ratcliffja
Member
Yeah the GG movement is pretty corrupt, I agree.They exposed a lot of widespread corruption. Those in power don't like that.
Yeah the GG movement is pretty corrupt, I agree.They exposed a lot of widespread corruption. Those in power don't like that.
They exposed a lot of widespread corruption. Those in power don't like that.
what is gamergate and why is everyone acting like it's the second coming of osama bin hitler
The Open Gaming Society, which is run by the moderator of the pro-GG panel, released "The Doctrine of Gaming"
http://www.theopengamingsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/the-doctrine-of-gaming-4-0.pdf
smh
https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=from:@PixelMetal+@TheQuinnspiracy&src=typdthe above pdf said:Section 2. Inexcusable Actions
These actions are deemed deplorable and shall not be excused or protected:
1. Stalking an individual.
2. Harassing an individual or group.
3. Releasing personal information.
Those asking for citation. Deepfreeze. It
Those asking for citation. Deepfreeze. It
https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=from:@PixelMetal+@TheQuinnspiracy&src=typd
https://twitter.com/srhbutts/status/658837044362387457
It's always like this with these Gamergate aligned sites. Or, you know, Gamergate in general.
Those asking for citation. Deepfreeze. It
Those asking for citation. Deepfreeze. It
What does the veracity of information has to do with free speech?? You can say all the shit you what, that doesn't make it automatically true.As defensive as some of you guys are getting with this one would think some of you can't deal with dissenting opinions about the state of games media. Isn't that what free speech in an open forum is about?
People are free to say whatever they want, as long as it doesn't go against their interests/tastesAs defensive as some of you guys are getting with this one would think some of you can't deal with dissenting opinions about the state of games media. Isn't that what free speech in an open forum is about?
the gamergate run site that totally isn't biased at all? are you for real? this is a work, isn't it?
As defensive as some of you guys are getting with this one would think some of you can't deal with dissenting opinions about the state of games media. Isn't that what free speech in an open forum is about?
As defensive as some of you guys are getting with this one would think some of you can't deal with dissenting opinions about the state of games media. Isn't that what free speech in an open forum is about?
As defensive as some of you guys are getting with this one would think some of you can't deal with dissenting opinions about the state of games media. Isn't that what free speech in an open forum is about?
As defensive as some of you guys are getting with this one would think some of you can't deal with dissenting opinions about the state of games media. Isn't that what free speech in an open forum is about?
They exposed a lot of widespread corruption. Those in power don't like that.
And what sites would you consider unbiased? The ones being called out? I'm sure they would be happy to give honest criticism of themselves and hold themselves accountable.
And what sites would you consider unbiased? The ones being called out? I'm sure they would be happy to give honest criticism of themselves and hold themselves accountable.
According to [Perry] Jones, an SXSW representative called him on the phone and said that they had wanted to do something interesting that hadnt really been done before by hosting both of these panels on the schedule. However, wrote Jones, SXSW feels that both the organization and its staff have been under siege from all sides and from all parties since they announced the panels early this month. They want to encourage open discussions, but they dont want to fuel a vicious online war between two sides who are extremely opposed to one another.
So this is one of the first things I looked at on there:
Yes, the corruption is real.
Here's another random link on Leigh Alexander's page. Proof of her "harrassment" of Ken Levine.
What the fuck is this, even. A bunch of petty bullshit.
Oh, look, she admitted to writing about people she likes. What, she's supposed to be a fucking PR feed? Are you serious?
You need to already be fully into the GG rabbit hole to even take this nonsense seriously.
If you are going to threaten in any way violence or death, at some point you should realize your cause is not exactly just.
nah it makes sense, cause randi harper is personally responsible for the actions of everyone who doesn't like gamergateoh good both sides nonsense. fuck these assholes.
They exposed a lot of widespread corruption. Those in power don't like that.
There's a reason for this.So GG doesn't have a leader or organizational structure, but they have group opinions? How convenient.
And there it is. Never anyone to actually be held accountable when no one "leads" where the members are complete cowards and pathetically hide in grey web anonymous forums. It's so desperately vague a threat that SXSW made zero effort to stand up for themselves. They didn't consider it worth the effort because they would face more and more intimidation.If you are going to threaten in any way violence or death, at some point you should realize your cause is not exactly just.
I don't really blame SXSW for not wanting a part of any of this.
GG is a cesspool, and I don't blame SXSW of having just walked away from at all.. it's not even the best venue for that kind of discussion as is.
I don't really blame SXSW for not wanting a part of any of this.
GG is a cesspool, and I don't blame SXSW of having just walked away from at all.. it's not even the best venue for that kind of discussion as is.
According to the account above, they actively courted it and then stepped away when it got hot
And while she thinks my intentions are good, she thinks that in most cases when guys claim they are feminists, they are doing so to make themselves appealing to women.
And I think that's the crux of her argument, which is how can I be against it if I've never faced it?
I don't understand why GG-ers who oppose the harassment don't create a new group or actually speak out against their harassing minority. It's either naivete about being able to turn public opinion about the group and what it stands for or it's just plausible deniability. It's easy to hide behind an anonymous group that doesn't have a leader because you can say no one is organizing it.
The Open Gaming Society, which is run by the moderator of the pro-GG panel, released "The Doctrine of Gaming"
http://www.theopengamingsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/the-doctrine-of-gaming-4-0.pdf
smh
Arthur Chu has a piece showcasing SXSW's process going back to the panel submission process.
Just shows how irresponsible SXSW has been through the whole ordeal.
A Gaming Court?
Are they talking about an "internet court" or a real legit court?
Gaming is not a religion. It is a hobby.
I knooooow.It's always delightful when the opposition prove your point for you inadvertently.
Man I wish there was a cute game conspiracy.
Gamergate's a fucking perfect example of sun tzu's "exhaust your targets by being formless" strategy, what with the fact that they've totally got a group consensus and strategy but whenever anyone tries to pin them down they're totally just a group of individuals who etc and that one person who did wrong shouldn't stain the whole group.Well, my experience from reading their own words on KotakuInAction, The Escapist, and Twitter is that basically no one in gamergate really opposes harassment. Many repeat the "gamergate is anti-harassment, it's all false flags and third party trolls" line as a form of propaganda, others to try and convince themselves that it's true. But basically their response to harassment was "I'm anti harassment BUT…" with the usual litany of excuses that the target wasn't really being harassed, or they deserved it, or it was funny, etc. I'm sure some of them genuinely think they can be anti-harassment while celebrating when it happens to people they don't like, while others are quite consciously using the amorphous nature of a hashtag "movement" as a means of denying responsibility.