'd seen it listed by the GGers as a site that was "outside the corruption"

              • reply
                October 15, 2014 5:31 PM

                As I have never engaged in sexual relations with any of the ShackNews Staff, I would say that the Shack is outside corruption.

                But I could be lying. DOUBLE SECRET CORRUPTION.

                • reply
                  October 15, 2014 6:16 PM

                  Oh I have. Ozzie could suck the chrome off a trailer hitch.

                  • reply
                    October 15, 2014 6:31 PM

                    Well, damn. Now I know that ShackNews is going to have a biased opinion when it comes to trail hitches.

                    #HitchGate

            • reply
              October 15, 2014 4:01 PM

              My kidding aside, Ozzie is right. We don't plan on pestering people with constant GamerGate news updates or anything. (Ideally, this would be because the movement fizzles soon and we don't have to.)

              This just seemed like the time that something needed to be said, and more importantly, gaming sites needed to be the ones saying it. It's frankly shameful that places like the BBC beat us to the punch.

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 3:59 PM

            Well shit. We need to get on those "avoid these SJWs" lists.

            • reply
              October 15, 2014 4:09 PM

              Sidejack: Am I the only one who immediately tunes out when anyone (even people I respect like Larry Correia) use the SJW term?

              Amurrica.

              • reply
                October 15, 2014 6:05 PM

                I usually still read whatever comment I'm already reading, bit the moment I see the usage of SJW as a pejorative, I'm like

                https://31.media.tumblr.com/96cbe8991e0bfd523891d7f88178e392/tumblr_n93h0zrg8D1ta5iimo2_250.gif

                ...because it's a term that comes from a fundamentally broken perspective. At best, they're implying that the people who care about doing the right thing are actually lying, and don't care at all. An accusation that doesn't come with proof, just their own blind assertions. It also comes with a personal admission to apathy. Overall, a pretty shitty stance to take.

                And at worst, they're saying people who care about something as universally good as justice are somehow wrong for caring about doing the right thing. It's like when the bitter villain in a movie mocks normal people for caring about others. It's clearly, cartoonishly evil and these guys are actually proud to be that guy.

                So like I said, I still read what they have to say. But they make it real easy; how could I ever take their opinion as something meriting serious debate? Anyone who uses SJW as a pejorative is a joke.

                • reply
                  October 15, 2014 8:29 PM

                  That's about how I feel. It seems to come from a place that is protective of the status quo to the exclusion of all else. Because of that, I'd take being labeled as an SJW as a compliment.

                  • reply
                    October 17, 2014 2:33 AM

                    justice is great, and a lot of change needs to happen. What I don't like seeing is a group that is entirely beyond any reproach, to the point that if someone expresses a problem with anything they do he must be complete scum.

                    Personally I don't have a problem with their goals. But often the language used rubs me the wrong way. Like "rape culture". I think I understand what it means pretty well (that Film Crit Hulk article laid it out nicely: http://badassdigest.com/2013/11/14/we-need-to-change-how-we-talk-about-rape/ ). The ideas behind it are sound. But I still fucking hate the term and the way it seems to paint every single male. I hate how stating that will just be batted back with a reflexive sarcastic #notallmen.

                    Words mean something, and I think I should be able to give my opinion that they've chosen some bad ones to sum up the issue (a good, real one). Obviously nothing is stopping me from doing so, but it's a minefield. Right now there's probably someone reading who is certain that I must be a fan of the status quo who wants to make rape jokes all the time, when I just don't like the term "rape culture". It's been weaponized ( http://squid314.livejournal.com/329561.html ), and as a privileged white male it's impossible to take part in any discussion without prostrating myself.

                    Now that's a better situation for me than being oppressed, for sure. Also #whataboutthemenz? I guess I am saying my problem with some of the social justice types is that it's impossible to talk to them, to the point they hurt their own cause. One of my family members is pretty heavily into all that (and good for her; good causes) but I've seen her offend a ton of well meaning people who've then unfriended her on FB. It's counter productive IMHO. If I were to use the term SJW pejoratively, it would be to describe someone who is impossible to talk to.

                    But at the moment I'd be far more likely to use the term GG pejoratively. Some absolute jerks in there.

        • reply
          October 15, 2014 3:58 PM

          This article and this comment in particular have super impressed me. No ambiguity or coddling here.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 4:26 PM

        I'm a borderline loser and I still have enough stuff going on in my life so that video game journalism integrity doesn't come anywhere close to something I would actually be concerned about.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 5:47 PM

        he more clearheaded supporters of GamerGate need to ask themselves if the title is more important to them than the cause, because right now the one is strangling the other.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 8:04 PM

        You will be missed, anonymous lurker.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 8:14 PM

        Adios!

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 11:13 PM

        I guess we'll have to get by without all your contributions

      • reply
        October 16, 2014 5:40 AM

        Holy shit new people actually do visit shacknews.

        So long new person!

      • reply
        October 16, 2014 6:35 AM

        Sorry, we are adults here. There is always Facebook.

      • reply
        October 16, 2014 6:40 AM

        Wait. Waitwaitwaitwaitwait. The only reason you signed up is so that you could express disapprove and then thanks.txt? Do I have that right?

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yInw8LyWTN8

      • reply
        October 16, 2014 6:51 AM

        lol

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 3:23 PM

      So, I will chip in here. Now I think the #Gate movement is fucking stupid, HOWEVER, I can personally attest to some shady fucking shit in the games journalism arena, some of it perpetrated (unwillingly) by yours truly.

      I've seen game journalists bump scores in return for exclusives on tentpole franchises. I've seen game journalists and their bosses cave when we pulled funding. I've seen game journalists bump a score after we flew them to a destination and took those same journalists out to an expensive meal and then took them F1 car racing. Worst of all, I've seen journalists get taken to a titty bar by a publisher. Then the dude tried to expense it. (lol)

      While I agree that #Gate is a fucking sideshow freakshow of epic angry young WASP male proportions, I can tell you first fucking hand that "gaming journalism" is a fucking joke. (no offense to our overlords)

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 3:26 PM

        There are definitely ethical concerns in gaming. Here is GamerGate's antichrist, Leigh Alexander, with a partial list:
        http://leighalexander.net/list-of-ethical-concerns-in-video-games-partial/

        • reply
          October 15, 2014 3:38 PM

          God, I love the fact that gamergate has had diddly to say about game informer. How is that not like the #1 target?

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 3:53 PM

            I agree. However I've never really found GI's stuff to be wildly out of line, have you? There must be some super-interesting high level meetings with the GI folks and corporate.

