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

Potatoeman

Just seen this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipcWm4B3EU4

Potatoeman

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

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

Harassment is rife all over the internet and it's not just woman targeted as posted above. Wasn't Phil Fish harassed too?

gizmo

Potatoeman wrote: »

Just seen this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipcWm4B3EU4

A factually incorrect, cherry picked and biased video. I'm actually amazed they managed to cram so much misinformation into such a short video.

jill_valentine

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?

Computer gaming wise, I would say that it's not as bad here but is getting worse. That's the thing about online gaming, it's bigger than borders, so if a large enough group of players in one country treats something as normal for long enough, you'll start hearing it elsewhere soon. It leeches in, CoD players being a great example of that.

Actually, when I say it's "getting worse", I do mean it generally. The most frustrating element of this whole mess is the tendency for coverage to shrug at the idea of misogyny in gaming as if it ought to have just taken that for granted, like it's inherent to it, and always has been.

It's not. It's new. It wasn't there when I started out, not nearly. Girls were a novelty, but they were not subject to the same degree of hostility from the existing community. I remember plenty of girls taking part in Gamesmaster, I remember being able to play as female lead characters without that being earth shattering. My first online gaming experience was four hundred million years ago with the first Rainbow Six games. Back then, I played with usernames which clearly ID'd me as female, and never encountered a serious issue. The first and only Rainbow Six player who told me he wanted to rape me apologised when every other player in the room turned on him for it.

That was a whole other era. I hardly ever mic or use anything other than a gender neutral username unless I know the other players, because the experience simply stops being as fun. Something has changed, and it changed as gaming became a more "mainstream" activity. I reject the classification of this crap as "gamer culture" because it's not. It's sure as hell not the gamer culture I grew up with. It was brought into gaming from somewhere else, and only as recently as the Xbox 360/PS3 generation (although it is by no means limited to console gaming of course).

Bizarrely, one of the best female online gaming experience I've had lately has been in GTAV. I would love to know the sociology o'that.

K.O.Kiki

gizmo wrote: »

A factually incorrect, cherry picked and biased video. I'm actually amazed they managed to cram so much misinformation into such a short video.

Try this site so:
http://www.historyofgamergate.com/

Potatoeman

jill_valentine wrote: »

Computer gaming wise, I would say that it's not as bad here but is getting worse. That's the thing about online gaming, it's bigger than borders, so if a large enough group of players in one country treats something as normal for long enough, you'll start hearing it elsewhere soon. It leeches in, CoD players being a great example of that.

Actually, when I say it's "getting worse", I do mean it generally. The most frustrating element of this whole mess is the tendency for coverage to shrug at the idea of misogyny in gaming as if it ought to have just taken that for granted, like it's inherent to it, and always has been.

It's not. It's new. It wasn't there when I started out, not nearly. Girls were a novelty, but they were not subject to the same degree of hostility from the existing community. I remember plenty of girls taking part in Gamesmaster, I remember being able to play as female lead characters without that being earth shattering. My first online gaming experience was four hundred million years ago with the first Rainbow Six games. Back then, I played with usernames which clearly ID'd me as female, and never encountered a serious issue. The first and only Rainbow Six player who told me he wanted to rape me apologised when every other player in the room turned on him for it.

That was a whole other era. I hardly ever mic or use anything other than a gender neutral username unless I know the other players, because the experience simply stops being as fun. Something has changed, and it changed as gaming became a more "mainstream" activity. I reject the classification of this crap as "gamer culture" because it's not. It's sure as hell not the gamer culture I grew up with. It was brought into gaming from somewhere else, and only as recently as the Xbox 360/PS3 generation (although it is by no means limited to console gaming of course).

Bizarrely, one of the best female online gaming experience I've had lately has been in GTAV. I would love to know the sociology o'that.

Anything that makes you standout is picked up on in some online circles. Sex, race or how you sound. I don't think it's limited to sex to any degree. I don't play COD online for the exactly the same reason and I'm an adult male. I don't want to listen to 12 years olds swear at me. That's why there are specific online communities, so you don't have to deal with random idiots.

jill_valentine

Potatoeman wrote: »

Anything that makes you standout is picked up on in some online circles. Sex, race or how you sound. I don't think it's limited to sex to any degree. I don't play COD online for the exactly the same reason and I'm an adult male. I don't want to listen to 12 years olds swear at me. That's why there are specific online communities, so you don't have to deal with random idiots.

