Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…4748505253…57

Comments

  • Options
    #1472
    Evac101
    Registered Users Posts: 689 ✭✭✭Evac101


    And then there are the posters who still respond with curiosity and good humour which is always heartening to see ;)


  • Options
    #1473
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    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?".

    Tbh, I've tried writing long posts on the issue before as a way to help formulate my opinions and thoughts on the whole thing but I've stumbled every time. I think it's because, for me, there really is no overriding arc to the whole thing - it's all things to all people and so it ends up being really about nothing but sniping at your perceived opposition who think they are arguing about something completely different to what you are giving out about. There's never going to be a way a dialogue is ever going to happen because there's never going to be agreement on what's being fought about.

    On here has been remarkably calm though. Considering how strange the XboxOne/PS4 thread got at times, that seems a bit of a miracle.


  • Options
    #1474
    gizmo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    Evac101 wrote: »
    And then there are the posters who still respond with curiosity and good humour which is always heartening to see ;)
    *phew* I thought I had missed some posts or something where someone had been a **** to you. I've rather enjoyed your rather different take on the situation so far so it would have been a shame to see you stop posting. :)


  • Options
    #1475
    C14N
    Registered Users Posts: 2,656 ✭✭✭C14N


    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?".

    I think this board has been quite good at handling it so far, possibly the only place I've seen that I can say that about. It's neither specialised or heavily moderated enough to just turn into an echo chamber (like NeoGAF or KiA) nor is is big enough that you just end up drowned out and unable to read what everyone is saying (like the Escapist or Twitter). So people have managed to keep their calm for the most part.


  • Options
    #1476
    Guyanachronism
    Closed Accounts Posts: 220 ✭✭Guyanachronism


    BlitzKrieg wrote: »
    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

    It's scary some of the people who have been attracted to support GamerGate.There has to be a point where people move on from an identity because it has become contaminated, by which I mean GamerGater not gamer.

    If you consider that a particular movement, particularly a structureless one contains many diverse opinions, from the genuine that everyone agrees with (e.g. freedom of speech is good) to the extreme (e.g. ethnic cleansing). At what point does one say despite my support of a movement because of their genuine and moderate positions, I can no longer support them because of their extreme positions and the opinions of those who support that movement.

    Is there still "average gamers" or normal reasonable people who support gamergate without having sexist views or sympathising with extremely ugly opinions such as some of the MRA stuff?

    So the genuine beliefs in gamergate that I can see is that games are good and there should be ethics in video game journalism. But is anyone who likes video games contesting that basic statement? So do people need to identify with a movement with some very ugly (opinion wise) notable advocates to support those genuine beliefs.

    Gamergate isn't going to go away but I wish more people would just accept it's an extremist movement. Not some balance to a "left wing video game media".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1477
    Evac101
    Registered Users Posts: 689 ✭✭✭Evac101


    I'm kind of reminded of the America Bill system where they (can) take a reasonable idea, work on ways to ensure it's a reasonable response to a real situation and then, just before the vote, someone will append a rider to it to finance space Nazi statues for southern Louisiana. My point being that the original proponents might have no involvement in what it actually becomes known for - this goes for both sides of this argument which have been tainted by stupid, hateful actions.


  • Options
    #1478
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    Evac101 wrote: »
    I'm kind of reminded of the America Bill system where they (can) take a reasonable idea, work on ways to ensure it's a reasonable response to a real situation and then, just before the vote, someone will append a rider to it to finance space Nazi statues for southern Louisiana. My point being that the original proponents might have no involvement in what it actually becomes known for - this goes for both sides of this argument which have been tainted by stupid, hateful actions.

    Tbf, the original proponents like the Internet Aristocrat were stirring the shít and being pretty hateful from the start.


  • Options
    #1479
    Evac101
    Registered Users Posts: 689 ✭✭✭Evac101


    Would you argue that the 'Anti' side were any more humane from the start? If so, what was the point when they started behaving like unpleasant human beings too?


  • Options
    #1480
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    Evac101 wrote: »
    Would you argue that the 'Anti' side were any more humane from the start? If so, what was the point when they started behaving like unpleasant human beings too?

    There's been a bit of talk on here and other places that suggest that both sides are just as bad as each other, or words to that effect. So I'm genuinely wondering, what's the 'Anti' side done that's comparable to gamergage?


