The big Phil Fish, Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian discussion thread

Shiminay

Can someone tell me what FYC is? I've seen their name appearing many times and I have no idea who or what they are.

I really enjoyed the Forbes piece linked above, I think it's probably a pretty fair assessment.

kunst nugget

Shiminay wrote: »

Can someone tell me what FYC is? I've seen their name appearing many times and I have no idea who or what they are.

I really enjoyed the Forbes piece linked above, I think it's probably a pretty fair assessment.

Fine Young Capitalists

http://www.thefineyoungcapitalists.com/

kunst nugget

Pretty balanced article on the Guardian website.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/03/gamergate-corruption-games-anita-sarkeesian-zoe-quinn

Genghiz Cohen

Shiminay wrote: »

Can someone tell me what FYC is? I've seen their name appearing many times and I have no idea who or what they are.

I really enjoyed the Forbes piece linked above, I think it's probably a pretty fair assessment.

They started a games jam where anyone who self-identified as female (before a given date) could submit an idea for a game. They would be put in contact with some artists and stuff and develop the idea for free. We get to vote on the ideas and the winning game gets made. The winner gets a cut of any revenue from the games profits and the rest goes to charity.

Quinn took a dislike to the idea on Twitter and shortly after the FYC were Doxxed and their site went down under heavy traffic, if not a DDoS attack.

Shortly after the first time the FYC site went down Quinn announced her own Games Jam and opened a donations account. Last time I checked there were no further details. (Date, location, how to enter, anything)

The FYC's IndieGoGo page's password was guessed and defaced but it's back up now.

4Chan's /v/ board was the main donor for a good week (and may still be) and they broke the milestone needed to design a character for the winning game. They created Vivian James (Vidja Gaems -> Video Games) a disinterested, generally grumpy lady who just wants people to "Shut up and play already". /v/ have decided that one charity that will benefit was for Colon Cancer Research to "Chemo the Butthurt".

Reddit has also made it to the character milestone but I haven't seen their character idea yet.

In an oversized nutshell, there it is.

Reekwind

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I don't think you guys get to decide what a word means.
A gamer is someone who plays games.

There's a heavy dose of irony there.

Slot Machine wrote:

Everything is swell apart from the extremists. Do you really think the majority of people playing games care about this, let alone know about it? Sure, if you keep your finger on the pulse of social media you'll pick up on it but I'd say such people aren't a majority by any stretch.

Okay, maybe I'm just projecting given I really don't care for the whole social media craze (I have no idea who almost any of the people constantly mentioned are) but isn't it possible this entire thing is confined to a narrow group of people who treat this as a serious subject?

If somebody who plays games (never mind self-identifies as a 'gamer') has not picked up on the repeated 'controversies' in the past few years then they are living under a rock. who here is not aware that female developers and journalists are regularly subjected to abuse and threats? That games doesn't have a gender issue?

As I say above, the specifics of this particular incident aren't even particularly important. But anyone who does care about the games they play should be concerned about the broader trend. Because the idea of a feminist commenter being simply dismissed out of hand (never mind the threats) is one of the clearest examples of the medium's stunted development.

And I would contend that it is because there is a group of people who are intent on using Sarkeesian et al.'s work as a means to denigrate all "gamers". Of course people are going to lash out when they're unfairly lumped in with the unpleasant elements. With the result that people (like Sarkeesian) who are not making such stupid generalisations are also being unfairly targeted.

I don't follow. Sarkeesian is getting hate mail because 'normal gamers' have been branded as 'trolls' (or otherwise denigrated) by 'a group of people'?

It's very strange. Particularly when these recent articles about the 'death of the gamer' have arrived right at the end of this whole mess. Months after the abuse of Sarkeesian started. They are a reaction to the threats and rejection, not a cause of it.

Yet you talk about "salvaging" the label precisely because there is now this perception that there is a certain toxicness associated with it. That perception would not exist unless there was someone or some group of people suggesting it has such an image.

