The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Arts & Entertainment => Topic started by: The Terror on September 03, 2014, 08:33:09 PM

Title: Gamergate!
Post by: The Terror on September 03, 2014, 08:33:09 PM
So the Gamergate affair seems to be escalating, it's now getting mentioned in the Guardian and the BBC news website.

Anybody picked a side?
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost of V on September 03, 2014, 08:44:59 PM
I think it's stupid. We've known that video game journalism has been rigged for years. I don't understand why it's becoming such an issue now.

People need to stop basing their game purchases on someone else's opinion and do the research on games they are interested in themselves. Seems like that would solve a lot of problems.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 03, 2014, 09:43:29 PM
I think it's stupid. We've known that video game journalism has been rigged for years. I don't understand why it's becoming such an issue now.

People need to stop basing their game purchases on someone else's opinion and do the research on games they are interested in themselves. Seems like that would solve a lot of problems.

That has nothing to do with it.  Like, at all.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost of V on September 03, 2014, 09:47:26 PM
I think it's stupid. We've known that video game journalism has been rigged for years. I don't understand why it's becoming such an issue now.

People need to stop basing their game purchases on someone else's opinion and do the research on games they are interested in themselves. Seems like that would solve a lot of problems.

That has nothing to do with it.  Like, at all.

Yes, it does. It's the crux of the issue. The Zoe Quinn thing just pushed it to the forefront. She had a game greenlit on Steam and then slept with a bunch of journalists to get good press for her game. Happens in the business world a lot. She just so happened to cheat on her boyfriend with 5 guys, so that of course is going to be everyone's biggest focus... but the real focus is rigged journalism. The issue has a lot of people talking about rigged journalism, and gamergate is relevant to that topic completely.

What did you think this was about?  ???
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: The Terror on September 03, 2014, 09:50:17 PM
Gamergate is about many things.

This is the great flame war of our time.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 03, 2014, 10:30:23 PM
I think it's stupid. We've known that video game journalism has been rigged for years. I don't understand why it's becoming such an issue now.

People need to stop basing their game purchases on someone else's opinion and do the research on games they are interested in themselves. Seems like that would solve a lot of problems.

That has nothing to do with it.  Like, at all.

Yes, it does. It's the crux of the issue. The Zoe Quinn thing just pushed it to the forefront. She had a game greenlit on Steam and then slept with a bunch of journalists to get good press for her game. Happens in the business world a lot. She just so happened to cheat on her boyfriend with 5 guys, so that of course is going to be everyone's biggest focus... but the real focus is rigged journalism. The issue has a lot of people talking about rigged journalism, and gamergate is relevant to that topic completely.

What did you think this was about?  ???

No, it's not about that.  It's kind of a shame that it's not about that, because, as you said, rigging game scores has been going on for a very long time and definitely deserves some attention, but it really seems to be about arguments over gender and social justice issues and how they should or shouldn't be discussed in video game journalism.  From the gamers' perspective, video game websites have been censoring discussion of the Quinn incident out of fear that it's really all down to slut-shaming and they don't want to seem sexist.  The media is countering that it really is about slut-shaming and sexism and gamers need to take off their fedoras and stop being such douchebags about women and minorities.  Then the gamers object and say, hey, that's not what this is about, look at these tweets from women and respectful men showing their support for gamergate, and then the media shows other tweets that are indeed from sexist asshats, and blah blah blah.

They're both right and they're both wrong.  A lot of video game journalism sites are incredibly sensitive when it comes to talking about gender and social justice and will oftentimes ban commentators and censor discussions rather than let people talk about subjects that even tangentially relate to those issues.  However, there is a very nasty undercurrent of misogyny in the gaming culture that raises its ugly head almost any time women have anything to say about video games.  It's there, it's not going away, and it needs to be dealt with.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost of V on September 03, 2014, 10:46:18 PM
I don't think this is about misogyny either. I think that's what the journalists want you to think. The fact is: this women fucked up. She slept with people to promote her game. The misogyny charge is ridiculous, because there are several groups of people who want more female game developers. I even read that a group called The Fine Young Capitalists started a campaign awhile ago to help promote female developers, and 95% of the donations came from men. No one is against females in gaming here. Zoe Quinn did a bad thing; calling her out on it does not make anyone a misogynist. She is giving female developers a bad name. I think journalists are screaming misogyny here to cover their corrupt asses. If women cared so much about game development then become a damn video game developer. If you're going to bitch about it, why not try to change things? And no, changing things does not involve sleeping with people to promote your games.


This issue seems to be about a lot of things, but to say that it's not about journalism is just wrong. This is all about journalism, and a few other things... but it all stems from video game journalism. I didn't want to mention Zoe Quinn because I think it is irrelevant. I don't want to sit here typing about females in gaming. It's childish. I'd rather focus on the fact that a lot of video game journalism is corrupt. And really, who cares? I rarely give reviews time of day to begin with, those who do need to learn how to formulate their own opinions and interests instead of getting corrupt journalists to tell them what to do.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: The Terror on September 03, 2014, 10:55:14 PM
It's understandable that websites have been censoring discussions regarding Zoe Quinn's personal life. But the harassment campaign (with which Quinn is implicated) against the Fine Young Capitalists charity has gone totally unreported by most gaming websites, even though it shares many similarities with the widely reported campaigns against Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn. It does seem that there's some kind of cover up going on.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost of V on September 03, 2014, 11:09:35 PM
It's understandable that websites have been censoring discussions regarding Zoe Quinn's personal life. But the harassment campaign (with which Quinn is implicated) against the Fine Young Capitalists charity has gone totally unreported by most gaming websites, even though it shares many similarities with the widely reported campaigns against Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn. It does seem that there's some kind of cover up going on.

What Gamergate is about has been made so vague by video game websites/journalists that I find it hard to believe there isn't a conspiracy going on. You don't shadowban & censor without some sort of ulterior motive.

The only thing I hope this scandal achieves is showing more people how corrupt video game journalism (or maybe all journalism) is.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 03, 2014, 11:18:48 PM
With regards to the Quinn thing, it looks like there was only one video game journalist that she had an affair with, a guy from Kotaku.  And he didn't even review her game.

And here's something from TFYC about her:

http://www.thefineyoungcapitalists.com/PeaceTreaty
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost of V on September 03, 2014, 11:28:16 PM
With regards to the Quinn thing, it looks like there was only one video game journalist that she had an affair with, a guy from Kotaku.  And he didn't even review her game.

And here's something from TFYC about her:

http://www.thefineyoungcapitalists.com/PeaceTreaty

I've heard mixed things about her, all of them being rumors and speculation. I believe the original claim was 5 different journalists. If that is untrue then I take back all my statements about her.


Actually, no. I take that back. She started this shit storm. I don't believe that the claim was "she slept with the reviewer who then gave her game good reviews" but it was more so that "she slept with a journalist who promoted her game unfairly because of their relationship". Kotaku & Quinn have publicly stated that this was a personal matter, but the issue was related to them to begin with so take that with a grain of salt or whatever.

It's not like there's no evidence supporting these theories. There is a plethora of unearthed data supporting this. There is a popular video on youtube that details the evidence very well, but I won't post that here.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Lord Dave on September 03, 2014, 11:54:35 PM
This is the first I'm hearing about this.

So some woman slept with someone and cheated on her BF and she was a developer?

How is this news worthy?
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost of V on September 04, 2014, 12:09:12 AM
How is this news worthy?

Salt required. (http://talkingship.com/wp/2014/08/19/zoe-quinn-sexual-affairs-ethics/comment-page-2/)
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 04, 2014, 12:55:26 AM
How is this news worthy?

Salt required. (http://talkingship.com/wp/2014/08/19/zoe-quinn-sexual-affairs-ethics/comment-page-2/)

What's funny is that this article fits what the mainstream video game journalism have supposedly been stereotyping the gamer community as perfectly.  It glosses right over the issue of objectivity in reviews (which at least is a genuine concern) and gets straight to the slut-shaming and passing judgment on Quinn's personal life.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost of V on September 04, 2014, 12:56:36 AM
How is this news worthy?

Salt required. (http://talkingship.com/wp/2014/08/19/zoe-quinn-sexual-affairs-ethics/comment-page-2/)

What's funny is that this article fits what the mainstream video game journalism have supposedly been stereotyping the gamer community as perfectly.  It glosses right over the issue of objectivity in reviews (which at least is a genuine concern) and gets straight to the slut-shaming and passing judgment on Quinn's personal life.

No it doesn't.

I guess you missed this part:

"Update: as some Twitter followers have pointed out, the affairs haven’t technically been proven to have taken place – although Grayson has confirmed his part, Quinn has not yet commented on them. Thus the article has been updated to clarify that the scenario is still an alleged one, not a confirmed one."

The article addresses the concerns of the situation, but also makes it clear that this is conjecture and it could possibly be incorrect. And it never really slams her as a slut, it just addresses the alleged affairs with the information that has been released. There is no slut slamming, these are the kind of conclusions that the gaming journalists came to as well... and those conclusions are part of the problem. You're lampshading the issue here by claiming misogyny.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost of V on September 04, 2014, 02:12:56 AM
I just watched (skipped through) a Let's Play of Depression Quest and.... Wtf? How is this even a game? It's text with links to more text. I'm sorry, but that is not a game and Zoe Quinn is not a game developer. Very surprising that many sites have given this "game" a thumbs up.

From my understanding, a game is "a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck". Depression Quest is a webpage with links. It involves none of these things.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 04, 2014, 02:47:50 AM
Yeah, there's really nothing much to it.  And in a normal world, you'd never have heard of it or her.  It's almost as if 4chan and reddit turned this all into a big issue, isn't it?
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost of V on September 04, 2014, 02:53:51 AM
Yeah, there's really nothing much to it.  And in a normal world, you'd never have heard of it or her.  It's almost as if 4chan and reddit turned this all into a big issue, isn't it?