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 3:59 PM

            I never understood how anyone could take that publication seriously when it exists purely to sell games.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 3:28 PM

        That's what I don't get. No (or very few) of the people who are anti-gamer gate are also anti-games-journalism-ethics. Better ethics in gaming journalism SHOULD be an easy win to get. But they've fucked it up so badly that they've hurt that cause more than helped it.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 3:33 PM

        I will admit that my sample is limited (only one game company) but EverQuest was the big swinging dick back then (pre-WOW) and we did some seriously epic shady fucking shit, and having taken college journalism, I expected each and every one of them to tell us to go fuck ourselves and retain their integrity.

        Only one of them ever did, sort of, the Penny Arcade guys. They let us give them two free top of the line PC's but flat out told me, "This isn't going to buy you shit and don't expect us to give you a break, but thanks for the free shit."

        I do have to give those guys some credit. That said I think it still bought us a bit of goodwill.

        • reply
          October 15, 2014 4:04 PM

          I remember reading an article I think about how publishers in Europe would take game reviewers and editors to hotels for their industry events and even pay for a seat to fly in a Soviet MiG for a flight game.

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 4:08 PM

            Dude, we took a shitload of editors out to race F-1 cars and then gave them a demo of a fantasy PS2 role playing game. It doesn't even have to be related to the game content.

            The DGAF is strong.

            • reply
              October 15, 2014 4:22 PM

              I remember reading in my local games magazine once how they went to a BF1942 event on an aircraft carrier with actual WW2 veterans present, one of the guys was told by a veteran "you guys play this here, we did it over there" and the reporter didn't enjoy it much anymore.
              Another I remember was partying with Dave Perry and getting wasted on absinthe.
              At least it was funny to read about this stuff because they always wrote the whole thing out like a trip report.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 3:34 PM

        There is a thing people can get behind that doesn’t support the gg shit while still wanting to talk about the ethics problems in games. Why people feel the need to die on the gg hill is mind boggling to me.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 3:44 PM

        Yeah, that's not the debate. I think pretty well every moderately active gamer can attest to scratching their heads at some previews and reviews. No question about that. The issue here is that hiding behind that veneer is an active and aggressive anti-woman, anti-progressive stance on anything involving videogames. No matter how many women they get to do interviews.

        • reply
          October 15, 2014 3:45 PM

          Hey, some of gamergates best friends are women!

            • reply
              October 15, 2014 5:32 PM

              I'm not sure I will ever understand how to read twitter comments once they've got several @s in them. What is even going on here?

              • reply
                October 15, 2014 5:34 PM

                He's showing you she runs android

              • reply
                October 15, 2014 5:51 PM

                @RedLianaK tweets about an instance of "#GamerGate trying to find Anita's stalker

                @SocialismNever threatens @RedLianaK to make the point what's "good for the goose" is good for the gander. meaning if #GamerGate is going to threaten women that share their opinions, then "ooh look how bad it feels when it gets done to you!" dumb.

                @RedLianaK then reacts to the threat by taking a screetshot and tweeting that she was threatened

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 3:56 PM

        Well again I can really only speak for ourselves. I've never bumped a score or cave for been taken to a bar, titty or otherwise. I'm RELATIVELY certain no one else on staff has either, but it's not as if I can speak for them and I've only been EIC for a couple of weeks.

        That kind of thing certainly does happen, and it's worth talking about and exposing. I think there's a real opportunity here to make something positive of this mess. The people who are genuinely concerned about ethics can push for more transparency, maybe even a more codified set of standards. And they can do it while distancing themselves from the ugliness.

        • reply
          October 15, 2014 3:59 PM

          Well the next time you're in the bay area, I'd be happy to take you to the bar of your choice.

          No reviews needed.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 4:02 PM

        INDUSTRY PRESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

      • reply
        October 16, 2014 7:01 AM

        bahahaha ... overlords... thanks for the chuckle thornfist.

        • reply
          October 16, 2014 9:08 AM

          I, for one, welcome our new adorable overlords

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 3:30 PM

      This thread : http://i.imgur.com/e3YKeZX.gif

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 3:31 PM

      Do you guys think after we shut down GamerGate we can shut down Islam and Feminism too? All these extremists everywhere are ruining everything for everyone.

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 3:34 PM

      Is this Steve's most commented on article ever?

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 3:53 PM

        Probably? The EIC statement got quite a few, and I remember Duke Nukem and Dragon Age had some firestorms, but this one appears to still be growing.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 4:04 PM

        Still nowhere close to a Thornfist's Wife thread, don't let it go to your head big guy.

        • reply
          October 15, 2014 9:34 PM

          To be fair to Steve, he's been jumping into a lot more Chatty threads as of late. It takes a while to adjust. Look at me.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 4:06 PM

        Until the the next Elder Scrolls game comes out.

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 3:52 PM

      tl;dr I have no fucking clue what GG is about and I have no intention of figuring it out because the term is just so toxic to even touch with a 50 ft pole.

      This is going to be a hit and run post, as I plan to collapse this thread (just like the other GG thread) as soon as I type this up, but I feel that a good portion of the community is just sick of this entire debacle and just want it gone. Looking through the thread real quick, the people who continue to "debate" this issue are those who have been going at it in nearly all the other early threads. Very rarely do I see anyone else participate. I mean, there isn't anything wrong with talking about the issue, I'm all for that. But we already have. Again. And again. And again. It feels like every single time this gets brought up, people just continue to regurgitate the same things over and over again. Theres a reason why all the other GG threads are marked tangent (and now I'm actually very thankful that it is)

      And I get it, death threats are lame and people shouldn't be doing that. But does the shack community encourage this? Not really. Even before information came to light regarding the nature of some people to manipulate the truth, we talked crap about anna something and how fucked up some reviewers mixed business with pleasure. But no where did we actually make threats, especially once it came to light how people are manipulating the truth.

      Is GG about "corrupt" reviewers then? If it is, its not like the people here can do anything about it. Obviously, if someone really wants to help their friend by giving them a good review for their game, then that’s going to happen regardless of what the community says. The only thing we as a community can do is notice it when it happens and yell bullshit (just not as long as this).

      Then is GG about female character portrayal in video games then? Again, its not like the community can do anything about it. If game developers want to portray women in scantly clad clothes then they will. If not, then they wont. The only thing the gaming community can do about it is to just vote with their wallet and not buy it (I guess you can also yell #GG at game devs and publishers to get them to change their portrayal of women in games). All I know is that generally most of the developers on the shack aren't for portraying women sexually and kudos to them (unless they are, in which case kudos anyways).

