Support NeoGAF

[besada]

The moderation team has been asked for a thread dedicated specifically to the #gamergate phenomena currently exploding on a Twitter near you.

Here are some articles to catch you up to speed if you haven't been following:

Leigh Alexander's "Gamers are over" article: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/224400/Gamers_dont_have_to_be_your_audience_Gamers_are_over.php

David Auerbach's response "Gaming Journalism is Over": http://www.slate.com/articles/techn...sts_declare_the_gamers_are_over_but_they.html

L. Rhodes's article "To fair-minded proponents of #GamerGate": https://medium.com/@upstreamism/to-fair-minded-proponents-of-gamergate-7f3ce77301bb

Some ground rules:

1. If you're not seriously interested in discussing the issue, don't post. This is a general rule, but it will be moderated sternly in this thread.
2. Don't drop a link and say, "That's how I feel!" If you can't be bothered to put your opinions into your own words, don't post.
3. Don't post enormous crazy-person image files of 800 tweets in the same image. That's not convincing, unless you're trying to convince people you're not entirely there.
4. Substantiate your claims. If you claim there's a conspiracy, you better have evidence. And not "Ah, but they all started writing about this at the same time!" circumstantial evidence, but actual evidence of collusion and impropriety.
5. Don't link to stuff you aren't willing to support. If you post it, you posted it. If it contains something that would get a ban, you're going to take that ban.
6. Attempt to be kind to one another. If you can't manage that, be civil.

 

[Aeana]

L. Rhodes's article "To fair-minded proponents of #GamerGate": https://medium.com/@upstreamism/to-fair-minded-proponents-of-gamergate-7f3ce77301bb

This particular article is very, very good. The author went out and actually spoke to many people who were tweeting with the #gamergate hashtag, and asked them various questions. Please, if you do nothing else before participating in this thread, read this piece.

 

[Abriael]

There's a fundamental problem that I see in this whole discussion, and that's what has made me steer clear from most of it (especially since any timid attempt to discuss have resulted in my counterparts trying to argue against points I wasn't making at all with the usual "ah, then you support this!").

A large percentage of the proponents of both sides, including the most visible ones, seem to be much more interested in persuading the world that the other side is "evil" than in bringing forth (or actively supporting) real arguments of their own.

With that premise, there's really little room for discussion, unfortunately.

 

[Aeana]

There's a fundamental problem that I see in this whole discussion, and that's what has made me steer clear from most of it (especially since any timid attempt to discuss havs result in my counterparts trying to argue against points I wasn't making at all with the usual "ah, then you support this!").

A large percentage of the proponents of both sides, including the most visible ones, seem to be much more interested in persuading the world that the other side is "evil" than in bringing forth (or actively supporting) real arguments of their own.

With that premise, there's really little room for discussion, unfortunately.

This is the reason why I am begging people to read the article I quoted above.

 

[firehawk12]

I had no idea Adam Baldwin became the face for this thing. He did a podcast/radio thing about the issue today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ0wODEcW2I&app=desktop

 

[ekgrey]

thanks for the links. I know there's a discussion worth having here, but sorting through the last thread was impossible.

 

[Corpekata]

I had no idea Adam Baldwin became the face for this thing. He did a podcast/radio thing about the issue today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ0wODEcW2I&app=desktop

He started it, quite literally.

 

[The Llama]

There's a fundamental problem that I see in this whole discussion, and that's what has made me steer clear from most of it (especially since any timid attempt to discuss have resulted in my counterparts trying to argue against points I wasn't making at all with the usual "ah, then you support this!").

A large percentage of the proponents of both sides, including the most visible ones, seem to be much more interested in persuading the world that the other side is "evil" than in bringing forth (or actively supporting) real arguments of their own.

With that premise, there's really little room for discussion, unfortunately.

Yep. As with many things in life, both sides are partially right and partially wrong. But we'll never be able to reach any sort of "conclusion" about this stuff.

 

[Brakke]

Two cool ladies, Molly Lambert and Emily Yoshida (Grantland), did a pod with Leigh Alexander about #gamergate and the celeb nude hacks, among other topics.

http://espn.go.com/espnradio/grantland/player?id=11464760

Molly and Emily talk pop culture happenings generally, Leigh joins in around ~17:00.