Yeah, this is stupid.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Vindictus on September 04, 2014, 03:14:07 AM
This is the first I'm hearing about this.

So some woman slept with someone and cheated on her BF and she was a developer?

How is this news worthy?

What's it like to live under a rock?
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Rushy on September 04, 2014, 06:19:27 AM
I haven't heard of this either and I basically live on the interwebs.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost of V on September 04, 2014, 06:22:16 AM
I haven't heard of this either and I basically live on the interwebs.

It literally popped up overnight and now you have to pick a side or be ostracized from interwebs forever.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Blanko on September 04, 2014, 08:22:45 AM
To be fair, the compete lack of coverage is kind of a key factor in this whole thing. If you don't visit 4chan, reddit or tumblr, it's understandable that you wouldn't have heard of it.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Vindictus on September 04, 2014, 09:17:56 AM
To be fair, the compete lack of coverage is kind of a key factor in this whole thing. If you don't visit 4chan, reddit or tumblr, it's understandable that you wouldn't have heard of it.

But Blanko, that's basically the entire internet.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: The Terror on September 04, 2014, 12:53:39 PM
I think there's a good summary on this site

http://gamesnosh.com/gamergate-silly-sounding-sincere-call-fair-representation-gamers-within-media/

There's a few links to articles showing the other side of the story here

http://www.critical-distance.com/


Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Rama Set on September 04, 2014, 01:25:35 PM
So basically the gaming industry has caught up to Hollywood?
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Lord Dave on September 04, 2014, 04:33:34 PM
I think there's a good summary on this site

http://gamesnosh.com/gamergate-silly-sounding-sincere-call-fair-representation-gamers-within-media/

There's a few links to articles showing the other side of the story here

http://www.critical-distance.com/

I'm even less impressed.
A woman uses sex to get her game published with good reviews.
The mainstream media calls gamers horrible people.
Gamer sites don't want to talk about how they can be manipulated.
Gamers are angry at all of the above.

I hope no one is really surprised at this.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 04, 2014, 05:13:11 PM
The funny thing is that I can't actually find any of these glowing reviews that she earned through sexing journalists.  Again, it's almost as if she's just an obscure developer that nobody had ever heard of or cared about prior to this.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Crudblud on September 04, 2014, 05:36:39 PM
The funny thing is that I can't actually find any of these glowing reviews that she earned through sexing journalists.  Again, it's almost as if she's just an obscure developer that nobody had ever heard of or cared about prior to this.
I heard of her last year when she was featured on some Giant Bomb stuff. She was a guest at their PAX 2013 panel, and I think she was one some of their regular shows that year as well. I mean, that's the only gaming site I actually look at regularly, she's probably been on a ton of others as well.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost of V on September 04, 2014, 07:23:19 PM
The funny thing is that I can't actually find any of these glowing reviews that she earned through sexing journalists.  Again, it's almost as if she's just an obscure developer that nobody had ever heard of or cared about prior to this.

She didn't exchange sex for good reviews. She exchanged sex for publicity. Her "game" was relatively unknown, normally would not have gotten anyone's attention, but now it's lauded as a "great narrative" and "top interactive game" unfairly because of her looseness. That's the accusation. Depression Quest isn't even a video game, but for some reason Kotaku and other video game outlets consider it to be such. Of course, her affairs could have been completely unrelated and strictly professional, but that's the whole point of the debate... Isn't it?
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: EnigmaZV on September 04, 2014, 07:32:52 PM
This DepressionQuest looks to be just a computerized choose your own adventure book. Books aren't games.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost of V on September 04, 2014, 07:44:42 PM
This DepressionQuest looks to be just a computerized choose your own adventure book. Books aren't games.

Anyone who can make their own AngelFire page is a game developer now.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: The Terror on September 04, 2014, 07:51:47 PM
This DepressionQuest looks to be just a computerized choose your own adventure book. Books aren't games.

Anyone who can make their own AngelFire page is a game developer now.

You also need a Patreon account, so you can get donations to sustain you while you go about creating your original masterpiece.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost of V on September 04, 2014, 07:53:31 PM
I would give you a thumbs up if I could. Just so you know.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Lord Dave on September 04, 2014, 09:51:24 PM
This DepressionQuest looks to be just a computerized choose your own adventure book. Books aren't games.
I disagree.
The old text based adventure games were basically that and they were awesome in many cases.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost of V on September 04, 2014, 09:52:35 PM
This DepressionQuest looks to be just a computerized choose your own adventure book. Books aren't games.
I disagree.
The old text based adventure games were basically that and they were awesome in many cases.

Play Depression Quest. It's pay what you want, so basically it's free.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 04, 2014, 09:57:39 PM
Oppression Quest (http://oppressionquest.com/) is much better. So edgy :-B
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 04, 2014, 09:59:51 PM
She didn't exchange sex for good reviews. She exchanged sex for publicity. Her "game" was relatively unknown, normally would not have gotten anyone's attention, but now it's lauded as a "great narrative" and "top interactive game" unfairly because of her looseness. That's the accusation.

Okay.  If there's any direct evidence to support that theory, I'd like to see it, but right now, it doesn't seem to jibe with the time frame of when she was developing the game and when she had the affair with the journalist.  Not even her ex is standing by this accusation.  And as to why the game got publicity in the first place, I think it's quite likely because of the huge wave of vitriol that she was slammed with when she first put her game onto Steam last year.  Kind of like Anita Sarkeesian's rise to fame, actually.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost of V on September 04, 2014, 10:06:00 PM
She didn't exchange sex for good reviews. She exchanged sex for publicity. Her "game" was relatively unknown, normally would not have gotten anyone's attention, but now it's lauded as a "great narrative" and "top interactive game" unfairly because of her looseness. That's the accusation.

Okay.  If there's any direct evidence to support that theory, I'd like to see it, but right now, it doesn't seem to jibe with the time frame of when she was developing the game and when she had the affair with the journalist.  Not even her ex is standing by this accusation.  And as to why the game got publicity in the first place, I think it's quite likely because of the huge wave of vitriol that she was slammed with when she first put her game onto Steam last year.  Kind of like Anita Sarkeesian's rise to fame, actually.

Even if this is completely untrue, her game is well known only because of her crusade as a victim.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 04, 2014, 10:13:13 PM
Yes, how dare she be victimized.  How selfish of her.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: fappenhosen on September 04, 2014, 10:16:06 PM
I jsut read abou this and I've decided after long deliberation, wighing up the pros and the cons the fors and the againstss that I dont care.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost of V on September 04, 2014, 10:46:25 PM
Yes, how dare she be victimized.  How selfish of her.

"I'm a slut, boo-hoo buy my game social crusade!!!"
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Lord Dave on September 04, 2014, 11:11:22 PM
This DepressionQuest looks to be just a computerized choose your own adventure book. Books aren't games.
I disagree.
The old text based adventure games were basically that and they were awesome in many cases.

Play Depression Quest. It's pay what you want, so basically it's free.

Yep, it's shit.  It's total shit.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 04, 2014, 11:33:04 PM
Yes, how dare she be victimized.  How selfish of her.

"I'm a slut, boo-hoo buy my game social crusade!!!"

#GamerGate is in good hands, I see.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Snupes on September 05, 2014, 01:28:13 AM
Goddamn, I don't get the vitriolic user reviews of that game. As someone with severe depression, I thought it was pretty accurate, and I lived the way she explicitly crossed out choices at times.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Lord Dave on September 05, 2014, 10:33:39 AM
Goddamn, I don't get the vitriolic user reviews of that game. As someone with severe depression, I thought it was pretty accurate, and I lived the way she explicitly crossed out choices at times.

Accuracy is fine, doesn't make it a game or fun.  A learning example, sure, but not a game.
Unless you consider having depression a game.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: The Terror on September 05, 2014, 11:46:54 AM
I have played and enjoyed text adventures before, but Depression Quest doesn't feel like an actual game. For me there was far too much text to read, not enough interactivity. Maybe I have a puny attention span though.

Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Snupes on September 05, 2014, 05:18:13 PM
Goddamn, I don't get the vitriolic user reviews of that game. As someone with severe depression, I thought it was pretty accurate, and I lived the way she explicitly crossed out choices at times.

Accuracy is fine, doesn't make it a game or fun.  A learning example, sure, but not a game.
Unless you consider having depression a game.
Well, fun is subjective, and clearly plenty of people have enjoyed it, so I dunno. I think "game" can be pretty vague, and it's not like anyone's really claiming it's a "video game".
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost of V on September 05, 2014, 05:46:00 PM
Goddamn, I don't get the vitriolic user reviews of that game. As someone with severe depression, I thought it was pretty accurate, and I lived the way she explicitly crossed out choices at times.

Accuracy is fine, doesn't make it a game or fun.  A learning example, sure, but not a game.
Unless you consider having depression a game.
Well, fun is subjective, and clearly plenty of people have enjoyed it, so I dunno. I think "game" can be pretty vague, and it's not like anyone's really claiming it's a "video game".

Zoe Quinn and several media outlets consider Depression Quest a game.

"a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck."

a videogame is defined as follows "a game played by electronically manipulating images produced by a computer program on a television screen or other display screen."
 
