RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes

Atoli · **02-15-2015, 09:58 PM**

(02-15-2015, 08:42 PM)Warren Castille Wrote:
(02-15-2015, 04:20 PM)Atoli Wrote: No one understands that opinions are not factual... and of course, sharing opinions that are unpopular makes you Satan incarnate... sorry, but Gamergate accomplishes nothing more than
... childishly stomping feet about who's dating who, which is frankly no one's business because it doesn't %#&$ing matter. Heavens forbid you write any article founded on opinion on the internet. Its about as psychotic as Little League parents beating up coachs 'cause little Jimmy's not allowed to play now that he's failing math. Emotional investment doesn't justify immature and extreme reactions. That's not how the real world of adults works.

I don't mean to single you out, but it's statements like this that show you have no idea what you're talking about.

Numerous websites have reformed their code of ethics, disclosure of prior relationships have been enforced in multiple places, and yes, when it comes to reviews that can influence sales, relationships absolutely matter. Like when indie devs mentioned how a certain, well-reported on indie competition was rigged from the inside or when PCgamer was forced to update its disclosure agreement in 2015 after it turned out that one of their writers was romantically involved with a Communications Associate that worked for a company he was going on about.

This isn't a case of "wah, I don't like your reviews." It's a case of positively plugging the games of people you know and like, which is clear breach of ethics when it comes to coverage.

But again, no one wants to read any of this. Everyone's decided their feelings on the matter. Despite there being a long precedent of certain websites covering for their clickbait bloggers.

In before someone argues my sources and not their contents. I'm not even a Gamergate person, I just think it's folly to go "Welp, some folks acted like the internet on the internet, clearly there's nothing at all to see here."

I do know what I'm talking about, thank you very much, but I'm focusing upon the uncalled for harassment over "ethics" in game reviews, AKA opinions over entertainment. It's nothing about clickbait. It's nothing about sales. It's about procedure and tact. There's nothing excusable about threatening rape and violence, and you're a fool if you think otherwise. If I threatened every politician, news reporter, or website author with rape and violence for doing something I don't agree with, guess what? I'd be sitting in jail right now. If I wanted to pitch that much of a fit about it while carrying my argument in a mature, adult-like manner, I'd take it to court.

Kilborne Bloodbane · **02-15-2015, 10:26 PM**

(02-15-2015, 09:53 PM)Val Wrote:
(02-15-2015, 09:44 PM)Kilborne Bloodbane Wrote: I agree that both sides have pricks. The sad thing is that most people believe that those people make up the entirety of Gamergate, when they're just a minority that everyone in the movement distances themselves from.

The problem you fail to see is that it's the other way around. Those people make up the majority of Gamergate, and that's the problem with using a hashtag as your calling card. Anyone--and thousands have already done it--can write an angry tweet and #Gamergate it. It is, and always will be, the problem with having some sort of movement without a definitive leader/speaker. Anonymous faces the same thing. They have people that actually target and try to help the citizens of the world out, and then they have assholes that tarnish their name and do it "for the lulz."Â

It becomes a major issue when these people outnumber the ones meaning to do some good (however trivial I personally feel it may be). As I posted above, I don't see the problem with distancing yourselves from the Gamergate hashtag and trying something else. The movement is over. It's dead, at least under that tag. Major news and media outlets have already associated it withÂ misogynistic assholes, and as we've already established, the majority of the typical populace are generally unable to come up with their own opinion on something aside from what they hear in said media. Find a new hashtag/callsign, pick someone/something that you can unify under that is able to give some sort of quantifiable response and cast out the pricks that will inevitably form under the banner, and try again.

This guy says a good bit about it, actually. A long time ago, and I agree 100% with the video:
http://youtu.be/EZrT--qvz04

Show Content

And because it's (somewhat) relevant and I love this meme:

"The problem you fail to see is that it's the other way around. Those people make up the majority of Gamergate."

I'd love to see a source for that kind of claim, otherwise you can't expect me to believe it. Unless you believe the singular narrative that the media has spun, which is proven time and time again to be false.

"Anyone--and thousands have already done it--can write an angry tweet and #Gamergate it."Â

Again, source me those "thousands" of tweets. People like that are in the minority, and in every single case, the replies are from Gamergaters telling the person to shut up.

"It is, and always will be, the problem with having some sort of movement without a definitive leader/speaker."

I disagree. Gamergate is still alive BECAUSE it has no leader. There's noone for the media to slander and try to discredit. It's a bunch of people united by a belief rather than their appearances or reputations. Hence why the media needed to create a "everyone of these people are sexist and racist" angle.

"Anonymous faces the same thing. They have people that actually target and try to help the citizens of the world out, and then they have assholes that tarnish their name and do it "for the lulz.""

