Bay 12 Games Forum
Finally... => General Discussion => Topic started by: (int) magicMissile on August 27, 2014, 03:17:30 am
-
The last thread (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=142801.msg5598346#msg5598346) got closed down because it was a bit too closely linked to the some other issues, so let's try it Electric Boogaloo style.
THREAD GUIDELINES
1. FIRST AND FOREMOST. Do NOT mention Burger and Fries or anything related to it. This is purely about corruption and nepotism in games journalism.
2. No insults, to each other or to the people in question.
3. NO DOXXING OR NUDES. JUST DON'T.
4. Back up anything you say WITH EVIDENCE. Please do not post "hey I heard X about Y" without sourcing it with information.
Now, onto the discussion.
Recently, it has been revealed that quite a few members of the gaming press have been, quite literally, in bed with game developers they have written about (http://i.imgur.com/kSFGdei.jpg). Others have had (http://imgur.com/a/bqhRY) long term (http://i.imgur.com/F6RlZTf.jpg)friendships (http://i.imgur.com/Wg6iLvL.jpg) and emotional relationships with other members of the gaming industry (http://imgur.com/a/x0NpT). Others STILL have been giving donations monthly via Patreon to the developers they have written about. 4chan, the vast majority of Reddit and some of TUMBLR have decided to not allow this to stand. And that's where the shadowbans and mass deletions started.
Since then, there has been a media blackout on the issue. Complete silence. Major site runners have stated that anyone who talks about it will be banned from their forums (https://twitter.com/botherer/status/501400834790682624). The only places that have talked have been Kotaku (where Stephen Totilo made two separate blog posts, 1 (http://kotaku.com/in-recent-days-ive-been-asked-several-times-about-a-pos-1624707346), 2 (http://kotaku.com/a-brief-note-about-the-continued-discussion-about-kotak-1627041269), about the issue, although I should note that he did not address the fact Christine Love and Patricia Hernandez were in a relationship at one point (http://i.imgur.com/EYiyqyf.png)) and Polygon (where the editor-in-chief posted that he was revising policy based on the criticism (http://www.polygon.com/forums/meta/2014/8/26/6071669/on-patreon-support)).
Anyone who speaks out on the silence gets harassed and has character assassinations directed after them (http://i.imgur.com/rnftszU.jpg). Gamers are referred to as "worse than ISIS" because they want to know why the hell journalists and devs are so closely intertwined and not disclosing it (https://i.imgur.com/c1DXd94.jpg). Asking for evidence gets you derided for being scum (http://i.imgur.com/FWZEjxQ.jpg).
I will NOT attack your character. I will NOT refer to you as being worse than ISIS for any reason. I will give you ANY evidence that you ask for.
This isn't about sexism. This isn't about hatred. This is wanting the medium we love to be free to be talked about without having to worry someone is in bed with someone else.
Talk to me.
-
If you didn't know that gaming journalism was corrupt then you're incredibly slow to pick up on these things.
I don't know what else to say on the matter. There's pretty much always been the knowledge that critics often get paid off by big publishers to encourage good reviews, nothing new.
-
If you didn't know that gaming journalism was corrupt then you're incredibly slow to pick up on these things.
I don't know what else to say on the matter. There's pretty much always been the knowledge that critics often get paid off by big publishers to encourage good reviews, nothing new.
From what we've seen, the relationship between AAA developers and games journalists seems LESS corrupt than that between indie and journalists. That's how ridiculous this situation is.
-
If you didn't know that gaming journalism was corrupt then you're incredibly slow to pick up on these things.
I don't know what else to say on the matter. There's pretty much always been the knowledge that critics often get paid off by big publishers to encourage good reviews, nothing new.
From what we've seen, the relationship between AAA developers and games journalists seems LESS corrupt than that between indie and journalists. That's how ridiculous this situation is.
Doing a thing for a friend is not more corrupt than doing a thing because you were paid to.
-
Doing a thing for a friend is not more corrupt than doing a thing because you were paid to.
Doing a thing for someone you have had sex with without disclosing the fact you have had sex with this person is.
-
3. NO DOXXING OR NUDES. JUST DON'T.
4. Back up anything you say WITH EVIDENCE. Please do not post "hey I heard X about Y" without sourcing it with information.
-
3. NO DOXXING OR NUDES. JUST DON'T.
4. Back up anything you say WITH EVIDENCE. Please do not post "hey I heard X about Y" without sourcing it with information.
The thing I was referencing is in the OP:
in bed with game developers they have written about (http://i.imgur.com/kSFGdei.jpg)
-
3. NO DOXXING OR NUDES. JUST DON'T.
-
Doing a thing for a friend is not more corrupt than doing a thing because you were paid to.
Doing a thing for someone you have had sex with without disclosing the fact you have had sex with this person is.
A moral impasse only 4 posts in.
This has to be a new record.
-
Bloodly hell, this just came back up once more,
I hope toady closed this because of the toxic bullshit this is and how it make us treat each other (I do know I did say some stuff in the last thread and I do say sorry to the people that I act like a ass hole to)
-
Doing a thing for a friend is not more corrupt than doing a thing because you were paid to.
Doing a thing for someone you have had sex with without disclosing the fact you have had sex with this person is.
A moral impasse only 4 posts in.
This has to be a new record.
I'm sorry, but I don't know how you can defend journalists writing about people they have had emotional or sexual relationships with and then not disclosing it. There are way too many issues with allowing it.
What if a journalist has sex with someone, that person is in a relationship and then threatens the person with revealing everything about the relationship unless they give them information to write an article?
What if the journalist is relationship, has sex with someone and then that someone threatens them with revealing their sexual relationship unless they write a good piece of writing?
What if a journalist was in a relationship with someone and then uses the information they gained from that relationship to write an article about that person?
It is a moral quandary that, no matter how you look at it, has the potential for MASSIVE amounts of abuse. There are NO positives to preventing full disclosure.
Bloodly hell, this just came back up once more,
I hope toady closed this because of the toxic bullshit this is and how it make us treat each other (I do know I did say some stuff in the last thread and I do say sorry to the people that I act like a ass hole to)
Can you please explain to me how this is "toxic bullshit"?
3. NO DOXXING OR NUDES. JUST DON'T.
The bit of arse in one of the pics? That's not my fault, that's a Kotaku article's headlining image. I mean in reference to the people involved in this business.
-
We haven't even reached page 2 and the OP's posts already have an aggressive tone.
-
We haven't even reached page 2 and the OP's posts already have an aggressive tone.
Please inform me of how my posts have an "aggressive tone".
-
We haven't even reached page 2 and the OP's posts already have an aggressive tone.
Please inform me of how my posts have an "aggressive tone".
I'm sorry, but I don't know how you can defend journalists writing about people they have had emotional or sexual relationships with and then not disclosing it. There are way too many issues with allowing it.
What if a journalist has sex with someone, that person is in a relationship and then threatens the person with revealing everything about the relationship unless they give them information to write an article?
What if the journalist is relationship, has sex with someone and then that someone threatens them with revealing their sexual relationship unless they write a good piece of writing?
What if a journalist was in a relationship with someone and then uses the information they gained from that relationship to write an article about that person?
It is a moral quandary that, no matter how you look at it, has the potential for MASSIVE amounts of abuse. There are NO positives to preventing full disclosure.
...
Can you please explain to me how this is "toxic bullshit"?
-
We haven't even reached page 2 and the OP's posts already have an aggressive tone.
Please inform me of how my posts have an "aggressive tone".
I'm sorry, but I don't know how you can defend journalists writing about people they have had emotional or sexual relationships with and then not disclosing it. There are way too many issues with allowing it.
What if a journalist has sex with someone, that person is in a relationship and then threatens the person with revealing everything about the relationship unless they give them information to write an article?
What if the journalist is relationship, has sex with someone and then that someone threatens them with revealing their sexual relationship unless they write a good piece of writing?
What if a journalist was in a relationship with someone and then uses the information they gained from that relationship to write an article about that person?
It is a moral quandary that, no matter how you look at it, has the potential for MASSIVE amounts of abuse. There are NO positives to preventing full disclosure.
...
Can you please explain to me how this is "toxic bullshit"?
Please write some information to explain what you're trying to say here.
-
I'm not sure what you hope to achieve on this topic once more. It should be obvious by now after the previous threads this is not something that can be meaningfully discussed here, especially so quickly after the last times. That isn't to say it's not something worth discussing, just that, here at least, it's not going to happen.
I can only suggest you (op) and anyone else who is somehow shocked by this whole thing have opened your eyes to the kind of people you'll find on the internet, and simply learn to avoid these kind of groups. Really there is no point in getting up in arms about this, that only polarizes things further.
I hope toady closed this because of the toxic bullshit this is and how it make us treat each other
No no I beg to differ, a topic can't force anyone to act in a certain way, it can only expose someone for who they truly are.
-
Hey, hey, no one should care.
First, the intergrity of game journalist is hardly the most pressing matter at the moment. I even wonder what would be the point : spare you the downloading time of trying the game?
Second gaming journalism is largely a cancerous field full of politics, ideology where none apply, gossips, ... it's infotraiment. By definition there is no intergrity.
Third, the field doesn't involve most gamers : pretentious hipster games were never a favorite of 4chan or the gaming section of reddit and I think they are largely hypocritical since they usually don't give a fuck about it.
Fourth this will change nothing : the SJW that infested gaming in recent years are full of a clique mentality, and only came because gaming was labelled "cool". They are control freaks and drama addicts, and that won't change whatever you do.
So what I think is that 4chan found an excuse to gang on SJW's, and that any reasonable human being should stay of of this : if you're not yourself an SJW, I don't see how you could give a single fuck about the reviews of "Depression quest". Let the SJW's solve that among themselves, that'll end in a nice circlejerk.
This is largely reminiscient of the Anita scandal : while I agree that her backers were truly and well scammed, they won't ever admit it and those who expressed outrage over it where not the one that backed her.
-
Right, here is my take on the whole "Corruption in Journalism" thing:
AAA publishers spend thousands on bribes, and the internet seems pretty content, for the most part, to let it go.
