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

shruikan2553

She must be new to the internet. Has she had her sexuality questioned or someone is claiming to have had sex with her mother?

gizmo

Whatever about the police response to the incident, this bit of the USU statement really struck me as odd.

“After a careful assessment of the threat it has been determined it is similar to other threats that Sarkeesian has received in the past, and all university business will be conducted as scheduled tomorrow.”

Similar to other threats received in the past? Jesus christ.

On a related note, Quinn has given EffNOVideoGames access to some of the posts she collated from earlier in the series of events. It makes for pretty grim reading to be honest.

DeVore wrote: »

Boards HQ (and I personally) have been threatened with everything from a kicking to a shotgun. I've even had someone turn up on my doorstep (thankfully with only a home-made legal letter).

I went to the guards, not the guardian.

Except this letter wasn't sent to Sarkeesian, it went out to five or six members of staff before later being circulated to PR, alumni and other campus offices. It was at this point that a local paper broke the story and not until later after talking to the cops about the state gun laws that Sarkeesian pulled out of the talk.

Speaking of The Guardian though, they have an article up in response to the previously posted New York Times piece.

K.O.Kiki

froger

gizmo wrote: »

A couple of points, if I may:

Whatever about the police response to the incident, this bit of the USU statement really struck me as odd.
[...]
Similar to other threats received in the past? Jesus christ.

This simply means that they investigated the "death threats" and then determined it was a troll.
Whether they were right or not, we'll never know. I doubt anyone would've bothered shooting up the gaff though, especially after announcing they would.

On a related note, Quinn has given EffNOVideoGames access to some of the posts she collated from earlier in the series of events. It makes for pretty grim reading to be honest.

*sigh*
Again, are these people new to the internet? Do they just not understand how 4chan works?
There is no "leader" of #GamerGate. There is no "leader" of Anonymous.

And why the feck would anyone have harassed Zoe Quinn before this whole thing blew up?
She has literally made one "game", which has nearly non-existant gameplay; she's a nobody. She's only in the spotlight because she knows a few people in the games journalism business.

(aside: "MASSIVE TRIGGER AND CONTENT WARNINGS"? It's like these people can't even read words that don't match up with their myopic world view...)

Except this letter wasn't sent to Sarkeesian, it went out to five or six members of staff before later being circulated to PR, alumni and other campus offices. It was at this point that a local paper broke the story and not until later after talking to the cops about the state gun laws that Sarkeesian pulled out of the talk.

*edit*
Read the threatening email.
No mention of #GamerGate. No mention of gamers, or gaming, at all. Simply anti-feminism.

You should read Roger Ebert on the media's coverage of school shootings.

Speaking of The Guardian though, they have an article up in response to the previously posted New York Times piece.

Speaking of The Guardian...

K.O.Kiki

http://antinegationism.tumblr.com/post/100190762106/joe-bernstein-is-claiming-the-transcript-you-posted
Eron Gjoni (Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend) releases transcript of his interview with BuzzFeed.

Reading through it so far, 2 thoughts:

• This interviewer is trying to frame a narrative (using loaded questions).
• Zoe Quinn comes across as a thundercunt.

gizmo

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

This simply means that they investigated the "death threats" and then determined it was a troll.
Whether they were right or not, we'll never know. I doubt anyone would've bothered shooting up the gaff though, especially after announcing they would.

My point was that the wording indicated they were of similar severity, not that others simply existed. Another quote from a USU staff official said these were the "norm" of Sarkeesian.

As for the notion of not carrying out the act after announcing it, pretty sure Elliot Rodger uploaded his diatribe to Youtube before carrying out his killing spree. While it's good that the FBI were able to discount this particular email as a credible threat doesn't mean it's not ****ing awful it was made in the first place nor does it mean it or similar threats should be ignored.

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

*sigh*
Again, are these people new to the internet? Do they just not understand how 4chan works?
There is no "leader" of #GamerGate. There is no "leader" of Anonymous.

Similar to the above, the wording of some of those posts is not only horrible but also indicative of the original foundation of the movement, it's nothing to do with a supposed "leader". Time and time again we see the claim that the hashtag isn't about harassment and for a lot of people it isn't, but it has it's origins in it which was pointed out before and which was why there were early attempts to use #GameEthics instead.

After all, the people being labelled as "anti-GG" aren't against an ethical and transparent press, they just think the movement as it stands is completely toxic.

