wanderingprostheyltite
Member
Great news, glad people came together and got through to them.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
SXSW cancels a panel on "Overcoming Harassment in Games" due to threats of violence
- Thread starter crimsonheadGCN
- Start date
Great news, glad people came together and got through to them.
Woo-Fu
Banned
Particularly when internet anonymity allows completely fictional people to play the part of the opposition, even if they're not in any way opposed, perhaps even if they're entirely for.
Seriously, I have a hard time wrapping my mind around anybody being so strongly against a panel to discuss online harassment to the point of making threats. That strikes me as insanity.
Seems to me the problem isn't online harassment it is that the world has more than enough crazy people to go around regardless of what you want to have a panel on. But better mental health care never seems to make the agenda in the US, instead the focus falls upon whatever crazy people use to do crazy things instead of the crazy people themselves.
SlavetodaBOX
Member
It seems to me they lick there thumb and check which way the wind is blowing before making a announcement. If there was a legitimate threat I hope they have the authorities involved.
So many years growing up I'd get livid over people stereotyping gamers as violent and unstable.
...and then shit like this happens. Way to try and legitimize the stereotype, assholes. This is just like when Anita Sarkeesian had to cancel her appearance at that Utah school. If you don't like what someone has to say, don't fucking go to the speech, don't have anything to do with it whatsoever. Peacefully protest. No one is forcing you to go, or to agree, and your stance will not change anything in the long term. In fact it just makes me a wee bit more embarrassed to be a "gamer", even if it's slight.
...and then shit like this happens. Way to try and legitimize the stereotype, assholes. This is just like when Anita Sarkeesian had to cancel her appearance at that Utah school. If you don't like what someone has to say, don't fucking go to the speech, don't have anything to do with it whatsoever. Peacefully protest. No one is forcing you to go, or to agree, and your stance will not change anything in the long term. In fact it just makes me a wee bit more embarrassed to be a "gamer", even if it's slight.
Neuromancer
Member
Good, I guess sanity won the day after all.
Good. What an ordeal this has been :T
What is even the point of this at all?
We're never getting rid of Gators are we?
They're just laying the foundations for outer heaven. #LaLiLeLaLo
SolicitorPirate
Member
This is the most nonsense article I've ever read. Court of law? Like actual Court? Why do you think a Court would care about your stupid doctrine? Or are they talking about their stupid gaming court? In which case ITS NOT A COURT OF LAW! Its a group of people playing make believe!
And face punishment under the law of the accused's country of residence? How on earth do they think thats enforceable? Or do they think their made up court has more jurisdictional reach than literally any other Court on earth?
When I first read the doctrine, I thought this was some law student who just started constitutional law thinking he's smarter than he actually is. But no, no law student with such poor understanding would make it through first year. This is just the work of idiots.
There's been some interesting anecdotes from the community of Dota 2 about how matches have improved considerably when an abusive player's ability to communicate is revoked. I'm talking about the muted player's perspective here, noticing that they're the reason everybody in their matches is upset and unable to work as a team.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
"Why should I accept this as evidence?"
"They broke gamer law."
"You do realize that I'm an actual judge and this is an actual court?"
"What makes your court any different than ours?"
"It's based on actual laws."
"And what makes those laws more legit than ours?"
VibratingDonkey
Member
I don't know what the Open Gaming people are doing with their cheesy manifestos and goofy moon court documents. And I don't particularly care to. But if they'd stay busy conjuring those up instead of doing other things, that'd be cool.
There's something fundamentally wrong with how the people responsible for managing SXSW approached this situation, throughout its duration.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...d-gamergate-abuse-into-a-spectator-sport.html
That's good to hear. Hopefully communication will continue and SXSW will learn how to deal with these situations in the future, before they get to this point.
Telling a panelist worried about harassment and her safety, that the event would be boring without the voice of a panel moderated by this guy, and set up by the group that's harassed and stalked her and swatted her mom in the past, is fucked up.
The Level Up panel was about design in software that could help subdue online harassment. Equivocating and positioning these two panels as two sides of a healthy, "interesting" debate, is just completely absurd.
There's something fundamentally wrong with how the people responsible for managing SXSW approached this situation, throughout its duration.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...d-gamergate-abuse-into-a-spectator-sport.html
Nah. There has to be the possibility it will happen. Otherwise it's just threats. It's the random acts of violence that cause the terror not the threats.
(I have no idea about this specifically I've purposefully stayed well away from the whole GG thing)
If this is what prolonged exposure to Ace Attorney does to people, I think I'll have to reconsider its position as one of my favorite series.
On the other hand, by doing this GG supporters have less time to keep harassing people, so good for them I guess.
Corronchilejano
Member
That's painful to watch.
Ok I just watched the 1st 5 minutes of that and I think I may have dropped an IQ point, does it get any better?
GeordieMark
Member
That's great news. Cancelling the panel sent entirely the wrong message.