Some indie dev comes along with some free text game nobody otherwise knows anything about, has sex with a journalist and suddenly cries of corruption can be heard from rooftops.
Some time in the future when this "scandle" dries up, the internet will go back to it's previous state of relative contentedness.
*closes book* The End.
-
Person A makes product, A has sex with journalist B, B writes good review of product.
How people can not see that this is troubling and undermines the credibility of the publication the journalist works for is beyond me. I don't give a toss about anything surrounding this. Everything else is superfluous. The above series of events is the only thing I care about in this whole mess and the people defending that behaviour is the very reason games journalism is not respected as real journalism.
Just imagine a reporter at cnn having sex with the boss of some start up company and then proceeding to write fluff pieces for that company, the backlash against cnn would be immense but here for some reason the opposite is true. It doesn't even matter if the product is bloody amazing, the journalistic piece will still be tainted and should have been written by another person.
Those are my two cents and all I will say on this issue. There is a reason I don't follow "games journalism".
EDIT: I also don't see how. "Other corrupt behaviour occurs so this is not that important." Is a valid defense. If anything, that is FURTHER damnation. And don't forget, journalists DO get called out on undue corporate influences. Doritogate and the person from giant bomb who got fired are examples. What is 'shocking' is that people somehow think that just because you are an indie dev you get a free pass and can obviously not be as bad as the big companies. Big companies are also made of people, and all people have the potential to do fucking terrible things. Indie or not.
-
I'm not sure what you hope to achieve on this topic once more. It should be obvious by now after the previous threads this is not something that can be meaningfully discussed here, especially so quickly after the last times. That isn't to say it's not something worth discussing, just that, here at least, it's not going to happen.
I can only suggest you (op) and anyone else who is somehow shocked by this whole thing have opened your eyes to the kind of people you'll find on the internet, and simply learn to avoid these kind of groups. Really there is no point in getting up in arms about this, that only polarizes things further.
I hope toady closed this because of the toxic bullshit this is and how it make us treat each other
No no I beg to differ, a topic can't force anyone to act in a certain way, it can only expose someone for who they truly are.
Ultimately, it's a different topic. I want us to not focus on the issues mentioned in the past topics (this entire thing has grown beyond that enormously), but instead to focus on what exactly is going on in the world of gaming journalism, and the subsequent media blackout when people question it.
The issue is that those people control the dissemination of the news. Innocents have been demonised for these people in order to further their agenda.
Hey, hey, no one should care.
First, the intergrity of game journalist is hardly the most pressing matter at the moment. I even wonder what would be the point : spare you the downloading time of trying the game?
Second gaming journalism is largely a cancerous field full of politics, ideology where none apply, gossips, ... it's infotraiment. By definition there is no intergrity.
Third, the field doesn't involve most gamers : pretentious hipster games were never a favorite of 4chan or the gaming section of reddit and I think they are largely hypocritical since they usually don't give a fuck about it.
Fourth this will change nothing : the SJW that infested gaming in recent years are full of a clique mentality, and only came because gaming was labelled "cool". They are control freaks and drama addicts, and that won't change whatever you do.
So what I think is that 4chan found an excuse to gang on SJW's, and that any reasonable human being should stay of of this : if you're not yourself an SJW, I don't see how you could give a single fuck about the reviews of "Depression quest". Let the SJW's solve that among themselves, that'll end in a nice circlejerk.
This is largely reminiscient of the Anita scandal : while I agree that her backers were truly and well scammed, they won't ever admit it and those who expressed outrage over it where not the one that backed her.
It's important to try and improve things, regardless. This is easily the biggest shitstorm I have ever seen in any sort of nerd subculture, it's ludicrous.
Right, here is my take on the whole "Corruption in Journalism" thing:
AAA publishers spend thousands on bribes, and the internet seems pretty content, for the most part, to let it go.
Some indie dev comes along with some free text game nobody otherwise knows anything about, has sex with a journalist and suddenly cries of corruption can be heard from rooftops.
Some time in the future when this "scandle" dries up, the internet will go back to it's previous state of relative contentedness.
*closes book* The End.
I wouldn't be so certain about this drying up. It might do eventually, but 4chan is still pushing hard.
-
Person A makes product, A has sex with journalist B, B writes good review of product.
How people can not see that this is troubling and undermines the credibility of the publication the journalist works for is beyond me. I don't give a toss about anything surrounding this. Everything else is superfluous. The above series of events is the only thing I care about in this whole mess and the people defending that behaviour is the very reason games journalism is not respected as real journalism.
Just imagine a reporter at cnn having sex with the boss of some start up company and then proceeding to write fluff pieces for that company, the backlash against cnn would be immense but here for some reason the opposite is true. It doesn't even matter if the product is bloody amazing, the journalistic piece will still be tainted and should have been written by another person.
Those are my two cents and all I will say on this issue. There is a reason I don't follow "games journalism".
EDIT: I also don't see how. "Other corrupt behaviour occurs so this is not that important." Is a valid defense. If anything, that is FURTHER damnation. And don't forget, journalists DO get called out on undue corporate influences. Doritogate and the person from giant bomb who got fired are examples. What is 'shocking' is that people somehow think that just because you are an indie dev you get a free pass and can obviously not be as bad as the big companies. Big companies are also made of people, and all people have the potential to do fucking terrible things. Indie or not.
The game journalist have written unfairly good reviews of games since E.T., the reasons why they do that are not that important.
-
The game journalist have written unfairly good reviews of games since E.T., the reasons why they do that are not that important.
Yes, they are.
If their opinion is different to mine, that is acceptable. If their opinion is different to mine because they've been intimately involved with the fingers that wrote the code for the game, that is not acceptable.
-
@greatorder
I'd also appreciate it if the popcorn people would refrain, forever, from making posts like that in any thread. It further sours the atmosphere and makes moderating the forum more difficult.
Also some of these posts really reek of people being argumentative because they want the thread closed. magicMissile is very obviously trying to have a good discussion about this.
-
Thing is the OP is also going a little aggressive (not to say nobody else is), which seems to generally indicate it's just a very flamey topic at this point in time.
People could still try to have a little self control.
-
EDIT: I also don't see how. "Other corrupt behaviour occurs so this is not that important." Is a valid defense. If anything, that is FURTHER damnation. And don't forget, journalists DO get called out on undue corporate influences. Doritogate and the person from giant bomb who got fired are examples. What is 'shocking' is that people somehow think that just because you are an indie dev you get a free pass and can obviously not be as bad as the big companies. Big companies are also made of people, and all people have the potential to do fucking terrible things. Indie or not.
The point is that the corruption is not news. If you're outraged now, why weren't you earlier?
-
The above series of events is the only thing I care about in this whole mess and the people defending that behaviour is the very reason games journalism is not respected as real journalism.
No one I've noticed is actually defending the behavior. Everything I've seen so far is simple incredulity at the fact that people believe an incredibly minor scandal that isn't even a meaningful drop in the corruption bucket is something other than it is. Frankly, journalism itself, period, world over, has largely lost all tracery of "real" journalism, which has been functionally dead on the large scale of things for decades.
I'd be worried about turning tricks for good PR if I thought it was actually happening enough to meaningfully impact anything. Which I don't. If you're looking for the actual source of corruption in gaming media, you've got all those wonderful bribes -- from money, to free games, to special access to certain events, and so on -- that are outright industry standard.
S'considerably more strange that so few seem to say anything about youtube reviewers getting free and early access from game devs, gaming media in general having free and early access, the overt bribe that is media access to stuff like PAX or whatever's in vogue these days, and so on. Blatant, bald face bribes directly to reviewers -- self-styled journalists effectively getting outright paid, by the developers, to make reviews for games -- and pretty much no one says a single solitary thing about the outright ethical fuckup that is. That, more than anything, is why gaming media isn't "real" journalism. It's been a joke since the first time a magazine said "yes" when a company offered a free copy for review, however many decades ago that was.
Just imagine a reporter at cnn having sex with the boss of some start up company and then proceeding to write fluff pieces for that company, the backlash against cnn would be immense but here for some reason the opposite is true. It doesn't even matter if the product is bloody amazing, the journalistic piece will still be tainted and should have been written by another person.
No... I'm pretty sure no one's actually given a damn about print/TV media screwing clients and then writing good bits about them, which has no doubt happened plenty of times over the years. Honestly, I've yet to see a scandal of any sort meaningfully impact a major news venue. Think the worst dustup I can recall was that bit with phone tapping, which barely did anything of note. Modern news in general has become corrupt to the point most folks with sense ignore everything that comes out of it, for good reason, and whatever kerfluffles that do pop up regarding integrity blow over in days.
-
Thing is the OP is also going a little aggressive (not to say nobody else is), which seems to generally indicate it's just a very flamey topic at this point in time.
I genuinely don't understand why people are saying I'm being aggressive. =/
The point is that the corruption is not news. If you're outraged now, why weren't you earlier?
It's obvious that people were angry before. Something like this doesn't spark off out of nowhere. There's been a palpable sense of anger towards "gaming journalists" for quite awhile now, and this was just the match that set off the powerkeg.
No... I'm pretty sure no one's actually given a damn about print/TV media screwing clients and then writing good bits about them, which has no doubt happened plenty of times over the years. Honestly, I've yet to see a scandal of any sort meaningfully impact a major news venue. Think the worst dustup I can recall was that bit with phone tapping, which barely did anything of note. Modern news in general has become corrupt to the point most folks with sense ignore everything that comes out of it, for good reason, and whatever kerfluffles that do pop up regarding integrity blow over in days.
Do you truly think that if someone presented unalienable evidence that Mr X (a major newspaper critic) had sex with Mrs Y (a major artist or whatever) and then wrote great things about her work, a shitstorm wouldn't kick up?
Please look at Reuters and understand that's what real journalism is. At the very least, the people involved would be in serious trouble with their respective unions.
-
A powderkeg of SJWs and 4channers?