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

And why the feck would anyone have harassed Zoe Quinn before this whole thing blew up?
She has literally made one "game", which has nearly non-existant gameplay; she's a nobody. She's only in the spotlight because she knows a few people in the games journalism business.

She was harassed before this whole thing blew up, all the way back at the end of last year when she tried to get that one game on Greenlight and she got a barrage of abuse. Outside of her involvement in GAME_JAM, the next mention of her was after her ex's blogpost and the massive knee-jerk reaction which happened as a result. Her knowing some people in the business only became an issue after the fact.

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

(aside: "MASSIVE TRIGGER AND CONTENT WARNINGS"? It's like these people can't even read words that don't match up with their myopic world view...)

I do have to ask, did you read each of the posts or just dismiss them when you saw they came from 4chan? I honestly struggle to comprehend how someone wouldn't have a problem with them in this particular context.

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

You should read Roger Ebert on the media's coverage of school shootings.

I've read the piece before and I certainly agree with it. The problem in this instance is that it's being framed against a background of denial that abuse is taking place, that harassment isn't as bad as it's made out to be and they're just using the whole thing for self publicity. So, the people who received such threats go public, having also contacted the cops, and show how it exists and how bad it is and how much of a problem it is and then they're accused of not listening to law enforcement advice and, yet again, milking it. Hell, even after the fact, people called the SFPD to confirm that she had reported anything them. You realise how ****ed up that is, right?

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Speaking of The Guardian...

You realise you've linked a story called "INTERNAL EMAIL SHOWS GUARDIAN HAD MIND MADE UP ON GAMERGATE" whose second line is,

"You see, when the SJWs start getting their asses kicked, like GamerGate has been doing, their go-to response is to change the rules of the game."

and which then continues in a similar vein.

Nevermind the fact the continued focus on the SJW bogeyman is approaching crazy levels. It's almost become an ironic pejorative term for "someone who doesn't agree with me and calls me out on my bull****" except now it's all wrapped up in a nice big conspiracy. Said poster, by the way, is probably one of the most egregious examples of the worst of those heavily involved in the campaign. Look at his take on the Sarkeesian's talk cancellation for instance. Remember, this is about ethics.

Regardless of the source, I'll wait till the mail itself is confirmed as real and to get a little context behind it before commenting.

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

http://antinegationism.tumblr.com/post/100190762106/joe-bernstein-is-claiming-the-transcript-you-posted
Eron Gjoni (Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend) releases transcript of his interview with BuzzFeed.

Reading through it so far, 2 thoughts:

• This interviewer is trying to frame a narrative (using loaded questions).
• Zoe Quinn comes across as a thundercunt.

No thought on how he's blatantly lied when describing the power she wields outside of their relationship? The comment at [10/14/14 2:18:59 PM] is demonstrably false after all. Here's one of the guys behind it commenting on the production recently and there was also the original article written over at IndieStatik. How can I take this guy's word when he's talking about her now?

On top of that, you don't think his attempt at remorse seems a little hollow given the fact he actively participated in her harassment after the initial blogpost? I feel for the guy given the relationship issues if they're true but after what he's done since, I find it harder to empathise.

jill_valentine

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

You see a possible mass murder event.

I see a bored person who got the attention s/he craved by sending an anonymous email with threats.

Don't feed the trolls.

It's not trolling. It's a criminal act. For some reason, when contextualised against an internetty backdrop people forget this.

If she was notable in just about any other field there wouldn't be the same strangely weighted perspective applied. If... I dunno, Maeve Binchy or somebody started receiving similar before a signing, and took action accordingly, she would not have to explain why it was taken seriously.

Not all weirdo threat rants turn into anything more - but on the other hand, an awful lot of weirdo actions turn out to have been preceded by those weirdo threat rants. They're all hollow posture until they aren't, and then everyone looks to each other wondering how nobody saw it coming. Even Marc Lépine described his intentions in some detail to people long before going ahead and carrying them out.

DeVore gives examples of threats that ultimately turned out to be nothing, and that's great, but I can give an example of a chap on a board I once moderated who did indeed show up on the news much later down the line. There's simply no way of knowing, and that's why those laws exist in the first place. The threat in itself is a crime, actually carrying it out is another crime on top of it.

johnny_ultimate

Know what I'd like to see? A major controversy erupt over the conflicts of interest or corporate influence in games journalism (it's going to happen, because it's inevitable). Then maybe - maybe - we could have, independent of GamerGate, a proper discussion about 'ethics'.