I'm not new to the online gaming fishbowl, I'm well aware that standing out makes you a target. But there is absolutely a difference in playing under a female username and playing under a neutral one (which will be assumed male) to which there is no direct analog. It may not be limited to sex, but it is absolutely more extreme, by leagues, when it's on that front rather than any other. (A related effect has been observed in studies of chess, btw, so it's not something that's entirely unique to online gaming).

Being the only Irish player in a lobby of Mexicans or something is one thing, you'll get a little more pointed smacktalk, but it does not compare to the instant, and extreme change in gameplay dynamic you can get when they know you're female.

I've also never had people regularly follow up with creepy or abusive messages afterwards for any other reason than the fact that I'm female. It's not just pointed, it's consistent and persistent. There's no comparison.

Yes, I can play only in closed female or lesbian only clans and often do, but that's not what we're really talking about here. We're talking about the wider ecosystem and whether female participants are subject to a unique kind of aggression. They are. Why that is, there are a lot of arguments to be made, and it's not impossible that it's purely because they're much easier to single out. But that's the question and that's the answer. They are. And with a few exceptions - GTA, as mentioned, being one - it's a problem that's getting worse instead of better.

And I'll be honest, I don't think the big name videogame companies are totally innocent in this. The "mainstreamification" of gaming has bought a kind of summer blockbuster jock marketing sensibility that has done a lot to exacerbate the problem. When companies like Ubisoft make statements that moronic about female characters with a straight face, it does get absorbed into the conversation as if it's not the most profoundly stupid thing you've ever heard, regardless of how many people point and laugh.

gizmo

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Try this site so:
http://www.historyofgamergate.com/

I've actually read that and the entirely disingenuous title aside, it suffers from precisely the same flaws as the Youtube video, most likely due to the fact that it was written by and from the perspective of another ardent supporter of the campaign.

If someone wants to create a website cataloging the whole series of events for those new to things then fine but don't go and present it in such a biased manner. Don't leave out key information because it doesn't fit your narrative. Don't try and backtrack on the accusations made of people with the benefit of hindsight and go "sure, it wasn't actual evidence but it looked like it...kind of". Don't try and reword things to make certain people appear more unreasonable than they were or twist events to suit your side. Present the facts and let people truly judge your campaign based upon its own merits.

Many many people have done just that, whether they're regular gamers like those on this forum, people who work on the dev side, people who work in the journalism side regardless of their involvement in this debacle and even a handful of notable figures, celebrity or otherwise, who are on the fringe of the gaming scene.

These people who have actually followed this fairly horrible series of events at one time or another and with varying levels of scrutiny have examined the facts of what happened and have evidently come to the conclusion that the narrative as espoused by that site simply isn't true, most likely for some, if not all, of the reasons I outlined. All of the infographics in the world won't change this so when that website is linked as somehow proof of the legitimacy of the movement it ends up having the exact obvious effect.

Give this piece a read and look at the people who have weighed in at various levels, where they have ended up and most importantly why. Look at the sites who have completely distanced themselves from the movement, their previous history in such cases and think why they've taken the stance they have. Now look at the reasoning of those who are on the other "side" and the language they use when they try to discuss it. The last tweet, I feel, sums it up rather succinctly.

Alternatively, if you want a more light hearted take on it.

COYVB

Pro-Gamergate Crowd: Some genuinely sound ideas gobbled up by fanaticism and appalling behaviour by a vocal group, leading to large swathes of people not wanting to touch the topic for fear of ludicrous attacks

Anti-Gamergate Crowd: Some genuinely sound ideas gobbled up by fanaticism and appalling behaviour by a vocal group, leading to large swathes of people not wanting to touch the topic for fear of ludicrous attacks

jimbob_jones

COYVB wrote: »

Pro-Gamergate Crowd: Some genuinely sound ideas gobbled up by fanaticism and appalling behaviour by a vocal group, leading to large swathes of people not wanting to touch the topic for fear of ludicrous attacks

Anti-Gamergate Crowd: Some genuinely sound ideas gobbled up by fanaticism and appalling behaviour by a vocal group, leading to large swathes of people not wanting to touch the topic for fear of ludicrous attacks

Yep sounds right, I must have been asleep under a rock for that last few weeks as this completely passed me by until last weekends news reports involving Brianna Wu and anytime I hear of someone being harassed online it always makes me think of this.

http://goo.gl/uFVXDo

I thought it would be just another flash in the pan and then fizzle out, but with likes of Intel pulling their ad's from Gamasutra and Mercedes pulling their ad's from Gawker, where is it going to end ?

