[Mr. Vega]

As this thread now involves gamergate, here's some links on it, all from the same website:
Gamergate's achievements
Common Gamergate misconceptions
"Gamers are dead" article analysis

In addition to that, both Polygon and Eurogamer have denounced Gamergate in between this topic's closing and re-opening.

Prominent persons in the industry who have condemned Gamergate:

Tim Schafer
Peter Molyneux
Greg Kasavin
Niel Druckmann
Phil Fish (duh)
Hideki Kamiya (Bayonetta/Okami)
Ron Gilbert
Anna Anthropy

Jeff Gerstmann (Fired from Gamespot for giving a negative review to Kane and Lynch after its publisher had plastered the site with ads for the game. He has been targeted for harassing phone calls after criticizing GG. But I'm sure that's totally a coincidence!)
Rob Florence (resigned from Eurogamer after the site was forced to amend his article decrying the shameless participation of certain game journalists in PR-related social media contests and the chummy relationships between the PR wings of publishers and journalists in general, after one of the said journalists mentioned in the article filed a libel suit against him in a European court)
Jim Sterling (they are now actually harassing him on Twitter)

And that's just scratching the surface.

Of the people I've listed, the probably the harshest words for GG have been spoken by Rob Florence, who might be the single biggest victim of actual corruption in gaming to date:

https://twitter.com/robertflorence/status/520741694858612736
https://twitter.com/robertflorence/status/523477685029572608

And finally, here is Gamergate's boycott list:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0QsMCLIcAAxC_w.png:large

Clearly the anti-GG movement is a tiny minority lashing out against its own impending extinction!

*slow clap*

[Grizzly]

Okay, where to start with lorric's thing.

Note when I state "They always are" I specifically mean "Rock Paper Shotgun" and on the offhand some other sites I happen to read trough their links. However, since "Rock Paper Shotgun" is included on the "unethical" list, I assume that it may be a standard.

First of all, something which immeaditily stood out is:

Truth and fact must be treated with the respect they deserve. This means, at a minimum:

    Opinions are not to be stated as universal truths
    Hearsay is not to be reported as factual without corroborating evidence
    Assumptions and speculation are not to be reported as fact
    Intentionally misleading or inflammatory wording is not ever to be used, in headlines or elsewhere
    When in doubt, stick only to information that would hold up under examination in a court of law

To which my replies are:
1. They never are!
2. Which is why the ZQ stuff was never reported - see also that common misconception post from above.
3. ^^
4. Okay that one seems fair
5. See 2 and 3

Editorials and other opinion pieces are to be kept separate from News pieces. Bias and opinion will always color a writer's work, but they should strive for as much objectivity as reasonably possible in the News. If they wish to share their opinion on the piece, something that should be encouraged, it should be done in a distinct space.

... They always are!

All journalists must be required to behave professionally within the public space. This includes but is by no means limited to:

    No irrational, emotionally-driven rants
    No insults, threats, or any of the other assorted childishness
    Engage the audience calmly, reasonably, and without rancor, or do not engage them at all
    Be aware when one is within the public space, especially any and all social media.
    Do not treat one's audience as an enemy

I have seen emotionally driven stuff on RPS - but all the other stuff? Nah.

Journalists must strive to be objective. No human can be truly impartial, but journalists must strive to the best of their ability to be above external bias, and to inform their readers when they cannot. Put simply, this means they must, at minimum:

    Recuse themselves from reporting news regarding subjects that they have a personal or financial link to
    Disclose any personal or financial connections to subjects they are giving opinion pieces on (Editorials, Op-Eds, Reviews, etc)
    Engage in honest and fair coverage. Consistency and the interest of/relevance to the audience must be the deciding factor in the decision to run a story.

I would note that "Objectivity" and "honesty" can be mutually exclusive. It's impossible for an article not to be painted by the writer's personal biases (even if only when deciding what information to include and what information gives undue weights to certain viewpoints). I think the "personal and financial" link thing is silly in an industry which is very small (esp when it ocmes to the indie space) - if we would strictly enforce that, we'd run out of journalists very quickly.

GamerGate simply wants gaming media websites to adopt some variation on these policies, much like the Escapist has, and actively work to adhere to them. Nothing more and nothing less.

And here's the problem: Lotsa websites (like say RPS) already have some variation on those policies. To me, it seems more that gaters are outraged because the result of these policies is not what they would like to see.