It needs to be had. But we can't have it now, because GamerGate is toxic. It is being dominated by the actions of the fringe lunatics - it's the only reason the flame has been reignited over the last few days. The whole thing is too weighted with bull**** - even in this thread, where pretty much everyone has been polite and reasonable, we've somehow circled back to Zoe Quinn when discussing death threats against Sarkeesian. If we're talking about the legitimate concerns with gaming journalism, we need to move past all this. (Speaking of legitimate concerns, the ranting, ****-stirring language of the Ralph Retort is a delightful goldmine of no-nos).

I'm torn. One side of me would like to see the whole thing starved of oxygen, while the other thinks it is important that these continuing examples of harassment are brought to the attention of both sides so we can all realise a sensible discussion on 'GamerGate' and its supposed core themes has become effectively impossible as it is the movement itself that has dominated discourse recently, even if only a few are responsible for that. There is no defence, no justification for death threats. Even if they prove to be mere threats and no action, their existence is worthy of note and condemnation regardless of one's 'side'.

Maybe there was potential for important debate. Heck, there were even a few small but notable policy changes from publications when things were getting heated. Now? The whole thing is a ****ing mess, and the potential is long-since gone. I hope a proper discussion will come up again in a few months or a year, divorced from all this crap. (I fear said dream is impossible)

Potatoeman

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Know what I'd like to see? A major controversy erupt over the conflicts of interest or corporate influence in games journalism (it's going to happen, because it's inevitable). Then maybe - maybe - we could have, independent of GamerGate, a proper discussion about 'ethics'.

It needs to be had. But we can't have it now, because GamerGate is toxic. It is being dominated by the actions of the fringe lunatics - it's the only reason the flame has been reignited over the last few days. The whole thing is too weighted with bull**** - even in this thread, where pretty much everyone has been polite and reasonable, we've somehow circled back to Zoe Quinn when discussing death threats against Sarkeesian. If we're talking about the legitimate concerns with gaming journalism, we need to move past all this. (Speaking of legitimate concerns, the ranting, ****-stirring language of the Ralph Retort is a delightful goldmine of no-nos).

I'm torn. One side of me would like to see the whole thing starved of oxygen, while the other thinks it is important that these continuing examples of harassment are brought to the attention of both sides so we can all realise a sensible discussion on 'GamerGate' and its supposed core themes has become effectively impossible as it is the movement itself that has dominated discourse recently, even if only a few are responsible for that. There is no defence, no justification for death threats. Even if they prove to be mere threats and no action, their existence is worthy of note and condemnation regardless of one's 'side'.

Maybe there was potential for important debate. Heck, there were even a few small but notable policy changes from publications when things were getting heated. Now? The whole thing is a ****ing mess, and the potential is long-since gone. I hope a proper discussion will come up again in a few months or a year, divorced from all this crap. (I fear said dream is impossible)

You cant let a few bad eggs shut down this topic. By all means criticise that behaviour but it does not remive some of the legitimate issues.

Coporate inflluence was dealth with when gamespot fired an employee for giving Kane and Lynch a bad review. At least with that you see the game plastered all over the sites ads. For me it still comes back to simply putting one line in that you know the creator. At least some sites changed their ethics policies.

Retr0gamer

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Know what I'd like to see? A major controversy erupt over the conflicts of interest or corporate influence in games journalism (it's going to happen, because it's inevitable). Then maybe - maybe - we could have, independent of GamerGate, a proper discussion about 'ethics'.

What is there to discuss. The process and experiences of working as a game journalist are out there and well documented. The only real publications that are totally in the publishers pockets are japanese magazines like Famitsu and it's not like they aren't totally open about it. We already had the controversy over publishers sweetening the deal for journalists with the piece Rab Florence wrote a few years ago. If anything the real problem is publishers pushing these things on journalists since they are at the whim of advertising money, however there's a lot of stories about journalists sticking to their guns and letting the publisher pull adverts. Still you can hardly blame publishers since unlik films a game can sink or swim based on an arbituary number on the end of an opinion.

The only real problem with games journalism is how poor it is. Most sites are just factories for regurgitating press releases and most journalists are extremely amateur and terrbile at their job. A lack of professionalism means many let themselves get caught up in the hype machine. That there is hardly a crime and more down to the terrible wages that come with the position. Pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

Retr0gamer

Potatoeman wrote: »

You cant let a few bad eggs shut down this topic. By all means criticise that behaviour but it does not remive some of the legitimate issues.

