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

kunst nugget

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Well if someone presents themselves as a journalist they should be expected to adhere to that set of ethics.

Does IA present himself as one, and if not he can't be a hypocrite for not living up to standards that don't apply to him.

Total cop out argument. So he can present the information any way he wants, push any agenda he cares about and he can big up his friends and give them positive publicity and push their products if he so chooses and that's okay. It's only an issue if Kotaku or Escapist or whoever does it.

Genghiz Cohen

kunst nugget wrote: »

Total cop out argument. So he can present the information any way he wants, push any agenda he cares about and he can big up his friends and give them positive publicity and push their products if he so chooses and that's okay. It's only an issue if Kotaku or Escapist or whoever does it.

Basically, yes.

Otacon

kunst nugget wrote: »

Total cop out argument. So he can present the information any way he wants, push any agenda he cares about and he can big up his friends and give them positive publicity and push their products if he so chooses and that's okay. It's only an issue if Kotaku or Escapist or whoever does it.

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Basically, yes.

Because honesty and integrity is only for professionals...

gizmo

Potatoeman wrote: »

Didnt she accuse wizardchan of attacking her too without proof? Didnt she attack FYCs project on very shakey grounds.

No one deserves to be subject to harasment but I find her own actions as pretty low too.

This is a perfect example of the negative effects of the type of commentary and claims made in many of those videos.

No, she did not accuse Wizardchan of attacking her without proof. She claimed that some users from the board harassed her via forum posts and then phone calls to her home. Examples of said forum-based harassment are here and here with her lamenting the fact that the sole reason they existed was because she had tried to put DQ on Greenlight. The thread on the forum was subsequently deleted after this thing blew up. The existence of harassing phone calls is obviously more difficult to prove.

No, she did not attack the FYC project on shakey grounds. She tweeted to them a bunch of times asking about both their project in general and more specifically their transgender policy. From the wording of the tweets she simply didn't understand what they were trying to accomplish and as a result, had formed a fairly negative opinion of it. The attention her tweets brought to their site then evidently brought it down resulting in them claiming she DDOS'd their site. They also claimed she doxxed someone involved in the production which was also false, it was her friend/PR person who posted the details on her personal Facebook page.

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Is he a journalist though? Should he be subject to the same expectation of integrity?

Yes his suggestions are probably false and he knows this. He was using hyperbole to point out how ludicrous he felt the situation is.

One doesn't need to be a journalist to have even a baseline level of integrity. Considering some of the accusations made and conclusions reached in some of these videos, many of them are often bereft of even this.

What's also important to remember is that throughout the hashtag campaign, one of the messages being put across was the death of games media as it has existed for the last decade or and the need to replace it with more "honest" coverage from Youtubers and the like. While I'd be more than happy to see the back of ad-driven and pay-per-click based-content, I'm not sure I'd like to see it replaced with a system whereby content can be presented in the manner in which you're suggesting.

Genghiz Cohen

Otacon wrote: »

Because honesty and integrity is only for professionals...

gizmo wrote: »

One doesn't need to be a journalist to have even a baseline level of integrity. Considering some of the accusations made and conclusions reached in some of these videos, many of them are often bereft of even this.

It should be a given from professionals, it's simply a perk to get it from Youtubers/bloggers.

gizmo wrote: »

What's also important to remember is that throughout the hashtag campaign, one of the messages being put across was the death of games media as it has existed for the last decade or and the need to replace it with more "honest" coverage from Youtubers and the like. While I'd be more than happy to see the back of ad-driven and pay-per-click based-content, I'm not sure I'd like to see it replaced with a system whereby content can be presented in the manner in which you're suggesting.

I'm not suggesting anything, I'm just telling it how it is. No one in their right mind would expect a random Youtuber to be honest and unbiased in how they present information. We've just been very lucky in a few select cases where Youtubers have risen to fill a niche for impartial reporting and critique.

kunst nugget

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

We've just been very lucky in a few select cases where Youtubers have risen to fill a niche for impartial reporting and critique.

Which Youtubers are these?

nesf

gizmo wrote: »

On the other hand, most of the coverage the game has received since the Greenight process has been a byproduct of the criticism of Quinn herself. While it did lead to the game getting exposure from a few additional publications, it appears to have been significantly offset by the highly negative and often far from relevant user feedback on both Metacritic and Steam, the bulk of the former coming, unsurprisingly enough, after August 19th.

