#GAMERGATE: The Threadening [Read the OP] -- #StopGamerGate2014

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've not compared them though? I simply stated those are two things that are happening...
I'm just really sick of GamerGate at this point. Sick of both sides really. I constantly see these generalization of both sides of this argument, and those generalizations will only lead to more steps backwards. Honestly it's a breath of fresh air when I don't see a generalization among tweets about GG. I constantly see how somehow people using the GG hashtag clearly support harassment, etc. just by using it. So do people who are anti-GG support harassment too? Because last time I checked, it's coming from both sides of the spectrum, and it's sickening.

As long as you aren't trying to silence the other side, go ahead, fight for ethics in games journalism. Perfectly fine to me.
Fighting for equality in gaming? Cool. Diversity in gaming would be a great thing.

But holy hell, keep it a hate free environment. Neither side is getting anywhere with generalizations, harassment, death threats, and doxxing. This just needs to end, before it gets any worse than it is.
You list it with harassment, death threats, and doxxing? Even removing that line, you sure seem to care a lot about generalizations. How is that even in top of your priority list of this issue?
 
Yeah. They've been really goddamn ace about the whole thing for years now. I really want to bring up Magic more often in these discussions just because its pretty good proof that no, its really not that fucking hard to be more inclusive and representative.

For example, the main hero of the last year's worth of sets was Elspeth Tirel


This year three of their five major new characters are female, a monk battlemaster

A Naga tyrant

And a warrior queen


(the other two are an ogre warleader and the leader of a band of rugged survivalists)
The crazy part is that, well, more companies should do this. Ubisoft has an Indian(?) protagonist for Far Cry 4, and I haven't heard any 'I sure wish he was white!'. It's a step forward. Just try something different, don't bring attention to it, people will assimilate.
 
I've said a million times I feel bad for anyone who feels that threatened and I don't have any gamer image lmao. I just don't like being lumped in with threatening dicks just because I think journalist x is poor or person y makes mediocre videos even if their original message is fantastic.
Oh! I guess you'll be glad to hear that never happened again.

Nobody is fucking lumping all gamers in with these people.

The whole point of every one of those articles you probably half-read was that the traditional conception of a Gamer, that included these dirtbags, is changing (or ending, or dying, whatever) as they're slowly excised from the culture. They sense it happening, consciously or not, and are lashing out against it.
 
I don't. I just think the games press circle jerk about it is also shitty and I don't support that either. You can say something like what I did in the last post and get multiple anti gg people comparing you to gun nuts and those threatening people.
Which "circlejerk" are you talking about? I think all specific examples of actually controversial topics (as opposed to "harassment is bad") which were actually brought into this thread were quickly refuted with the links showing that press indeed had split opinions on the matter.
 

Watch Da Birdie

I buy cakes for myself on my birthday it's not weird lots of people do it I bet
Corruption in games journalism is hardly an issue compared to harassments and threats. I've always been someone to call out corruption in the industry, but GamerGate is much more harmful to the industry and medium than a couple writers lying about how awesome a game is.
I honestly have never gotten upset with any journalists giving a game a good score, possibly undeserved, because we live in an age where there's a million sources you can utilize to decide if the game is right for you. I literally don't understand people who get "tricked" by game journalists.

The weirdest thing is, iirc, Depression Quest was a free game, so I see even less reason to get upset with presumed "inflated review scores", because it's not like you're getting tricked out of money. Just play it and see if you like it.
 
Hold onto your butts, people.

We've got more biting criticisms of anti-GG people coming soon from Niche Gamer!

[tweet]https://twitter.com/brandonorselli/status/521810053566070784[/tweet]

Oh man, can't wait, he's getting ready to activate his trap card! It's all over, guys!
 
This really IS a hate movement fueled by nutters. How did I get dragged into this?!
That's easy. The SJW side does the same thing as well. It's just an evolutionary instinct that we can't shake. A very common psychological problem that people easily get swallowed up into. :C SJWs make it all the way, but tend to cap at Stage 3. GG is heading past Stage 4 very quickly and I hope it stops soon. Please...think inward before pushing your anger outward.

Stage 1: The Haters Gather

Haters rarely hate alone. They feel compelled, almost driven, to entreat others to hate as they do. Peer validation bolsters a sense of self-worth and, at the same time, prevents introspection, which reveals personal insecurities. Individuals who are otherwise ineffective become empowered when they join groups, which also provide anonymity and diminished accountability.

