Support NeoGAF

[The Technomancer]

http://www.goodgamers.us/2014/10/31/where-have-all-the-goodgamers-gone/


The editor in chief has (probably wisely) abandoned Goodgamers.us

Don't worry, she'll still appear in things like Davis Aurini's documentary. And the good people there that love centaur rape games will continue to soldier on despite not updating the site in 2 weeks.

So they want to cover lower profile indie titles? Because I know of a text based adventure game about grappling with depression that they might want to check out

 

[MC Safety]

So when you were a games journalist you never bought games?

I did buy games. There's no conflict there.

I would argue there's a difference between buying a finished product and funding a patreon or kickstarter.

 

[Shane]

So when you were a games journalist you never bought games?

For me, after it was finished, yes. But no funding before that.

 

[partyphone]

Confluence of interest?

Game journalists should not be funding development. They should not be supporting developers or publishers.

This is journalism 101. You don't get attached to your sources, personally or economically.

As a former game journalist, I will tell you that fraternization is part of the job. You can be social and not step over the line. But providing funds for the people you are meant to cover is absolutely verboten.

isn't buying games to cover common? you can't only review games you are sent for free that would be a dereliction of duty or something. and it would make it an even easy decision for publishers to just not send out review code for shitty games so that literally no one will review the game.

For me, after it was finished, yes. But no funding before that.

but the money you pay to the publisher will go towards making games in the future. just because patreon orders things differently it's suddenly unethical? i call bullshit.

 

[MC Safety]

isn't buying games to cover common? you can't only review games you are sent for free that would be a dereliction of duty or something. and it would make it an even easy decision for publishers to just not send out review code for shitty games so that literally no one will review the game.

Sure. We had to buy games sometimes.

 

[The Technomancer]

For me, after it was finished, yes. But no funding before that.

But like, how does the causality work there? If youre not allowed to help fund it that retroactively makes you not interested in it?

 

[partyphone]

Sure. We had to buy games sometimes.

that seems pretty unethical, imo. directly supporting a publisher like that.

 

[robovanburen]

I did buy games. There's no conflict there.

I would argue there's a difference between buying a finished product and funding a patreon or kickstarter.

If someone's sinking large amounts of money to fund a project or a specific writer, that seems like a conflict of interest. However, I'd also say that paying $15 for Kickstarter to get a copy of the game AND access to some advance test that can be used for coverage is harmless. In that case, you're essentially just pre-ordering a game.

 

[MC Safety]

that seems pretty unethical, imo. directly supporting a publisher like that.

Nope.

I'll quote New York University's guide to conflicts of interest for journalists:

Free tickets: While some publications, like The New York Times, prohibit their reporters from accepting free tickets to a performance they are writing about or reviewing, most others allow staff writers and freelancers to procure press passes to movie screenings, concerts and theatrical productions. The policy in the Department of Journalism is: A student can accept free passes to an event she is covering as part of or preparation for a story, but should not take a free ticket to another event beyond the one being reviewed, written about, or used as background material. The same goes for review copies of books, compact discs, DVDs and access to subscription-only web sites.


Investments (stock, bonds, venture capital): Journalists must avoid all financial entanglements (stock ownership, financial transactions, etc.) with the people and companies they cover.
10

Political and charitable donations: If a reporter donates to a politician running for office (say, the mayor) he shouldn't also cover the election -- that includes not only the mayor but also her opponents. Be forewarned: If you donate money to a politically active organization (Planned Parenthood or the National Rifle Association) your objectivity may be called into question if you write about issues of interest to these organizations.

These are pretty solid guidelines, and I've tried to follow them. Journalism requires people to do active research and this requires fraternization. But some distance serves to keep things honest.

 

[CambriaRising]

pakman shilling his patreon and gamergaters are conflicted

https://twitter.com/davidpakmanshow/status/528577755039141888

This dude seems super slimy.

 

[Lalalandia]

I did buy games. There's no conflict there.

I would argue there's a difference between buying a finished product and funding a patreon or kickstarter.

I would disagree on the basis that the end result is developer/publisher is paid. I do believe in disclosure but I regard patronage as being on a different level than say having an equity stake in the product or company.

