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

Evac101

Retr0gamer wrote: »

You're so ignorant of linguistics.

Being fair - funny

C14N

kunst nugget wrote: »

I don't get this notion of them hating their own audience. If the gamergate thing has shown anything, it's that people that play games aren't one homogeneous group. Their target audience is left leaning liberal types. They don't hate them. They hate all the other people.

Most of the audience is male. People like to talk about how women are now 50% of the gamers but this is greatly skewed by things like Facebook and mobile games which are starting to have bigger userbases than traditional games. The people playing them though, aren't the kind of people who are involved in the subculture or who read Kotaku. Considering most core gamers are male and most people in the major gaming markets (North America, Europe and Japan) are white, it really stands to reason that most people in the subculture are white and male.

So if someone who were staff at Kotaku starts tweeting about how much they dislike males, you can kind of see why people wouldn't like that. The tweets didn't even specify the type of person or go after all people who are like this, it was just broadly "men are bad". Now I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume it was sarcastic but outside of that it does seem like they might have had this brewing for a while. I don't actually read the site so I don't really know if it's a problem or not but what I gather from people angry with them is that they regularly publish stories and op-eds that draw attention to bad/sexist things that men do and emphasise the fact that it's men doing them. It's not that what they publish isn't true, it's more about framing. It's like if a site were to constantly report on crimes comitted by black people, the stories could all be true but putting it under a lense that way would be widely seen as racist.

But then, like I said, I don't actually read it so maybe it's not that prevelant and it's just a bunch of crybabies with persecution complexes.

Guyanachronism wrote: »

Is Kotaku audience male gamers? I would have thought it was more diverse considering they focus a lot on niche interests and not so much the big games (unless mocking them press x to pay respects etc.) They're also big fans of Anita Sarkeeisan and gave Bayonetta II massive coverage while criticsing the Playboy spread. They also get involved in gay rights issues, such as nintendo not allowing same sex couples in one of their life sim games. So I would say it has wider reader base than "male gamers" and particularly male gamers of the GG supporting variety.

Yes it is. None of those things they focus on (criticising Bayonetta, supporting Sarkeesian and gay rights) in any way indicate the audience is not male gamers. Unless it's a pretty niche site, you can be pretty sure that most big sources for games news and reviews have a majority male audience. Maybe they would like it to be more gender diverse but that doesn't make it so.

Guyanachronism wrote: »

Not that it matters, I thought gamergate was about ethics in journalism so shouldn't she be allowed speak her mind without being beholden to anyone. Anyway other posters have pointed out how the tweets are hyperbolic and satiric.

Ignoring these particular tweets, no, being allowed to "speak your mind" without reprecussions is not good ethics in journalism. If your opinions are hateful or bigoted, then by right you should be held accountable for them and a good publication should not be giving you a platform for your views.

Re: the word cis. Clearly, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the word. It simply describes a person who is not transgender. However, I think the problem a lot of people have with it is that it's often used spitefully or dismissively (like the infamous "die cis scum" or "I am pro-exclusion of cis men"). It's sort of like calling Ireland "Eire". There's nothing inherently wrong with it but for whatever reason I most widely see it used by English nationalists so I'm kind of wary when I see it. Same with "negro" which is actually a neutral enough word to refer to a black person but since it's largely popular with people who are pretty racist, when I see it that's what I assume. Still, we need the word because there's no other that succintly describes what it means, I just don't think there's much merit in using it unless you need to specify the difference.

kunst nugget

C14N wrote: »

Most of the audience is male. People like to talk about how women are now 50% of the gamers but this is greatly skewed by things like Facebook and mobile games which are starting to have bigger userbases than traditional games. The people playing them though, aren't the kind of people who are involved in the subculture or who read Kotaku. Considering most core gamers are male and most people in the major gaming markets (North America, Europe and Japan) are white, it really stands to reason that most people in the subculture are white and male.

