Let me give you a little of my own history so you can judge me as a human being rather than an avatar of a movement.
HalfmoonHex, no one here is forcing you to stand up for every last vestige of GamerGate; it's entirely up to you what aspects you actually choose to support and defend.
I've looked through your posts and the only substantive claim you've made in this entire discussion is that game reviewers are being paid off, and yet you haven't really expanded on that point in any kind of detail.
First of all, what do you mean by "paid off", exactly? Where is the evidence that this not only happens, but happens on such a large scale that a social movement is warranted?
Secondly, even if it is true that this is an endemic problem, why is it such a big deal anyway? It's really not that difficult to obtain the necessary critical literacy skills and establish solid priors as to which sources you should trust and when you should trust them.
They're off message. I really don't understand the hate for Zoe Quin.
I'm going to take you at your word when you say you don't understand what's going on there, but I will say this much: it is very clear that GamerGate as a whole is heavily tied up with anti-feminist sentiment, and it is also very clear that this is not a coincidence. I suggest you take some time to think about it; it is quite simply better to understand something than to not understand it.
HalfmoonHex, here is a really good analysis of GamerGate, breaking down their ideologies and messages as if the movement were a literary text. It does a good job of breaking down why they're against feminism and women in general. http://blip.tv/foldablehuman/s4e7-gamergate-7071206
The odd thing though is that this video is more than a year old ("Published on Sep 24, 2013") so I don't really think this is really the trigger for the sudden influx of personal appropriation of the Civil Rights Movement by the GamerGate community.
Thunderf00t did a video about it recently. I don't think there's anything wrong with Thunderf00t himself, but his fans are aggressive and not all as rational as he is. He used a clip from that video recently.
Mr. Frost, can we move past that? I've agreed that the loudest voices in GG are hateful. There are intelligent voices that are getting drown out by those loud ones though.
If the loudest voices of a group belong to assholes and the general public opinion of the group is that they are bunch of assholes, then that's what the group is and if you associate yourself with the group you knowingly and willingly associate yourself with that group of assholes.
HalfmoonHex, no one here is forcing you to stand up for every last vestige of GamerGate; it's entirely up to you what aspects you actually choose to support and defend.
I appreciate that.
First of all, what do you mean by "paid off", exactly?
An example would be the Xbox One/Michinema deal, where they gained extra add revnue by using specif hashtags for videos and saying positive things about Xbox One.
Where is the evidence that this not only happens, but happens on such a large scale that a social movement is warranted?
Probably not, but a smaller pro-Gamer watchdog group/advocacy group would be optimal. GG is almost entirely out of control. The leadership structure has no accountability. An organization could rate publications on trustworthiness, use community resources or the law (when necessary) to accomplish goals, and would be more respected than an angry mob.
Imagine a Gamer advocacy group during the Mass Effect 3 controversy: A) They could decide that yes EA falsely advertised and take legal action Suggest people are overreacting and try to calm them down or the best answer C) Talk to EA/Bioware about the controversy and ask for some concessions.
Secondly, even if it is true that this is an endemic problem, why is it such a big deal anyway?
Not everyone can or will find a source trustworthy to them. It'd be nice if there was a way to make that decision easier for the general consumer.
Mr. Frost, can we move past that? I've agreed that the loudest voices in GG are hateful. There are intelligent voices that are getting drown out by those loud ones though.
First off, "Mr. Frost"?
Secondly, No, we can't "move past" it because those issues are core to what drives the Gamergate narrative. If you want to fly it's flag, you need to face the fact that the movement carries these terrible ideals with it and that people will judge you by those ideals. It's like calling yourself a member of the tea party and expecting not to deal with people thinking you're a conservative, gun nutty xenophobe . You need to either divorce yourself from that group or be willing to address those issues.
Edit: Better example: It would be like calling yourself a member of the Ku Klux Klan because you agree with them that the Westboro Baptist Church are terrible people for protesting funerals, and then get confused when people thing you're a racist fuck.
You need to either divorce yourself from that group or be willing to address those issues.
That's why I keep suggesting an advocacy group, A better organization that's not GG. Now's the best time to try and cherry pick the best and the brighest from GG, NotYourSheild, and Pro-Gamer GG opposition.
You may want to look up the tenants of chivalry because I do not think that means what you think it means. Also, this forum isn't nearly formal enough for that business.
You need to either divorce yourself from that group or be willing to address those issues.