Patronage offers no revenue stream to the patron (at least in the Patreon model), equity stakes in a company rise or fall in value based on product performance and may even directly pay out in the event of dividends. So patronage offers no avenue for a patron to financially benefit from any coverage they offer this leaves moral or social factors.

As you note it is essential to have some level of relationship with a dev to get access and to offer the kind of coverage that the audience demands. This always brings the risk of 'I like person X, I hope product Y is successful' a risk that is ever present in any form of product based journalism. In my opinion the like of Patreon actually reduces the risk of 'going soft' as a journalist knows that the person will enjoy a base level of income regardless of the success of any one product i.e. 'I know Product Y is crappy but the Patreon is doing well enough that they can soldier on'.

Again I agree with the principle of disclosure, I don't discount theatre reviews because the theatre reviewer is a member of the 'Friends of...' society but I expect that to e disclosed up front.

These are pretty solid guidelines, and I've tried to follow them. Journalism requires people to do active research and this requires fraternization. But some distance serves to keep things honest.

I may have mistaken your first post on this then, it appeared more absolutist to me than this position. I would love to be able to have these conversations again without goddam GG being in the mix

 

[aeolist]

I did buy games. There's no conflict there.

I would argue there's a difference between buying a finished product and funding a patreon or kickstarter.

i would argue differently, but even if there were a distinction to be made it is incredibly minor and nitpicky. for lots of these really small indies paying into the patreon is the only way to get their games.

 

[partyphone]

I was being sarcastic. I fail to see how patreon violates those guidelines.

 

[Orayn]

Pretty sure partyphone was just snarking about GGers who suggest that spending any amount of your own money on something you're covering makes you unable to give an unbiased opinion, while simultaneously ignoring the potential dilemmas on the other side.

Supporting someone on Patreon is a bit different than reviewing a game that you bought yourself, but I don't think it's necessarily a slam dunk for it being completely unethical.

 

[Karkador]

that seems pretty unethical, imo. directly supporting a publisher like that.

Being sent a game for free from the publisher can also be construed as a breach of ethics (especially when publishers threaten to stop sending games if the reviews are bad), and a weird disconnect between the paying audience and the reviewer.

(It appears I'm beating a dead horse)

 

[aeolist]

Nope.

I'll quote New York University's guide to conflicts of interest for journalists:

Free tickets: While some publications, like The New York Times, prohibit their reporters from accepting free tickets to a performance they are writing about or reviewing, most others allow staff writers and freelancers to procure press passes to movie screenings, concerts and theatrical productions. The policy in the Department of Journalism is: A student can accept free passes to an event she is covering as part of or preparation for a story, but should not take a free ticket to another event beyond the one being reviewed, written about, or used as background material. The same goes for review copies of books, compact discs, DVDs and access to subscription-only web sites.


Investments (stock, bonds, venture capital): Journalists must avoid all financial entanglements (stock ownership, financial transactions, etc.) with the people and companies they cover.
10

Political and charitable donations: If a reporter donates to a politician running for office (say, the mayor) he shouldn't also cover the election -- that includes not only the mayor but also her opponents. Be forewarned: If you donate money to a politically active organization (Planned Parenthood or the National Rifle Association) your objectivity may be called into question if you write about issues of interest to these organizations.

These are pretty solid guidelines, and I've tried to follow them. Journalism requires people to do active research and this requires fraternization. But some distance serves to keep things honest.

but that's saying you SHOULDN'T take free stuff and should pay for it yourself when possible

that is the opposite of prohibiting patreon funding

 

[partyphone]

Being sent a game for free from the publisher can also be construed as a breach of ethics (especially when publishers threaten to stop sending games if the reviews are bad), and a weird disconnect between the paying audience and the reviewer

uhhh. Why would a huge corporation want to tarnish their reputation like that? it's pretty clear that small indie devs with little money and no influence have no reputation to tarnish and will breach any ethical barrier in order to get ahead in life.

 

[Karkador]

uhhh. Why would a huge corporation want to tarnish their reputation like that? it's pretty clear that small indie devs with little money and no influence have no reputation to tarnish and will breach any ethical barrier in order to get ahead in life.