So if someone who were staff at Kotaku starts tweeting about how much they dislike males, you can kind of see why people wouldn't like that. The tweets didn't even specify the type of person or go after all people who are like this, it was just broadly "men are bad". Now I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume it was sarcastic but outside of that it does seem like they might have had this brewing for a while. I don't actually read the site so I don't really know if it's a problem or not but what I gather from people angry with them is that they regularly publish stories and op-eds that draw attention to bad/sexist things that men do and emphasise the fact that it's men doing them. It's not that what they publish isn't true, it's more about framing. It's like if a site were to constantly report on crimes comitted by black people, the stories could all be true but putting it under a lense that way would be widely seen as racist.

But then, like I said, I don't actually read it so maybe it's not that prevelant and it's just a bunch of crybabies with persecution complexes.

I never said there audience wasn't predominately male or white, as much as people try to paint white males as a homogenous group they're not, but that they were obviously chasing an audience with a left-leaning bias who would agree with or at least be willing to listen to their stance on gaming and gender politics. Also the op-eds were presumably great for being clickbait and bringing extra numbers to the site in terms of ad revenue.

I'm reminded of the clip in the Howard Stern movie where they are talking about the breakdown of people listening to his show.

Researcher: The average radio listener listens for eighteen minutes. The average Howard Stern fan listens for - are you ready for this? - an hour and twenty minutes.
Pig Vomit: How can that be?
Researcher: Answer most commonly given? "I want to see what he'll say next."
Pig Vomit: Okay, fine. But what about the people who hate Stern?
Researcher: Good point. The average Stern hater listens for two and a half hours a day.
Pig Vomit: But... if they hate him, why do they listen?
Researcher: Most common answer? "I want to see what he'll say next."

Kotaku were obviously nailing their colours to the mast in terms of what the philosophy of the site was and probably hoping to generate some controversy for publicity purposes with some pointed and provocative op-ed pieces. It's totally blown up in their faces.

C14N

kunst nugget wrote: »

I never said there audience wasn't predominately male or white, as much as people try to paint white males as a homogenous group they're not, but that they were obviously chasing an audience with a left-leaning bias who would agree with or at least be willing to listen to their stance on gaming and gender politics. Also the op-eds were presumably great for being clickbait and bringing extra numbers to the site in terms of ad revenue.

I'm reminded of the clip in the Howard Stern movie where they are talking about the breakdown of people listening to his show.



Kotaku were obviously nailing their colours to the mast in terms of what the philosophy of the site was and probably hoping to generate some controversy for publicity purposes with some pointed and provocative op-ed pieces. It's totally blown up in their faces.

I think you're completely right here. Kotaku are catering to a left-leaning segment of the gaming population but they drive most (or at least a lot) of their traffic from the haters who keep coming back to fume over them some more. It's the same with Sarkeesian, the ones who want them to go away the most are ironically giving them the most power by never just shutting up about them.

Genghiz Cohen

Looks like misogyny isn't just confined to games.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpAQDwsJriQ

johnny_ultimate

To be honest, with the exception of articles explicitly about gender issues I'd say most liberal-leaning gaming sites are pretty gender neutral with the bulk of their writing. Edge, GamesTM, Eurogamer, USGamer, even Kotaku - their audience may be predominantly male for various complex reasons, and a majority of their contributors are usually male, but I think there is nothing about them (comments sections aside, sadly) that would tend to exclude a diverse spectrum of readers. You might have demographic specific sites like GayGamer (it's important these exist) or people like Sarkeesian approaching from a theoretical framework like feminism, but IMO even when publishing to an audience that is 75%+ male there's nothing about gaming coverage generally that should really be anything other than broadly inclusive. That's not getting into the fact that even 'heterosexual male' is far from a 'one description fits all' demographic.

TBH I think that's generally true of most media criticism. When I read sites I frequent like the AV Club, Slant Magazine, Little White Lies or whatever, I rarely feel like there's all that much about them that feel aggressively heteronormative or gender exclusive. Occasionally, there will be articles about issues that pertain to gender or sexuality, but the vast majority of the time both criticism and reporting is neutral enough that they can be read by almost anybody.