Over the last five years, the gaming media has grown increasingly politicized, all with the same political stance and agenda.

Ehrm... No? If this was teh case, why do I see so much different articles with different opinions on subjects? Politicized? hmm. Sure, RPS has problems with misogony and sexism - but they have always been honest about that. I prefer that honesty over this nebolous aim of objectivity.
Regardless, someone did some research into this claim.

Widespread censorship

I'd like to note that the censorship over the ZQ stuff was rather unique since there was an awfull lot of doxxing involved. reddit felt required to setup an automoderator to deal with the problem as Reddit does not want to be implicated in doing illegal stuff (which doxxing is).

Major industry figures confirmed that these issues existed and insisted that they were not a problem. Then on August 28/29, 11 gaming news sites (Gamasutra, DailyDot, Kotaku, Polygon, and several others) published articles declaring some variation of 'Gamers are Dead' and that any and all calls for better journalism were made only as cover for 'neckbearded misogynerds' to harass women. This incensed a large portion of their audience and even reached well known actor Adam Baldwin, who coined the Twitter hashtag #gamergate upon his getting involved, which the movement has since adopted as its moniker.

This is not correct - First of all, see above (the gamers are dead article analysis) - it should also be noted that Adam Baldwin (you know, the guy from firefly) did not post #gamergate in response to those articles about gamers are dead - he reposted the Internet Aristocrat films on Zoe Quinn (who the GG community now calls "Literally Who" because this is not about her - or something). I do not recommend you watch those.
Side note: Joss Whedon is pro feminist frequency - Baldwin is not the only firefly-er involved

As for the second post - That stuff is just WAAAY to much for me to go trough. We can pull out a few to discuss, obviously. Just point me towards one (just one please).

[Mr. Vega]

This is not correct - First of all, see above (the gamers are dead article analysis) - it should also be noted that Adam Baldwin (you know, the guy from firefly) did not post #gamergate in response to those articles about gamers are dead - he reposted the Internet Aristocrat films on Zoe Quinn (who the GG community now calls "Literally Who" because this is not about her - or something). I do not recommend you watch those.

The video was called "The Five Guys Saga", the five guys being the ones ZQ allegedly ****ed. That is the first time the #Gamergate tag was ever used. The first GG thread on HLP began with the posting of this video. There seem to be some very short memories on this forum.

[Grizzly]

I wouldn't call that down to "very short memories". Not everyone was involved in that, and at that point in time it was not called #gamergate yet IIRC.

[Mr. Vega]

I wouldn't call that down to "very short memories". Not everyone was involved in that, and at that point in time it was not called #gamergate yet IIRC.

It was very shortly afterword, as the thread was ongoing.

[Flipside]

The thing is, the bit that really has me confused, is who are GamerGate getting angry for?

The only people that would be affected by the proclaimed lack of impartiality in game-advert sponsored sites (which, to me, is far more an indicator of concern) are people who don't do much research before they buy a game. It's kind of like buying a game from reading the packaging.

Now, I've picked up some awesome games by reading the packaging, Freespace 2 and Homeworld were both impulse purchases, but I've bought a hell of a lot more garbage using the same method. I might feel a bit of irritation, roll my eyes and hope the next one is another Homeworld, but I wouldn't get angry about it.

As far as censorship is concerned, I think it's a 'damned if you do...' situation, and the final decision was based on the fact that, if people were truly unhappy with the way the site was run, they were as free to leave as they were to arrive.

GG, had it grown from a different seed, might have been a positive thing, promoting impartial reviewers, raising public awareness in a non-confrontational manner, and possibly even having a positive impact on the quality of games themselves. But this became about personalities.

[Mr. Vega]

The thing is, the bit that really has me confused, is who are GamerGate getting angry for?

The only people that would be affected by the proclaimed lack of impartiality in game-advert sponsored sites (which, to me, is far more an indicator of concern) are people who don't do much research before they buy a game. It's kind of like buying a game from reading the packaging.

Now, I've picked up some awesome games by reading the packaging, Freespace 2 and Homeworld were both impulse purchases, but I've bought a hell of a lot more garbage using the same method. I might feel a bit of irritation, roll my eyes and hope the next one is another Homeworld, but I wouldn't get angry about it.

As far as censorship is concerned, I think it's a 'damned if you do...' situation, and the final decision was based on the fact that, if people were truly unhappy with the way the site was run, they were as free to leave as they were to arrive.