I'd agree that there has been a large upsurge in troll reviews but this game from day one in the Greenlight process was getting harassed. I remember being a supporter of it and being drowned out by posts saying it's not a game or whatever nonsense. It was a combination of subject matter and the author's gender that was bothering people so much from what I could read. The whole Aug 19th thing just tossed more fuel on the fire, this game was hated long before then.

Genghiz Cohen

kunst nugget wrote: »

Which Youtubers are these?

I quite like LinusTechTips and TekSyndicate.
Jim Sterling is good too.
I like TotalBiscuit to a lesser extent.

nesf

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I quite like LinusTechTips and TekSyndicate.
Jim Sterling is good too.
I like TotalBiscuit to a lesser extent.

Jim Sterling isn't impartial! He's just very, very clear about his partiality.

Otacon

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

It should be a given from professionals, it's simply a perk to get it from Youtubers/bloggers.

I'm not suggesting anything, I'm just telling it how it is. No one in their right mind would expect a random Youtuber to be honest and unbiased in how they present information. We've just been very lucky in a few select cases where Youtubers have risen to fill a niche for impartial reporting and critique.

The Youtubers who are not honest and unbiased can be easily dismissed - do you agree?

Genghiz Cohen

Otacon wrote: »

The Youtubers who are not honest and unbiased can be easily dismissed - do you agree?

Easily because there should be no expectation of honesty.

Like picking a lottery ticket off the ground and finding it's not a winner, you wouldn't give it a second thought because you didn't really expect it to be a winner.

gizmo

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

It should be a given from professionals, it's simply a perk to get it from Youtubers/bloggers.

While there are certainly additional ethical obligations expected from professional journalists, not knowingly making false suggestions or accusations is something I expect from any commentator, regardless of the medium.

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I'm not suggesting anything, I'm just telling it how it is. No one in their right mind would expect a random Youtuber to be honest and unbiased in how they present information. We've just been very lucky in a few select cases where Youtubers have risen to fill a niche for impartial reporting and critique.

The suggestions you made which I was referring to are here. While you've said that no one in their right mind would expect such a random Youtuber to be honest and unbiased in how they present information, many of those involved in #gamergate seemingly had no problem in latching on to such videos as the cornerstone of their campaign. The implications of this in the context of what I said above about that kind of commentator supposedly being the future of games media is what I find rather troubling.

nesf wrote: »

I'd agree that there has been a large upsurge in troll reviews but this game from day one in the Greenlight process was getting harassed. I remember being a supporter of it and being drowned out by posts saying it's not a game or whatever nonsense. It was a combination of subject matter and the author's gender that was bothering people so much from what I could read. The whole Aug 19th thing just tossed more fuel on the fire, this game was hated long before then.

Are you referring to its first attempt to get onto Greenlight last year? I completely missed it that time around and, thankfully I assume, the user comments.

nesf

gizmo wrote: »

Are you referring to its first attempt to get onto Greenlight last year? I completely missed it that time around and, thankfully I assume, the user comments.

Yup. Oceans of hate.

Genghiz Cohen

gizmo wrote: »

While there are certainly additional ethical obligations expected from professional journalists, not knowingly making false suggestions or accusations is something I expect from any commentator, regardless of the medium.

You totally don't.
There is no way you'd read something like The Star from cover to cover and believe every word of it.

gizmo wrote: »

The suggestions you made which I was referring to are here. While you've said that no one in their right mind would expect such a random Youtuber to be honest and unbiased in how they present information, many of those involved in #gamergate seemingly had no problem in latching on to such videos as the cornerstone of their campaign. The implications of this in the context of what I said above about that kind of commentator supposedly being the future of games media is what I find rather troubling.

Some GamerGate people are idiots. But that applies equally well to all sides of every debate.

The viewers decide what the future is going to be. I too would be worried if IA started to gain significant viewership but I don't think that's going to happen.

gizmo

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

You totally don't.
There is no way you'd read something like The Star from cover to cover and believe every word of it.

You misunderstand. I expect it from the author of whatever piece I'm reading, watching or listening to, I don't assume its presence. When I don't find it, I'll happily discount the source and move on to a more reputable one.

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Some GamerGate people are idiots. But that applies equally well to all sides of every debate.

The viewers decide what the future is going to be. I too would be worried if IA started to gain significant viewership but I don't think that's going to happen.