      I'm pretty sure at this point the message of GG has been changed and altered several times that its about neither of the issues I've listed above. I honestly have no fucking clue and I have no intention of figuring it out. The very nature of GG is just so toxic and disgusting that I refuse to have anything to do with it. Whether its discussing equal rights for women in the gaming industry, or the non sexual portrayal of women in games, just say it for what it is and stop calling it a part of GG. Equal rights for women in gaming industry. Non sexual portrayal of women in games.

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 4:09 PM

      I love how this whole thing comes up at a time when game reviews are arguably less important than ever. There are so many options to determine if you will like a game or not beyond reviews. Videos, let's plays, podcasts all kinds. So why is it so important now? Because apparently a woman slept with someone. Good call. Keep it up Internet.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 4:52 PM

        I really really don't care about games journalism. I read very little anyways, I watch a few trailers and generally wait for actual community members to play a game and proclaim it awesome. I never exactly felt like it was reliable anyways. At best it was entertaining.

        You know what I do care about? People getting bullied. That shit is serious business, and there is never an excuse good enough for people to get bullied the way a few of these people are getting bullied. I feel sick to my stomach about how Anita and Zoe (and older controversies like Kathy Sierra) have been treated, and continue to be treated. I do not care what they did, nothing deserves this kind of behavior.

        I would gladly see games journalism get 100000x worse, if it meant that people didn't harass the people involved. :(

        Shame on anyone who thinks games journalism is important enough to ruin lives over.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 8:35 PM

        You're right that formal written reviews have been somewhat sidelined by other content types. I'm a writer first and foremost, but I like to think we're adapting to the new media, especially under the new ownership. Those have their own ethical concerns to deal with, because publishers are starting to find they can side-step media altogether and go directly to the streamers.

        The media is young and has its problems, but on the whole I think we tend to be more experienced with ethical quandaries than a fair share of streamers. That's not to say streamers are corrupt or anything, but even young publications tend to have ethical guidebooks written up for internal use. That's not something all that common for a guy who just streams out of his house, so it comes down to trusting him to do the right thing and tell you when a compromise comes up.

        This sort of thing can lead to confusion as well. I remember seeing people who were confused about the Shadow of Mordor streaming notes, and claimed that reviewers had to sign a document promising it favorable coverage to get our review copies. As the reviewer for Mordor, uh, no. That did not happen.

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 4:25 PM

      Steve, I enjoyed reading this article. I think that you have articulated well that appreciating the origins of the controversy is important because the value of future discussions regarding game journalism are unfortunately marred by a vocal minority of gamers with a agenda to maintain the status quo.

      I have no doubt that now that this issue has been raised, readers of video game news sites will perhaps take a more critical eye and perhaps would like more disclosure about any conflicts of interest. As you stated, the appropriate response is for websites to take this criticism seriously and address the concerns of their target audience.


      What is unfortunate however, is this pivot that unfortunately sabotages a frank discussion on how to moderate our own community. I think the majority of gamers don't approve of the hostile behavior and vitriol that has been directed at the women who have involved in gamergate, but somehow there isn't a consistent response from the community that has continued to discourage these voices given the distractions. Although your idea of disconnecting the two may help, in the end members of the gaming community need to continually step up and make it clear that these behaviors are intolerable and not representative of pretty much any rational human being.

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 4:51 PM

      Devin nails it: http://badassdigest.com/2014/10/15/why-gamergate-already-lost/

      His points on GG's total lack of consistency, in light of Youtube payola, say everything.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 4:58 PM

        I like Devin but calling 4chan a "kiddie-porn disseminating website" is inflammatory at best and flat out wrong at worst.

        • reply
          October 15, 2014 5:03 PM

          Maybe he meant Reddit.

        • reply
          October 15, 2014 5:14 PM

          Yeah, that part is inflammatory and was definitely worded that way to say "GG was too nasty even for these guys).

          The points being made are correct though, especially when it comes to GGs inconsistency and hypocrisy.

        • reply
          October 15, 2014 5:16 PM

          4chan has always seemed like a cesspool to me and I come here so I obviously have a high tolerance.

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 5:25 PM

            I don't post, but it seems like there are fine boards: http://boards.4chan.org/v/ Seems to be nearly entirely video game discussion, along with a lot of images.

            • reply
              October 15, 2014 5:29 PM

              For some games there are also general threads for them that you can find on /vg/.

            • reply
              October 15, 2014 5:30 PM

              This is true, but 4chan is widely associated with /b/ and /r/. The reputation on some of those other boards is earned, even though it unfairly throws other boards under the bus with them.

              • reply
                October 15, 2014 5:37 PM

                i'd say 4chan *also* lost the PR battle (that they largely aren't fighting) with the public at large. to non-internet people, if they've heard about 4chan, it's probably some shadowy horror-hole type of story off of TV news.

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 7:20 PM

            this is probably the safest gaming forum on the web... there is nothing high tolerance about the shack.

          • reply
            October 16, 2014 7:01 AM

            same.

        • reply
          October 15, 2014 5:30 PM

          ... are we thinking of the same 4chan?

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 5:11 PM

        I was with him until he started pulling into Godwin territory.

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 5:11 PM

      this thread and article are why I love the website and community I work for.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 8:37 PM

        I said it elsewhere, but I'm super-proud of our commenters. Stepping into a topic like this was a little unnerving, but I thought, "Chatty is smart, they'll get it."

        • reply
          October 15, 2014 11:16 PM

          yeah, high five. awesome of you to jump into the comments with both feet like this, too!

        • reply
          October 16, 2014 2:12 AM

          Yeah sometimes it's going to backfire for you guys, but I hope you continue these editorial opinion pieces.

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 5:37 PM

      Thanks for posting this. Glad to see the new overlords take a stand.

      Post if you get blowback too

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 5:46 PM

      I made a mistake and read the comments before reading the article. I figured that those defending Gamergate had a leg to stand on, but this was a perfectly reasoned article that can be boiled down to two key points.

      -The Gamergate tag is completely toxic and has nothing to do with journalism ethics and everything to do with misogyny.
      -It is important to keep games journalists ethical, and those that truly want to be the guardians of ethics need to create a new tag.

      How are people finding fault in this article?!

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 5:51 PM

        I really like the term Nazi, and I've decided to use it to champion human rights. It's your fault if you can't get past the ancient stigma attached to it.

        • reply
          October 15, 2014 5:56 PM

          "No, guys, it's a Hindu symbol! You shouldn't find it offenseive!"

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 7:55 PM

        The thing is, there's already a tag that people can use. They just refuse to not use the gg tag for some reason.

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 5:54 PM

      I am starting to think the problem is partially a lack of reading comprehension. Like, we're in Idiocracy for real now, and people don't understand how to talk to each other and debate any more, its just stupid red team/blue team bullshit. Rhetorical devices go over their heads...writers using a turn of phrase are taken completely out of context and misunderstood, and context itself is irrelevant, because everyone is playing ideological bingo. I think boring_gegtik posted an article about this a month or two back.