Genghiz Cohen

COYVB wrote: »

Pro-Gamergate Crowd: Some genuinely sound ideas gobbled up by fanaticism and appalling behaviour by a vocal group, leading to large swathes of people not wanting to touch the topic for fear of ludicrous attacks

Anti-Gamergate Crowd: Some genuinely sound ideas gobbled up by fanaticism and appalling behaviour by a vocal group, leading to large swathes of people not wanting to touch the topic for fear of ludicrous attacks

I think it needs to be said that the Pro and anti gamergate crowds are probably for and against the same things but the vocal groups are heavily clouding the issues.

K.O.Kiki

jimbob_jones wrote: »

Yep sounds right, I must have been asleep under a rock for that last few weeks as this completely passed me by until last weekends news reports involving Brianna Wu and anytime I hear of someone being harassed online it always makes me think of this.

http://goo.gl/uFVXDo

I thought it would be just another flash in the pan and then fizzle out, but with likes of Intel pulling their ad's from Gamasutra and Mercedes pulling their ad's from Gawker, where is it going to end ?

richymcdermott

I tried sticking my nose off this thread since it turned from phil fish quitting to this gamergate crap I do not want to be apart off but there is something I would like a input on and that is the click bait videos whether its youtube , twitch or ustream of women with tags and titles in bold big letters Girl Gamer to try to bring in boys who swore they never seen a girl before and girl using that to there advantage to gain viewership and subscribers.

It urks me most when girls and I have seen countless of them on youtube who flaunt there big breast on camera and just talk games and its so painfully obivious what they are doing and there channels are as basic as talking about gaming news or naming there top ten games.

Does this annoy people more importantly girls themselves who love the hobby as anyone else and see this happen ?

There use to be times when girls and boys and I remember it very clear in the arcades playing street fighter together , time crisis and having fun together with none of this sexualization happening or even playing mario , sonic , mario kart both sides of gender and still never a issue.

How did this once great industry become so split and broken.

Timmyctc

Was that Sam guy serious when he tweeted that. I read it as sarcasm initially :P

Morag

richymcdermott wrote: »

How did this once great industry become so split and broken.

It went mainstream and the publishers want the most amount of money for their investments so they went after the biggest demography and pandered to young male gamers. Pretty much from after Halo came out.

wes

jimbob_jones wrote: »

I thought it would be just another flash in the pan and then fizzle out, but with likes of Intel pulling their ad's from Gamasutra and Mercedes pulling their ad's from Gawker, where is it going to end ?

A bit harsh for Gamasutra to lose an advertiser, but in the case of Gawker, they quite frankly deserved it, with one of there writers tweets in regards to bullying and there editors reaction just made it worse. Outside of the current discussion, Gawker in general are just awful. So 0 sympathy from me.

Retr0gamer

Meh, that image is an example of someone making a sweeping generalisation and someone getting offended about it as if it was a personal statement against them. Hint: it wasn't a personal statement against you and you're not that important,get over it.

DeVore

Seriously?!

Its completely unacceptable.... its carte-blanche for bullies and justifies a perpetuation of bullying that has happened since even I was a lad. Its no more acceptable than if it was sexual harassment or any other form of bullying.


"Ultimately #GamerGate is reaffirming what we’ve known to be true for decades: nerds should be constantly shamed and degraded into submission"

There have been a lot of horrendous things said on both sides of this travesty but for an editor of Gawker to say that.... not to mention the things his Editor-in-chief tweeted... wow.

K.O.Kiki

Timmyctc wrote: »

Was that Sam guy serious when he tweeted that. I read it as sarcasm initially :P

Whatever his intentions, it was a dumb trend to tweet.
Repeatedly.
During Anti-Bullying Awareness Month.

Anyway, those tweets are why Mercedes were contacted about Gawker Media employees' behaviour, and why they dropped their ad support.

So now Gawker is trying to hide their tracks and pretend that Mercedes was never one of their sponsors, no siree.