Alas, this wasn't the opinion of a small number of people, this was one of the more prevalent threads throughout the campaign. If it was only a fringe few then it would have been far easier to discount.

As for IA, the widespread usage of his videos throughout the campaign and the affect its had on the overall narrative is fairly reasonable proof that, while his own channel popularity hasn't grown to significant numbers, people seem happy to rely upon this style and standard of analysis as evidence of the various events they believe have transpired.

Slot Machine

If it's a choice between IA and such or the average SJW... well, it's something of a Morton's Fork, IMO.

Shame there doesn't seem to be a decent third choice. I like RPS's, for example, style of unabashed gonzo journalism (blogging?) but the hand-wringing extremist form of internet social justice has infected even there. I don't mind social commentary--I like it--I just don't like the Tumblr brand of "**** you, neckbeard ****lord, it's not my job to educate you".

It's a subject I don't really often get a chance to talk about, despite feeling very strongly. Because I think a lot of people still don't realise that this isn't about creating a culture where reporting is more even-handed and bad behaviour is called out; social justice warriors aren't interested in that. They're bullies, plain and simple - people who need to tear others down (even the people they claim to be defending) in order to make themselves feel better and even the most cursory look with expose just how deeply, deeply insecure these individuals are.

Now we've reached a point where the only decent internet gaming "journalism" sites are being staffed by such people.

The meme of "check your privilege cis scum" exists because yes, there really are people who talk like that. They're out there. And while hitherto they've been nothing more than extremists at the edges, they're entering the mainstream, they're setting the tone of the narrative as we've seen here, they're getting the rumour mills going at full pace because goodness knows mud sticks.

And heaven forbid you want to actually discuss things without the childish back-and-forth of insults because suddenly you're "tone policing" and a "concern troll". They have an entire lexicon devoted to finding ways of silencing dissent.

So, you know, I'm not really surprised to see so many people flocking to IA and neither can I blame them. Honestly? I don't like him. I find his by turns patronising and condescending tones annoying and some of the things he's said I flat don't agree with but when the alternative is the opposite extreme then people who take issue with that will side with who they believe is championing their cause, irrespective of how or what they're saying.

It's all bad. For the same reasons. Ordinary people on both sides looking to stir the **** and to hell with the truth.

What we need is to weed out the radicals on both sides but sadly, given the nature of the internet and this subject I'm not sure if it can be done.

Sorry if this rant is somewhat off-topic. Mods please delete if it's inappropriate.

Genghiz Cohen

gizmo wrote: »

You misunderstand. I expect it from the author of whatever piece I'm reading, watching or listening to, I don't assume its presence. When I don't find it, I'll happily discount the source and move on to a more reputable one.

I imagine it's been a while since you haven't discounted a source then , journalism everywhere is the same now. Clickbait and politics.

gizmo

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I imagine it's been a while since you haven't discounted a source then , journalism everywhere is the same now. Clickbait and politics.

While there's certainly a hell of a lot of that around, I don't find it particularly difficult to separate fact from opinion in most of the articles I read. As has been said before, over time you begin to identify specific reviewers and websites whom you can trust and share similar opinions to and just gravitate towards them. Collating these also tends to be far more important than just relying on one source I feel.

What I would like to see in the future is more websites going in the direction of Giant Bomb's Premium service and RPS' new Supporter Program. Any move away from a reliance on ad-based revenue should hopefully allow their writers to focus on more interesting articles or, at the very least, make them less reliant on the usual rehashed press-release style articles.

COYVB

gizmo wrote: »

While there's certainly a hell of a lot of that around, I don't find it particularly difficult to separate fact from opinion in most of the articles I read. As has been said before, over time you begin to identify specific reviewers and websites whom you can trust and share similar opinions to and just gravitate towards them. Collating these also tends to be far more important than just relying on one source I feel.

What I would like to see in the future is more websites going in the direction of Giant Bomb's Premium service and RPS' new Supporter Program. Any move away from a reliance on ad-based revenue should hopefully allow their writers to focus on more interesting articles or, at the very least, make them less reliant on the usual rehashed press-release style articles.

as counter intuitive as it sounds, video game websites should not contain video game advertising. advertising for video game retailers is okay, but absolutely nothing direct from publisher or developer.

they should also be obliged to disclose the source of any review games (publisher provided, staff purchased, office purchased etc), and disclose where, when and under what circumstances advance hands on previews were conducted.