Speaking of Kotaku, they had a feature yesterday on one of the fringe, extremist sides of the divide: http://kotaku.com/the-anita-sarkeesian-hater-that-everyone-hates-1658494441

C14N

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

To be honest, with the exception of articles explicitly about gender issues I'd say most liberal-leaning gaming sites are pretty gender neutral with the bulk of their writing. Edge, GamesTM, Eurogamer, USGamer, even Kotaku - their audience may be predominantly male for various complex reasons, and a majority of their contributors are usually male, but I think there is nothing about them (comments sections aside, sadly) that would tend to exclude a diverse spectrum of readers. You might have demographic specific sites like GayGamer (it's important these exist) or people like Sarkeesian approaching from a theoretical framework like feminism, but IMO even when publishing to an audience that is 75%+ male there's nothing about gaming coverage generally that should really be anything other than broadly inclusive. That's not getting into the fact that even 'heterosexual male' is far from a 'one description fits all' demographic.

TBH I think that's generally true of most media criticism. When I read sites I frequent like the AV Club, Slant Magazine, Little White Lies or whatever, I rarely feel like there's all that much about them that feel aggressively heteronormative or gender exclusive. Occasionally, there will be articles about issues that pertain to gender or sexuality, but the vast majority of the time both criticism and reporting is neutral enough that they can be read by almost anybody.

I wasn't saying they write male-oriented stuff or use any sort of exclusionary style that would be off-putting to women or anything like that. I'm sure the female portion of the gaming population use these sites just as much as the male one. I was just saying that by virtue of the fact that they are mainstream gaming publications and most people who are into games as a hobby are male, their audience is mostly male.

K.O.Kiki

Interesting interview with "Xbro":
http://www.nichegamer.net/2014/11/xbro-interview-gamergate-numero-dos/
Choice quote:

Yes, I believe that the stance devs have on GamerGate threaten their careers. And here I will make a very bold statement: people like RogueStar, Phil Fish, Brianna Wu, Zoe Quinn and other will most certainly never going to find work in the AAA game industry.

kunst nugget

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Interesting interview with "Xbro":
http://www.nichegamer.net/2014/11/xbro-interview-gamergate-numero-dos/
Choice quote:

Isn't the whole reason most people become indie developers is so they don't have to work in big AAA studios?

After 3 months, has it actually achieved anything besides making people on both sides feel victimised?

Genghiz Cohen

kunst nugget wrote: »

Isn't the whole reason most people become indie developers is so they don't have to work in big AAA studios?

No, MOST people (I.E. the hundreds of thousands of devs you never hear about) get into the indie scene solely because they have no contacts to get talking to a publisher. The bar to entry is quite low so it's not an issue to start an indie studio.

I was an indie dev, it sucked.
Now I work for a dev company that has publishers, a steady paycheck is great!


The likes of 22Cans was created so that the founder, who has enough money to keep himself stocked with clean pants, has exclusive creative control to the projects that get made.

gizmo

kunst nugget wrote: »

Isn't the whole reason most people become indie developers is so they don't have to work in big AAA studios?

After 3 months, has it actually achieved anything besides making people on both sides feel victimised?

The examples given aren't even the best to illustrate the point to be honest. RogueStar, for instance, would be considered a write off by most HR departments after his meltdown on his Reddit AMA after getting sacked from Zynga. His ****ty behaviour since then wouldn't exactly help things either. Quinn and Wu wouldn't really have the skillsets for AAA development from what I can see, regardless of what's happened to them since this kicked off.

Fish is an interesting one though, I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if he got a job at another studio, AAA or otherwise. I would just wager that such a hiring would come with the caveat that he not engage social media and that he be placed under a lead designer who can ensure he remain focused so as to avoid any *ahem* bad habits he may have picked up during the prolonged development of Fez.