Stage 2: The Hate Group Defines Itself

Hate groups form identities through symbols, rituals, and mythologies, which enhance the members' status and, at the same time, degrade the object of their hate. For example, skinhead groups may adopt the swastika, the iron cross, the Confederate flag, and other supremacist symbols. Group-specific symbols or clothing often differentiate hate groups. Group rituals, such as hand signals and secret greetings, further fortify members. Hate groups, especially skinhead groups, usually incorporate some form of self-sacrifice, which allows haters to willingly jeopardize their well-being for the greater good of the cause. Giving one's life to a cause provides the ultimate sense of value and worth to life.

Stage 3: The Hate Group Disparages the Target

Hate is the glue that binds haters to one another and to a common cause. By verbally debasing the object of their hate, haters enhance their self-image, as well as their group status. In skinhead groups, racist song lyrics and hate literature provide an environment wherein hate flourishes. The life span of aggressive impulses increases with ideation. In other words, the more often a person thinks about aggression, the greater the chance for aggressive behavior to occur. Thus, after constant verbal denigration, haters progress to the next more acrimonious stage.

Stage 4: The Hate Group Taunts the Target

Hate, by its nature, changes incrementally. Time cools the fire of hate, thus forcing the hater to look inward. To avoid introspection, haters use ever-increasing degrees of rhetoric and violence to maintain high levels of agitation. Taunts and offensive gestures serve this purpose. In this stage, skinheads typically shout racial slurs from moving cars or from afar. Nazi salutes and other hand signals often accompany racial epithets. Racist graffiti also begins to appear in areas where skinheads loiter. Most skinhead groups claim turf proximate to the neighborhoods in which they live.

Stage 5: The Hate Group Attacks the Target Without Weapons


This stage is critical because it differentiates vocally abusive haters from physically abusive ones. In this stage, hate groups become more aggressive, prowling their turf seeking vulnerable targets. Violence coalesces hate groups and further isolates them from mainstream society. Skinheads, almost without exception, attack in groups and target weaker victims. The adrenaline "high" intoxicates the attackers. The initial adrenaline surge lasts for several minutes; however, the effects of adrenaline keep the body in a state of heightened alert for up to several days. Each successive anger-provoking thought or action builds on residual adrenaline and triggers a more violent response than the one that originally initiated the sequence. Anger builds on anger.

Stage 6: The Hate Group Attacks the Target with Weapons

Haters prefer weapons, such as broken bottles, baseball bats, blunt objects, screwdrivers, and belt buckles. These types of weapons require the attacker to be close to the victim, which further demonstrates the depth of personal anger. Attackers can discharge firearms at a distance, thus precluding personal contact. Close-in onslaughts require the assailants to see their victims eye-to-eye and to become bloodied during the assault. Hands-on violence allows skinheads to express their hate in a way a gun cannot. Personal contact empowers and fulfills a deep-seated need to have dominance over others.

Stage 7: The Hate Group Destroys the Target


The ultimate goal of haters is to destroy the object of their hate. Mastery over life and death imbues the hater with godlike power and omnipotence, which, in turn, facilitate further acts of violence. With this power comes a great sense of self-worth and value, the very qualities haters lack. However, in reality, hate physically and psychologically destroys both the hater and the hated.

Universal Application

The Seven-Stage Hate Model has a wider application. For example, when a coworker, for various reasons, becomes a hate target, the hater immediately seeks out others in the office who dislike, or can be persuaded to dislike, the hated coworker (Stage 1). The group establishes an identity using symbols and behaviors. They use a lifted eyebrow, a code word to exclude the hated coworker from a lunch invitation, or any number of other actions to demean and isolate. The haters may even adopt a name for their group (Stage 2). At this point, the haters only disparage the hated coworker within their group (Stage 3). As time passes, the haters openly insult the hated coworker either directly or indirectly by allowing disparaging remarks to be overheard from afar (Stage 4). One morning, the hated coworker discovers his desk rearranged and offensive images pasted over a picture depicting his wife and children (Stage 5). Both sophomoric and more malicious acts of hate have the same effect. Eventually, the haters sabotage the hated coworker's projects and attempt to ruin the individual's reputation through rumors and innuendoes (Stage 6). In so doing, the haters make the work environment intolerable for the hate target (Stage 7). Scenarios like this occur every day across America and, indeed, around the world. The targets of hate may change, but the hate process remains constant.