-
Do you truly think that if someone presented unalienable evidence that Mr X (a major newspaper critic) had sex with Mrs Y (a major artist or whatever) and then wrote great things about her work, a shitstorm wouldn't kick up?
A shitstorm would kick up, for a few days, and nothing of substantial effect would come of it. Just like what has happened with every other major scandal that's occurred in relation to a major news operation for the last ever.
And even after the pointless, ratings humping newsfrenzy that flew up over the issue, no one with sense would think it's happening enough to be worth worrying over. Scandal, yes, problem, no. Much more pervasive and sundry corruption issues infest media venues that aren't functionally built around bribery, to say nothing of gaming media.
-
A powderkeg of SJWs and 4channers?
I don't know, man. Almost everyone on every site I've seen has had a good chunk of their userbase outraged about this. Reddit, 4chan, The Escapist. Christ, even Tumblr is enraged, and they're pretty much SJW central.
Do you truly think that if someone presented unalienable evidence that Mr X (a major newspaper critic) had sex with Mrs Y (a major artist or whatever) and then wrote great things about her work, a shitstorm wouldn't kick up?
A shitstorm would kick up, for a few days, and nothing of substantial effect would come of it. Just like what has happened with every other major scandal that's occurred in relation to a major news operation for the last ever.
And even after the pointless, ratings humping newsfrenzy that flew up over the issue, no one with sense would think it's happening enough to be worth worrying over. Scandal, yes, problem, no. Much more pervasive and sundry corruption issues infest media venues that aren't functionally built around bribery, to say nothing of gaming media.
Then instead of being apathetic, try to affect change. Instead of typing about how no one will care, go out there and type about why this stuff angers you (or doesn't, if it doesn't, just talk ABOUT it instead of around it).
-
Tumblr being enraged is not a sign. Tumblr exists in a state of constant seething rage at everything.
-
Right, here is my take on the whole "Corruption in Journalism" thing:
AAA publishers spend thousands on bribes, and the internet seems pretty content, for the most part, to let it go.
Some indie dev comes along with some free text game nobody otherwise knows anything about, has sex with a journalist and suddenly cries of corruption can be heard from rooftops.
Some time in the future when this "scandle" dries up, the internet will go back to it's previous state of relative contentedness.
*closes book* The End.
The problem here is that she framed two seperate imageboards to whore more attention, which sort of pissed them off, that's why this blew up.
-
<snip>
NOPE NOPE NOPE.
DON'T MENTION THIS. PLEASE REMOVE.
KEEP IT AWAY FROM BURGER AND FRIES, WE'RE BEYOND THAT.
-
Then instead of being apathetic, try to affect change. Instead of typing about how no one will care, go out there and type about why this stuff angers you (or doesn't, if it doesn't, just talk ABOUT it instead of around it).
The issue is that this is all a non-issue. It's not as if giving favourable reviews to people you like is an instance of corruption. It would be a different matter if sexual favours were being used as part of an exchange for good reviews, but as far as I can tell from those examples posted the relationships have been completely unrelated to any attempt at getting good reviews.
-
The issue is that this is all a non-issue. It's not as if giving favourable reviews to people you like is an instance of corruption. It would be a different matter if sexual favours were being used as part of an exchange for good reviews, but as far as I can tell from those examples posted the relationships have been completely unrelated to any attempt at getting good reviews.
What is "nepotism"?
-
FAKE EDIT:Fuck it, I am going to turn my head off this for a while until all the angry and spite from both side stop so i can find out what the fuck it all about and why it is worth it to put time into making a discussion about it with no way to see the reason with all this hate
-
The issue is that this is all a non-issue. It's not as if giving favourable reviews to people you like is an instance of corruption. It would be a different matter if sexual favours were being used as part of an exchange for good reviews, but as far as I can tell from those examples posted the relationships have been completely unrelated to any attempt at getting good reviews.
What is "nepotism"?
noun
[mass noun]
The practice among those with power or influence of favouring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs:
-
The issue is that this is all a non-issue. It's not as if giving favourable reviews to people you like is an instance of corruption. It would be a different matter if sexual favours were being used as part of an exchange for good reviews, but as far as I can tell from those examples posted the relationships have been completely unrelated to any attempt at getting good reviews.
What is "nepotism"?
noun
[mass noun]
The practice among those with power or influence of favouring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs:
Why is nepotism wrong?
-
Maay I remind peoples in this thread that we have good evidence that americain police actually execute innocent citizen in complete impunity? I'm pretty sure that the integrity of gaming journalist is pretty inconsequencial ESPECIALLY since they are reviewing games you won't play no matter any stars they got.
-
I think that wrong is a very charged word, but it's undesirable because it means that people end up in positions of power who are not necessarily the best suited for it.
-
Maay I remind peoples in this thread that we have good evidence that americain police actually execute innocent citizen in complete impunity? I'm pretty sure that the integrity of gaming journalist is pretty inconsequencial ESPECIALLY since they are reviewing games you won't play no matter any stars they got.
*sigh*
No one I've noticed is actually defending the behavior. Everything I've seen so far is simple incredulity at the fact that people believe an incredibly minor scandal that isn't even a meaningful drop in the corruption bucket is something other than it is.
-
Maay I remind peoples in this thread that we have good evidence that americain police actually execute innocent citizen in complete impunity? I'm pretty sure that the integrity of gaming journalist is pretty inconsequencial ESPECIALLY since they are reviewing games you won't play no matter any stars they got.
May I remind you that in 10 billion years, our Sun will supernova and consume the Earth resulting in all life on this planet dying? I'm pretty sure all news is inconsequential if you try to compare it to a bigger tragedy, and I find it reprehensible that you would try to use an atrocity like what is being committed to shut down another discussion.
I think that wrong is a very charged word, but it's undesirable because it means that people end up in positions of power who are not necessarily the best suited for it.
Yes, nepotism defeats any chance of meritocracy, which is something our society is founded on. When the cards are stacked against you, the other thing to do is change the game.
-
I think that wrong is a very charged word, but it's undesirable because it means that people end up in positions of power who are not necessarily the best suited for it.
Yes, nepotism defeats any chance of meritocracy, which is something our society is founded on. When the cards are stacked against you, the other thing to do is change the game.
And yet, it's a very different thing to corruption. Corruption being defined as:
Dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery
It's perfectly possible to favour those you are close to without any intent of deceiving anyone or engineering it for anyone's gain. It just kind of happens.
-
And yet, it's a very different thing to corruption. Corruption being defined as:
Dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery
It's perfectly possible to favour those you are close to without any intent of deceiving anyone or engineering it for anyone's gain. It just kind of happens.
There is nothing wrong with writing a review or an article about someone you are friends (or further) with, as long as you disclose that at the start of your article. Nothing at all.
However, not disclosing that makes your actions fraudulent. It is deception by omission. The first thing on your mind as a journalist should be, "Hey, I'm good friends with this person. I should mention that so everyone is on an even page."
If a game developer posted something about his game on Other Games here and didn't state they were the game developer, that is a breach of ethics and would get them called out by everyone (also steps close to being illegal, since it is very near grassroots marketing).
-
Vidyas is dead and myn has killed it
-
Maay I remind peoples in this thread that we have good evidence that americain police actually execute innocent citizen in complete impunity? I'm pretty sure that the integrity of gaming journalist is pretty inconsequencial ESPECIALLY since they are reviewing games you won't play no matter any stars they got.
Fallacy of relative privation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_relative_privation), also known as Appeal to worse problems. And that you would choose police brutality when there are starving children in Africa is abhorrent to me. More seriously, big issues do not make smaller issues of lesser importance less worth speaking about. We're not taking valuable arguing air from the Middle East, certainly.
That will be all. Just watching otherwise.
-
Oh, this will be good.
PTW4the inevitable
Gaming 'journalism' has as much integrity as a sociopathic mule who abandoned his uncle in the Sahara for a bucket of handjobs
-
Gaming 'journalism' has as much integrity as a sociopathic mule who abandoned his uncle in the Sahara for a bucket of handjobs
Which is kind of the big issue.
-
This is nothing compared to other journalists/media branches.
I am a marketing manager by day job and i can (and done so many times) have my PR team write an article which i then send to a blog/newspaper/magazine to publish as their own. sometimes i don't even have to pay for that article, they ask me to do it because they need "content" and want to secure future potential ad purchases.
We (My company) also funded a "reality" t.v show series where the cast, the presenters, the script, the locations, the broadcasting hours were all decided by us and were in the sole intent to promote our products. it was done in such a way that a naive viewer could never tell, but we pushed our products very heavily in that show.
I can have radio hosts talk about my products, i can have my products discussed, in a strictly positive way in t.v talk shows. i can, as a marketing manager, pretty much use any of the known media outlets to inject my own written content as an objective content written/researched/collected by journalists. i am not talking about obscure blogs and newspapers, i am talking about the biggest ones.
Why? because i have a relatively big advertising budget.
So, instead of worrying about Indie-Media relationships corruption, i'd worry about AAA-Media relationship corruption, because that's where the real money is.
-
Maay I remind peoples in this thread that we have good evidence that americain police actually execute innocent citizen in complete impunity? I'm pretty sure that the integrity of gaming journalist is pretty inconsequencial ESPECIALLY since they are reviewing games you won't play no matter any stars they got.
Fallacy of relative privation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_relative_privation), also known as Appeal to worse problems. And that you would choose police brutality when there are starving children in Africa is abhorrent to me. More seriously, big issues do not make smaller issues of lesser importance less worth speaking about. We're not taking valuable arguing air from the Middle East, certainly.
That will be all. Just watching otherwise.
No. The fallacy is to distract from an important issue by pointing another important issue. I'm calling this issue trite, petty, uninteresting and downright ridiculous. And there are actually important issues to discuss.
-
You can't refute that by restating the fallacy. There is no threshold of importance you have to meet for that fallacy to apply.
This discussion is not detracting from discussion of more important issues. Look in the politics threads. They're still going.
You are making a problem where there is not one and bringing negativity into the thread when you do not need to be.