Seeing as Depression Quest does not conform to the definition of "Game", it is not a videogame. I'm glad you enjoyed it, but that doesn't make it a game. It's an interactive novel at best, but even that is stretching it. I don't consider myself playing a game when I'm browsing TVtropes or wikipedia... Depression Quest falls into the same category, for me at least. And I thought "fun" was not the objective of DQ. It's supposed to be some sort of pretentious introspective stroll down depression-lane, as if everyone experiences it the same way. I found it to be presumptuous, annoying, and poorly done. Most of the pictures seems to be taken from google images, and if they were actually photographed by Zoe Quinn herself then sorry but she's a shitty photographer.  It felt more like something a highschool teacher would make their students read for educational purposes. No fun was had.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Shmeggley on September 05, 2014, 06:55:23 PM
Yes, how dare she be victimized.  How selfish of her.

Being a victim doesn't make her a good person.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: EnigmaZV on September 05, 2014, 07:30:14 PM
This DepressionQuest looks to be just a computerized choose your own adventure book. Books aren't games.
I disagree.
The old text based adventure games were basically that and they were awesome in many cases.

I grew up in the 80s, with a C64.  I know text based games, and this was nothing like those in any respect, except that they were both text based.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 05, 2014, 08:35:20 PM
Yes, how dare she be victimized.  How selfish of her.

Being a victim doesn't make her a good person.

Irrelevant.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost of V on September 05, 2014, 08:44:23 PM
Yes, how dare she be victimized.  How selfish of her.

Being a victim doesn't make her a good person.

Irrelevant.

It's relevant when Zoe Quinn herself posts endless blogs and rants about it seemingly for publicity and derails legitimate charities. She claims that she is being victimized because she is a female, which is untrue. She's being targeted because her actions are perceived as morally reprehensible and attention-grabbing.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: rooster on September 05, 2014, 10:35:49 PM
But no one is really focusing on the interviewers and their integrity when they write good reviews just cause they got some tail.

Even if she had slept with them for good reviews, they're the ones who are ultimately selling themselves out.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 05, 2014, 10:39:22 PM
But no one is really focusing on the interviewers and their integrity when they write good reviews just cause they got some tail.
What do you mean? A large part of the fuss here is precisely people focusing on the interviewers and their integrity.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: rooster on September 05, 2014, 10:43:29 PM
But no one is really focusing on the interviewers and their integrity when they write good reviews just cause they got some tail.
What do you mean? A large part of the fuss here is precisely people focusing on the interviewers and their integrity.
Oh good.

I've been skimming. What I've mostly heard is just the backlash that Zoe is getting and not really anything about the reporters. And a lot of the posts here keep coming back to her part in all this. Even if she wanted to sleep around it wouldn't mean a thing if the reporters decided not to sell-out so her part is pretty minimal.

But carry on.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: The Terror on September 05, 2014, 10:47:23 PM
Most of the game websites and journalists are focusing on the abuse Quinn is getting, while ignoring the corruption angle.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost of V on September 05, 2014, 10:48:11 PM
But no one is really focusing on the interviewers and their integrity when they write good reviews just cause they got some tail.
What do you mean? A large part of the fuss here is precisely people focusing on the interviewers and their integrity.
Oh good.

I've been skimming. What I've mostly heard is just the backlash that Zoe is getting and not really anything about the reporters. And a lot of the posts here keep coming back to her part in all this. Even if she wanted to sleep around it wouldn't mean a thing if the reporters decided not to sell-out so her part is pretty minimal.

But carry on.

Zoe Quinn made this nonsense mainstream, so her part is far from minimal. One Kotaku reporter already admitted to the alleged affair, and people are upset about the possible implications of that.

Of course, like Saddam has stated, the evidence that she whored herself out for good publicity is all conjecture. There's a possibility she did this for publicity, considering who she slept with... but the evidence is spotty because it all comes down to "he said she said", facebook screencaps, 4chan threads, and personal testimony from an angry ex. Although the affair has been confirmed, it still could have been completely personal and not at all for publicity. Zoe Quinn's rabid defense makes people suspect her, however. She really has caused more harm than good from playing the victim and issuing youtube takedown notices, among other things.

Sorry for the string of edits, bad habit of mine.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: rooster on September 05, 2014, 10:56:19 PM
Zoe Quinn made this nonsense mainstream, so her part is far from minimal.
Nah, that was her ex-boyfriend and the raging misogynists.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost of V on September 05, 2014, 10:58:00 PM
Zoe Quinn made this nonsense mainstream, so her part is far from minimal.
Nah, that was her ex-boyfriend and the raging misogynists.

ur rite
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 05, 2014, 11:43:09 PM
It's relevant when Zoe Quinn herself posts endless blogs and rants about it seemingly for publicity

Zoe Quinn made this nonsense mainstream, so her part is far from minimal.

I'm really having difficulty understanding this argument.  Is she supposed to just shut up and take her licks or something?
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost of V on September 05, 2014, 11:59:32 PM
It's relevant when Zoe Quinn herself posts endless blogs and rants about it seemingly for publicity

Zoe Quinn made this nonsense mainstream, so her part is far from minimal.

I'm really having difficulty understanding the argument.  Is she supposed to just shut up and take her licks or something?

No, but she can't accuse the entire gaming population of misogyny just because she received a few death threats from some idiots. Males get death threats too, and you don't see many of them trying to get attention from it. Why is it such a big deal when females get bullied on the internet, but it's irrelevant when males get bullied? Most people in positions of popularity receive death threats and critical backlash from their bullshit behavior. That's what happens when you're in the limelight for a few hours, and it's very common in the internet age. "Game" developers should not be social crusaders (especially when their crusade is imagined), and that's why Zoe Quinn does not sit well with me. She used these points to garner a little army together, raise awareness for her game, and badmouth legitimate organizations (and also caused TFYC to lose a lot of money in donations because of it). Nothing positive has come from her whining.


edit* nothing positive has come from it other than personal gain
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: rooster on September 06, 2014, 12:24:11 AM
You're totally missing the point. It's not that she's getting death threats it's why she's getting them.

No one would care if she got death threats for her views or her crap game. It's because she slept with someone. How often do guys get death threats because they slept with someone? Sure they'll have an angry ex, but you won't get misandrists coming out of the wood work to attack him.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost of V on September 06, 2014, 12:33:04 AM
You're totally missing the point. It's not that she's getting death threats it's why she's getting them.

No one would care if she got death threats for her views or her crap game. It's because she slept with someone. How often do guys get death threats because they slept with someone? Sure they'll have an angry ex, but you won't get misandrists coming out of the wood work to attack him.

She's getting death threats for a plethora of reasons. If she had slept with someone other than her boss (Joshua Bruggs) and a Kotaku journalist (Nathan Grayson), the whole sex thing would be a non-issue. Unsurprisingly, most people don't care that she cheated on her BF.... it's who she cheated on him with, because it led to questions of her integrity as a "developer" and the journalistic integrity of Kotaku and the people she works for.

You're acting like she is being attacked solely because she cheated on her BF. This is not the case. No one cares about that.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: rooster on September 06, 2014, 01:14:45 AM
So if a male developer slept with a female kotaku reporter (and then the reporter didn't really say anything about his game) it would be a huge deal where we all questioned his integrity?
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost of V on September 06, 2014, 01:16:28 AM
So if a male developer slept with a female kotaku reporter (and then the reporter didn't really say anything about his game) it would be a huge deal where we all questioned his integrity?

Yes. This happens in politics all the time.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: rooster on September 06, 2014, 01:23:02 AM
That's only really news when it's about a homosexual affair.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost of V on September 06, 2014, 01:36:41 AM
That's only really news when it's about a homosexual affair.

Bill Clinton?
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: rooster on September 06, 2014, 03:42:15 AM
You're comparing a game developer to the POTUS now?
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost of V on September 06, 2014, 04:16:00 AM
You're comparing a game developer to the POTUS now?

Zoe Quinn is not a game developer.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: The Terror on September 06, 2014, 11:26:48 AM
I think if the story was just that Zoe Quinn slept with her boss and a journalist or whoever, then it would have blown over pretty quickly. There don't seem to be many reviews of Depression Quest around anyway. But there was such a massive degree of censorship on forums and websites that people started digging to find out what was going on, and started to uncover some pretty suspicious stuff.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 17, 2014, 12:38:38 AM
I am literally Vindictus:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/9711-On-Game-Journalism-Corruption
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost of V on September 17, 2014, 12:45:38 AM
I thought we were done with this? >:|
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Snupes on September 17, 2014, 12:50:23 AM
Zoe Quinn has responded. (http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-i-learned-as-internets-most-hated-person/)
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: rooster on September 17, 2014, 01:40:38 AM
 :(
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost of V on September 17, 2014, 01:57:49 AM
Zoe Quinn has responded. (http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-i-learned-as-internets-most-hated-person/)


"Hi. My name is Zoe, and I make weird video games..."

I stopped reading at this point because of the shear dishonesty of this one sentence. You don't make video games. Stop it.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Vindictus on September 17, 2014, 09:04:33 AM
George Weidman has once again produced a thought out and well reasoned video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLNZFWR0Q8M). It's fairly long (21 minutes) but worth the watch, just like all of his videos.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: The Terror on September 18, 2014, 03:21:35 PM
It looks like Gamergate is entering the endgame period. The SJWs have conducted a massive smear campaign to discredit all gamers as sexist misogynerds. All Gamergate threads are being deleted by the 4chan moderators. On the other hand the evidence of a conspiracy amongst the gaming websites is growing -

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/17/Exposed-the-secret-mailing-list-of-the-gaming-journalism-elite
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 18, 2014, 04:32:40 PM
Oh no, a journalist emailed other journalists and encouraged them to support Quinn and take a firm stand against all the abuse she's receiving!  Clearly, they ought to have remained objective and given all the harassers a fair shake too.  I can see the new, balanced, non-corrupt journalism now: "But on the other hand, maybe all the people calling Quinn a slut and telling her to die have a point.  Let's hear their side of the story..."
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Blanko on September 18, 2014, 05:03:57 PM
Oh no, a journalist emailed other journalists and encouraged them to support Quinn and take a firm stand against all the abuse she's receiving!  Clearly, they ought to have remained objective and given all the harassers a fair shake too.  I can see the new, balanced, non-corrupt journalism now: "But on the other hand, maybe all the people calling Quinn a slut and telling her to die have a point.  Let's hear their side of the story..."

