GamerGate

[mrdoh]

Here's a hint: You don't get away with blatant disregard of the rules by saying "hey, mods, I'm going to blatantly disregard the rules, but I think that's OK". This post was about nothing but Zoe Quinn. Move on, or post on the appropriate thread.

-Sigmaleph

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

*snip*

*snip*

EDIT:Quoting this sort of stuff and buying into this sort of stuff is counterproductive so I've eliminated that post after communicating with one of the mods so they don't have to. Mentioning certain persons by name is also against the rules of the thread and I'm guilty of that too.

I do get extremely angry when people engage in victim blaming, but it's no excuse to flaunt the rules. Post edited in light of this

[mrdoh]

snip

Nice to know that all i did is recount what happened with backing evidences (because someone did asked me to elaborated on the Wizardchan and how it tied to The Escapist it a few pages back, btw) and you don't care. I already outlined the reason, the disclaimer why. But let's ignore all of that, right?

Well, i'm just here for people who care then.

[ironbite]

So...1 other person?

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

And no, we are not starving their outlet for content. We are displaying to them that we felt insulted about their content and we want the advertisers to know about it. That's boycott 101. Boycott is protest, not censorship. We are starving the outlet of the money, the money that came directly from our clicks, from displaying ad. We as a consumers feel that we needed to put our money elsewhere (since we are dead, remember?). We are running with a focus on smaller sites with our Promotion of the Day, while at the same time restricting the flow of money into these big corrupted sites with Boycott of the Day. This is not a mean to silencing their voice. To put it mildly, we are taking away their podium. Remember, this is an asymmetrical war, where the websites had the advantages in voices and media, while the only thing that the consumers have is numbers and our opinion. And we are putting it to good use. Bury our heads in the sand to focus on smaller sites is doing nothing to the corruption we had unearthed.

You lot aren't big on personal responsibility are you? Here's what the word censorship means.

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other such entities.

Your boycott is designed to suppress speech, it is designed to pressure the companies to suppress speech ergo it is censorship. The censorship comes from you-you are people who desire censorship in gaming, just like Jack Thompson!
 

I will let you know though is that Arthur Gies had a Suicide Girls account (alternative porn, if you will) where he had 90+ models in his account. I'm guessing that he didn't like Bayonetta because she doesn't have neon hair or tattoo on her body. That whole thing kinda make his stance about Bayonetta being sexist and shits is a tad hypocritical, if you will.

See there is actually a difference between women wanting to look sexy for themselves and a simulcrum of a woman designed entirely for the straight, cis male gaze, so your comparison is off and not because of the lack or existence of tattoos, dyed hair or body piercings.

Noting the difference between the two does not make you a hypocrite-it means you understand context and have eyes in your head! And yes, Bayonetta being designed by a woman is irrelevant-it's a franchise designed to appeal to a target demographic, a carefully sculpted robot designed to appeal to a certain type of guys tastes as opposed to women posing because they want to and it makes them feel good-and if someone else feels good about it then so be it.

Beyond that it's a difference in style, and sorry gamergaters-the entire planet does not have to cater to your sense of style!

[Sigmaleph]

@MrDoh: You don't get to disclaim your abuses of the rules. Your post has been edited. If you like, feel free to post it again on the Quinnspiracy thread. Not here.

If you ever feel like a post needs to happen against the rules, ask me first. Next time this happens I'll issue a ban.

[Cloud3514]

I'm going to deal with these posts one at a time because you have your head so far up your ass about this whole thing that its like talking to a brick wall.

^Just a bit of note, GoodGamers is actually where i volunteering. At the moment however it is suffering from terrible, terrible management from the EIC. We are talking about 2 or 3 days without an article running. There are murmur of other start up, but as far as i know we are the only site that is actually still running somewhat

So do better. Tell me, how many on the staff of GoodGamers has actually studied journalism and aren't just amateurs who think they know better than people who spent years studying it?

