Regarding the GoodGamers, the mismanagement is not about the journalistic issue, btw. It is because a large amount of editors simply went "yup, sorry, have real life shits cannot do this", and basically left me and a bunch of writers articles left in the purgatory. Personally i have 1 article that is stuck in editing purgatory for at least 1 month now and no sign of it will be passing anytime soon. And the fact that our EIC doesn't seemed to actually care about running her site doesn't help either.
Sure, but that doesn't change my point that GamerGate is demanding an alternative, but yet no one wants to be that alternative. The one alternative that showed up turned out like so many other random upstarts that don't realize that journalism is actually hard fucking work.
Honestly, that's one discussion I'd love to have elsewhere. You know, like every actual issue that's popped up in regards to this trainwreck.
For the contacting advertiser, i will give you this simple set of bullet points:
+Press start out as a voice
+The press got their money from clicks and advertisements because the consumer feels like the voice representing their views
+So they have a podium built on the consumer's good will and money
+Now the press decided to use their podium to slander the consumers
+Now the consumers are pissed
+So they are actively working to remove the podium that they built themselves because the consumer feels like the press don't deserve their money anymore
That's Operation Disrespectful Nod in a nutshell
Uh, yeah. That's how that works. A shame I never said actually said that's bad.
Now, keep in mind with the sites we are boycotting we don't even clamor them to give us balance coverage or by any means silencing their opinion. With their 28/29 attacks, it had been clear that they aren't interested in that.
See, when you say this, I don't believe you. The Polygon debacle is only part of why I don't believe you. The constant talks of reform with no content or actual mission is the other reason.
You have bragged about changing The Escapist's ethics policy. GameGate has not shown that they know better. You keep citing a perfectly ethical mailing list as if it was massive sin. GamerGate simply wants the media to bend to its will. The problem is, it has no fucking clue what its will is in the first place.
Also, if anyone remember the Chick Fil A boycott with the whole kerfuffle with their stance on gay marriage, the same dynamic is happening here. I can't remember anyone was telling other people they were censored Chick Fil A's opinion :/ This is a rather common boycott technique given the asymetrical nature of it.
Nice false equivalency. But I'm going to indulge you.
There are two parts to my answer here: 1, dumbasses who supported Chik-Fil-A WERE crying censorship, but that's beside the point. 2, I point AGAIN to "Operation Bayonetta 2." That is a legitimate example of censorship and you're not just pretending it never happened, but you're insisting that GamerGate isn't pro-censorship.
And regarding the Bayonetta 2, i'm not a blind idiot. All i said is that i didn't pay enough attention to it to give it my two cents. I only know what happened and why it happened, but that's about it. My post above is not my opinion as much as what passed through my lens as someone who constantly paying attention on 5 different sites at once. So yelling at me for giving account on what i saw some GGers doing is not particularly helpful.
You say this. But then, you also said, and I quote, "it unfairly docked points because of the developer's artistic vision differ from the reviewer (this is kind of ties in to the whole agenda-in-review thing i will talk later)." What you didn't say is a reason why this is bad, nor provide proof that GamerGate isn't fully behind that idea.
Now, I understand that, as far as I can tell, cooler heads surprisingly prevailed and "Operation Bayonetta 2" never gained traction, but the fact that it has been condoned by GamerGate is proof that at least part of GamerGate condones censorship. And it is yet another thing that GamerGate has completely failed to deal with.
Lastly, yes, it is an ad hominem attack. This is merely a taste of what GGers had been getting for the last 2 months. Getting attack by shits that barely related to the issue at hand.
Ah, the old "but THEY do it to us, too!" stupidity. You like that one, don't you? Here's the thing, I don't care that "anti-GamerGate" does the same thing. All that tells me is that there are two assholes in the room.
Not to mention that GamerGate isn't talking about the issues. They keep making demands, but they refuse to actually explain what those demands entail. What the hell does it mean to reform video game journalism?