Scratch that, maybe GG has gone through all seven stages already. :\ Good for them I guess.

Oh and this is the solution:

In order for people to dismantle their hate, they must face their personal insecurities. This is difficult because hate is the defense mechanism that protects people's insecurities. Exposing insecurities makes people feel vulnerable. The best way to nip hate before it embeds into our psyche is to ask the question, "What is it about that person or thing that threatens me?," honestly face the insecurity, and deal with it. Hate like an aggressive weed is harder to control once it becomes well established.

Easier said than done. :\
 
Hold onto your butts, people.

We've got more biting criticisms of anti-GG people coming soon from Niche Gamer!

[tweet]https://twitter.com/brandonorselli/status/521810053566070784[/tweet]

Oh man, can't wait, he's getting ready to activate his trap card! It's all over, guys!
That tweet was actually in reference to an editorial which already came out. I brought it up earlier in the thread. It's not as good as he claims.
 
There has already been a lot of discussion about why #gamergate is completely not about journalist ethics. Dismissal of the issues surrounding Shadow of Mordor and youtubers, coupled with attacks on people like Jeff Gertsmann and Jim Sterling are some of the most basic evidence for that; for more, you are welcome to skim the thread.
You and I aren't on the same page. I'm not claiming that #gamergate is - at its core - all about ethics in journalism. I am pointing out that #gamergate continues to claim that it is all about ethics in journalism, hence adding an air of legitimacy to the movement. Many people don't have the time to dig in and fully examine what #gamergate is doing, especially when #gamergate says "no! not us. WE don't perpetuate the hate. It's those fringe guys. False flag!"

And thus, as long as #gamergate continues to blow its trumpet about journalistic ethics and no one takes away that trumpet, that message will be aligned with them.


Except that 1) any attempt at addressing an issue even tangentially related to what GG disingenuously claims to be about right now will be seen as making concessions toward them and further empower them rather than "removing" anything, 2) some tried that by bringing attention to the Shadow of Mordor Youtubers scandal -- an actual documented issue of journalistic malfeasance -- and it predictably gained almost no traction whatsoever within #GG thus demonstrating that any of their claims to caring about journalistic ethics at all are transparently facetious bullshit, and 3) hate and hate alone is quite evidently more than sufficient to drive this movement; it needs no additional fuel.
Actually, I'm really glad that it gained no traction. Let's do more of that. It is precisely what I'm talking about. If people are willing to dig in and expose this stuff and #gamergate isn't pointing this stuff out, they lose. The only remaining ammo #gamergate has is the "corruption" that it "exposed' (please, oh please make sure you take note of my airquotes right there). If journalists take that out of their hands, what's left?
 
Had a question. I was getting caught up on the latest with Anita and the terror threat, and I noticed that people on Twitter were automatically assuming the person was a GameGater even though the email the guy sent had literally no mentions or even implications towards being connected with GamerGate.

Why? I understand that tensions are high and people are quick to blame, but why can't the guy just be a crazy anti-feminist student? I don't think it's fair to shift blame if there's no proof that the two were related

Or is there more evidence that I'm not aware of? Any talk on 8chan or one of those other sites?
 
You and I aren't on the same page. I'm not claiming that #gamergate is - at its core - all about ethics in journalism. I am pointing out that #gamergate continues to claim that it is all about ethics in journalism, hence adding an air of legitimacy to the movement. Many people don't have the time to dig in and fully examine what #gamergate is doing, especially when #gamergate says "no! not us. WE don't perpetuate the hate. It's those fringe guys. False flag!"

And thus, as long as #gamergate continues to blow its trumpet about journalistic ethics and no one takes away that trumpet, that message will be aligned with them.



Actually, I'm really glad that it gained no traction. Let's do more of that. It is precisely what I'm talking about. If people are willing to dig in and expose this stuff and #gamergate isn't pointing this stuff out, they lose. The only remaining ammo #gamergate has is the "corruption" that it "exposed' (please, oh please make sure you take note of my airquotes right there). If journalists take that out of their hands, what's left?
The problem with that argument is that the corruption the Gamergates seem to be most upset about is that some members of the games press talked to each other on an email list and that some members of the games press are friends with developers since many of them are in the same industry within a city.