GG, had it grown from a different seed, might have been a positive thing, promoting impartial reviewers, raising public awareness in a non-confrontational manner, and possibly even having a positive impact on the quality of games themselves. But this became about personalities.

And it would have been led by people like Rob Florence and Jim Sterling instead of 4chan.

[Mr. Vega]

Some people are trying to use Keyhole to give an estimate on the actual numbers of GGers on twitter, but it turns out the info Keyhole spews out is wildly different depending on when you try it. Ignore this post.

[AtomicClucker]

I vanish for a bit to IRL stuff... and now GamerGate in this thread.

I've actually worked my disdain for the entire cluster**** out of my system and related Twitter antics. Don't engage in attempted "civilized" discussion on Twitter, it doesn't work. Only thing I still do is refuse to accept Anita Sarkesian as a true "academic" until she starts to build better academic work to support claims that have little, skewed or no data supporting them. (And yay varily I support Feminists like Dita Von Tease because why? Good ol' way to cause the Prudish hens to cluck, down with Prudes!). Beyond that, GamerGate is a flaming train that's been out of control for quite some time. In retrospect, from my own little childish spats and screams, no one wins from current mess.

What does happen is that the relationship between Games "Media" and game consumers has been permanently poisoned. Many gamers feel frustrated that they're being told they're "children and misogynists..." which is not going to produce very good results. Combine that with a group of hardened (not experienced, but obviously callous) personalities in the Media attempting to redefine the notion of "Gamer."

Issues of Feminism and even harassment no longer matter: it's a mass of rage that's hard to control from both sides.

I've put my distance with GamerGate because I got my RAEG and garbage out of my system (and I actually live and deal with real conspiratorial nutcases). Plus the conspiratorial stuff rubs me the wrong way. As for the anti-GG crowd? They live in a "Progressive" dream that flew off the rails of reality a long time ago. When you piss off your customers, abuse them and hand out accusations, something will snap. And frankly the surrounding idiocy hasn't made it better. It's no longer a culture war, it's simply a mess. Anti-GGers magically think they're "doing" the right thing, but the right thing was lost when they attempted to change the definition of Gamer in a brewing sea of discontent. Something finally gave and now we have the monstrosity called GamerGate. Call those "gamers" ISIS? Yep, that's chucking oil into the fire.

I do bid my hats to attempts at bridging the gaps though: GG and Anti-GG only have one thing in common and they both condemn harassment and threats to women (both sides are trying to end it). Everything else? Don't bother. If any of you try to paint GG as the "enemy" I do actually follow them, and to be honest, they're human and frustrated (I do read the Escapist thread to measure the frustration). To the journalists who helped to foment this mess? Try leaving the ivory tower and engage in civil discussion with their fellow gamers.

[Mr. Vega]

To the journalists who helped to foment this mess? Try leaving the ivory tower and engage in civil discussion with their fellow gamers.

Sure, when the Escapist stops insisting on "equal time" to individuals on 8chan publicly involved in harassment and doxxing schemes.

They live in a "Progressive" dream that flew off the rails of reality a long time ago. When you piss off your customers, abuse them and hand out accusations, something will snap.

Our dream is that female developers and journalists won't have a bullseye painted on their back the moment they enter the industry. That they can make whatever game they want and talk about whatever the **** they want. That's our ****ing dream. This **** has been going on long before a crazy ex decided to appeal to the internet's cesspool in a desperate attempt to make himself feel better. This is just the moment when everyone has had to pull their head of out the sand. We can't pretend it's not waaaay more prevalent than we want to admit it is anymore. If it's a pipe dream for a parent to not be scared when their daughter shows interest is making games (a sentiment I've noticed a lot since GG started), then gaming culture needs to be burned to the ground and replanted anew from the ashes. Or it needs to just be burnt the **** down. If that's not a pipe dream, if that's actually a ****ing reasonable thing to want, we're happy to have a conversation in good faith for anyone who's skeptical of us.

Combine that with a group of hardened (not experienced, but obviously callous) personalities in the Media attempting to redefine the notion of "Gamer."