That's why I keep suggesting an advocacy group, A better organization that's not GG. Now's the best time to try and cherry pick the best and the brighest from GG, NotYourSheild, and Pro-Gamer GG opposition.
Sorry newbie, but that's like picking the nicest cucumbers out of a jar of pickles.
And what the hell is a pro-gamer gamergate opposition? Wouldn't all gamers be pro-gamers? Forget the fact that I question if the term "gamer" is even necessary these days.
Thunderf00t did a video about it recently. I don't think there's anything wrong with Thunderf00t himself, [...]
I don't know about whether there's anything wrong with Thunderf00t himself, but there's plenty wrong with some of the ideas he vocally espouses, and there's even more wrong with the dishonest tactics he uses in support of those ideas. Are you in favour of his whole "professional victim" spiel?
[...] but his fans are aggressive and not all as rational as he is.
Yes, and his fans reflect quite poorly on him. Do you really think that the actions of Thunderf00t's fans are totally unrelated to the ideas he espouses? There is plenty that Thunderf00t could do to improve the quality of his fanbase; instead, he encourages them.
Mr. Frost, can we move past that? I've agreed that the loudest voices in GG are hateful. There are intelligent voices that are getting drown out by those loud ones though.
You yourself have said that you don't understand where the "loud voices" (i.e. the majority of the GamerGate community) are coming from in their anti-feminist sentiment.
Perhaps you believe that GamerGate really is all about ethics in game journalism, but that is far too low a standard to publicly endorse a movement. Nor is it enough to simply denounce what you see as the toxic elements of that movement. Before espousing it, you should take the time to genuinely understand the subtext, because sometimes the toxic elements can be traced back all the way to a rotten core.
By admitting that you don't understand where the anti-feminist hatred is coming from, you necessarily admit an inability to judge the GG movement as a whole.
An example would be the Xbox One/Michinema deal, where they gained extra add revnue by using specif hashtags for videos and saying positive things about Xbox One.
I thought we were talking about journalism here. Why is the first example you bring up a case involving Microsoft paying money to YouTubers? It also appears to be a rather small-scale affair. Either way, from an ethical perspective the main issue here is that many of those YouTubers likely failed to properly disclose that they were being paid money to make an endorsement.
Where is the evidence that this not only happens, but happens on such a large scale that a social movement is warranted?
Probably not, but a smaller pro-Gamer watchdog group/advocacy group would be optimal. GG is almost entirely out of control. The leadership structure has no accountability.
Wait, there's a leadership structure!?
An organization could rate publications on trustworthiness, use community resources or the law (when necessary) to accomplish goals, and would be more respected than an angry mob.
What would such a group achieve that is not already achieved by, for example, actual journalists? As a case in point, the Xbox One case you brought up was quite effectively brought to light via this Ars Technica report. How is that not a sufficient measure?
Imagine a Gamer advocacy group during the Mass Effect 3 controversy: A) They could decide that yes EA falsely advertised and take legal action Suggest people are overreacting and try to calm them down or the best answer C) Talk to EA/Bioware about the controversy and ask for some concessions.
Well, in the UK it got taken to the Advertising Standards Authority, and EA/BioWare were cleared of the charges. On the whole, though, it's pretty clear that the bad press they received over the whole affair was pretty much exactly what needed to happen. It's not like they're going to make the same mistake again, are they? As for (C), can you explain what exactly "concessions" would entail?
On the whole, I don't really see any pressing concern at all for the kind of advocacy group you're calling for. Where is the evidence of an endemic problem that is not already being handled just fine via the standard journalistic processes? If you had evidence that some of these kinds of unethical behaviours were continuing even after being brought to light, then we would have more to talk about.
Sorry newbie, but that's like picking the nicest cucumbers out of a jar of pickles.
So everyone who's ever been involved with GG is morally reprehensible and tainted?
Not eveyone is a buttface that should be shunned at best, but anyone that associates with GG is tainted by it's reprehensible members, who do make up either the majority or a very vocal minority.
I thought we were talking about journalism here. Why is the first example you bring up a case involving Microsoft paying money to YouTubers?
So video is not journalism? I guess neither are TV nor radio? Machinima covers, promotes, and reviews games, how is this NOT journalism?
They don't have sources or break any news, they simply play games and give options. They are the vlog type people that got an audience of people interested in what they have to say.
So video is not journalism? I guess neither are TV nor radio? Machinima covers, promotes, and reviews games, how is this NOT journalism?