That's the type of "corruption" that will never be "weeded" out because of basic human relationships. I mean, Kotaku banned people from giving money to Patreons, and that had literally zero positive effect to the #Gamergate people.

Again, they aren't actually worried about "corruption" unless corruption means "games press covering non-games from SJW's who hate men." Convincing many of them that the games press isn't corrupt by their standards is like convincing by Obama hating uncle that Obama really isn't planning to take away his guns.
 
Had a question. I was getting caught up on the latest with Anita and the terror threat, and I noticed that people on Twitter were automatically assuming the person was a GameGater even though the email the guy sent had literally no mentions or even implications towards being connected with GamerGate.

Why? I understand that tensions are high and people are quick to blame, but why can't the guy just be a crazy anti-feminist student? I also don't think it's fair to shift blame if there's no proof that the two were related

Or is there more evidence that I'm not aware of? Any talk on 8chan or one of those other sites?
https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/522218152071925760
 
Had a question. I was getting caught up on the latest with Anita and the terror threat, and I noticed that people on Twitter were automatically assuming the person was a GameGater even though the email the guy sent had literally no mentions or even implications towards being connected with GamerGate.

Why? I understand that tensions are high and people are quick to blame, but why can't the guy just be a crazy anti-feminist student? I don't support the GamerGate, but I also don't think it's fair to shift blame when there's no proof that the two were related

Or is there more evidence that I'm not aware of? Any talk on 8chan or one of those other sites?
Anita says one of the threats claimed to be affiliated with GamerGate.
 
Had a question. I was getting caught up on the latest with Anita and the terror threat, and I noticed that people on Twitter were automatically assuming the person was a GameGater even though the email the guy sent had literally no mentions or even implications towards being connected with GamerGate.

Why? I understand that tensions are high and people are quick to blame, but why can't the guy just be a crazy anti-feminist student? I also don't think it's fair to shift blame if there's no proof that the two were related

Or is there more evidence that I'm not aware of? Any talk on 8chan or one of those other sites?
This is why direct affiliation isn't really important to me:

antigoon said:
I hate this stupid meme that those who harass and threaten somehow don't represent gamergate.

They absolutely represent gamergate, if not in name, then in spirit. They are the direct product of the awful, shitty, reprehensible, and exclusionary culture that gamergate wants to defend and perpetuate.
 
Had a question. I was getting caught up on the latest with Anita and the terror threat, and I noticed that people on Twitter were automatically assuming the person was a GameGater even though the email the guy sent had literally no mentions or even implications towards being connected with GamerGate.

Why? I understand that tensions are high and people are quick to blame, but why can't the guy just be a crazy anti-feminist student? I also don't think it's fair to shift blame if there's no proof that the two were related

Or is there more evidence that I'm not aware of? Any talk on 8chan or one of those other sites?
According to Anita, the individual claimed affiliation with gamergate.

https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/522218152071925760

*edit* beat
 
Had a question. I was getting caught up on the latest with Anita and the terror threat, and I noticed that people on Twitter were automatically assuming the person was a GameGater even though the email the guy sent had literally no mentions or even implications towards being connected with GamerGate.
Anita said there were multiple threats, and one of them claimed affiliation to GamerGate.
 
Honestly, I think the thing that made this whole shitstorm way worse than it had to be was Leigh Alexander and co's "gamers are over" articles. That was the point where GG grew to being more than a 4chan thing, because a bunch of people who liked video games, disliked threats and bigotry, and were totally okay with more women and minorities in games understandably took offense to it. At the very least it's why I supported the hashtag for a while (note the past tense.)

I think it's understandable that a group of people who adopted the hashtag in the first place because they were offended at being labeled as bigots and assholes due to the actions of a small minority of the group they associated with (gamers) would see people claiming their hashtag represented bigotry and threats due to the actions of a small minority of its supporters as proof that they were right to pick it up in the first place rather than proof that they should drop it.
 
Honestly, I think the thing that made this whole shitstorm way worse than it had to be was Leigh Alexander and co's "gamers are over" articles. That was the point where GG grew to being more than a 4chan thing, because a bunch of people who liked video games, disliked threats and bigotry, and were totally okay with more women and minorities in games understandably took offense to it. At the very least it's why I supported the hashtag for a while (note the past tense.)

