Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The big Phil Fish, Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian discussion thread
Options
Comments
-
I couldn't help but notice this tweet posted just now in regards to journalistic integrity;
Seems to be in reference to this:Regarding the “conflict of interest” in my latest piece
The Guardian actually nixed the disclosure of my relationship with Zoe, simply because it didn’t strike editors or legal—that is, The Guardian’s legal department, which approved the final draft—as a “conflict of interest” in an op/ed about abuse. The publication determined the disclosure I provided didn’t matter, since my piece is not a review.
So conflict doesn't exist in regards to op/ed, which is rather different than a review for example.....0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
The presence of publicly available information related to Hernandez's case. That is separate issue to Totilo's response to the accusations levelled against Nathan Grayson. Read back over the original posts, it's fairly straight forward to be fair.Ok, now you got me confused.
But you're dealing with two fundamentally different cases, where the subject of the authors in one case is the author themselves in the context of an accusation levelled against them publicly and in the other, an author making unsubstantiated accusations against a third party. Can you honestly not tell the difference between the validity of reporting between the two?I think its a perfectly valid one. Reporting on one case, and ignoring the other until readers started asking about it. BTW, the only relevant part imho is in regards to Nathan Grayson.
True but I was referring to the nature of the commentary rather than the omission of their existing relationship.Well we were mislead in that the there friendship wasn't revealed in the first place.
Because the only relevance it has to the debate is that extremists exist on both sides. No one has denied this, no one is unaware of this and therefore when it happens to someone with no real bearing on the matter at hand, it goes unreported. For example, as I previously stated, TotalBiscuit received the majority of his abuse from similar sources and it was reported.Except that the whole thing happened to her after she posted a video on this topic taking the piss out of it. So how does this not fit the narrative? Seems to fit just fine to me.
I strongly disagree with Quinn's use of the DMCA to take down that video yet I also strongly disagree with the abuse Quinn has received as a result of this story. Does this make me anti-Quinn in Faraci's eyes? I highly doubt it.Except that he is making a rather general comment, and doesn't specify those spitting bile at all. He uses the term anti-quinn, which pretty much refers to anyone talking about the topic that doesn't take his side.
Again though, this thread of conversation was referring to the tweets which you claimed existed that were made by the authors of the articles which supposedly decried gamers in general rather than the specific subset involved in the abuse. You've still not shown any of these.0 -
But you're dealing with two fundamentally different cases, where the subject of the authors in one case is the author themselves in the context of an accusation levelled against them publicly and in the other, an author making unsubstantiated accusations against a third party. Can you honestly not tell the difference between the validity of reporting between the two?
Both parties denied any wrong doing. So yes it does strike me as being similar. Accusation made on the Internet both parties claim innocence. There not exactly the same, but Kotaku are happy to report on accusations made online.True but I was referring to the nature of the commentary rather than the omission of their existing relationship.
Sorry, I misunderstood.Because the only relevance it has to the debate is that extremists exist on both sides. No one has denied this, no one is unaware of this and therefore when it happens to someone with no real bearing on the matter at hand, it goes unreported. For example, as I previously stated, TotalBiscuit received the majority of his abuse from similar sources and it was reported.
Fair enough, but again look at the narrative being spread, the blame is being directed in one direction, when it goes in both directions.I strongly disagree with Quinn's use of the DMCA to take down that video yet I also strongly disagree with the abuse Quinn has received as a result of this story. Does this make me anti-Quinn in Faraci's eyes? I highly doubt it.
He went after this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVEDRh9UaxA&list=UU4_bwov47DseacR1-ttTdOg
With this post:
https://twitter.com/devincf/status/505495442994380800
If you watch that video it isn't anything like some of the others posted on here, just a guy saying he disagrees with the gamers are dead business and thats it.
So wouldn't surprise me if he would.Again though, this thread of conversation was referring to the tweets which you claimed existed that were made by the authors of the articles which supposedly decried gamers in general rather than the specific subset involved in the abuse. You've still not shown any of these.
Devin wrote such an article. You can see it on his web site.....0 -
-
In which blog post did Nathan Grayson or Zoe Quinn deny any wrong doing in the context of their extra-relational affair? There was no such blog post, there was just the original one from Quinn's ex-boyfriend. Therein lies the difference between the two instances as I've outlined previously.Both parties denied any wrong doing. So yes it does strike me as being similar. Accusation made on the Internet both parties claim innocence. There not exactly the same, but Kotaku are happy to report on accusations made online.
I don't think anyone is denying that it goes in both directions but I think it's somewhat disingenuous to suggest that the kind of abuse being thrown at one side is anywhere close to the other.Fair enough, but again look at the narrative being spread, the blame is being directed in one direction, when it goes in both directions.