I'd love to debate the substance of Leigh Alexander's article with you, if we're going to make an effort to actually listen to what the other is saying. To put it simply, if you don't think the bloom of experimental indie titles are destroying gaming, if you can handle a few female (and male) critics wanting to point out what they see as stuff in games that's cliched, stupid, pointlessly offensive, and alienating towards a large portion of your expanding audience, if you can tell the difference between an attempt at persuasion and an attempt at censorship, if you don't see these people as hostile invaders trying to take over an industry that is yours by right, if you don't think "ethics" are more important than whether or not someone can sleep in their own ****ing home at night, she wasn't talking about you and you should calm the **** down. I'm perfectly happy to refer to myself as a gamer to anyone who asks, and I enthusiastically supported an article containing the quote "'Gamers' are dead". If you really want a "civil discussion", stop assuming I'm a moronic ideologue, and think about how I am reconciling those two statements and why.

[AtomicClucker]

To the journalists who helped to foment this mess? Try leaving the ivory tower and engage in civil discussion with their fellow gamers.

Sure, when the Escapist stops insisting on "equal time" to individuals on 8chan publicly involved in harassment and doxxing schemes.

They live in a "Progressive" dream that flew off the rails of reality a long time ago. When you piss off your customers, abuse them and hand out accusations, something will snap.

Our dream is that female developers and journalists won't have a bullseye painted on their back the moment they enter the industry. That they can make whatever game they want and talk about whatever the **** they want. That's our ****ing dream. This **** has been going on long before a crazy ex decided to appeal to the internet's cesspool in a desperate attempt to make himself feel better. This is just the moment when everyone has had to pull their head of out the sand. We can't pretend it's not waaaay more prevalent than we want to admit it is anymore. If it's a pipe dream for a parent to not be scared when their daughter shows interest is making games, then gaming culture needs to be burned to the ground and replanted anew from the ashes. Or it needs to just be burnt the **** down. If that's not a pipe dream, if that's actually a ****ing reasonable thing to want, we're happy to have a conversation in good faith for anyone who's skeptical of us.

Combine that with a group of hardened (not experienced, but obviously callous) personalities in the Media attempting to redefine the notion of "Gamer."

I'd love to debate the substance of Leigh Alexander's article with you, if we're going to make an effort to actually listen to what the other is saying. To put it simply, if you don't think the bloom of experimental indie titles are destroying gaming, if you can handle a few female (and male) critics wanting to point out what they see as stupid stuff in games that's cliched, stupid, pointlessly offensive, and alienating towards a large portion of your expanding audience, if you can tell the difference between an attempt at persuasion and an attempt at censorship, if you don't see these people as hostile invaders trying to take over the industry that is yours by right, if you don't think "ethics" are more important than whether or not someone can sleep in their own ****ing home, she wasn't talking about you. I'm perfectly happy to refer to myself as a gamer when asked, and I enthusiastically supported an article containing the quote "'Gamers' are dead". If you really want a "civil discussion", stop assuming I'm a moron, and think about how I am reconciling those two statements and why.

Simply put, you carry out persuasion to gamers by example, not useless rhetoric or condemnation. To say gaming has to be destroyed in its current iteration? That's making as much sense as to burning down a dockyard in order to build ships. I've seen enough idiocy on both sides that I hope they destroy each other, it's more sanity for the rest of us. The bar-holds-none attitude begets only more stupidity on both sides. Jim Sterling tried to stay neutral, and he got **** from both sides over it.

But I'm going to very blunt and establish the "Gamers are Dead" articles as a reminder of "doing it wrong!" For many gamers on the fence, being labeled and targeted for something they had nothing to do with or conspire was the final straw. I believe in progress, but I know better than to kick a frothing animal. I used to joke about Gamers "being idiots and morons enmasse..." but now I'm recusing myself, the point is they hit a nerve and a number of them organized and began to take out aggression on the perceived abusers.

Boogie2988, a truly compassionate man as well as a Youtuber, was axed from NeoGaf for "not supporting women enough..." while he was in fact promoting both sides to an understanding between each other. The fact of the matter is that after several hits on both sides, I came to the conclusion the conflict is for naught. GG and Anti-GG are fools who maintain such levels of "with or against us" that everyone involved is harmed.

The dialogue I hope to seek is that we stop trying to kill and slander each other and focus on making games that are inclusive (and hopefully less saber rattling and people crying wolf over boobies and less politically correct bull****). The problem, as I see it, is that the games media is out of touch. That's where citizen Youtuber fits in: they are the new media, and occupy both a role of "consumer and reviewer" outside the traditional model. And some of the wonderful snippets from the GameJournoPros about Totalbiscuit, gave me a glimpse of some of the disconnect.