Of course the only way to police something like that is though educating the public that only sites that do that should be visited, and even then it's easy to lie.

Potatoeman

gizmo wrote: »

No, she did not attack the FYC project on shakey grounds. She tweeted to them a bunch of times asking about both their project in general and more specifically their transgender policy. From the wording of the tweets she simply didn't understand what they were trying to accomplish and as a result, had formed a fairly negative opinion of it. The attention her tweets brought to their site then evidently brought it down resulting in them claiming she DDOS'd their site. They also claimed she doxxed someone involved in the production which was also false, it was her friend/PR person who posted the details on her personal Facebook page.

She had a go at them and clearly did not fully interact or try to understand them. She generated negative attention and her PR manager doxxed them. That is pretty ****ty behaviour. They contacted other reporters that refused to publish their side of the story. It's only after this sh*tstorm that people are listening to their side of things.

Potatoeman

Slot Machine wrote: »

If it's a choice between IA and such or the average SJW... well, it's something of a Morton's Fork, IMO.

Shame there doesn't seem to be a decent third choice. I like RPS's, for example, style of unabashed gonzo journalism (blogging?) but the hand-wringing extremist form of internet social justice has infected even there. I don't mind social commentary--I like it--I just don't like the Tumblr brand of "**** you, neckbeard ****lord, it's not my job to educate you".

It's a subject I don't really often get a chance to talk about, despite feeling very strongly. Because I think a lot of people still don't realise that this isn't about creating a culture where reporting is more even-handed and bad behaviour is called out; social justice warriors aren't interested in that. They're bullies, plain and simple - people who need to tear others down (even the people they claim to be defending) in order to make themselves feel better and even the most cursory look with expose just how deeply, deeply insecure these individuals are.

Now we've reached a point where the only decent internet gaming "journalism" sites are being staffed by such people.

The meme of "check your privilege cis scum" exists because yes, there really are people who talk like that. They're out there. And while hitherto they've been nothing more than extremists at the edges, they're entering the mainstream, they're setting the tone of the narrative as we've seen here, they're getting the rumour mills going at full pace because goodness knows mud sticks.

And heaven forbid you want to actually discuss things without the childish back-and-forth of insults because suddenly you're "tone policing" and a "concern troll". They have an entire lexicon devoted to finding ways of silencing dissent.

So, you know, I'm not really surprised to see so many people flocking to IA and neither can I blame them. Honestly? I don't like him. I find his by turns patronising and condescending tones annoying and some of the things he's said I flat don't agree with but when the alternative is the opposite extreme then people who take issue with that will side with who they believe is championing their cause, irrespective of how or what they're saying.

It's all bad. For the same reasons. Ordinary people on both sides looking to stir the **** and to hell with the truth.

What we need is to weed out the radicals on both sides but sadly, given the nature of the internet and this subject I'm not sure if it can be done.

Sorry if this rant is somewhat off-topic. Mods please delete if it's inappropriate.

Sums up Tumblr:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m-e4PgiVfM

kunst nugget

Slot Machine wrote: »

So, you know, I'm not really surprised to see so many people flocking to IA and neither can I blame them. Honestly? I don't like him. I find his by turns patronising and condescending tones annoying and some of the things he's said I flat don't agree with but when the alternative is the opposite extreme then people who take issue with that will side with who they believe is championing their cause, irrespective of how or what they're saying.

But why should you side with either extreme? I was listening to Joe Rogan's podcast with Rory Albanese the other day and they were making a point about politics that was very pertinent to this. They were bemoaning the fact that politics had become completely polarised with a rigid ideology that both sides had to adhere to and that all nuance had been lost. The notion that if you were pro-gay marriage, then obviously you'd have to be anti-gun according to the left when really those issues have nothing in common. I think the important thing is to learn to think with nuance. Just because I don't agree with certain issues on one side, that doesn't mean I have to align myself with the extreme elements on the opposite side and vice versa.

gizmo

Potatoeman wrote: »

She had a go at them and clearly did not fully interact or try to understand them. She generated negative attention and her PR manager doxxed them. That is pretty ****ty behaviour. They contacted other reporters that refused to publish their side of the story. It's only after this sh*tstorm that people are listening to their side of things.

Looking at her interaction with them, I honestly can't see how you'd think she had a go at them. Here's her initial tweet to them. Open the full tweet and you can see each of her questions and the rest of their interaction. Pretty clear already she doesn't understand what they're trying to do and she obviously wasn't the only one on that thread but hey, she's asking the right people.