BlitzKrieg

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Meh, that image is an example of someone making a sweeping generalisation and someone getting offended about it as if it was a personal statement against them. Hint: it wasn't a personal statement against you and you're not that important,get over it.

actually it seems to be the opposite, that post seems to be an endcap to a two day spree of tweets (October 15th - 16th) ripping into this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCExXie1XB4

he's got a host of similarily snarky tweets and screencaps making fun of the host in the video


It seems to have morphed into him threatening a disabled person: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q18TcQgpTAE

not to mention a demand to fight him.

Oddly being reminded of the time Uwe Boll challenged all the film critics to a boxing match.


On a personal note I hate those picture walls

partly because they are full of stuff that is normally clickable as a link but because it's a jpeg they are not. So it annoys me that I keep out of habit trying to click things (seriously make a jpeg that can have clickable links embedded that is easy to set up and share and you will have a fortune from twitter fights)

mostly though I hate them cause regardless of content I always feel it's out of context and spend an hour or so trawling through the countless tweets and conversations (did I mention I hate twitter) just to get a rough idea of what happened. And frankly it reminds me of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cWnubJ9CEw

I really do hate twitter. I know it makes me an old man but I hate it with a deep passion, stupidity just seems to run rampant on it.


http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/10/twitter_is_broken_gamergate_proves_it.html

Sonics2k

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Meh, that image is an example of someone making a sweeping generalisation and someone getting offended about it as if it was a personal statement against them. Hint: it wasn't a personal statement against you and you're not that important,get over it.

That's a nonsense and you know it. If the Tweet had read this:

""Ultimately #GamerGate is reaffirming what we’ve known to be true for decades: women should be constantly shamed and degraded into submission""

There would have been absolute havoc. I thought part of this whole stupid debacle was about the silly double standards in the industry.

gizmo

Biddle made a stupid, insensitive and poorly timed joke. People aren't actually suggesting he's literally in favour of bullying and that he specifically chose National Bullying Prevention Month to say it, are they?

The infographic that's been generated, as with others I've mentioned before, is more of the same nonsense. He was not "supported and even congratulated" by Max Reed, his main failure in this case was to not pull him up on it straight away, something they should most definitely be reprimanded for by their superiors. As for the second paragraph, it's utter hyperbole, it's proof of nothing other than Biddle's stupidity. Why can't they just simply condemn him and demand an apology? Why turn around and make sweeping generalisations about others in the profession because of the behaviour of this one person? Aren't these kinds of gross generalisations precisely the thing that has irked most people in support of the campaign?

But what's the end game here? Biddle has apologised but do people want to see him and Reed fired? There's been a flurry of tweets going around where each of the Gawker site editors are now being accused of "supporting" bullying due to their association with the parent company. Do these people in turn need to be fired unless they publicly condemn him? If both Biddle and Reed were fired would that stop people contacting Gawker's ad partners asking them to remove their support of them?

As for Mercedes pulling their ads, it may be a little bit too early to call that one.

wes

gizmo wrote: »

Why turn around and make sweeping generalisations about others in the profession because of the behaviour of this one person? Aren't these kinds of gross generalisations precisely the thing that has irked most people in support of the campaign?

Unfortunately, people want to see people get fired, and I am sorry, but Biddle and the other Gawker staff should have know better. Under normal circumstances, what he said would have been bad enough, but to do so during the current situation was utter stupidity. There are enough people out there (unrelated to the current gamergate business btw) who would like to take down a muck racker like Biddle (the gawker vallywag site has been less then kind to various tech people etc), and he just handed them a powerful weapon, and I am sure they will be happy to use it. Its hard to feel sorry for Biddle and his ilk tbh.

I agree its unfair to make sweeping generalizations, but people who have that crap fired at them, will sadly be more than happy to respond in kind. If gamers are going to be called misogynists etc then no one should be surprised when they decide to use Sam Biddle's comments to say there other side are bullies etc. The thing about guilt by association is that it can just as easily be turned around and used against those using, once some they can be vaguely associated does something stupid.

The whole thing is far to polarized and as said before it has become part of the whole US culture war nonsense, and there will be no fixing things any time soon.

COYVB

richymcdermott wrote: »

How did this once great industry become so split and broken.

It's neither split nor broken tbh - at least not because of this. Despite it being "big news" for anyone who follows the industry closely, the fact is that only a tiny percentage of gamers have even the slightest idea any of this is happening.

