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

Edvyn · **02-15-2015, 04:31 PM**

can this site ban GG discussion Cool

or like, move this to character development as it provides tips on roleplaying people whose opinions matter

Faye · **02-15-2015, 04:34 PM**

(02-15-2015, 04:31 PM)Edvyn Wrote: can this site ban GG discussion

or like, move this to character development as it provides tips on roleplaying people whose opinions matter

New character development thread: Would your character be a Gamergater? Why or why not?

Edvyn · **02-15-2015, 04:35 PM**

(02-15-2015, 04:34 PM)Faye Wrote:
(02-15-2015, 04:31 PM)Edvyn Wrote: can this site ban GG discussion

or like, move this to character development as it provides tips on roleplaying people whose opinions matter

New character development thread: Would your character be a Gamergater? Why or why not?

why: video games
why not: soggy knees

Kilborne Bloodbane · **02-15-2015, 08:12 PM**

(02-15-2015, 04:23 PM)Faye Wrote:
(02-15-2015, 11:38 AM)Kilborne Bloodbane Wrote: Except all of those sites banned discussion of GG from the very beginning. It was damage control.

Crazy talk here, I know--but maybe, just maybe, Gamergate was considered a taboo topic because, especially at its peak, it was a heated issue that led to tons of profanity-ridden arguments, hatemail, harassment, and death threats (from both sides, I'm sure) as do eventually most all pseudo-political discussions on the internet?

Except the banning and the censorship occurred from the very beginning, before Gamergate was even conceived. It was the entire reason that the movement was started. And when it did pick up steam, so did the censorship. It's a textbook example of the Streisand effect. And if you don't believe me...

Surely all of these people deserved to be banned without any notice for their profanity-ridden arguments, hatemail, harassment, and death threats.
http://rgz.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/6AFyFxl.png

Look at this inflammatory, hateful thread title!Â
http://ogeeku.com/wp-content/uploads/201...it.png.jpg

At least this guy tweeted a polite "warning" to indie devs who might think about supporting gamergate.
https://archive.today/Tcx3M

And on 4chan, of all places...
http://imgur.com/a/NkevG

Also, collusion...
http://i.imgur.com/jfWtl7M.jpg

And that's not even getting into the harassment. Y'know, like shutting down this charity...
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/erikkain/...ychack.png

Or supporters being sent wonderful gifts like this...
https://archive.today/27y57

And the idea that anything can be a taboo topic based on the whims of moderators is really, really shady. Censorship is wrong 100% of the time, and in this case the "censorship" was somehow justified because every single discussion was hateful and derogatory? You would have to go through some insane mental gymnastics to believe that.

Hihimi · **02-15-2015, 08:17 PM**

(This was at the "Censorship is wrong 100% of the time comment. It ate the quote for some reason. Curse this website's appetite!)

Warren Castille · **02-15-2015, 08:42 PM**

(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."

Enla · **02-15-2015, 08:48 PM**

Honestly I wish both sides would just go away at this point as the extremists have pretty much set up shop with no intention of leaving. Are ethics in the video game industry an important matter? Given the amount of reviewers on youtubers who do not disclose brand deals and falsely feed their viewer base biased opinions due to how much they've been paid, and the growing number of reviewers who outright demand to be paid in advance to simply look at content - yes I do believe it is an issue. However so is the rampant sexism in the industry and the fact that many of the more die hard GG's ARE in fact steaming piles of misogynist trash. Yet they aren't the only side who has engaged in unethical crap flinging. I follow several youtubers who, while not aligned with GG, receive death threats and doxxing attempts for even thinking to criticize some of the more prominent members of the anti-GG movement. There is no world where that is acceptable - and before anyone tries to put words in my mouth it's just as unacceptable when done in reverse. This whole thing makes me sick to my stomach to see just how far some people are willing to go to prove themselves in the right.

Can't we all just agree unethical conduct and sexism are both bad and move away from the whole debacle to actually tackle these issues? At this point it's just two minority sides seeing who can scream the loudest, with the more rational people stuck in the middle of the spectrum getting thrown into the pits on either side for daring to agree with one slightly over the other.