Today I decided to indulge GamerGate on Twitter and posted, and I quote:
"To any #GamerGate supporters: If you want to discuss the issues without talking about the harassment or Quinn, I am open to this discussion."
The first response:
"@Cloud3514 You realize most ggers are quite over Quinn by now?"
The second response gave me
this, but was silent when I pointed out that I was already aware of these things.
A few minutes ago, I tweeted:
"In every attempt I have to talk to GamerGate, they never fail to completely ignore the issues that they're supposedly fighting for."
And the response cited the GameJournoPros mailing list, which I've thoroughly talked about.
See the problem? You might call these loaded statements and I'd be hard pressed to disagree with that, but they're still invitations for discussion met with the same tired rhetoric we've been seeing since the beginning.
GamerGate, as far as I can tell, has no goal. They have no idea what they want. They say they want "journalistic ethics," but they can't tell me what that means when I outright tell them to talk to me about that. They want "agenda-free" reviews and demand censorship of an outlet that criticizes Bayonetta 2, while demanding a "free press" at the same time. They demand discussion, but won't have any when people invite them to it.
For now though i will drop this this interview by a site. They interviewed 2 people, one pro GG and one anti GG. I will let the interview speak for itself
http://mangotron.com/pro-vs-anti-gamergate-two-interviews/
I've seen that article and, surprise!, the GamerGater is just repeating tired rhetoric that we've already addressed.
Eh no. We aren't actually censor anyone, by the way. The part you are talking about is about unhealthy agenda driven journalism. A topic that I will touch on this later. However, I will give you my two cents on that, and this is a sentiment that more than just a few GamerGator agree.
Operation Bayonetta 2.
Don't fucking tell us that GamerGate hasn't tried to censor anyone.
Video Games will never be art until the press stopped trying to appoint themselves as moral guardian, the enlightened of the gaming sphere whose duty is to heard the sheeps that is the gamers into the age of enlightenment.
That's not you being enlightened, it is you being a huge twat with a Lenin complex.
I was waiting for this.
https://storify.com/MorganRamsay/how-often-do-video-game-journalists-write-about-feIn the last year, in over 130,000 articles, from 23 different sources, including the GamerGate targeted Gamasutra, Kotaku and Polygon, less than half of a percent of articles even mentioned the terms "feminism, feminist, sexist, sexism, misogyny or misogynist." While you have to acknowledge the margin of error for articles that (somehow) talk about those subjects without those terms, you have to also acknowledge the margin of error for articles that use those terms passingly and are in fact about something else.
Who's playing culture police now?
Why? If you want to cultivate freedom of artistic expression or diversity or whatever the buzzwords is, IT SHOULD BE GROW ORGANICALLY. It should be encourage, for sure. WHAT IS NOT cultivating the medium is by bombarding developers with bad press simply because their views and artistic vision aren't in line with what the press want to push. What resulted in that is either stifled creativity or developers like Bioware trying to ham handedly be "inclusive" at the cost of the real quality of their product.
In all of this, you have yet to actually explain why saying "I don't like X aspect of Y game" and having the score reflect that is wrong or unethical. I, on the other hand, have explained,
multiple times why it's perfectly ethical and ok.
You insist that they're playing culture police when all they're doing is stating that they think games have issues that need to be tackled if they want to be taken seriously as an art form. That's not censorship, nor is it unethical.
Furthermore, Bioware? Really? The company that is VERY well known for making their games diverse? You're citing them?
If you want further example, look up the Hotline Miami 2 controversy, or the kerfuffle about Kingom Come: Deliverance. That's outright using press to attack a developer's vision because it make the press "unconfortable". That's the REAL censorship.
CITATION NEEDED.
Give me one example where a medium grow because of the press bombarding the devs with such shit. I will wait.
There is none, but that doesn't matter because that's not what's happening with video games. Burden of proof is on you. You're accusing the press of censorship when we've established that you don't even know what you're talking about on it.