In short: not all that many people actually care

Evac101

Just a quick post from a 'fence sitter' regarding all of this. I'm an old, old, DeVore era roleplayer, who moved to video games in the late 80's (Mystic Adventures and GIZMO MUDs, stand alone PC games to MMORPGS and stuff now). I've been stupid and sexist in the past, I may be stupid and sexist in the future despite my efforts to educate myself and not to be. I've now spent the guts of 6 days reading stuff from both sides of the argument and while there are things and threats which both sides should be ashamed of there also seems to be some "inventive" journalism occurring on both sides of the fence. As the two most recent ones mentioned in this thread are in my head at the moment I'll comment on those and leave people do their own research on earlier claims.

Bullying thread from Sam Biddle - Honestly, you do have to be looking for offense to a certain extent in his original tweets as I read them as being a poorly worded piece of sarcasm. As others have pointed out his phrasing was so poor and timing was so abysmal that I think his superiors should have been quick to chastise him for it ("It was a poorly considered comment which does not truly reflect the views of Sam or Gawker, etc, etc") but one which - like so many other things on both sides was woefully managed. It's hard to believe in a lot of these cases that professional management people are making these incredibly stupid errors.

Anita/Brianna threats - In both cases theres no proven link between threats made to these people and the Gamergate movement. Correlation != Causation as my aetheist friends keep pointing out. In Brianna Wu's case she subsequently apologised for implicating the Gamergate people in the threats she received and while, normally, I don't have a lot of time for her, she's earned some grudging respect for that. That either were threatened in the first place is, of course, reprehensible and, while I feel like I shouldn't need to make that clear, I will.

General thoughts

The Gamergate movement is a mess of varied and contradictory groups, each of which are trying to advanced their own agenda's, some of which have merit (in my opinion) and others which seem to be only interested in generating dramah and qq's. What it needs is a strong leadership, some political savvy (which seems ridiculous given how many gamers are involved in politics at least tangentially), a list of 3-5 issues which they want addressed and to expel/disassociate/distance itself from the extremists who are hijacking it's worthwhile issues with the crap which feeds the perception that it's a movement for attacking women. Before someone kneejerks to say "But it is just about attacking women", there are many elements of it which don't agree with that image of the movement as a whole and you would be dismissing the views of those out of hand by saying so. If you were to say that some elements of it are just out to attack women then you would get no argument from me and I'd agree.

The Anti-Gamergate movement, I could almost cut and paste the first line of my description of the Gamergate group frankly. What I will say is that they have a much better understanding of presenting a unified message, which is half the battle these days. Their core message that women in many video games are treated as objects and that gender representation within video games is unbalanced is, of course, true. Whether this causes a knock on effect of sexism in the real world doesn't seem to be researched all that well from an academic stand point but is being treated as a foregone conclusion by some elements of the Anti-GG movement.

Both sides have worthy points and both sides have extremist idiots who tar them with the bad taste brush. For every gamergate "supporter" screaming "Make me a sammich" you have someone identifying as Anti-GG who feels justified slapping #killallmen at the end of a tweet.

Is there a problem with the relationship between Games websites, game developers and gamers? Absolutely but it should have been obvious in the wake of the Kane and Lynch debacle and various other 'scandals' (most recently the Shadows of Mordor stupidity) that Games companies feel safe in bullying review websites and sundry 'critics' in to providing positive press because of the majority of revenues for these being generated from..... Games companies!

Are gross generalisations being used by both sides of the GG divide to demonise and detract from legitimate discussion? Yep, yep, yep. I'm put in mind of the pro-life movement in the States - are there people who identify as part of that general movement who have actually killed people involved in providing advice regarding abortions or abortion clinic staff? Absolutely, yet they are still regarded as a legitimate political movement and one which deserves dialog with. Note I'm staying the hell out of the moral/gender/etc issues surrounding them as a movement but examined the way that the extremists associated with them have not diminished their perception in the publics mind as being a legitimate movement.