Val · **02-15-2015, 08:50 PM**

(02-15-2015, 08:12 PM)Kilborne Bloodbane Wrote: Censorship is wrong 100% of the time, and in this case the "censorship" was somehow justified because every single discussion was hateful and derogatory? You would have to go through some insane mental gymnastics to believe that.

It really isn't lol. I think the mods of this forum have been perfectly fine in censoring some of the things they've censored/blocked discussion of in the past, as I think other things are fine too. Some people simply don't want to have to put up with the inevitable fallout of the discussion.

Kilborne Bloodbane · **02-15-2015, 09:10 PM**

(02-15-2015, 03:47 PM)Val Wrote:
(02-15-2015, 11:38 AM)Kilborne Bloodbane Wrote: Just because they say it, it doesn't make it true.

Doesn't this kind of go both ways?

Also, game developers have been sending reviewers and media swag for years. People getting pissed about it now is kind of.. well. Late, don't you think? And this would all be solved if a bunch of neckbeards would stop getting their jimmies rustled because someone's opinion differs from theirs. The consumers give the media their power. Instead of fussing about X outlet, why don't they instead just preach that they're ultimately opinions and shouldn't sway anyone?

Not to mention a lot of their motives are counterproductive. And honestly? This is video game reviews.Â If people are so seriously concerned about ethics, why don't they move to industries that matter and actually effect the world/economy/environment itself? A quick google search is all they need to get started.Â

I swear, if people were as adamant about protesting that as they are "ethical opinions" then maybe things would get done.

EDIT: As an example of how silly their argument is, I'll give my opinion. I hate Grand Theft Auto. I've never liked it. Well, I take that back. I did when I was in high school. Then I sort of grew up and decided that I didn't really like that kind of game. Strangely enough, I really enjoy Saint's Row. I think it's because Saint's Row is incredibly ridiculous and doesn't try to be this serious thing. GTA flips back and forth between being satire and serious, and that just doesn't mesh well with me. It could also be because I work retail in a gaming store and the type of people that come in to purchase it really annoy me, but hey. That's life.

So let's say I write a negative review about GTA VI on a gaming site (I used to do that, too), and let's say that people get pissed and try to get me fired because of said review. Childish, don't you think? In expressing my personal thoughts on a game that I feel is flawed in its execution, which is what a review is (they do that with food and cars and.. well, anything really, but you don't see ethical "activists" pissed about that), people suddenly want me to lose my job.

As silly as that sounds, let's say I write a positive review about a game that is largely hated. Let's say that, for some unknown reason, I REALLY liked The Walking Dead: Survival Instinct. I thought it was absolutely amazing. Let's say Activision/AMC decided to send me a bunch of stuff for it. I got seasons for free, I got some figures, whatever. This.. well. This happens lol. And really, it doesn't change anything from above. In the end, it's still my opinion.

Let's say I'm good friends with an indie developer and he's designing a game that I want to do well. I write a review painting it in a good light, even if I don't think it's really the BEST thing out there:

1.) There's still a ton of other sources out there. Like the news/any media, anyone that reads one thing online and takes it at face value is an idiot.
2.) Again, despite the stance on things, it's still an opinion. I don't read reviews and say "Hey, that guy liked it so it has to be good." I read reviews and pick out the points they say about the game, watch videos on Youtube, check out the developer, etc. If it's a dev I know and like, then I'll probably purchase from them (CD Projekt will pretty much always get my business). If not, then I won't.

For that matter, what about the developer docs? The people working on the game in the videos that state how amazing it is/going to be? If they're working on a game and realize it's horrid, are they not morally and ethically inclined to simply say "Hey, this game sucks lol sorry guys don't buy it." What about review embargos?

The industry has a lot going wrong with it, but targeting people giving opinions isn't going to solve anything and it makes people look like children. My boss once told me, when reviewing a bad game, "And to think, someone was sitting around a conference room and said 'Guys. This game is AMAZING.'" I laughed it off, but yeah. Someone, somewhere, probably did. And that's okay. It's even more okay for someone to write about it, and get paid for it if they feel that way, even if you don't like it.