The very fact that I can get more factual understanding from Totalbiscuit, than, let's say Kyle Orland, about GamerGate should be a damn warning flag to the disconnect. And it was stupid comments comparing gamers to ISIS that drove Totalbiscuit, who was previously neutral, towards a sympathetic ear to GG. TB made it clear that if both sides wanted a decent grounds of communication, they'd need to starve the extremist idiots of oxygen. But that isn't happening for both, and idiocy prevails.

[Mr. Vega]

If it's a pipe dream for a parent to not be scared when their daughter shows interest is making games (a sentiment I've noticed a lot since GG started), then gaming culture needs to be burned to the ground and replanted anew from the ashes. Or it needs to just be burnt the **** down. If that's not a pipe dream, if that's actually a ****ing reasonable thing to want, we're happy to have a conversation in good faith for anyone who's skeptical of us.

Simply put, you carry out persuasion to gamers by example, not useless rhetoric or condemnation. To say gaming has to be destroyed in its current iteration? That's making as much sense as to burning down a dockyard in order to build ships. I've seen enough idiocy on both sides that I hope they destroy each other, it's more sanity for the rest of us. The bar-holds-none attitude begets only more stupidity on both sides. Jim Sterling tried to stay neutral, and he got **** from both sides over it.

See, this is where our anger is coming from. I just stated that the anti-GG crowd is worried about whether the games industry is a livable environment for women. Your problem is that what we said offended you and some other self-identified gamers. I want you to say with a straight face these two issues are equal in importance. They are not. We have legitimate grievances about things that affect the safety and quality of life of individuals in the real world, and all you can talk about is that you thought we said some really mean things about you. If you want to know why we responded as harshly as we did, that's why.

How do you have a reasonable discussion with someone with priorities that mixed up? At some point, your answer is "**** it, we've got things that actually matter to deal with." And that's exactly what happened.

[AtomicClucker]

Simply put, you carry out persuasion to gamers by example, not useless rhetoric or condemnation. To say gaming has to be destroyed in its current iteration? That's making as much sense as to burning down a dockyard in order to build ships. I've seen enough idiocy on both sides that I hope they destroy each other, it's more sanity for the rest of us. The bar-holds-none attitude begets only more stupidity on both sides. Jim Sterling tried to stay neutral, and he got **** from both sides over it.

See, this is where our anger is coming from. I just stated that the anti-GG crowd is worried about whether the games industry is a livable environment for women. Your problem is that what we said offended you and some other self-identified games. I want you to say with a straight face these two issues are equal in importance. They are not. We have legitimate grievances about things that affect the safety and quality of life of individuals in the real world, and all you can talk about is that you thought we said some really mean things about you. If you want to know why we responded as harshly as we did, that's why.

How do you have a reasonable discussion with someone with priorities that mixed up? At some point, your answer is "**** it, we've got things that actually matter to deal with."

Well, the problem is who are the trolls?

In fact GG groups have been working together to flush out, hunt down, or quash harassment, doxxers, and other idiots who would harass women. The nature of trolls is a sad one. Trolls don't care who they harm, as long as they get a thrill or fulfill some petty personal desire. Who or what those trolls are is challenge, combined with anonymity on the Internet. I feel like linking to Gabe's Internet ****wad Theory, but the gist is that a small group of morons gets their thrills from **** like this. The point is that most of GG has effectively come out against harassment and are taking steps to try and cull it. A few anti-GG members are trying to do the same, but my problem is that the Anti-GGers seem quite oblivious to this. In fact, it's a willful ignorance that has me scratching me head.

Brianna Wu magically thinks that by throwing away Anonymity we can solve things. But as a stout Civil Libertarian, no. We're not doing that. There's reasons why anonymous outputs are needed, and importantly they actually have a role and place. But we're also seeing the much more terrible side with the harassment and trolling against many female devs. It ain't cool, but the clear majority of GGers have made it clear they don't tolerate that **** and try to quash it.

With anonymous systems comes a dual-edged responsibility. By granting people freedom to post anonymously you also take a risk with bad eggs. But yelling "fire!" in a theater is still a crime, and not free speech.

And yes, I'm saying it was a dumb and impractical idea to call gamers "White cismale neckbeards living in the basement." And guess what, there's more GG members who aren't white or men. Also, a lot of gamers aren't men. And guess what? Both sexes tend to play different game types. Gaming isn't the problem: it's people and chronic miscommunication. It's easy to label GG as a hate group, it's harder to sleep in the same bed with them and ask why they're jimmies have been rustled.