I'm a big fan of this pod generally and this episode is solid. Especially if you're someone who thinks Leigh is raging or angry or something, here's a good place to hear her calmly extemporize on this subject. Highly recommend it.

 

[firehawk12]

He started it, quite literally.

Yeah, it turns out he's a conservative dude. I just wonder how he decided to get into this thing, of all things out there for him to get involved with.

 

[Cyrano]

With that premise, there's really little room for discussion, unfortunately.

Sure, but Twitter and GamerGate aren't about discussion. 140 characters isn't conducive to discourse, and it's that active stifling of discourse that is the reason why the site so often links through towards other things.

Another good article on the event: http://ellaguro.blogspot.com/2014/09/on-gamers-and-identity.html

 

[bigkrev]

From the article

It is, at any rate, imperative that you recognize not only that others are using #GamerGate to do exactly the things you claim to revile, but also that they’ve been more effective at achieving their goals than you’ve been at achieving yours. That, in no small part, is why you’re all being lumped together. You may think that you represent #GamerGate more truly than the harassers, but the public can’t help but see successful attacks as a kind of ownership. That may be unfair, but you’d be foolish to ignore it. At this point, the harassers have done so much damage that your best recourse may be to simply abandon the #GamerGate umbrella altogether, in favor of a rallying call that’s harder to co-opt. Every time they successfully run someone out of their home or damage the reputation of a potential ally, they take a stronger hold on the names under which you’ve rallied, and you lose a little bit more.

I really like this. I thought the whole idea of #gamergate was a kinda cute/dumb way to describe a problem, that got co-opted by a bunch of assholes as an excuse to be, well assholes on the internet.

It's a shame that this has happened, and a lesser shame that because of the actions of these people, the valid complaints are being ignored. At this point, Gamergate just seems like a cesspit that all should be avoiding, as no good is going to come from it.

 

[Corpekata]

Yeah, it turns out he's a conservative dude. I just wonder how he decided to get into this thing, of all things out there for him to get involved with.

Because it started with an incredibly anti-feminist movement. The same reason Breitbart got involved. He doesn't care about gamers as much as he does clashing with feminists.

 

[Winterblink]

I've read the first and second articles as they came up, and the third I hadn't seen yet so thanks for putting it there. It was a very interesting read.

I'm curious how many people have just sat back and watched this whole thing unfold without actually sticking their neck out and voicing an opinion on the matter out of fear of backlash from one side or the other. I stick myself in that bucket frankly, because every time I turn around the issue's ballooned more and more to encompass a wider swath of individuals in everyone's accusatory statements and finger-pointing. Hopefully this thread can bring more of those types out of the background.

I'm one of those folks that loves to play games, is inclusive of everyone I've ever played games with, and can't stand oppressive antics no matter who it's directed at. But somehow that middling opinion seems to be reviled out in the social media battlegrounds.

 

[LuchaShaq]

Shit has gone too far for anyone involved to talk about it rationally.

For 95% of the games press, people calmly asking for better disclosure and less click bait are the same people sending death threats.



I hate to say it but shit's too far gone for any good to come of it.

 

[Deitus]

Thanks for splitting this into it's own thread Besada. I don't know that this will be any less of a mess than any of the other threads about this, but at least this will be an appropriate place for the mess. And this way if people have legitimate points to make about ethics in journalism, they can make them in that thread, and not have them conflated with arguments about the harassment that took place.

Edit: Or I guess that thread got closed. Oh well, it was an old thread anyway. We can make a new one when another issue with ethics in journalism pops up.

Hopefully since this thread was started by a mod though, people will have the good sense not to try to start shit. I imagine if this goes off the rails it will get shut down pretty quickly, so let's hope it doesn't come to that.

There's a fundamental problem that I see in this whole discussion, and that's what has made me steer clear from most of it (especially since any timid attempt to discuss have resulted in my counterparts trying to argue against points I wasn't making at all with the usual "ah, then you support this!").

A large percentage of the proponents of both sides, including the most visible ones, seem to be much more interested in persuading the world that the other side is "evil" than in bringing forth (or actively supporting) real arguments of their own.

With that premise, there's really little room for discussion, unfortunately.

I mostly agree. There was a whole lot of "us vs. them" rhetoric going on from all sides, and a lot of loud people dominating the conversation, and shutting down any chance of discussion.

