cormack12
Gold Member
Disclaimer: This is long form so a lot of people won't make it through, but those who do I hope it prompts a good open exchange of idea's
I'll be honest, someone said start a topic on this and see where it goes. So the OP might get meandering and a bit tangential which I apologise for. I'm not sure where to take it at the moment. I figure I'll write and see where it takes me then try to put it into some sort of order. This OP isn't meant to shed light on what my personal thoughts are just open the topic up to everyone. I'll post my own personal opinion and 'hot takes' later in the thread.
We start with looking at the ever growing number of social media incidents where a person in a position of professional authority has let some personal opinions/professional opinions bleed through into interpersonal exchanges. On the back of this (unforseen - or unanticipated in most cases), it has led to radical fallouts, with 'followers' of both parties picking sides. This then spreads as a current affair topic and outlier factions rally to the banners as well. This has led to certain people contesting these points, to be 'smeared' with incorrect labels (Hentai lover, transphobe, racist, sexist, misogynist, incel). In some cases - maybe by misreading the situation, if we're being generous - there has been a deliberate drive to attribute a bone of contention to a prejudice. On the flip side, some have used the vehicle of social media to whip up a frenzy against quite innocuous and innocent remarks, which has resulted in people being terminated from employment :/ Often these remarks are taken entirely out of context and manipulated to fit the narrative or shut down the legitimacy of a honest and frank discussion. The problem here is that the biggest online 'rabble' usually wins, common sense or critical thinking does not prevail. It seems social media can live by the mantra of Rousseau:
If anything, I think the social media age has made it readily apparent how many creative types are not able to embrace critical support. On the flip side, having a public presence does open you to any random Joe getting in touch and saying 'Hur Hur, your game sucks' which must get exhausting. Having said that, there is no rule that says your profile must be public - you can set it to private on any major platform. Unfortunately social media is a double edged sword, you can't have all the positives and none of the negatives. However, when faced with valid criticism, the answer is to not shout down the voice with your hoards of followers and accuse them of being 'phobes and having awful agenda's or being part of hate groups. I think the problem of giving these influencers legitimacy even when their positions are at best 50-50 creates a real problem going forward and an expectation of response which in turn fuels the whole online culture.
Some notable incidents to familiarise yourself with are:
I guess really all these topics straddle very diverse and different points but are front and centre of the social media wars. I guess in terms of conduct we need to discuss
When do you impugn on people's faculty to hold a personal opinion in a public arena?
Is the public arena is suitable for certain opinions when posting as a 'known entity'?
Should you desist from pop culture commentary?
Is social media the best outlet for professional musing and exchange of idea's?
Loving the public facing moniker of game development but also gatekeeping those discussions hosted publicly;
Is there a level of responsibility to uphold where personal crusades of these influencer's are not to be given gravitas by platform holders?
Maybe some good talking points are around:
ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so." This is a fallacy which is very difficult to spot because our “common sense” tells us that if something is popular, it must be good/true/valid, but this is not so, especially in a society where clever marketing, social and political weight, and money can buy popularity.
I'll be honest, someone said start a topic on this and see where it goes. So the OP might get meandering and a bit tangential which I apologise for. I'm not sure where to take it at the moment. I figure I'll write and see where it takes me then try to put it into some sort of order. This OP isn't meant to shed light on what my personal thoughts are just open the topic up to everyone. I'll post my own personal opinion and 'hot takes' later in the thread.
We start with looking at the ever growing number of social media incidents where a person in a position of professional authority has let some personal opinions/professional opinions bleed through into interpersonal exchanges. On the back of this (unforseen - or unanticipated in most cases), it has led to radical fallouts, with 'followers' of both parties picking sides. This then spreads as a current affair topic and outlier factions rally to the banners as well. This has led to certain people contesting these points, to be 'smeared' with incorrect labels (Hentai lover, transphobe, racist, sexist, misogynist, incel). In some cases - maybe by misreading the situation, if we're being generous - there has been a deliberate drive to attribute a bone of contention to a prejudice. On the flip side, some have used the vehicle of social media to whip up a frenzy against quite innocuous and innocent remarks, which has resulted in people being terminated from employment :/ Often these remarks are taken entirely out of context and manipulated to fit the narrative or shut down the legitimacy of a honest and frank discussion. The problem here is that the biggest online 'rabble' usually wins, common sense or critical thinking does not prevail. It seems social media can live by the mantra of Rousseau:
Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains..
If anything, I think the social media age has made it readily apparent how many creative types are not able to embrace critical support. On the flip side, having a public presence does open you to any random Joe getting in touch and saying 'Hur Hur, your game sucks' which must get exhausting. Having said that, there is no rule that says your profile must be public - you can set it to private on any major platform. Unfortunately social media is a double edged sword, you can't have all the positives and none of the negatives. However, when faced with valid criticism, the answer is to not shout down the voice with your hoards of followers and accuse them of being 'phobes and having awful agenda's or being part of hate groups. I think the problem of giving these influencers legitimacy even when their positions are at best 50-50 creates a real problem going forward and an expectation of response which in turn fuels the whole online culture.
Some notable incidents to familiarise yourself with are:
- Jessica Price;
- CDPR // Gamergate and Transphobic tweets;
- Layna Lazar / Xavier CK;
- Patrick Soderlund - BFV;
- Tim Soret;
- Eveline Wiznerowicz;
- Subnautica Simon Chylinski;
- Phil Fish // Fez II;
- Patrick Klepek;
- Riot games and PAX West;
- Fallout 76 player banned for life after homophobic in-game action
I guess really all these topics straddle very diverse and different points but are front and centre of the social media wars. I guess in terms of conduct we need to discuss
When do you impugn on people's faculty to hold a personal opinion in a public arena?
Is the public arena is suitable for certain opinions when posting as a 'known entity'?
Should you desist from pop culture commentary?
Is social media the best outlet for professional musing and exchange of idea's?
Loving the public facing moniker of game development but also gatekeeping those discussions hosted publicly;
Is there a level of responsibility to uphold where personal crusades of these influencer's are not to be given gravitas by platform holders?
Maybe some good talking points are around:
Censorship
Should a person in a professional capacity give input on the quality of work alone? Should they also be allowed to give an opinion on whether it should be deplatformed or censored? Should they make frivolous, demeaning comments to platform holders and suggest they don't host it, or use the threat of their followers boycotting the service as an instrument for change
Professional opinion
When you are talking about challenges with specificity as faced by you in your industry, you are opening yourself up to public commentary to those with little or large knowledge on the topic as well (from layman to hobbyist to peer). If you don't want to deal with genuine passionate followers of the industry with limited understanding perhaps shouting about it in a public place is not the best idea. Maybe take it to linkedIn, specific dev events or expo's but then you miss out on the adulation and wonderment and sycophantic vindication that you were right all along.
Political leanings
When political subtlety is lost as a creative insertion into your work, it loses its credibility and becomes propaganda. Given the partisan nature of the relationships between followers and followed it very quickly becomes polarising.
Seperate real profiles from anonymous ones
Given the ease of internet sleuthing these days, using your real name and even using similar usernames for different services means you are more than likely able to be tracked down. It also removes the vanity aspect of it. People can agree with @AI-Dev#003 for Bethesda without the personal attachment.
Aging out
Is there a point of indemnity where we accept that comments made in the past are not to be regurgitated, especially those made tongue in cheek or riding high on the breath of youthful ignorance/rebellion?