I also feel the need to point out the difference in censoring a product, versus censoring a person. I can feel fairly comfortable saying "Don't buy this product.", and still harbor no ill will to the person who created it (indeed, I often like other products that person has to offer). I'd hate to be caught alone with some of these SJW's, just because I hold a contrary opinion on a matter.

And I guess that's part of the problem too, IMO. It's like deciding to totally write off anything a person says or could reason, just due to one opinion. It's the same as if someone writes off someone else because they're a Democrat, or a Republican. Pro-Life or Pro-Choice. That's a hard line to draw in the sand to say "Disagree with me on one thing? Bam! No discussion with you is ever going to be worth it, ever again!"

Quote from: Alathon;795446To deal with the publishers control over reviewers, gamers can do a few things.  The most straightforward way would be for many of us to stop pre-ordering, stop buying at release.

Yeah, pre-ordering is, typically, a mug's game. Especially digital pre-orders; Steam is not going to sell out for a long time. But stores use pre-orders to estimate stock to order; I'll get back to this.

QuoteThis has never been a credible option before, but the organization GG is bringing could make this possible. If there were understood to be a two week window before many gamers would buy, that would give reviewers time to work.

No, this has always been a credible option, it's always been possible (It's what I usually tend to do; I'm sure I'm not alone). The issue is that the great majority of people don't care; sports fans want their new game so they can play with the new season content. Competitive players want their updates so they can start learning the new game. Open-world fans want a new place to run around like sociopaths in, MMO fans want those world firsts.

QuoteGame companies would hate hate hate this because it would fuck with their marketing, hopefully we could bargain them away from the practice of hardballing reviewers.  Game companies really like having this influence, but they don't need it, so I figure bargaining is possible.

Beware of unintended consequences.

* The first few weeks of sales, currently, are really important for sequel decisions. Now, for the megafranchises, the decisions were made years ago; I'm sure Activision and Ubisoft have the dates for the next few years of CoD or AC games already marked out (Right down to the announcements that the PC version will be delayed for reasons). Saint's Row, though? Borderlands? Titanfall? Bayonetta? Those are franchises that are on the bubble; a bad launch could sink them entirely (And has, in some cases).
* Retailers aren't going to want to get stuck with inventory that doesn't shift for two weeks, and retail has a lot of power (I'm still unsure how much of the backlash against the XBone's always, always online model was fueled by agent provoceteurs from retail chains). So they'll stock up more on the previous megahits...
* Which will be bad for the few remaining mid-tier franchises and developers, like your Saint's Row's or whatever, and very bad for totally new franchises to break into. If that's not going to sell, it's not going to get stocked, which will mean it won't sell... so it won't get a sequel. Now, regardless of whether you like a particular series or genre or not (I like SR, which is why I'm using it as an example) I think we can all agree that a market with more variety of games, catering to more tastes, is better than one with less, catering to fewer.
* And if a franchise doesn't sell, it's developers won't continue to be employed. The last generation of consoles has basically gutted the middle tier of games and developers (Increasing development costs, not-similarly-increasing sales revenues - the big headline figures mostly come from a few megahits); but, as we've seen with kickstarter, there's still a market for isometric RPG's, space exploration sims, adventure games. We'll get some good indie games out of it, absolutely, but... I miss the middle tier. They were always the most interesting in terms of concepts and gameplay.
* And fair enough, legitimitely bad developers should go bust... but developers don't set out to make bad games. Something like, say, a Frozen tie-in game, is never going to have mass appeal, never going to win "game of the year" or whatever. But it should still exist, there's still a market for it, some people are still going to enjoy it. Not every game needs to be a classic for the ages.

QuoteUntil such substantial changes happen, I think the best we can do is spend our time exploring the many, many amateur game reviewers.  Doing our due dilligence to find critics who do theirs.  Amateurs, or niche outlets like the one you mentioned, seem to me to be the wave of the immediate future.

We're in an interesting time right now, in that we've seen a couple of waves of respectable, relatively-free citizen journalists break through... but the majors are onto it now. They're not going to let another wave appear unless they're sure they are under control.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the state of games journalism - it's very rare that an entire new form of media, like games, is developed; it's a huge disservice to not see it reported on properly, or for people to try and limit what areas games should be allowed to cover (Which is more of an issue with gamer culture) - but it's a situation that gamers have allowed to develop for a very, very long time. It's not going to get fixed quickly.