Again, I don't follow your logic. The negative connotations associated with the term 'gamer' are not the product of people standing around saying how horrible 'gamers' are. The issue is people who are very proud to call themselves 'gamers' doing horrible and stupid things.

To take an infinitely more serious topical example: ISIS are not considered bad because David Cameron goes around telling people they are. They're considered bad because they publicly cut the heads off people (plus countless other atrocities). The perception of 'gamers' is a product of the actions of some 'gamers', at least a significant number of those who identify as such.

(And I'm suggesting that we jettison, not salvage, the label.)

wes wrote:

Last time I checked not all Feminists play games. Some do and some don't. Also, Feminists in general are unfortunately sometimes judged by there worst elements. I fail to see how thanking that post changes what I said.

Anyone who can boil this entire scenario down to 'feminists v gamers' (or agree with such a sentiment) is not somebody who should be preaching about the inclusiveness of the 'gamer' label. It's a dichotomy that ignores, for example, that Sarkeesian herself is both feminist and (according to you) 'gamer'. Potatoeman's post makes a mockery of your 'we're all gamers' sentiment.

BTW, its not my individual definition, its the you know dictionary meaning of the word that I am using:

So there is no such thing as 'gamer culture' then? The word is purely a adjective that has absolutely no cultural connotations? In fact, it's got nothing in common with 'film buffs' or audiophiles, right?

Because implicit in your suggestion is that there is no such thing as 'game culture'. If the only thing that unites a vast range of people is that they purchase a particular medium then, well, that's not much of a basis for a culture.

But, in general, playing dictionary games is not a particularly productive avenue. Playing dictionary games in a discussion about the evolution of nebulous social identifiers is just silly. I really hope that I don't have to point out why that is.

Well, they could have fooled me, considering some of the crap that I am seeing being said online.

Where? And specifically where in those articles that we've been discussing? Where do these journalists say that all gamers are trolls?

I am talking about today, not 20 years ago.

What is the break down, of what are seen as "traditional" games? How many of those people, then decide to harass people online? Is 1%, 10%, or 50%?

Also, how do we define a traditional gamer? Someone who plays on the PC, or consoles, or are the same? Is it just people who play retro games? Do we separate people who just buy Nintendo consoles, Sony consoles, and Microsoft consoles? In this day and age what exactly is a "traditional" gamer as you call them?

How about looking at "20 years ago"?

The whole point of these articles is that they're discussing demographics. They don't care about you or Barry or Michael. When I say 'traditional gamer', I'm talking about someone who fits the profile of a typical 'gamer' around two decades ago. The change in the demographics of computer games can largely be measured against the decline of this group (which was largely male, white and possessing disposable income) relative to the size of the entire population of people who play games.

J_E

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Quinn took a dislike to the idea on Twitter and shortly after the FYC were Doxxed and their site went down under heavy traffic, if not a DDoS attack.

Shortly after the first time the FYC site went down Quinn announced her own Games Jam and opened a donations account. Last time I checked there were no further details. (Date, location, how to enter, anything)

The FYC's IndieGoGo page's password was guessed and defaced but it's back up now.

For the record, I'm pretty sure Zoe was already planning a game jam before any of that... After that reality show game jam crashed and burned herself and a few others were already creating plans for their own one, that wouldn't be covered in reality TV style sensationalism and camera editing. I think it would be kind of naive to assume it was Zoe who lead an army or was involved in the site attack and FYC seem to back this - unfortunately when you have such a large/influential voice online you have to use it more responsibly- in that case, she didn't, but this is a recurring issue with a certain set of users on Twitter.

Good for FYC for believing in something and kicking back though.

I think it's easy to portray Zoe as some sort of omniscient force without much of a physical presence (as with many buzz names on the Internet) at worst, she's a bit stupid and irresponsible/immature. There's little to no evidence to prove any sort of grand master plan behind anything.

Genghiz Cohen

Reekwind wrote: »

There's a heavy dose of irony there.