-
The fallacy of relative privation, or appeal to worse problems, is an informal fallacy which attempts to suggest that the opponent's argument should be ignored because there are more important problems in the world, despite the fact that these issues are often completely unrelated to the subject under discussion.
TL;DR: shut up and sit down unless you can actually contribute to the discussion, guy whose name I can't pronounce because no vowels.
-
People can multitask, phmcw. Especially with the magic of forums and such, many things can be discussed at once, without really reducing the amount of consideration any particular topic gets.
And corruption and poor/unethical practices in journalism is kinda' important. Even specialized stuff like gaming journalism, and especially in regards to major and pervasive issues (like the whole institutionalized bribery stuff, and other wonderful journalistic standards).
-
I'm going to chime in here because I have no common sense.
A) I'm going to state now I'm on the boat of not caring. People write words, they can write whatever words they want honestly. You earn reputation from writing true words, and lose it writing false words. This may tie in to the fact that I only have surface knowledge of the scandal, but was the act meant as a bribe? Maybe the journalist liked the game and just happened to perform said act with the game dev? They probably run in some of the same circles and hey, people do stuff like that all the time.
B) Is there even any evidence this happened? I honestly don't know because I have read in to it much.
-
So, instead of worrying about Indie-Media relationships corruption, i'd worry about AAA-Media relationship corruption, because that's where the real money is.
Naw, we should worry ourselves over inconsequential free game indie developers. They're the real source of game journalism being a fat fail.
-
How may I put it in perspective.
Everyone knows the normal news is hopelessly corrupt and is constantly manipulated according to the owners, shareholders, politics as well as under the table deals along with being so focused on being a business that you often lose out on a lot of genuine news (there are entire sites out there BASED around things the News doesn't report). There is more then enough evidence, hard evidence, to prove this... it just isn't a crime.
No one, is happy with it... Everyone is complacent with it because they feel like changing it is hopeless.
Payola which is to be paid to play someone's song was made illegal IF you don't tell anyone.
---
Gaming Journalism was WELL known to be corrupt for years...
No one likes this but everyone is complacent because there is nothing you can do.
B) Is there even any evidence this happened? I honestly don't know because I have read in to it much
Ohh gawd, searching down 10+ year old articles on the Gamespot controversies? well... I can look...
Ohh wait is this about indie developers? Well I have heard nothing about this.
-
Ya, sorry, I was looking more at the recent controversy.
-
B) Is there even any evidence this happened? I honestly don't know because I have read in to it much.
Check the first post. There's at least one case of this occuring.
Ohh gawd, searching down 10+ year old articles on the Gamespot controversies? well... I can look...
Ohh wait is this about indie developers? Well I have heard nothing about this.
Please check the first post. :p
-
Honestly this doesn't seem like a HUGE deal...
The Backlash is... odd... since "Hey, maybe you shouldn't pretend you have journalistic neutrality if your making articles about a friend's stuff" is a rather fair criticism.
Questioning Anita's claim of harassment though was met with appropriate responses... Even if she was faking, you kind of don't go "Prove you been shot". Besides Anita doesn't need to fake it... Even if you believe she deserves some of her harassment or even invited it (Which honestly, I can see.. though I think she was more accurately "trying to make a point" as to why the feminist frequency videogame coverage was needed, rather then trying to make everyone cavalier to save her from harassment with money), the levels of harassment she receives is a bit extreme. If that Email was fake then she made a fake email for fun.
Well the censorship is concerning... but given the degree it is being done it cannot be simple "perhaps better journalistic integrity is required"
-
B) Is there even any evidence this happened? I honestly don't know because I have read in to it much.
Check the first post. There's at least one case of this occuring.
Ohh gawd, searching down 10+ year old articles on the Gamespot controversies? well... I can look...
Ohh wait is this about indie developers? Well I have heard nothing about this.
Please check the first post. :p
Sorry, but imgur links aren't something I can browse through atm, so not sure what proof is being offered? Will check it out later I guess. Still don't see why we expect a full relationship breakdown by anyone writing about games?
-
The links are... misleading timfernius. Even I cannot decifer a few of them and others are clearly not proving the point they are evidence for.
-
The links are... misleading timfernius. Even I cannot decifer a few of them and others are clearly not proving the point they are evidence for.
Please point to which ones you are talking about.
-
The Anita one where the guy was being a jerk and people were pointing out he was being a jerk.
-
The Anita one where the guy was being a jerk and people were pointing out he was being a jerk.
That's fair enough.
There are however issues with believing people without asking them for evidence. The Escapist has had to issue a change (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/130525-Depression-Quest-Dev-Faces-Harassment-after-Steam-Submission-Update) to one of their articles to state outright that they have no evidence that harassment occurred in that particular instance. This is especially a problem since, in that instance, the people accused of harassment were VERY vulnerable and open to harassment (which they received in a massive wave).
"Update: This post has been edited to correctly assert that the claims were made by the accuser and have not been confirmed by another party."
-
This is nothing compared to other journalists/media branches.
I am a marketing manager by day job and i can (and done so many times) have my PR team write an article which i then send to a blog/newspaper/magazine to publish as their own. sometimes i don't even have to pay for that article, they ask me to do it because they need "content" and want to secure future potential ad purchases.
We (My company) also funded a "reality" t.v show series where the cast, the presenters, the script, the locations, the broadcasting hours were all decided by us and were in the sole intent to promote our products. it was done in such a way that a naive viewer could never tell, but we pushed our products very heavily in that show.
I can have radio hosts talk about my products, i can have my products discussed, in a strictly positive way in t.v talk shows. i can, as a marketing manager, pretty much use any of the known media outlets to inject my own written content as an objective content written/researched/collected by journalists. i am not talking about obscure blogs and newspapers, i am talking about the biggest ones.
Why? because i have a relatively big advertising budget.
So, instead of worrying about Indie-Media relationships corruption, i'd worry about AAA-Media relationship corruption, because that's where the real money is.
^
In Journalism school, burningpet was the guy I was told to watch out for. Sad to see that in the years since, media has basically gone begging for content to put up on the web. I can read a lot of CNN articles where, just by the verbage and good editing, I can tell it was an ad piece submitted as original work. Nobody in their right fucking mind cares that much about Beats By Dre.
The reason this whole thing matters to gamers is because they think they're policing their own. It's not a big corporate entity with a $1 million legal team and corporate anonymity. It's someone "in the indie scene" which means, to the internet, they can hammer them as much as they want because they have no form of corporate or legal protection/anonymity. It's not that I think anyone is deeply surprised this is happening in media; they simply have a target they can reach in this case and so they are. (The dev's attempts at controlling this story have always just fanned the flames, because they can't possibly react with enough speed or authority enough to close it down.)
While I think the general thing has become way over blown (in the classic fashion of normal media where thing happens, and then half a dozen articles get published trying to assert that is or isn't a pattern of behavior in society at large), I don't necessarily think citizens doing this kind of active participation in the business of media is a bad thing. I at least like it better than being reduced to making snarky posts or blaming Obama in news article comment pages.
-
I am mostly trying to feel out the real situation by what is posted here.
-
In Journalism school, burningpet was the guy I was told to watch out for. Sad to see that in the years since, media has basically gone begging for content to put up on the web. I can read a lot of CNN articles where, just by the verbage and good editing, I can tell it was an ad piece submitted as original work. Nobody in their right fucking mind cares that much about Beats By Dre.
The reason this whole thing matters to gamers is because they think they're policing their own. It's not a big corporate entity with a $1 million legal team and corporate anonymity. It's someone "in the indie scene" which means, to the internet, they can hammer them as much as they want because they have no form of corporate or legal protection/anonymity. It's not that I think anyone is deeply surprised this is happening in media; they simply have a target they can reach in this case and so they are. (The dev's attempts at controlling this story have always just fanned the flames, because they can't possibly react with enough speed or authority enough to close it down.)
While I think the general thing has become way over blown (in the classic fashion of normal media where thing happens, and then half a dozen articles get published trying to assert that is or isn't a pattern of behavior in society at large), I don't necessarily think citizens doing this kind of active participation in the business of media is a bad thing. I at least like it better than being reduced to making snarky posts or blaming Obama in news article comment pages.
It's the start to making the big difference.
-
Has there ever been an attempt to create an 'unbiased' gaming medium website?
The only one I really know about is gather your party (http://www.gatheryourparty.com), but the posts are few and far in between
-
In Journalism school, burningpet was the guy I was told to watch out for. Sad to see that in the years since, media has basically gone begging for content to put up on the web. I can read a lot of CNN articles where, just by the verbage and good editing, I can tell it was an ad piece submitted as original work. Nobody in their right fucking mind cares that much about Beats By Dre.
The thing is, the guys in charge of all these media outlets are actually the ones that are reaching out to the Marketing managers, not the other way around.
For two reasons:
1) Not many news sites/papers/magazines can manage themselves financially and so they come up with all sorts of indirect means of selling exposure. in our perspective, Google Adsense is actually far more effective so i don't really need their more expensive Ad space. i can put my Ad in their website, slightly below the Ad they are selling, targeting only my relevant audience, and pay less than a quarter of what they ask. what used to be a small "Bonus" (Mentioning my product, Reviewing my product, etc..) is now their main product because they know it sells better. and they make it main by specifically allowing you full or almost full control on the written article.
2) A lot of journalists are incredibly lazy.
It's the start to making the big difference.
No its not. not only because i am not entirely convinced anything was wrong there, but because even if things were slightly wrong, they have absolutely no impact on the rest of the media outlets or even the bigger Game websites.
Its like trying to fight crony capitalism by publicly condemning and harassing a kid that stole a candy from a gas station. its two completely different things that only share a similarity which is "stealing".
-
Has there ever been an attempt to create an 'unbiased' gaming medium website?
The only one I really know about is gather your party (http://www.gatheryourparty.com), but the posts are few and far in between
Well, if I ever hit it rich off software development, I'll make a gaming journalism website that is bias free...