Declaring Gamers are dead was a clear, and stupid, move on attempting to change the definition of Gamer: i.e. a person who plays games. I bet you most of those Editors and Journalists have never dipped into linguistic theory or studied concepts of meaning from a philosophical standpoint. As a half-asian, I find it amusing that gamer supposedly means white person. Well, guess I'm only 50% there. And while I have some sympathies towards GG, I'm no friend to it.

[Mr. Vega]

Brianna Wu magically thinks that by throwing away Anonymity we can solve things. But as a stout Civil Libertarian, no. We're not doing that. There's reasons why anonymous outputs are needed, and importantly they actually have a role and place. But we're also seeing the much more terrible side with the harassment and trolling against many female devs. It ain't cool, but the clear majority of GGers have made it clear they don't tolerate that **** and try to quash it.

Guess what - I'm a civil libertarian too! I also think that all this wonderful freedom is going to be useless if certain individuals can't ****ing use the internet without being harassed or threatened incessantly. Brianna Wu is not anonymous. Only the trolls are. People are quite happy to surrender some of their anonymity if the ability of private citizens to be free to destroy their lives with impunity is their biggest fear when going on the internet. I love freedom and democracy, but if we actually have these things, it's our responsibility not to **** them up. When we misuse the rights we have been given we invite them to be taken from us again.

In fact GG groups have been working together to flush out, hunt down, or quash harassment, doxxers, and other idiots who would harass women. The nature of trolls is a sad one. Trolls don't care who they harm, as long as they get a thrill or fulfill some petty personal desire. Who or what those trolls are is challenge, combined with anonymity on the Internet. I feel like linking to Gabe's Internet ****wad Theory, but the gist is that a small group of morons gets their thrills from **** like this. The point is that most of GG has effectively come out against harassment and are taking steps to try and cull it. A few anti-GG members are trying to do the same, but my problem is that the Anti-GGers seem quite oblivious to this. In fact, it's a willful ignorance that has me scratching me head.

Atomic, I don't know what to tell you other than the fact that Gamergate was born as a harassment movement against a single woman, that it progressed to a harassment campaign against anyone who criticized it in broad daylight in front of everyone to see, that it was kicked off of 4chan for being too extreme, that its main home is now on 8chan where doxxing is explicitly allowed, that the targets of supposedly legitimate GGers that don't endorse what 8chan is doing just happen to be whoever is being discussed on 8chan at the time, that twitter users have been caught posing as minorities for #notyourshield, that there is a Gamergate guide called "Twitter Flooding Instructions," in which posters were advised to pose as reasonable individuals new to Gamergate, "Like an indian cab driver who can't read traffic signs." that GG's favorite journalist has been Milo Yiannopoulos who has referred to trans people as "it", that I personally saw entire GG threads filled with rants about "ANITA SARJEWIAN", that I caught them spreading fabricated images of a women who had been driven out of her home by death threats uttering an anti-autistic slur, that Zoe Quinn released IRC logs of members of GG directing the harassment campaign behind the scenes that were called fakes until badly redacted versions were released that still contained much of the incriminating evidence Quinn had revealed, that the incriminating or otherwise disgusting evidence is still being stockpiled, that the people targeted for death threats have all received them shortly after criticizing gamergate, that the people who claim to just want to talk about corruption WON'T USE ANOTHER NAME DESPITE EVERYTHING I JUST MENTIONED. I don't know what else to tell you. It's willful ignorance that has me scratching my head.

[666maslo666]

Not true, journalists should write in an objective manner and failure to do so is a failure of journalistic ethics. Whether it happened in gaming journalism is an open (and important) question, tough. It is generally ok to be subjective in opinion pieces.

How do you write an "objective" review of a game? A book? A music album? Subjectivity is always a factor here, and if a writer thinks certain aspects of a work are problematic, he or she has the right to write about them. Whether or not you agree with the writer is up to you, but voicing an opinion in the context of a review or an opinion piece is not an ethics violation.

I am not talking about subjective review of a game, but objective information about events that happened IRL - gamergate. If gaming journalists sticked to reviewing games, the controversy would be over in a matter of days.