This tells me that GamerGate doesn't want better coverage. It tells me that they want the world to bend to them. If so many GamerGaters know so much more about journalism than the journalists and are so motivated, why is GoodGamers not only the only site to show up, but also struggling to actually cover things?

And no, we are not starving their outlet for content. We are displaying to them that we felt insulted about their content and we want the advertisers to know about it. That's boycott 101. Boycott is protest, not censorship. We are starving the outlet of the money, the money that came directly from our clicks, from displaying ad. We as a consumers feel that we needed to put our money elsewhere (since we are dead, remember?). We are running with a focus on smaller sites with our Promotion of the Day, while at the same time restricting the flow of money into these big corrupted sites with Boycott of the Day. This is not a mean to silencing their voice. To put it mildly, we are taking away their podium. Remember, this is an asymmetrical war, where the websites had the advantages in voices and media, while the only thing that the consumers have is numbers and our opinion. And we are putting it to good use. Bury our heads in the sand to focus on smaller sites is doing nothing to the corruption we had unearthed.

And Gamasutra as much as a dev site it is, actually had a large hardcore fans following to read on it. So yeah, it is definitely a consumer site.

So I give you legitimate example of an attempt to censor Polygon and "it's not censorship, it's boycott." Not giving business to something is boycott. Telling advertisers that you don't want them to do business with something is boycott. Demanding that a publisher blacklist an outlet for a review you disagree with is outright censorship.

There's a reason I haven't said anything about the advertiser thing. However, if you're going to sit there and tell me that GamerGate isn't trying to censor Polygon for their Bayonetta review, I'm going to call you a blind idiot.

As for the Operation Bayonetta 2, i will say it outright that I didn't really care for it except the fact that it was incite because of Arthur Gies' review. My feeling is very indifferent, so i can't really comment about it. I do say though that the Polygon article did rubbed people the wrong way due to the fact that 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), not because of its gameplay or content.

How in the holy fuck is a character in the game not a part of that game's content? There is absolutely nothing unethical about that review. He didn't "unfairly dock points because the developer's artistic vision differ from the reviewer," he docked points because he didn't like how the title character was presented, which is a fair complaint.

Anything that affects the reviewer's opinion is noteworthy to a review. He disliked the character and felt that it hampered the enjoyment of the game, so the score reflected that. The idea that this is somehow wrong is baffling. Would you be upset if a movie review didn't recommend a film because it had racist content? How about an album review of an album filled homophobic rhetoric? Why are games different that criticizing how the characters are presented is somehow an "agenda-in-review" and not simply a criticism of something the reviewer finds objectionable?

I will let you know though is that Arthur Gies had a Suicide Girls account (alternative porn, if you will) where he had 90+ models in his account. I'm guessing that he didn't like Bayonetta because she doesn't have neon hair or tattoo on her body. That whole thing kinda make his stance about Bayonetta being sexist and shits is a tad hypocritical, if you will.

This is ad hominen. An ad hominen that you've repeated, no less. Why does his taste in porn matter? It has nothing to do with his ethics or the review. You're not addressing the review or any supposed issues with it, you're attacking him for his taste in porn.

I'd indulge you and explain why, even if it wasn't ad hominen, it's not hypocritical, but Tolpuddle's thoroughly taken care of that.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

Sometimes I wish that GamerGaters would go out there and learn what an actual boycott is and how it's done, it's pretty widely known that GamerGate doesn't like Cracked and that they boycott Cracked.

Know when the last comment from a pro Gamergate person was on Cracked's 7 Reasons "Gamergate" Proves Humanity is Doomed article?

It's timestamped 10-18-2014 | 11:48 PM, the article was written on September 25, 2014!

Meanwhile Cracked has for all intensive purposes given GamerGate what they want, they've stopped doing articles on gamergate but gamergate sympathizers are actually digging through the archives for old articles to be outraged at.

This is not how a boycott works!

If they actually stayed clear of the sites they were boycotting they'd have nothing to whinge about and we'd all get some peace.