And then immediately have people claim that I've set up a way to get a bias for my stuff. :'(
No its not. not only because i am not entirely convinced anything was wrong there, but because even if things were slightly wrong, they have absolutely no impact on the rest of the media outlets or even the bigger Game websites.
Its like trying to fight crony capitalism by publicly condemning and harassing a kid that stole a candy from a gas station. its two completely different things that only share a similarity which is "stealing".
No, it's like trying to fight a raging fire with a trickle of water. If enough of us focus on it and go for the little blazes first, we might be able to control and eventually destroy it.
-
Or it's just a bunch people jumping on an opportunity to hate on a person they already dislike.
-
Kotaku and polygon have both instituted changes to their policy, so something came out of all this hoo hah
-
Kotaku and polygon have both instituted changes to their policy, so something came out of all this hoo hah
Well while I think people over reacted... I do think these changes are fair as well.
Best possible result to a overblown situation.
-
Bahaha, this is hilarious:
https://twitter.com/elyscape/status/504680128673505280
https://twitter.com/waxpancake/status/504690459462348801
But in any case, those images do show the actual reason behind this. It isn't about the game journalism. It isn't even about the games. They have EA and Bioware on a list of 'things to boycott' with reasoning of "because they support LGBT issues." Not "they ruined the Sim City series." Not "they sold out." Not "they make the same game over and over and market it as a new one." Not even "paying off journalists with swag." Not a single legitimate issue. All it is is "we hate these people for their beliefs, and you should too." That's all the SJW label is: These people are enemies for calling us out on our sexism and disagreeing with us. And the fact that these people are being shouted down for their beliefs, dragged through the mud and shat upon, shows precisely why they are right and why the things they talk about are, in fact, major problems with the culture which need addressing.
It's ridiculous! If you want those darned feminists to shut up about being harassed, it may be a good idea to stop harassing them every time they say something.
-
magicMissile is doing a great job of being cool! 8)
I've been following games journalism for over 20 years. I got seriously disillusioned about 5 years ago (I'm pretty slow sometimes) and went to gamecritics.com and P4Gaming. Recently I spent more time on giantbomb.com because I liked their positivity (gamecritics.com can be a bit negative and dry), but I'm pretty bummed by the nepotism in this case - here's why...
Friendships, money changing hands, favors, gifts etc. that's all normal and expected. Reviews really don't count for much these days, at least I feel (with no data whatsoever) that reviews play a smaller role in consumer purchasing decisions than they used to. The only thing the gaming media has, the only thing they need, is apparent integrity. Jeff Gerstmann talks a lot about how he doesn't get in on Kickstarters, he avoids talking about and reviewing products by especially close developers, and he is open about these concerns. That's the gold standard of behavior as far as I'm concerned.
What's going on with these indie devs and a certain websites is bald-faced corruption/collusion for personal gain. I agree that it is merely an extreme case of what has already been going on for years. But it is extreme and it is deceitful and toxic and their behavior in response has been oppressive I don't want that in the media that covers my hobby.
I believe that in the modern society the right to vote in elections counts for virtually nothing, and the right to spend our money freely counts for everything. Informed consumer choice is the bedrock of a capitalist democracy, and deceitful manipulation of consumer choice should always be sought out and brought to the attention of consumers. Watchdog bodies. For games. It's not a new idea. 4Chan is the only community that is behaving as the watchdog.
OK, my opinions are not cool, but I'm not attacking anyone specifically, just the concepts.
-
Bahaha, this is hilarious:
https://twitter.com/elyscape/status/504680128673505280
https://twitter.com/waxpancake/status/504690459462348801
But in any case, those images do show the actual reason behind this. It isn't about the game journalism. It isn't even about the games. They have EA and Bioware on a list of 'things to boycott' with reasoning of "because they support LGBT issues." Not "they ruined the Sim City series." Not "they sold out." Not "they make the same game over and over and market it as a new one." Not even "paying off journalists with swag." Not a single legitimate issue. All it is is "we hate these people for their beliefs, and you should too." That's all the SJW label is: These people are enemies for calling us out on our sexism and disagreeing with us. And the fact that these people are being shouted down for their beliefs, dragged through the mud and shat upon, shows precisely why they are right and why the things they talk about are, in fact, major problems with the culture which need addressing.
It's ridiculous! If you want those darned feminists to shut up about being harassed, it may be a good idea to stop harassing them every time they say something.
You're completely missed their point : they don't say that they want boycott EA for supporting LGTB issues but because they hide behind the LGTB movement and they call everyone that disagree with them homophobe.
Which is completely true, EA did say that they won the "worst company award" because of homophobia.
-
Or it's just a bunch people jumping on an opportunity to hate on a person they already dislike.
Please don't assume to know people's reasons for acting upon change, just accept it if the change they make to the world is good.
Kotaku and polygon have both instituted changes to their policy, so something came out of all this hoo hah
Yep. If anyone doesn't think this has improved something, no matter how small, they're delusional.
Bahaha, this is hilarious:
<< REMOVE THESE PLEASE >>
But in any case, those images do show the actual reason behind this. It isn't about the game journalism. It isn't even about the games. They have EA and Bioware on a list of 'things to boycott' with reasoning of "because they support LGBT issues." Not "they ruined the Sim City series." Not "they sold out." Not "they make the same game over and over and market it as a new one." Not even "paying off journalists with swag." Not a single legitimate issue. All it is is "we hate these people for their beliefs, and you should too." That's all the SJW label is: These people are enemies for calling us out on our sexism and disagreeing with us. And the fact that these people are being shouted down for their beliefs, dragged through the mud and shat upon, shows precisely why they are right and why the things they talk about are, in fact, major problems with the culture which need addressing.
It's ridiculous! If you want those darned feminists to shut up about being harassed, it may be a good idea to stop harassing them every time they say something.
First off, one of the guidelines in the thread is not to link anything that mentions the OTHER unpleasant business, which the image in that specifically does. I'm not trying to shut you down, it's just important that we maintain separation on this, as otherwise the thread might be shut down.
Secondly, where do they source those images from? I haven't seen them anywhere related to this. It is certainly not in the big 4chan copy and paste job (from thread to thread).
Thank you for cooperation.
EDIT: I figured I should really say more about your post.
You are avoiding the issue at hand, namely that people involved in being "SJWs" are having sex with people they are writing about and not disclosing the fact. People are angered because these people claim the moral highground and then do not practice what they preach.
When we see innocents get hurt (http://i.imgur.com/YLMQAUZ.jpg) because of these "SJWs" or when we see them do anything in the name of their cause (http://imgur.com/a/4VOcx) (because, of course, it's so justified), it's hard to be sympathetic when they play the victim card.
magicMissile is doing a great job of being cool! 8)
I've been following games journalism for over 20 years. I got seriously disillusioned about 5 years ago (I'm pretty slow sometimes) and went to gamecritics.com and P4Gaming. Recently I spent more time on giantbomb.com because I liked their positivity (gamecritics.com can be a bit negative and dry), but I'm pretty bummed by the nepotism in this case - here's why...
Friendships, money changing hands, favors, gifts etc. that's all normal and expected. Reviews really don't count for much these days, at least I feel (with no data whatsoever) that reviews play a smaller role in consumer purchasing decisions than they used to. The only thing the gaming media has, the only thing they need, is apparent integrity. Jeff Gerstmann talks a lot about how he doesn't get in on Kickstarters, he avoids talking about and reviewing products by especially close developers, and he is open about these concerns. That's the gold standard of behavior as far as I'm concerned.
What's going on with these indie devs and a certain websites is bald-faced corruption/collusion for personal gain. I agree that it is merely an extreme case of what has already been going on for years. But it is extreme and it is deceitful and toxic and their behavior in response has been oppressive I don't want that in the media that covers my hobby.
I believe that in the modern society the right to vote in elections counts for virtually nothing, and the right to spend our money freely counts for everything. Informed consumer choice is the bedrock of a capitalist democracy, and deceitful manipulation of consumer choice should always be sought out and brought to the attention of consumers. Watchdog bodies. For games. It's not a new idea. 4Chan is the only community that is behaving as the watchdog.
OK, my opinions are not cool, but I'm not attacking anyone specifically, just the concepts.
I agree completely. :D
-
First off, one of the guidelines in the thread is not to link anything that mentions the OTHER unpleasant business, which the image in that specifically does. I'm not trying to shut you down, it's just important that we maintain separation on this, as otherwise the thread might be shut down.
Secondly, where do they source those images from? I haven't seen them anywhere related to this. It is certainly not in the big 4chan copy and paste job (from thread to thread).
Thank you for cooperation.
It's literally a continuation of the same smear campaign. Even the 4chan copypaste thread you're taking orders from makes that explicitly clear.
As for the topic...
I don't think anyone in the industry takes this seriously. Why not? Because as I've previously stated, game journalism has never been anything but what it is today. Why? Because this is what people want. A serious, truly impartial journalist wouldn't cover games, and would die of starvation even if they tried.
There are two ways to actually know where the game industry is at and where it is going. Both of them involve becoming good friends with lots of game devs, and one of them involves becoming a game dev yourself. Interviewing companies will only tell you two things: where they wish they were at and where they want you to think they are at (which is actually very efficient in that HR only has to tell you one of those things for you to know both). If that's what you want, well then go right ahead and demand it. The only game journos who don't have a ton of close friends who are devs... are the ones busy distributing press releases for EA, Microsoft, and Sony. And that's why any good game journo's closest friends are game devs. The end result is a game journo industry which occasionally heaps more praise than is due on indie games which may not be that good. But considering the alternative is IGN-alikes, it's pretty obvious why this is the norm.
-
4Chan is the only community that is behaving as the watchdog.
I would happier with the corruption then have 4Chan act as a watchdog.
-
4Chan is the only community that is behaving as the watchdog.
I would happier with the corruption then have 4Chan act as a watchdog.
So, if 4chan is the only watchdog, you'd rather have no watchdog at all? Why would you be happier with the corruption?
-
Theyre 4Chan...
If the original claims of harassment were false, they aren't anymore.
-
As the Chinese say with Mao Zedong,
4chan is many parts good while also being many parts bad
-
4chan isn't a watchdog, it's a rabid dog.