The interview itself is rather odd though, the idea that the campaign has "more or less maintained its stance and goals" since it's inception is a rather odd claim given the shift towards a more general anti-SJW rhetoric over the last month or so. Couple that with their concentration on Gawker, whose only association with "ethics in games journalism" is their ownership of Kotaku, and I was left scratching my head on that one.

Then again to follow it up with this gem "The odd fact, however, is that the anti-gamergate side mostly features bloggers, writers, feminists and general anti-gamers, so their relevance to our industry is thankfully insignificant" indicates a more outright bias against, I duno, reality more than anything else.

Even the interviewer asks bizarre questions, claiming that people are getting suspended from Twitter for no other reason than being pro-GamerGate is ridiculous. The likes of RogueStar and Yiannopoulos were suspended for posting some pretty horrible stuff both in general and to specific people. Likewise, a bias where "anti-GamerGate can say whatever they want (and get away with it), while pro-GamerGate are condemned at every turn" is similarly silly. Some notable "anti-Gamergate" people have frequently and quite justifiably called out for making utterly bizarre and hyperbolic analogies and statements.

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

No, MOST people (I.E. the hundreds of thousands of devs you never hear about) get into the indie scene solely because they have no contacts to get talking to pa publisher. The bar to entry is quite low so it's not an issue to start an indie studio.

I was an indie dev, it sucked.
Now I work for a dev company that has publishers, a steady paycheck is great!

Funny that you mention that, this got posted yesterday and is pretty relevant.

Note the second highest comment chain by the way, it's rather amusing.

johnny_ultimate

Taking aside the fact that a whole lot of that interview borders on paranoid delusion, plenty of independent developers are surely not desperately sending applications into AAA studios. Being divorced from a studio and publisher has time and time again shown to be far more conducive to encouraging unique game-makers produce unique games.

Just look at how many developers have surrendered the safety blanket of a guaranteed paycheck to go solo. Tiger Style, The Fullbright Company, The Astronauts to name but a few - heck, articles announcing 'Veterans of [insert big name game name] and [another AAA game] veterans are releasing a new indie games' are common. There are even bigger name examples. Michel Ancel has recently started his own studio, and companies like Double Fine also fit into the 'independent' category. Few in those companies - even the less well-known names - would have much issue getting employment in AAA companies, but they've chosen the riskier path. The artistic rewards have been obvious.

Goes without saying that a probably large majority are in the independent field to develop a calling card for bigger things, and obviously not all - even some supremely talented ones - can hope for the success of the highest profile indie devs. But it's not at all a stretch to suggest a whole host of independent developers are much, much happier where they are.

Grumpypants

Like everything it is mixed.

You have the just out of college/home starter who is building his own prototype for their portfolio & lives at home with their parents so have little in terms of outgoings or risk.

The group of friends who think they can make a good game who have gotten some funding from a government start up fund to cover costs so they can go for 1-2 years. Low risk and not much in terms of outgoings.

The guys who works two jobs, one to pay the bills & one to make their indie game. They have to pay bills, rent might have family to look after.

The guy who worked for 10 years elsewhere but got burnt out on deadlines but has some cash so can take a risk for a side project for a year or two.

The guys like Double Fine who take years of industry experience and goodwill and run a kick starter for million so they can work away on game without the major concern of paying bills.

The guys who are independent but still sign up with publishers who fund them.

The guys who sign exclusive deals with Sony or MS and get a big bag of cash for doing so.

You will always have a flow both directions those who start in indie to build experience and a portfolio to get a job at a AAA. Those who work at a AAA to get experience and money to go out on their own.

Being your own boss is great but so is not being your own boss and getting a steady paycheck.

BlitzKrieg

Why is this an interesting interview?

it's from Niche Gamer, who have already been shown *in this thread* to be against the notion of ethical journalism. A quick check shows they have not removed or updated the article (this one: http://www.nichegamer.net/2014/09/mighty-no-nein-gamergate-censorship) with corrections that have been raised in their comments section, emailed to them and pointed out to them directly in twitter.