There actually has been some decent discussion here on GAF about some of the various aspects of this (and some dumb stuff too). And there have been some interesting articles written on the subject too. But so much of this situation outside of GAF has had the appearance of a screaming match between people wearing earplugs.

 

[jschreier]

L. Rhodes's article "To fair-minded proponents of #GamerGate": https://medium.com/@upstreamism/to-fair-minded-proponents-of-gamergate-7f3ce77301bb

Another good article on the event: http://ellaguro.blogspot.com/2014/09/on-gamers-and-identity.html

I strongly recommend that anyone who has even a passing interest in journalism, ethics, and what's been going on over the past few weeks read both of these articles. The first one is long, but really, really worth reading.

One particularly salient point by L. Rhodes:

There is, as it happens, one group using the #GamerGate hashtag that has figured out an effective plan for changing the gaming press. Their method is continual harassment. They hurl invective, issue threats, expose sensitive information (like bank account numbers) and generally work to intimidate writers out of the business of printing something somebody doesn’t like. Typically, they target individuals rather than institutions, especially those with relatively small support systems, like financially vulnerable freelancers and independent developers, or non-commercial blogs sustained by reader donations rather than ad revenue.

That isn’t news to you, of course. You were quick to disavow that sort of exclusion. #GamerGate, you told me, is about inclusion. That’s part of why you placed so much value on the term gamer, and why you were so frustrated at the recent spate of articles suggesting that the gamer identity is dead or dying. Gaming had connected you with a community where you felt accepted, and to have that repudiated felt like another form of exclusion.

If the sheer fact that they’re using your name to harass other gamers isn’t enough to motivate you, then maybe recognizing how they’ve worked to undermine your goals will. The fact of the matter is that some of the people they’ve driven away are people who have spent years working to transform the gaming press from an enthusiast press to a more properly journalistic industry. They’ve done so by daring to say and print things that games developers don’t necessarily want them to say. They’ve fought to make gaming more inclusive for people who have generally felt excluded. They are, in other words, deeply allied to the causes you’ve espoused, and they’re being targeted because, against all odds, they’ve managed to gain ground. You can’t afford not to rally to their defense because you can’t afford to see them give up.

It is, at any rate, imperative that you recognize not only that others are using #GamerGate to do exactly the things you claim to revile, but also that they’ve been more effective at achieving their goals than you’ve been at achieving yours. That, in no small part, is why you’re all being lumped together. You may think that you represent #GamerGate more truly than the harassers, but the public can’t help but see successful attacks as a kind of ownership. That may be unfair, but you’d be foolish to ignore it. At this point, the harassers have done so much damage that your best recourse may be to simply abandon the #GamerGate umbrella altogether, in favor of a rallying call that’s harder to co-opt. Every time they successfully run someone out of their home or damage the reputation of a potential ally, they take a stronger hold on the names under which you’ve rallied, and you lose a little bit more.

You lose because it gets harder to espouse your cause when people associate it with harassment and misogyny. You lose because the number of people actively working to make the press more reliable and gaming more inclusive dwindles a little more. You lose because more people feel excluded from gaming. You lose, most of all, because hate takes a greater share of the world.

 

[hellclerk]

Thanks for the thread, Basada. Some things that I didn't get to post in the last thread

and Zoe Quinn tweeted this:

If a journalist quits journalism because of mean things said to her on the internet, I'm going to doubt her integrity as a journalist. Simon Ostrovsky was imprisoned and tortured when covering Eastern Ukraine and not long after his release, he was right back on the front, covering the conflict, constantly getting as close to the front line as he was allowed. Others are dying maintaining theirs, to say nothing of the two brave reporters who were murdered by ISIS. What kind of integrity do you need to ignore jackasses on the internet?

? The internet abuse is absolutely the central issue for one of the groups arguing about shit right now. The entire driving force behind Alexander's article was internet abuse by self-described gamers.

Internet abuse is tangential in the same sense that to Alexander and co, the ethics of games journalism is tangential. There are at least two wholly different arguments going on here.

Internet abuse isn't new and it isn't special. It comes from multiple sources for multiple reasons and it happens in rough parity to all types of people, though obviously more to public figures than private. And what's more is that there's no short-term solution to it. Internet trolls aren't going to listen to people who "speak out" against internet bullying in 140 characters, but codified journalism ethics at major publications would solve the current issue with this whole mess has with gaming journalism. Jack Thompson got plenty of death threats from online, none of them materializing, but if everyone who was against his nonsense was too busy apologizing for the internet abuse, maybe he never would have gone contested.

