Videochat January 2016 + Writer Auditions

[Presence]

That thread doesn't really cover the journalist side of Gamergate and the thread itself is pretty toxic. A good portion of it is just mudslinging. I really don't want this thread devolving into mudslinging if it can be helped.

 

It seemed like the only thing anyone was talking about. I'd prefer to talk about other stuff too, frankly. You wanna talk arcade games? What's your favorites? I like that a big part of them was simply good sound quality. I liked "Mad Planets", "Tempest" and good ol "Galaga".

 

There was also this one game I saw on a cruise ship as a kid I have no idea how to even research because my memory of it is so dim. It was some kind of fast paced side scroller with a lot of running about, I think maybe you were a mouse or a cat or something. I always died in like 7 seconds.

[Heliocentrical]

I still think the anti-feminist side of Gamergate is nothing but pseudo-intellectual BS that ultimately crushed whatever good the Journalist side of Gamergate had going for it. I hate the anti-feminist side of Gamergate with a passion because of this. The journalist side of Gamergate could've achieved so much more if The anti-feminist side of Gamergate wasn't there to drag them down. The anti-feminist side of Gamergate pretended to care about game journalism while at the same time shoved their agenda driven propaganda down your throat. The anti-feminist side of Gamergate was also the perfect scapegoat for mainstream media to declare all of Gamergate as nothing but misogynists and to cover their backsides. This was all of the anti-feminist side of Gamergate's fault.

 

@Presence I'm sorry, I might get back to you once I'm in a better mood. This was more of an opportunity to vent my frustrations with Gamergate and it's left me in a quite bitter and resent state.

[Jcw87]

Trying to be peaceful against threats may seem silly, but any sort of retaliation will be used as propaganda. Winning a war against extremists is about winning hearts and minds. Winning hearts and minds is about being the better person.

 

I'm not sure I'm getting this, you think Ghandi's march to the sea represents a template for internet debate or something? If the modern "activist" on any side can't find something true to use, he'll just use something false, as will hundreds of his friends. As was talked about in the very soundcloud clip you posted. Their hearts are incapable of shame and their minds communicate only in image macros and pretentious memes. Search engines and social media actively block them from seeing things that would criticize them; kind of an ultimate realization of the first rule written in "How to win friends and influence people." They think enough upvotes mean they were factually correct and that the "ignore" button means "I got the last word in this argument. Forever."

 

Your heart sounds like it's in the right place, but your approach is so terribly.....easy. Risk free. A child with a squirt gun pointed at the painting of a lynch mob.

 

The propaganda isn't as effective when there's little to no truth behind it.

 

Winning hearts and minds isn't an 'immediate results' thing when you are being slandered constantly, it takes time. And from what I've seen, progress is being made. To say that no progress can be made is to say that all of anti-GG are completely unreasonable. To say that they are all completely unreasonable is... well, unreasonable.

 

There are different sub-groups among anti-GG, including, but not limited to: those who know exactly what they are doing and are doing it for profit, those who feel a need to bully, and feminism is the 'socially acceptable' outlet for it, those who want to be a 'good feminist' but just don't know the right way to go about it, and those who support the journalism ethics goal of GG, but are too afraid of losing their 'friends' and/or being harassed if they speak up.

 

Some of them can be reasoned with, some can't. You won't know where someone lies on that spectrum until you talk to them.

 

I still think the anti-feminist side of Gamergate is nothing but pseudo-intellectual BS that ultimately crushed whatever good the Journalist side of Gamergate had going for it. I hate the anti-feminist side of Gamergate with a passion because of this. The journalist side of Gamergate could've achieved so much more if The anti-feminist side of Gamergate wasn't there to drag them down. The anti-feminist side of Gamergate pretended to care about game journalism while at the same time shoved their agenda driven propaganda down your throat. The anti-feminist side of Gamergate was also the perfect scapegoat for mainstream media to declare all of Gamergate as nothing but misogynists and to cover their backsides. This was all of the anti-feminist side of Gamergate's fault.

 

GG isn't against feminism, as I've said before. They are against those who slander GG, videogames, and gamers. Right now, there's several people who are using the banner of feminism to do that. Because these 'faux feminists' are against GG, naturally, actual misogynists have tried to align themselves with GG, only to be shown the door.

 

... I've spent way more time posting here than I intended to. I'm gonna take a break

[Ross Scott]

So Ross, is the PS2 thing gonna happen on one of the EU servers, or on a US server?

It would probably be be east coast USA to have the average lowest ping.

 

Also Ross I have two questions I would like to ask. First what's your opinion of Steam's Christmas caching error incident? There's a video made by a guy named Tom Scott who describes what happened fairly well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkSslseq9Y8. Does it make you even more paranoid about what doors DRM leaves you vulnerable to? Second what's your opinion on cracks? I know in the past you mentioned that you crack all of your games. I think outright piracy is wrong but cracking an exe of a game that you legitimately purchased should be entirely legal. I have a game that I purchased and due to the nature of it's DRM I can no longer play it. Sounds fair right? Gosh it's horrible how much games publishers screw over their customers. They force DRM into a game and sometimes completely destroy the game to save their bottom line. There's one article in particular that got under my skin. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/165784-No-More-Pirated-Games-in-2-Years-Says-Cracking-Foru

m. It is nothing but kissing the publisher's ass and justifying the DRM they put in to their games.

Honestly, part of me expects something like this to happen over a long enough time period. As for cracks, of course I advocate them. I'm actually not strictly anti-DRM. I'm fine with DRM, so long as the company will guarantee playback of the game over a timespan. For example, Warcraft 3 had aggressive CD checks for the time, a couple years after the game was out, they removed it completely in a patch. Companies protecting their initial sales with DRM I think can be a good thing actually. Companies that don't give a damn and allow games to become unplayable without cracks down the line I feel like should face legal actionn and be fined heavily. Unfortunately, the vast majority seem to fall into that category, thus cracks are absolutely crucial to game preservation. So yeah, from a theoretical standpoint, I'm open-minded about DRM, but I'm an absolute extremist about a game being playable or not killed and I think it overrides everything else if it's not being addressed.

 

Anyways if Ross or anyone else is interested in reading some more about Corruption in games journalism a particularly handy website Deepfreeze contains a database on corrupt journos and some loud cases of ethics violations (like the Kane and Lynch debacle) without needless sensentionalising.

I have seen that before, but it strikes me as a collection of references and I haven't seen a very good composition boiling down GG's strongest points. For example, sensationalism from a single source doesn't mean a lot by itself, it needs to be used to show a pattern for a larger publication. Even then, a larger publication is just one outlet. That's why I thought the GameJournoPros list was such a big deal, it was showing an actual behind the scenes connection across MANY different outlets, which I think is bad news. Also since you brought it up, I think the Kane & Lynch incident indirectly throws anti-GG a bit of a bone. Meaning I think the Jeff Gerstmann firing was a MUCH bigger deal as far as illustrating corruption than anything with Zoe Quinn. But Quinn got way more of an internet uproar, which lends some credence to the observation that at least a PORTION of GG is focused on things because of the involvement of women. Still, the mistake I think anti-GG makes is just because some information comes from potentially unpleasant people, their demeanor doesn't automatically invalidate it. That's why I'd really like to see a more objective assessment of the stuff GG has turned up regarding journalism corruption, INDEPENDENT of the feminism issues. I literally have not seen this, almost everything seems to drift towards condeming one side or another. I'm not saying both sides are innocent, on the contrary, I'm just trying to look at this the same way a judge in a court would.

[ThePest179]

So without refuting any of the mountains of evidence which shows GamerGate's many incidents of harassment and sexism, all you do is call my sources biased and myself "misguided" (ignoring the fact that the only people who depict GamerGate in a positive light are pro-GamerGate sources, who simultaneously ignore or downplay any incidents of harassment by GamerGate). You have done literally less than nothing to refute the central argument.

 

Please, show me where this mountain of evidence is, because all I see in those wiki articles is sweeping accusations with little to back it up. .

 

I take it you didn't bother to read any of it, so you're either a troll or a pro-GG fanatic. Either way, you're a lost cause.

[Descriptor]

Anyways if Ross or anyone else is interested in reading some more about Corruption in games journalism a particularly handy website Deepfreeze contains a database on corrupt journos and some loud cases of ethics violations (like the Kane and Lynch debacle) without needless sensentionalising.

I have seen that before, but it strikes me as a collection of references and I haven't seen a very good composition boiling down GG's strongest points. For example, sensationalism from a single source doesn't mean a lot by itself, it needs to be used to show a pattern for a larger publication. Even then, a larger publication is just one outlet. That's why I thought the GameJournoPros list was such a big deal, it was showing an actual behind the scenes connection across MANY different outlets, which I think is bad news. Also since you brought it up, I think the Kane & Lynch incident indirectly throws anti-GG a bit of a bone. Meaning I think the Jeff Gerstmann firing was a MUCH bigger deal as far as illustrating corruption than anything with Zoe Quinn. But Quinn got way more of an internet uproar, which lends some credence to the observation that at least a PORTION of GG is focused on things because of the involvement of women. Still, the mistake I think anti-GG makes is just because some information comes from potentially unpleasant people, their demeanor doesn't automatically invalidate it. That's why I'd really like to see a more objective assessment of the stuff GG has turned up regarding journalism corruption, INDEPENDENT of the feminism issues. I literally have not seen this, almost everything seems to drift towards condeming one side or another. I'm not saying both sides are innocent, on the contrary, I'm just trying to look at this the same way a judge in a court would.

To be fair, the Kane and Lynch controversy also didn't have the huge backlash of being simultaneously censored across the internet (which happened even on 4chan, fricken 4chan of all places!) and mass condemnation by news media all throwing video-gamers under the bus. I'd argue that it was the mass censorship that caused this to become the firestorm it was (something known as the Streisand Effect, in which attempts to censor something tend to cause it to spread faster, especially on the internet), as a ton of gamers got super paranoid about what was going on. I'd guarantee that if web communities and the media didn't react the way they did, the initial controversy would have blown over before the end of that month. As for why the whole thing sparked interest in the first place, it's mostly just because sex scandals tend to spread pretty quickly, especially when an element of corruption is at play. Just look at how ridiculous the Clinton controversy was back in the 90s.

 

Meanwhile, I'd argue that the anti-feminism thing came up because it was basically thrust upon them, since that was the mass accusation made against gamers, and thus they began to see that movement as the enemy. By and large, I'd say most of the mainstream members of GG aren't against feminism's core principles, just the authoritarian rhetoric that has become common in the movement as of late. From my own observations, I recall that most GGers consider themselves "equality of opportunity egalitarians" more than anything, or at least that seemed to be the common consensus on the larger pro-GG communities I've seen. Just saying "anti-feminist" is a bit of a misnomer, since it implies just flat out "anti-women", which I wouldn't consider the case, personally. After all, some old-school feminists have even come out in support of GG (the most known of which is the somewhat controversial Christina Hoff Summers) because they dislike the tactics of a lot of modern feminist movements as well. That said, I would agree that this standpoint has bogged down the movement as a whole, but it's been difficult to steer the group in a different direction, since the anti-GG side never lets up with the accusations, which make pro-GG folks inevitably feel like they have to fight back in response. Funnily enough, the most recent season of South Park addresses this problem directly, and made a lot of good points while doing so.

[ThePest179]

By and large, I'd say most of the mainstream members of GG aren't against feminism's core principles, just the authoritarian rhetoric that has become common in the movement as of late.

 

And I'd say you haven't been on any pro-GamerGate sites, like KotakuInAction or 8chan's GamerGate board. Perhaps you should read the "timeline of GamerGate activities" I posted back on page 1.

 

After all, some old-school feminists have even come out in support of GG (the most known of which is the somewhat controversial Christina Hoff Summers) because they dislike the tactics of a lot of modern feminist movements as well.

 

These "old school feminists" aren't feminist at all - they're no different from misogynistic GGers who claim to be "anti-feminist but pro-women".

 

And by the way....

 

I regret to inform you that you are horribly misinformed about this.

 

http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2015/05/gamergate-isnt-a-harassment-campaign-states-wam-report/

 

Rebutted by RationalWiki. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_Gamergate_claims#WAM.21

[Heliocentrical]

GG isn't against feminism, as I've said before. They are against those who slander GG, videogames, and gamers. Right now, there's several people who are using the banner of feminism to do that. Because these 'faux feminists' are against GG, naturally, actual misogynists have tried to align themselves with GG, only to be shown the door.

Faux feminism or not honestly what difference does that make? If that side of GG was trying to defend itself from slander instead of being anti-feminist that still doesn't make that side any less pointless. Why are you trying to defend Gamergate from slander when you could help contribute to the journalist side which would A be infinitely more important and B give Gamergate credibility in the process? Do you honestly think defending Gamergate itself would make the slander stop? Gamergate dug it's own grave by trying to defend itself instead of letting the slander go and continuing with their ethics in games journalism.

[Binky The Rabbit]

It seems to me that it's become impossible for GamerGate to continue its supposed original mission of exposing foul play in gaming journalism.

 

Wouldn't it be easier to just let GG implode and resume investigations under a different moniker?

 

Or am I missing a crucial point?

[Heliocentrical]

It seems to me that it's become impossible for GamerGate to continue its supposed original mission of exposing foul play in gaming journalism.

 

Wouldn't it be easier to just let GG implode and resume investigations under a different moniker?

 

Or am I missing a crucial point?

It would need more than just a name change. The new group would also need to not get wrapped up in social media or they'll wind up in the same position as Gamergate is now. Also the new group should be a lot more strict in terms of who can join it. Despite what Gamergate supporters saying they watch their ranks Gamergate started as a twitter hashtag so everyone can use it so policing Gamergate is impossible. Gamergate for all intents and purposes is an unorganized mob. Organization and a sharp focus is what the new group will need.

[Jcw87]

I take it you didn't bother to read any of it, so you're either a troll or a pro-GG fanatic. Either way, you're a lost cause.

 

Be careful with those accusations. IMO you fit the bill for troll a lot more than I do.

 

And I'd say you haven't been on any pro-GamerGate sites, like KotakuInAction or 8chan's GamerGate board. Perhaps you should read the "timeline of GamerGate activities" I posted back on page 1.

 

I don't visit 4chan or 8chan, as I'm not a fan of their... ahem... colorful culture. I don't visit reddit because each subreddit is basically an echo chamber. But, have YOU visited Facepunch? Mostly reasonable voices there.

 

These "old school feminists" aren't feminist at all - they're no different from misogynistic GGers who claim to be "anti-feminist but pro-women".

 

Wow, you've really gone off the rails.

 

And by the way....

 

I regret to inform you that you are horribly misinformed about this.

 

http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2015/05/gamergate-isnt-a-harassment-campaign-states-wam-report/

 

Rebutted by RationalWiki. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_Gamergate_claims#WAM.21

 

There's that RationalWiki again. Both RationalWiki and Conservapedia suffer from the same problems. They are run by a community that has no tolerance for dissenting opinions. That is not an environment where critical thinking thrives. Everything that comes out of both is bound to be biased.

 

2. It made it very clear that I shouldn't waste my time on ThePest179. He/She has had the opportunity to go through all of the information in the linked post, and is somehow still convinced that it's all just misogyny.

 

I take this back, now you have gone and made me curious about just how deep into their narrative you are. I have some questions for you. I'm going to make a list of people, and I want to know whether or not you think they are good feminists, and why. I've been trying to avoid naming specific people, but oh well.

 

• Anita Sarkeesian
  
• Brianna Wu
  
• Randi Harper
  
• Christina Hoff Summers (elaborate on why you think she's a bad feminist)

 

I also want to know:

Do you acknowledge the corruption in the IGF?

Do you acknowledge the corruption in games media as a whole (such as a game getting favorable reviews because the reviewer has a personal relationship with the developer, and they don't disclose it)?

[Nz17]

Ross, these are questions for February 2016's video-chat.

 

1) Would you be willing to let people pay you some amount of money ($100 perhaps?) to guarantee a game of their choice will definitely be featured as an episode of Ross's Game Dungeon?

 

2) Will you be playing through Half Life 2: Lost Coast as a part of the continuation of Freeman's Mind? It could make for a good standalone episode.

 

4) Which are your favorite (and least favorite) classes in Team Fortress 2? What are your thoughts about them?

[Descriptor]

It seems to me that it's become impossible for GamerGate to continue its supposed original mission of exposing foul play in gaming journalism.

 

Wouldn't it be easier to just let GG implode and resume investigations under a different moniker?

 

Or am I missing a crucial point?

This has been a suggestion for well over a year now. In fact, that was originally the point of the GG moniker. It was an effort to shift focus away from the whole Zoe Quinn roots of the thing to focus on them ethics. But it fell through because the anti-GG just kept piling on and vilifying the group. So most folks believe that starting a new group would just split everyone apart, only to have the same antagonistic groups shift the blame to the new group. It'd become "The new terrifying misogynist group from the ashes of GG" with a whole new slew of controversy or whatever.

 

Honestly, looking back, this thread serves as the perfect microcosm of all of GG's problems. People want to discuss ethics, but keep getting sidetracked by stubborn accusations of misogyny and all that crap. It's hard to ignore a constant yelling voice of "You're a terrible person", especially when you've already been vilified everywhere.

 

And as much as I hate to fall into that trap myself....

 

 

After all, some old-school feminists have even come out in support of GG (the most known of which is the somewhat controversial Christina Hoff Summers) because they dislike the tactics of a lot of modern feminist movements as well.

 

These "old school feminists" aren't feminist at all - they're no different from misogynistic GGers who claim to be "anti-feminist but pro-women".

Explain. What about them classifies them as misogynistic to you?

No links to RationalWiki or whatever the hell. Just your own explanation of your grievances with their platform.

[ThePest179]

I don't visit 4chan or 8chan, as I'm not a fan of their... ahem... colorful culture. I don't visit reddit because each subreddit is basically an echo chamber. But, have YOU visited Facepunch? Mostly reasonable voices there.

 

I took a brief visit to Facepunch. While they're more polite than the other GGers, they're the same thing. They downplay the harassment and sexism in the movement like the rest.

 

There's that RationalWiki again.

 

So you're not going to read it?

 

I'm going to make a list of people, and I want to know whether or not you think they are good feminists, and why. I've been trying to avoid naming specific people, but oh well.

 

Alright.

 

• Anita Sarkeesian
  
• Brianna Wu
  
• Randi Harper

 
Don't know/care.
 

Christina Hoff Summers (elaborate on why you think she's a bad feminist)

These "old school feminists" aren't feminist at all - they're no different from misogynistic GGers who claim to be "anti-feminist but pro-women".

Explain. What about them classifies them as misogynistic to you?

No links to RationalWiki or whatever the hell. Just your own explanation of your grievances with their platform.

 

Not supportive of third wave feminism.

 

Do you acknowledge the corruption in the IGF?

 

Sure.

 

Do you acknowledge the corruption in games media as a whole (such as a game getting favorable reviews because the reviewer has a personal relationship with the developer, and they don't disclose it)?

 

Yes I acknowledge it, however the accusations against Zoe Quinn have been proven false time and time again, so don't even try to go there.

 

It seems to me that it's become impossible for GamerGate to continue its supposed original mission of exposing foul play in gaming journalism.

 

Wouldn't it be easier to just let GG implode and resume investigations under a different moniker?

 

Or am I missing a crucial point?

This has been a suggestion for well over a year now. In fact, that was originally the point of the GG moniker. It was an effort to shift focus away from the whole Zoe Quinn roots of the thing to focus on them ethics. But it fell through because the anti-GG just kept piling on and vilifying the group.

 

No, it fell through because GamerGate swelled with eager misogynists looking to keep pouring gas on the "Quinn scandal".

Edited January 12, 2016 by Guest (see edit history)

[Descriptor]

[*]Christina Hoff Summers (elaborate on why you think she's a bad feminist)

These "old school feminists" aren't feminist at all - they're no different from misogynistic GGers who claim to be "anti-feminist but pro-women".

Explain. What about them classifies them as misogynistic to you?

No links to RationalWiki or whatever the hell. Just your own explanation of your grievances with their platform.

 

Not supportive of third wave feminism.

Well, how does that necessarily make her misogynist? What aspects of third wave feminism do you consider vital to not being a misogynist, and why do you think she doesn't support them?

[Heliocentrical]

Honestly, looking back, this thread serves as the perfect microcosm of all of GG's problems.

My thoughts exactly.

[Binky The Rabbit]

I find it thoroughly depressing that this whole thing hasn't been resolved. Is it not in either side's interest to stop fighting?

 

I guess both sides need to have the final word.

[Heliocentrical]

I find it thoroughly depressing that this whole thing hasn't been resolved. Is it not in either side's interest to stop fighting?

 

I guess both sides need to have the final word.

It's extremely frustrating when you're trying to get points of criticism across when the people you're conversing with are more than content having pissing contests amongst themselves while also brushing aside your points. I'm reminded of this video by CGPGrey in which he discusses anger in general and while he's being very broad I think his ideas apply to Gamergate pretty well.

 

rE3j_RHkqJc

[Binky The Rabbit]

^ +10000

 

I may have to spread that particular pathogen...

[ThePest179]

Not supportive of third wave feminism.

Well, how does that necessarily make her misogynist? What aspects of third wave feminism do you consider vital to not being a misogynist, and why do you think she doesn't support them?

 

Actually, let me change this. It's her accusation that third wave feminism is miasdrist or hateful towards men that makes me classify her as misogynist. You can be neutral or uncaring of third wave feminism, but openly siding against it is misogynistic.

 

I find it thoroughly depressing that this whole thing hasn't been resolved. Is it not in either side's interest to stop fighting?

 

Correct. This will not end until one side or the other succeeds.