      Morons on both sides are equally as incapable of making an argument, or more importantly understanding the position of those they are arguing against. The Gamergate people think they are fighting for ethics in journalism, but they fail to see they are trying to mash journalistic standards into a marketing machine that has existed almost as long as the Web. It's understandable that they don't want collusion between journalists and game publishers, but then they get lost in the weeds trying to explain some silly conspiracy theory that includes Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu, or any other woman brave enough to have an opinion and share it (or those brave/stupid enough to defend them).

      The worst problem is the persecution complex that just makes people think they are right the more they see people disagreeing with them. They love to feel like they are righteously angry (because it feels good) and it only hardens their resolve and makes them double down on their stupid opinions. It's a vicious cycle and its present in almost every aspect of our lives now, from video games to politics. It's fucking depressing.

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 6:25 PM

      [deleted]

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 8:37 PM

      I have a question semi related. Is there a shacknews publicly posted ethics statement ? I don't ask because I doubt the ethics of any of the writers here; I just think have a rules of engagement that is SOP is a good thing for any site that does reviews and takes advertising revenue and/or gets paid to travel on behalf of a review, game or tech or whatever. Would be a good thing to share with the community.

      And for the record, I have never had issues with any article or writer here on trust or worries about ethics.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 8:41 PM

        I think that's an excellent question, john, and exactly the sort of constructive thing that we might be able to salvage out of this mess.

        We certainly have guidelines that all of us on the staff know and follow, but I don't believe they've been formalized or published. Mancide (above) suggested addressing specific questions from the community about our ethical stands, and that might be a good tool to start articulating our policies into a published statement.

        • reply
          October 15, 2014 8:55 PM

          so I, being in sales at a tech consulting firm, have to deal with ethics regs of my customers all the time. For instance, I have a customer where I can not give them any direct gift or spent more than 100 dollars a day on them. Think dinners and wine and dine and all that. When I am told this, I ask for their ethics policies and I share them with my team who work the account.

          I just think having published ethic standards - and a way to report an ethics question or potential violation - with a published overview of our issue handling policy - takes a lot of this off the table. If someone has an issue, they can see how you are measured, how to report it, and how it will be handled. I realize that might increase the HR/compliance side of shacknews - but given all of this stuff - it might be the best way to set the writers here apart of the rest of the industry.

          I don't expect the SN team to buy every game they review. I realize you are going to get shit for free. You are going to be paid cost to travel to somewhere to review a game. I am good with that - just disclose it in a review. something on the bottom in italics .... "the game copy of this review was provided for free by the publisher" would be a great addition to articles.

          • reply
            October 15, 2014 9:04 PM

            We actually do have that disclaimer at the bottom of our reviews, and previews if there was any kind of travel provided. But yes, a more expansive published policy would be good.

            • reply
              October 15, 2014 9:06 PM

              you do - I havent read a review in a while. Acknowledged

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 8:47 PM

      Hey guys what's going on in this thread?

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 9:54 PM

      Thank you for writing this.

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 10:35 PM

      Gamersgate is a bunch of guys who are mad that a girl had sex with someone that wasn't them. The inevitable end of the 'white knight' mentality. Bitterness that pretending to be a good guy isn't going to get you laid even if she also likes games, and that all games are no longer solely focused on males. So death threats from the impotent 4chan idiots fly because it's the only way anyone will pay attention to them.

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 11:06 PM

      Sorry to see this site gone for my bookmarks. Bye.

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 11:11 PM

        You'll be missed lol

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 11:17 PM

        Adios! Don't let the door hit ya on the way out!

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 11:21 PM

        thepuzzlingcentaur? Is that you!?

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 11:45 PM

        I for one hope that your bookmark list changelog updates continue!

      • reply
        October 15, 2014 11:49 PM

        We'll miss your active participation in the community.

        • reply
          October 15, 2014 11:58 PM

          one of the weakest thanks.txt's ever, second only to the guy who made an account just to announce he wasn't gonna hang out here.

          I think I'll even leave it up, because lolz.

          • reply
            October 16, 2014 12:01 AM

            I am still trying to figure out why so many people are picking this as the hill to die on. You can want more transparency and less payola in game reporting without carrying around the baggage of all the asshats. As the root article pointed out. It's like they are stubborn teenagers with persecution complexes.

          • reply
            October 16, 2014 6:41 AM

            this dude said he was leaving almost three months ago

            http://www.shacknews.com/chatty?id=32206285

            wonder if he means it this time

      • reply
        October 16, 2014 12:42 AM

        spammehardo, we hardly knew ye.

      • reply
        October 16, 2014 1:59 AM

        Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh.
        It must have been cold there in my shadow,
        to never have sunlight on your face.
        You were content to let me shine, that's your way.
        You always walked a step behind.

        So I was the one with all the glory,
        while you were the one with all the strength.
        A beautiful face without a name for so long.
        A beautiful smile to hide the pain.

        Did you ever know that you're my spammehardo,
        and everything I would like to be?
        I can fly higher than an eagle,
        'cause you are the wind beneath my wings.

        It might have appeared to go unnoticed,
        but I've got it all here in my heart.
        I want you to know I know the truth, of course I know it.
        I would be nothing without you.

        Did you ever know that you're my spammehardo?
        You're everything I wish I could be.
        I could fly higher than an eagle,
        'cause you are the wind beneath my wings.

        Did I ever tell you you're my spammehardo?
        You're everything, everything I wish I could be.
        Oh, and I, I could fly higher than an eagle,
        'cause you are the wind beneath my wings,
        'cause you are the wind beneath my wings.

        Oh, the wind beneath my wings.
        You, you, you, you are the wind beneath my wings.
        Fly, fly, fly away. You let me fly so high.
        Oh, you, you, you, the wind beneath my wings.
        Oh, you, you, you, the wind beneath my wings.

        Fly, fly, fly high against the sky,
        so high I almost touch the sky.
        Thank you, thank you,
        thank God for you, the wind beneath my wings.

      • reply
        October 16, 2014 2:21 AM

        Was this a thanks.txt from a GamerGateGhazi genius?

      • reply
        October 16, 2014 2:35 AM

        bookmarks.html'd

      • reply
        October 16, 2014 3:32 AM

        They won't care. Just read the articles and ignore chatty? Still a great site.

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 11:11 PM

      Daaaaaamn check out who just made the game journo pro mailing list. Congrats.