Gamergate is not about abusing Zoe Quinn, so I really don't know where you're pulling this shit from. Can you for once drop the white knight act?

This is the weirdest shit about SJWs. They cry about abuse but will never hesitate to abuse people who don't fit their "agenda". Targeting a group in a smear campaign and calling everyone involved sexist pigs, douchebags, and all around pathetic people seems to be perfectly fine in their books - when really the people they should be targeting with that are few outlying individuals. And they do this shit in "professional" news pieces. That's your forefront of social justice and tolerance.

And, based on what you just said, you seem to have no issue with that whatsoever.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Snupes on September 18, 2014, 05:16:57 PM
Or maybe they're upset about all the abuse Quinn is receiving
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Blanko on September 18, 2014, 05:25:05 PM
Or maybe they're upset about all the abuse Quinn is receiving

So what? Does that justify their abusiveness?
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost of V on September 18, 2014, 05:39:07 PM
Or maybe they're upset about all the abuse Quinn is receiving

Zoe Quinn is a slut.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 18, 2014, 05:53:03 PM
So what? Does that justify their abusiveness?
Under their epistemic system, yes.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Lemon on September 18, 2014, 06:14:20 PM
Zoe Quinn seems like an utter arse. I can't see how anyone outside of disagreeable women and white knights would defend her but whatever.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 18, 2014, 06:24:45 PM
Gamergate is not about abusing Zoe Quinn, so I really don't know where you're pulling this shit from. Can you for once drop the white knight act?

I'm pulling it from the retarded article that The Terror linked.  It is entirely about the media's response to the harassment of Zoe Quinn.

Quote
This is the weirdest shit about SJWs. They cry about abuse but will never hesitate to abuse people who don't fit their "agenda". Targeting a group in a smear campaign and calling everyone involved sexist pigs, douchebags, and all around pathetic people seems to be perfectly fine in their books - when really the people they should be targeting with that are few outlying individuals. And they do this shit in "professional" news pieces. That's your forefront of social justice and tolerance.

Yes, yes, it's hard to be a gamer in the oppressive dystopia that our Tumblr overlords have set up, given the huge amount of influence and relevance they wield these days.  Stay strong, my brother.  We shall endure.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Blanko on September 18, 2014, 06:49:41 PM
Yes, yes, it's hard to be a gamer in the oppressive dystopia that our Tumblr overlords have set up, given the huge amount of influence and relevance they wield these days.  Stay strong, my brother.  We shall endure.

It's not hard to be a white woman in America either.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on September 18, 2014, 08:08:37 PM
I love how for some people 'Social Justice Warrior' has become some sort of slur.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Vindictus on September 18, 2014, 08:12:21 PM
It's not surprising given how much of a joke many of them are. The term itself is silly. Using the word 'warrior' to describe someone behind a keyboard has always been a kind of humorous insult.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: rooster on September 18, 2014, 10:14:07 PM
Yes, yes, it's hard to be a gamer in the oppressive dystopia that our Tumblr overlords have set up, given the huge amount of influence and relevance they wield these days.  Stay strong, my brother.  We shall endure.

It's not hard to be a white woman in America either.
Unless they get a stalker who wants to kill them. That's kinda hard.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Lemon on September 18, 2014, 10:24:30 PM
Yes, yes, it's hard to be a gamer in the oppressive dystopia that our Tumblr overlords have set up, given the huge amount of influence and relevance they wield these days.  Stay strong, my brother.  We shall endure.

It's not hard to be a white woman in America either.
Unless they get a stalker who wants to kill them. That's kinda hard.
That doesn't happen too often. While there are a lot of problems to be addressed, some people act like it's Saudi Arabia.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Snupes on September 18, 2014, 10:48:31 PM
Or maybe they're upset about all the abuse Quinn is receiving

So what? Does that justify their abusiveness?

Who said it does?


It's not hard to be a white woman in America either.

Uhh okay I sure hope you're speaking from experience here and not just making assumptions
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost of V on September 18, 2014, 10:50:11 PM
Or maybe they're upset about all the abuse Quinn is receiving

So what? Does that justify their abusiveness?

Who said it does?


It's not hard to be a white woman in America either.

Uhh okay I sure hope you're speaking from experience here and not just making assumptions

Are you saying that it is difficult to be a white woman in America?
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Snupes on September 19, 2014, 12:00:14 AM
It can definitely be pretty shitty.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost of V on September 19, 2014, 12:01:47 AM
Lol
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: rooster on September 19, 2014, 12:56:34 AM
I wouldn't say it's hard but it's all relative.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 19, 2014, 01:57:51 AM
I love how for some people 'Social Justice Warrior' has become some sort of slur.

Virtually everyone who uses the phrase means it as an insult.  And the fact that it is so universally accepted as a genuine insult across the Internet is strong evidence that the "no we're the real victims here" argument Blanko and the GamerGate supporters are pushing is ridiculous.

It's not surprising given how much of a joke many of them are. The term itself is silly. Using the word 'warrior' to describe someone behind a keyboard has always been a kind of humorous insult.

That's true, but when it comes to SJWs, it's the "social justice" part that seems to get mocked the most, not the "warrior" part.  On r/tumblrinaction, for example, most of the posts are basically just "lol this guy says we shouldn't make fun of fat people, what a fucking loser!" and the like.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Particle Person on September 19, 2014, 02:00:34 AM
/r/tumblrinaction is usually just as bad as the people they're mocking.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Vindictus on September 19, 2014, 02:31:20 AM
Yeah TiA can get pretty shitty. I think the silliness of the 'social justice' part is inherent enough. You're not performing any social justice by writing about imaginary grievances using made up words on Tumblr.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Vindictus on September 19, 2014, 10:46:46 AM
So, uhh, stuff has been happening on 4chan. Moot has begun removing all 'gamergate' related content, and many people seem to be losing their minds.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 19, 2014, 11:02:39 AM
I BET ZÓE SLEPT WITH M00T XD
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: The Terror on September 19, 2014, 11:03:08 AM
Moot has been assimiliated by the Sarkeesian.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Blanko on September 19, 2014, 01:19:56 PM
Uhh okay I sure hope you're speaking from experience here and not just making assumptions

I'm sorry, what I meant to say was, life is shitty for everyone.

And the fact that it is so universally accepted as a genuine insult across the Internet is strong evidence that the "no we're the real victims here" argument Blanko and the GamerGate supporters are pushing is ridiculous.

Actually, I'm not at all sure how that is evidence at all, or where you got the idea that that's my argument. Would you care to elaborate?
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 19, 2014, 05:36:14 PM
No, I wouldn't.  I'm not getting dragged into another tedious side-discussion that's going to end up being about something pedantic like my choice of words.  You know what I'm talking about, and if you honestly think that I've misinterpreted your position, then just tell me what it is that I got wrong.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost of V on September 19, 2014, 06:01:01 PM
No, I wouldn't.  I'm not getting dragged into another tedious side-discussion that's going to end up being about something pedantic like my choice of words.  You know what I'm talking about, and if you honestly think that I've misinterpreted your position, then just tell me what it is that I got wrong.

What does 'video game developing' and posting bitchy rants on your livejournal have to do with "social justice"?

Yes, you donate some of the funds for your shitty game to [insert inane charity name here], but you're ultimately detached from the entire process and still making money from it. Zoe Quinn claiming she's a "Warrior for Social Justice" is intellectually dishonest, especially when she spins the entire issue into "I'm a social justice warrior and I'm being persecuted because I'm a female"... when really that's not what is happening at all.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Blanko on September 19, 2014, 06:06:38 PM
No, I wouldn't.  I'm not getting dragged into another tedious side-discussion that's going to end up being about something pedantic like my choice of words.  You know what I'm talking about, and if you honestly think that I've misinterpreted your position, then just tell me what it is that I got wrong.

Okay... you say you don't want to elaborate on your position, but then you ask me to tell you what's wrong with it? I already told you what I want from you, and you don't want to do it. If you don't want to get involved, then stay away. It seems to me like you just want to twist whatever I say to your benefit and run with it.

Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: The Terror on September 19, 2014, 06:23:46 PM
When most of the major games websites start talking about making the gaming community more inclusive and then tell most of their core audience to fuck off because they're not wanted any more, you do start to suspect there might be some kind of social justice agenda going on.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 19, 2014, 07:38:27 PM
When most of the major games websites start talking about making the gaming community more inclusive and then tell most of their core audience to fuck off because they're not wanted any more, you do start to suspect there might be some kind of social justice agenda going on.

The major gaming websites aren't telling anyone to fuck off but the people who are involved in the harassing.  If you're taking those "the end of gamers" articles as insults, then you're not reading them very well.  And the big bad "social justice agenda" - lolwut?  What does that even mean?
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost of V on September 19, 2014, 07:41:22 PM
When most of the major games websites start talking about making the gaming community more inclusive and then tell most of their core audience to fuck off because they're not wanted any more, you do start to suspect there might be some kind of social justice agenda going on.

The major gaming websites aren't telling anyone to fuck off but the people who are involved in the harassing.  If you're taking those "the end of gamers" articles as insults, then you're not reading them very well.  And the big bad "social justice agenda" - lolwut?  What does that even mean?