So no it's not an interesting interview it's an echo chamber it's as interesting as me linking an artcle like this: http://www.zenofdesign.com/gamergates-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-week/ and saying that it's a great insight into the inner workings of gamergate.

Edit: ok this is not interesting but is funny: http://www.zenofdesign.com/the-lost-seinfeld-episode-on-gamergate/

Shiminay

I had a most disappointing phone call with my brother this week. He is "pro" GooberGart. He could not counter one single point I made about the origins of this "movement" (we have unassailable facts that this mess started out as a means to destroy Zoe Quinn's career, nothing else), its methods ("anti-GG people Doxed too!" / "Brianna Wu once made fun of some people on Twitter, so she deserved it" / etc...) and its goals. Everything he said was "whataboutery" - no substance, only strawmen and "not all GooberGarts."

Yesterday, I found out that Jack fking Thompson has rolled out some nonsense that GooberGart morons are supporting and sharing as a "look, we have another supporter!" If you're so fking stupid that you think ANYTHING a disgraced ex-lawyer like Jack Thompson says is in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM helping a movement that says it's trying to help gaming then PLEASE don't ever breed, I fear for the safety of your future children since you don't seem to have the intellectual capacity to give them the attention they would need.

These people have joined a cult. Seriously. That is the only way to describe this blind and unswerving membership of a thing that will never, ever be considered as anything other than a movement that started to harass women. That's really unfortunate though because there is a non-trivial number of people who joined up to it on its so called "ethics in Games Journalism" stance and they are now all either drinking the Koolaid (like my aforementioned brother) or they've been ostracised by their friends and acquaintances for publicly supporting it before "the media" carpet-bombed the news with how it's nothing but evil and hates women and its members are deranged sexists (which I am well aware it isn't despite my obvious disgust at the entire thing).

The irony of Jim Sterling's recent departure from The Escapist for reasons of Ethics in Games Journalism yet his utter loathing and public condemnation of a group that claims to be about this very thing because of it's origins and actions is kinda funny to me. This same group consigned him to "SJW" after initially thinking he might support them, yet here he is, putting his career on the line in the hope that he can continue doing what he does as an independent publisher rather than being beholden to the marketing department's content deals makes me laugh a lot.

gizmo

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

So no it's not an interesting interview it's an echo chamber it's as interesting as me linking an artcle like this: http://www.zenofdesign.com/gamergates-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-week/ and saying that it's a great insight into the inner workings of gamergate.

Aw man, if only Schubert had named that article "An awful week to care about Gamergate". :pac:

BlitzKrieg

Yesterday, I found out that Jack fking Thompson has rolled out some nonsense that GooberGart morons are supporting and sharing as a "look, we have another supporter!" If you're so fking stupid that you think ANYTHING a disgraced ex-lawyer like Jack Thompson says is in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM helping a movement that says it's trying to help gaming then PLEASE don't ever breed, I fear for the safety of your future children since you don't seem to have the intellectual capacity to give them the attention they would need.

you mean this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tF8m0q_CQM

good summery of the original man here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sGYo7sCc8w

Potatoeman

Shiminay wrote: »

I had a most disappointing phone call with my brother this week. He is "pro" GooberGart. He could not counter one single point I made about the origins of this "movement" (we have unassailable facts that this mess started out as a means to destroy Zoe Quinn's career, nothing else), its methods ("anti-GG people Doxed too!" / "Brianna Wu once made fun of some people on Twitter, so she deserved it" / etc...) and its goals. Everything he said was "whataboutery" - no substance, only strawmen and "not all GooberGarts."