Punk Rock's Not Dead

 

[Neoriceisgood]

His past work aligns with a lot of causes I sympathise with but it's hard to see the actual evidence in the whole GG/Quinnspiracy and think 'there's a media story here' that isn't 'Why the hell did it take death threats at USU to get the largest games media outlets to condemn this?' then I have to ask why? Perhaps he is just too into that juvenile 'Lame Stream Media' narrative that he sees everything through that lens but again that speaks pretty poorly of the man.

There's a few things:

1. The dude's incredibly defensive when a guest (e.g. Brianna) points out that his questions make them feel uncomfortable/feel like attacks/a hit piece.

The interview with Brianna made it very apparent to me that she was barely if at all informed that David would just be asking her about a bunch of GG accusations he barely understood himself.

2. The questions he asked Brianna felt ... literally like a question list composed by GG. I get that "hard hitting questions" are his thing, but reciting conspiratorial talking points (some of which he didn't seem to really ... grasp?) to a harassment villain
is just not a good idea. And it's clear he didn't grasp this at all.

3. He seems completely oblivious that:

a. Anti-GG just wants the harassment and bullshit to stop. The only reason they care to be interviewed about "GG" is usually: "Please stop internet harassment, don't bully".

b. GG supporters desperately want media attention, and almost all of them are extremely willing to engage with him to throw in talking points.

Gving equal time & being "equally hard on"-both sides while proudly proclaiming how neutral you are in an evidently unequal situation will naturally favor the side desiring exposure of talking points.

--

The issue is that Pakman is going into this whole mess under the guise of "I'm neutral mcneutral" and thinking everyone should appreciate him equally for that.

 

[aeolist]

the part about investments doesn't apply because patreon funders aren't investors and don't stand to benefit if the developer is a big success

the part about political/charitable donations doesn't apply because you are funding game development and that is a different thing

basically try not to accept free things but paying into patreon funds to get indie games is unethical because ???

 

[L Thammy]

Saw a few posts from claiming that Vivian James's colour scheme is based off of a rape meme. Sorry to bring this up again - and way late - but that isn't true. Doesn't matter what Knowyourmeme says.

I don't know if she's based off the Piccolo Dick image, but GIF is never posted with any sort of context. It's just a tiny looping animation with nothing to tell us that there is or isn't consent involved. 4chan is not usually subtle about their rape memes (e.g. YOU GONNA GET RAPED). Most users probably haven't gone to the creator's HentaiFoundry account to see what the tags on the image were. They just post it to shock people.

Not trying to say that you shouldn't mock the things Gamergate comes up with. Hell, I actively encourage you to. But you should at least mock them for the things they actually do. Vivian James and her Neo-Nazi sister are ridiculous enough without us having to distort them.

...Also, Namekians are sexless. Piccolo doesn't have a dick. Gators don't know shit about canon. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

 

[Mman235]

http://www.goodgamers.us/2014/10/31/where-have-all-the-goodgamers-gone/

From comments:

Isn't a problem with most gaming sites nowadays is that they are colluding with Indie devs?

I know I shouldn't be surprised at this point but *facepalm*

 

[partyphone]

Saw a few posts from claiming that Vivian James's colour scheme is based off of a rape meme. Sorry to bring this up again - and way late - but that isn't true. Doesn't matter what Knowyourmeme says.

I don't know if she's based off the Piccolo Dick image, but GIF is never posted with any sort of context. It's just a tiny looping animation with nothing to tell us that there is or isn't consent involved. 4chan is not usually subtle about their rape memes (e.g. YOU GONNA GET RAPED). Most users probably haven't gone to the creator's HentaiFoundry account to see what the tags on the image were. They just post it to shock people.

Not trying to say that you shouldn't mock the things Gamergate comes up with. Hell, I actively encourage you to. But you should at least mock them for the things they actually do. Vivian James and her Neo-Nazi sister are ridiculous enough without us having to distort them.

...Also, Namekians are sexless. Piccolo doesn't have a dick. Gators don't know shit about canon. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

this seems like the sort of ambiguity they get off on. when you say it's rape they can go "no it's clearly consensual it's not our fault you see rape everywhere". but this just leads us into a circular argument so whatever.

she's still a shitty and creepy sockpuppet.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

On that note: I actually find Pakman's interviews interesting, aside from the fact that there's absolutely no way for the audience to know if what anyone is saying is true.