-
Theyre 4Chan...
If the original claims of harassment were false, they aren't anymore.
Are you sure about that?
-
Are you sure about that?
It's the reason for rule 3:
3. NO DOXXING OR NUDES. JUST DON'T.
Yeah, "Doxxing" and spreading nudes is harassment.
-
Are you sure about that?
It's the reason for rule 3:
3. NO DOXXING OR NUDES. JUST DON'T.
Yeah, "Doxxing" and spreading nudes is harassment.
Any evidence of that occurring?
-
4chan isn't a watchdog, it's a rabid dog.
it is better to have evil do some good than no good at all
fake edit: dam ninjas
-
First off, one of the guidelines in the thread is not to link anything that mentions the OTHER unpleasant business, which the image in that specifically does.
when we see them do anything in the name of their cause (http://imgur.com/a/4VOcx) (because, of course, it's so justified), it's hard to be sympathetic when they play the victim card.
The title of that image set is "Zoe Quinn is a liar".
-
I see that this is slowly drifting off the rails...
-
Trying to prevent the thread from landing on the rails as the previous two did might be a lost cause, since the ZQ stuff is actually important to the topic, so excluding it is a bit like having a Ukraine Conflict thread and not being allowed to talk about Russia in any way.
Regardless, the easiest way to save the thread is to lock it whenever people are getting heated (which doesn't seem to have happened yet), and then maybe it will survive to old age and ultimately fade into obscurity.
-
First off, one of the guidelines in the thread is not to link anything that mentions the OTHER unpleasant business, which the image in that specifically does.
when we see them do anything in the name of their cause (http://imgur.com/a/4VOcx) (because, of course, it's so justified), it's hard to be sympathetic when they play the victim card.
The title of that image set is "Zoe Quinn is a liar".
I kind of meant the snuu snuu business.
Trying to prevent the thread from landing on the rails as the previous two did might be a lost cause, since the ZQ stuff is actually important to the topic, so excluding it is a bit like having a Ukraine Conflict thread and not being allowed to talk about Russia in any way.
Regardless, the easiest way to save the thread is to lock it whenever people are getting heated (which doesn't seem to have happened yet), and then maybe it will survive to old age and ultimately fade into obscurity.
The issue is that that stuff will RAPIDLY drive it off the rails, and I feel the thread will turn into a mess of opinions about what constitutes cheating or something else equally ridiculous. Better to avoid that and merely keep it to this for now.
-
But the ZQ thing isn't the only scandal to have plagued 'gaming media integrity', right?
It's the most recent occurrence, but still.
-
Any evidence of that occurring?
You can read her own blog (http://ohdeargodbees.tumblr.com/post/95188657119/once-again-i-will-not-negotiate-with-terrorists) on the subject.
You might still be able to download some the nudes of her if you really want, if the link is still there in one of the earlier 2 locked threads. Hopefully it's been removed since then though.
Other than that you can just google.
I can not link to any of these specific events because that would be a violation of both this threads rules and probably the forum rules.
-
Any evidence of that occurring?
You can read her own blog (http://ohdeargodbees.tumblr.com/post/95188657119/once-again-i-will-not-negotiate-with-terrorists) on the subject.
You might still be able to download some the nudes of her if you really want, if the link is still there in one of the earlier 2 locked threads. Hopefully it's been removed since then though.
Other than that you can just google.
I can not link to any of these specific events because that would be a violation of both this threads rules and probably the forum rules.
I would take anything said by her about harassment with a grain of salt, as - as far as I can tell - there has been no evidence presented for it.
Also, as far as I am aware, there were no nudes in either of the last two threads. The rule is just there so we can cut it off at the head.
-
Can't seem to find it, but I remember someone posting an archive of "evidence", someone else complaining it contained nudes, and someone else claiming their friend was making a new archive without that stuff in it (or something like that).
Might have missed which thread it's in or something, there have been like 4 of these by now.
-
Friendships, money changing hands, favors, gifts etc. that's all normal and expected. Reviews really don't count for much these days, at least I feel (with no data whatsoever) that reviews play a smaller role in consumer purchasing decisions than they used to. The only thing the gaming media has, the only thing they need, is apparent integrity. Jeff Gerstmann talks a lot about how he doesn't get in on Kickstarters, he avoids talking about and reviewing products by especially close developers, and he is open about these concerns. That's the gold standard of behavior as far as I'm concerned.
What's going on with these indie devs and a certain websites is bald-faced corruption/collusion for personal gain. I agree that it is merely an extreme case of what has already been going on for years. But it is extreme and it is deceitful and toxic and their behavior in response has been oppressive I don't want that in the media that covers my hobby.
I believe that in the modern society the right to vote in elections counts for virtually nothing, and the right to spend our money freely counts for everything. Informed consumer choice is the bedrock of a capitalist democracy, and deceitful manipulation of consumer choice should always be sought out and brought to the attention of consumers. Watchdog bodies. For games. It's not a new idea. 4Chan is the only community that is behaving as the watchdog.
OK, my opinions are not cool, but I'm not attacking anyone specifically, just the concepts.
In the end, I don't think it's really any different than EA and whoever basically agreeing to make a review for a game positive in return, probably, for exclusive access to the next thing they do, something. Or money, at its most corrupt.
I think indie devs and journalism websites are doing exactly what semi-professionals do: they sleep with each, make agreements and deals to scratch each others backs and operate as a clique. It's called small business. I work with good ol' boy truckers, big family owned operations going back a couple generations sometimes, and it's the same shit. People collude, they play games, they game the system as much as they're comfortable with, being their own bosses and chasing the almighty buck. Some people know how far they can push it. Some go for broke and eventually get caught with their pants down.
The only real difference to me between indie and corporate doing these things is that corporate has actual laws and rules and shit to dance around. HR. Stockholders. 12 bosses. The national media. Their corruption has higher consequences across several levels of a much wider scope. Indie game devs and websites? Not so much. There'll be PR fallout and their names will acquire a cult-level status of hatred instead of the worship of "the internets." Everyone gets punished according to their potential.
It's funny. In "just plain old journalism", all this stuff has at least been on the rule books for 30 years. So I find this a pretty funny moment for games journalism, having also followed it and partaken in some of it for 20 years now. I've long thought all these goddamn websites, Kotaku, RPS, ect... needed to grow up a little. This whole thing shows why.
-
Are you sure about that?
It's the reason for rule 3:
3. NO DOXXING OR NUDES. JUST DON'T.
Yeah, "Doxxing" and spreading nudes is harassment.
Any evidence of that occurring?
Does it count as harassment if they're nudes of myself?
Anyway, back on topic, the concept of exchanging goods or services for favourable press isn't anything noteworthy in my opinion. I think the real take home message from this is the danger of social media giving others a quick way to trace your connections and expose links in your network of contacts. If you plan on acting in any capacity where you're expected to practice professionally or in an unbiased manner, here's a quick tip: DON'T USE SOCIAL MEDIA! Keep your social life separate from your public face.
-
In the end, I don't think it's really any different than EA and whoever basically agreeing to make a review for a game positive in return, probably, for exclusive access to the next thing they do, something. Or money, at its most corrupt.
I think indie devs and journalism websites are doing exactly what semi-professionals do: they sleep with each, make agreements and deals to scratch each others backs and operate as a clique. It's called small business. I work with good ol' boy truckers, big family owned operations going back a couple generations sometimes, and it's the same shit. People collude, they play games, they game the system as much as they're comfortable with, being their own bosses and chasing the almighty buck. Some people know how far they can push it. Some go for broke and eventually get caught with their pants down.
The only real difference to me between indie and corporate doing these things is that corporate has actual laws and rules and shit to dance around. HR. Stockholders. 12 bosses. The national media. Their corruption has higher consequences across several levels of a much wider scope. Indie game devs and websites? Not so much. There'll be PR fallout and their names will acquire a cult-level status of hatred instead of the worship of "the internets." Everyone gets punished according to their potential.
I generally agree with you, nenjin, but I have a different conclusion. In politics, business, journalism, whatever, the value of the rules and enforcing them is not merely in curbing the excesses of behaviour, because many people break the rules and still go to extremes. The main value is that it forces people to play the game. Playing the political game, the legal game, the trucking game, any game, forces groups to expend energy in one particular field and this exertion is fundamental to balance and progress in society. When people break games, when they stomp on the rules or become to powerful or whatever, you end up with tyranny.
The value of the democratic system is wholly in forcing political parties, no matter how futile it may seem, to play a game. That keeps society healthy. It doesn't seriously matter who is currently winning, just that they play. Even if they play dirty, they still play. Countries where the ruling elite doesn't have to play slide into corruption and decadence.
The clique that seems to have arisen is breaking the game, that's the problem. By shouting down and bullying out opposition and criticism they've literally broken events and projects and are promoting their own interests at the expense of stifling other's. I'd take old school journalists having free lunches at EA over this cancerous indie journalism any day of the week. And I hate EA.
-
Does it count as harassment if they're nudes of myself?
I think it counts if I have to look at them.
Anyway, back on topic, the concept of exchanging goods or services for favourable press isn't anything noteworthy in my opinion. I think the real take home message from this is the danger of social media giving others a quick way to trace your connections and expose links in your network of contacts. If you plan on acting in any capacity where you're expected to practice professionally or in an unbiased manner, here's a quick tip: DON'T USE SOCIAL MEDIA! Keep your social life separate from your public face.
Though considering I'd never heard of the game till people started making a big ho-ha about it, maybe it's exactly the way to sell your game. Honestly I think all media has little integreity. I don't think this is actually going to change unless people think a little more about the likely fact that a reviewer has a vested interest. It happens because it works basically.
-
Can we really call them "indies" if they're so closely affiliated with each other? Are they really independent?
-
The clique that seems to have arisen is breaking the game, that's the problem. By shouting down and bullying out opposition and criticism they've literally broken events and projects and are promoting their own interests at the expense of stifling other's.