Yesterday, I found out that Jack fking Thompson has rolled out some nonsense that GooberGart morons are supporting and sharing as a "look, we have another supporter!" If you're so fking stupid that you think ANYTHING a disgraced ex-lawyer like Jack Thompson says is in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM helping a movement that says it's trying to help gaming then PLEASE don't ever breed, I fear for the safety of your future children since you don't seem to have the intellectual capacity to give them the attention they would need.

These people have joined a cult. Seriously. That is the only way to describe this blind and unswerving membership of a thing that will never, ever be considered as anything other than a movement that started to harass women. That's really unfortunate though because there is a non-trivial number of people who joined up to it on its so called "ethics in Games Journalism" stance and they are now all either drinking the Koolaid (like my aforementioned brother) or they've been ostracised by their friends and acquaintances for publicly supporting it before "the media" carpet-bombed the news with how it's nothing but evil and hates women and its members are deranged sexists (which I am well aware it isn't despite my obvious disgust at the entire thing).

The irony of Jim Sterling's recent departure from The Escapist for reasons of Ethics in Games Journalism yet his utter loathing and public condemnation of a group that claims to be about this very thing because of it's origins and actions is kinda funny to me. This same group consigned him to "SJW" after initially thinking he might support them, yet here he is, putting his career on the line in the hope that he can continue doing what he does as an independent publisher rather than being beholden to the marketing department's content deals makes me laugh a lot.

Thats kind of like saying the whole Arab spring events should not have happened because it started over a vegetable cart. I was actually on ZQs side at the start but she seems like such a horrid person. She does not deserve to get threats but she is hardly ta poster child for anything.
There is lots of mudslinging going on and it reflects the current internet atmosphere of attacking people for having different opinions and not discussing opinions. Saying its just about harassing woman is focusing on one very negitive toxic aspect of the whole thing.

Shiminay

Yet another strawman... :rolleyes: Arab Spring, really?

Zoe Quinn didn't ask to be a poster child for anything, she wanted to make games. It doesn't matter what you think of her as a person, she didn't ask for your opinion on her, just on her games.

I have consistently and repeatedly said that there desperately needs to be a real and meaningful discussion about games journalism. That cannot happen whilst anyone is still talking about GooberGart - no one who needs to be involved in it will want to be involved in it because they will simply be attacked, harassed, threatened or worse.

So kill it with fire and call it like it is, a horribly toxic movement that suckered in a lot of honourable and well meaning support (and yes, if you think the games journalism industry needs to be fixed, those are indeed honourable and well meaning intentions) because of a 100% fabricated story about a woman who dared to cheat on a man.

BMMachine

whats a GooberGart?

kunst nugget

BMMachine wrote: »

whats a GooberGart?

It's what Patrick Star always orders in the Goofy Goober.

Grumpypants

Shiminay wrote: »

I had a most disappointing phone call with my brother this week. He is "pro" GooberGart. He could not counter one single point I made about the origins of this "movement" (we have unassailable facts that this mess started out as a means to destroy Zoe Quinn's career, nothing else), its methods ("anti-GG people Doxed too!" / "Brianna Wu once made fun of some people on Twitter, so she deserved it" / etc...) and its goals. Everything he said was "whataboutery" - no substance, only strawmen and "not all GooberGarts."
.

I've no interest in the "movement" but I think it is fair to track back to what the actual trigger point was as it appear to have been lost along the way and the media keep pushing that it was purely to attack women or in particular Quinn.

It is often mentioned that it started with the post by the Ex Boyfriend that made allegations. But that was little more than gossip that would have blown over in a week or so had it been ignored, why it turned into a thing went like this, and is another example of the Streisand effect on the internet.