      • reply
        October 16, 2014 7:56 AM

        I wasn't ever in it, but I'm kind of disappointed that I wasn't. I apparently could have joined if I'd asked, but I didn't know it existed until all this blew up. I'm told it was mostly silliness and cute cat gifs, which are relevant to my interests. I think they're either holding off on inviting new members or shutting it down entirely, but either way, I'll have to make my own cute cat gif group.

        I am on a Facebook group of freelance journos, though. That's pretty fun.

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 11:30 PM

      Just wanted to say I'm really happy Shacknews commented on this and I wholeheartedly agree with everything you said.

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 11:44 PM

      I see GamerGate as the gaming equivalent of Benghazi---something that may have been relevant and very unfortunate, but now should be just dropped from discussion. It's been long enough. Intel fanned the flames, sure, but I don't see any new discoveries or new things to say. Yet it just keeps coming back, with new attempts to create a scandal.

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 11:55 PM

      Gamergate achievement unlocked. It's going to be on the front page of the NYT tomorrow. Congrats on making us all look like sexist asses Gamergaters!

    • reply
      October 15, 2014 11:56 PM

      Ethics! No, wait, game reviewers representing us!
      https://twitter.com/PixieJenni/status/522486272305410049

    • reply
      October 16, 2014 12:14 AM

      I'm very skeptical about modern feminism, the kind you see online and in opinion media. There's just so much intellectual dishonesty and intolerance for discussion in that whole movement right now that they make Fox news look actually fair and balanced. That said, GamerGate is disgusting and stupid. There's not a shred of validity to any of that shit - it's just angry gamers finding yet another thing to be pissed off about, only this time it ticks enough boxes to have some longevity. It's like all the gamer "scandals" in the last five years rolled up into one. If she had announced that depression quest wouldn't have dedicated servers the universe would've fucking imploded.

      TLDR: I fucking hate gamers these days. I very frequently think about quitting the games industry because I just can't stand gamer culture. I know it's a minority, but they're just terrible human beings.

      • reply
        October 16, 2014 1:45 AM

        I totally get where you're coming from. And I don't rant often but I'm going to rant now, so I apologize in advance for my very unfiltered opinion. It's not directed at you or anything, this just happens to be where I felt like sharing, since, as said above, I get where you're coming from. And after I post this, I'm going to watch tv because the entire thing has taken up too much of my time already. So, here goes.

        ...

        I was actually pretty interested in this thing when I first heard there was a scandal/misconduct, because who the hell wouldn't be? It has all the juicy stuff: sex, games, accusations of wrongdoing...

        Then it turned out the scandal was a misreporting, and I was all "oh, so the people who're still worked up about this are probably the folks who believe a facebook rumor and run with it, and then keep arguing even after the real evidence comes out. Well, whatever." But people were still up in arms about it so I thought "maybe there's more to it??"

        But after ample, ample opportunities nobody has posted a single goddamn piece of evidence against this woman that wasn't a pathetic grasping at straws. Oh, she slept with someone who works at an organization that once published something nice about a game she gives away for free, but she might tangentially have benefited because now people have heard of her! Well whose fucking fault is that, you geniuses? And is that really all you've got?

        If this were a lawsuit and my opposition had evidence that flimsy, I'd have a summary judgment in my hands in 30 minutes. I wouldn't even charge my clients for it.

        If this were a scientific paper and someone brought it to me for review, I'd give it back and tell them to knit baby clothes for a living - anything that doesn't require critical thought.

        There's more evidence out there for God, and I haven't bought that story either.

        https://catmacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/alphabet_soup_cat2.jpg?w=720

        And they sure as shit aren't talking about actual, substantiated incidents where shady things have gone on at the big studios. Ohhhh no! We have to continue crying about some pea-sized dev whom we can't even prove did anything wrong. And we have to "take a stand" against sites that call us out on the fact that our accusations are bunk. It's the same song and dance even when they get a platform to talk about their "real concerns," as for instance right here in this thread. So now I don't even believe their actual motivations are what they claim.

        So I'm done listening to both sides. I started out interested and curious. Gamergate folks had a chance to prove their claims and they failed because they didn't have shit and now they're just screaming and pouting because admitting they're wrong about Sarkeesian is too big a task for them. If anyone isn't adult enough to see how transparent that is, how the gamergate arguments and the evidence they're based on is about as solid as wet tissue, then those folks can gtfo and go hang with their intellectually challenged peers.

        I'm moving on to something that's not a total waste of my time, like watching Lilyhammer and browsing cat macros. Cat macros are entertaining.

        • reply
          October 16, 2014 2:05 AM

          Is a fine rant though. One of the things I do find crazy about gamer gate is why feminist frequency got thrown into that mix in the first place. I've never heard her even mention Zoe Quinn or journalist collusion (I could be wrong).

          It just shows that a big part of gamer gate did have a anti women / anti feminist agenda and that should be enough for normal sane people to distance themselves from it.

          • reply
            October 16, 2014 5:35 AM

            She happened to release a new video in the middle of the opening weeks of the GG drama -- that's it. I'm sure she would have ended up as a talking point eventually but yea. She just updated her series.

        • reply
          October 16, 2014 2:14 AM

          You're ace

        • reply
          October 16, 2014 2:21 AM

          I wouldn't even charge my clients for it. Can't you get disbarred for that???

          • reply
            October 16, 2014 4:36 AM

            Lawyers do pro bono work all the time.

        • reply
          October 16, 2014 6:26 AM

          One of these two things are a waste of your time: Lilyhammer and browsing cat macros.

          • reply
            October 16, 2014 1:52 PM

            I think Lilyhammer is hilarious for me the way that Twin Peaks is hilarious for people from the US. Cultural laughs that you don't get unless you've lived Scandinavia.

      • reply
        October 16, 2014 1:51 AM

        I think one of the reasons gamer gate has taken a long time to go away is because it does resonate with a lot of peoples feelings on feminism and the perceived censorship or thought police aspect of it.

        Somehow they think that they're being told that they're not allowed to like the games they used to like or they think that those games are being censored by places like feminist frequency.

        And at the same time they're being told that they're not allowed to agree with any of the gamer gate issues.

        However they need to understand that places like feminist frequency don't have any power to censor anything. It's just a view point and while it happens that it does seem like a lot of developers agree with it.

        You're still going to see games like Bayonetta 2, but also we're hopefully going to see more adult and represented games as well.

        Somehow "modern feminism" is still getting blamed to a degree for all this or resented however I don't recall there being any death threats on that side. In fact most of the main victims of gamer gate has behaved amazingly dignified and with a great degree of courage.

        Gamer gate has become toxic and people do need to move on from it. If you still have an opinion on journalist collusion or on perceived feminist censorship then discuss that but don't link yourself with gamer gate and death threats and hatred for women.

