Quote from: JonWake;792884Funny story about Amon Amarth. Back in Portland they played a show at the Hawthorne Theater where I was bouncing. I'm a tiny wee man, and it was a very stressful job that I don't miss that much. Anyway, a back of war skins showed up about 20 deep. Security begged our boss to not let them in, but he's the boss and didn't want the hassle.

Someone makes a phone call the the local SHARPS, who show up and proceed to beat the living piss out of the nazis. I can't say I enjoyed watching some trailer trash psycho get his teeth kicked into this throat, but I can't say I was shedding any tears.  

Anyway, back in the realm of stupid/tedious internet drama, some genius over on Polygon posted the teardown that Siskel and Ebert did of horror movies back in the 80's, how they were all some sublimated rebellion against female empowerment.  I know, right?

The current moral panic bearing a striking resemblance to previous moral panics aside, the point of the article was that Siskel and Ebert didn't have to deal with death threats.

Now, let's ignore the fact that I would bet my left nut that they got at least a few nasty threatening letters. But it's shocking how utterly oblivious this cat is to think that the ease of twitter and email might have a lot more to do with threats than the huge pain in the ass of assembling a letter from newspaper clippings and your own blood.

That teardown, Bee Tee Dubs, is still fucking loathed in Horror fan circles. It marked a point where horror fans were on the defensive for about a decade. Not only were you a Satan worshipping serial killer, you also hated women.

Recalling Ebert is very ironic, seeing how the same press lambasted him a few years before he kicked the bucket, when he said that games aren't art.

Quote from: JonWake;792941Yeah, she's a female POC, but she's also crazier than a bag of cats. It's like having a cut-rate Alex Jones on your side.

Id rather have her than Alex Jones. She could be batshit insane, but she is still mesmerizing. I know thats not very PC of me, but its the damned truth.

Quote from: JonWake;792942Sorry, mate a clarification: there were about 20 or 30 nazis there. West coast gangster slang vs. official military designation.

OK, thanks. & thanks to above for explaining SHARPS to me, Google was unhelpful unless I wanted to buy a pen.

I just heard a piece about "Gamergate" and the threats against that feminist video critic Anita (I'm not even going to try and spell her last name) on our local college radio station. First time I ever heard about this stuff offline. That was kind of a surreal.

I didn't know that "fighting words" was something of a legal term and that they were not protected under free speech in the U.S.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

It seems very nebulous, of course.

Quote from: Catelf;792890The GamerGate started up with Zoe, but the SJW tied it in with the misogyny that Sarkeesian was met with.

There is no question both Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian met with significant, blatant, vicious and threatening misogyny. There are so many reasons to disagree or dislike or even rail against either of these people without any regard to their gender.

It's like the GOP vs. Hillary and Obama. There is no reason to discuss gender or skin color when both individuals have plenty of actions deserving to be criticized, but when gender/color is brought up it only discredit the speakers and the speaker's audience.

Quote from: Catelf;792890Gamers like actual games, sex might seem to sell, but exaggerated sex and fanservice do not, it is just stupid.

I believe there is room for niche games that cater to specific tastes, including exaggerated sex, fanservice and themes that do not appeal to the mainstream. Even themes the mainstream may consider offensive. Even games I would never want to play.

I don't disagree with some on the anti-GG side who feel that mainstream games could do more to appeal to female gamers, perhaps without losing their current audience in the process. But the idea that all games must conform to the SJW ethos is problematic.

Quote from: Catelf;792890"Depression Quest"? Who'd like to play anything like that, really?

I could see potential value in such a program, but not as entertainment or game, but a therapy tool if it was done correctly with the input of actual health professionals.

In the ADHD therapy realm, several years ago a "game" came out where the kids were wired up to a pulse recording device and by managing their breathing, fidgeting and anxiety via the lowest possible pulse, they scored points they could turn in for prizes. I believe "game-ification" of education, therapy and more areas could be great tools in the future...IF done right.

Regarding broader issues of free speech and journalism here:

Quote from: TristramEvans;792936But only sound can prevent signal. If the ratio is your sole concern, then I refer back to what I said about the human condition. I just dont see how that can be a free speech issue as one cannot alter the ratio without denying someone free speech. Free speech includes the morons, the trolls, and the degenerates. Thats the price. There are times Ive struggled with it (see the Hatred thread), but in the end I think its worth the price.

I'm not an expert, but I believe that current law allows for public assembly without disruption. That is, an unpopular group can stage an assembly on public ground - and others can't just walk among them and hold up twice as many countering signs. Opposers could form a counter-rally nearby, but not in the middle of the minority group's assembly.

I think a similar principle should hold online. So people with an opposing viewpoint should be able to have their own view expressed elsewhere, but can't drown out people in an individual thread.

Online has some qualities like live assembly/protest, but also some qualities like print media. If I have written an offensive/inflammatory book, I can't have it printed for free - and most of the major publishers might refuse to print it. As long as I have some avenue to print and distribute it, though, then free speech is satisfied.