Coporate inflluence was dealth with when gamespot fired an employee for giving Kane and Lynch a bad review. At least with that you see the game plastered all over the sites ads. For me it still comes back to simply putting one line in that you know the creator. At least some sites changed their ethics policies.

The actual reason for that was Gamespot was taken over by new management and owners who hadn't a clue what they were doing and acted in an idiotic way more than anything else.

Reekwind

Potatoeman wrote: »

Coporate inflluence was dealth with when gamespot fired an employee for giving Kane and Lynch a bad review. At least with that you see the game plastered all over the sites ads.

Yeah, that one case solved all issues with corporate and PR influence within games journalism. That entire ethical minefield has been neutralised (junkets abolished, review embargoes abolished, cross-promotion abolished, the whole interface between PR and journalism sanctified) and now complete impartiality and 'objectivity' reigns. Really?

To my mind this just demonstrates the shallow or disingenuous nature of this whole affair. If this was a serious or genuine expression of discontent at the state of games journalism then you would expect fire to be turned on the big publishers, games sites or youTube channels. That might be a bit more productive than smear campaigns against indie developers or pop-culture critics.

As for "a few bad eggs", the roots of this 'controversy' are toxic. Here are the highlights of the 'GamerGate' campaign. Is this a noble blow for people who don't like the state of journalism or those that don't like feminists?

kunst nugget

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Maybe there was potential for important debate. Heck, there were even a few small but notable policy changes from publications when things were getting heated. Now? The whole thing is a ****ing mess, and the potential is long-since gone. I hope a proper discussion will come up again in a few months or a year, divorced from all this crap. (I fear said dream is impossible)

There's never going to be a proper discussion about this. EVER. Gamergate has in essence polarised and politicized gaming and made it another battlefront in the internet flame wars. On one side, you have the likes of InternetAristocrat and Breitbart aligning themselves with elements of the Tea Party movement and on the other side you have the likes of Sarkeesian, Cracked and most left leaning media out there. Every instance on either side is going to milked for maximum outrage from now on.

gizmo

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Know what I'd like to see? A major controversy erupt over the conflicts of interest or corporate influence in games journalism (it's going to happen, because it's inevitable). Then maybe - maybe - we could have, independent of GamerGate, a proper discussion about 'ethics'.

....

I hope a proper discussion will come up again in a few months or a year, divorced from all this crap. (I fear said dream is impossible)

As do I and I'm rather hopeful it does happen. What has irked me more recently about the campaign is that, despite the outward intentions of the movement, they've completely dropped the ball on focusing on actual ethical issues. To take the most recent example, rather than closely examining what happened with the Plaid Social run Youtube campaign for Shadow of Mordor, there are currently efforts being made to try and get Nintendo to stop supplying Polygon with advance review copies because of Arthur Gies' review for Bayonetta 2. Meanwhile the regular press gave the issue some coverage but not only were they instantly called out as being hypocritical due to their own supposed corruption but the efforts made were, in and of themselves, subpar to say the least in my opinion.

We could always discuss the subject here in a separate thread?

Potatoeman wrote: »

You cant let a few bad eggs shut down this topic. By all means criticise that behaviour but it does not remive some of the legitimate issues.

Coporate inflluence was dealth with when gamespot fired an employee for giving Kane and Lynch a bad review. At least with that you see the game plastered all over the sites ads. For me it still comes back to simply putting one line in that you know the creator. At least some sites changed their ethics policies.

To expand on what Retr0gamer and Reekwind said about this, the full explanation of what happened there was revealed back in 2012. It wasn't just Eidos who complained to the new management of Gamespot, Sony were involved too when, after Aaron Thomas gave Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction a score of 7.5, they threatened to pull advertising. Gerstmann basically pointed to the inability for the new management to deal with the conflict between their marketing and editorial staff with the former wanting to bow to pressure from the publishers and management taking them seriously, so much so that Gerstmann was subsequently fired. It's also worth pointing out a number of staff voluntarily left at the same time due to what happened.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

We already had the controversy over publishers sweetening the deal for journalists with the piece Rab Florence wrote a few years ago.

Funny that you mention Florence actually. He wrote a piece on the campaign for his site, Amusement Arcade, and mentioned his own trouble when he was at Eurogamer. Now read the comments.