        (sorry that was long and probably won't be read by anyone).

        • reply
          October 16, 2014 7:35 AM

          "Somehow they think that they're being told that they're not allowed to like the games they used to like"

          While it's not been said outright, it's implied that you're backwards if you're not in step with the new 'progressive' trends. Hence the whole 'death of the gamer identity' surge weeks back.

          "However they need to understand that places like feminist frequency don't have any power to censor anything. It's just a view point and while it happens that it does seem like a lot of developers agree with it."

          Wrong. If you disagree with them in the slightest, you get bullied and badgered into apologizing for being a sexist piece of shit. This is the Internet. People aren't here to just passively put their views out there and hope they gain an audience. They'll do whatever it takes to give themselves as much visibility and exposure as possible. All it took for Anita to be made a consultant on Mirror's Edge 2 was complain that EA didn't make the game accessible enough to women(whatever that means). Developers 'agree' with it because they don't want the stigma of being called misogynists.

          "Somehow "modern feminism" is still getting blamed to a degree"

          Because 'modern feminism' is women complaining on the internet about mean things being said. Real feminists, like Christina Sommers(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina_Hoff_Sommers), think 'modern feminism is a joke.


          "however I don't recall there being any death threats on that side"

          No, they just dox and bully anyone who doesn't agree with them. They even doxxed a 10 year old kid on Twitter. It's the whole reason The Fine Young Capitalists were initially shut down. It's why gamers were called worse than ISIS. There may not have been death threats, but there is still a very real attitude of hate towards anyone who is neutral or disagrees.

          "In fact most of the main victims of gamer gate has behaved amazingly dignified and with a great degree of courage. "

          What victims specifically?

          • reply
            October 16, 2014 10:22 AM

            Appreciate you responding to my points. However I think your responses have backed up my initial point. Gamer gate originally was never about feminist frequency or women in gaming.

            It was about journalist collusion but it very quickly transferred over to Feminist Frequency and women in general.

            Why? Because people like you thought we were taking your toys away and you jumped on the gamer gate bandwagon and hijacked it so it's no longer about journalism and collusion.

            I do find a lot of the female tropes in gaming distasteful I do want them to become less prevalent. However I still believe in freedom of expression and if developers want to release games like Bayonetta then fine, but I and places like Feminist Frequency will still point out things they dislike about those games.

            They should be able to do that without receiving death threats. Those are the victims by the way the ones receiving very personal and specific death threats. Having to leave their homes because of those threats etc.

            Also feminism vs modern feminism, isn't she the woman that defended the pay gap?

          • reply
            October 16, 2014 12:36 PM

            Sommers is a right leaning conservative that thinks "traditional" family values and gender norms are the way to go. Views like: Women should be docile and subservient to men, raising the children and housework is the woman's job, men should never show emotion, boys shouldn't show interest in poetry/ballet/other "girly" things, female sexuality is evil and should be suppressed, its the female's fault if she is raped/assaulted/harassed, gays are icky, etc. Since she is very well off she or her family would not feel the impact of her regressive views like middle class or poorer women would. For example, like has always been the case the wealthy can afford, aka bribe, to have an abortion performed under the table at a hospital but everyone else has to go to some guy's garage is a shady neighborhood.

            Modern feminism realizes that much of the overt sexism and misogyny has been dealt with but the underlying social, political, cultural, and economic discrimination remains. This is much like those fighting for racial equality; overt racism like the Klu Klux Klan is universally reviled but our society is still designed to prevent minorities from gaining any real power. The struggle to overcome these hidden barriers will require great changes in our world which is what really scares those in power. Yeah there are some actual "man haters" out there but those of us on the left tend to just ignore them and their crazed ranting. The opposite of how the right is controlled but its far out fringe.

            I have no idea why she considers herself a Democrat when her opinions are straight out of the Republican handbook.

      • reply
        October 16, 2014 3:34 AM

        A friend of mine in the industry has been toying with the idea of leaving as well :( It's definitely not the same thing as when I grew up playing by Super Nintendo.

      • reply
        October 16, 2014 5:51 AM

        Just one thing - I'm not sure you're getting 'modern feminism' from online/opinion media. Kind of like how with Fox news you're not really getting informative political reporting, even though it purports to be that.

        • reply
          October 16, 2014 8:18 AM

          Groups tend to be judged by their most vocal

        • reply
          October 16, 2014 12:10 PM

          Yes. I have no problem with the dictionary definition of feminism, but in practice that's not what feminism means to people because the vocal feminists have very little to do with the dictionary definition.

      • reply
        October 16, 2014 6:25 AM

        Can you specify what modern feminism you see as this? Because this situation has made it clear that the abuse of women online and plenty of other situations and statistics show how women are treated worse in real life too. Like even if there are a few voices you don't like, the idea of feminism is still pretty ok, so how can you ignore that?

        • reply
          October 16, 2014 12:15 PM

          People who keep saying demonstrably false things and attacking people who point out the falsehoods. E.g. people who say that the number one cause of death for women is men - I mean it's not even remotely plausible and yet people keep repeating it. Here's some more http://time.com/3222543/5-feminist-myths-that-will-not-die/

          Feminist frequency would be another example - they use blatant lies and distortion to make their points, which really isn't helping their cause. There's surely plenty of actual problems to point out without having to lie.

          I have no problem with the dictionary definition of feminism, but what you see from feminists in the public eye today isn't that, and it's not even intellectually honest.

    • reply
      October 16, 2014 12:53 AM

      The fact that there are ~450 comments on a front page article just solidifies my sideline snap judgement that this whole thing is pretty much a lost cause no matter what. It's like a gun control or abortion thread. Nothing good will ever come out of it.

      • reply
        October 16, 2014 4:06 AM

        I don't think that's true at all. The conversation about it has come a hell of a long way.

      • reply
        October 16, 2014 5:24 AM

        Not even.

    • reply
      October 16, 2014 2:13 AM

      MY GOD, IT'S FULL OF STARS

    • reply
      October 16, 2014 4:46 AM

      It is pathetically sad that this is still happening. I just read where Anita Sarkeesian had to cancel her appearance at Utah State because of death threats. Insane. Why can't they go after these people for terroristic threats??

    • reply
      October 16, 2014 5:38 AM

      There is only one way this will be settled :

      Best of 5 quakeworld deathmatch on randomly chosen stock maps televised and commentated by Jerry The King Lawler live.

      • reply
        October 16, 2014 5:44 AM

        ugh, no. lawler sucks at pbp. quack and ultramantis black, thanks.