I think it's understandable that a group of people who adopted the hashtag in the first place because they were offended at being labeled as bigots and assholes due to the actions of a small minority of the group they associated with (gamers) would see people claiming their hashtag represented bigotry and threats due to the actions of a small minority of its supporters as proof that they were right to pick it up in the first place rather than proof that they should drop it.
Read up on your timelines
 
I haven't made one gg post on here or twitter but its been clear since day one the majority of gg had no intention to harass anyone but the press and anti gg if anything wanted it just so they could push this exact narrative so the 99% of non threats could also be dismissed.

Congratulations got what they wanted sadly.
Every post you have made seems more offensive than the last. It started with an overly dismissive attitude towards death threats, then escalated to clearly made up stories, and has no moved on to blatant victim blaming. Please, just stop.
 
Had a question. I was getting caught up on the latest with Anita and the terror threat, and I noticed that people on Twitter were automatically assuming the person was a GameGater even though the email the guy sent had literally no mentions or even implications towards being connected with GamerGate.

Why? I understand that tensions are high and people are quick to blame, but why can't the guy just be a crazy anti-feminist student? I don't think it's fair to shift blame if there's no proof that the two were related

Or is there more evidence that I'm not aware of? Any talk on 8chan or one of those other sites?
This is a terrible analogy, but screw it, I'll make it. There were lots of people who were crappy to black people when the culture was overwhelmingly OK if you treated black people like crap. Sure, you weren't a member of the Klan or anything, but you used nigger, called young black men 'boy', so on, and so forth.

But, once that was no longer OK, they didn't do it anymore. They may have been still terrible people, but they didn't act on their terrible thoughts because society was no longer giving them implicit backing.

Right now, to many, it looks like you have implicit backing to attack women you don't like on the Internet.
 
Had a question. I was getting caught up on the latest with Anita and the terror threat, and I noticed that people on Twitter were automatically assuming the person was a GameGater even though the email the guy sent had literally no mentions or even implications towards being connected with GamerGate.

Why? I understand that tensions are high and people are quick to blame, but why can't the guy just be a crazy anti-feminist student? I also don't think it's fair to shift blame if there's no proof that the two were related

Or is there more evidence that I'm not aware of? Any talk on 8chan or one of those other sites?
Boy this stuff is hard to read. Women being harassed and lives threatened is not cool. Ethics in journalism is good. Why are there even sides at all?
 
Every post you have made seems more offensive than the last. It started with an overly dismissive attitude towards death threats, then escalated to clearly made up stories, and has no moved on to blatant victim blaming. Please, just stop.

I said the games press wanted it not the actual victims if harassment like wu etc.

But hey keep twisting words you're great at it. Let me guess this post means I murder kittens and baby bald eagles?
 
Had a question. I was getting caught up on the latest with Anita and the terror threat, and I noticed that people on Twitter were automatically assuming the person was a GameGater even though the email the guy sent had literally no mentions or even implications towards being connected with GamerGate.

Why? I understand that tensions are high and people are quick to blame, but why can't the guy just be a crazy anti-feminist student? I don't think it's fair to shift blame if there's no proof that the two were related

Or is there more evidence that I'm not aware of? Any talk on 8chan or one of those other sites?
At a certain point, it doesn't really matter. Gamer gate is nothing more than rage at women and imagined slights, so someone vomiting up the same bile as a gamer gate supporter really doesn't need to explicitly call out the association for it to be made. How can you divorce the two at this point? Has this random misogynist randomly picked out the same target at the misogynists of gamer gate completely randomly? Or has this random misogynist been encouraged and pushed over the edge by the torrent of hate spouted from others?
 
Boy this stuff is hard to read. Women being harassed and lives threatened is not cool. Ethics in journalism is good. Why are there even sides at all?
It's insane that this is still going on. And it doesn't seem to be slowing down either. That's the scary part. You'd think after two months, this thing would have lost some steam, but every day, it seems like it's just escalating
 
Honestly, I think the thing that made this whole shitstorm way worse than it had to be was Leigh Alexander and co's "gamers are over" articles. That was the point where GG grew to being more than a 4chan thing, because a bunch of people who liked video games, disliked threats and bigotry, and were totally okay with more women and minorities in games understandably took offense to it. At the very least it's why I supported the hashtag for a while (note the past tense.)