"Also, game developers have been sending reviewers and media swag for years. People getting pissed about it now is kind of.. well. Late, don't you think?"

That's not why we're angry. We're angry because these sites have the audacity to call themselves legitimate journalists when they:

- Regularly engage inÂ sensationalist reporting.
- Collude with themselves and developers/publishers to sell a product rather than review it and point out what's good and bad and dishonest.
- Insult and harass their own audience, saying that they're dead, they're over, or just saying that they're all sexist white men that need to leave. If you're a woman, you're obviously internalizing yourÂ misogyny. If you're not white, you're being used by white people.

"And this would all be solved if a bunch of neckbeards would stop getting their jimmies rustled because someone's opinion differs from theirs."

Nice strawman.Â

"The consumers give the media their power. Instead of fussing about X outlet, why don't they instead just preach that they're ultimately opinions and shouldn't sway anyone?"

So we shouldn't be angry that journalists aren't doing their jobs? We should just excuse the way they act like marketers instead of, y'know, journalists? We should just accept their "opinions" that anyone who questions this is a sexist neckbeard that shouldn't be here?

"If people are so seriously concerned about ethics, why don't they move to industries that matter and actually effect the world/economy/environment itself? A quick google search is all they need to get started.Â

I swear, if people were as adamant about protesting that as they are "ethical opinions" then maybe things would get done."

Nice appeal to worse problems fallacy. You obviously can't worry about anything else if you care about the ethics of journalism in your hobby.

"So let's say I write a negative review about GTA VI on a gaming site (I used to do that, too), and let's say that people get pissed and try to get me fired because of said review. Childish, don't you think? In expressing my personal thoughts on a game that I feel is flawed in its execution, which is what a review is (they do that with food and cars and.. well, anything really, but you don't see ethical "activists" pissed about that), people suddenly want me to lose my job."

And here's an example of the actual problem:

The review of GTA 5 on the escapist docked off three or so points because the reviewer thought the protagonists were unlikable criminals and the perceived sexist writing. He didn't dock those points because the gameplay was clunky or unfinished and buggy, he docked points because of a subjective reason.Â

Or the Bayonetta 2 review on Polygon, which docked off a point because the reviewer thought Bayonetta was too sexy.

But the real issue is stuff like Depression Quest and Gone Home, where the reviewer knew the developer personally. Those games were given near perfect scores. Hence, collusion. It's not about "hurr durr your opinion sucks get fired." It's about "YOU KNOW THE PERSON WHOSE PRODUCT YOU ARE REVIEWING! PLEASE STOP THAT."

"As silly as that sounds, let's say I write a positive review about a game that is largely hated. Let's say that, for some unknown reason, I REALLY liked The Walking Dead: Survival Instinct. I thought it was absolutely amazing. Let's say Activision/AMC decided to send me a bunch of stuff for it. I got seasons for free, I got some figures, whatever. This.. well. This happens lol. And really, it doesn't change anything from above. In the end, it's still my opinion."

You realize that it's the other way around, right? Journos are invited to trips that are paid for, given merch free of charge, then told to review the product of the people that did all of this. It DOES change your opinion. You'd feel liable to give the product a better score as a means to repay the favor. In some cases, reviewers have been fired because the publisher was unhappy with the score that they gave. This stuff doesn't "just happen" in movie reviews. Roger Ebert wasn't given merchandise related to the movies he reviewed.

"Let's say I'm good friends with an indie developer and he's designing a game that I want to do well. I write a review painting it in a good light, even if I don't think it's really the BEST thing out there:"

Congratulations, you're a dishonest reviewer.Â

"There's still a ton of other sources out there. Like the news/any media, anyone that reads one thing online and takes it at face value is an idiot."

So you're saying that it's okay to be dishonest, since you can just look at other, more honest sources? That does wonders for your credibility as a news source.

"For that matter, what about the developer docs? The people working on the game in the videos that state how amazing it is/going to be? If they're working on a game and realize it's horrid, are they not morally and ethically inclined to simply say "Hey, this game sucks lol sorry guys don't buy it..""