• MundaneMatt then made a video talking about the post, quite a nothing video just discussing it.
• Quinn made a DMCA claim on that video to have it taken down. It was claimed that a still screen shot in the video was from her game and was copyright infringement, this still was counterclaimed to be in the public domain and fair use. This has since been overruled by youtube and put back up.
• A site (Gamesnosh i think) wrote about this article & DMCA take down, and allegedly had its hosting removed by the host company.
• Reddit started talking about this and Quinn allegedly got her friend who is allegedly a Reddit mod to allegedly delete literally thousands of posts that had anything at all that mentioned it.
• People started to wonder why no main stream media outlet was willing to talking about it, why there was such a big perceived cover up. Media Outlets all claimed that they didn't see it as "news" as it was someones private life.
• Then there was the weird 14 articles in a day claiming all claiming "gamers are sexist/misogynist/dead/white/male/racists etc". which just lit the already simmering flames of conspiracy. Rather than confront the issue the outlets attacked and tried to discredit those raising the questions by painting them as any of the above.

Then Gamergate happened and we know what happened after that, but the initial starting point was the attempted silencing of discussion by Quinn not the actual ex-post or the perceived corruption.

Links234

I do find it unbelievably ironic that the Gamergaters are buddying up with Jack Thompson. Jack "Disbarred for Ethics Violations" Thompson. If there was ever a moment where the gamergate movement said "are we the baddies?" now would be it.

Gbear

Links234 wrote: »

I do find it unbelievably ironic that the Gamergaters are buddying up with Jack Thompson. Jack "Disbarred for Ethics Violations" Thompson. If there was ever a moment where the gamergate movement said "are we the baddies?" now would be it.

Don't think they are.

gizmo

Grumpypants wrote: »

I've no interest in the "movement" but I think it is fair to track back to what the actual trigger point was as it appear to have been lost along the way and the media keep pushing that it was purely to attack women or in particular Quinn.

It is often mentioned that it started with the post by the Ex Boyfriend that made allegations. But that was little more than gossip that would have blown over in a week or so had it been ignored, why it turned into a thing went like this, and is another example of the Streisand effect on the internet.

• MundaneMatt then made a video talking about the post, quite a nothing video just discussing it.
• Quinn made a DMCA claim on that video to have it taken down. It was claimed that a still screen shot in the video was from her game and was copyright infringement, this still was counterclaimed to be in the public domain and fair use. This has since been overruled by youtube and put back up.
• A site (Gamesnosh i think) wrote about this article & DMCA take down, and allegedly had its hosting removed by the host company.
• Reddit started talking about this and Quinn got her friend who is a Reddit mod to delete literally thousands of posts that had anything at all that mentioned it.
• People started to wonder why no main stream media outlet was willing to talking about it, why there was such a big perceived cover up. Media Outlets all claimed that they didn't see it as "news" as it was someones private life.
• Then there was the weird 14 articles in a day claiming all claiming "gamers are sexist/misogynist/dead/white/male/racists etc". which just lit the already simmering flames. Rather than confront the issue the outlets attacked and tried to discredit those raising the questions by painting them as any of the above.

Then Gamergate happened and we know what happened after that, but the initial starting point was the attempted silencing of discussion by Quinn not the actual ex-post or the perceived corruption.

Not entirely accurate...

• You've missed InternetAristocrat's first video on the "Quinnspiracy Theory" which was posted the day after MundaneMatt's video was taken down. It contained a bunch of false accusations as well as the first reference to TFYC via the Reddit post. This, it should be noted, has also been shown to contain some fairly blatant inaccuracies.
• Adam Baldwin retweeted both IA's Quinnspiracy videos on August 27th with the Gamergate hashtag.
• The Reddit mod in question contacted her after the abuse and threats of doxxing began to surface. There is no evidence to suggest she got him to take anything down.
• Both Dan Golding's blog post entitled "The End of Gamers" and Leigh Alexander's article "'Gamers' don't have to be your audience. 'Gamers' are over." were posted on August 28th. They formed the basis of the other articles which were posted over the next 48hrs, not the same day. They were, in part, a reaction to the backlash against Quinn from the previous series of events, they were not the direct cause of Gamergate. At most, it could be argued that they exacerbated the situation when combined with the other events you outlined.