As far as I have seen, exactly none of this has been done by Quinn or even have anything to do with journalism in the first place.
All this seems to be the reaction (or more accurately, a reaction to the reaction) to the initial event.
That does not make it a non-issue or something not worth discussing, but I think people are jumping to assumptions when they blame "them" for all this.
-
I'm not going to link anything, just check out /v/, but I was referring to the ample evidence that members of the clique were writing op.ed. pieces and reviews for their games, openly criticizing games and developers that didn't conform to their agenda, and probably some other stuff I forgot. All of this predates the scandal breaking. It was not a reaction, its their modus operandi, and that's the root cause of the 'blackouts and corruption'.
-
Anita Sarkeesian made a Tweet about being harassed. (https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/504718160902492160/photo/1)
There are, however, some minor issues with it. (http://i.imgur.com/p6eaary.jpg)
Can't seem to find it, but I remember someone posting an archive of "evidence", someone else complaining it contained nudes, and someone else claiming their friend was making a new archive without that stuff in it (or something like that).
Might have missed which thread it's in or something, there have been like 4 of these by now.
Again...
4. Back up anything you say WITH EVIDENCE. Please do not post "hey I heard X about Y" without sourcing it with information.
I generally agree with you, nenjin, but I have a different conclusion. In politics, business, journalism, whatever, the value of the rules and enforcing them is not merely in curbing the excesses of behaviour, because many people break the rules and still go to extremes. The main value is that it forces people to play the game. Playing the political game, the legal game, the trucking game, any game, forces groups to expend energy in one particular field and this exertion is fundamental to balance and progress in society. When people break games, when they stomp on the rules or become to powerful or whatever, you end up with tyranny.
The value of the democratic system is wholly in forcing political parties, no matter how futile it may seem, to play a game. That keeps society healthy. It doesn't seriously matter who is currently winning, just that they play. Even if they play dirty, they still play. Countries where the ruling elite doesn't have to play slide into corruption and decadence.
The clique that seems to have arisen is breaking the game, that's the problem. By shouting down and bullying out opposition and criticism they've literally broken events and projects and are promoting their own interests at the expense of stifling other's. I'd take old school journalists having free lunches at EA over this cancerous indie journalism any day of the week. And I hate EA.
Pretty much exactly this.
-
Though considering I'd never heard of the game till people started making a big ho-ha about it, maybe it's exactly the way to sell your game.
Considering the game in question is a free game...
Can we really call them "indies" if they're so closely affiliated with each other? Are they really independent?
"Independent" refers to independence from big business publishers/producers, not "total independence from everyone everywhere".
I'm not going to link anything, just check out /v/, but I was referring to the ample evidence that members of the clique were writing op.ed. pieces and reviews for their games, openly criticizing games and developers that didn't conform to their agenda, and probably some other stuff I forgot. All of this predates the scandal breaking. It was not a reaction, its their modus operandi, and that's the root cause of the 'blackouts and corruption'.
Except this is nothing new or unique, this is how "game journalism" works. Big companies pay hundreds of thousands of dollars, maybe even millions, to control what is written about their products. Why should anyone about what a completely unimportant indie dev does in comparison to that? How is some people shilling her free game important when the whole business is built around taking bribes and selling an audience to the AAA companies?
-
Considering the game in question is a free game...
Because a game developer has no use for fame and a fanbase?
-
I'm not going to link anything, just check out /v/, but I was referring to the ample evidence that members of the clique were writing op.ed. pieces and reviews for their games, openly criticizing games and developers that didn't conform to their agenda, and probably some other stuff I forgot. All of this predates the scandal breaking. It was not a reaction, its their modus operandi, and that's the root cause of the 'blackouts and corruption'.
Except this is nothing new or unique, this is how "game journalism" works. Big companies pay hundreds of thousands of dollars, maybe even millions, to control what is written about their products. Why should anyone about what a completely unimportant indie dev does in comparison to that? How is some people shilling her free game important when the whole business is built around taking bribes and selling an audience to the AAA companies?
I don't doubt that there is some aggression between the major publishers that plays out in the media circus, but it rarely if ever gets as personal, critical and agenda driven as this is. Agenda is the key word here. Gawker media has an agenda, which it pushes through its various outlets. They're not about selling games, even cheap or free indie ones, they're selling a lifestyle and a way of thinking and advertising space/clicks.
This is important because they have co-opted an underrepresented section of the gaming community and beaten everyone else over the head with that agenda with a big, noisy stick for the past few years. This isn't how big business works. I'm not sure of advertising law in every country, but I know that in some places you're allowed to picture and criticize competitor's products - but companies don't, because it's a vicious cycle they don't want to start. The big publishers generally avoid this. The Gawker agenda feeds off of this negativity and has been actively promoting it.
I'm not exactly behind big business, I'm a Bay12 guy like you folks too!, but there are some benefits to it. And seriously I'm missing the positive games-are-cool-lets-have-fun circlejerk we had going on in the media before. I loved IGN in the 360 heyday, just good games and good vibes and lamenting RRoD...
*rocks in chair and smokes pipe*
-
I've only just delved into this whole topic. It looks like the stuff relating to the Game Jam she attacked from "The Fine Young Capitalists" is a much bigger issue than any special relationship with a journalist. I don't really care what people do with their personal lives, but throwing muck on other people's productive efforts is really not on. Looking through the available information for the Game Jam thing, it looks like those involved attacked a for charity event then tried to funnel the understandable public interest into a similar for profit venture.
And that's a much bigger and nastier issue than who-shagged-who to get free publicity.
Hopefully, the Streissand Effect kicks in and makes the FYC Game Jam more well-known. These efforts usually backfire by making the target newsworthy.
I'm considering donating them some money, which is evidence of the Streissand Effect firmly at work ;D
-
I've only just delved into this whole topic. It looks like the stuff relating to the Game Jam she attacked from "The Fine Young Capitalists" is a much bigger issue than any special relationship with a journalist. I don't really care what people do with their personal lives, but throwing muck on other people's productive efforts is really not on. Looking through the available information for the Game Jam thing, it looks like those involved attacked a for charity event then tried to funnel the understandable public interest into a similar for profit venture.
And that's a much bigger and nastier issue than who-shagged-who to get free publicity.
Hopefully, the Streissand Effect kicks in and makes the FYC Game Jam more well-known. These efforts usually backfire by making the target newsworthy.
I'm considering donating them some money, which is evidence of the Streissand Effect firmly at work ;D
Especially when you consider she outright lied about how she acted towards TYFC (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiWADnV8pmw&feature=youtu.be).
More evidence. (http://i.imgur.com/R66OBH9.jpg)
-
Many of Zoe's attacks on FYC Game Jam seem to be because they had some rules about whether transgender people were eligible to be treated as women under the contest rules. Of course, ANYTHING targeted at women must by necessity have such rules of eligibility, and if you've already decided you're against the contest then naturally, there are no possible sets of rules that are going to make you happy.
Hell, not even all feminists can all agree on the status of transgender people within feminism, so I don't think picking on a detail like that is very productive. It's also implied to be insensitive to transgendered people themselves, a cis person using trans people as an issue, to score points on twitter.
The broader question that Zoe raises is then, is it possible to have anything on the internet that for, or by, or about women? After all, we can never be 100% sure they're really women. Personally, I think the Game Jam raises publicity for the lack of female game designers, whilst also ensuring some people's games which would never get made otherwise get a chance to be created. Not everyone with a cool game idea has the background or skills to create games, and this is where Zoe's "get them a job in the industry" line falls apart. These people have good ideas, but they're not game developers. But more games out there which are noted to be designed by women open the doors for more to enter the industry and be taken seriously.
-
There are, however, some minor issues with it. (http://i.imgur.com/p6eaary.jpg)
Why do you keep posting these? They're terrible.
Someone who actually believed in being scrutinous would not be so completely confident with the vague, circumstantial evidence presented here. As long as you keep bringing in anti-feminist 4chan crap, this thread's days are numbered.
-
There are, however, some minor issues with it. (http://i.imgur.com/p6eaary.jpg)
Why do you keep posting these? They're terrible.
Someone who actually believed in being scrutinous would not be so completely confident with the vague, circumstantial evidence presented here. As long as you keep bringing in anti-feminist 4chan crap, this thread's days are numbered.
I wouldn't say that's complete crap. The twitter account is almost definitely fake, regardless of who it was created by. And it probably wasn't anyone called Kevin Dobson.
Who actually created it is up in the air though.
-
There are, however, some minor issues with it. (http://i.imgur.com/p6eaary.jpg)
Why do you keep posting these? They're terrible.
Someone who actually believed in being scrutinous would not be so completely confident with the vague, circumstantial evidence presented here. As long as you keep bringing in anti-feminist 4chan crap, this thread's days are numbered.
What is anti-feminist about evidence and scrutiny of that evidence?
If Anita or one of her Twitter followers is capable of responding to a Twitter made 3 minutes before and screenshotting the vile things it said, without being logged in and without doing a search, I am more than a little impressed.
The point is that it's unrealistic. There's inconsistencies. You have to point out those inconsistencies in order to find out what, exactly, happened in a given situation.
I wouldn't say that's complete crap. The twitter account is almost definitely fake, regardless of who it was created by. And it probably wasn't anyone called Kevin Dobson.
Who actually created it is up in the air though.
The part that I am finding funny is that I'm having to bring evidence of harassment in order to disprove it. I want people who state that people are being harassed to provide evidence of it, otherwise we end up with another Wizardchan situation.
-
If Anita or one of her Twitter followers is capable of responding to a Twitter made 3 minutes before and screenshotting the vile things it said, without being logged in and without doing a search, I am more than a little impressed.
The point is that it's unrealistic. There's inconsistencies. You have to point out those inconsistencies in order to find out what, exactly, happened in a given situation.
There is no evidence that there was no search. The image you posted is just wrong there. If you search something on Twitter then go to someone's profile, it clears the search out of the bar. I just tried it and it looked exactly like it does in the screenshot Anita posted.
The person who made this didn't even check their own claims, and I guess nobody else bothered to question them either. Stay skeptical, 4chan!