[mrdoh]

@MrDoh: You don't get to disclaim your abuses of the rules. Your post has been edited. If you like, feel free to post it again on the Quinnspiracy thread. Not here.

If you ever feel like a post needs to happen against the rules, ask me first. Next time this happens I'll issue a ban.

Right. My sincere apology. Like i said in the rationale, people was asking for what happened with The Wizardchan thing. But i fucked up, so i will own up to it.

[mrdoh]

snip

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

[mrdoh]

snip

Regarding Cracked, again let me stress that it is what i think happened based on the info that came across to me, and not my personal opinion.

I didn't care when Cracked basically turned half of its fan base away (yes for their coverage of GamerGate a lot people are PISSED, pro GG, anti GG or neutral. A lot of people was calling out for Cracked's antics) for being deliberately click baiting with their GamerGate coverage, and i won't care now. As someone who came monitor a lot of information and communication channel i couldn't really careless when one click bait site decided to go even more clickbaity. I do take a bit of comfort in the fact that it just created more people for us, really. But again, i cannot control what people want to do. If they are doing what you said you are doing, then they are idiots. Plain and simple. I'd suggest them to use their outrage energy to do something else, like try to convince people, but i digress. My reach can only extend so far.

[mrdoh]

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/

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

snip

Regarding Cracked, again let me stress that it is what i think happened based on the info that came across to me, and not my personal opinion. I didn't care when Cracked basically turned half of its fan base away for being deliberately click baiting with their GamerGate coverage, and i won't care now. As someone who came monitor a lot of information and communication channel i couldn't really careless when one click bait site decided to go even more clickbaity. I do take a bit of comfort in the fact that it just created more people for us, really. But again, i cannot control what people want to do. If they are doing what you said you are doing, then they are idiots. Plain and simple. I'd suggest them to use their outrage energy to do something else, like try to convince people, but i digress. My reach can only extend so far.

You see a conspiracy, I see comedy writers dealing with tragedy the best way they know how-by laughing about it! 

GamerGate made themselves topical, they turned the spotlight on themselves-according to Cracked authors of those articles pro GamerGaters actually asked them to cover GamerGate and cover they did. Isn't it more parsimonious to imagine that your movement just basically pissed them off and their pissed-off-against-gamergate articles were a reflection of that?

Also-when will you guys stop pretending you are the fanbase of every publication that has blown raspberries at you? Gamergate is new, put the type of keyboard warriors who are GamerGaters are not and I don't think Gamasutra, Cracked or Polygon were ever trying to cater to the GamerGater demographic.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

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/

Interesting article, here's one for you to take home!

[mrdoh]

You see a conspiracy, I see comedy writers dealing with tragedy the best way they know how-by laughing about it! 

GamerGate made themselves topical, they turned the spotlight on themselves-according to Cracked authors of those articles pro GamerGaters actually asked them to cover GamerGate and cover they did. Isn't it more parsimonious to imagine that your movement just basically pissed them off and their pissed-off-against-gamergate articles were a reflection of that?

Also-when will you guys stop pretending you are the fanbase of every publication that has blown raspberries at you? Gamergate is new, put the type of keyboard warriors who are GamerGaters are not and I don't think Gamasutra, Cracked or Polygon were ever trying to cater to the GamerGater demographic.

Like i said, the post you quoted is all i'm aware of the Cracked situation. I won't be comment on it any further. AFAIK they started with "that" article, and it snowballed from there. IMO given what passed to me it is not conspiratorial as much as they are deliberately capitalizing on it. Good for them business wise, but that doesn't mean people cannot be enrage because of it.

Although....regarding the Gamasutra and Polygon thing i feel rather weird about it. I mean i already pointed out that Gamasutra is indeed a consumer site, and Polygon is also a consumer site. They catered to the demographic that is gamers, and they pissed off a lot of gamers with their 28/29 attacks so those gamers turned into the GamerGator. So now trying to seperate those two as if they are seperable from the start is fallacious.