Who's involved in the harassing? Please cite sources, provide screenshots, and just any evidence in general. Quinn has taken this position but rarely has evidence to back it up.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Blanko on September 19, 2014, 08:23:39 PM
When most of the major games websites start talking about making the gaming community more inclusive and then tell most of their core audience to fuck off because they're not wanted any more, you do start to suspect there might be some kind of social justice agenda going on.

The major gaming websites aren't telling anyone to fuck off but the people who are involved in the harassing.  If you're taking those "the end of gamers" articles as insults, then you're not reading them very well.  And the big bad "social justice agenda" - lolwut?  What does that even mean?

You know what he means :^)
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost of V on September 19, 2014, 08:57:00 PM
That moment when Saddam realizes that there's no proof of excessive abuse toward Quinn and other female gamers, and that he's been on the white-knight bandwagon of disinformation this whole time....

It's OK, Saddam. Happens to the best of us.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 19, 2014, 08:59:11 PM
You endorse the retarded conspiracy theories that she faked it all, then?
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Blanko on September 19, 2014, 09:03:42 PM
Jesus, Saddam. Why does everything you say have to be loaded as fuck?

Not that I agree with Vauxy or anything, but dismissing the opposing position as "retarded" without any elaboration is just shitty.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost of V on September 19, 2014, 09:04:49 PM
You endorse the retarded conspiracy theories that she faked it all, then?

No, I don't. I endorse the possibility that she exaggerated most of it, and simply misunderstood what internet stardom entails. 4chan and other sites attack everyone, not just females. She turned this into a crusade because she thought she was being singled out because she was female, when really this has been happening since Usenet to both males and females equally. She can spin it however she wants, but it's quite obvious she's just not very good at taking criticism, prone to cracking under pressure, and has a dramatic-personality. The fact that she has gone so public, orchestrated a movement, and profited from this is just another nail in the coffin.

Why aren't you defending the multitudes of people that 4chan and other communities have attacked over the years? Because they're not female? You're a fucking sexist.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 23, 2014, 04:16:13 PM
After careful consideration, I have decided to explain my thoughts on this subject in a bit more detail.

First of all, there's the argument that GamerGate isn't about misogyny, and that it's unfair for the media to keep characterizing it as such.  That's fair enough; a mere glance at Twitter will confirm that there are more than enough people voicing reasonable (if not necessarily sound) complaints to show that generalizations like that don't hold up.  However, I'm sure that for a lot of people, probably including the media, GamerGate is already permanently linked to and irreparably tainted by Quinn's harassment.  There's just no getting around the fact that this whole thing was started by a vicious, sexist harassment campaign based on charges that didn't hold up to scrutiny and would still have been pretty inconsequential even if they had.  Now, I hate to sound like I'm throwing around insincere "If I were you" concern trolling, but I have to agree that if there's any future for the movement, it's not going to be in clinging to 4chan's legacy by repeating "GamerGate!"  Insert some analogy about building a house on a rotten foundation here.

As for the arguments being made by GamerGate itself, there appear to be two main ones - that the gaming media is far too close and comfortable with the gaming industry, and that the gaming media is comprised of social justice warriors who hate gamers and are determined to create a future in which the only games we ever play are ones like Gone Home or Depression Quest.  It's funny, because saying that both of these are issues at the same time really only makes sense if you're looking at the indie game industry.  It's true that the gaming media does have a liberal/progressive bent, as most online media does, and so do a lot of indie developers, like Quinn.  The problem with concluding that the stage is therefore set for a rabidly-PC future of terrible video games is that the influence that indie developers wield is practically non-existent when compared to the mainstream video game industry.  It's these guys, the AAA developers and publishers, who are setting the trends in gamer culture, and if there's one thing that they're definitely not, it's progressive.

I could go a bit more into that if anyone disagrees, but to conclude, the media's fawning over almost every AAA title churned out directly contradicts the assertion that they have some elaborate SJW agenda to stop making our games fun or whatever.  Sure, these journalists will write an essay once in a while talking about cultural appropriation or how we need more diverse video game protagonists than "generic dark-haired white guy with stubble," but that means almost nothing when they're accompanied by endless 9/10s.  If they were really such dedicated SJWs, they'd be outright panning games like FC3 or GTA V and encouraging boycotts of them.  That would do far more for the cause than shilling for indie nobodies like Quinn.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost of V on September 23, 2014, 04:49:36 PM
I could go a bit more into that if anyone disagrees, but to conclude, the media's fawning over almost every AAA title churned out directly contradicts the assertion that they have some elaborate SJW agenda to stop making our games fun or whatever.  Sure, these journalists will write an essay once in a while talking about cultural appropriation or how we need more diverse video game protagonists than "generic dark-haired white guy with stubble," but that means almost nothing when they're accompanied by endless 9/10s.  If they were really such dedicated SJWs, they'd be outright panning games like FC3 or GTA V and encouraging boycotts of them.  That would do far more for the cause than shilling for indie nobodies like Quinn.

Who's making these accusations? This is new to me.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: rooster on September 23, 2014, 05:12:07 PM
I don't think it would hurt AAA games at all to be a bit more inclusive of female gamers.

For example, it wouldn't have to effect time period games where sexism is completely relevant to the context (RDR, Assassin's Creed) and it doesn't have to even effect games like Hitman (where you're not even supposed to shoot the strippers at all, Sarkeesian...). And the games that don't make a big deal about how progressive they are work just fine (new Tomb Raider games, Portal, even Saints Row).
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost of V on September 23, 2014, 05:19:04 PM
I don't think it would hurt AAA games at all to be a bit more inclusive of female gamers.

For example, it wouldn't have to effect time period games where sexism is completely relevant to the context (RDR, Assassin's Creed) and it doesn't have to even effect games like Hitman (where you're not even supposed to shoot the strippers at all, Sarkeesian...). And the games that don't make a big deal about how progressive they are work just fine (new Tomb Raider games, Portal, even Saints Row).

You're playing the wrong games. There are plenty of female main characters in videogames, especially Japanese ones. It's just most of them don't sell as well as your precious triple A games.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: rooster on September 23, 2014, 05:36:01 PM
I don't think it would hurt AAA games at all to be a bit more inclusive of female gamers.

For example, it wouldn't have to effect time period games where sexism is completely relevant to the context (RDR, Assassin's Creed) and it doesn't have to even effect games like Hitman (where you're not even supposed to shoot the strippers at all, Sarkeesian...). And the games that don't make a big deal about how progressive they are work just fine (new Tomb Raider games, Portal, even Saints Row).

You're playing the wrong games. There are plenty of female main characters in videogames, especially Japanese ones. It's just most of them don't sell as well as your precious triple A games.
I know a few Japanese video games that are horribly sexist, really. And why did you say my precious triple A games? I don't play any of the games I previously listed except for RDR. My favorite game is Psychonauts which is far from a triple A game. But most sexism is in triple A games and mainstream male gamers are the worst at being exclusive. You can't ever let on that you're a female if you want to play Halo or Gears of War live.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost of V on September 23, 2014, 05:39:32 PM
I know a few Japanese video games that are horribly sexist, really.

I know a few western video games that are horribly sexist too, really.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: rooster on September 23, 2014, 05:40:44 PM
I know a few Japanese video games that are horribly sexist, really.

I know a few western video games that are horribly sexist too, really.
Neat!
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost of V on September 23, 2014, 05:48:35 PM
You can't ever let on that you're a female if you want to play Halo or Gears of War live.

Have you ever tried playing multiplayer with games that aren't dominated by 12 year-olds? Of course you're going to find rampant sexism, your mom jokes, and other such things in those communities.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: EnigmaZV on September 23, 2014, 07:37:30 PM
My sister-in-law loves Halo, although why anyone would want to chat with anyone who plays these games is beyond me. She leaves the mic off, and the other players muted. Halo isn't counterstrike, there really isn't any planning going on.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Vindictus on September 23, 2014, 08:08:14 PM
Counterstrike? Voice chat there isn't as cancerous as Xbox live, but you still get colourful people like the guy who plays pokemon battle music for entire rounds.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost of V on September 23, 2014, 08:08:46 PM
Counterstrike? Voice chat there isn't as cancerous as Xbox live, but you still get colourful people like the guy who plays pokemon battle music for entire rounds.

I was one of those people. I also had various Duke Nukem quotes.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Snupes on September 23, 2014, 08:19:33 PM
Counterstrike? Voice chat there isn't as cancerous as Xbox live, but you still get colourful people like the guy who plays pokemon battle music for entire rounds.

I was one of those people. I also had various Duke Nukem quotes.
I bet you were revered for your cutting-edge, original sense of humour.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: EnigmaZV on September 23, 2014, 08:28:44 PM
Counterstrike? Voice chat there isn't as cancerous as Xbox live, but you still get colourful people like the guy who plays pokemon battle music for entire rounds.

When I used to play counterstrike, it was very important that you co-ordinated with your team, or you were almost guaranteed to lose. With Halo, it's mostly just a bunch of people running around shooting eachother.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost of V on September 23, 2014, 08:56:39 PM
Counterstrike? Voice chat there isn't as cancerous as Xbox live, but you still get colourful people like the guy who plays pokemon battle music for entire rounds.

When I used to play counterstrike, it was very important that you co-ordinated with your team, or you were almost guaranteed to lose. With Halo, it's mostly just a bunch of people running around shooting eachother.

Well, it really depends on the game mode. I spent most of my time playing gungame.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: beardo on September 23, 2014, 10:11:26 PM
This is why you only play with friends.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Vindictus on September 24, 2014, 07:57:12 PM
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-24/emma-watson-threats-actually-stunt-to-shut-down-4chan/5766882

/pol/ was right. You can't even make this shit up.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/emma-watson-naked-photo-countdown-hoax-2014-9
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Ghost of V on September 24, 2014, 08:01:27 PM
"The recent 4chan celebrity nude leaks in past 2 months have been an invasion of privacy and is also clear indication that the internet need to be censored."