Quote from: TristramEvans;795549I'm unaware of any feminist media critics besides radfems that focus on critiquing elements of geek entertainment. I'd go so far as to say the article of faith associated with Premise #2 is an aspect of radfem solely, not of equity feminism.

How many feminist media critics are you aware of?

Quote from: TristramEvans;795549I'm not seeing the distinction you're making there other than the method. The intent is the same, is it not? If they were in the position to ban it, do you not think that they would? It's only because they lack the authority that they are trying tactics such as exerting social pressure. If the ultimate goal has the same effect, I call it the same thing. "Calling for censorship" is the desire for censorship.

Feminists who ultimately wanted censorship would certainly have legal recourse. The US has Obscenity laws, which have been used to ban child porn, extremely abusive porn etc., and also block certain content from the internet in schools. If censorship is what feminists wanted, they would be calling for it.

Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;795712How many feminist media critics are you aware of?

Too many to list. Over the last twenty years? Probably upwards of 100, not including the entrenched communities of RPGnet, The Gail Simone boards, etc.

QuoteFeminists who ultimately wanted censorship would certainly have legal recourse. The US has Obscenity laws, which have been used to ban child porn, extremely abusive porn etc., and also block certain content from the internet in schools. If censorship is what feminists wanted, they would be calling for it.

lol. Obscenity laws hardly covers supposedly misogynistic videogame tropes, the "male gaze", or films that don't pass the Bechdel test. Are we even talking about the same group of people?

Quote from: TristramEvans;795714Too many to list. Over the last twenty years? Probably upwards of 100, not including the entrenched communities of RPGnet, The Gail Simone boards, etc.

OK, you said that you're unaware of any non-radfem media critics who've written about geek media. Did you miss all the pro/con feminist discussions about Buffy, for example? Are you suggesting that the anti-Buffy feminists ultimately wanted the show canceled?

Quote from: TristramEvans;795714lol. Obscenity laws hardly covers supposedly misogynistic videogame tropes, the "male gaze", or films that don't pass the Bechdel test. Are we even talking about the same group of people?

It's hard to judge exactly what group you're talking about, because you've switched the label from "gender feminists" to "radfems" meanwhile keeping the brush very wide and not naming any names. Arguing about people's secret, unspoken motives isn't exactly conducive to debate either.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;795666And I disagree. Laws are created and repealed because of how people think about a subject, and how people think about a subject is strongly influenced by how they feel about a subject.


Don't like something? Run a PR campaign to show how "evil" it is.

Now, people are free to say all kinds of nutty things, what bothers me is when a narrative gets traction because of feelings and overrides our critical thinking.

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

Very apt comparison to past temperance movements like the Prohibition. This is basically a temperance movement from the illiberal left.

Quote from: TristramEvans;795714lol. Obscenity laws hardly covers supposedly misogynistic videogame tropes, the "male gaze", or films that don't pass the Bechdel test. Are we even talking about the same group of people?

Clearly not, one might be talking about ALL feminists, and the other seem to be talking about the radfems, or thinking all feminists are radfems.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;795718Very apt comparison to past temperance movements like the Prohibition. This is basically a temperance movement from the illiberal left.

Well put.

Quote from: apparition13;795673Boycotts are intimidation. The South African boycotts weren't just a feel good policy, they were meant to hurt South Africa until it gave in to pressure. Hell, one of the reasons given for Japan's attack on the U.S. in 1941 was because the U.S. oil embargo was causing so much trouble that they thought they had to go for the Indonesian oil fields, which meant they also thought they had to take the U.S. Navy out.

Sure, boycotts can be considered economic intimidation. Just like if one company drives a hard bargain and will only agree to terms if extra concessions are made - that is economic intimidation. Or if a manager says that a worker will be fired unless her productivity is improved, that is economic intimidation.

People with money can use that money to get other people to do what they want, or to threaten that they won't pay any more. That's inherent in capitalism. If you don't like it, go live in a communist utopia - except that those don't exist.