Unfortunately after the first two replies they stopped answering her questions. At that stage she still wasn't satisfied and made it pretty clear that she fundamentally disagreed with their approach, tweeting that supporting female devs directly so they could complete their own projects and keep any potential profits for themselves was preferable in her mind. She obviously also strongly disagreed with their transgender policy.

She did generate negative attention but that's certainly not a crime nor does it preclude anyone from going to TFYC website themselves and reading up on the project to make up their own minds. One assumes that traffic was what led to the site going down a while later.

Her PR manager did indeed doxx one of the people involved, posting said details on Quinn's Facebook page. That behavior is completely unacceptable, you won't find any disagreement with me on that one.

Personally I don't have any problem with TFYC and I can't really understand why, on the face of it, they didn't get more coverage from the the games media for what they were trying to do. Blaming Quinn directly for this, however, seems utterly bizarre.

On the more general subject of IA's video and his style of analysis, watch his most recent video and observe how he addresses the Jenn Frank article and backlash from it. Notice how he completely ignores the fact that the Guardian editors responded to the criticism of the article, how she herself pointed out she included a disclaimer about her relationship with those mentioned in the article as part of her original submission and, most importantly in the context of the hashtag campaign, how neither said editorial staff nor their legal team believed the nature of said relationships constituted any reasonable definition of conflict of interest such as to require such a disclaimer.

Slot Machine

kunst nugget wrote: »

But why should you side with either extreme?

It's not a matter of should but simply what does happen. A lot of people just want to be told what they want to hear. And some of them are just going to be pushed there by the constant put-downs and general unwillingness of SJWs to engage with critics.

Personally I don't really care for it. I'm too tired of seeing this so much in other places to want to get involved any more. No matter what you say it'll be twisted a hundred different ways.

There's a discussion that needs to be had about gender issues but it's not going to happen until both sides realise there's merit to each one.

I was listening to Joe Rogan's podcast with Rory Albanese the other day and they were making a point about politics that was very pertinent to this. They were bemoaning the fact that politics had become completely polarised with a rigid ideology that both sides had to adhere to and that all nuance had been lost. The notion that if you were pro-gay marriage, then obviously you'd have to be anti-gun according to the left when really those issues have nothing in common. I think the important thing is to learn to think with nuance. Just because I don't agree with certain issues on one side, that doesn't mean I have to align myself with the extreme elements on the opposite side and vice versa.

You're bringing up two different issues here. I can see why with the likes of gun control and gay marriage people assume they go hand-in-hand - they're both typically left-wing ideologies. Chances are, if someone supports one they'll support the other. Is it a lazy generalisation? Absolutely but it's also sure to be right some (arbitrary value) of the time.

From what I've seen (and I fully accept I could be wrong) the social justice movement, as it exists on the internet, is made up of social maladjusts and awkward teenagers. People who want to feel like they belong somewhere.

The problem with that? It creates a culture that will not, in the slightest, brook dissent. Everyone's bull**** rhetoric is valid because otherwise no one's is. There's no nuance because that would require them to admit that maybe some of them are wrong. That maybe their critics are right.

It's tribalism for the social media generation.

So no, you don't have to align yourself with the extremists but some people will look at that or, more likely, be on the receiving end of collective SJW harassment and then turn to the extremists in opposition. Not realising that they're just flipping the coin over to its other side, of course.

DeVore

Potatoeman wrote: »

Sums up Tumblr:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m-e4PgiVfM

that's brilliant!

kunst nugget

Slot Machine wrote: »

It's not a matter of should but simply what does happen. A lot of people just want to be told what they want to hear. And some of them are just going to be pushed there by the constant put-downs and general unwillingness of SJWs to engage with critics.

Personally I don't really care for it. I'm too tired of seeing this so much in other places to want to get involved any more. No matter what you say it'll be twisted a hundred different ways.

There's a discussion that needs to be had about gender issues but it's not going to happen until both sides realise there's merit to each one.

Tbf, there's a general unwillingness on the internet of lots of different types of people to engage with their critics - be it fanboys, atheists, Christians, tea party followers, libertarians or racists. It's not something that is wholly unique to SJWs.

Slot Machine wrote: »

You're bringing up two different issues here. I can see why with the likes of gun control and gay marriage people assume they go hand-in-hand - they're both typically left-wing ideologies. Chances are, if someone supports one they'll support the other. Is it a lazy generalisation? Absolutely but it's also sure to be right some (arbitrary value) of the time.