Is the gaming press approaching this in the worst possible way? This, I think is the bug bear I'm most annoyed with in all of this. The overwhelming number of articles from 'respected' sites regarding this have been dismissive, verging on insulting, to many of their 'core' audience. I'm not in any way suggesting that criticism should not be excercised, I'm all for criticism, it's sort of what I'm trying to do here myself. However the core message of most of the articles I've read has been "They say it's about games journalism but it's really misogyny and here's the worst things from the "GG" people I can find". Lots of articles stating that GG people have issued threats, doxed, hacked, etc. I've found *some* stuff which I would regarding as sexist or misogynistic, I've found, proportionally, a lot more which doesn't seem to be, which seemed to be gamers of different genders, races, sexual orientations, sexual identities and varying levels of ability to communication who are concerned with a perceived lack of honestly from websites proporting to even handed and morally responsible sources. The proportion of space being given the second group of people is miniscule compared to the number of articles decrying all gamergate supporters as sexist idiots. Meanwhile incidents which detract from the Anti-GG movement being perceived as being a bastion of truthiness and ethically upstanding folk are, by and large, being ignored. A quick scan of 11 different 'major' gaming websites shows 1 article regarding the doxing of GG folk and two regarding threats made to them. The same 11 give me considerably more regarding the same behaviour towards a total of 4 individuals (Anita, Briana, Phil and Zoe), in many cases using the false logic of "a threat has been made recently and thus must be originating from within the Gamergate movement" without any actual, factual, evidence to support that. I would point out that Anita, Brianna and Phil were all targets for abuse and threats long before Adam Baldwin ever tweeted #Gamergate.

Are these web authors journalists and if not are they bound by journalist guidelines? At least some have gotten journalism qualifications which would imply to me that at some point they had to take ethics as a part of their courses. Most, if not all, identify themselves as gaming journalists for the purposes of receiving advance copies of games, etc, for review. Many describe themselves in their bio's as journalists (e.g. Stephen Totilo of Gawker | Kotaku). Despite this we have had, historically, an abysmal level of journalistic ethics on display in both their relationships with games companies (as one writer remarked to another in the GameJournoPro mailing list, "Who here hasn't slept with a PR?") and in how they report on events within the gaming sphere (however tangentially). One of the writers whose relationship with Zoe Quinn was questioned (based on personal history and Patreon support) was Patricia Hernadez who wrote a simply horrific piece earlier this year on the founder of Cards Against Humanity (http://kotaku.com/a-different-way-to-respond-to-a-rape-accusation-update-1605542083). It has subsequently been reviewed however Patricia's real intent was shown in the comments section on the original when she responded to concerns that her article implied that Max Temkin had committed rape with a 'no smoke without fire' reply. When she was calling up on this her defense amounted to "I'm not saying he did it, I'm saying that if 9 of 10 accusations are true it's difficult to believe his side of events". At no point were these comments ever addressed by Stephen Totilo or any of the Gawker management.

TL:DR synopsis
Both sides have valid points, if we dismiss one sides concerns on the basis of nutjob extremists who are 'grouped' with them then we need to dismiss both sides on those grounds, gaming journalism needs to improve itself (paid subscription model?, I honestly don't know) and far too much factless baised accusations/articles are being issued by both sides which inhibits peoples ability to determine what has merit and what is BS. Oh and anyone who issues death threats over games OR feminism needs to have their internet access taken away and made to make the same statements in a MMA octagon to large, very muscled people named Sam, Alex or Dara.

__________________________________________________________

As very much a side bar I would point out that Wizardchan (which I briefly examined during this 'investigation') seems to be a website for male virgins who, on some occasions, ask each other for advice on how to end their lives in a manner which would cause the minimum of fuss for their survivors. I couldn't find any evidence (thanks WayBackMachine) that they embraced any misogynistic leanings historically, most were confounded and confused by the opposite sex, were depressed by their own inability to relate to them and quietly desperate. After 2 posts by an anonymous user, who has never been shown to be part of the regular community there, they, as a group, were pilloried by a whole bunch or people whose line has always that they are about respect of the individual regardles of etc, etc, etc. I find it immensely sad that this happened and feel a lot of empathy towards those lonely bastards.

______________________________________________________________________

Finally I must apologise for describing this as "a quick post" in my first sentence - I started and found I couldn't finish without the 'and... and..' being penned.

Evac101

And now the IT weighs in....

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/technology/game-reviews/are-gamers-misogynistic-some-certainly-are-1.1968159

Am I wrong to find Donald odious?

gizmo

wes wrote: »

Unfortunately, people want to see people get fired, and I am sorry, but Biddle and the other Gawker staff should have know better. Under normal circumstances, what he said would have been bad enough, but to do so during the current situation was utter stupidity. There are enough people out there (unrelated to the current gamergate business btw) who would like to take down a muck racker like Biddle (the gawker vallywag site has been less then kind to various tech people etc), and he just handed them a powerful weapon, and I am sure they will be happy to use it. Its hard to feel sorry for Biddle and his ilk tbh.

