Yeah it did started with whatshername, but it would had died out if it wasn't for the fact that she tried to censor MundaneMatt's youtube video.  That got people to notice, but even then it was a trinkle compared to the what the "jounalists" plan to do next.  When the gamers are dead headlines showed up the gamergate hashtag was born and the number of people who supported exploded in population.

If the journalists had done nothing, then gamergate wouldn't be so big.  If whatshername let the video go off without censoring, then gamergate would had died in its womb.

Quote from: markfitz;797745Woah! Since when is sleeping with a bunch of people a shitty thing to do?

When your cheating on the person your dating.  That goes for both men and women.  Still like I said whatshername is not even important in this internet wide discussion.

Quote from: markfitz;797745Woah! Since when is sleeping with a bunch of people a shitty thing to do?

When sex is being bartered for good reviews, as was alleged.

Quote from: markfitz;797745Woah! Since when is sleeping with a bunch of people a shitty thing to do?

If everyone is cool with it, it's cool.

In this instance, it was most assuredly not cool.

Quote from: Snowman0147;797748Yeah it did started with Zoe Quinn, but it would had died out if it wasn't for the fact that she tried to censor MundaneMatt's youtube video.

Maybe. You might be right!

But there are bigger issues - like how the major publishers use the same tactics to quash criticism of their games, which I think is a bigger problem for gamers-as-consumers.

Quote from: Werekoala;797719IMO, if the sudden posting of "anti-gamer" articles hadn't happened on the same day, then this whole thing would have likely lost steam by now. (...) I'm not saying the articles shouldn't have been published, or might not have had some valid points, I'm saying that sudden burst of essentially the same party-line being posted all at once made borderline-GG supporters sit up, take notice, and start getting involved.

The decision to attempt a mass-censorship campaign to prevent anyone from discussing the cluster of issues revolving around Zoe Quinn's inappropriate relationships with members of the press (both sexual and otherwise) was also an important screw-up.

But there were still people willing to dismiss that mass-censorship campaign as merely coincidental and not part of a deliberate collusion between the media corporations. (Even when the people involved in coordinating the mass-censorship campaign were discussing it publicly on Twitter.)

But then the media organizations under assault decided to double down on their collusion by coordinating a propaganda campaign.

Quote from: Ladybird;797755But there are bigger issues - like how the major publishers use the same tactics to quash criticism of their games, which I think is a bigger problem for gamers-as-consumers.

We've got surprisingly good signs from IGN, at least they're willing to talk the talk.  That's not proof they'll actually deal, of course, but I'm willing to suspend distrust on continued proof of not-awful conduct.

In lighter news, #gamergate the faux music video.

Quote from: jhkim;797626For example, earlier, Novastar and S'Mon had argued in favor of the original accusations against Zoe Quinn that started the tag.

I don't think I can possibly have 'argued in favour of them', I never claimed to know enough to do that; at most I repeated the allegations.

Also I am not a GamerGater - I don't play video games (except the free version of ADOM) - and you shouldn't take anything I say as representing their side. I know very little about the whole thing.

Quote from: Will;7965754chan is involved in #gamergate...

In pretty much the exact same way that theRPGsite and the English language are "involved" in #gamergate.

Quote from: S'mon;797789I don't think I can possibly have 'argued in favour of them', I never claimed to know enough to do that; at most I repeated the allegations.

Also I am not a GamerGater - I don't play video games (except the free version of ADOM) - and you shouldn't take anything I say as representing their side. I know very little about the whole thing.

I'm thinking of when you said this in Post #218

Quote from: S'MonI think the conspiracy was among the game journalists who pushed her 'game', although I suppose maybe having sex with her caused them to genuinely like her 'game'.

This became more relevant later when ArrozConLeche stated in Post #454

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794399The point being that no one had ever mentioned Literally Who's sex life or implied a belief that she exchanged sexual favors for positive reviews. So Will's initial charge that GG and it's sympathizers are a hate group is clearly bunk. So is his attempt at pretending that what you posted is somehow representative of everyone else here or in the GG side generally.

To S’Mon - Yes, you repeated the allegations. However, the allegations are blatantly false and slanderous, and repeating them is not OK.

The only game journalist that there is evidence she had a relationship with was Nathan Grayson. He never reviewed her game. He did give it positive mention in his blog - but he did so before they were alleged to have been in a relationship (back in January and February). As Eron Gjoni grudgingly clarified in his exposure of her private life, ”To be clear, if there was any conflict of interest between Zoe and Nathan regarding coverage of Depression Quest prior to April, I have no evidence to imply that it was sexual in nature.” No one has produced any evidence of her having a relationship with any game journalist other than Grayson. And all of this was information that has been available since Eron Gjoni’s first post.


To other recent posters on this topic:

Quote from: jeff37923;797753When sex is being bartered for good reviews, as was alleged.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;797760The decision to attempt a mass-censorship campaign to prevent anyone from discussing the cluster of issues revolving around Zoe Quinn's inappropriate relationships with members of the press (both sexual and otherwise) was also an important screw-up.