Likewise, for online, it shouldn't be required for any particular site to publish my comment in their thread. If my comment has only the same visibility as me standing on a physical street corner and/or my self-printed book, though, that is fine. There is no obligation that major sites not moderate my comment any more than major publishers publish my book.

More specifically to GamerGate:

Quote from: Spinachcat;793073I could see potential value in such a program, but not as entertainment or game, but a therapy tool if it was done correctly with the input of actual health professionals.

In the ADHD therapy realm, several years ago a "game" came out where the kids were wired up to a pulse recording device and by managing their breathing, fidgeting and anxiety via the lowest possible pulse, they scored points they could turn in for prizes. I believe "game-ification" of education, therapy and more areas could be great tools in the future...IF done right.

I'm sure there is potential for therapy tools - but there are tons of fictional works in all sorts of media that focus on mentally ill characters without being therapy. For example, I enjoyed the film of "A Beautiful Mind" as entertaining portrayal of a mentally ill character. The Depression Quest game is parallel to a short story about a character with depression, not a therapeutic tool.

Not everyone is going to like a short story about a character with depression, which is fine. Tastes differ. That doesn't mean that someone who likes a short story about someone with depression is part of a conspiracy, or is a danger to the latest action movie or fantasy novel.

Quote from: jhkim;793087Not everyone is going to like a short story about a character with depression, which is fine. Tastes differ. That doesn't mean that someone who likes a short story about someone with depression is part of a conspiracy, or is a danger to the latest action movie or fantasy novel.

I 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'.

What I'm seeing with GamerGate is a grass-roots rebellion against the journalist-media class, who seek to serve as arbiters of opinion. In a way I'm not sure the particular values of that class matter so much, except in influencing who rallies to them/is willing to accept their message.  But even a lot of people who share their political values seem to be against their attempt to control the information-flow. Obviously this rebellion makes the journalist-media class angry.

For the record and for what it's worth, I've played two games Zoe Quinn was involved in because GamerGate brought them to my attention: FEZ, which she did the Steam port QA for on behalf of the notorious Phil Fish, and Depression Quest.

FEZ (which I played on Steam) is an awesome game and everyone involved deserves applause for it and should be proud, regardless of what they are like as people. Part of the deeper GG narrative is that Phil Fish is an example of someone who undeservedly got attention for a game because corrupt game journalists, who liked the cut of his hipster SJW jib, were doing him favors. I dispute this.

Depression Quest is very meh on every level of evaluation: game, artistic statement, writing, piece of programming (what there is of it)*, you name it. At least it's free and really short, so it shouldn't take anyone too long to reach their own conclusions about it.

EDIT: *I'm not sure how to fairly evaluate this actually, now that I think about it. It's really basic, and feels "templaty", but gets the job done I guess? I'm not sure what more it really needed. Is "flair" even appropriate for a game about depression?

Actually, from what I've seen, everyone agrees Phil Fish made an awesome game with FEZ. The problem was he's taken forever to follow up on it, which rings of "one-hit wonder".

Quote from: S'mon;793118I 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'.

Can you name some people who are in this conspiracy? It seems to me that given that the problem is journalistic ethics, the ones in the spotlight ought to be unethical journalists. However, instead the only name I am hearing is designer Zoe Quinn.

I understand that Eron Gjoni claimed that Quinn had a relationship with game journalist Nathan Grayson. However, as far as I know, Grayson has not reviewed any of Quinn's games. Is your assertion that Grayson did review her game? Or is it that other journalists also had an undisclosed with Quinn and gave her game reviews? Or is it that Grayson used unethical persuasion of fellow journalists on behalf of Quinn?

Quote from: S'mon;793118What I'm seeing with GamerGate is a grass-roots rebellion against the journalist-media class, who seek to serve as arbiters of opinion. In a way I'm not sure the particular values of that class matter so much, except in influencing who rallies to them/is willing to accept their message.  But even a lot of people who share their political values seem to be against their attempt to control the information-flow. Obviously this rebellion makes the journalist-media class angry.

In my experience, it is normal for reviewers to push for works that are different than the most popular works. For example, movie reviewers tend to promote little art films even though audiences are most after Transformers and Titanic and such. Is this what you mean by seeking to serve as arbiters of opinion?

I'm not sure what you mean by attempting to control the information-flow. Do you mean that they are trying to control simply by publishing and promoting popular websites like Kotaku? Or do you mean that they are engaged in unethical means of sabotaging other information flow? If the latter, I'd like to hear more about that.

Grayson did not "review" Depression Quest, but he certainly gave it favorable coverage. He posted two articles about Greenlight, out of 50 games, he mentioned only three (DQ was one mentioned), used screenshots of DQ as the only graphic in both articles, and generally used DQ as an example of "good" indie games (praising it both for it's subject matter, but also as a technical marvel, which it is not).

On the question of "gaming journalists" actively colluding to control the narrative:
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/17/Exposed-the-secret-mailing-list-of-the-gaming-journalism-elite

I'll also note, most of these "private discussions" happened about 10 days before over a dozen articles were blitzed out over 24 hours, decrying "Gamers are dead". Once they realized censorship was not going to work, they jumped straight to character assassination.