Censor the internet? What a bunch of fools.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Blanko on September 24, 2014, 08:11:39 PM
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-24/emma-watson-threats-actually-stunt-to-shut-down-4chan/5766882

/pol/ was right. You can't even make this shit up.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/emma-watson-naked-photo-countdown-hoax-2014-9

/pol/ is always right.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: junker on September 24, 2014, 09:31:19 PM
Counterstrike? Voice chat there isn't as cancerous as Xbox live, but you still get colourful people like the guy who plays pokemon battle music for entire rounds.

When I used to play counterstrike, it was very important that you co-ordinated with your team, or you were almost guaranteed to lose. With Halo, it's mostly just a bunch of people running around shooting eachother.

I miss those days. 5 on 5 scrims for hours. CAL-M biotches.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 23, 2015, 10:40:21 PM
moar gamergate:

http://www.newstatesman.com/future-proof/2015/04/psa-gamergate-still-thing-online-hate-mobs-still-target-women-distressing

ethics in video game journalism

ethics people
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: junker on April 23, 2015, 11:11:53 PM

moar gamergate:

http://www.newstatesman.com/future-proof/2015/04/psa-gamergate-still-thing-online-hate-mobs-still-target-women-distressing

ethics in video game journalism

ethics people

These are your people, Sadman. Your people.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 25, 2015, 03:52:58 AM
http://www.polygon.com/2015/4/21/8449291/gamergate-hate-group-domestic-violence-congressional-briefing

And now the government is involved.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: The Terror on April 26, 2015, 02:43:11 PM
http://www.polygon.com/2015/4/21/8449291/gamergate-hate-group-domestic-violence-congressional-briefing

And now the government is involved.

I think Zoe Quinn paid for that hearing though. Anybody can speak to congress if they have the money.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 26, 2015, 03:06:38 PM
I guess "the government" gets to claim the title of Literally Who #4
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: The Terror on April 26, 2015, 03:10:41 PM
I think there were something like six Literally Whos at one point.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 26, 2015, 03:39:52 PM
I reckon there's close to 7 billion of those if we want to get technical
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Fortuna on May 28, 2015, 05:52:21 PM
If you play Gears of War, Halo, Call of Duty, or any other online  game with a volatile community, the 12 year olds there will find anything they perceive in you to be a weakness and try to exploit it. It has nothing to do with gender.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Particle Person on May 28, 2015, 06:35:45 PM
If you play Gears of War, Halo, Call of Duty, or any other online  game with a volatile community, the 12 year olds there will find anything they perceive in you to be a weakness and try to exploit it. It has nothing to do with gender.

Were you beat up by some 12 year olds recently?
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 28, 2015, 07:16:52 PM
If you play Gears of War, Halo, Call of Duty, or any other online  game with a volatile community, the 12 year olds there will find anything they perceive in you to be a weakness and try to exploit it. It has nothing to do with gender.

You must have a strange definition of "nothing."
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Fortuna on May 28, 2015, 07:39:39 PM
If you play Gears of War, Halo, Call of Duty, or any other online  game with a volatile community, the 12 year olds there will find anything they perceive in you to be a weakness and try to exploit it. It has nothing to do with gender.

You must have a strange definition of "nothing."

There's a general tendency for gamers to e-bully. But it has created a special snowflake movement for people with no backbone. I remember once I was playing Gears of War and I had apparently trounced someone so hard he sent me a voice message saying he was going to "fuck my grandmother". If you put yourself in a public space, but can't handle criticism, you shouldn't be there. If you play games online, you are going to be personally insulted. Personally, I think it's hilarious a lot of the time.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 28, 2015, 08:04:47 PM
Meanwhile, something that's actually on topic:

#GamerGate Hearing Scheduled with Dutch Media Ethics Council (http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2015/05/gamergate-hearing-scheduled-with-dutch-media-ethics-council/)

Status:
(http://i.omgomg.eu/happening)
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Rushy on May 28, 2015, 08:44:47 PM
(http://i.omgomg.eu/happening)

This is a rapey gif.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 29, 2015, 12:03:34 AM
There's a general tendency for gamers to e-bully.

If you were a journalist, that line would have been plucked out of context, arranged in a dumb image with other out-of-context quotes from journalists about gaming or gamers, and circulated around reddit or Breitbart or whatever other websites haven't washed their hands of the GiggleGoobers as evidence of the great SJW conspiracy against good old red-blooded gamers.  I know that has nothing to do with anything, but the similarities amused me.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 29, 2015, 12:23:51 AM
I know that has nothing to do with anything
At least you're self-aware. That will come in handy.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: junker on June 30, 2016, 08:49:24 PM
Does anyone else remember how wrong Saddam was about this? Oh well, he's gone now so there's no use in beating that dead horse.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: honk on July 19, 2018, 04:01:12 AM
Does anyone else remember how wrong Saddam was about this?

Actually, he was right. And several years later, video game journalism is largely the same, AAA game development is only marginally more inclusive (and considerably more douchey in terms of business practices), and people are still mad about both issues. Well done, everybody.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: AppleXiao on July 19, 2018, 01:19:11 PM
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/8232/6644
An interesting read to view the case from GamerGate members.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Rushy on July 19, 2018, 06:17:29 PM
Does anyone else remember how wrong Saddam was about this?

Actually, he was right. And several years later, video game journalism is largely the same, AAA game development is only marginally more inclusive (and considerably more douchey in terms of business practices), and people are still mad about both issues. Well done, everybody.

Actually, gamergate caused Trump to win.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: The Terror on July 20, 2018, 10:02:13 PM
What happened to Saddam?
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on July 20, 2018, 10:12:54 PM
What happened to Saddam?
He martyr'd himself in the name of Gamergate.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Fortuna on July 21, 2018, 07:27:26 AM
The SJWs suffer defeats at every turn in the gaming realm.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: The Terror on July 21, 2018, 10:09:30 AM
What happened to Saddam?
He martyr'd himself in the name of Gamergate.

Oh, I'm sorry I missed that. I imagine it was quite a moving spectacle.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 21, 2018, 01:38:19 PM
What happened to Saddam?
He ragequit forever, for reals, and then a week later he came back as honk
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Rama Set on July 21, 2018, 03:47:59 PM
What happened to Saddam?
He ragequit forever, for reals, and then a week later he came back as honk

Just like a privileged gamer, doxing someone who disagrees with you.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on July 21, 2018, 06:24:27 PM
I'm only silver league because fucking SJWs keep making games for MINORITIES and WOMEN and I, the victimized gamer, am being discriminated against.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Fortuna on July 24, 2018, 01:07:50 AM
What happened to Saddam?
He ragequit forever, for reals, and then a week later he came back as honk

Maybe you can talk to Parsifal about setting up a special sub-forum with strict rules against e-bullying so our members can discuss carefully vetted topics without worry of confrontation.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Rushy on July 24, 2018, 02:38:28 AM
Maybe you can talk to Parsifal about setting up a special sub-forum with strict rules against e-bullying so our members can discuss carefully vetted topics without worry of confrontation.

www.reddit.com/r/politics
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: junker on September 05, 2019, 08:29:47 PM
Oh hey Zoe Quinn drove a guy to suicide.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 05, 2019, 08:54:04 PM
Oh hey Zoe Quinn drove a guy to suicide.
Shocking. It's almost as if glorifying an actual supervillain was not a good idea.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: honk on September 05, 2019, 10:53:03 PM
Nobody is responsible for a suicide beyond the person who commits it. Suicide is not a rational, calculated act that stable people decide on after they sit down at a table and work through all the facts and figures like a robot and arrive at the most objectively logical conclusion. It's something that troubled, stressed people do, and to extend responsibility for the decisions of a struggling mind to others is clearly wrong. Whether the allegations against Alec Holowka were entirely true, all bitter lies, or somewhere in between (and for what it's worth, the dev team that cut ties with him considered the allegations corroborated by more people than just Quinn (https://www.reddit.com/r/NightInTheWoods/comments/cxqjp8/end_of_summer_backer_update/)), suicide was not the logical or "expected" response to his situation. Neither his career nor his life was over. He had options to pick up the pieces and move on. Instead, undoubtedly because his mind was in the state it was, he chose to kill himself. I'm not trying to drag him through the mud for this. Suicide victims deserve sympathy, and I'm of the firm opinion that people who bash them for being "selfish" or "uncaring" can go fuck themselves with a cactus. I'm only arguing that apportioning blame for causing an irrational act is wrong.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: junker on September 05, 2019, 11:11:40 PM
Nobody is responsible for a suicide beyond the person who commits it.

This is possibly the most retarded thing you have ever said. And that is quite the accomplishment.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: stack on September 05, 2019, 11:29:03 PM
Nobody is responsible for a suicide beyond the person who commits it.

This is possibly the most retarded thing you have ever said. And that is quite the accomplishment.

It's like you read "Nobody is responsible for a suicide beyond the person who commits it." And then stopped reading after that.

Literally no one is responsible for the ultimate act other than the actor though myriad outside and inside forces can lead to one wishing to commit that ultimate act.

On the surface, it seems like an ex girlfriend accused her former boyfriend of essentially illegal acts via twitter (which is weird, why not go to the police?), the accused' workmates basically agreed that he was capable of such deeds and ousted him and then he ran off an killed himself.