But there were still people willing to dismiss that mass-censorship campaign as merely coincidental and not part of a deliberate collusion between the media corporations.

To jeff37923 and Justin - are you asserting that Zoe Quinn bartered sex for good reviews, or that there is good reason to discuss this as a possibility?

I will say this, I can understand why the SJWs immediately dismiss anybody who identifies with the hashtag #gamergate, since I tend to immediately dismiss anything dealing with hashtags or Twitter in general.  

JG

Quote from: Snowman0147;797748When the gamers are dead headlines showed up the gamergate hashtag was born and the number of people who supported exploded in population.

The hashtag predates the articles, although certainly the articles poured gasoline on the fire.  But Adam Baldwin first used it when linking to youtube videos by Aristocrat that discussed Quinn, Grayson, and collusion, before Gjoni clarified the timeline.

Looking at those vids, it's not surprising GamerGate is all over the place in terms of goals and participants.  There's something for everyone there.  It's mainly about collusion in games journalism, but it's pretty contemptuous of Quinn.  A reasonable person could say, "I don't agree with everything this guy says, but he has a point about games journalism."  While the trolls would see the same thing and say, "Yeah, fuck that slut!"

Quote from: Iosue;797836The hashtag predates the articles, although certainly the articles poured gasoline on the fire.  But Adam Baldwin first used it when linking to youtube videos by Aristocrat that discussed Quinn, Grayson, and collusion, before Gjoni clarified the timeline.

Heh, googled that and got Gilbert Godfried telling The Aristocrats joke.

Quote from: jhkim;797808To jeff37923 and Justin - are you asserting that Zoe Quinn bartered sex for good reviews, or that there is good reason to discuss this as a possibility?

Note that I was specifically talking about the censorship of people talking about these things. Which, at the time the censorship was taking place (within 48 hours of the relationship between Quinn and Grayson beind made public), was, IMO, an absolutely reasonable discussion to be having.

Looking at the facts as they exist today:

Re: Reviews. Although it was widely misreported that Grayson had written a review of Quinn's game, it's clear at this point that Grayson only wrote articles providing positive publicity for Quinn and her game (not a full review).

Re: The ethical consequences of their relationship. The personal ethics are obviously reprehensible, but also largely irrelevant to anyone not personally involved with these people. The journalistic ethics depend largely on whether or not you accept Grayson's claim that their sexual relationship didn't start until a few weeks after the last of his articles was written.

Re: The wider issue of Zoe Quinn's relationships with members of the press. It's pretty much undisputed that Zoe Quinn formed close friendships with members of the gaming press and then used those connections to push narratives that were useful to her: Whether that was accusing the Wizardchan messageboard of a harrassment campaign in order to generate free publicity for her game or attacking organizations that were in competition with her own business plans.

You don't have to have sex with a reporter in order for your relationship with them to be inappropriate and unethical. For example, nobody accused the reporter at the center of the #pointergate scandal of sleeping with Minneapolis police officers, but that doesn't change the problematic aspects of what he did.

Quote from: jhkim;797808To jeff37923 and Justin - are you asserting that Zoe Quinn bartered sex for good reviews, or that there is good reason to discuss this as a possibility?

Go look at my quote again and then tell us what part of "as was alleged" you do not understand.

Quote from: jhkim;797626Incidentally, Novastar is still on this thread. Have you changed your mind at all about those original charges about Zoe Quinn and Depression Quest?

That Nathan Grayson provided positive coverage (for some reason, people keep trying to change that into positive reviews, which would be odd since I don't believe Kotaku DOES reviews) of ZQ and DQ?

Yes, I think Grayson did. On a game he's personally thanked in the credits for, and credited as a Beta Tester as well.

Is he a-shilling for all he's worth? No. But he does have an improper relationship with the subject of his reporting. End of line.

Whether ZQ slept with one guy, five guys, or five hundred guys, I really couldn't give a rat's ass. Sleep with whomever you want to, sister.

I do think the allegation she did so without using protection is skeezy, in light of STD's and "informed consent" of your partners, but I'll also point out it's only one guys' allegation, and ultimately a private matter.

I also think it's reprehensible to sleep with a married man, but again, that's a personal issue, no cause of mine. I cannot fathom how doing so when they are your Boss, cannot lead to serious repercussions for both of them in the company (including termination of one or both).

Do I think ZQ needs to be publicly shamed, prosecuted, or stoned to death in the streets? Of course not! She's a young woman who's just made some very bad choices. But she needs to face up to the consequences of those actions too.

Much more importantly, the people willing to TAKE a bribe, whether it is for monetary, sexual, or physical gain, need to be taken to task.

IMO, at this point, ZQ is irrelevant; she is the primer that lit the charge that blew GamerGate open. The people actually guilty of malfeasance, are desperately trying to USE her to make a narrative of misogyny to deflect inquiry. For her part, she is desperately trying to salvage a reputation that has been savaged by scandal.