Internet trolling is a given, it's tangential, and hurt feelings are not enough to deflect of an issue that has been simmering in gamering for years. Instead of actually addressing it, Leigh Alexander went for character assassination. Simply wonderful.

 

[antigoon]

The Medium article was absolutely fantastic. Especially the part about varying ethical requirements for journalists, enthusiasts, and critics.

His note about how #gamergate folks should actually be supporting the social criticism Sarkeesian and others create because it is clear evidence of independence from publishers was pretty salient, I think.

 

[firehawk12]

Because it started with an incredibly anti-feminist movement. The same reason Breitbart got involved. He doesn't care about gamers as much as he does clashing with feminists.

On this podcast at least, he seems to be pushing this persecution complex of gamers being constantly lectured at by journalists.

I do like that he brings up Firefly as an example of something that has negative portrayal of women as well, but is mostly "forgiven". I almost wonder if he and Joss Whedon hate each other.

Baldwin's involvement in this is just so surreal for me. lol

 

[antigoon]

Two cool ladies, Molly Lambert and Emily Yoshida (Grantland), did a pod with Leigh Alexander about #gamergate and the celeb nude hacks, among other topics.

http://espn.go.com/espnradio/grantland/player?id=11464760

Molly and Emily talk pop culture happenings generally, Leigh joins in around ~17:00.

I'm a big fan of this pod generally and this episode is solid. Especially if you're someone who thinks Leigh is raging or angry or something, here's a good place to hear her calmly extemporize on this subject. Highly recommend it.

I'm a huge Grantland fan, but I don't listen to Girls in Hoodies enough. Thanks for sharing.

 

[suzu]

L. Rhodes's article "To fair-minded proponents of #GamerGate": https://medium.com/@upstreamism/to-fair-minded-proponents-of-gamergate-7f3ce77301bb

Echoing the others here; everyone should read this article.

 

[Tetsuo9]

This particular article is very, very good. The author went out and actually spoke to many people who were tweeting with the #gamergate hashtag, and asked them various questions. Please, if you do nothing else before participating in this thread, read this piece.

I think this article fails to understand the #gamergate movement as a riot or street protest. It reminds me of my involvement in the Chilean student protests on 2008 and then in 2011. It's a sad thing, but for 50.000 or so people that gathered peacefully, 200 or so put on their masks and started breaking windows, robbed small bussiness, blocked main streets and so on. Of course most people didn't want violence to break, and we even physicaly confronted those guys when we could, but it just happened.

The difference here is that #gamergate people are protesting with no goals. Chilean protest also had blurry goals, but for what I have read so far, I hardly see any reason for protesting or rioting myself and no worthwhile causes.

 

[Fehyd]

From the article



I really like this. I thought the whole idea of #gamergate was a kinda cute/dumb way to describe a problem, that got co-opted by a bunch of assholes as an excuse to be, well assholes on the internet.

It's a shame that this has happened, and a lesser shame that because of the actions of these people, the valid complaints are being ignored. At this point, Gamergate just seems like a cesspit that all should be avoiding, as no good is going to come from it.

I have to wonder however, what movement can't be co-opted. The article brought up some points, but once more its a bit "throw the baby out with the bath water". The issue needs to be stabilized, and I feel like leadership would be a better force.

Maybe a movement like #changegaming or something, that way those who have objections over the gamergate movement can still take part in the discussion, and help police the more crazy elements within the movement. "We don't support harassment regardless of gender, and we want more visibility in gaming press."

 

[zeldablue]

This particular article is very, very good. The author went out and actually spoke to many people who were tweeting with the #gamergate hashtag, and asked them various questions. Please, if you do nothing else before participating in this thread, read this piece.

That article is what I should see more of.

In my opinion, the journalists who demean their audience need to be a lot better at explaining why certain elements of games are exclusionary or harmful to women. Instead of saying "This is bad! Don't support it!" There should be more going on to explain why these things are troublesome. From what I can tell (and I'm a part of this group too, even though I'm a women) many of us have NO clue why certain stereotypes are problematic. Many of us have never ever reflected on the values of being a man or a woman. Many of us have never thought about how the media perceives disadvantaged groups. A lot of us even refuse to reflect in that sort of way. We do this out of natural impulse, and those impulses do not make someone sexist, they just make people defensive and ignorant to being educated about what sexism is. Yelling at people will make them even less reflective to the problem. Instead people do the exact opposite.