Lot's of folks have been through similar I imagine but didn't put the suicide coda on it. That was all him. I was reading that his sister said he suffered from bi-polar, or depression or some such, which puts him squarely into the bullseye of a suicide solution given the circumstances. But again, his final act was in his choosing, others didn't make it for him.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: junker on September 06, 2019, 12:33:42 AM
Nobody is responsible for a suicide beyond the person who commits it.

This is possibly the most retarded thing you have ever said. And that is quite the accomplishment.

It's like you read "Nobody is responsible for a suicide beyond the person who commits it." And then stopped reading after that.

Literally no one is responsible for the ultimate act other than the actor though myriad outside and inside forces can lead to one wishing to commit that ultimate act.

On the surface, it seems like an ex girlfriend accused her former boyfriend of essentially illegal acts via twitter (which is weird, why not go to the police?), the accused' workmates basically agreed that he was capable of such deeds and ousted him and then he ran off an killed himself.

Lot's of folks have been through similar I imagine but didn't put the suicide coda on it. That was all him. I was reading that his sister said he suffered from bi-polar, or depression or some such, which puts him squarely into the bullseye of a suicide solution given the circumstances. But again, his final act was in his choosing, others didn't make it for him.

Cool story.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: beardo on September 06, 2019, 01:06:53 AM
Nice argument, junker.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Rushy on September 06, 2019, 01:50:28 AM
It's like you read "Nobody is responsible for a suicide beyond the person who commits it." And then stopped reading after that.

Literally no one is responsible for the ultimate act other than the actor though myriad outside and inside forces can lead to one wishing to commit that ultimate act.

On the surface, it seems like an ex girlfriend accused her former boyfriend of essentially illegal acts via twitter (which is weird, why not go to the police?), the accused' workmates basically agreed that he was capable of such deeds and ousted him and then he ran off an killed himself.

Lot's of folks have been through similar I imagine but didn't put the suicide coda on it. That was all him. I was reading that his sister said he suffered from bi-polar, or depression or some such, which puts him squarely into the bullseye of a suicide solution given the circumstances. But again, his final act was in his choosing, others didn't make it for him.

This isn't remotely true. You can in fact push others to commit suicide and have it be your fault. The US justice system simply doesn't agree with your "suicide is only the fault of the victim" tirade.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/michelle-carter-convicted-texting-suicide-case-sentenced-15-months-jail-n789276

The idea that you can't affect the mental state of others to the point of suicide is a wholly ignorant one that I'm glad seems contained to people such as yourself and Saddam. What you do and say does in fact have a very real effect on people. If that effect is that they run and kill themselves, yes, yes it is in fact your fault and you should face some punishment for causing it.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: honk on September 06, 2019, 05:15:24 AM
It's like you read "Nobody is responsible for a suicide beyond the person who commits it." And then stopped reading after that.

Literally no one is responsible for the ultimate act other than the actor though myriad outside and inside forces can lead to one wishing to commit that ultimate act.

On the surface, it seems like an ex girlfriend accused her former boyfriend of essentially illegal acts via twitter (which is weird, why not go to the police?), the accused' workmates basically agreed that he was capable of such deeds and ousted him and then he ran off an killed himself.

Lot's of folks have been through similar I imagine but didn't put the suicide coda on it. That was all him. I was reading that his sister said he suffered from bi-polar, or depression or some such, which puts him squarely into the bullseye of a suicide solution given the circumstances. But again, his final act was in his choosing, others didn't make it for him.

This isn't remotely true. You can in fact push others to commit suicide and have it be your fault. The US justice system simply doesn't agree with your "suicide is only the fault of the victim" tirade.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/michelle-carter-convicted-texting-suicide-case-sentenced-15-months-jail-n789276

The idea that you can't affect the mental state of others to the point of suicide is a wholly ignorant one that I'm glad seems contained to people such as yourself and Saddam. What you do and say does in fact have a very real effect on people. If that effect is that they run and kill themselves, yes, yes it is in fact your fault and you should face some punishment for causing it.

This is a clumsy strawman and barely deserves a response. We're talking about moral responsibility, not causality. Causing a suicide does not make you responsible for one. If you break up with your girlfriend and she then kills herself, you have caused her suicide, but you're not responsible for it. If you fire a troublesome employee and he then kills himself, you have caused his suicide, but you're not responsible for it. If you arrest a criminal and he hangs himself in jail, you have caused his suicide, but you're not responsible for it. And while the case you're citing is certainly egregious enough for me to grant that I shouldn't really say never, that girl was convicted because she had deliberately encouraged the suicide, and most critically, demanded that he continue with his attempt when he was trying to back out of it. It wasn't for simply causing his suicide.

Also, reals>feels js
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 06, 2019, 09:07:41 AM
We're talking about moral responsibility, not causality.
Are we? All junker said was "Oh hey Zoe Quinn drove a guy to suicide." That's an implication of a causal relation, one that appears to be quite likely when you consider the evidence.

"Moral responsibility" is a bad meme - morality is entirely subjective, and I doubt ZQ will be too worried about destroying another life.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Rushy on September 06, 2019, 06:05:42 PM
This is a clumsy strawman and barely deserves a response.

After reading your post, I realized this was the title of your paragraph and not directed at me.

We're talking about moral responsibility, not causality.

What's the difference? Would you not be morally responsible for something you caused to happen?

Causing a suicide does not make you responsible for one.

It literally does.

If you break up with your girlfriend and she then kills herself, you have caused her suicide, but you're not responsible for it. If you fire a troublesome employee and he then kills himself, you have caused his suicide, but you're not responsible for it. If you arrest a criminal and he hangs himself in jail, you have caused his suicide, but you're not responsible for it. And while the case you're citing is certainly egregious enough for me to grant that I shouldn't really say never, that girl was convicted because she had deliberately encouraged the suicide, and most critically demanding that he continue with his attempt when he was trying to back out of it. It wasn't for simply causing his suicide.

Also, reals>feels js

Maybe you're not legally responsible in all those cases, but from a moral standpoint you absolutely are responsible for it in some cases. If someone you know is close to killing themselves and you don't try to aid them, then yes, your action/inaction contributed to it happening. Believe it or not we are responsible for other people's well being. Your insistence on that you can somehow emotionally and morally separate your own actions and their impact on others is disturbing to say the least.

And yes, a woman falsely accusing a man of sexual abuse leading to his suicide absolutely pins the moral blame on her.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: stack on September 06, 2019, 07:03:49 PM
And yes, a woman falsely accusing a man of sexual abuse leading to his suicide absolutely pins the moral blame on her.

Do we know it was a false accusation? And do we know that she knew such an accusation, false or otherwise, would cause him to commit suicide?
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Rushy on September 06, 2019, 08:06:41 PM
Do we know it was a false accusation?

A man is innocent until proven guilty. An accusation is false until proven to be true. It doesn't sit in a nebulous wonderland of "maybe." To expand on this, if I accuse you, right now, of sexually assaulting me, is it false? To say "well we don't know for certain, it might be true!" is a dangerous road to base our opinions on. Anyone can accuse any other person of anything at any time. It's only logical to assume that without proof, an accusation is false.

It's interesting that she pursued social attacks against this man rather than legal ones.

And do we know that she knew such an accusation, false or otherwise, would cause him to commit suicide?

Her knowledge of the result doesn't impact whether or not the result occurred. If I tell you to kill yourself and then you do, claiming I didn't know you would actually do it is irrelevant. She certainly didn't wish him any good fortune, that's for sure.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 06, 2019, 08:10:35 PM
Do we know it was a false accusation?
If we apply due process - sort of. No evidence has been presented, thus we should presume innocence. If you want for it to be viewed as a true accusation, all that's needed is some evidence.

Of course, this doesn't preclude modern woke people from abusing the everliving shit out of the accused.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: stack on September 06, 2019, 10:09:44 PM
Do we know it was a false accusation?

A man is innocent until proven guilty. An accusation is false until proven to be true. It doesn't sit in a nebulous wonderland of "maybe." To expand on this, if I accuse you, right now, of sexually assaulting me, is it false? To say "well we don't know for certain, it might be true!" is a dangerous road to base our opinions on. Anyone can accuse any other person of anything at any time. It's only logical to assume that without proof, an accusation is false.

I guess that's why I prefer the word 'alleged' to 'false' or 'true'.

It's interesting that she pursued social attacks against this man rather than legal ones.
any time. It's only logical to assume that without proof, an accusation is false.

I agree and referenced this aspect before. Why would someone throw these kinds of allegations up into the twittersphere and not go to the cops? Also, why was his studio so quick to throw him under the bus and back Quinn?

And do we know that she knew such an accusation, false or otherwise, would cause him to commit suicide?

Her knowledge of the result doesn't impact whether or not the result occurred. If I tell you to kill yourself and then you do, claiming I didn't know you would actually do it is irrelevant. She certainly didn't wish him any good fortune, that's for sure.

See, I think this is the real slippery slope. Just because you don't wish someone good fortune doesn't mean you want them dead and doesn't mean that if they decide to kill themselves you are responsible for it. Granted, I don't really know where the slope begins or ends. In this particular case, we don't know what caused him to commit suicide. Was it the allegations? Or maybe it was because 2 days later when his studio announced:

"August 28: The colleagues with whom Holowka developed his last hit game “cut ties” with him and cancel his current project after some “agonizing consideration.”

A lengthy Reddit post from his Night in the Woods coworkers emphasizes that the team is “heartbroken” but sheds little specific light. “Enough of the allegations are extremely plausible,” writes Scott Benson, adding that “the things that Alec did during the bad times were worse than we knew.”

Probably a combination of things. But to your argument, are the folks at his studio "responsible" for his suicide as well? They sided with Quinn, Scott Benson essentially stated that plain as day.

Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Rushy on September 08, 2019, 01:21:40 AM
See, I think this is the real slippery slope. Just because you don't wish someone good fortune doesn't mean you want them dead and doesn't mean that if they decide to kill themselves you are responsible for it. Granted, I don't really know where the slope begins or ends. In this particular case, we don't know what caused him to commit suicide. Was it the allegations? Or maybe it was because 2 days later when his studio announced:

"August 28: The colleagues with whom Holowka developed his last hit game “cut ties” with him and cancel his current project after some “agonizing consideration.”

A lengthy Reddit post from his Night in the Woods coworkers emphasizes that the team is “heartbroken” but sheds little specific light. “Enough of the allegations are extremely plausible,” writes Scott Benson, adding that “the things that Alec did during the bad times were worse than we knew.”

It's doubtful she went out of her way hoping he'd kill himself (but it's not entirely out of the question, either). I'm not saying she was legally responsible for his death, but to say she isn't morally responsible for it (like Saddam was saying) is just outright wrong. If you attack someone's social status you can't act surprised if it's actually effective.


Probably a combination of things. But to your argument, are the folks at his studio "responsible" for his suicide as well? They sided with Quinn, Scott Benson essentially stated that plain as day.

They are. Businesses that are firing people merely for being accused of something are morally responsible for adding to a reprehensible state of affairs. They were more interested in covering their own ass financially and PR wise than bothering to find out what the truth was. But that's not terribly surprising, companies in general are immoral entities.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: stack on September 08, 2019, 01:39:46 AM
See, I think this is the real slippery slope. Just because you don't wish someone good fortune doesn't mean you want them dead and doesn't mean that if they decide to kill themselves you are responsible for it. Granted, I don't really know where the slope begins or ends. In this particular case, we don't know what caused him to commit suicide. Was it the allegations? Or maybe it was because 2 days later when his studio announced:

"August 28: The colleagues with whom Holowka developed his last hit game “cut ties” with him and cancel his current project after some “agonizing consideration.”

A lengthy Reddit post from his Night in the Woods coworkers emphasizes that the team is “heartbroken” but sheds little specific light. “Enough of the allegations are extremely plausible,” writes Scott Benson, adding that “the things that Alec did during the bad times were worse than we knew.”

It's doubtful she went out of her way hoping he'd kill himself (but it's not entirely out of the question, either). I'm not saying she was legally responsible for his death, but to say she isn't morally responsible for it (like Saddam was saying) is just outright wrong. If you attack someone's social status you can't act surprised if it's actually effective.

You could list off a cadre of folks who committed micro/major aggressions against the guy as being morally responsible as well. I'm not sure where one draws the line on this.

Probably a combination of things. But to your argument, are the folks at his studio "responsible" for his suicide as well? They sided with Quinn, Scott Benson essentially stated that plain as day.

They are. Businesses that are firing people merely for being accused of something are morally responsible for adding to a reprehensible state of affairs. They were more interested in covering their own ass financially and PR wise than bothering to find out what the truth was. But that's not terribly surprising, companies in general are immoral entities.

I don't know, there's a bunch of history with this guy and the company and the industry, none of it is pretty. It's not as knee-jerk "firing people merely for being accused of something" kind of thing. Way more complicated than you make it out to be. Super long read, but pretty interesting. From that same Scott Benson guy. Alec's history goes way back.

https://medium.com/@bombsfall/alec-2618dc1e23e
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: honk on September 08, 2019, 03:53:46 AM
An accusation is false until proven to be true. It doesn't sit in a nebulous wonderland of "maybe." To expand on this, if I accuse you, right now, of sexually assaulting me, is it false?

It's false because it didn't happen, not simply because you can't prove it happened. Whether it happened or not is an objective fact, and the question of proof is only relevant to whether or not you can convince others that it happened. To flip your analogy around, imagine that you really are sexually assaulted, and the culprit is a smooth criminal who leaves no trace. The fact that you can't prove that he sexually assaulted you doesn't mean that it didn't happen, nor that you're lying when you then accuse him of sexually assaulting you. Likewise, if you then search around and discover proof, like a recording of the assault, that doesn't magically change your accusation from a lie to the truth. It was always true. You could make an argument for not accepting an accusation as true unless it's accompanied by reasonable evidence, of course, but that's not the same thing as automatically assuming that every unproven accusation is a lie and should be treated as such. In fact, we could turn your own logic on your statements about Quinn - you're accusing her of being a liar who drove an innocent man to his death, despite having no proof. Therefore, you must be lying.

It's doubtful she went out of her way hoping he'd kill himself (but it's not entirely out of the question, either). I'm not saying she was legally responsible for his death, but to say she isn't morally responsible for it (like Saddam was saying) is just outright wrong. If you attack someone's social status you can't act surprised if it's actually effective.

Is she morally responsible for his damaged social status and lost job, absolutely. No question. But morally responsible for the fact that he chose to respond to his situation by doing arguably the most drastic, permanent, and downright irrational thing he could have possibly done? Unless you disagree with that assessment of suicide, I don't see how you can blame a decidedly illogical event on someone via a logical cause-and-effect analysis.

Quote
They are. Businesses that are firing people merely for being accused of something are morally responsible for adding to a reprehensible state of affairs. They were more interested in covering their own ass financially and PR wise than bothering to find out what the truth was. But that's not terribly surprising, companies in general are immoral entities.

This wasn't a "company" in the sense that you're invoking, with a board of faceless douchebags in suits dismissing an anonymous peon casually and then moving on to the day's business. As the reddit post I linked to explains, Infinite Falls is a tiny dev with just a handful of people doing the work, and Holowka and two others being the main designers. Those two were the ones who made the decision to "fire" Holowka, explaining that although they had been friends and worked with him for years, they knew he had behavioral and relationship problems, and that others beyond Quinn had accused him of wrongdoing. I really don't see this small, intimate team promptly selling out a personal friend and key member of their team on the whim of a crazy lady on the Internet with seemingly nothing better to do than make wild accusations. And just looking at the financial/PR angle, showing any kind of solidarity or agreement with someone like Quinn would be every bit as controversial among the gaming community, if not more so, than standing by Holowka and risking an angry op-ed from Kotaku or Polygon.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: rooster on September 08, 2019, 10:38:40 PM
I have very mixed feelings about this.

If it wasn't true, and she ruined his image through social media - then sure, she would be morally responsible on some level.

But if it is true, isn't it more accurate to say that he's the only one responsible? He'd just be facing the natural fall out and consequences of his own actions. If people are caught the legal way doing horrible things and then commit suicide in jail (or while out on bail before trial or during the investigation), is it the legal system that drove that person to committing suicide? Or their own shame at being found out?
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: ChrisTP on September 09, 2019, 08:39:25 AM
Do we know it was a false accusation?
If we apply due process - sort of. No evidence has been presented, thus we should presume innocence. If you want for it to be viewed as a true accusation, all that's needed is some evidence.

Of course, this doesn't preclude modern woke people from abusing the everliving shit out of the accused.
This. I said from the start that people shouldn’t be using social media to accuse people of sexual abuse because it turns the public into an angry mob that have already decided the accused is guilty. No evidence, no trial. The guys career and social life were destroyed before anyone could actually know the facts. Stuff like this should be done through the legal system behind closed doors first.

The people who write up these angry blogs and tweets accusing specific individuals know what they’re doing from the start. They were out to get them. They could arguably have written the accusations toward Anonymous if their only goal was the raise awareness. The real question is (which happens to be nobodies business other than the authorities really) is why they chose to attempt to ruin the reputation of the accused? No one knows the true motives without actual evidence.

Sad times when people can do this kind of stuff through twitter.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Parsifal on September 09, 2019, 09:57:45 AM
But if it is true, isn't it more accurate to say that he's the only one responsible? He'd just be facing the natural fall out and consequences of his own actions. If people are caught the legal way doing horrible things and then commit suicide in jail (or while out on bail before trial or during the investigation), is it the legal system that drove that person to committing suicide? Or their own shame at being found out?

The important difference is that, when you get convicted with due process, you are given the opportunity to present your case to defend yourself. Even if you get convicted, you still have a voice and an opportunity to have both sides heard fairly.

There is no such opportunity with these SJW witch hunts.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: junker on September 09, 2019, 11:57:12 AM
Quinn has repeatedly shown herself to be a bully, liar, and generally trashy person (aside from the meme with Eron). Nothing she says about anyone should be assumed to be true without actual evidence.
Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: Rushy on September 10, 2019, 01:49:04 AM
It's false because it didn't happen, not simply because you can't prove it happened. Whether it happened or not is an objective fact, and the question of proof is only relevant to whether or not you can convince others that it happened. To flip your analogy around, imagine that you really are sexually assaulted, and the culprit is a smooth criminal who leaves no trace. The fact that you can't prove that he sexually assaulted you doesn't mean that it didn't happen, nor that you're lying when you then accuse him of sexually assaulting you. Likewise, if you then search around and discover proof, like a recording of the assault, that doesn't magically change your accusation from a lie to the truth. It was always true. You could make an argument for not accepting an accusation as true unless it's accompanied by reasonable evidence, of course, but that's not the same thing as automatically assuming that every unproven accusation is a lie and should be treated as such. In fact, we could turn your own logic on your statements about Quinn - you're accusing her of being a liar who drove an innocent man to his death, despite having no proof. Therefore, you must be lying.

Do you have any proof that I'm lying?

And yes, an accusation is necessarily false unless it's proven otherwise. If you can't prove something happened, it didn't happen.

Title: Re: Gamergate!
Post by: rooster on September 11, 2019, 10:52:33 PM
Quinn has repeatedly shown herself to be a bully, liar, and generally trashy person (aside from the meme with Eron). Nothing she says about anyone should be assumed to be true without actual evidence.
Fair enough, I know absolutely nothing about her other than this.