The medium has nothing to do with this, I'm talking about the content and the people producing it.
Perhaps some of the content on Machinima does qualify as journalism, but in this instance we're not even talking about Machinima itself. Microsoft was paying so-called Machinima "partners" for content, and Machinima partners are basically just normal YouTubers. The ultimate issue was thus that many of those YouTubers likely failed to properly disclose that they were receiving money from Microsoft.
How exactly can you claim that this example is symptomatic of a broader issue with "ethics in game journalism"? As far as I can see, all your example demonstrates is that (unsurprisingly) YouTubers are not necessarily aware of proper journalistic ethics...
One can blame Machinima for not ensuring that their partners did their due diligence, but after having this particular affair brought to light it seems to me that Machinima is likely to do a better job next time.
So, was that really your best example of ethical failures in game journalism?
So video is not journalism? I guess neither are TV nor radio? Machinima covers, promotes, and reviews games, how is this NOT journalism?
Reviews and promotions, at the very least, are not journalism.
Machinima also doesn't pretend to be an outlet - they're a channel. They do have Inside Gaming as their own Editorial/gaming news brand - but Inside Gaming was never part of the promotion you mentioned. The promotion you speak of was about Machinima paying it's content partners(basically, their pet youtubers) for positive content about the Xbox one, not the Inside Gaming section.
Also, speaking of Youtubers, though this is mostly a rhetorical question - Why is it that Totalbiscut brands himself as a "Media journalist" when it gets him something, but then immediately claims to not be a journalist as soon as anyone tries to hold him to anything resembling journalistic ethics or standards? Or, when he's offered cash for promos, of course - He's done a few of those over time. Fun facts - a tiny little disclaimer like he used to do, or even a big splash screen, does not really make that okay, particularly if you're a champion of a movement that's very loudly claiming to be very seriously against that sort of thing.
Even more hilariously - In response to being outed for being paid for covering of Guns of Icarus online, and being criticized as a reviewer for taking money from a dev to produce content for a game, was to claim that he's not a reviewer. Despite the fact that literally his entire career is built on reviews.
Christ, if suddenly being British became unacceptable for some reason, he'd probably claim that he wasn't a Geordie, either.
Also, I feel a little guilty - while you did come into this undoubtedly knowing you'd encounter some pushback, I do feel a little bit like I gave you a warm-up, and then threw you to the wolves. Sorry about that.
Either back that up or you're just straight-up guilty of slander.
I did earlier. Yes she DID have a relationship with a journalist, But it was not one that reviewed her games. So it did not actually affect the game review. She told this to the BBC.
"While the relationship happened, the review did not."
So yes, the link was false. But there was a relationship. Zoe Quin really had nothing to do with this and it's not her fault. She might even be progressing the medium towards Art. Many of the most famous historical artists today, had a great deal of controversy in their lives.
I don't even care about her. I'd like it if people stopped harassing her. I don't like being held accountable for other people's harassment.
So again, you are opposed to an issue that doesn't even exist.
I'm going to ask you to place some evidence on the mat here. Show me an example or two of 'game journalists' colluding and taking money/bribes from a publisher that had any major effect on the game's release and performance, and screwed the 'gaming community'.
Hell, just one. ANY one.
I'm not talking about getting in to E3, or playing a game early. Getting press attention is not the same as bribing someone for good reviews. Even Activision/Bungie who stood to make $2.5 million if they got high review scores for their venture in mediocrity known as Destiny, which would be a probable cause for accusing them of collusion, got lukewarm reviews in the 7/10 range from 'game journalists' all over the place. They stand to loose money, a lot of money, and even then, there is no evidence of this collusion you claim is a problem.
EDIT: Quinn, Sarkisian, Wu, and others under attack AREN'T EVEN GAME JOURNALISTS. They were attacked for being women, nothing more. If GooberGate was actually a movement for anything other than harassing women and then making up self-righteous justification for it, they would have gone after the journalist who posted lies about his relationship about Quinn to try and sabotage her. That is literally the thing GG claims to be mad about all the fucking time. That is using information to boost or slander a game and its creator for no reason other than personal gain.
Sorry newbie, but that's like picking the nicest cucumbers out of a jar of pickles.
So everyone who's ever been involved with GG is morally reprehensible and tainted?
Not eveyone is a buttface that should be shunned at best, but anyone that associates with GG is tainted by it's reprehensible members, who do make up either the majority or a very vocal minority.