And because of the nature of anonymity, it's easy toÂ disassociate your movement with those assholes. That image of the ten or so replies to that single harasser proves that point. You can drown out the negative with the positive.Â

"As I posted above, I don't see the problem with distancing yourselves from the Gamergate hashtag and trying something else."

And I could say the same of feminism. Why not take up another title because of the radicals and misandrists that people seem to focus on? Beeeecause that would be admitting defeat. And it's naive to think that taking up another title would solve the problem. What's stopping people from flocking to the new one? This isn't a solution, it's just a silencing tactic.

"It's dead, at least under that tag."

http://topsy.com/analytics?q1=%23gamerga...3%20months

Nope.

"Major news and media outlets have already associated it withÂ misogynistic assholes, and as we've already established, the majority of the typical populace are generally unable to come up with their own opinion on something aside from what they hear in said media"

Media outlets were always going to see them as misogynistic assholes. Gamergate is a revolt against the games media. Guess who's going to misrepresent them? As for the typical populace bit, I disagree. People aren't unable to form their own opinions. Antis are people who don't want to challenge their beliefs by doing research. They see what the media has to say and think "this is true because I think that gaming is full of sexist men, this confirms my belief." They dismiss evidence that challenges their preconceptions because they KNOW that they're right, obviously.

"Find a new hashtag/callsign, pick someone/something that you can unify under that is able to give some sort of quantifiable response and cast out the pricks that will inevitably form under the banner, and try again."

You mean like Gamergate, a hashtag that unifies people by reminding them of a similar act of collusion in history? And again I point to that image of channers responding to a harasser. There's no need to try again, because in the end it will still be consumers vs the media that will slander them.

Also, it's easier to ignore evidence and post epic memes instead of considering differing opinions. Ironic, yeah?

Faye · **02-15-2015, 10:31 PM**

(02-15-2015, 09:35 PM)Val Wrote:
(02-15-2015, 09:34 PM)allgivenover Wrote: The most tragic thing about gamergate is that it could've been the kick in the pants the travesty that is gaming "journalism" needed to shape up and stop being a shill for the publishers and developers, but instead it was hijacked as a vehicle for misogynists to spew their filth everywhere.

Pretty much, this. It's never going to be about ethics in gaming journalism, because the vocal majority hijacked it and decided instead to attack women. If people want to defend gaming journalism, pick a new hashtag. I don't see how that's so hard lol.

Because "Gamergate" is such a catchy, witty, and innovative title! How could they bear to part with it? :p

Val · **02-15-2015, 10:37 PM**

(02-15-2015, 10:26 PM)Kilborne Bloodbane Wrote: Also, it's easier to ignore evidence and post epic memes instead of considering differing opinions. Ironic, yeah?

https://medium.com/@cainejw/an-actual-st...d809858f68

Nope <3

Kilborne Bloodbane · **02-15-2015, 10:40 PM**

(02-15-2015, 10:31 PM)Faye Wrote:
(02-15-2015, 09:35 PM)Val Wrote:
(02-15-2015, 09:34 PM)allgivenover Wrote: The most tragic thing about gamergate is that it could've been the kick in the pants the travesty that is gaming "journalism" needed to shape up and stop being a shill for the publishers and developers, but instead it was hijacked as a vehicle for misogynists to spew their filth everywhere.

Pretty much, this. It's never going to be about ethics in gaming journalism, because the vocal majority hijacked it and decided instead to attack women. If people want to defend gaming journalism, pick a new hashtag. I don't see how that's so hard lol.

Because "Gamergate" is such a catchy, witty, and innovative title! How could they bear to part with it? :p

Because it makes sense to label a controversy where a group of people in positions higher than the regular populace engage in unethical behavior and abuse of their station in order to cover up their actions and silence dissenting opinions Gamergate.Â

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sca...%22_suffix

Faye · **02-15-2015, 10:44 PM**

(02-15-2015, 10:40 PM)Kilborne Bloodbane Wrote:
(02-15-2015, 10:31 PM)Faye Wrote:
(02-15-2015, 09:35 PM)Val Wrote:
(02-15-2015, 09:34 PM)allgivenover Wrote: The most tragic thing about gamergate is that it could've been the kick in the pants the travesty that is gaming "journalism" needed to shape up and stop being a shill for the publishers and developers, but instead it was hijacked as a vehicle for misogynists to spew their filth everywhere.

Pretty much, this. It's never going to be about ethics in gaming journalism, because the vocal majority hijacked it and decided instead to attack women. If people want to defend gaming journalism, pick a new hashtag. I don't see how that's so hard lol.

Because "Gamergate" is such a catchy, witty, and innovative title! How could they bear to part with it? :p

Because it makes sense to label a controversy where a group of people in positions higher than the regular populace engage in unethical behavior and abuse of their station in order to cover up their actions and silence dissenting opinions Gamergate.Â

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sca...%22_suffix

...writing video game reviews puts you in a position "higher than the regular populace?" Man. Pretty serious stuff. Your wikipedia link only proves how silly the name that is--that the majority of other "gates" are serious political issues, or are total jokes and parodies of the suffix.