(several people have made "factual claims" and there's just no way, based on the interview alone, to verify them.)

I think that on a personal relations-level he's really screwing up here though.

 

[L Thammy]

this seems like the sort of ambiguity they get off on. when you say it's rape they can go "no it's clearly consensual it's not our fault you see rape everywhere". but this just leads us into a circular argument so whatever.

she's still a shitty and creepy sockpuppet.

See, now we're getting into baseless accusations territory. It's an image posted without context on a message board, and there's nothing on the image itself that suggests rape, unless you think that men can't have consent sex or something. Nobody even says that it's rape. How is it a rape meme?

Yes, she's a creepy and shitty sockpuppet. And Gamergaters treat her like she's a real person. And now /pol/ has a Neo-Nazi clone of her. Make fun of that.

 

[Lalalandia]

There's a few things:

1. The dude's incredibly defensive when a guest (e.g. Brianna) points out that his questions make them feel uncomfortable/feel like attacks/a hit piece.

The interview with Brianna made it very aparent to me that she was barely if at all informed that David would just be asking her about a bunch of GG accusations he barely understood himself.

2. The questions he asked Brianna felt ... literally like a question list composed by GG. I get that "hard hitting questions" are his thing, but reciting conspiratorial talking points (some of which he didn't seem to really ... grasp?) to a harassment villain
is just not a good idea. And it's clear he didn't grasp this at all.

3. He seems completely oblivious that:

a. Anti-GG just wants the harassment and bullshit to stop. The only reason they care to be interviewed about "GG" is usually: "Please stop internet harassment, don't bully".

b. GG supporters desperately want media attention, and almost all of them are extremely willing to engage with him to throw in talking points.

Gving equal time & being "equally hard on"-both sides while proudly proclaiming how neutral you are in an evidently unequal situation will naturally favor the side desiring exposure of talking points.

--

The issue is that Pakman is going into this whole mess under the guise of "I'm neutral mcneutral" and thinking everyone should appreciate him equally for that.

Couldn't agree more it seemed like an interview version of that awful '(Male) Game devs on GG' article on The Escapist. Hence my suspicions of opportunism, he seemed to have done no research yet was sure in his views and the questions really seemed as if they were all sourced from KiA. If you are a journalist you research shit, you don't see which way the wind is blowing via Twitter and repeat that with a sprig of self righteousness.

 

[Dr_LucienSanchez]

I'm probably extremely late to this, but I'm quite happy that the Sarkeesian Effect Patreon seems to have lost a bit of funding. Mind you, it's still horrible that it's getting over $7k, but last I saw it was much closer to $10k. Maybe that hilarious measured response helped.

 

[MC Safety]

but that's saying you SHOULDN'T take free stuff and should pay for it yourself when possible

that is the opposite of prohibiting patreon funding

You missed the part about financial entanglements and charitable donations.

 

[partyphone]

You missed the part about financial entanglements and charitable donations.

no he didn't. patreon isn't a charity and it's not an investment. it's explicitly for the profit of the artist and there's no return on investment.

 

[aeolist]

You missed the part about financial entanglements and charitable donations.

the part about investments doesn't apply because patreon funders aren't investors and don't stand to benefit if the developer is a big success

the part about political/charitable donations doesn't apply because you are funding game development and that is a different thing

basically try not to accept free things but paying into patreon funds to get indie games is unethical because ???

if you define "financial entanglements" as "paying for things" then you're on the road to crazy town and i don't know what to tell you

it's not a charitable donation if the point of the patreon is to fund development and get the products the dev produces. i would agree that a writer should not donate to a developer's patreon if the point of the fund has nothing to do with their games, but i don't think that's happened.

 

[Costia]

You missed the part about financial entanglements and charitable donations.

I think a lot of people here are talking about the case when donating money via kickstarter/patreon is the only way to get a copy of the game on release, in which case it is the same as buying/pre-ordering. What you seem to talk about is case where the writer decides to donate money as a personal decision to support the dev.