The Tea Party example is apt.
There are literally, LITERALLY, white supremacists and neo-nazis supporting GG. If people of that ilk started to congregate around something I was involved with, I'd do some serious re-investigation of my position.
Looking through this thread I am reminded of the "blogging crisis" from a few years back when paid postings began to appear.
In my case I have done paid postings and always attached a disclosure. I have also done video game reviews (some copies were provided for free while others I paid for.) I don't recall if I always mentioned whether the game was provided for free but in cases where the game was free it in no way impacted my review. The only time I remember the PR company request I not publish a review was when they sent me a copy of the horrible Alone in the Dark game. In that case they sent the same letter to all of their reviewers requesting that due to the highly negative reviews for the game the sponsor (Atari?) Requested no reviews be published. When I asked them directly they said the request came from the sponsor but I was still free to publish if I chose to. I don't remember if I even completed my review before that request was made.
When you really think about it, any of those controversies are fairly meaningless, all things considered. I never heard about any of them, much like most of the world barely knows about GG, but it's more renowned than the other aforementioned "controversies".
Also, I feel a little guilty - while you did come into this undoubtedly knowing you'd encounter some pushback, I do feel a little bit like I gave you a warm-up, and then threw you to the wolves. Sorry about that.
I'm just finding it incredibly difficult to find legitimate examples with fact checking when I have to dig threw sewers of filth to find any. I'm considering just setting up rat traps at the grate of 8chan, then do my own fact checks. It will take me months to set up a valid argument on my own. I'm only one man!
I really only got involved in the first place because of the outraged fans in that Utena video. I was hoping to convince you all not to assume Every person who has nice things to say about GG is a misogynist. I also hoped that maybe Rym's response to the offended fans would have been to lead them away from hatred rather than:
Comments
I've looked through your posts and the only substantive claim you've made in this entire discussion is that game reviewers are being paid off, and yet you haven't really expanded on that point in any kind of detail.
First of all, what do you mean by "paid off", exactly? Where is the evidence that this not only happens, but happens on such a large scale that a social movement is warranted?
Secondly, even if it is true that this is an endemic problem, why is it such a big deal anyway? It's really not that difficult to obtain the necessary critical literacy skills and establish solid priors as to which sources you should trust and when you should trust them. I'm going to take you at your word when you say you don't understand what's going on there, but I will say this much: it is very clear that GamerGate as a whole is heavily tied up with anti-feminist sentiment, and it is also very clear that this is not a coincidence. I suggest you take some time to think about it; it is quite simply better to understand something than to not understand it.
http://blip.tv/foldablehuman/s4e7-gamergate-7071206
Imagine a Gamer advocacy group during the Mass Effect 3 controversy:
A) They could decide that yes EA falsely advertised and take legal action
or the best answer C) Talk to EA/Bioware about the controversy and ask for some concessions. Not everyone can or will find a source trustworthy to them. It'd be nice if there was a way to make that decision easier for the general consumer.
Secondly, No, we can't "move past" it because those issues are core to what drives the Gamergate narrative. If you want to fly it's flag, you need to face the fact that the movement carries these terrible ideals with it and that people will judge you by those ideals. It's like calling yourself a member of the tea party and expecting not to deal with people thinking you're a conservative, gun nutty xenophobe . You need to either divorce yourself from that group or be willing to address those issues.
Edit:
Better example: It would be like calling yourself a member of the Ku Klux Klan because you agree with them that the Westboro Baptist Church are terrible people for protesting funerals, and then get confused when people thing you're a racist fuck.
And what the hell is a pro-gamer gamergate opposition? Wouldn't all gamers be pro-gamers? Forget the fact that I question if the term "gamer" is even necessary these days.
Not my chart, but accurate enough.
Perhaps you believe that GamerGate really is all about ethics in game journalism, but that is far too low a standard to publicly endorse a movement. Nor is it enough to simply denounce what you see as the toxic elements of that movement. Before espousing it, you should take the time to genuinely understand the subtext, because sometimes the toxic elements can be traced back all the way to a rotten core.
By admitting that you don't understand where the anti-feminist hatred is coming from, you necessarily admit an inability to judge the GG movement as a whole.
^_~
On the whole, I don't really see any pressing concern at all for the kind of advocacy group you're calling for. Where is the evidence of an endemic problem that is not already being handled just fine via the standard journalistic processes? If you had evidence that some of these kinds of unethical behaviours were continuing even after being brought to light, then we would have more to talk about.