Well since I can reference a dictionary to back that assertion up, there isn't.

J_E

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Well since I can reference a dictionary to back that assertion up, there isn't.

Using dictionary entries to prove your point is the height of an immature argument...

Genghiz Cohen

Cydoniac wrote: »

Using dictionary entries to prove your point is the height of an immature argument...

I guess it's a good thing I didn't do that then.

wes

Reekwind wrote: »

Anyone who can boil this entire scenario down to 'feminists v gamers' (or agree with such a sentiment) is not somebody who should be preaching about the inclusiveness of the 'gamer' label. It's a dichotomy that ignores, for example, that Sarkeesian herself is both feminist and (according to you) 'gamer'. Potatoeman's post makes a mockery of your 'we're all gamers' sentiment.

It does? Saying that people are unfairly represented by extremist is a bad thing now? Sounds like a perfectly sensible thing to agree with. Sure Sarkesian is a gamer, who critiques games from a feminist perspective. I see no reason why she can't be both, and I can also see how her feminist views can be misrepresented.

I really don't understand what point you getting at exactly here. I really don't see how being inclusive is a bad thing.

Reekwind wrote: »

So there is no such thing as 'gamer culture' then? The word is purely a adjective that has absolutely no cultural connotations? In fact, it's got nothing in common with 'film buffs' or audiophiles, right?

Gaming is a rather diverse activity these days, and as such the culture as changed. It rather diverse and widespread and has gone mainstream.

Reekwind wrote: »

Because implicit in your suggestion is that there is no such thing as 'game culture'. If the only thing that unites a vast range of people is that they purchase a particular medium then, well, that's not much of a basis for a culture.

You kidding right? There are plenty of cultures that include a wide range of people. Pop culture for instance would include all kinds of people for instance.

Reekwind wrote: »

But, in general, playing dictionary games is not a particularly productive avenue. Playing dictionary games in a discussion about the evolution of nebulous social identifiers is just silly. I really hope that I don't have to point out why that is.

I used the dictionary to show what wider society views what a gamer is, and the dictionary was the best way to do that. Perhaps I should have found a better way, as some people seem to find that method "childish".

It is also btw what a lot of people who play games will refer to themselves as, and how people will refer to people who play games.

Reekwind wrote: »

Where? And specifically where in those articles that we've been discussing? Where do these journalists say that all gamers are trolls?

I really don't know what to say here. If you commenting here, then you know what we are talking about.

Reekwind wrote: »

How about looking at "20 years ago"?

Why? I am interested in today, and not 20 years ago.

Reekwind wrote: »

The whole point of these articles is that they're discussing demographics. They don't care about you or Barry or Michael. When I say 'traditional gamer', I'm talking about someone who fits the profile of a typical 'gamer' around two decades ago. The change in the demographics of computer games can largely be measured against the decline of this group (which was largely male, white and possessing disposable income) relative to the size of the entire population of people who play games.

Yes, I am well aware of that change, and I have said as much already. Gamers are now a rather diverse group, and I think thats a good thing, and I see no reason to be reductive and claim that gamer now equals troll, or nerd or whatever name some people decide to throw out there.

Calhoun

As I have pointed out before that I remember a time when the term gamer was for closet nerds and frankly a point if embarrassment, you still have allot of older generation folks who believe that games are for kids ect. So for me as someone who doesn’t have an interest in sport ect the term was always a way of identifying with other folks a common ground as such. Back when I started really getting into it however there was a vibrant but small Irish gaming scene, with allot of lan’s ect going on all the time.

Since then though with there have been many changes in the gaming world and thanks to the likes of the Wii and the hand held platforms gaming has spread to the masses to an extent. As such the term/culture of gaming has become more complex, there are now multiple types of gamers and multiple demographics that help make up the gaming community and each and every one of them deserves to be at least represented ( being a commercial success is down to market factors).