Fantastapotamus
Wrong about commas, wrong about everything
"Your "honor", please do not forget the fact that I beat Dark Souls 4 times!"
"I...wha..."
"FOUR TIMES! How often did you beat Dark Souls your "honor"?"
"What?"
"I thought so. Lock him up, Louie"
Messofanego
Banned
I cringed watching this a couple days ago, and the Rubin Report sounds as predictable as expected for a platform entertaining this dude's hatred.
"Believe in free speech? Tired of political correctness? Like discussions about big ideas? Welcome to The Rubin Report. Dave Rubin brings you real conversatio."
blech
crimsonheadGCN
Banned
Texas State Senator Wendy Davis and ACLU both condemn SXSW:
https://twitter.com/wendydavis/status/659413247842525185
https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/say-it-aint-so-sxsw-2016
https://twitter.com/wendydavis/status/659413247842525185
https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/say-it-aint-so-sxsw-2016
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
That's why it's called a threat.
Um, no.
When you give in to these threats, that's terrorism working.
Then why do you think you are qualified to talk about the subject?
SWATTING
Tying up a suicide prevention hotline
While it is true that the instances of GG doing something real are few and far between, brushing it off as merely internet lol is incredibly stupid.
Interview on NPR about this:
http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201510280900
http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201510280900
I'm not sure what your response was directed at here- I definitely agree with that, and am happy that online games have started implementing systems like this.
I just meant that in their weird doctrine they state it's not ok to discriminate/attack someone based on their race/gender/sexuality/etc. (though, of course, they do this anyway and are just going through the motions here), but then specifically take time to mention that it's totally fine to attack someone based on their perceived gaming skill. This is despite the entire point of what they wrote being protecting gamers from some perceived "discrimination". You'd think keeping them from being attacked over "skill" would be part of that? But apparently not.
Corronchilejano
Member
John Kowalski
Banned
is that liquid snake??
Hey, wasn't the first topic just about minimizing harassment, not gamergate in particular?
@DocSeuss: plz explain
Neuromancer
Member
What's the deal with her?
Happy to read this.
I love Milo, he's hilarious. Such a shit stirrer haha.
chaobreaker
Member
I really don't know what to say. I've been catching up on this shit and still can't believe we have orgs like SXSW even humoring Goobergrapes in the first place. Does no one get the fucking memo about them?
They think gamers should be a protected class!
They would rather have every single game journalist live in complete, indefinite isolation lest they start fraternizing with other fellow journos on twitter and *gasp!* collude!
They actually attempted to codify the difference between hardcore gamers and casual gamers in their little kangaroo court law book!
Why do you want to give them a platform?
They think gamers should be a protected class!
They would rather have every single game journalist live in complete, indefinite isolation lest they start fraternizing with other fellow journos on twitter and *gasp!* collude!
They actually attempted to codify the difference between hardcore gamers and casual gamers in their little kangaroo court law book!
Why do you want to give them a platform?
Neoriceisgood
Member
It's Reyn Time!
Member
Particularly when internet anonymity allows completely fictional people to play the part of the opposition, even if they're not in any way opposed, perhaps even if they're entirely for.
Am I reading this incorrectly or are you saying the anti-harassment people made the threats against themselves in order to validate their argument?
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Corronchilejano
Member
I think he's referring to the manifesto of the "Open Gaming Society" where they claim they're against harrasment yet they put a counter-panel to the anti-harrasment measures one.
He's probably taking about how #GG stuff tends to get threats sent to it that are generally claimed by other random #GG members.
Caroline Sinders, one of the people who was running the now-cancelled "Level Up" panel, writes about how things went down.
It's somewhat of a more in-depth version of what Arthur Chu posted the other day, from the standpoint of one of the principals.
It's somewhat of a more in-depth version of what Arthur Chu posted the other day, from the standpoint of one of the principals.
ElBoxyBrown
Banned
Get the popcorn ready.
LudicrousSpeed
Member
There's a lot of positive things here. There's also one major problem: they've put the Gamergate panel as part of the anti-harassment event.
This makes about as much sense as an event dedicated to cancer prevention giving a panel to Big Tobacco to hawk their products.
This makes about as much sense as an event dedicated to cancer prevention giving a panel to Big Tobacco to hawk their products.
I actually think this might end up working out better for Randi and co - giving the GG folks a giant public (and a much bigger and different group of observers) forum to stick their foot in their mouths and look completely incompetent might actually be the thing that actually ends this entire insanity. I'm not worried about GG "convincing anyone" at this point - their argument is bullshit and insane and will crumble at actual public scrutiny.
Remember that Big Tobacco ended up doing the most damage to themselves when they were dragged in front of Congress and had to try to defend themselves in public, and everyone got to see in glorious spectacle how completely messed up it was.
My thoughts exactly. Let them have their panel, and face public questioning and scrutiny. Hell, they might even bump into (and who knows, maybe even emphasize with?) some of the victims who've had their life turned upside down by people who are absolutely, completely, 100% unrelated to gg...
Similar threads
- Locked