The Tea Party example is apt.
Perhaps some of the content on Machinima does qualify as journalism, but in this instance we're not even talking about Machinima itself. Microsoft was paying so-called Machinima "partners" for content, and Machinima partners are basically just normal YouTubers. The ultimate issue was thus that many of those YouTubers likely failed to properly disclose that they were receiving money from Microsoft.
How exactly can you claim that this example is symptomatic of a broader issue with "ethics in game journalism"? As far as I can see, all your example demonstrates is that (unsurprisingly) YouTubers are not necessarily aware of proper journalistic ethics...
One can blame Machinima for not ensuring that their partners did their due diligence, but after having this particular affair brought to light it seems to me that Machinima is likely to do a better job next time.
So, was that really your best example of ethical failures in game journalism?
Machinima also doesn't pretend to be an outlet - they're a channel. They do have Inside Gaming as their own Editorial/gaming news brand - but Inside Gaming was never part of the promotion you mentioned. The promotion you speak of was about Machinima paying it's content partners(basically, their pet youtubers) for positive content about the Xbox one, not the Inside Gaming section.
Also, speaking of Youtubers, though this is mostly a rhetorical question - Why is it that Totalbiscut brands himself as a "Media journalist" when it gets him something, but then immediately claims to not be a journalist as soon as anyone tries to hold him to anything resembling journalistic ethics or standards? Or, when he's offered cash for promos, of course - He's done a few of those over time. Fun facts - a tiny little disclaimer like he used to do, or even a big splash screen, does not really make that okay, particularly if you're a champion of a movement that's very loudly claiming to be very seriously against that sort of thing.
Even more hilariously - In response to being outed for being paid for covering of Guns of Icarus online, and being criticized as a reviewer for taking money from a dev to produce content for a game, was to claim that he's not a reviewer. Despite the fact that literally his entire career is built on reviews.
Christ, if suddenly being British became unacceptable for some reason, he'd probably claim that he wasn't a Geordie, either.
Also, I feel a little guilty - while you did come into this undoubtedly knowing you'd encounter some pushback, I do feel a little bit like I gave you a warm-up, and then threw you to the wolves. Sorry about that.
I'm going to ask you to place some evidence on the mat here. Show me an example or two of 'game journalists' colluding and taking money/bribes from a publisher that had any major effect on the game's release and performance, and screwed the 'gaming community'.
Hell, just one. ANY one.
I'm not talking about getting in to E3, or playing a game early. Getting press attention is not the same as bribing someone for good reviews. Even Activision/Bungie who stood to make $2.5 million if they got high review scores for their venture in mediocrity known as Destiny, which would be a probable cause for accusing them of collusion, got lukewarm reviews in the 7/10 range from 'game journalists' all over the place. They stand to loose money, a lot of money, and even then, there is no evidence of this collusion you claim is a problem.
EDIT: Quinn, Sarkisian, Wu, and others under attack AREN'T EVEN GAME JOURNALISTS. They were attacked for being women, nothing more. If GooberGate was actually a movement for anything other than harassing women and then making up self-righteous justification for it, they would have gone after the journalist who posted lies about his relationship about Quinn to try and sabotage her. That is literally the thing GG claims to be mad about all the fucking time. That is using information to boost or slander a game and its creator for no reason other than personal gain.
In my case I have done paid postings and always attached a disclosure. I have also done video game reviews (some copies were provided for free while others I paid for.) I don't recall if I always mentioned whether the game was provided for free but in cases where the game was free it in no way impacted my review. The only time I remember the PR company request I not publish a review was when they sent me a copy of the horrible Alone in the Dark game. In that case they sent the same letter to all of their reviewers requesting that due to the highly negative reviews for the game the sponsor (Atari?) Requested no reviews be published. When I asked them directly they said the request came from the sponsor but I was still free to publish if I chose to. I don't remember if I even completed my review before that request was made.
Sorry after reading all the "internet" controversies I had to do it, just for the joke.
I really only got involved in the first place because of the outraged fans in that Utena video. I was hoping to convince you all not to assume Every person who has nice things to say about GG is a misogynist. I also hoped that maybe Rym's response to the offended fans would have been to lead them away from hatred rather than:
A. Misogynists who want women to suffer
B. Duped by misogynists into helping them make women suffer.
You are B. Hopefully this thread has made you see that.