I think there are legitimate fears that lead to a need for safe havens and rules to keep people from being screamed over.

Unfortunately, I think that ALSO requires a firm respect for the limits of such things and why it can get out of hand.

(Witness TBP, which I think started with a good idea and then went cancerous)

Here's a little light reading detailing, well, pretty much everything to do with Gamergate and the Journalism issue to date. I present, the Gamergate Dossier:

http://press.gamergate.me/dossier/

You can see that the problems related to gaming and journalism go back well before ZQ and others, so no, it's not all about her.

It's a bit of a slog, but I think it will help refute the "It's all about misogyny!!!!!" side of the debate.

Not that I expect the Anti-GG side to stop their drum-beating of course...

I also find it "funny" that merely posting that link on TBP would get someone banned. Nope, no echo chamber there...

Quote from: Will;798365I suspect Twitter, Facebook, and similar companies only care about Problems.
Their behavior is to minimize Problems, not be 'fair' or anything.

I think Twitter is too aptly named.

jg

Quote from: James Gillen;798445I think Twitter is too aptly named.

No kidding.  That's another reason why I'm so okay with the WAM thing.. I'm kinda hoping we can get a shift away from twitter as a medium.  It's a terrible medium for having conversations, for conveying anything of value.  It's also an awesome medium for dissing people, for trolling people, for scoring with one-liners, and for ditto cults.

Ditto Cult
noun
1.  A group of followers who parrot precisely their leaders soundbite fragments and attempt to carry out all communication in such fragments.

adjective
1.  What happens when a liberal grows up shit-scared of Rush Limbaugh.

On a lighter (but telling) note, I think this is fucking hilarious - but only if you have at least some exposure to Sarkeesian's "Tropes vs. Women" video series or the various video commentaries on said series:

http://youtu.be/JpAQDwsJriQ

Quote from: Werekoala;798547On a lighter (but telling) note, I think this is fucking hilarious - but only if you have at least some exposure to Sarkeesian's "Tropes vs. Women" video series or the various video commentaries on said series:

http://youtu.be/JpAQDwsJriQ

Ok, that won the thread.

Quote from: Werekoala;798424Here's a little light reading detailing, well, pretty much everything to do with Gamergate and the Journalism issue to date. I present, the Gamergate Dossier:

http://press.gamergate.me/dossier/

You can see that the problems related to gaming and journalism go back well before ZQ and others, so no, it's not all about her.

Interesting. Thanks - that's much more cogent than a lot of what I've seen on the topic. (Though as far as I've seen, all of the other anti-gamergaters I've talked to agree that there are problems of corruption and lack of professionalism in game journalism.)

One note about corruption - It seems like there are a number of complaints about journalists being biased if they donate to developers. That seems backwards to me. If the developer is paying the journalist - or if the journalist has a paying investment in the game doing well, then obviously that is corrupt. The journalist has monetary gain for giving good reviews. But if the journalist personally donates to a developer, how is that corrupt? It seems to me that it suggests that the journalist genuinely likes the developer's stuff.

Quote from: jhkim;798554It seems to me that it suggests that the journalist genuinely likes the developer's stuff.

My guess is that it would be seen as the writer being inherently biased towards the developer, and thus likely to highlight the positive, minimise the negative in regard to their work.

And that's a valid point, kinda. On the other hand, you wouldn't, for example, ask a writer who hates guns, war, deathmatches or FPS to write about Call of Duty; you'd give it to the shooter fan (And a not-uncommon complaint on games forums is "they gave it to someone who doesn't like #genre"), because they'd be better able to write about the game and tell shooter fans about it. The attempts at doing objective games writing seriously are just dull; the subjectivity is what makes the writing interesting, and as with every other creative medium, there isn't an "objective" scale on which games can be reviewed... we can say "game doesn't run, 0/10", but beyond that, anything goes.

* Actually, in today's review market, "game does not run, box only contained poisonous scorpion, CEO of company personally kicked me in the nuts and then fucked my dog" would be good for a 7/10.

Quote from: Ladybird;798586My guess is that it would be seen as the writer being inherently biased towards the developer, and thus likely to highlight the positive, minimise the negative in regard to their work.

And that's a valid point, kinda. On the other hand, you wouldn't, for example, ask a writer who hates guns, war, deathmatches or FPS to write about Call of Duty; you'd give it to the shooter fan (And a not-uncommon complaint on games forums is "they gave it to someone who doesn't like #genre"), because they'd be better able to write about the game and tell shooter fans about it. The attempts at doing objective games writing seriously are just dull; the subjectivity is what makes the writing interesting, and as with every other creative medium, there isn't an "objective" scale on which games can be reviewed... we can say "game doesn't run, 0/10", but beyond that, anything goes.

The last part makes it sound like you think the point is not valid.

I agree with the latter part. I don't expect my reviewer to be purely neutral and objective, so it's OK for them to dislike a person's work (and thus tend give them low marks) or like a person's work (and thus tend to give them high marks).

Quote from: TristramEvans;798551Ok, that won the thread.

That was quite funny.

Interestingly, one of the comments posted a link to a surprisingly scholarly critique of Feminist Frequency for intellectual dishonesty. I'm reading through it now, and so far it's quite impressive.

Well, hey, at least we can come together in joyous harmony about how much Twitter sucks.

What James and Alathon said.

Quote from: Ladybird;798586* Actually, in today's review market, "game does not run, box only contained poisonous scorpion, CEO of company personally kicked me in the nuts and then fucked my dog" would be good for a 7/10.

Today's?  Computer Gaming World would have given it the equivalent of a 6 at worst back in the day.

Big titles getting glowing reviews they don't deserve is hardly a new problem.

Quote from: jhkim;798554One note about corruption - It seems like there are a number of complaints about journalists being biased if they donate to developers. That seems backwards to me. If the developer is paying the journalist - or if the journalist has a paying investment in the game doing well, then obviously that is corrupt. The journalist has monetary gain for giving good reviews. But if the journalist personally donates to a developer, how is that corrupt? It seems to me that it suggests that the journalist genuinely likes the developer's stuff.

I would say that if a reviewer/journalist contributes to a developer's income, then yes, they either like their stuff or like the person. Either way, it would seem to indicate a bias in favor of the person, however, and if not "corruption", at the least it shows a bias in their favor. After all, if you're giving someone money, you likely predisposed to report on them favorably.

IMO, if their employer has no policy on the matter, journalists should be free to donate whatever cause they want.  If they do a story on that cause, though, disclosure is necessary.

One thing that has been raised a few times is that the reporting and industry of indie gaming is WAY smaller and more hobby-like than, say, AAA titles and the giants of the industry.

Expecting the same journalistic rigor of dealing with the White House, Enron reporting, and coverage of Blizzcon with things like Depression Quest and other small titles might not be really fair -- people are more likely to be rubbing elbows casually (or other bits).


You might not agree that standards should be different, of course, but at least there's some reason many people don't treat them the same.