Quote from: apparition13;795673The free marketplace of ideas only works if everyone respects it and defends it. If you're attacking something in an attempt to get it off the market, in other words if you're trying to make speech between two other people impossible, you aren't acting like someone who respects free speech or the free marketplace of ideas, you're acting like a censor.

Actually, it is possible for two people to speak to each other without there being a commercial product. If a particular game designer can't get anyone to commercially publish his game, that doesn't mean that his free speech is being violated. Everyone has the right to speak, but no one is guaranteed to be paid for their speech.

So - Anyone can freely speak for or against a commercial product. Anyone can freely make products that they try to put on the market. But no one is guaranteed to be paid for a particular market share.

I'll just say as a rule of thumb that if you have an opinion about what other people choose to create or consume that doesn't involve you in any way.

It might not necessarily make you a "censor" but it does make you an asshole.

Unfortunately, people tend to argue about the 'involve you in any way' part.

Quote from: Will;795745Unfortunately, people tend to argue about the 'involve you in any way' part.

Yeah, also insisting that other people's personal decisions about what they do in their own homes, with their own money, on their own time effects you and that therefore you are entitled to an opinion about also makes you an asshole.

Inserting themselves unwanted into other peoples private lives is one of the hallmarks of the asshole.

(General "you", just to be clear)

Quote from: jhkim;795741Sure, boycotts can be considered economic intimidation. Just like if one company drives a hard bargain and will only agree to terms if extra concessions are made - that is economic intimidation. Or if a manager says that a worker will be fired unless her productivity is improved, that is economic intimidation.

You just said

QuoteIf I do it through lying, harassment, and/or intimidation, then it is like an invalid and illegal win.

Does this mean you've changed your mind, and using intimidation to suppress free speech you don't like is fine and dandy, if it's economic intimidation?

QuotePeople with money can use that money to get other people to do what they want, or to threaten that they won't pay any more. That's inherent in capitalism. If you don't like it, go live in a communist utopia - except that those don't exist.

And this is a good thing?

QuoteActually, it is possible for two people to speak to each other without there being a commercial product. If a particular game designer can't get anyone to commercially publish his game, that doesn't mean that his free speech is being violated. Everyone has the right to speak, but no one is guaranteed to be paid for their speech.

So - Anyone can freely speak for or against a commercial product. Anyone can freely make products that they try to put on the market. But no one is guaranteed to be paid for a particular market share.

So therefore it's okay to try and prevent other people from speaking about something you don't like?

We aren't talking about not being able to publish, we're talking about stopping publication because someone else is throwing a screaming tantrum about your speech.

I don't like what you're saying (amongst yourselves): compatible with free speech.

I don't like what you're saying (amongst yourselves), so shut up: incompatible with free speech, doesn't get the point of free speech.

Quote from: Piestrio;795742I'll just say as a rule of thumb that if you have an opinion about what other people choose to create or consume that doesn't involve you in any way.

It might not necessarily make you a "censor" but it does make you an asshole.

I think Jazz sucks. That's meaningless by itself, it doesn't make me an asshole or a censor. If I seek out people who like jazz and harangue them about how much jazz sucks, that makes me an asshole. If I try and prevent people from playing and/or listening to Jazz, that makes me an asshole and a censor.

Having an opinion: whatever.

Expressing that opinion: whatever.

Interfering with expressions and audiences for that opinion: censor, illiberal, anti-free speech.

Quote from: apparition13;795755I think Jazz sucks. That's meaningless by itself, it doesn't make me an asshole or a censor. If I seek out people who like jazz and harangue them about how much jazz sucks, that makes me an asshole. If I try and prevent people from playing and/or listening to Jazz, that makes me an asshole and a censor.

Having an opinion: whatever.

Expressing that opinion: whatever.

Interfering with expressions and audiences for that opinion: censor, illiberal, anti-free speech.

It's not just having an opinion, it's having an opinion about someone else's private decisions that makes you an asshole.

"I don't like Jazz" = opinion

"People who make jazz should stop" = asshole

The thinking make you an asshole, expressing it just lets the rest of us know.

Or, to pick a real world example, Jazz encourages license and sex, and encourages animalistic behavior in n****rs. SO we should ban that filth.