They see the criticism as an insult. (and sometimes they are insults) An insult to many people's values. And yes, most of our traditional values are deeply misogynistic but we often refuse to believe that.

So my solution to the problem would be to make more smart articles like this one. More articles that are careful and insightful. Articles that are harder to be perceived as judgmental. There's a difference between yelling at someone for doing something wrong, and educating someone why something they did might be harmful. One is how you teach children, the other is how you teach adults.

:0

 

[HowZatOZ]

As a fellow journalist who has stayed mostly out of the whole GamerGate/Zoe Quinn fiasco in terms of discussion, from what I am seeing it really just feels like a "well no you are wrong because I am right." Arguments coming left and right that point out clear problems with gaming journalism, which I do agree with, yet they aren't entirely focused on that discussion but rather on the drama.

Yes, change is needed to ensure fair reporting of gaming news, and this has been happening since the Dorito fiasco, but we can't have change if all the arguments are focused on feminism (which is a perfectly fine discussion!), MRA, SJW, Zoe Quinn and any other semi-related gaming bullshit. I want to see change in this industry, but this whole bickering between both sides on pedantic details is just muddying up the attempt to correct what is wrong.

Anyway, that's my piece and I'll leave it at that. Personally I prefer my site be about the gaming news rather than the drama, but of course discussion on that is needed at times.

 

[bigkrev]

Thanks for the thread, Basada. Some things that I didn't get to post in the last thread



If a journalist quits journalism because of mean things said to her on the internet, I'm going to doubt her integrity as a journalist. Simon Ostrovsky was imprisoned and tortured when covering Eastern Ukraine and not long after his release, he was right back on the front, covering the conflict, constantly getting as close to the front line as he was allowed. Others are dying maintaining theirs, to say nothing of the two brave reporters who were murdered by ISIS. What kind of integrity do you need to ignore jackasses on the internet?

I... I think there is a slight difference between the responsibilities in reporting on human rights issues, and the responsibility in reporting on videogames.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

So is this the "successor" controversy to all the conspiracy stuff? I purposely distanced myself from the rumour mill but it's cool that this has moved past that onto a general discussion on the place games journalism has in the community.

It's funny though, since from my point of view both "sides" (by "sides" I mean anyone who's extremist enough to believe they're part of a single "side") have the same problem: they both want echo chambers instead of discussion.The whole gamer's are dead article is basically hostilely appealing that anybody against their POV is a vocal minority of "obtuse shitslingers" that should be ignored and actively pushed out of the gaming scene. Meanwhile there's the large victim complex that a lot of the other "side" has where anybody who disagrees with them are corrupted or biased. This isn't to say that there isn't bias, corruption, etc in gaming journalism, but just that there's a kneejerk response to opposing viewpoints that often precludes any actual evidence.

I think that any real progress on the scene will only come about thanks to diplomats who can push a general compromise to everybody. The overtly hostile ones will only breed more hostility.

 

[Fredescu]

Do people opposed to the harassment think it's possible to stop?

To me, I think it's down to the nature of Twitter (et al), and humanity. A certain percentage of humanity are arseholes. Give them a public voice and a vector to attack and they will. If you make it your business to question social mores (an admirable business), you're going to get some people offside. If you're active on Twitter (etc) you're providing a vector for attack.

Is there a solution to this generally other than to either stop using twitter, or try your best to ignore the attacks? I'm not so sure there is, and I'm not so sure this is a gaming community specific problem.

 

[SerTapTap]

I know this whole issue started because of game journalism and harassment, but I really don't think it's fair to see someone defending the term "gamer" and attack them as if they were defending harassment of women, that they're conspiracy theorists about game journalism, the argument over "gamer" is largely separate from that at this point. I know many people are taking multiple talking points at once here, but personally I:

• Absolutely abhor people harassing women, minorities, or anyone
• Do not consider any of the "corruption" brought up to be of note, though I have other problems with game journalism
• Cannot bear to see words like "gamer", "nerd" "virgin" and such being used as insults

If you see someone discussing the "gamer" issue specifically, please do not assume they are anti-SJW trolls etc, do not assume they are "scared" of games journalism, do not assume they consider the word "gamer" more valuable than women. I don't know why this particular issue is so completely impossible to discuss without people assuming you're six kinds of evil and linking you to 10 different positions you have never implicitly or explicitly tied yourself to.

This is also why I've refused to use the #gamergate hashtag, while I do think using "gamer" as a slur is some awful stuff, I don't want to be associated with this other stuff going on in it. I don't actually understand what the #notyourshield hashtag is, I've just muted it because I mute all passive-aggressive hashtags like that, nothing good comes of them.

Anyway, it is perfectly possible to want more civil discourse while still not using the word "gamer" as if it were a Sick Burn™. I would personally argue it is all but impossible to have a civil discussion in the current environment because of all the "gamer" "SJW" labeling being thrown out there right now. That's why I think it is an important issue to discuss, completely separately from the journalism and harassment issues, even though they instigated this.

Do people opposed to the harassment think it's possible to stop?

To me, I think it's down to the nature of Twitter (et al), and humanity. A certain percentage of humanity are arseholes. Give them a public voice and a vector to attack and they will. If you make it your business to question social mores (an admirable business), you're going to get some people offside. If you're active on Twitter (etc) you're providing a vector for attack.

Is there a solution to this generally other than to either stop using twitter, or try your best to ignore the attacks? I'm not so sure there is, and I'm not so sure this is a gaming community specific problem.

Stopping it completely, no I don't think anyone thinks that's going to happen. But creating a more civil environment could potentially greatly reduce that sort of stuff as it would bring greater social pressure against general being-a-dick. It's the "boys will be boys" self-reinforcing problem; pretend it's not a big deal and people will continue to act like it isn't. But that doesn't necessarily mean call all gamers regressive evil nerdlord/whatevers, either.

 

[Ivan A Nguyen]

This particular article is very, very good. The author went out and actually spoke to many people who were tweeting with the #gamergate hashtag, and asked them various questions. Please, if you do nothing else before participating in this thread, read this piece.

I read the entire article and the one part I really disagree with is the incredibly common, "Your desires can't be heard because you've got a few bad apples with ya," routine. It's been used with looting in Ferguson and a successful way to derail the Occupy Wall Street narrative. People who are ugly to others rarely need an excuse, but instead are just looking for a way to hide. If you want to seriously talk about the issues at hand then you can't address the people who are attacking others maliciously and pretend it's all part of the same group.

 

[Brakke]

This particular article is very, very good. The author went out and actually spoke to many people who were tweeting with the #gamergate hashtag, and asked them various questions. Please, if you do nothing else before participating in this thread, read this piece.

Yes this one is great. This part in particular is what's most frustrating to me about this whole thing:

It’s possible to see that distinction a bit more clearly if you compare the way games have traditionally written about in a venue like, say, the New York Times, versus the way they usually covered in gaming magazines. Even when they weren’t being downright skeptical, non-enthusiast publishers tended to be at least agnostic about the value of games in general. When you write for an enthusiast press, though, you’ve already thrown out some measure of objectivity, since it’s assumed that you and your reader already agree that games are worth your time, money and interest.

Almost all the cries of ethics concerns are so far removed from the realities here. Every time someone posts that Reuters Rules thing I just laugh, it's so totally irrelevant. "Unbiased reporting" is totally boring (impossible even?) in this space and it's never once been the thing.

Giant Bomb being buddy-buddy with developers is pretty much the entire reason I'm into Giant Bomb. Seeing Brad Muir's colonDees and hearing him casually reflect on Alter Echo and seeing those wild GDC and PAX panels is beautiful. All that stuff made my life a little better.

Can you even imagine reading inverted pyramids about potential acquisitions every day? If the gaming press was totally unbiased news reporting, it would be almost exclusively negative! Everything would be employment scandals and analysis of lawsuits and earnings results and WHO WANTS THAT?? There's virtually nothing newsworthy that ever happens in this space.

 

[viveks86]

David Auerbach's response "Gaming Journalism is Over": http://www.slate.com/articles/techn...sts_declare_the_gamers_are_over_but_they.html

L. Rhodes's article "To fair-minded proponents of #GamerGate": https://medium.com/@upstreamism/to-fair-minded-proponents-of-gamergate-7f3ce77301bb

Both these articles are an eye opener. Thorough and insightful. I had no idea about #GAMERGATE until an hour ago. Still trying to assimilate all of this.

 

[hellclerk]

I... I think there is a slight difference between the responsibilities in reporting on human rights issues, and the responsibility in reporting on videogames.

Yeah, you're right, there's a huge difference. That's why I'm so baffled why hate in 140 characters is scaring away people who call themselves journalists.

 

[Zeyphersan]

L. Rhodes's article "To fair-minded proponents of #GamerGate": https://medium.com/@upstreamism/to-fair-minded-proponents-of-gamergate-7f3ce77301bb

I'm going to be unoriginal and state that this article should be required reading for any of this discussion. It's the best one I've read to date

 

[zhorkat]

If a journalist quits journalism because of mean things said to her on the internet, I'm going to doubt her integrity as a journalist. Simon Ostrovsky was imprisoned and tortured when covering Eastern Ukraine and not long after his release, he was right back on the front, covering the conflict, constantly getting as close to the front line as he was allowed. Others are dying maintaining theirs, to say nothing of the two brave reporters who were murdered by ISIS. What kind of integrity do you need to ignore jackasses on the internet?

In what way would you doubt the integrity of such a journalist?

 

[Antiwhippy]

Yeah, you're right, there's a huge difference. That's why I'm so baffled why hate in 140 characters is scaring away people who call themselves journalists.

It's when it bleeds into real life threats of people posting your home address etc. etc. Or people hijacking your site and posting crucial private information.

You can't see how that might scare someone off?

 

[Scizzy]

Yeah, you're right, there's a huge difference. That's why I'm so baffled why hate in 140 characters is scaring away people who call themselves journalists.

You really need to reflect on how callous it is to call people who are being threatened cowards.

 

[Lime]

It's important to stress that people have left the video games culture because of harrassment.

Samantha Allen quit a month ago. Phil Fish recently. And Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian are receiving tons of harrassment. And Jenna Frank and Mattie Brce quit yesterday.

Diversity of voices are lower as a result of the misunderstanding by hurt self-identifying gamers, the veiled misogyny by the parts of the movement and the fundamental internet abuse targetting women throughout this ordeal.

The injustice and tragedy are incredibly saddening and hurtful to video games.

 

[CurlyW]

Yeah, you're right, there's a huge difference. That's why I'm so baffled why hate in 140 characters is scaring away people who call themselves journalists.

Because every journalist that wants to cover video games should also want to cover civil war from the front?

 

[soultron]

Rhodes' Medium piece summarises my feelings on #Gamergate well.

At this point, the harassers have done so much damage that your best recourse may be to simply abandon the #GamerGate umbrella altogether, in favor of a rallying call that’s harder to co-opt. Every time they successfully run someone out of their home or damage the reputation of a potential ally, they take a stronger hold on the names under which you’ve rallied, and you lose a little bit more.

Those engaging in harassment are the agents provocateurs in a crowd that isn't even in agreement in what they want (and know what is feasible towards those ends) in the first place.

Furthermore, the one group I feel that's being left out of this whole "campaign" is the cabal of publishers who each hold a short leash on (most of) the enthusiast gaming press by way of blacklisting or threatening to withhold access from those who want to cover/review games.

New flags/hashtags need to be chosen. Groups need to self-police in order to legitimatise their cause. #Gamergate isn't helping anyone.

 

[Fehyd]

I'd be interested in seeing if there's a more grassroots movement after this where enthusiasts try their own hand at journalism. I'm sure it'll have mixed results, but we might end up with some new sites and personalities withing gaming culture.

 

[Titch1211]

Oh god I'm going to get banned for expressing my opinion here...

This whole situation has stemmed from the fact that gaming journalism just isn't about games anymore. A large amount of games journalists have decided usurp game reviews and use them to push an agenda. This hasn't been helped by the fact that games journalism is almost completely morally corrupt.

Reviewers are being bribed by developers
This is leading to unreliable review scores

Reviewers are pushing an agenda which most of the time has nothing to do with the game being reviewed
This is leading to bad reviews

A portion of review websites are relying on "clickbait" to stay afloat
This leads to the spreading of misinformation as clickbait articles are almost always sensationalised.

This whole gamergate thing might have came about from right or wrong reasons. We have extremists on both sides that are the bad apples ruining the bunch for everybody. But we do have one big problem that needs addressing and that is the current state of games journalism.