I certainly agree he should have know better, as EiC so too should Reed, but does it warrant termination do you think?

wes wrote: »

I agree its unfair to make sweeping generalizations, but people who have that crap fired at them, will sadly be more than happy to respond in kind. If gamers are going to be called misogynists etc then no one should be surprised when they decide to use Sam Biddle's comments to say there other side are bullies etc. The thing about guilt by association is that it can just as easily be turned around and used against those using, once some they can be vaguely associated does something stupid.

As a matter of interest, do you, as a gamer, feel like you have been called a misogynist? I mean I've read the offending articles and been keeping an eye on the twitter feed and I've yet to be offended by them as a gamer. I certainly disagreed with aspects of them, particularly the wording in some, but perhaps one of the reasons why I can't get behind the movement is that I haven't felt so angry about them nor can I understand why someone would really.

To be honest, I was always more offended, relatively speaking at least, at the idea that I, as a male in the 18-35 demographic, was more likely to pay attention to or even purchase a product if it was being advertised by the thankfully retired booth babe.

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

On a personal note I hate those picture walls

partly because they are full of stuff that is normally clickable as a link but because it's a jpeg they are not. So it annoys me that I keep out of habit trying to click things (seriously make a jpeg that can have clickable links embedded that is easy to set up and share and you will have a fortune from twitter fights)

mostly though I hate them cause regardless of content I always feel it's out of context and spend an hour or so trawling through the countless tweets and conversations (did I mention I hate twitter) just to get a rough idea of what happened.

That, I feel, is quite often the point. Take, for instance, the infamous Leigh Alexander "I am a megaphone..." tweet which has appeared on several infographics including the one ironically labelled "Operation Inescapable. No escaping the facts. No misinforming the public". Did you know that the person to whom she was speaking started the conversation with this tweet to Rami Ismail during the #1reasonwhy campaign earlier in the year? The conversation continued on the subject of both privilege and Ismail's accounts of whether he got checked at various airports as he travels. It culminated in this tweet from the original person. It was at this point that Alexander joined in. Taken out of context as it is in the infographic, it appears as if she is just having a go at him but in the context of the broader discussion and the politeness with which Rami and others were engaging with the poster and getting absolutely no where, it's far more reasonable.

This manipulation of events is one of the other aspects of the movement which have irked me and, to make matters worse, it's not coming from an extremist fringe this time, it permeates through it at nearly every level.

BlitzKrieg

I certainly agree he should have know better, as EiC so too should Reed, but does it warrant termination do you think?

I'd be more curious if they can legally justify termination.

its a similar situation to the muighty number 9 complaints. It's his personal twitter account not the account representing gawker or part of gawker.

it reflects badly etc, but if gawker were to fire him what grounds would they use? I'd imagine right now from a purely business perspective there is an economic scale weighing the bad press keeping him vs the hassle and cost in trying to get rid of him quickly.

In some cases (such as a the racist tweet before a flight to africa) the fallout from the tweet outweighed whatever issues they needed to deal with to terminate her employment/contract


Here, the fallout is echoing loudly but it has nowhere near picked up the same weight as the above and on top of that we do not know what sort of contract Sam has with Gawker, what grounds he might have to dispute his firing over a personal tweet that could simply make it more worthwhile for the company to weather the storm until it dies down.

gizmo

I generally agree with your post Evac101 but there were a couple of points I wanted to weigh in on.

Evac101 wrote: »

Is there a problem with the relationship between Games websites, game developers and gamers? Absolutely but it should have been obvious in the wake of the Kane and Lynch debacle and various other 'scandals' (most recently the Shadows of Mordor stupidity) that Games companies feel safe in bullying review websites and sundry 'critics' in to providing positive press because of the majority of revenues for these being generated from..... Games companies!