I must be one of the few folks living under a rock because this whole thing came as a surprise to me, I was aware of some items in the past pushback on certain games but by no means was I aware of this level of toxic crao. This incident does not change or cheapen the word gamer for me, it still is something I value and hold dear. I condemn both the trolls who have cheapened the word and essentially made some of the older generation right in thinking gaming is for kids both big and little, but at the same time I also dislike the new self loathing apologist social warriors who want to turn it into something to be ashamed of.

I accept both groups have to exist as that is the nature of the beast but I would pretty much call on those who like me have travelled the path from the isolated nerd to where we are now and love good games no matter the hardware, developer , gender/race of said developer to remember what it means to be a gamer.

Sonics2k

Does nobody remember when gaming simply meant playing Video Games?

Gamers have always had a love for drama, this is especially well known in the online communities and especially the likes of say World of Warcraft and Eve and more.

Change is needed in the higher up parts of many communities, including gaming, but I for one am getting so damn sick of seeing personal dramas being dragged into the realm of public debate and trying to split gamers into some kind of set of factions.

The guys at Inside Gaming cover this lightly on their latest video here. It's about halfway through the video I think.

Nody

Sonics2k wrote: »

Gamers have always had a love for drama, this is especially well known in the online communities and especially the likes of say World of Warcraft and Eve and more.

WoW and Eve? Try muds days; I remember an uproar over what was discussed to be cheating or not in clan invasion of stronghold by constantly closing the door when someone tried to open and enter :pac: . And WoW drama would pale to what was going on in Everquest (inc. director's son getting exclusive in game stuff no one could get, GMs being recruited into guilds for the promise of them helping kill raid mobs, sleeping with developers to get items etc.)

DeVore

Just look at all the stuff that's happened on Boards over the years!! And that's not even a game!

Philsophy 101 is: "There is no 'Us' without 'Them' "...

If you think about it, things can be defined by what is NOT part of that set. The hole in your sock doesn't exist. Its only defined by the material around it. Some people cant handle the idea of inclusion and want to "other" those they see as different. This is happening on both sides of this sorry spectacle.

Sonics2k

Nody wrote: »

WoW and Eve? Try muds days; I remember an uproar over what was discussed to be cheating or not in clan invasion of stronghold by constantly closing the door when someone tried to open and enter :pac: . And WoW drama would pale to what was going on in Everquest (inc. director's son getting exclusive in game stuff no one could get, GMs being recruited into guilds for the promise of them helping kill raid mobs, sleeping with developers to get items etc.)

Ah some of the stories from WoW playing days are insane. I believe it was WAR that had a case of a GM cybering with a player he thought to be a girl. A married couple in one of my guilds got divorced because she had been sneaking off to visit the raid leader every few weeks to get more gear during raids.

kunst nugget

Alls I know is neckbeards and feminists both have hair in weird places tend to let their boobies hang down to their bellybuttons and that's enough to make me distrust both sides equally.


God, it's hard being this perfect…

kunst nugget

Sonics2k wrote: »

A married couple in one of my guilds got divorced because she had been sneaking off to visit the raid leader every few weeks to get more gear during raids.

Is that really true? That is so dense, it hurts my head…

Sonics2k

kunst nugget wrote: »

Is that really true? That is so dense, it hurts my head…

Oh yeah, I know of a few times it happened. Even an ex of mine hooked up with a married guy from her guild. Unsurprisingly it didn't last long at all.

Generic Dreadhead

Sonics2k wrote: »

A married couple in one of my guilds got divorced because she had been sneaking off to visit the raid leader every few weeks to get more gear during raids.

As in meeting him in real life? I'm confused

Sonics2k

Cormac... wrote: »

As in meeting him in real life? I'm confused

Yup, it was surprisingly common and lead to the rise in the name "E-girls". Basically those girls who made life hard for legitimate female gamers who didn't crave attention, such as my fiancé.

Nody

Sonics2k wrote: »

Ah some of the stories from WoW playing days are insane. I believe it was WAR that had a case of a GM cybering with a player he thought to be a girl. A married couple in one of my guilds got divorced because she had been sneaking off to visit the raid leader every few weeks to get more gear during raids.

Sorry but not even close; in the guild I was an officer (and leader for a while but I stepped down) we had one couple get divorced (she was cheating with another man in the guild, took their children with her); another man was cybering with another female member, his wife joined the game and the guild and well, cat fight... Two members moved to the US and married people they met (one with a rival guild, oh the drama from that one as he remained in our guild at the time). And we were only a normal sized European guild on one server!

If I take it one step further on our server (Tunare) only one guy managed to hack (i.e. guess) the password of a member of a top tier raiding guild. He logged in, bragged about it and proceeded to destroy all their gear and delevel them (death penalty was exp loss). Problem was he decided to brag about it on the guild forums as well which he had to register to do to tell everyone how much smarter he was and how he did not fear retribution. The forum admin could use this to trace him back on his IP and start digging up RL information on him. He ended up with his RL photo, prescription, home address, home phone number, police record (some sexual abuse or similar) etc. found online. Then it went viral, the links were first copied around to the other Everquest server boards, then it REALLY started to spread and people were posting it on every type of board imaginable. Football boards, motorboards, pet boards etc. all came over to say "We saw you" and the guy (living with his parents) started to receive death threats, burning poo at the front door, packages to be paid cash on delivery (dildos, gay magazines etc.), gay contact ads were put up with his home number and name along with submissive ("I want to meet harsh master who abuse me, scream at me, please call me at xxx and let me know what a useless **** I am") ads and pretty much everything else you can think off.

To say his life went to hell in a basket was putting it mildly and the thread was taken down but at that time it was very much to late.

So yes, EQ was a real drama lama ding dong environment; I used to say I've learned more about managing people through being an officer in EQ then I did at work for the first year :P. I think the only one I'm aware off to possibly come to that level is EVE (esp. with the blue print drama, Goons, BOBs disbandment etc.).

Sonics2k

Ah hell what was it. There was a guild on an EU pvp server I played on with a girls on guild in it. But top level PvP'ers were allowed to join and would boost the female players characters in return of pictures of their breasts and so on. Of course this caused much drama for the various people who found out their partner was sending/receiving obscene pictures.

Gamers have always had huge amounts of drama surrounding them, this whole "gamergate" thing (I hate that name) has just brought more of it to the public eye.

Generic Dreadhead

Can this please be it's own thread, i'd love to hear peoples stories like this genuinely, it's rather shocking

Grumpypants

This #Gamergate has no useful information about gates. :mad:

J_E

Grumpypants wrote: »

This #Gamergate has no useful information about gates. :mad:

A healthy level of denial and conspiracy theory levels of discussion though!

super_furry

Looks like the mask is slipping from this orchestrated #gamergate campaign - it was all started and organised by 4chan with a directly stated aim of harassment - https://storify.com/pizza_blood/zoe-quinn-and-the-no-good-very-bad-irc

e_e

"This is about integrity!!!!!!" they say as they harass other people and show their dirty laundry in public. You just can't write something with this amazing level of irony.

Genghiz Cohen

super_furry wrote: »

Looks like the mask is slipping from this orchestrated #gamergate campaign - it was all started and organised by 4chan with a directly stated aim of harassment - https://storify.com/pizza_blood/zoe-quinn-and-the-no-good-very-bad-irc

Why is this guy more believable than Quinn's ex?

Confirmation bias?

House of Blaze

super_furry wrote: »

Looks like the mask is slipping from this orchestrated #gamergate campaign - it was all started and organised by 4chan with a directly stated aim of harassment - https://storify.com/pizza_blood/zoe-quinn-and-the-no-good-very-bad-irc

That's pretty disgusting if true to be honest.

gizmo

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Why is this guy more believable than Quinn's ex?

Confirmation bias?

That is Quinn. She's posting screen grabs from the IRC channel #fiveguys where her ex-boyfriend did his AMA.