 

[partyphone]

I think a lot of people here are talking about the case when donating money via kickstarter/patreon is the only way to get a copy of the game on release, in which case it is the same as buying/pre-ordering. What you seem to talk about is case where the writer decides to donate money as a personal decision to support the dev.

even in that case i don't think there's really any problem? you're still getting access to subscriber only content.

like, what is the specific ethical concern here?

 

[MC Safety]

I think a lot of people here are talking about the case when donating money via kickstarter/patreon is the only way to get a copy of the game on release, in which case it is the same as buying/pre-ordering. What you seem to talk about is case where the writer decides to donate money as a personal decision to support the dev.

It is a demonstration of personal support because, as we all know, the thing you support may never come to fruition.

I'm comfortable defining the ethics of game journalism in a different way than you.

 

[lotsofotherstuff]

I was listening to the Sargon of Akkad Full BBC Interview (or tried to listen to it, it was pretty hard to get a coherent thought out of that) and I come out with a question that I can't answer.
What is a member of GamerGate? He keeps saying that none of the harrasment is coming from members of GamerGate, but what IS a member of GamerGate?

Is it just those that you say is members? If so then who has the say on who are in or out?
Is it anyone who feels that they belong? If so its very possible that the harrasment came from GamerGate.
Is it those that use "#GamerGate"? If so then its defiantly been used during harassment.

Maybe this is a question without a answer, but I really wonder. Cause it feels like a member of GamerGate is everyone and noone.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

even in that case i don't think there's really any problem? you're still getting access to subscriber only content.

like, what is the specific ethical concern here?

Maybe you'd understand a bit better if I drew a big red arrow between a journalist and patreon.

What is a member of GamerGate? He keeps saying that none of the harrasment is coming from members of GamerGate, but what IS a member of GamerGate?

Someone is only a member when they're pro ethics and do not send death threats.

At any point they do something unethical or commit harassment they are, at that moment in time, not a member.

Once they have ceased that action though, and switch back into ethics mode, they're a member.

 

[L Thammy]

What happens if there's some kind of scandal between all of the big grocery stores? Will all of the journalists that bought food at some point be unable to report it?

 

[partyphone]

It is a demonstration of personal support because, as we all know, the thing you support may never come to fruition.

I'm comfortable defining the ethics of game journalism in a different way than you.

why can't a journalist support something? that seems like a weird limit to put on something.

 

[aeolist]

It is a demonstration of personal support because, as we all know, the thing you support may never come to fruition.

I'm comfortable defining the ethics of game journalism in a different way than you.

so never pre-order, buy early access, or contribute to a crowd-funded project?

none of that makes sense to me. reviewers are fans of games. if a reviewer thinks highly enough of a project/developer/genre to put money toward its development that is simply a reinforcement of their positive opinion. if they're prohibited from doing any of that they're still going to say the same shit.

 

[aeolist]

and like i said even if you define these things as being different from just paying for a retail product (which i don't) then you're still REALLY nit-picking something minor

it's the same idiotic pattern ggers have shown all along. they don't care about ethics, they just have specific people they hate and will dig up anything they think might cast aspersions on them. none of them give any kind of a shit about patreon.

 

[Messofanego]

why can't a journalist support something? that seems like a weird limit to put on something.

Because of the implication...

 

[FrankerZ]

What's the general consensus on Thunderf00t's videos, specifically his "Feminism vs Facts" video? Do people actually support Anita because after watching these videos and the generally unbiased rebuttals made against her claims I find it hard for anyone to be serious in that regard

P.S. I'm not too sure if this is related to the GamerGate issue but I know it's connected to the feminism aspect

EDIT: By "unbiased" i mean primarily the points brought up in the "Feminism vs Facts (Re Damsels in Distress)" video

 

[partyphone]

Because of the implication...

the implication that you like something? oh no.

if you give money to a patreon and then give the content of the artist a positive review then other people might give money and then the artist you like can produce even more content.

yeah i can see how this is bad and awful.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

What's the general consensus on Thunderf00t's videos, specifically his "Feminism vs Facts" video? Do people actually support Anita because after watching these videos and the generally unbiased rebuttals made against her claims I find it hard for anyone to be serious in that regard

P.S. I'm not too sure if this is related to the GamerGate issue but I know it's connected to the feminism aspect

Thunderf00t unbiased on feminism lol.