Kilborne Bloodbane · **02-15-2015, 10:46 PM**

(02-15-2015, 10:37 PM)Val Wrote:
(02-15-2015, 10:26 PM)Kilborne Bloodbane Wrote: Also, it's easier to ignore evidence and post epic memes instead of considering differing opinions. Ironic, yeah?

https://medium.com/@cainejw/an-actual-st...d809858f68

Nope <3

They hit the nail on the head! Thanks for that.

Val · **02-15-2015, 10:49 PM**

(02-15-2015, 10:40 PM)Kilborne Bloodbane Wrote: Because it makes sense to label a controversy where a group of people in positions higher than the regular populace engage in unethical behavior and abuse of their station in order to cover up their actions and silence dissenting opinions Gamergate.Â

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sca...%22_suffix

I think in the attempt to justify yourself, you failed to recognize that she's making light of the word itself. How can you, as a group, be so lazy to not just change your name? And then expect other people on the outside look in and try to figure out who's right and who's wrong?

As a friend recently said to me: "If I was a fan of crips and blood attire and then found out that's the shit they're into, I'ma stop wearing it."

I'll help start you off: Journalismgate. Reviewergate. Ethicsgate. Writinggate.

Warren Castille · **02-15-2015, 10:49 PM**

Oh look. My sourced articles were met with... no sources and hearsay.

This is how we debate, though. Shout "nuh-uh" and "yuh-huh." As happens in every discussion about this stupid thing, the for-GG people link articles and sources, and the anti-GG people just shout it down.

Small wonder why this turns into what it is.

Kilborne Bloodbane · **02-15-2015, 10:50 PM**

(02-15-2015, 10:44 PM)Faye Wrote:
(02-15-2015, 10:40 PM)Kilborne Bloodbane Wrote:
(02-15-2015, 10:31 PM)Faye Wrote:
(02-15-2015, 09:35 PM)Val Wrote:
(02-15-2015, 09:34 PM)allgivenover Wrote: The most tragic thing about gamergate is that it could've been the kick in the pants the travesty that is gaming "journalism" needed to shape up and stop being a shill for the publishers and developers, but instead it was hijacked as a vehicle for misogynists to spew their filth everywhere.

Pretty much, this. It's never going to be about ethics in gaming journalism, because the vocal majority hijacked it and decided instead to attack women. If people want to defend gaming journalism, pick a new hashtag. I don't see how that's so hard lol.

Because "Gamergate" is such a catchy, witty, and innovative title! How could they bear to part with it? :p

Because it makes sense to label a controversy where a group of people in positions higher than the regular populace engage in unethical behavior and abuse of their station in order to cover up their actions and silence dissenting opinions Gamergate.Â

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sca...%22_suffix

...writing video game reviews puts you in a position "higher than the regular populace?" Man. Pretty serious stuff. Your wikipedia link only proves how silly the name that is--that the majority of other "gates" are serious political issues, or are total jokes and parodies of the suffix.

Being a journalist puts you in a position above the regular populace. Doesn't matter what you're reporting on, there's still some degree of respect that comes with the job. Just look at the impact Roger Ebert had on the movies industry.Â

Whether it's silly or not doesn't change the fact that the name fits the scandal and subsequent events that started it.

Faye · **02-15-2015, 10:51 PM**

It'sactuallyaboutethicsingamejournalismgate.

Kilborne Bloodbane · **02-15-2015, 10:53 PM**

(02-15-2015, 10:49 PM)Val Wrote:
(02-15-2015, 10:40 PM)Kilborne Bloodbane Wrote: Because it makes sense to label a controversy where a group of people in positions higher than the regular populace engage in unethical behavior and abuse of their station in order to cover up their actions and silence dissenting opinions Gamergate.Â

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sca...%22_suffix

I think in the attempt to justify yourself, you failed to recognize that she's making light of the word itself. How can you, as a group, be so lazy to not just change your name? And then expect other people on the outside look in and try to figure out who's right and who's wrong?

As a friend recently said to me: "If I was a fan of crips and blood attire and then found out that's the shit they're into, I'ma stop wearing it."

I'll help start you off: Journalismgate. Reviewergate. Ethicsgate. Writinggate.

Journalismgate - What kind of journalism?

Reviewergate - What kind of reviewers?

Ethicsgate - Ethics? Ethics in what?

Writinggate - Writing? What kind of writing?

Gamergate - Hey... this is about video games, and the -gate suffix probably means that it's about corruption and some kind of cover-up!