On a lighter note..

Gotta love Kaimya.

Shiminay

DeVore wrote: »

Boards HQ (and I personally) have been threatened with everything from a kicking to a shotgun. I've even had someone turn up on my doorstep (thankfully with only a home-made legal letter).

I went to the guards, not the guardian.

That's a disingenuous argument - they went to the Gardaí/Law Enforcement too

Penn

Shiminay wrote: »

That's a disingenuous argument - they went to the Gardaí/Law Enforcement too

You shouldn't make it public that the Gardai have been involved, because that'll just encourage more people to do it. So technically, it's your fault if it happens again.

#gamergaterslogic

BMMachine

ever talked to a normal person who is unconnected with gaming and doesn't really care about twitter etc about all this?
it makes you feel embarrassed

shruikan2553

BMMachine wrote: »

ever talked to a normal person who is unconnected with gaming and doesn't really care about twitter etc about all this?
it makes you feel embarrassed

Most people if they have even heard of any of this think its a few idiots being idiots online. The vast majority of people have no idea nor do they care.

DeVore

Also, does anyone else here think this is very much a freakin' American thing? I mean, the extremes of both sides (brodudes and radfems) and most of the main actors/websites etc seem to be American. Do we have anything comparable to the harassment/abuse in gaming events here? I've been involved in them for most of my life and I've rarely seen even a questionable comment... certainly nothing on the lines of what seems to happen in the states by the sounds of it.

wes

Well, its hard to say as most of this stuff is online, but in fairness it does seem that the main actors on both sides are in the US, from what I can see, and the whole thing has become part of the whole US culture war nonsense more than anything else, so basically we may never see the end of this, due to the extreme polarization.

kunst nugget

DeVore wrote: »

Also, does anyone else here think this is very much a freakin' American thing? I mean, the extremes of both sides (brodudes and radfems) and most of the main actors/websites etc seem to be American. Do we have anything comparable to the harassment/abuse in gaming events here? I've been involved in them for most of my life and I've rarely seen even a questionable comment... certainly nothing on the lines of what seems to happen in the states by the sounds of it.

Honestly, I think it's really think it's just another battleground for both sides of the political spectrum in America to take pot shots at each other.

DeVore

That's kinda what I think.... this seems to be more like the Radfem gang rolled into gamertown and continued their dust-up with Bro-dudes all while the townsfolk ran for cover.

Sorry, I know there are specific triggers for this rambling online shouting match (Sarkesian, Quinn, etc) but it does seem like the never ending nark-fest between these two polarised cultures in the US (both of whom I despise) just rolled onto our patch of turf like the fight in The Quiet Man.

I can see it burning for 100 years like some bizarre coal-mine fire in Russia.


Every time I have wanted to shout at one or other side I've just booted up steam and played games instead. I almost never get AAA games finished but lately I've done Wolfenstein on Hard, Defense Grid 2 and Divinity in just a few weeks!

wes

Yeah, I stepped away from this craziness, and just been playing Destiny the last few weeks. Will probably go back to that, after seeing the latest round of stupid on this. Let the culture warriors have at it, I want nothing to do with it anymore.

Shiminay

DeVore wrote: »

Every time I have wanted to shout at one or other side I've just booted up steam and played games instead. I almost never get AAA games finished but lately I've done Wolfenstein on Hard, Defense Grid 2 and Divinity in just a few weeks!

This should have been the only action anyone took on this (except of course the ladies threatened with death and rape threats)

DeVore

Yeah... why the response to Sarkeesian initially couldn't have be "hey, cool story bro" and left it at that I dunno. Whether you drink her particular brand of koolade or not (and I think she makes some good points along with some bad ones)... I don't see why people couldn't just close the browser instead of creating the biggest Streisand Effect ever seen.

I think in part (to answer my own question) there is a generalised backlash against "identity politics" in its extreme form and (unfortunately) that's causing lines to be drawn and sides to be formed.

Kylo Ren

Shiminay wrote: »

This should have been the only action anyone took on this (except of course the ladies threatened with death and rape threats)

And what about the fellas who are also threatened? Yesterday there was a comment with Boogie2988's home address and a threat to kill his wife. He was then threatened with rape and murder by a Twitter user.

I only noticed this because I follow him and watch his videos. There must be plenty more.