-
Maybe she got the tweets on her phone, while she was in her home/office etc, and then looked him up via his handle on her PC by typing "twitter.com/kdobbsz" directly into the URL bar, so she could do a screen capture. Plenty of people use their phone as their primary tweeting platform, but a PC is much better for screen grabs, any day.
Typing the address in one go would be faster and easier than using twitter's "search" feature (you'd need to type twice then, once for the page, and once to "search"), or logging in.
That would explain how she was on it so fast, and not logged into the account on her PC, and didn't need to used the "search" facility, because she could see the user's tag right on her phone. 3 minutes would be about right.
The guy who posted the insults was expecting a "drive by" attack and his account to get nuked, so perhaps he prepared the shit first. I find it hard to believe that Anita gets no harassment at all and needs to make this up, that's just paranoid.
-
To give my opinion, I'd more or less agree with Reelya in that I wasn't initially so annoyed about this because of the Five Guys thing (though that's the icing on the cake), it's that she:
-Slammed a perfectly reasonable indie game jam for no other reason than because it was competing with her own game jam, creating a twitter shitstorm about them in the process
-Had her friends in the industry pretend aforementioned game jam didn't exist, instead pressuring them to amalgamate into her game jam, which basically just had a name and her bank account attached to it
-When people began getting wind of this (and many other problems coming to the public eye), they attempted to spread it, only to find that their Youtube videos were being DMCA'd, their posts/comments were being deleted, and the gaming press refusing to say a thing. Keep in mind, this is the same gaming press that ran inflammatory articles about Max Temkin being falsely accused of rape, so they can hardly claim to simply be ignoring "personal issues". At the same time, aforementioned indie game jam found it's indiegogo page being hacked by people trying to frame /v/ and so on.
Oh, and we're aware that EA and the like regularly do fishy things with the press for good reviews too, but there are a lot of differences here. First, we already know EA does shitty things, but they get called out on it by pretty much everyone including (most of) the gaming press when they do so, whereas ZQ is apparently being protected by someone fairly high up. Second, as a large, faceless corporation, EA doesn't engage in the really petty shit, like smear campaigns or smacking down tiny indie competitors. Hell, to my knowledge they don't even do cover ups or use DMCAs on negative videos, since SEGA tried that once and was resoundingly called out for it. This is a completely different issue, and it deserves some exposure, even if certain people are basically trying to poison the well and get the threads about this locked.
-
If Anita or one of her Twitter followers is capable of responding to a Twitter made 3 minutes before and screenshotting the vile things it said, without being logged in and without doing a search, I am more than a little impressed.
The point is that it's unrealistic. There's inconsistencies. You have to point out those inconsistencies in order to find out what, exactly, happened in a given situation.
There is no evidence that there was no search. The image you posted is just wrong there. If you search something on Twitter then go to someone's profile, it clears the search out of the bar. I just tried it and it looked exactly like it does in the screenshot Anita posted.
The person who made this didn't even check their own claims, and I guess nobody else bothered to question them either. Stay skeptical, 4chan!
Regardless, that's no refutation of the rest of it.
-
The rest of it has no substance.
The most suspicious thing is that the person who took the screenshot was logged out of Twitter, and there are many possible reasons for that.
The fact that it's a throwaway account is irrelevant. Trolls make those too. The fact that it happened slightly before the person took a screenshot is irrelevant. If I look up people harassing @femfreq on Twitter, the most recent stuff is going to come up first and I'm going to be most likely to notice it. That's how Twitter works.
I have no idea what point the guy is making when he says the tweets are "planned out to never go over the character limit". That just means the person who wrote them was aware that Twitter had a character limit.
This is all ridiculously flimsy and shows why these "evidence" gatherers are terrible, whether on 4chan or Reddit or anywhere else. If something reinforces the mob's preconceptions, they accept it without scrutiny.
-
The rest of it has no substance.
The most suspicious thing is that the person who took the screenshot was logged out of Twitter, and there are many possible reasons for that.
The fact that it's a throwaway account is irrelevant. Trolls make those too. The fact that it happened slightly before the person took a screenshot is irrelevant. If I look up people harassing @femfreq on Twitter, the most recent stuff is going to come up first and I'm going to be most likely to notice it. That's how Twitter works.
I have no idea what point the guy is making when he says the tweets are "planned out to never go over the character limit". That just means the person who wrote them was aware that Twitter had a character limit.
This is all ridiculously flimsy and shows why these "evidence" gatherers are terrible, whether on 4chan or Reddit or anywhere else. If something reinforces the mob's preconceptions, they accept it without scrutiny.
I would like you to apply Occam's Razor to this situation.
What is the simplest explanation that explains all evidence presented?
You can attack the character of the people trying to bring these things to light all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that you are complicating something by inventing explanations for it.
-
What is the simplest explanation that explains all evidence presented?
Let me see... the simplest explanation of everything presented...
Some article makers, reviewers, and what have you either had relationships with people or patreoned and really didn't think much of it.
Some people found out and threw a ruckus and they became so unruly so inflammatory that the sites had to shut down the discussions because they were just being used as troll platforms.
Then a bunch of idiots jumped on the bandwagon and made what was simply "opps" into one giant mess.
But that is just me a partial misanthrope
-
What is the simplest explanation that explains all evidence presented?
Let me see... the simplest explanation of everything presented...
Some article makers, reviewers, and what have you either had relationships with people or patreoned and really didn't think much of it.
Some people found out and threw a ruckus and they became so unruly so inflammatory that the sites had to shut down the discussions because they were just being used as troll platforms.
Then a bunch of idiots jumped on the bandwagon and made what was simply "opps" into one giant mess.
But that is just me a partial misanthrope
That's ignoring what started the whole mess, specifically the suppression of TFYC by nearly everyone involved, as well as suppression of any information on the scandals following. It seems a bit more complicated, actually.
-
I would like you to apply Occam's Razor to this situation.
What is the simplest explanation that explains all evidence presented?
You can attack the character of the people trying to bring these things to light all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that you are complicating something by inventing explanations for it.
The simplest explanation is that someone was looking up Feminist Frequency harassment on Twitter while not logged in and took this and sent it to Anita.
In the post you quoted, I described some things as irrelevant. That's because they are. The only reason they're notable is that the dumb person who made your "evidence" picture willingly misinterpreted them as evidence to build a fake case against Anita. If they hadn't been used in that picture and you hadn't pressed me to dismiss the rest of the claims it made, I would not have mentioned them.
The only relevant argument your picture made was that the person who took the screenshot couldn't have gotten there through a search, but that was not based in fact. I refuted it initially because it was the only point that mattered. You asked me to refute the rest of the details. You do not get to claim I'm complicating things because I did that.
-
What is the simplest explanation that explains all evidence presented?
Let me see... the simplest explanation of everything presented...
Some article makers, reviewers, and what have you either had relationships with people or patreoned and really didn't think much of it.
Some people found out and threw a ruckus and they became so unruly so inflammatory that the sites had to shut down the discussions because they were just being used as troll platforms.
Then a bunch of idiots jumped on the bandwagon and made what was simply "opps" into one giant mess.
But that is just me a partial misanthrope
That's ignoring what started the whole mess, specifically the suppression of TFYC by nearly everyone involved, as well as suppression of any information on the scandals following. It seems a bit more complicated, actually.
"Seems more complicated" doesn't apply to "simplest explanation".
-
But that is just me a partial misanthrope
Nah, you pretty much hit the nail on the head, dead on and with little to no wasted effort. Cheers, neo.
-
Occam's razor doesn't really work that way..... It's simply a method of hypothesis selection, stating that you should pick the hypothesis with the least number of assumptions when examining something, not that that's the correct hypothesis, but just the best place to start.
-
Let me see... the simplest explanation of everything presented...
Some article makers, reviewers, and what have you either had relationships with people or patreoned and really didn't think much of it.
Some people found out and threw a ruckus and they became so unruly so inflammatory that the sites had to shut down the discussions because they were just being used as troll platforms.
Then a bunch of idiots jumped on the bandwagon and made what was simply "opps" into one giant mess.
But that is just me a partial misanthrope
Some journalists have had relationships with people they have written articles about. Note the word "journalist" in there. Not the simplest explanation because you assign a motive to the situation.
Second sentence is NOT the simplest explanation. You are making an assumption at the idea of something becoming a troll platform. Also, you are once again assigning a motive that is not in any evidence, making this not the simplest explanation.
Third sentence, not the simplest explanation. You are assuming these people are idiots.
Finally, you're IGNORING evidence. The direct suppression of threads, the deletion of any incriminating comments (after the point where they are found, which is a bit ridiculous) and the deridation of any opposite opinions.
Please learn Occam's Razor before trying to take the piss.
"Seems more complicated" doesn't apply to "simplest explanation".
Except you're ignoring evidence. Occam's Razor is the simplest explanation which explains all evidence presented.
The simplest explanation is that someone was looking up Feminist Frequency harassment on Twitter while not logged in and took this and sent it to Anita.
In the post you quoted, I described some things as irrelevant. That's because they are. The only reason they're notable is that the dumb person who made your "evidence" picture willingly misinterpreted them as evidence to build a fake case against Anita. If they hadn't been used in that picture and you hadn't pressed me to dismiss the rest of the claims it made, I would not have mentioned them.
The only relevant argument your picture made was that the person who took the screenshot couldn't have gotten there through a search, but that was not based in fact. I refuted it initially because it was the only point that mattered. You asked me to refute the rest of the details. You do not get to claim I'm complicating things because I did that.
So someone searched for @femfreq in a three minute window before taking a picture of the last tweet done by the account (no tweets after that mark), and managed to find this evidence despite the fact Twitter's search is weighted towards heavier posters? Okay.
Let me ask you a question, are you biased in this entire discussion?
-
Are you biased, magicmissile?
-
I think the answer we're going to end up at is everybody's biased.
Which leads nicely back to the topic this thread started on.
-
Given the two locked threads and where this one has decided to go, I don't see a reason to continue with this.