I probably didn't get the point across properly. What they were saying is that just because you're in favour of gay marriage, doesn't mean you have to be anti-gun but because of the way the left and right are aligning themselves on the internet, a strict dogma has sprung up with a rigid ideology which basically implies that if you are on this side then this is the political belief system that you must adhere to which is total bs.

Slot Machine wrote: »

From what I've seen (and I fully accept I could be wrong) the social justice movement, as it exists on the internet, is made up of social maladjusts and awkward teenagers. People who want to feel like they belong somewhere.

The problem with that? It creates a culture that will not, in the slightest, brook dissent. Everyone's bull**** rhetoric is valid because otherwise no one's is. There's no nuance because that would require them to admit that maybe some of them are wrong. That maybe their critics are right.

It's tribalism for the social media generation.

Honestly, substitute social justice movement for gamer at the beginning of that and it's the argument the sjw crowd are making about gamers.

Timmyctc

Potatoeman wrote: »

Sums up Tumblr:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m-e4PgiVfM

Sorta OT but this video sums up Reddit. I just cant stop recommending it.
... I ****ing hate reddit.

Reekwind

Slot Machine wrote: »

Shame there doesn't seem to be a decent third choice. I like RPS's, for example, style of unabashed gonzo journalism (blogging?) but the hand-wringing extremist form of internet social justice has infected even there. I don't mind social commentary--I like it--I just don't like the Tumblr brand of "**** you, neckbeard ****lord, it's not my job to educate you".

And you get that impression from RPS? That they're mocking you or are otherwise "extremist"?

It's a subject I don't really often get a chance to talk about, despite feeling very strongly. Because I think a lot of people still don't realise that this isn't about creating a culture where reporting is more even-handed and bad behaviour is called out; social justice warriors aren't interested in that.

I wonder why people think that this might not be about "creating a culture where reporting is more even-handed and bad behaviour is called out" when the whole affair started with a female developer being issued death and rape threats for daring to have a relationship with a journalist (who never reviewed her game)? What part of that story screams 'poor journalistic standards' to you?

Personally, I don't for a second believe that this is about balanced reporting. This is not just because the notion of 'objective reviews' is absurd but because the 'balanced reporting' barricades have been manned by trolls, people who send abuse and those oh so eager to draw lines, devise 'sides' and paint their 'enemies' as SJWs. (That the latter term even exists, never mind is actually used, slightly offends me with its stupidity. Oh no, I'm offended. Quelle surprise!) If this really was a matter of 'good journalism' the people's ire wouldn't be turned on indies but, as it was towards the end of the magazine era, on that whole nexus of publishers, PR and journalists. Yet EA and Activision barely get a look in while people send rape threats to Zone Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian. Go figure.

The reality, as I see it, is much simpler. Some journalists have a more sophisticated view of games (and the world) than the audience that they've traditionally written for. Some of the latter are pissed off that they're no longer the centre of attention and so have lashed out at the 'bullies' and 'SJWs' who have 'captured' the commanding heights of games journalism. This is despite the fact that only a tiny percentage of games journalism touches on feminism - you call RPS "infected" when less than 1% of their output deals with feminist views on games.

But apparently this 1% is enough to classify a site as a hive of SJWs who, as you've established asserted, are nothing but "bullies". If you're struggling to find a "decent third choice" then I suggest that you drop the binary worldview and absurd SJW strawman.

Slot Machine

Reekwind wrote: »

And you get that impression from RPS? That they're mocking you or are otherwise "extremist"?

No? It was probably a bad idea not to put those in separate paragraphs and a bad idea to not at least look over that with a less annoyed eye.

I don't believe they're extremists but their opinions on social issues and their dismissive tone are certainly starting to mirror that of SJWs.

I also didn't say anything about mocking me.

I wonder why people think that this might not be about "creating a culture where reporting is more even-handed and bad behaviour is called out" when the whole affair started with a female developer being issued death and rape threats for daring to have a relationship with a journalist (who never reviewed her game)? What part of that story screams 'poor journalistic standards' to you?

None? I haven't really been commenting on this specific situation, after all. In fact I've been studiously trying to avoid doing so precisely because I neither care all that much nor want to get involved in the absolute mess it's become.

You only have to look at your own post to see why.