Work for anyone and badmouth their product where the public can easily hear you. See how long you keep your job. That's why reviewers exist. They won't get fired for being honest about a product. Eeeexcept in games journalism, where you're expected to give the newest Call of Duty a 10 or risk losing your job when Activision decides that those gifts they gave you wasn't enough to sway your opinion.

[Image: Ars-400x265.jpg]

"The industry has a lot going wrong with it, but targeting people giving opinions isn't going to solve anything and it makes people look like children."

Aside from the fact that Gamergate does more than just target people with opinions. Gamergate targets people whose opinions are "gamers are dead" and "you want to question what I do? Piss off." People who use their professional twitter accounts to say stuff like this.

http://i.imgur.com/eNvSPhE.png

Show Content

http://38.media.tumblr.com/431cbd27093f7...1_1280.png

"It's even more okay for someone to write about it, and get paid for it if they feel that way, even if you don't like it."

Any journalist has an obligation to the consumer to give them an unbiased, objective review of a product. That's what separates professional reviewers from random people on forums. Game journalists have proven time and time again that they don't care about their audience, and that they would rather use their job as a platform for their personal beliefs and for their own benefit. Any journalist needs to have standards, something that game journalists lack. That's what Gamergate wants to change.Â

And it has accomplished a few goals. Sites have re-written their policies, and some of the more corrupt reviewers have lost their jobs.

Val · **02-15-2015, 09:11 PM**

(02-15-2015, 08:12 PM)Kilborne Bloodbane Wrote: Surely all of these people deserved to be banned without any notice for their profanity-ridden arguments, hatemail, harassment, and death threats.
http://rgz.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/6AFyFxl.png

Look at this inflammatory, hateful thread title!Â
http://ogeeku.com/wp-content/uploads/201...it.png.jpg

At least this guy tweeted a polite "warning" to indie devs who might think about supporting gamergate.
https://archive.today/Tcx3M

And on 4chan, of all places...
http://imgur.com/a/NkevG

Also, collusion...
http://i.imgur.com/jfWtl7M.jpg

And that's not even getting into the harassment. Y'know, like shutting down this charity...
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/erikkain/...ychack.png

Or supporters being sent wonderful gifts like this...
https://archive.today/27y57

And the idea that anything can be a taboo topic based on the whims of moderators is really, really shady. Censorship is wrong 100% of the time, and in this case the "censorship" was somehow justified because every single discussion was hateful and derogatory? You would have to go through some insane mental gymnastics to believe that.

1.) This link is reddit being reddit. Out of context, there isn't much to say for or against this link. If they'd already put up the statement that Gamergate shouldn't be talked about, then yeah, they can shadowban people left and right.

2.) I don't know why these people jumped down their throat. He's right. The internet isÂ forever, and anything that is said on it should be considered with rational thought rather than jumping at someone because of a difference of opinion. Ironic, isn't it?

3.) Same as Reddit. Obviously it was a banned URL and something that they didn't want to have to deal with again. Rules are rules.

4.) I already covered this in my long-winded response previously. I still don't see the point you're trying to make. So what if they hung out together? It's one review. Gone Home received a TON of reviews that both said it was great and horrid. Why focus on one that gave it a 10 when there's others?Â

5.) All I see is another example of someone not wanting to deal with this crap anymore. Quinn got death threat after death threat after death threat. Why would they risk the same?

6.) Yes, because only one side does things like that. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BzoKKRqIMAA8kaf.png

You're going to find pricks on both sides of the movement like that. That woman actually had to leave her house because her address was posted online and people talked about going to find and rape her and kill her family.

Val · **02-15-2015, 09:20 PM**

(02-15-2015, 09:10 PM)Kilborne Bloodbane Wrote: The review of GTA 5 on the escapist docked off three or so points because the reviewer thought the protagonists were unlikable criminals and the perceived sexist writing. He didn't dock those points because the gameplay was clunky or unfinished and buggy, he docked points because of a subjective reason.Â

Or the Bayonetta 2 review on Polygon, which docked off a point because the reviewer thought Bayonetta was too sexy.