[666maslo666]

Also, reviews like this are the last thing we need:

https://www.polygon.com/2014/10/13/6957677/bayonetta-2-review-wii-u

It is fine to mention a feminist perspective here and there. It is not OK to push it almost everywhere and to top it all off even give games negative reviews because it doesnt happen to share your political opinions or concerns. And this is not an opinion article even. There is a difference between normal, tasteful political sections in an article and "social justice warrior" bull****, and nowadays certain gaming media have a tendency to push the second one. Maybe because it attracts clicks or they are that delusional that they dont even realize it, but I dont take kindly to it. Game reviews should be about games themselves, not about how it portrays women or if it is aimed at "mysoginists" (in quotations), because *gasp* they are just as valid segment of gaming market as games like depression quest are.


Having games that dont sexualize women = totally OK and a positive thing

Shaming games that choose an art direction which sexualizes things, and lowering their scores = totally out of place pushing of your ideology

Diversity is good in games too. Dont like that? Give the game to review to someone who is not hung up about it and can appreciate such games too.

[AtomicClucker]

Brianna Wu magically thinks that by throwing away Anonymity we can solve things. But as a stout Civil Libertarian, no. We're not doing that. There's reasons why anonymous outputs are needed, and importantly they actually have a role and place. But we're also seeing the much more terrible side with the harassment and trolling against many female devs. It ain't cool, but the clear majority of GGers have made it clear they don't tolerate that **** and try to quash it.

Guess what - I'm a civil libertarian too! I also think that all this wonderful freedom is going to be useless if certain individuals can't ****ing use the internet without being harassed or threatened incessantly. Brianna Wu is not anonymous. Only the trolls are. People are quite happy to surrender some of their anonymity if the ability of private citizens free to destroy their lives with impunity is their biggest fear when going on the internet. I love freedom and democracy, but if we actually have these things, it's our responsibility not to **** them up. When we misuse the rights we have been given we invite them to be taken from us again.

In fact GG groups have been working together to flush out, hunt down, or quash harassment, doxxers, and other idiots who would harass women. The nature of trolls is a sad one. Trolls don't care who they harm, as long as they get a thrill or fulfill some petty personal desire. Who or what those trolls are is challenge, combined with anonymity on the Internet. I feel like linking to Gabe's Internet ****wad Theory, but the gist is that a small group of morons gets their thrills from **** like this. The point is that most of GG has effectively come out against harassment and are taking steps to try and cull it. A few anti-GG members are trying to do the same, but my problem is that the Anti-GGers seem quite oblivious to this. In fact, it's a willful ignorance that has me scratching me head.

Atomic, I don't know what to tell you other than the fact that Gamergate was born as a harassment movement against a single woman, that it progressed to a harassment campaign against anyone who criticized it in broad daylight in front of everyone to see, that it was kicked off of 4chan for being too extreme, that its main home is now on 8chan where doxxing is explicitly allowed, that the targets of supposedly legitimate GGers that don't endorse what 8chan is doing just happen to be whoever is being discussed on 8chan, that twitter users have been caught posing as minorities for #notyourshield, That there is a Gamergate guide called "Twitter Flooding Instructions," in which posters were advised to pose as reasonable individuals new to Gamergate, "Like an indian cab driver who can't read traffic signs." that GG's favorite journalist has been Milo Yiannopoulos who has referred to trans people as "it", that I personally saw entire GG threads filled with rants about "ANITA SARJEWIAN", that I caught them spreading fabricated images of a women who had been driven out of her home by death threats speaking an anti-autistic slur, that Zoe Quinn released IRC logs of members of GG directing the harassment campaign behind the scenes that were called fakes until badly redacted versions were released that still contained much of the incriminating evidence Quinn had revealed, that the incriminating evidence is still being stockpiled, that the people targeted for death threats have all receiving them shortly after criticizing gamergate, that the people who claim to just want to talk about corruption WON'T USE ANOTHER TAG DESPITE EVERYTHING I JUST MENTIONED. I don't know what else to tell you. It's willful ignorance that has me scratching my head.

My definition of GamerGate is a stupid internet drama born of idiots kicking a frothing animal and expecting it to heel on command. Several events lead to its explosion, and were now dealing with the aftermath. If you expect the movement to somehow grow a central nervous system, good luck. It's a leaderless, but still very fearsome beast.

Now I will admit I've spent a long time "dwelling" with many of the GamerGaters on the Escapist, but that's because I was sincerely interested in knowing why they we fed up. And 8chan moderators moved to eliminate those stupid doxxing messes after users notified them (apparently a few were actually sleeping). It's quite the different take on the Escapist where I get to witness the Anti-GG crowd engaged in the same antics you describe. Milo has shown himself and Breitbart to be on the nutcase side of things, but he still received a syringe. And I found that both amusing and not too surprising.