Val · **02-15-2015, 10:54 PM**

(02-15-2015, 10:46 PM)Kilborne Bloodbane Wrote:
(02-15-2015, 10:37 PM)Val Wrote:
(02-15-2015, 10:26 PM)Kilborne Bloodbane Wrote: Also, it's easier to ignore evidence and post epic memes instead of considering differing opinions. Ironic, yeah?

https://medium.com/@cainejw/an-actual-st...d809858f68

Nope <3

They hit the nail on the head! Thanks for that.

It actually points out that, while Gamergate is about what you said it is (which I already stated above), the majority of the tweets are negative VS positive. Neutral tweets are simply people talking about it. If more people are being negative than are positive, and the rest are indifferent, I think that means that you're overshadowed by the negative.

(02-15-2015, 10:53 PM)Kilborne Bloodbane Wrote:
(02-15-2015, 10:49 PM)Val Wrote:
(02-15-2015, 10:40 PM)Kilborne Bloodbane Wrote: Because it makes sense to label a controversy where a group of people in positions higher than the regular populace engage in unethical behavior and abuse of their station in order to cover up their actions and silence dissenting opinions Gamergate.Â

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sca...%22_suffix

I think in the attempt to justify yourself, you failed to recognize that she's making light of the word itself. How can you, as a group, be so lazy to not just change your name? And then expect other people on the outside look in and try to figure out who's right and who's wrong?

As a friend recently said to me: "If I was a fan of crips and blood attire and then found out that's the shit they're into, I'ma stop wearing it."

I'll help start you off: Journalismgate. Reviewergate. Ethicsgate. Writinggate.

Journalismgate - What kind of journalism?

Reviewergate - What kind of reviewers?

Ethicsgate - Ethics? Ethics in what?

Writinggate - Writing? What kind of writing?

Gamergate - Hey... this is about video games, and the -gate suffix probably means that it's about corruption and some kind of cover-up!

Now you're just being sad lol.Â

I could easily say your argument for "Gamergate" is "OH GOD WHAT ABOUT GAMES?"

(02-15-2015, 10:49 PM)Warren Castille Wrote: Oh look. My sourced articles were met with... no sources and hearsay.

This is how we debate, though. Shout "nuh-uh" and "yuh-huh." As happens in every discussion about this stupid thing, the for-GG people link articles and sources, and the anti-GG people just shout it down.

Small wonder why this turns into what it is.

I actually agreed with what you had to say, Warren. There are definite problems. A bunch of unknowns behind a tag with a bunch of harassing unknowns isn't going to solve it, either.

Warren Castille · **02-15-2015, 10:59 PM**

(02-15-2015, 10:57 PM)Val Wrote:
(02-15-2015, 10:49 PM)Warren Castille Wrote: Oh look. My sourced articles were met with... no sources and hearsay.

This is how we debate, though. Shout "nuh-uh" and "yuh-huh." As happens in every discussion about this stupid thing, the for-GG people link articles and sources, and the anti-GG people just shout it down.

Small wonder why this turns into what it is.

I actually agreed with what you had to say, Warren. There are definite problems. A bunch of unknowns behind a tag with a bunch of harassing unknowns isn't going to solve it, either.

Was referring to the direct reply to my comment that said "But no, rapist threats" with no articles or sourcing or anything. I'm discussing the actual investigative side, not the trolls trolling effectively.

This is why the conversation gets shut down; It's not a conversation.

Kilborne Bloodbane · **02-15-2015, 11:01 PM**

(02-15-2015, 10:54 PM)Val Wrote:
(02-15-2015, 10:46 PM)Kilborne Bloodbane Wrote:
(02-15-2015, 10:37 PM)Val Wrote:
(02-15-2015, 10:26 PM)Kilborne Bloodbane Wrote: Also, it's easier to ignore evidence and post epic memes instead of considering differing opinions. Ironic, yeah?

https://medium.com/@cainejw/an-actual-st...d809858f68

Nope <3

They hit the nail on the head! Thanks for that.

It actually points out that, while Gamergate is about what you said it is (which I already stated above), the majority of the tweets are negative VS positive. Neutral tweets are simply people talking about it. If more people are being negative than are positive, and the rest are indifferent, I think that means that you're overshadowed by the negative.

"Gamergate does not hate women.

Gamergate does not hate men.Â

Gamergate is pretty neutral in how they discuss manners.

91% of identified tweets from Newsweek are neutral to men and women. And while Zennistrad may think a few tweets from his buddies saying, "This is bad statistics" makes for good statistics, they are wrong.Â

Because the only difference between how Gamergate talks to men and women is that they engage women who are engaged with them more often.

We're still supposed to believe Gamergate hates women because they dare to talk to women like they do men."

Your own source seems to disagree with your opinion on Gamergate.

Also, how can you positively say how someone is being corrupt and unethical? Those are negative topics by default.

That new Law and Order episode

RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes