Please don't go calling people racist, misogynists, or any combination therein. Don't start throwing around words like "white Knight" or SJW, these words are at this point used in a derogatory manner regarding this debate. You can discuss that these terms exist, but do not attribute them to any individual user or group of users on this website.
Try to have a serious discussion about the topic at hand without resorting to personal attacks and we will all be the better for it. Breaking this rule will result in an automatic temp ban the length of which will depend on the comment you make.
This thread started not so bad. It is getting worse. If you want to have this discussion on TL be respectful of your fellow users, we all live in the same house.
On October 17 2014 04:26 valium wrote: It wasn't just one article, there were more than 10 similar articles on various other sites all released on the same day. Not just kotaku and RPS, those were just 2 examples, it was a mass of game news sites. Later it turns out the "conspiracy theory" of collusion was factual with the existence of gamejournopros. Also with ties to a PR firm Silverstring media.
But why are you calling it an attack on gamers? Kotaku was just linking to other articles that were pretty relevant given the discussions at the time. Same for RPS. And I think you're not characterizing the articles in question correctly by calling them an "attack on gamers". As I understood them they argued that the idea of a "gamer" as an out-of-the-mainstream misunderstood teenager, basically the 90s conception, is no longer relevant. Now that's a position I don't actually agree with it ("Gamers are over, that's why they're so mad" is pretty much in contradiction with itself as far as I'm concerned) but it's an opinion piece! One that was spread widely and disseminated and discussed and agreed with and disagreed with. And then the sites that did that continued reporting on games and writing things for gaming enthusiasts. Why would you be angry at that? What's wrong with publishing articles you don't agree with?
On October 17 2014 04:26 valium wrote: Before the Zoe Quinn thing, there were also articles about "white males are the lowest common denominator," and "male gamers are not your target audience." These all added to the boiling point of the mass censorship of any discussion of Zoe Quinn blowing the top of the issue.
I would appreciate some links. I don't know what articles you're referring to.
ETA: As for gamejournopros, where's the smoking gun? I saw the news, I read the mails. I didn't see a "let's kick off this anti-gamer campaign" signal in there. What I saw was people discussing what was happening, and people proposing how to handle it and then other people disagreeing with that and then... nothing, really. Can you elaborate how the e-mails point at a wider anti-gamer initiative?
On October 17 2014 04:57 ROOTiaguz wrote: yea, links is what I was asking for. wtf's gamejournospros
Mailing list for game industry journalists. Breitbart published a sensationalist article on it but I'd recommend scrolling through the actual mails and forming your own opinion (though it's badly formatted).
holy shit this is enormous. Point out the part that shows RPS is corrupt or something please.
I'm also confused at the idea that RPS hates gamers. Like what is gamer if not "person who devotes a lot of time playing/thinking/enjoying games. Has a passion for games", and how can RPS be said to hate these people when it's made up of them.
I don't think you understand their idea of "handling it" is to ruin the image of their critics before they ruin theirs. And yes, colluding to generalize gamers as male, sexist, and misogynist is smearing and shady as hell. Why not address the issue head on? How was that in any way supposed to handle it diplomatically or reasonably?
You can frame it as an opinion piece, but when you get you and your friends all get together to make fun of the nerdy kid because he tattled on you... That's kindergarten shit.
And considering this is the opinion of Gawker (who owns Kotaku) I don't find it hard to believe there's an anti-gamer notion at all. http://i.imgur.com/6ssdX8x.jpg (also at LEAST two other gawker higher ups that agree with this sentiment)
As someone who was naive enough to side against #Gamergate at the beginning, allow me to explain why there's simply too much to ignore to me:
1: The blatant nepotism, corruption, and agenda pushing/blackballing is suppressing freedom of expression and that has no place in an art form. They've been holding the entire western gaming world back with their personal baggage.
2: EVEN IF you can't find issue with what they did there, colluding to collectively silence and refuse anyone to have a dissenting view is crazy. Neogaf, Reddit, even 4chan mass banned people who dared bring up their concerns due to connections with Gawker. I mean 4chan is a site where you can post decapitations and be racist as hell, but discussion on journalistic ethics? Oh you're out of here you little troublemaker!
3: All this "sexism" "misogyny" and crap trying to be smeared onto them as a whole is laughable. It's pure bigotry, it's what the people do with terrorists and muslims, homophobes and christians, rapists and men! There's simply no way people actually concerned with equality, feminism, and ethics, or familiar with the aspects of marginalization would resort to this unless they were just immersed in their own self-protection, developing a narrative out of nothing to protect themselves. It's doubly annoying when they're getting plenty of danger too! Syringes tto homes, death threats, jobs being forced to fire supporters.
The thing I don't get about all of this is this...
I've read all of the evidence and all of the information and claims of the extreme stuff being fringe. Even if I just accept all of it at face value and thinking about it I have decided that I still want to read Gamasutra and RPS (and to a lesser extent Kotaku). So my question is who the hell are you [gamergate and its members] to try and take that away from me? You are not engaging me or attempting to change my mind on what constitutes a good site or proper journalism. You trying to circumvent people's ability to vote with their traffic by going straight to advertisers and subverting sites that way. By going to advertisers you are saying that a site is so toxic that readers who make an informed choice to read said site are SO WRONG that you need to step in and prevent it. That you have the authority and knowledge to determine defacto that a site is beyond just being uninteresting or unoriginal that the readers of said site must be stopped by your force of will. It's been decided by you that you cannot engage said readers or attempt to educate them, but rather you must go and appeal to a higher power because the site is causing a distressing amount of harm. My enjoyment of a site, even knowing its potential flaws or misdoings, is not something I am allowed to have based on your opinion of a website and that I am not thoughtful enough to make the correct choices on my own so you have to do it for me.
So again I ask who the hell are you to tell me that? Who the hell are you to say I can't evaluate the journalism on a website and decide if it's worth my readership?
On October 17 2014 05:28 Logo wrote: The thing I don't get about all of this is this...
I've read all of the evidence and all of the information and claims of the extreme stuff being fringe. Even if I just accept all of it at face value and thinking about it I have decided that I still want to read Gamasutra and RPS (and to a lesser extent Kotaku). So my question is who the hell are you [gamergate and its members] to try and take that away from me? You are not engaging me or attempting to change my mind on what constitutes a good site or proper journalism. You trying to circumvent people's ability to vote with their traffic by going straight to advertisers and subverting sites that way. By going to advertisers you are saying that a site is so toxic that readers who make an informed choice to read said site are SO WRONG that you need to step in and prevent it. That you have the authority and knowledge to determine defacto that a site is beyond just being uninteresting or unoriginal that the readers of said site must be stopped by your force of will. It's been decided by you that you cannot engage said readers or attempt to educate them, but rather you must go and appeal to a higher power because the site is causing a distressing amount of harm. My enjoyment of a site, even knowing its potential flaws or misdoings, is not something I am allowed to have based on your opinion of a website and that I am not thoughtful enough to make the correct choices on my own so you have to do it for me.
So again I ask who the hell are you to tell me that? Who the hell are you to say I can't evaluate the journalism on a website and decide if it's worth my readership?
You do know you can contact the advertisers too? And they can still do their articles. Their reviews, their editorials. You seem to be under the impression this is censorship, it isn't. It's simply taking our business and the power that came with it away from them so we can invest it into what we actually want.
It's been decided by you that you cannot engage said readers or attempt to educate them, but rather you must go and appeal to a higher power because the site is causing a distressing amount of harm.
You're full of crap lmao. We tried to discuss this, in their comments, on major gaming discussion platforms. We were silenced and ignored instantly. It's not the consumer revolt's fault the lines of communication were cut at ll.
Edit: Gamergate in a nutshell if it hasnt already been posted
On October 17 2014 05:34 Dunnobro wrote: You're full of crap lmao. We tried to discuss this, in their comments, on major gaming discussion platforms. We were silenced and ignored instantly. It's not the consumer revolt's fault the lines of communication were cut at ll.
Random websites owe you no platform for free speech that they don't wish to give. That does not mean you cannot voice your opinions as the movement has clearly demonstrated through Twitter and other platforms. If you were ignored you were ignored because people disagree with you. There is no question about whether or not gamergate is being heard. It's just in the face of being ignored they have decided they should start trying to make decisions for other people and have gone to the advertisers. It's ridiculous to expect people to have to actively defend a website they visit in some sort of shouting match to advertisers. I voice my support to advertisers every time I visit the site, I'm not going to threaten boycotts or disapproval as some strong arm tactic to get people to advertise on websites I like, that's an extreme and totally reprehensible action.
I also never called contacting the advertisers censorship, it's not. It's attempting to force people into an action by circumventing the people that disagree with you. Even if I contact advertisers I am not dealing directly with the people who are opposing my viewpoint, I am being forced to appeal to a third party.
On October 17 2014 05:34 Dunnobro wrote: You're full of crap lmao. We tried to discuss this, in their comments, on major gaming discussion platforms. We were silenced and ignored instantly. It's not the consumer revolt's fault the lines of communication were cut at ll.
Random websites owe you no platform for free speech that they don't wish to give. That does not mean you cannot voice your opinions as the movement has clearly demonstrated through Twitter and other platforms. If you were ignored you were ignored because people disagree with you. There is no question about whether or not gamergate is being heard. It's just in the face of being ignored they have decided they should start trying to make decisions for other people and have gone to the advertisers. It's ridiculous to expect people to have to actively defend a website they visit in some sort of shouting match to advertisers.
Random websites are the very sites we were complaining about? What? And twitter is in no way conducive to the debate or discussion environment.
And no, we weren't just ignored. WE WERE SILENCED. DISALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT IT. And when the sites in question who did the censoring all have ties to the ones we were criticizing, what are we supposed to think? If you don't want to talk about how you maybe did something wrong, it's likely cause you did. So we'll go over your heads.
They brought it on themselves, don't blame us for not caving. And again, we're not making anyone's decision for them. Their power directly comes from their consumers, we're their consumers. All that's happening is we're taking back the power we gave by consuming their product.
You act like a consumer boycott is in any way unethical. Do you not support capitalism, the free market? Because regardless of your answer that's what we are.
Overall you're placing the blame on the consumers. And that's the mistake they made.
On October 17 2014 05:22 Dunnobro wrote: I don't think you understand their idea of "handling it" is to ruin the image of their critics before they ruin theirs. And yes, colluding to generalize gamers as male, sexist, and misogynist is smearing and shady as hell. Why not address the issue head on? How was that in any way supposed to handle it diplomatically or reasonably?
You can frame it as an opinion piece, but when you get you and your friends all get together to make fun of the nerdy kid because he tattled on you... That's kindergarten shit.
That's a false analogy. What happened was that two high-profile writers published an article with the premise that the gamer identity wasn't relevant anymore (if there are more that are not somehow a reaction to these, let me know, I haven't been able to find a good list). These tied in to a wider discussion (GamerGate). So other sites reported on it and added their own thoughts. Some agreed. Some didn't, or only partly, or added nuances. I think that's not bullying, but simply discussing the current issues in the gamer community.
And considering this is the opinion of Gawker (who owns Kotaku) I don't find it hard to believe there's an anti-gamer notion at all. http://i.imgur.com/6ssdX8x.jpg (also at LEAST two other gawker higher ups that agree with this sentiment)
Seems a perfectly reasonable article to me. Why is explaining the concept of "privilege" to an audience that hears the word often but (to me) often seems to have a flawed conception of it a bad thing?
I don't know what to do with that Twitter screenshot. I'm missing the context. I'm annoyed by the reliance of everyone involved in this debate on twitter screenshots, which rob tweets (fragmentary by nature) of any context and are super easy to fake. Not saying this is fake, but it's very hard to check if screenshots are real. I wish people would use Webcite or ArchiveToday for things like this.
On October 17 2014 05:22 Dunnobro wrote: As someone who was naive enough to side against #Gamergate at the beginning, allow me to explain why there's simply too much to ignore to me:
1: The blatant nepotism, corruption, and agenda pushing/blackballing is suppressing freedom of expression and that has no place in an art form. They've been holding the entire western gaming world back with their personal baggage.
2: EVEN IF you can't find issue with what they did there, colluding to collectively silence and refuse anyone to have a dissenting view is crazy. Neogaf, Reddit, even 4chan mass banned people who dared bring up their concerns due to connections with Gawker. I mean 4chan is a site where you can post decapitations and be racist as hell, but discussion on journalistic ethics? Oh you're out of here you little troublemaker!
3: All this "sexism" "misogyny" and crap trying to be smeared onto them as a whole is laughable. It's pure bigotry, it's what the people do with terrorists and muslims, homophobes and christians, rapists and men! There's simply no way people actually concerned with equality, feminism, and ethics, or familiar with the aspects of marginalization would resort to this unless they were just immersed in their own self-protection, developing a narrative out of nothing to protect themselves. It's doubly annoying when they're getting plenty of danger too! Syringes tto homes, death threats, jobs being forced to fire supporters.
1. I don't know what to do with this. I've not seen any convincing evidence of endemic corruption or nepotism. I agree that the relation between press and publishers should be examined and that there's room for improvement. I'm happy that some sites are taking steps to improve things on that front. But "holding back the entire western gaming world"? Please. This is exaggerating things enormously.
2. It sounds really unlikely to me that Gawker is so powerful that they have editorial control over NeoGAF, Reddit and 4chan (as for Reddit, why is /r/kotakuinaction still going strong?). What I think happened is that admins/mods thought the whole doxxing and slandering going on was not good to have on their boards, and got triggerhappy with regards to the topic.
On October 17 2014 05:34 Dunnobro wrote: You're full of crap lmao. We tried to discuss this, in their comments, on major gaming discussion platforms. We were silenced and ignored instantly. It's not the consumer revolt's fault the lines of communication were cut at ll.
Random websites owe you no platform for free speech that they don't wish to give. That does not mean you cannot voice your opinions as the movement has clearly demonstrated through Twitter and other platforms. If you were ignored you were ignored because people disagree with you. There is no question about whether or not gamergate is being heard. It's just in the face of being ignored they have decided they should start trying to make decisions for other people and have gone to the advertisers. It's ridiculous to expect people to have to actively defend a website they visit in some sort of shouting match to advertisers.
Random websites are the very sites we were complaining about? What? And twitter is in no way conducive to the debate or discussion environment.
And no, we weren't just ignored. WE WERE SILENCED. DISALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT IT. And when the sites in question who did the censoring all have ties to the ones we were criticizing, what are we supposed to think? If you don't want to talk, fine. We'll go over your heads.
They brought it on themselves, don't blame us for not caving. And again, we're not making anyone's decision for them. Their power directly comes from their consumers, we're their consumers. All that's happening is we're taking back the power we gave by consuming their product.
You act like a consumer boycott is in any way unethical. Do you not support capitalism, the free market? Because regardless of your answer that's what we are.
You're attempting to use your influence over a third party to exert influence over something you have problems with. It's a serious action, you are quite literally saying that no one should have access to something regardless of how they feel about that thing. You are going to extreme lengths to exert your influence on these sites. That's the issue. It's extreme, yet the explained harm is quite mild by comparison. You are taking one of the most extreme actions to silence a website and the best arguments for it are that said website doesn't care for the word 'gamers' and has some potentially lax ethical standard. That sounds excessively disproportionate of a response. Again you are saying the infractions of these websites is SO EXTREME that the general readership should not be entrusted with the responsibility to make up their own minds on whether or not the sites should continue to exist (via their readership support).
The stuff on capitalism is just strawman, I have not brought into question the legality of any part of the system nor would I. Just because something is capitalist doesn't make it moral or immoral. I also don't see how wanting the ability to directly participate in the free market of what websites I view (rather than having to negotiate with advertisers) is anti-capitalist. For the most part I want advertisers to be largely agnostic to where they advertise so the websites can behave autonomously and I (and others) can participate in a free market interaction with said websites (those that are good get my readership, those that aren't won't).
That's a false analogy. What happened was that two high-profile writers published an article with the premise that the gamer identity wasn't relevant anymore (if there are more that are not somehow a reaction to these, let me know, I haven't been able to find a good list). These tied in to a wider discussion (GamerGate). So other sites reported on it and added their own thoughts. Some agreed. Some didn't, or only partly, or added nuances. I think that's not bullying, but simply discussing the current issues in the gamer community.
Two...? Uh, try ten.
Seems a perfectly reasonable article to me. Why is explaining the concept of "privilege" to an audience that hears the word often but (to me) often seems to have a flawed conception of it a bad thing?
I was just pointing out the article.
I don't know what to do with that Twitter screenshot. I'm missing the context. I'm annoyed by the reliance of everyone involved in this debate on twitter screenshots, which rob tweets (fragmentary by nature) of any context and are super easy to fake. Not saying this is fake, but it's very hard to check if screenshots are real. I wish people would use Webcite or ArchiveToday for things like this.
Gawker employee who supports bullying. (direct link to tweet)
1. I don't know what to do with this. I've not seen any convincing evidence of endemic corruption or nepotism. I agree that the relation between press and publishers should be examined and that there's room for improvement. I'm happy that some sites are taking steps to improve things on that front. But "holding back the entire western gaming world"? Please. This is exaggerating things enormously.
Not really, when you blackball game developers like TFYC because you're friends with another female game designer who got into a fight with her, that's holding us back. You play politics instead of games, how is it going to do anything but?
2. It sounds really unlikely to me that Gawker is so powerful that they have editorial control over NeoGAF, Reddit and 4chan (as for Reddit, why is /r/kotakuinaction still going strong?). What I think happened is that admins/mods thought the whole doxxing and slandering going on was not good to have on their boards, and got triggerhappy with regards to the topic.
If you think it's reasonable to contact advertisers to pull their ads from websites that published basically harmless pieces you disagree with and for not giving you a platform (which they are under no obligation to do so), then you're fucking mad. It really is that simple. And I have no more reason to engage with you.
They are not under obligation to provide me a platform to speak, nor am I to not take my business elsewhere, and make that known for them and potentially new avenues of business for me.
On October 17 2014 05:34 Dunnobro wrote: You're full of crap lmao. We tried to discuss this, in their comments, on major gaming discussion platforms. We were silenced and ignored instantly. It's not the consumer revolt's fault the lines of communication were cut at ll.
Random websites owe you no platform for free speech that they don't wish to give. That does not mean you cannot voice your opinions as the movement has clearly demonstrated through Twitter and other platforms. If you were ignored you were ignored because people disagree with you. There is no question about whether or not gamergate is being heard. It's just in the face of being ignored they have decided they should start trying to make decisions for other people and have gone to the advertisers. It's ridiculous to expect people to have to actively defend a website they visit in some sort of shouting match to advertisers.
Random websites are the very sites we were complaining about? What? And twitter is in no way conducive to the debate or discussion environment.
And no, we weren't just ignored. WE WERE SILENCED. DISALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT IT. And when the sites in question who did the censoring all have ties to the ones we were criticizing, what are we supposed to think? If you don't want to talk, fine. We'll go over your heads.
They brought it on themselves, don't blame us for not caving. And again, we're not making anyone's decision for them. Their power directly comes from their consumers, we're their consumers. All that's happening is we're taking back the power we gave by consuming their product.
You act like a consumer boycott is in any way unethical. Do you not support capitalism, the free market? Because regardless of your answer that's what we are.
You're attempting to use your influence over a third party to exert influence over something you have problems with. It's a serious action, you are quite literally saying that no one should have access to something regardless of how they feel about that thing. You are going to extreme lengths to exert your influence on these sites. That's the issue. It's extreme, yet the explained harm is quite mild by comparison. You are taking one of the most extreme actions to silence a website and the best arguments for it are that said website doesn't care for the word 'gamers' and has some potentially lax ethical standard. That sounds excessively disproportionate of a response. Again you are saying the infractions of these websites is SO EXTREME that the general readership should not be entrusted with the responsibility to make up their own minds on whether or not the sites should continue to exist (via their readership support).
The stuff on capitalism is just strawman, I have not brought into question the legality of any part of the system nor would I. Just because something is capitalist doesn't make it moral or immoral. I also don't see how wanting the ability to directly participate in the free market of what websites I view (rather than having to negotiate with advertisers) is anti-capitalist. For the most part I want advertisers to be largely agnostic to where they advertise so the websites can behave autonomously and I (and others) can participate in a free market interaction with said websites (those that are good get my readership, those that aren't won't).
Why do you assume this will kill the sites? If there's still people willing to read they will be fine. And honestly I don't see how this ridiculously palpable level of nepotism is a "potentially lax ethical standard"
On October 17 2014 05:34 Dunnobro wrote: You're full of crap lmao. We tried to discuss this, in their comments, on major gaming discussion platforms. We were silenced and ignored instantly. It's not the consumer revolt's fault the lines of communication were cut at ll.
Random websites owe you no platform for free speech that they don't wish to give. That does not mean you cannot voice your opinions as the movement has clearly demonstrated through Twitter and other platforms. If you were ignored you were ignored because people disagree with you. There is no question about whether or not gamergate is being heard. It's just in the face of being ignored they have decided they should start trying to make decisions for other people and have gone to the advertisers. It's ridiculous to expect people to have to actively defend a website they visit in some sort of shouting match to advertisers.
Random websites are the very sites we were complaining about? What? And twitter is in no way conducive to the debate or discussion environment.
And no, we weren't just ignored. WE WERE SILENCED. DISALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT IT. And when the sites in question who did the censoring all have ties to the ones we were criticizing, what are we supposed to think? If you don't want to talk, fine. We'll go over your heads.
They brought it on themselves, don't blame us for not caving. And again, we're not making anyone's decision for them. Their power directly comes from their consumers, we're their consumers. All that's happening is we're taking back the power we gave by consuming their product.
You act like a consumer boycott is in any way unethical. Do you not support capitalism, the free market? Because regardless of your answer that's what we are.
You're attempting to use your influence over a third party to exert influence over something you have problems with. It's a serious action, you are quite literally saying that no one should have access to something regardless of how they feel about that thing. You are going to extreme lengths to exert your influence on these sites. That's the issue. It's extreme, yet the explained harm is quite mild by comparison. You are taking one of the most extreme actions to silence a website and the best arguments for it are that said website doesn't care for the word 'gamers' and has some potentially lax ethical standard. That sounds excessively disproportionate of a response. Again you are saying the infractions of these websites is SO EXTREME that the general readership should not be entrusted with the responsibility to make up their own minds on whether or not the sites should continue to exist (via their readership support).
The stuff on capitalism is just strawman, I have not brought into question the legality of any part of the system nor would I. Just because something is capitalist doesn't make it moral or immoral. I also don't see how wanting the ability to directly participate in the free market of what websites I view (rather than having to negotiate with advertisers) is anti-capitalist. For the most part I want advertisers to be largely agnostic to where they advertise so the websites can behave autonomously and I (and others) can participate in a free market interaction with said websites (those that are good get my readership, those that aren't won't).
Why do you assume this will kill the sites? If there's still people willing to read they will be fine. And honestly I don't see how this ridiculously palpable level of nepotism is a "potentially lax ethical standard"
I don't believe it's nearly strong enough of a force to kill a site at the moment and with the current duration, but what is the intention of contacting advertisers if not to harm or dismantle the website that gets its funding from those advertisers? If the action is taken to its logical end of contacting and getting all advertisers to pull their advertisements what do you think will happen to the website?
The only possible intention behind contacting a websites advertisers to try and get them to pull advertisements is an attempt to dismantle the website in question, unless you'd care to enlighten us on other motivations?
I disagree with the levels of nepotism as something that conflicts with the media I wish to consume so I don't feel it's a strong argument. If you want to engage me on that argument that's fine, but instead that's not the action being taken as gamergate would rather appeal to third parties.
Also you all seem to think this is all about Zoe quinn or the "Gamers are dead" articles. It isn't, this crap has been going on for years. They push their friends games, blackball others if they don't like the person or their beliefs, or just a personal beef with the game.
and a whole bunch of other crap. my personal outrage was dewrito's pope. here's a laundry list of other crap since the most recent stuff hasn't been enough for you:
Which of those links have anything to do with Gamasutra? Gamasutra does not review games, nor is it a site where it is possible to push games, the content there is focused on spreading knowledge of how to develop and market games. The site have very little to do with pushing the consumerism of games other than informing people on how to do that.
IGF potentially has issues and that's somewhat related to Gamasutra, but it's unclear exactly how IGF is going to setup a system for proper judgement without bias considering the whole point of the awards is that it's judged by industry people. Certainly a point worthy of a nuanced discussion, but it has no parity to the extreme response. Even IGF itself has tried to improve the judging process year over year.
On October 17 2014 06:02 Dunnobro wrote: Two...? Uh, try ten.
So please link me to them! As I said, as far as I can see, there were two main articles (Leigh Alexander's and Dan Golding's) and then others as a response/report on those two. Maybe I've missed some, so help me out here.
And what if there's ten? Is it bad if ten similarly-minded articles you don't agree with are released, but not if it's only two?
Okay, looks like an asshole. It also looks like he writes for Valleywag, not Kotaku. Saying that "this is the opinion of Gawker" (and by extension Kotaku?) is nonsense in my opinion. Or did they retweet this with their company account? As far as I can see it's just an unpleasant guy who happens to work for Kotaku's parent company and plays big boy on his Twitter feed.
On October 17 2014 06:02 Dunnobro wrote: Not really, when you blackball game developers like TFYC because you're friends with another female game designer who got into a fight with her, that's holding us back. You play politics instead of games, how is it going to do anything but?
I don't know what you're referring to exactly. I saw allegiations that Zoe Quinn doxxed someone involved with TFYC, or DDOSsed them, but I also read an article by TFYC themselves saying that didn't actually happen.
On October 17 2014 06:02 Dunnobro wrote: Overview of reddit's gamergate censorship: http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2gekjz/comprehensive_overview_of_gamergate_censorship_on/ (the reason it's allowed in r/kia is as a containment board and to prevent further backlash as the thing really blew up when they first censored it) Owner of 4chan has relationship with gawker employee: http://nypost.com/2011/06/21/meet-the-click-chicks/ And NeoGaf itself boasts a relationship with journalists and developers. Journalists from all over post there, so not sure why you'd think it odd for them to be invested keeping one of their main draws
That KotakuInAction thread tells me nothing about ties between Gawker and Reddit or anything like that. It just highlights how many people talking about the issues were banned or their posts deleted. Reading it it seems to me that many bans and deletions weren't all that unreasonable either.
Moot being friends with someone employed by Gawker doesn't prove anything as far as I'm concerned. Please explain to me how it follows from that that 4chan posts about GamerGate were deleted from 4chan. Same goes for NeoGAF. It's all circumstantial at best. Given the way people involved with this cause happen to converse I'm inclined to believe that people just got sick of the doxxing and insulting the discussions brought with them and banned the topic wholesale. Which might not be a smart move, but doesn't warrant conspiracy theories either.
EPT