I think it's understandable that a group of people who adopted the hashtag in the first place because they were offended at being labeled as bigots and assholes due to the actions of a small minority of the group they associated with (gamers) would see people claiming their hashtag represented bigotry and threats due to the actions of a small minority of its supporters as proof that they were right to pick it up in the first place rather than proof that they should drop it.
Honestly, if one was so offended by a web article decrying the more toxic elements of gamerdom that they would rush into the arms of said toxic element, I'm not sure that speaks well for them as a group anyways.
 
You and I aren't on the same page. I'm not claiming that #gamergate is - at its core - all about ethics in journalism. I am pointing out that #gamergate continues to claim that it is all about ethics in journalism, hence adding an air of legitimacy to the movement. Many people don't have the time to dig in and fully examine what #gamergate is doing, especially when #gamergate says "no! not us. WE don't perpetuate the hate. It's those fringe guys. False flag!"

And thus, as long as #gamergate continues to blow its trumpet about journalistic ethics and no one takes away that trumpet, that message will be aligned with them.



Actually, I'm really glad that it gained no traction. Let's do more of that. It is precisely what I'm talking about. If people are willing to dig in and expose this stuff and #gamergate isn't pointing this stuff out, they lose. The only remaining ammo #gamergate has is the "corruption" that it "exposed' (please, oh please make sure you take note of my airquotes right there). If journalists take that out of their hands, what's left?
You're fundamentally misunderstanding the way conspiracy theorists and fundamentalists maintain their momentum and worldview. It doesn't matter what is actually exposed and what isn't. The reality of the situation quite literally does not alter their trajectory or their target one iota. Did the exposing of the Shadow of Mordor scandal make any dent at all into taking the wind out of GG? Of course not, they didn't care, they continued on gnashing and raving about the evils of Anita and Zoe and their secret feminist harem of sluts that seduce journalists for positive coverage. Kotaku publicly changed its ethics policy regarding donations to Patreon. Did that make any of them shut up and think they had accomplished their goal? Not only did they not, they're still planning to target Kotaku. So what possible effect do you think any further disclosure could possibly have?

We're dealing with the same mindset as JFK conspiracy theorists and Obama birthers--people who are absolutely convinced beyond all reason that there is massively powerful conspiracy across dozens of organizations actively working to suppress the truth and ensure their continued position of power, and the complete lack of any significant evidence that such a conspiracy exists is simply further evidence that the conspiracy exists because it's just that powerful. There's no evidence to present that can quell this mindset, there's no ammo to remove because, by definition, the conspiracy is controlling all the ammo. At best any attempt to engage with their claims on their own terms will be met, as we've already seen, with immediate deflection to people like Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu. That's the best outcome. What could possibly make you think anything different would happen?
 
Boy it would be great to see what these GG people looked like for the record. Just so we can match them up to mugshots later related to federal charges for threatening.
 
WHY THE FUCK ARE THESE FUCKSTICKS STILL GOING AFTER ZOE QUINN

erhem

Anyway, the #StopGamerGate2014 tag is trending hard. It's getting a new tweet every second or so.
Hopefully people making these tweets will be able to outlast the crazies of #GG. If there is one thing about hateful people, its that their hate will out live most things in the world.
 
Wow, do not read the comments.

My goodness. Yeah. No, I will need some mind bleach after this... hoo, boy.
Yeah, I can already paint by numbers what the response are.

And these people want to kill. Someone dying will only be a victory.

No. Stop it. You do NOT get to pick and choose who is associated with the movement. If you don't want to be associated with these asshats you MUST disown #Gamergate and start a different movement, one that is completely divorced from all the mindless hate.

If you don't, you will get swept up with the tide. There is no stopping it.
Seriously.

It boggles my mind why people still want to be associated with GamerGate.
 
Since it seems like some GamerGate supporters are finally coming to their senses, it seems appropriate to re-post this.

Mods: Please let me know if you want me to stop posting this. And/or feel-free to update the OP with it if you feel it worthy.


This is a list of actual things that GamerGate believes and has accomplished so far

  • GamerGate still today claims that Zoe Quinn slept around for coverage favors. This was debunked literally months ago. And yet it persists.

    Kotaku shows that Nathan never wrote the articles he was accused of writing: http://kotaku.com/in-recent-days-ive-been-asked-several-times-about-a-pos-1624707346
    On March 31, Nathan published the only Kotaku article he's written involving Zoe Quinn. It was about Game Jam, a failed reality show that Zoe and other developers were upset about being on. At the time, Nathan and Zoe were professional acquaintances. He quoted blog posts written by Zoe and others involved in the show. Shortly after that, in early April, Nathan and Zoe began a romantic relationship. He has not written about her since. Nathan never reviewed Zoe Quinn's game Depression Quest, let alone gave it a favorable review.
    RPS: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/201...-valve-greenlights-50-more-games/#more-183169
    This is the only article Nathan ever wrote on Rock Paper Shotgun that mentioned Depression quest.
  • Nathan Grayson is the journalist accused of this unethical behavior. He never actually wrote the articles he was accused of writing
  • Despite Nathan Grayson being the journalist here, and GamerGate insisting this is about "ethics in journalism", they can't seem to stop talking about Zoe Quinn (not a journalist) and Anita Sarkeesian (also not a journalist)

  • Zoe Quinn is still today accused of doxxing herself. No evidence has ever been presented to validate this claim. It is baseless.
  • Zoe Quinn is still today accused of faking death, rape, and other threats. No evidence has ever been provided to back up why they think they're fake.
  • Zoe Quinn was accused of lying about donating DQ proceeds to charity. Charity confirms the donations were actually received
  • GamerGate first started donating to the charity when they thought Zoe did not. After the charity confirmed receiving the donations, GamerGate started harassing the charity and threatening it with legal action because they claim they "didn't disclose publicly" they had received donations from her (even though that is not actuall illegal). This is a charity is made up of volunteers and a part-time paid intern, helping people deal with depression
  • Zoe Quinn is frequently accused of winning an award (instead of Papers Please) for Depression Quest because she slept with someone. These accusations still frequently fly around on Twitter. In actuality, her game didn't receive an award, but just an honorable mention. Papers Please did indeed win the award. No evidence backs up the claim she slept with someone to get the....honorable mention.
  • Zoe Quinn was accused to have "deliberately sabotaged, DDOSed, doxxed, and shut down" TFYC because they were "competition" for Rebel Game Jam. When in reality she just ranted about them (and briefly argued with them) over Twitter about their policies (especially their trans policy, which was vague enough to be interpreted as something insanely extreme) and the site got temporarily overloaded with traffic. Apparently one of the project's sponsors pulled out over the trans concerns, but Zoe herself didn't do anything and Rebel Game Jam was never mentioned except as a imaginary motive for her imaginary crimes. The fact that she didn't remember how many times she tweeted about something earlier in the year was also supposed to be a scandal, somehow.

  • Anita Sarkeesian was similarly accused of faking threats. Still happens regularly. The FBI confirmed the threats were real, currently under investigation.
  • Anita Sarkeesian needed to cancel an appearance for a talk at a university because of extremely specific and violent threats against her and the students.
  • There is a mailing list in which games writers talk to each other. Warning: Breitbart link. This fact was presented as inherently controversial, but not really explained why. Absolutely nothing worthy of discussing was ever found on this mailing list. Just people who happen to share the same job, joking with each other, and asking each other uncontroversial questions.
  • Jenn Frank was accused of failing to disclose a conflict of interest. She actually did disclose this in her initial draft, but before publication this was "removed by editors because [it] did not fulfill the criteria for a “significant connection” in line with the Guardian’s editorial guidelines."
  • Maya Kramer was accused of colluding/sleeping with the IGF chairman to secure an award for The Stanley Parable, a game she'd done PR for. This award was the Audience Award, decided by a public vote on the website and consequently immune to this alleged impropriety.

  • The Escapist ran a horribly misguided attempt at interviewing GamerGate developers who are developers. Pretty much everything that could have gone wrong, did go wrong.
    • Titles of the articles are "game developers" and "female game developers". Um. What?
    • None of the female game developers felt safe to share their actual identities
    • Male game developers were sourced straight from 4chan. Seriously
    • Ridiculously loaded questions
    • One of the male developers interviewed happened to be directly involved in coordinated attacks against Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, and others including baseless accusations like tax fraud.

      INTERMISSION
      Also remember: neither Anita Sarkeesian nor Zoe Quinn are journalists. Let's all remember that Nathan Grayson is the only actual journalist involved here, so even if the claims against him were true - they're not - they're for some reason still focusing on Zoe and Anita.

      Definitely not misogyny tho.
      END INTERMISSION


      Escapist EIC removes his interview.

      ...
    • OOPS! Another guy The Escapist interviewed is a guy who literally wrote an article called "In Defense of Rape"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.