C14N

Shiminay wrote: »

Zoe Quinn didn't ask to be a poster child for anything, she wanted to make games. It doesn't matter what you think of her as a person, she didn't ask for your opinion on her, just on her games.

I kind of think she did. I was following this since pretty much the start (before it was called #Gamergate or got any major coverage) and she really threw herself into the spotlight on this one as much as possible. After the topic went big she kept Tweeting about it, kept giving opinions and went and wrote an article on Cracked.

I don't think any of this would have gone anywhere if she just "wanted to make games". Making games wasn't what put her in hot water, neither was cheating on her boyfriend. That blog and the topic in general really had no traction until she started going around removing things on Reddit and Youtube that were critical of her. There was also the case of her drawing a small storm on Wizardchan to boost her profile early on (based on very flimsy accusations of harassment) with the media rushing right to her aid, no questions asked (and the Escapist backpeddling on this much later).

It just got worse when the media covered the entire thing and did make her something of a poster child. Most of what I saw back then painted her as a strong, independant women who wanted to make creative games and who was attacked without cause by hoards of misogynists because she dared to be female and a game developer. If the media handled it in a more "we get it, she did some bad things but that's no justification for threats of violence" way, then I don't think it ever would have reached the point it got to. The problem was that it sort of became impossible to criticise anything she did without being tossed into "that" group.

That's not to say that "that" group weren't delighted to have someone to point at and pounce on but the lefty mainstream games media were also delighted to have a woman to defend against these cretins, with little regard for what kind of defense was appropriate or how to handle it. Given all of the wild accusations and claims both directed at Quinn and by Quinn, this was a rare chance for them to do actual investigation but instead they decided that since this crowd who've been at Sarkeesian's throat for a few years are assholes, they were just going to go against them from the start.

Potatoeman

Shiminay wrote: »

Yet another strawman... :rolleyes: Arab Spring, really?

Zoe Quinn didn't ask to be a poster child for anything, she wanted to make games. It doesn't matter what you think of her as a person, she didn't ask for your opinion on her, just on her games.

I have consistently and repeatedly said that there desperately needs to be a real and meaningful discussion about games journalism. That cannot happen whilst anyone is still talking about GooberGart - no one who needs to be involved in it will want to be involved in it because they will simply be attacked, harassed, threatened or worse.

So kill it with fire and call it like it is, a horribly toxic movement that suckered in a lot of honourable and well meaning support (and yes, if you think the games journalism industry needs to be fixed, those are indeed honourable and well meaning intentions) because of a 100% fabricated story about a woman who dared to cheat on a man.

So you just need a few bad eggs to undermine the whole thing. In fairness the whole GG thing is so sprawling that it's hard to keep track of it. A huge part of what's causing the kick back is media outlets refusing to look at any issues brought up and claiming anyone asking any questions just hates women.

Evac101

I wrote a long, rambling, possibly muddled post regarding how dialogue and conflict resolution works, how a positive outcome through a willingness to examine each sides points and claims through discussion could be achieved, how a refusal to find any good in your opponents, casting them in the role of 'the other' is the antithesis of an informed debate (and a debate which can inform).

Then I realised that the people who might benefit most from those thoughts (imo) are just going to dismiss me and resort to childish name calling anyhow and thought to myself, "What's the point?".

gizmo

Evac101 wrote: »

I wrote a long, rambling, possibly muddled post regarding how dialogue and conflict resolution works, how a positive outcome through a willingness to examine each sides points and claims through discussion could be achieved, how a refusal to find any good in your opponents, casting them in the role of 'the other' is the antithesis of an informed debate (and a debate which can inform).

Then I realised that the people who might benefit most from those thoughts (imo) are just going to dismiss me and resort to childish name calling anyhow and thought to myself, "What's the point?".

People here have been dismissive and resorted to childish name calling rather than attempting to engage with each other thus far?

kunst nugget

gizmo wrote: »

People here have been dismissive and resorted to childish name calling rather than attempting to engage with each other thus far?

Stop attacking me!!!