BlitzKrieg

DeVore wrote: »

Also, does anyone else here think this is very much a freakin' American thing? I mean, the extremes of both sides (brodudes and radfems) and most of the main actors/websites etc seem to be American. Do we have anything comparable to the harassment/abuse in gaming events here? I've been involved in them for most of my life and I've rarely seen even a questionable comment... certainly nothing on the lines of what seems to happen in the states by the sounds of it.

this specific outburst and the sort of *activism* on show is very much american centric. As much as I hate it, when reactionary activism happens in europe it usually leads to a party forming (think back to the brief life of parties like libertas), in the US they are so terrified of anything outside of the 2 party system that activism just infests one of them and becomes either an embarrassment (tea party for republicans) or is consumed so much by the larger more moderate entity that its not really an issue anymore but a personal choice (legalize weed).


Gamergate is very much the same, it's a lot of shouting and brief stunts (funding a games project, forcing a advertiser to withdraw, creating a mascot etc), but nothing is actually being done to build a base, it's more a long the lines of them making enough noise that one of the big 2 swoops and picks up the agenda into their own. Though I wouldnt say it's a concious action but more a kin to the classic "make enough noise so someone else will fix it" mentality that makes up most base politics, it's just been for better or worse the habit for those outside of the US to decide not to wait around for someone to fix it and do it themselves


But

The issue of online harassment of women is not a US only issue, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Criado-Perez) and the idea of shrugging of how much dark twisted bile that has poured out from these events as a *Oh it's america, they're weird* is very misguided.

The idea of Gamergate is very american

The emotion behind it is not

Shiminay

Keno wrote: »

And what about the fellas who are also threatened?

You're absolutely right, I should have made my intent clearer (I'm a fan of what Boogie does too and the Francis character in particular consistently makes me laugh).

I am saying that anyone who was threatened shouldn't ignore it and should bring it to the relevant authorities. If the sorts of fkwits who would make these threats just played some games instead of getting so pent up about whatever their warped minds have fixated on, then we'd probably have a lot less nonsense.

DeVore

Oh I wouldn't dare say that misogyny is limited to America... but inside the localised world of Games (computer and traditional), I haven't seen it here and I'm curious if I just missed it or if it really isn't as prevalent.

For example, do cons here have problems with female player harassment?

wes

Keno wrote: »

And what about the fellas who are also threatened? Yesterday there was a comment with Boogie2988's home address and a threat to kill his wife. He was then threatened with rape and murder by a Twitter user.

Poor Boogie2988 has gotten a lot of ****, the same gawker media "journalist" I mentioned earlier was having a go at Boogie2988, and for the life of me I can't figure out why. I looked at his videos, and tweets, and there is nothing whatsoever that either side of this mess could disagree with, and yet the poor guy gets bullied, insulted and death threats (he made it clear they weren't from gamergate btw), and it doesn't get any attention.

It just goes to show that there are people on both sides of this who are as bad as one another, and another reason to stay the hell out of this

BlitzKrieg

DeVore wrote: »

Oh I wouldn't dare say that misogyny is limited to America... but inside the localised world of Games (computer and traditional), I haven't seen it here and I'm curious if I just missed it or if it really isn't as prevalent.

For example, do cons here have problems with female player harassment?

No I dont think so, I've been at EGX pretty much every year and I dont think I've seen or heard of anything on the level of what's been reported in the US. I go to a retro gaming night rather regularly and female attendance for that is quite high and again I have not heard of anything happening there.

But they might be the wrong kind of events as EGX is very strictly monitored and the sort of crowd that goes to retro gaming events is also the sort that wouldn't define themselves as gamer (this is going just from personal observation).

I would say that there are more cons in the US so it could just be a numbers game.

The problem with the online side of things is things tend to get mixed, there have been prominent speakers in gamergate who are European (but to call them gamers would be seriously stretching the term a bit too much, but opportunist bull**** vampire would be more accurate) there could very well be a strong misogyny streak here, it just isnt as apparent how much of it is from european players or it comes across as so ineffectual and harmless that it's not being addressed. I play on an Arma 3 altis life server based in the UK and I have seen very recently a teenage girl get constantly harassed by a number of players on the server (very vulgar messages, kidnapping her in game and simulating rape on her etc). And the admins had to take action against them. it's a english based server but there are americans playing on it, the girl herself was american, but I dont know where the abusers are from. Where do we place those problems? Would it not exist if the server blocked all american players?