    • reply
      October 16, 2014 5:45 AM

      My one question is how do you bring up the corruption issue in journalism? If you even remotely try to people just label you into the Gamersgate camp and dismiss you instantly.

      • reply
        October 16, 2014 5:52 AM

        You don't bring it up for a few months. The world will keep spinning.

        • reply
          October 16, 2014 6:01 AM

          Yeah "corruption" in games journalism is such small potatoes at this point compared to what is going on. Reviews genuinely are not that important anymore since you can wait a day or two after a game comes out to find out if it is worth buying.

      • reply
        October 16, 2014 5:55 AM

        Leigh Alexander is a gamergator? http://leighalexander.net/list-of-ethical-concerns-in-video-games-partial/

      • reply
        October 16, 2014 6:16 AM

        Yeah it really sucks. Issues of misogyny and sexism, even if it doesn't have anything to do with videogames, get lumped into this bullshit too. We should be having an open and frank discussion about it at every opportunity. It is a major problem on the internet and just a reflection of how backward a lot of thinking is still prevalent in the world.

        It is also unfortunate that not many outlets are willing to police their own industry. A Gamespot writer hosting a publisher event for example should be something criticized widely, but outside of one blog post I saw no one talking about it. Doesn't that imply approval from game journalist at large?

      • reply
        October 16, 2014 6:28 AM

        You bring it up by talking about it like an adult. You list your evidence, provide your point of view on that, and discuss it. That's how you discuss corruption. For example, pointing out that the World of Draynor trailer was introduced by a GameSpot reviewer at an official Blizzard event and ask why that's okay.

        What you don't do is use a hashtag set up to harass females and supporters of the feminism discussion.

      • reply
        October 16, 2014 6:33 AM

        The entire article is the answer to your question.

        • reply
          October 16, 2014 6:48 AM

          The article just states the obvious. Don't use the Gamersgate hashtag/name which is a well duh. That isn't a problem at all.

          As an amusing sidenote it's funny how the same people that want you to not use Gamersgate (which I totally agree with) want you to keep using Feminism even though that swung in the complete other direction.

          • reply
            October 16, 2014 6:51 AM

            Look at this guy who understands nothing about Feminism.

          • reply
            October 16, 2014 7:02 AM

            Well then what is your problem? Lots of people have pointed out real issues without getting lumped in with gamergate. It just appears that no one truly cares, least of all the gamergate supporters who pretend to care but won't touch any of it because it doesn't fit the agenda.

          • reply
            October 16, 2014 7:29 AM

            To be clear, the suggestion isn't really as simple as "Don't use the Gamergate hashtag." It's to establish an entirely new identity as a first step, so that when you do speak up about gaming corruption or ask questions, it will be clear that you belong to that camp instead of the GamerGate one.

            Plus, several people in this thread have stated they aren't with GG and then gone on to ask perfectly valid questions that have led to good discussions.

            • reply
              October 16, 2014 7:39 AM

              As a side-note, my experience engaging with GG supporters has generally been frustrating, specifically because they don't often ask about real issues in gaming journalism because they're so focused on wild conspiracy theories. They don't seem interested in hearing us explain how or why certain aspects of our job works. That's not a discussion, it's a pillory.

              There are issues in game journalism, yes, but they're not as sexy or inflammatory as the more broad-reaching "conspiracy" narrative, so the actual problems are largely going unaddressed. If we're going to solve the problems, it's not going to be by lobbing bombs in the direction of game journalists. You have to come at the questions honestly and hear us out.

          • reply
            October 16, 2014 7:53 AM

            don't use gamersgate because it's GAMERGATE

            why does this annoy me so much

      • reply
        October 16, 2014 6:37 AM

        You don't. People are not rational, so just let the issues sit until this thing blows over then you can bring up the problems with the industry and be entirely ignored as opposed to lambasted and dismissed.

        • gmd legacy 10 years mercury mega
          reply
          October 16, 2014 6:39 AM

          As is Shacknews tradition!

          • reply
            October 16, 2014 6:40 AM

            Indeed! It warms the cockles of my cold dead heart!

    • reply
      October 16, 2014 6:01 AM

      I'm mad at myself for spending 15 min clicking through the top half of the comments in this thread.

    • reply
      October 16, 2014 6:05 AM

      This is an attack on the Freedom of Artistic Expression in the name of feminism. You want to talk about smoke-screens, open your eyes. You are willing to do whatever it takes to protect woman never thinking that maybe, just maybe, they don't need your protection and its not what this is about in the first place. But hey, what about men, are you leaping to protect men from sexism? It happens all the time but its no big deal right, enter feminism; the ugly double standard.

      This did not start when the name GamerGate was attached to it yet you lazy journalists continue to try and connect GamerGate to negativity. GamerGate has raised the funds for The Fine Young Capitalists (a team of female devs) to make their game, thats huge, why no mention of that here? I wonder. Its because you only seek to discredit this movement.

      What about the fact that 4chan was run by a supporter of this pro-extreme feminism leaning political agenda? No mention of that? He goes by the handle moot. You didn't get that far did you? This entire debacle makes me sad as a gamer because it proves one of two things about many of the journalists involved; they have no integrity and will repost what other journalists wrote without questioning it, or they lack the skills to do proper research. I come to you guys for the straight dope, the real story, when I cannot get it from you, you better believe there is a problem. When I have to do the research myself because you cannot be bothered or you cannot see the forest for the trees I see no reason to support your site with my time or my clicks (your revenue stream) in the future.

      We have been watching and cataloging for awhile; Attack on Deep Silver by RPS 2013, attack on various games by Anita & Company, Journalists & Devs profiting off of the level of control and audience they have access to through fake Indie awards, Journalists & Devs freaking out on online, some even "quitting" then returning the next week, Gamasutra's writers repeatedly making racist comments and getting people fired who did not want to tow the line. Reddit, 4chan, PC Gamer, and many more sites censoring comments and banning users simply for asking questions. Various web sites and blogs reposting articles they did not write, nor did they research. All because some mythical princess apparently needs saving. So when the Princess needs to be saved common sense is thrown to the ground, then you ride it around in front of us and then proceed to tell us why GamerGate is a bad thing and why we are apparently a bad people for having our own opinions.

      The list goes on, all you seek to do is side-step and derail. We see you for what you are. Your bookmarks will be deleted, your web site will be added to the list of the untrustworthy.



      Make no mistake; you will not dictate to me why I support GamerGate nor why we are sick and tired of corrupt journalists (such as the writer of this article) who refuse to accept that GamerGate is a legitimate cause. We do not need to change the name, misogynists are everywhere in society, if you cannot see that you are part of the problem. GamerGate is against sexism and racism, if you are a gamer; we accept you. Its you that seems to have the problem accepting us, perhaps you should be evaluating yourself.