That being said, the Youtuber you've linked below boogie2988, otherwise known by his more comedic persona, Francis, was also on the receiving end of some delightful insults from various sources on the side which I suppose you could refer to as allied to Sarkeesian et al. Like I said, they're certainly known to happen but they're simply too numerous across the board to report individually.
Are you sure you're not referring to this article? Either way, as I said before, he's clearly not referring to all people who play video games when he uses the ISIS analogy, nor do I believe he is referring to anyone who has a problem with some facets of how Quinn conducted herself throughout the entire affair. The critics again seems aimed at the virulent strain of critics.Devin wrote such an article. You can see it on his web site.....0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
In which blog post did Nathan Grayson or Zoe Quinn deny any wrong doing in the context of their extra-relational affair? There was no such blog post, there was just the original one from Quinn's ex-boyfriend. Therein lies the difference between the two instances as I've outlined previously.
Yes, I never said there exactly the same, but fact remains, that both stories originated from Internet posts.I don't think anyone is denying that it goes in both directions but I think it's somewhat disingenuous to suggest that the kind of abuse being thrown at one side is anywhere close to the other.
I would say the people having abuse thrown there way would disagree. Plenty of needlessly nasty stuff being thrown around, but thats the Internet for you.That being said, the Youtuber you've linked below boogie2988, otherwise known by his more comedic persona, Francis, was also on the receiving end of some delightful insults from various sources on the side which I suppose you could refer to as allied to Sarkeesian et al. Like I said, they're certainly known to happen but they're simply too numerous across the board to report individually.
That is fair enough, I would say that doxing however regardless would be far more serious regardless of the personality involved. It would be impossible to report all instance of abuse and I don't expect that, just the serious ones, where people are doxed.Are you sure you're not referring to this article? Either way, as I said before, he's clearly not referring to all people who play video games when he uses the ISIS analogy, nor do I believe he is referring to anyone who has a problem with some facets of how Quinn conducted herself throughout the entire affair. The critics again seems aimed at the virulent strain of critics.
I get a completely different impression from him, and from the various article in general. It smacks of biting the hand that feeds them.0 -
Because all social justice warriors are hypocrites? Explain, I really dislike how this term is becoming a slur because at its core I think it's a very reasonable and considerate thing that once again happens to be hijacked by arseholes. It's also become a term like "political correctness" that genuinely hateful people use to browbeat others and then hypocritically play the victim.Potatoeman wrote: »I think any SJ warrior would have gotten abuse for being a hypocrit.
Also I think it's completely disingenuous to suggest that a man saying such things in the videogame industry would have gotten anywhere near such a level of abuse.
Make of this video what you will, but it's worth pointing out that this guy isn't constantly called a hypocrite, liar, greedy or out to destroy gaming etc (not to mention the lack of rape/death threats either). It's worth asking why that is.0 -
-
-
While I completely agree we should hold journalists to high standards, you understand the implication of this in this particular context though, right? There are a subset of Youtubers who have created a number of videos which have helped frame the debate on one side that are incredibly biased, full of factual inaccuracies, half truths, immature options, poor summations and outright fallacies. No editor in their right mind would approve articles of this standard for some of the larger publications yet these guys can post it online, with absolutely no oversight and it seems to be taken as gospel by a large number of people. They are knee jerk reactions to issues and, in the case with the last video Clandestine linked for instance, seem to be case of throwing as much **** at the wall and seeing what sticks.Potatoeman wrote: »I hold people that call themselves journalists to a higher standard than randomers on youtube. You have to take what they say with a pinch of salt though there is clearly more going on here and the relationships between people within the media is highly questionable.
As for the 'right on bro' comment it was the medias reaction to this story that created the current atmosphere.
If you take a step back, however, and you'll see a different story. In the last 24hrs or so, two petitions have sprung up, one from Andrea Szecher, a small indie developer in Stockholm and another from boogie2988, the Youtuber already mentioned in this thread. Now, look at the wording of these petitions, look at the people who have signed them. Ultimately most people want the same thing here, it's just difficult to see that when elements on both sides are making gross generalisations about each other, some purposefully while others are simply a case of poor choices of wording.
Well I'm certainly not going to deny that but just because they both originated from the internet doesn't mean they should automatically be treated in the same manner by journalists when it comes to their reportability.Yes, I never said there exactly the same, but fact remains, that both stories originated from Internet posts.
It will always look worse when you're on the receiving end of it but those on the outside can still look at it objectively and see there is a very clear leaning towards the clear abuse being directed towards the industry than away from it. That, of course, does not make any of it acceptable.I would say the people having abuse thrown there way would disagree. Plenty of needlessly nasty stuff being thrown around, but thats the Internet for you.
Have you given this a read yet? I've never actually heard of the guy but there are some decent points in there. Granted, there are also some terrible ones but I've come to accept that in articles over the last couple of weeks.I get a completely different impression from him, and from the various article in general. It smacks of biting the hand that feeds them. 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Well I'm certainly not going to deny that but just because they both originated from the internet doesn't mean they should automatically be treated in the same manner by journalists when it comes to their reportability.
I would say that initial accusations have the exact same weight. The accusation in regards to rape against the cards against humanity guy wasn't reported in in the main stream press, when the covered the guy btw. Now, if Kotaku didn't report on this stuff at all, the fair enough, but the fact is that they do report on this kind of thing, so I would at least expect the acknowledgement of such accusations and that they are investigating it.
Either way thing really should have ended there. Things have gotten way out of hand at this point, and nothing is going to be achieved.It will always look worse when you're on the receiving end of it but those on the outside can still look at it objectively and see there is a very clear leaning towards the clear abuse being directed towards the industry than away from it. That, of course, does not make any of it acceptable.
Media figures on both side are getting a lot of crap, and the whole thing is rather abusive. I have no idea which is worse, but I don't think a bunch of sites getting together to write inflammatory articles helped, and in fact made things even worse then it needed to be.
Having said that there is plenty of blame to go round, but I would hold the gaming media to slightly higher standard then randomers on twitter.Have you given this a read yet? I've never actually heard of the guy but there are some decent points in there. Granted, there are also some terrible ones but I've come to accept that in articles over the last couple of weeks.
Oh he does have some decent points, but invoking ISIS is pure bull****, and doesn't help the conversation. Sorry, until I see a bunch of gamers take over a country and start executing people who disagree with them, and engage in genocide, I think it fair to say that any such comparison, is just going to inflame things.0 -
Because all social justice warriors are hypocrites? Explain, I really dislike how this term is becoming a slur because at its core I think it's a very reasonable and considerate thing that once again happens to be hijacked by arseholes. It's also become a term like "political correctness" that genuinely hateful people use to browbeat others and then hypocritically play the victim.
Also I think it's completely disingenuous to suggest that a man saying such things in the videogame industry would have gotten anywhere near such a level of abuse.
Make of this video what you will, but it's worth pointing out that this guy isn't constantly called a hypocrite, liar, greedy or out to destroy gaming etc (not to mention the lack of rape/death threats either). It's worth asking why that is.
Well ZQ did have a go at the FYC guys then they got doxed. Not sure why these guys got attacked and misrepresented but why should that stop a social justice warrior.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
I'd be surprised if they have even heard about it tbh.
Trey and Matt are really big games fans, they've definitely heard of it and their core demographic has also heard of it, so it's a contender I'm sure
This whole thing has reminded me that I can choose my levels of interactions with various parts of the internet and that's refreshing because some of the tripe I've seen spoken about on this clusterfk from so many different sources and people is something I'd be mortified to be associated with.
Self entitled arseholes that make up the majority of the "vocal minority" and who go full retard on every slight (imagined or real) on their bizarre bubble world where they have a right to demand artists to tailor a mass produced product to their specific niche desires, a right to get these artists to work for free and a right to abandon all pretences of civility and threaten lives or horrific violations upon people's bodies could and should simply do the entire world a favour and slit their wrists now...
See, that's how easy it is to stoop to their level, so that's why I'm mostly staying away from this and just enjoying my time playing some of the many, many great games I own. None of what's happened will affect them, nothing I can say or do about all of this will make any difference. All I can ultimately do is choose not to buy a product if, for whatever reason, I find some part of it or its creator(s) work or sociopolitical views make me care enough to not want it. I would reiterate my long held stance of "anyone with talent and ideas should be free to make whatever kind of art or product or video or game they want as long as they harm no one." If a woman making a game about her depression threatens you, then that's your issue, not hers. If said woman has abused the spirit of the DMCA to silence critics, then she has done wrong and I don't think she should be given any kind of pass. That does not mean she should have her health or life threatened. If another woman makes a poorly researched and obviously biased series of videos to support her assertion almost to the point of absurdity, then bully for her - all the more so if she managed to get people interested enough to help her pay for the time needed to put it all together. Do I think her work should be critiqued? Absolutely - just like I critique all art and media targetted in my general direction.
Just so we're clear, I'm not looking for anyone to do anything except enjoy playing some games as a hobby and stop defining your life by a past time.
The internet used to be a really nice place when it was just the computer science nerds using it (which isn't to say that it never had it's fair share of scandal). Then we let everyone else in on the act and they've done nothing but trash the place and have given birth to this "outrage culture" because most norms are too fking stupid to realise that words have consequences.0 -
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA2kHVMak0E
Advertisement