Given that the central theme of the movement deals with ethics and corruption I think it's extremely important to point out that these scandals are generally covered by the press when they occur. Examples over the years include those involving Tomb Raider Underword, Assassins Creed II, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Duke Nukem Forever and even less scandal-like but still uncomfortable MGS 4. The situation is actually quite similar to Shadow of Mordor where it was only TotalBiscuit who called out the contract Plaid Social were offering. What we're left with then is the morality of offering those kinds of contracts to both traditional press, online publications and Youtubers in the first place, in which case it is the publishers who should have the ire of the gaming community focused upon them, and the publications and Youtubers who accept these contracts without forming their readers or viewers. And yet, throughout the campaign there has been very little condemnation of these kinds of actions, instead we've seen a veritable blunderbuss of blame aimed squarely at a handful of publications and developers for purportedly far less egregious reasons.

Evac101 wrote: »

Is the gaming press approaching this in the worst possible way? This, I think is the bug bear I'm most annoyed with in all of this. The overwhelming number of articles from 'respected' sites regarding this have been dismissive, verging on insulting, to many of their 'core' audience.

Have you seen more recent pieces like Christopher Grant's Editorial at Polygon which, as TotalBiscuit highlighted, makes a good point of the problem being people talking past or even at each other rather than to. Similarly, Jeff Gerstmann over at GiantBomb has also finally weighed in on the issue with another very good piece.

Evac101 wrote: »

Are these web authors journalists and if not are they bound by journalist guidelines? At least some have gotten journalism qualifications which would imply to me that at some point they had to take ethics as a part of their courses. Most, if not all, identify themselves as gaming journalists for the purposes of receiving advance copies of games, etc, for review. Many describe themselves in their bio's as journalists (e.g. Stephen Totilo of Gawker | Kotaku). Despite this we have had, historically, an abysmal level of journalistic ethics on display in both their relationships with games companies (as one writer remarked to another in the GameJournoPro mailing list, "Who here hasn't slept with a PR?") and in how they report on events within the gaming sphere (however tangentially). One of the writers whose relationship with Zoe Quinn was questioned (based on personal history and Patreon support) was Patricia Hernadez who wrote a simply horrific piece earlier this year on the founder of Cards Against Humanity (http://kotaku.com/a-different-way-to-respond-to-a-rape-accusation-update-1605542083). It has subsequently been reviewed however Patricia's real intent was shown in the comments section on the original when she responded to concerns that her article implied that Max Temkin had committed rape with a 'no smoke without fire' reply. When she was calling up on this her defense amounted to "I'm not saying he did it, I'm saying that if 9 of 10 accusations are true it's difficult to believe his side of events". At no point were these comments ever addressed by Stephen Totilo or any of the Gawker management.

Personally, I find the idea that the GameJournoPro Google Group is an example of poor journalistic ethics to be completely off base. Not only has no actual evidence of collusion come from it despite it being labelled as a smoking gun (amongst other grossly hyperbolic and factually inaccurate things) by Breitbart upon its reveal, have people never heard of Press Clubs? James Fudge also wrote a very good piece about it over on GamePolitics if you fancy a read.

As for the other comment found within, it was "Who here hasn't slept with a PR person or game developer? #AMIRITE". How anyone could read that as anything other than either sarcastic or utterly tongue in cheek is beyond me.

Totally agree on Hernandez though. On top of the articles listed, there were also those regarding Anna Anthropy's games and book which, despite writing them around a year after they lived together, were so blatant that, imo, they warranted some form of serious disciplinary action.

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I'd be more curious if they can legally justify termination.

its a similar situation to the muighty number 9 complaints. It's his personal twitter account not the account representing gawker or part of gawker.

it reflects badly etc, but if gawker were to fire him what grounds would they use? I'd imagine right now from a purely business perspective there is an economic scale weighing the bad press keeping him vs the hassle and cost in trying to get rid of him quickly.

In some cases (such as a the racist tweet before a flight to africa) the fallout from the tweet outweighed whatever issues they needed to deal with to terminate her employment/contract


Here, the fallout is echoing loudly but it has nowhere near picked up the same weight as the above and on top of that we do not know what sort of contract Sam has with Gawker, what grounds he might have to dispute his firing over a personal tweet that could simply make it more worthwhile for the company to weather the storm until it dies down.

After the incident at PyCon last year and the subsequent fallout, I couldn't even hazard a guess as to the legality of termination based off these kinds of events.

COYVB

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

It's his personal twitter account not the account representing gawker or part of gawker

All depends whether or not his account is linked to in any capacity from Gawker. If it is, then he could be disciplined potentially