  • Options
    #1481
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    Evac101 wrote: »
    Would you argue that the 'Anti' side were any more humane from the start? If so, what was the point when they started behaving like unpleasant human beings too?

    Tbf, the origin of it starts with the blog post from ZQ's ex-boyfriend and the suggestion that she was trading positive press for sexual favours and she got a mountain of abuse from that. The ethics in games journalism grew out of that.

    The twitter activists started kicking off in response to the likes of the Internet Aristocrat and then all those 'gamers are dead' articles started. Then the whole thing descended into even more of a farce.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1482
    Evac101
    Registered Users Posts: 689 ✭✭✭Evac101


    Links234 wrote: »
    There's been a bit of talk on here and other places that suggest that both sides are just as bad as each other, or words to that effect. So I'm genuinely wondering, what's the 'Anti' side done that's comparable to gamergage?

    Both sides have doxed, threatened, harassed and generally had their shares of asshats. Equally both sides have been accused, by each other and bystanders, of things which there's no evidence linking them to. It is, as mentioned, an utter sh!tstorm at this point.


  • Options
    #1483
    Evac101
    Registered Users Posts: 689 ✭✭✭Evac101


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    Tbf, the origin of it starts with the blog post from ZQ's ex-boyfriend and the suggestion that she was trading positive press for sexual favours and she got a mountain of abuse from that. The ethics in games journalism grew out of that.

    The twitter activists started kicking off in response to the likes of the Internet Aristocrat and the all those 'gamers are dead' articles started. Then the whole thing descended into even more of a farce.

    Whatever my personal opinion of the Zoe Quinn relationship, it's not my place to question someone's professional life based on their personal life - unless that there's an actual reason for that. Initially, and subsequently corrected to exclude that, there seemed to be information indicating that might be the case. Honestly, I would have ignored that completely if not for the reaction of certain gaming sites to it which reminded me a lot more of covering ass then anything else. At that point my interest in Zoe Quinn ended and I became curious regarding the relationship of the gaming press with both smaller and Triple A game developers. Bear in mind that I already have it in for a couple of media groups (Gawker being foremost in that list) due to my personal distaste for the ethics of their writers and the general moral standpoint of their sites*. With that it's understandable, I guess, that I would approach this from a "there may well be a case made for gaming journalism having a harsh spotlight shone on it". I haven't sided with Gamergate per see, but some of them seemed to be pushing an agenda I have an interest in.

    From that viewpoint (which I hope is adequately described) I've seen some just stupidly reactionary, holier then thou and dismissively statements and actions being made by people claiming to be part of the Anti-GG side towards the GG people. I could reverse the order of the factions in the last sentence and it would be equally as true. It's gotten to the point where I don't feel either side can legitimately claim a moral higher ground or claim to be an unpolluted movement. The only reason I keep posting is because if we're going to condemn elements for unconscionable actions then it's my firm belief that we should apply that brush in a fair manner to both, flawed, sides.

    * Morally speaking I'm as guilty as anyone I'm sure of stupid, selfish and unpleasant things in my past, many of which I regret. I'm sure that in the future I'll also feel guilty for new actions as much as I will try to avoid it. I'm not trying to set myself as a new moral authority but I do believe there's a baseline of decency we should aspire to and I feel that many of the people involved in those sites don't have the same belief. Or perhaps they believe they do and my view of what that means practically is radically different to theirs.


  • Options
    #1484
    gizmo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    Guyanachronism wrote: »
    Is there still "average gamers" or normal reasonable people who support gamergate without having sexist views or sympathising with extremely ugly opinions such as some of the MRA stuff?
    But of course. I'm under no illusion that there are plenty of perfectly reasonable people on the periphery who support the movement purely on the basis that it is for "ethics in games journalism". What I can't understand is how, once you scratch the surface and see some of the things being said and done by the more notable voices within, that they wouldn't completely disassociate themselves from it.

    As a few of us have said before, one can be very much in favor of better standards in games journalism across the board and not feel the need to align oneself with such a movement. Equally, one can be against such a movement without needing to do so under any kind of all encompassing banner. My opinions, as they say, are my own and not reliant on any one else's.
    Evac101 wrote: »
    Would you argue that the 'Anti' side were any more humane from the start? If so, what was the point when they started behaving like unpleasant human beings too?
    From the start? That's a clear yes as far as I'm concerned. Some of the more unreasonable voices in opposition to the movement came a little later into its life time. This is tied into my disagreement with the reaction to the lack of coverage from the games media originally. It only took me a couple of minutes on Google to realise that there was no basis for the accusations being made against Quinn, professionally speaking, so it came as absolutely no surprise to me that various publications stayed the hell away from it.