EDIT: I'll also note, GamerGate has not been about Zoe Quinn for quite a while. People keep trying to re-insert her, to fuel the misogyny charges (yet, they're ok with enabling an emotionally abusive woman, who allegedly sleeps with multiple partners without benefit of protection). It bad enough that the pro-GG side has re-dubbed her "Literally Who?" (LW), so as not to signal boost her professional victimhood.

Quote from: Novastar;793200Grayson did not "review" Depression Quest, but he certainly gave it favorable coverage. He posted two articles about Greenlight, out of 50 games, he mentioned only three (DQ was one mentioned), used screenshots of DQ as the only graphic in both articles, and generally used DQ as an example of "good" indie games (praising it both for it's subject matter, but also as a technical marvel, which it is not).

OK, looking that up, I can see posts by Grayson fitting that in January and February, 2-3 months prior to Grayson's alleged relationship. Do you believe that he had a conflict of interest at the time of the coverage that he should have revealed? Or did he post later coverage after there was a conflict of interest?

Quote from: Novastar;793200On the question of "gaming journalists" actively colluding to control the narrative:
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/17/Exposed-the-secret-mailing-list-of-the-gaming-journalism-elite

I'll also note, most of these "private discussions" happened about 10 days before over a dozen articles were blitzed out over 24 hours, decrying "Gamers are dead". Once they realized censorship was not going to work, they jumped straight to character assassination.

EDIT: I'll also note, GamerGate has not been about Zoe Quinn for quite a while. People keep trying to re-insert her, to fuel the misogyny charges (yet, they're ok with enabling an emotionally abusive woman, who allegedly sleeps with multiple partners without benefit of protection). It bad enough that the pro-GG side has re-dubbed her "Literally Who?" (LW), so as not to signal boost her professional victimhood.

Novastar - you yourself brought up Quinn on post #16 in this thread - comparing her to Richard Nixon - as well as your comments about her quoted above.  She has been mentioned by a number of others in this thread as well. Personally, I would be glad to drop any discussion of people's personal lives and stick to what our personal positions on issues are.

Regarding collusion - I don't think there is any expectation that journalists shouldn't talk among themselves about what they think and write. Publishers can and should make choices about what they are going to cover in order to further their business. I don't think journalists can or should pretend to be "fair and balanced". They have their opinions like anyone else, and the key is mainly to be honest about those.

Things that cross the line would be if journalists are pressured to lie or misrepresent, or to prevent others being heard who represent others. As far as I can see from your link, the supposedly colluding journalists in question genuinely believed in what they were writing. I haven't read their coverage to tell if they lied about their subjects or themselves - if so that would be an ethical issue. But simply talking among themselves isn't unethical.

Following up on something from the James Desborough thread (on the Pundit's Forum):

Quote from: Warthur;793186Here is the bottom line: GamerGate is a leaderless movement. This has many upsides, but one big downside, and that is that if a significant enough subfaction of GamerGate wants to make it about hate and harassment, then that's what GamerGate is going to be in part about, and precisely because the movement has no leadership or central hub you can't actually distance GamerGate from its most toxic members. They each as individuals have just as much ability to define what the movement is about as you do, and the more 4chan trolls and MRA idiots they convince to climb onto their bandwagon the more momentum they can get behind their vision of the thing.

I agree with this, and I think it's an important point.

If I post on GamerGate, I could say "I identify with GamerGate, and I am genuinely interested in game journalist ethics, and I have not participated in or approved of personal attacks on women designers." However, I couldn't necessarily say that GamerGate is really about what I think, and not about what various trolls think.

This is what I said earlier. If there were some sort of defining GamerGate statement or post, I could agree or disagree with exactly what was said there. As it stands, though, it seems to me that GamerGate is just a nebulous statement of identity politics. I have no idea what I am saying by claiming that I am pro-GamerGate or anti-GamerGate.

There's also an article on 3/31/14, about the failed/torpedo'd? Game_Jam, that ends with Zoe setting up her own Rebel Game Jam (with contributions going directly into her bank account). Not about Depression Quest, but positive coverage all the same.

And yes, I mentioned her in regards to an article she wrote for Cracked; even in the best of circumstances, I don't think someone being accused of ethical failures is going to write an unbiased article about their accusers.

Did you actually read what was in the article?
They actively censored any discussion, on any of their media. Ben Kuchera heavily leaned on others to censor any talk, even on discussion forums. Kyle Orland wanted to get her a "Get Well" gift! Senior Editors basically let it be known, they wouldn't accept a narrative other than the one they perpetuated.

Are you really alright with only one view, only one, being presented by the press?

Also remember, this is not a list amongst peers or even fellow journalists in a publication; these are supposedly competing magazines, colluding to provide a single frame of reference.

It's the difference between Rosa Parks being "A Call for Civil Rights", rather than "Uppity woman gets kicked off bus".