 

[jschreier]

Reviewers are being bribed by developers

Can you show or link to some evidence of this?

 

[Fredescu]

Stopping it completely, no I don't think anyone thinks that's going to happen. But creating a more civil environment could potentially greatly reduce that sort of stuff as it would bring greater social pressure against general being-a-dick. It's the "boys will be boys" self-reinforcing problem; pretend it's not a big deal and people will continue to act like it isn't. But that doesn't necessarily mean call all gamers regressive evil nerdlord/whatevers, either.

"Creating an environment" implies some sort of moderation. You can do that on somewhere like GAF, but it's against the nature of Twitter. These sort of Twitter hate trains happen in politics all the time too and I just don't think they're possible to even reduce.

 

[andymcc]

Oh god I'm going to get banned for expressing my opinion here...

This whole situation has stemmed from the fact that gaming journalism just isn't about games anymore. A large amount of games journalists have decided usurp game reviews and use them to push an agenda. This hasn't been helped by the fact that games journalism is almost completely morally corrupt.

Reviewers are being bribed by developers
This is leading to unreliable review scores

Reviewers are pushing an agenda which most of the time has nothing to do with the game being reviewed
This is leading to bad reviews

A portion of review websites are relying on "clickbait" to stay afloat
This leads to the spreading of misinformation as clickbait articles are almost always sensationalised.

This whole gamergate thing might have came about from right or wrong reasons. We have extremists on both sides that are the bad apples ruining the bunch for everybody. But we do have one big problem that needs addressing and that is the current state of games journalism.

If "corruption" leading to bad reviews is your primary concern then why aren't people still rallying against Gamespot's firing of Gertsmann or the ethics behind early/embargoed reviews?

you're taking a tenuous at best link between sex of consenting adults and positive buzz for an indie title as hard evidence.

 

[TheForceWithin]

Those are some great articles in the OP.

I said I was going to avoid this as it was messing with my head, but here I am again.

All this blew up for a few reasons but to me there is one big one. Gamer's for a long time has been talked down to by the gaming "press" and big devs and publishers. Whether it be the ME3 ending, DLC abuse or what have you, most gamers feel that most of the press have been in the back pocket of the game maker's for a while now and have told gamers to stop being whiny entitled children. In other words, animosity has been brewing within our hobby for a while now. When the same gaming "press" blame the "gamers" for the industries problems and then shout down to the same gamers that they are irrelevant it reached critical mass and blew up.

 

[viveks86]

It's when it bleeds into real life threats of people posting your home address etc. etc. Or people hijacking your site and posting crucial private information.

You can't see how that might scare someone off?

I can see why people are scared facing internet hate even without it bleeding into real life. Expecting members of enthusiast press to be "hardened" like journalists is unfair. I had a random guy on twitter call me a "clown" once, and that alone was enough to keep me fixated on why a stranger would say that out of the blue. Some of the threats these people receive, however empty they are, are disgusting and scary. I guess over time we get desensitized, but some of us simply aren't accustomed to hostility, real or virtual.

 

[firehawk12]

I'd be interested in seeing if there's a more grassroots movement after this where enthusiasts try their own hand at journalism. I'm sure it'll have mixed results, but we might end up with some new sites and personalities withing gaming culture.

For better or for worse, Dodd Scientifics is one of those attempts.

 

[Cyrano]

Yeah, you're right, there's a huge difference. That's why I'm so baffled why hate in 140 characters is scaring away people who call themselves journalists.

As I said before, Twitter is not great for discourse. But while its purpose is not malicious, it does give certain crazies a platform to link to pictures of your house followed by a message of "I'm coming to kill you."

Which is terrifying.

Also, as for the "gamer" term, TapTap, the issue isn't the term itself. It's that the term is either too broad or too narrow. If it's "gamers" in the sense that it's everyone who plays games, then it's meaningless and unnecessary, because damn near everyone plays games. If it's "gamers" in being a specific subset, then at best it's too vague and at worst it's actively creating associational connections that most would be uncomfortable with. The entire concept of being a "true gamer" couldn't have emerged without a tacit understanding that the definition of "gamer" being everyone who plays games isn't what people mean when they use the term. Thus, the term is then left as only being associational, and that "true gamer" terminology is inherently toxic and exclusionary.