My whole post was in reference to the general SJW movement and its many shortcomings. In my opinion. Just so we're clear that it's just an opinion.

Personally, I don't for a second believe that this is about balanced reporting. This is not just because the notion of 'objective reviews' is absurd but because the 'balanced reporting' barricades have been manned by trolls, people who send abuse and those oh so eager to draw lines, devise 'sides'

Yeah, I don't believe I've anywhere stated otherwise. All I'm saying is:

and paint their 'enemies' as SJWs.

It's not always "painting their enemies" because many on the other side are crazy SJWs. In my opinion.

(That the latter term even exists, never mind is actually used, slightly offends me with its stupidity. Oh no, I'm offended. Quelle surprise!) If this really was a matter of 'good journalism' the people's ire wouldn't be turned on indies but, as it was towards the end of the magazine era, on that whole nexus of publishers, PR and journalists. Yet EA and Activision barely get a look in while people send rape threats to Zone Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian. Go figure.

Can I also ask you to take a look a the death threats SJWs send to people they disagree with? Because I'm really trying to get at the fact that the side that's arguing against "gamers" (or whatever it's called now, it's really too bloody tedious to keep up with) isn't exactly covered in glory either.

Yes, it's terrible that Quinn and Sarkeesian have been subjected to that but the answer is not to simply turn around and do it to other people.

The reality, as I see it, is much simpler. Some journalists have a more sophisticated view of games (and the world) than the audience that they've traditionally written for. Some of the latter are pissed off that they're no longer the centre of attention and so have lashed out at the 'bullies' and 'SJWs'

Oh cute.

Do I have to repeat myself in saying I like them covering social issues? Because I did actually say that.

who have 'captured' the commanding heights of games journalism. This is despite the fact that only a tiny percentage of games journalism touches on feminism - you call RPS "infected" when less than 1% of their output deals with feminist views on games.

Exactly. I did not make any point about how much of RPS's coverage is given over to social issues, only the way in which it's done.

But apparently this 1% is enough to classify a site as a hive of SJWs who, as you've established asserted, are nothing but "bullies". If you're struggling to find a "decent third choice" then I suggest that you drop the binary worldview and absurd SJW strawman.

Struggling? No, I just haven't really looked and that's mostly because I'm not all that interested in gaming "journalism". I still read RPS because their coverage is, IMO, about the best around but I'm starting to ignore their social commentary because I don't agree with the way in which they're going about it.

And really, must I qualify everything I say with "this is only my opinion"? Are we not, in casual conversation, allowed to assume certain things? Or that our audience is even-handed enough to do so?

Yes, that is a subtle little jab at you. Just as you've been doing to me throughout your post. My, aren't I clever?

Potatoeman

gizmo wrote: »

Looking at her interaction with them, I honestly can't see how you'd think she had a go at them. Here's her initial tweet to them. Open the full tweet and you can see each of her questions and the rest of their interaction. Pretty clear already she doesn't understand what they're trying to do and she obviously wasn't the only one on that thread but hey, she's asking the right people.

Unfortunately after the first two replies they stopped answering her questions. At that stage she still wasn't satisfied and made it pretty clear that she fundamentally disagreed with their approach, tweeting that supporting female devs directly so they could complete their own projects and keep any potential profits for themselves was preferable in her mind. She obviously also strongly disagreed with their transgender policy.

She did generate negative attention but that's certainly not a crime nor does it preclude anyone from going to TFYC website themselves and reading up on the project to make up their own minds. One assumes that traffic was what led to the site going down a while later.

Her PR manager did indeed doxx one of the people involved, posting said details on Quinn's Facebook page. That behavior is completely unacceptable, you won't find any disagreement with me on that one.

Personally I don't have any problem with TFYC and I can't really understand why, on the face of it, they didn't get more coverage from the the games media for what they were trying to do. Blaming Quinn directly for this, however, seems utterly bizarre.

On the more general subject of IA's video and his style of analysis, watch his most recent video and observe how he addresses the Jenn Frank article and backlash from it. Notice how he completely ignores the fact that the Guardian editors responded to the criticism of the article, how she herself pointed out she included a disclaimer about her relationship with those mentioned in the article as part of her original submission and, most importantly in the context of the hashtag campaign, how neither said editorial staff nor their legal team believed the nature of said relationships constituted any reasonable definition of conflict of interest such as to require such a disclaimer.

Read their version of events and the response they got. The links are in this thread.