 

[partyphone]

What's the general consensus on Thunderf00t's videos, specifically his "Feminism vs Facts" video? Do people actually support Anita because after watching these videos and the generally unbiased rebuttals made against her claims I find it hard for anyone to be serious in that regard

P.S. I'm not too sure if this is related to the GamerGate issue but I know it's connected to the feminism aspect

those videos are awful and aren't intended to change anyone's mind. they're about throwing chum to sexist idiots.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

What's the general consensus on Thunderf00t's videos, specifically his "Feminism vs Facts" video? Do people actually support Anita because after watching these videos and the generally unbiased rebuttals made against her claims I find it hard for anyone to be serious in that regard

P.S. I'm not too sure if this is related to the GamerGate issue but I know it's connected to the feminism aspect

Can you elaborate on what specific points make her unsupportable?

 

[Mman235]

What's the general consensus on Thunderf00t's videos, specifically his "Feminism vs Facts" video? Do people actually support Anita because after watching these videos and the generally unbiased rebuttals made against her claims I find it hard for anyone to be serious in that regard

P.S. I'm not too sure if this is related to the GamerGate issue but I know it's connected to the feminism aspect

No.

A commentary on a Feminist video by an MRA type is inherently extremely biased.

 

[Corpekata]

Thunderf00t also alleges Anita had his twitter suspended and fakes all her threats. Maybe not the best source in the world.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

What's the general consensus on Thunderf00t's videos, specifically his "Feminism vs Facts" video? Do people actually support Anita because after watching these videos and the generally unbiased rebuttals made against her claims I find it hard for anyone to be serious in that regard

P.S. I'm not too sure if this is related to the GamerGate issue but I know it's connected to the feminism aspect

I haven't watched all his video on the topic but I think he is way to emotional about all this.
While he has many good points he also acts like an ignorant prick and goes full retard every now and then, for example when he speculates about how Anita Sarkeesian uses her death threats for publicity or even sent them to herself etc.

His videos are far from unbiased. He is boarderline obsessed with her. Just look at all the videos he made, its ridiculous.

 

[Lalalandia]

What's the general consensus on Thunderf00t's videos, specifically his "Feminism vs Facts" video? Do people actually support Anita because after watching these videos and the generally unbiased rebuttals made against her claims I find it hard for anyone to be serious in that regard

P.S. I'm not too sure if this is related to the GamerGate issue but I know it's connected to the feminism aspect

No we're not discussing that except as it comes up in relation to GG (because that is what GG actually is about).

Read the OT and post #5 in particular to bring yourself up to speed on GG.

Have you watched AS videos or just the hate filled response rants from the likes of IA?

IA is a fucking creepy asshole who uses all of the shittiest tricks in the Big Book of Fallacies to make AS look bad. In truth her videos are amongst the most balanced feminist critique I've come across. She has never called for a ban on games or topics within games Seeing as so much of that guys criticism is fighting that straw man I want to affirm that she even explicitly states in her videos that it's OK to enjoy problematic media. I would add just don't lie to yourself that it's not problematic while doing it.

 

[FrankerZ]

Can you elaborate on what specific points make her unsupportable?

She strongly believes that men and women are naturally equal even though we live in a world with sexual dimorphism and it's well recorded findings but ignores these and would call it sexist myths.

Her idea that (adlibbing) half of all the suspected "good female characters" are infact sexist because they're just masquerading as men and don't follow her very strict 4 good feminine traits of which "self-controlling", "strong", and "rational" among others are not a part of.

Her ability to view anything that can vaguely be viewed as sexist to be such even if there's much more evidence supporting not sexism. Double Dragon Neon for example, a woman is outnumbered and sucker punched then abducted by men then her boyfriend and his friend go out to get her back because they love her. Then at the end, the girlfriend delivers the final blow to the big bad with a strong punch right to the reproductive organs... but apparently this all just objectifies women.

Her definition of "objectifying" and how by it, hospitals are just "objectifying centers" because any attempt to help or save is acting upon another like an object.

I mean, I've seen internet trolls with more sound logic.