And you're talking with someone who mentally snapped after trying to talk sense with people over the issues that lead up to GG. I find that I can't reason with both anymore, but I can certainly watch the madness unfold and fireworks ensue. An event I like to refer to this "madness" is how a Call of Duty developer received death threats over a balancing patch. While you can continually "promote" a livable environment in the games industry for women, its the consumers, the gamers, that make that possible.

Consumers are your bottom line. Problem is your biting the hand that helps to feed you. And I think one step would be willing to drop the pretenses and work against alienating them.

How many of those consumers actually sent death threats to women? How many actively tried to harass people? How many of those consumers feel about being called Sexist Pigs, Misogynists, and other stupid things?

Alienation is the worst thing that can happen. And sad thing is, I really do want games made by women. I threw money at the The Fine Young Capitalists for that very reason and I want to see more initiatives to get women into the industry. But for my 20 odd years in retail, the last thing you do is piss off the customer. They'll take their business, or in this case, ensue a revolt that can have actual effects.

[Mr. Vega]

Declaring Gamers are dead was a clear, and stupid, move on attempting to change the definition of Gamer: i.e. a person who plays games. I bet you most of those Editors and Journalists have never dipped into linguistic theory or studied concepts of meaning from a philosophical standpoint. As a half-asian, I find it amusing that gamer supposedly means white person. Well, guess I'm only 50% there. And while I have some sympathies towards GG, I'm no friend to it.

I'm perfectly happy to refer to myself as a gamer to anyone who asks, and I enthusiastically supported an article containing the quote "'Gamers' are dead". If you really want a "civil discussion", stop assuming I'm a moronic ideologue, and think about how I am reconciling those two statements and why.

So I take it that you have no interest in listening to me then? Just be honest so I'm not wasting my time.

[Mr. Vega]

Also, reviews like this are the last thing we need:

https://www.polygon.com/2014/10/13/6957677/bayonetta-2-review-wii-u

It is fine to mention a feminist perspective here and there. It is not OK to push it almost everywhere and to top it all off even give games negative reviews because it doesnt happen to share your political opinions or concerns. And this is not an opinion article even. There is a difference between normal, tasteful political sections in an article and "social justice warrior" bull****, and nowadays certain gaming media have a tendency to push the second one. Maybe because it attracts clicks or they are that delusional that they dont even realize it, but I dont take kindly to it. Game reviews should be about games themselves, not about how it portrays women or if it is aimed at "mysoginists" (in quotations), because *gasp* they are just as valid segment of gaming market as games like depression quest are.

So what you're saying is game reviews shouldn't be like this?

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/blue-velvet-1986

Sorry, all you're doing is declaring war on the idea of games as art. You don't like how they've approached the game? Too bad. Don't read it. Find another reviewer who will do what you want them to do. I like that stuff. Why are you trying to take my choices away from me? What right do you have to tell me what kind of reviews I want? Because I'm a SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR, and thus don't belong? On what grounds do you claim the right to judge, to censor, to tell ME what I should be reading?

All Anita and others has done is point things out, and state that perhaps we don't need this **** in games. It takes a special kind of entitlement to call that censorship. And a more special kind to pronounce yourself arbiter of what a review should be.

[666maslo666]

"So what you're saying is game reviews shouldn't be like this?

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/blue-velvet-1986"

False analogy, that review is very different.

Look, an art review, including games, should criticise art, not politics. What that means is that it is OK to say "sexual parts of the movie clash with other parts". But it is not OK to say "hurr durr the game has boobs, therefore mysogyny durr and that is baad mkay", because now you are no longer criticising a game, you are criticising a genre, a type of expression itself, not how good/bad it is done. Boobs and asses have its place in media, particularly in games like Bayonetta it is not against the spirit of the game to include them, quite the contrary. Stop trying to censor games, but give the game to review to someone who can appreciate the style. So yeah, the polygon review is a blatant moralisation and pushing of political ideology where it doesnt belong (and what is worse, it is chock full of it, almost doesnt leave place for anything else), and if you want such BS then I wont stop you but I will voice my opinion on it and stick to gaming media that can inform me about the actual pluses and minuses of the game instead of pushing my daily dose of feminazi propaganda on me.