      • reply
        October 16, 2014 6:09 AM

        YOUR BOOKMARKS WILL BE DELETED

      • reply
        October 16, 2014 6:11 AM

        I guess my first question would be. Do you work in the gaming industry in some capacity? If the answer is no then you can just ignore the outlets you find distasteful. I mean as far as reviews and stuff there are tons of demos and word of mouth and other journalists not caught up in whatever it is that you don't like. You shouldn't let things like this get you so stressed out dude, it's not good for you, just don't give them your clicks.

        • reply
          October 16, 2014 6:23 PM

          That is what I've been doing, but leaving without providing some indication to the why would be of little use to my peers here. This is some of the research I have verified myself so I do not have to rely on anyone else's distorted take:

          #GamerGate vs the SJW: A Web of Lies
          http://pastebin.com/E44gWGms

          Some people have already been programmed to think its all about men attacking woman (which this Shack article re-enforces); once they hear that they refuse to acknowledge anything else. That is the smoke-screen in action. This is why we created the #notyourshield hashtag, because we are men, woman, and transgender from all walks of life. How can people keep saying we are against woman and minorities when many of us are those things? Its ridiculous. I am not their shield, none of us want to be. So to write an article such as this is to deny those very realities. They are out-right ignoring that facet of our argument, thus anyone that sees value in GamerGate is ridiculed, stereotyped, and ostracized simply because of their affiliation they are vilified. Take note, I was censored on PC Gamer and reddit for saying the same.

          Read the comments in response to my first post here, many of them attack me, not my stance. Like it matters that I'm dyslexic so I capitalize some words. Like that has any bearing on this conversation. How I am told what I think and when I say otherwise I am called a child, a 30-ish year old child, indeed, child in my heart, don't wanna be any other way, but really see how they take it to the personal attack level when I wanna have real talk. The White Knight is ever vigilant, for what? For her, what her? Doesn't matter to him.

          I am not angry, anger doesn't fuel someone for this long, I seek answers and a proactive resolution. Changes have already taken place, many more will come before this is over, games journalism will never be the same. I am dismayed to see ShackNews standing in the way. One of the last sites I trusted. As you said I can leave, and I shall after this conversation is over. Notice how they failed to even respond to my various questions here or on twitter? So my questions are not important enough. Take notice of how so many are swayed away from the real stories and automatically go into troll, attack, or mock mode without thinking for themselves. These are human beings, so I would be foolish to expect something different. Which takes us back to a main point again, people are shitty to each-other all over, pointing at gaming and crying misogynists is disingenuous at best.

          --

          Its one thing for journalists to write about their political affiliation and work towards a collective agenda. Unfortunately its gone far passed that point. They are actively forcing developers to change their games. When the games journalists do not serve the gamers (the user) nor the devs (the creator), who do they serve?

          I will always speak out when art is being attacked, the medium does not matter. Art is the doorway into the soul, into the future, into the mind, and dreams. Art should not be manipulated by outsiders who only seek to destroy or replace it. See every banned book ever. Still don't get it? Then you need to read more, read The Painted Bird by Jerzy Kosiński to really understand. Its not an easy read so I will leave you with this from the introduction:

          "Can the imagination, any more than the boy, be held prisoner?"

      • reply
        October 16, 2014 6:14 AM

        No I'm pretty sure it's mostly an attack on women in the name of being a shithead.

      • reply
        October 16, 2014 6:26 AM

        * S H E E P L E ' D *

      • reply
        October 16, 2014 6:28 AM

        Artistic expression? What? You lost me 9 words in, bro.

      • reply
        October 16, 2014 6:30 AM

        Why you so angry?

      • reply
        October 16, 2014 8:26 AM

        SHACKNEWS DUN GOOFED

      • reply
        October 16, 2014 9:56 AM

        I love the whole "we" thing. There is no "we" you fuckers can't even stick to a consistent agenda. You are also full of shit. Because a few people want to make indie games with a socially responsible message or minority groups are saying they'd like to see more and better representation in games or that women would like to have better options when playing won't stop Bro Shooter 2015 from coming out and selling a billion copies. Go find something else to be indignant about and leave the people that want to have fun playing games and still have a conscience the fuck alone.

      • reply
        October 16, 2014 10:06 AM

        Haha this is one of the most "angry 15y/o" posts I've seen in 10 yrs. It's got all of it - proclaiming the other side is Evil without explaining why, asserting it's the voice of equality and justice without saying what they're doing for those causes, ignoring the points of the argument it would have to counter to actually plead its side in a rational and convincing way, random capitalizations of Things it's Decided are Important, raging emotions, a hand-wavey appeal to patriotism, and a Threat to take Revenge by doing something Nobody Cares About.

        This is how folks see you when people live and die for some stupid bullshit on the internet:

        You can't tell me what to think! You're NOT MY REAL DAD!!

        It's not the way to win the hearts and minds of people who have no horse in your silly game. Honestly, you should get a real cause: http://www.amnestyusa.org

    • reply
      October 16, 2014 6:05 AM

      Nice article and good stance guys.

    • gmd legacy 10 years mercury mega
      reply
      October 16, 2014 6:35 AM

      What's going on here?

    • reply
      October 17, 2014 6:19 PM

      Gamergate was irreversibly screwed the moment someone tried to add a suffix with political connotation to explain an issue in gaming journalism.

    • reply
      October 22, 2014 12:31 AM

      I like how "They're talking about killing her" only actually consists of one person MAKING A POST. That's not people talking, if this was seriously being talked about, where are the rest of the comments? So now one person posts an idiotic idea and all of gamersgate is at fault? Always the lamest excuses for why gamergate should just go away. I guarantee 99% of this stupid talk within gamersgate comes from the younger teenage gamers and not from the older adult gamers. Most of Zoe Quinn's "blowing gamergate wide open" is her taking screencaps of conversation and then adding in whatever she wants. See someone talked about hacking me, me and my best bud didn't hack ourselves.

      I also find it odd that for all the people in the world who get death threats why are these the only ones in the news? It's almost as if the people receiving the threats don't consider them real, so they go ahead and keep on talking about their death threats. You know the thing law enforcement tells you not to do when you receive death threats.

      • reply
        October 22, 2014 12:35 AM

        Another good one from Zoe was someone saying #notyourshield really taking the heat off us, thank god for whoever came up with that. And that is somehow proof that #notyourshield is all fake. Does she provide evidence of someone actually saying "hey I made #notyourshield to help deflect attention back onto x person"? Nope, just one person going thank god for #notyourshield and that's all the proof needed to know that it's 100% fake.

Hello, Meet Lola