    As for making the case for gaming journalism having a harsh spotlight shone on it, I completely agree however many within it were already doing that. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, various publications have been doing this when they've occurred in the past. Despite this, those actually involved in those cases, most notably Florence and Gerstmann have themselves come out and criticised the hashtag campaign yet rather than people really listening to them, they've either been dismissed or criticised themselves in turn. I find it all rather baffling at this stage. :o


  • Options
    #1485
    C14N
    Registered Users Posts: 2,656 ✭✭✭C14N


    Links234 wrote: »
    There's been a bit of talk on here and other places that suggest that both sides are just as bad as each other, or words to that effect. So I'm genuinely wondering, what's the 'Anti' side done that's comparable to gamergage?

    Pretty much all of the worst things have happened both ways. Leaking personal details, sending death threats, advocating suicide/genocide of the opposition. The problem I see a lot of people having is that much of this is only covered when it happens to a select few such as Brianna Wu or Anita Sarkeesian.

    On the milder side, there have been plenty of people with unpleasant knee-jerk stances on both sides which lead to tons of people just outright dismissing the other side as misogynists/SJWs and then calling them lots of unpleasant and hurtful things.

    As in most things, I don't really judge people's morality on what their stance is but how extreme it is and the anti side have had plenty of pretty extreme people themselves.


  • Options
    #1486
    jimbob_jones
    Registered Users Posts: 731 ✭✭✭jimbob_jones


    I haven't been back to this thread in a long time to be honest I thought this would have fizzled out ages ago but there always seems to be someone ready to throw petrol on the fire.

    I was wondering out of a matter of interest did any boardsie's make the twitter GGAutoblock list.

    I was very surprised to find myself on it, I havent posted anything in my twitter related to GG I still made the list because I was following Milo and TheRalphRetort


  • Options
    #1487
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    jimbob_jones wrote: »
    I haven't been back to this thread in a long time to be honest I thought this would have fizzled out ages ago but there always seems to be someone ready to throw petrol on the fire.

    I was wondering out of a matter of interest did any boardsie's make the twitter GGAutoblock list.

    I was very surprised to find myself on it, I havent posted anything in my twitter related to GG I still made the list because I was following Milo and TheRalphRetort

    Correct me if I am wrong but did someone really go through the effort of creating a script to find some peoples followers so that they can be blocked by people?


  • Options
    #1488
    jimbob_jones
    Registered Users Posts: 731 ✭✭✭jimbob_jones


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    Correct me if I am wrong but did someone really go through the effort of creating a script to find some peoples followers so that they can be blocked by people?

    Well sort of, it generates a list of people to block. There is roughly 10,000 names on the list thus far

    If you follow certain twitter accounts it adds your twitter name to the list, this list can then be used with a twitter account to auto block the people on the list

    Thereby stopping your tweets from appearing in their timeline and stopping you from being able to follow them


  • Options
    #1489
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    jimbob_jones wrote: »
    I haven't been back to this thread in a long time to be honest I thought this would have fizzled out ages ago but there always seems to be someone ready to throw petrol on the fire.

    I was wondering out of a matter of interest did any boardsie's make the twitter GGAutoblock list.

    I was very surprised to find myself on it, I havent posted anything in my twitter related to GG I still made the list because I was following Milo and TheRalphRetort

    Thats pretty insane, and the fact that the IGDA, identified those on the list as some of the worst internet harassers, is even worse, I would be very surprised if someone isn't going to get sued due to this blacklist. Its pretty straight forward libel imho.

    I saw that the code refers to those as stalkers, monsters and other terms, all on the basis of who someone followed on twitter. Its a pretty stupid idea, and honestly accusing 10,000 people of being stalkers on the basis of who the follow on twitter, is a fantastic example again of how this whole thing is utterly moronic, and how the Anti-GG side are more than willing to step up to the plate, and do there best to try and out stupid the other side.


  • Options
    #1490
    Potatoeman
    Registered Users Posts: 4,240 ✭✭✭Potatoeman


    wes wrote: »
    Thats pretty insane, and the fact that the IGDA, identified those on the list as some of the worst internet harassers, is even worse, I would be very surprised if someone isn't going to get sued due to this blacklist. Its pretty straight forward libel imho.

    I saw that the code refers to those as stalkers, monsters and other terms, all on the basis of who someone followed on twitter. Its a pretty stupid idea, and honestly accusing 10,000 people of being stalkers on the basis of who the follow on twitter, is a fantastic example again of how this whole thing is utterly moronic, and how the Anti-GG side are more than willing to step up to the plate, and do there best to try and out stupid the other side.

    I would think that just following someone does not mean you agree with them or are on their side.


  • Options
    #1491
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    Potatoeman wrote: »
    I would think that just following someone does not mean you agree with them or are on their side.

    Agreed, people can sometimes follow certain accounts to keep tabs on what the 'opposition' are saying or if they are reporting on events. It's completely ridiculous autoblocking like that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1492
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Potatoeman wrote: »
    I would think that just following someone does not mean you agree with them or are on their side.

    Yes, definitely. I am sure plenty of people on both sides are caught up on this blacklist, apparently people can contact them to be put on a white list, but I see no reason why anyone should have to do that. Its still libel imho, and no should have to prove there innocence in this manner.

    The irony is that the authors of the blacklist have probably messed up there own employment opportunities, as I doubt any company with common sense would want to be in anyways associated controversy.


  • Options
    #1493
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    wes wrote: »
    Yes, definitely. I am sure plenty of people on both sides are caught up on this blacklist, apparently people can contact them to be put on a white list, but I see no reason why anyone should have to do that. Its still libel imho, and no should have to prove there innocence in this manner.

    The irony is that the authors of the blacklist have probably messed up there own employment opportunities, as I doubt any company with common sense would want to be in anyways associated controversy.

    So you've to plead your case to some self appointed guardians of Twitter morality? Fück that… shít like that is going to be the death of Twitter.


  • Options
    #1494
    Potatoeman
    Registered Users Posts: 4,240 ✭✭✭Potatoeman


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    So you've to plead your case to some self appointed guardians of Twitter morality? Fück that… shít like that is going to be the death of Twitter.

    Putting the twit in twitter :v


  • Options
    #1495
    Evade
    Registered Users Posts: 6,734 ✭✭✭Evade


    wes wrote: »
    Thats pretty insane, and the fact that the IGDA, identified those on the list as some of the worst internet harassers, is even worse, I would be very surprised if someone isn't going to get sued due to this blacklist. Its pretty straight forward libel imho.
    I think the worst/funniest part was they included the (now former?) head of IGDA Peurto Rico on the list. It's like they didn't even skim through what they were endorsing.


  • Options
    #1496
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Evade wrote: »
    I think the worst/funniest part was they included the (now former?) head of IGDA Peurto Rico on the list. It's like they didn't even skim through what they were endorsing.

    Its amazing that such an organization didn't have enough common sense to realize that such a list would include all kinds of people both pro and anti, as well as people who have nothing to do with the whole thing, but went ahead and called everyone on it a harasser. I am amazed that no one has filed a lawsuit yet, due to these insane accusations against so many people, on the basis of 0 evidence.


  • Options
    #1497
    Guyanachronism
    Closed Accounts Posts: 220 ✭✭Guyanachronism


    C14N wrote: »
    Pretty much all of the worst things have happened both ways. Leaking personal details, sending death threats, advocating suicide/genocide of the opposition. The problem I see a lot of people having is that much of this is only covered when it happens to a select few such as Brianna Wu or Anita Sarkeesian.

    On the milder side, there have been plenty of people with unpleasant knee-jerk stances on both sides which lead to tons of people just outright dismissing the other side as misogynists/SJWs and then calling them lots of unpleasant and hurtful things.

    As in most things, I don't really judge people's morality on what their stance is but how extreme it is and the anti side have had plenty of pretty extreme people themselves.

    I don't really buy this they're as bad as each other argument. GG has attracted all sorts of misogynists and reactionaries including those with neo-nazi sympathies. I haven't seen the same on the side that is critical of GG.

    Have you a few links to the extreme stuff from groups who have been critical of GG? There are sites that actually monitor and collect stuff from GG forums that are sickening and show ugly opinions within GG movement that go beyond "ethics in video game journalism". Is there something similar for those who are critical of GG? I suppose it's harder since the critics aren't a single movement.


  • Options
    #1498
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    Its not that surprising. Im not on twitter but I have seen plenty of anti GG people of the opinion that you either agree with them 100% or they want nothing to do with you. There is no room for discussion, agree or be blocked.


  • Options
    #1499
    Nollog
    Registered Users Posts: 5,410 ✭✭✭Nollog


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    So you've to plead your case to some self appointed guardians of Twitter morality? Fück that… shít like that is going to be the death of Twitter.

    NyGxpmx.jpg
    This whole thing could've been sorted 2 years ago if the review started with "I'm friends with the game's author"
    Guyanachronism wrote: »
    I don't really buy this they're as bad as each other argument. GG has attracted all sorts of misogynists and reactionaries including those with neo-nazi sympathies. I haven't seen the same on the side that is critical of GG.

    Have you a few links to the extreme stuff from groups who have been critical of GG? There are sites that actually monitor and collect stuff from GG forums that are sickening and show ugly opinions within GG movement that go beyond "ethics in video game journalism". Is there something similar for those who are critical of GG? I suppose it's harder since the critics aren't a single movement.

    I'm sure most of the dictators of the world started with a list like the twitter one, puts each side on the same facism-o-meter imo.

    Of course you'll get all types when their targets overlap, neo-nazis are still just neo-nazis, even if there's an overlap in targets.


  • Options
    #1500
    gizmo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    wes wrote: »
    Thats pretty insane, and the fact that the IGDA, identified those on the list as some of the worst internet harassers, is even worse, I would be very surprised if someone isn't going to get sued due to this blacklist. Its pretty straight forward libel imho.
    In the original resource they said the tool helped block "some of the worst harassers" in the movement. The link to the GitHub source was also quite clear on how exactly the list worked. Thankfully they later edited it to say "...and some of the people they follow" and after that (even more thankfully) removed it altogether. The original wording alone would preclude any chance of a suit over libel.
    wes wrote: »
    I saw that the code refers to those as stalkers, monsters and other terms, all on the basis of who someone followed on twitter. Its a pretty stupid idea, and honestly accusing 10,000 people of being stalkers on the basis of who the follow on twitter, is a fantastic example again of how this whole thing is utterly moronic, and how the Anti-GG side are more than willing to step up to the plate, and do there best to try and out stupid the other side.
    Totally agree. I don't agree with blocklists in general, especially ones as blunt (to put it mildly) as this particular one. I mean, for instance, if I actually followed the Twitter accounts of those I check in on when keeping track of what's going on and what's being said in this then I would have been on the list. Similarly any journalist wishing to do the same would have been placed on it making the criteria even more baffling.

    That being said, attributing its creation to the wider "Anti-GG side" is about as inaccurate as attributing the latest Anti-SJW blocklist, which uses a similar criteria and currently numbers over 45,000 users, to the "Pro-GG side".
    Evade wrote: »
    I think the worst/funniest part was they included the (now former?) head of IGDA Peurto Rico on the list. It's like they didn't even skim through what they were endorsing.
    It was automated, hence the appearance of some "odd" entries on the list in the first place. He would also have been listed by his Twitter handle, not his real name, which wouldn't have helped matters. Still, endorsing something you haven't completely vetted was incredibly unwise on their part.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1501
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Guyanachronism wrote: »
    GG has attracted all sorts of misogynists and reactionaries including those with neo-nazi sympathies.

    I take it you haven't been paying much attention then, Jian Ghomenshi who wrote anti-GG stuff is now being investigated for sexual assault.

    As for Neo-Nazi sympathies, theres Ian Miles Chung, who blamed his own former pro-Nazi statements on a "toxic gaming community", as opposed to taking some personal responsibility. You can google for that crap if you like.

    Then, there is the doxxing of youtubers Boogie2988 , Jayd3Fox, and the doxxing of the Fine Young Cataplists (you can google for that stuff, it was discussed earlier in the thread), and that just off the top of my head.

    Then, there is the block list we are now discussing, which is just mass libel of a bunch of people, for daring to follow people on twitter.

    Its more than fair to say both sides have awful elements that are as bad as one another. There is no winner in this, its just stupid, and no there is no high ground. Just a bunch of internet "activists" fighting the nonsense US culture wars.


Advertisement