But the real issue is stuff like Depression Quest and Gone Home, where the reviewer knew the developer personally. Those games were given near perfect scores. Hence, collusion. It's not about "hurr durr your opinion sucks get fired." It's about "YOU KNOW THE PERSON WHOSE PRODUCT YOU ARE REVIEWING! PLEASE STOP THAT."

So the guy doesn't like the game because of that. You're asking a reviewer to give his opinion on a game. He does that. What's the problem?

I will admit that, personally, if the person knows the person that made the game, they shouldn't be the one to review it. I'm not saying you're wrong in that. But I will say that one review out of the many out there isn't going to change anything.Â

You act like this kind of stuff ONLY happens in gaming journalism, and you're ignorant to think so. It happens when people get invited to free sports games. It happens when people get invited to eat free five star meals. It happens when people get invited to free hotels. If companies fire reviewers for giving their truthful opinion, then honestly they shouldn't work for that company to begin with. I wouldn't. And when I want to review a game, you'd best believe I'm going to give my honest opinion on it. Friends close to me know I have zero problems dictating how much I dislike a game, and precisely for what reasons regardless of how popular or mainstream it is.

At no point did I say that it was okay. What I more or less highlighted is that if you're seriously trying to remove the corruption in journalism, you're fighting a losing battle. We're given the ability of choice and intelligence to use it. Where humans are involved, as well as money and businesses, there will always be corruption. That's not going to go away regardless of how much you fight it. Someone mentioned earlier that Nintendo Power was corrupt back in the day, and it certainly was. Every gaming magazine will pick and choose what it likes the most. Every reporter will review things they enjoy the most. Everyone is influenced by something.

In the end, a review is just an opinion. And if you honestly take that opinion as seriously as you seem to be doing so? Then there really is no help.

allgivenover · **02-15-2015, 09:34 PM**

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.

Val · **02-15-2015, 09:35 PM**

(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.

Kilborne Bloodbane · **02-15-2015, 09:44 PM**

(02-15-2015, 09:11 PM)Val Wrote:
(02-15-2015, 08:12 PM)Kilborne Bloodbane Wrote: Surely all of these people deserved to be banned without any notice for their profanity-ridden arguments, hatemail, harassment, and death threats.
http://rgz.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/6AFyFxl.png

Look at this inflammatory, hateful thread title!Â
http://ogeeku.com/wp-content/uploads/201...it.png.jpg

At least this guy tweeted a polite "warning" to indie devs who might think about supporting gamergate.
https://archive.today/Tcx3M

And on 4chan, of all places...
http://imgur.com/a/NkevG

Also, collusion...
http://i.imgur.com/jfWtl7M.jpg

And that's not even getting into the harassment. Y'know, like shutting down this charity...
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/erikkain/...ychack.png

Or supporters being sent wonderful gifts like this...
https://archive.today/27y57

And the idea that anything can be a taboo topic based on the whims of moderators is really, really shady. Censorship is wrong 100% of the time, and in this case the "censorship" was somehow justified because every single discussion was hateful and derogatory? You would have to go through some insane mental gymnastics to believe that.

1.) This link is reddit being reddit. Out of context, there isn't much to say for or against this link. If they'd already put up the statement that Gamergate shouldn't be talked about, then yeah, they can shadowban people left and right.

2.) I don't know why these people jumped down their throat. He's right. The internet isÂ forever, and anything that is said on it should be considered with rational thought rather than jumping at someone because of a difference of opinion. Ironic, isn't it?

3.) Same as Reddit. Obviously it was a banned URL and something that they didn't want to have to deal with again. Rules are rules.

4.) I already covered this in my long-winded response previously. I still don't see the point you're trying to make. So what if they hung out together? It's one review. Gone Home received a TON of reviews that both said it was great and horrid. Why focus on one that gave it a 10 when there's others?Â

5.) All I see is another example of someone not wanting to deal with this crap anymore. Quinn got death threat after death threat after death threat. Why would they risk the same?

6.) Yes, because only one side does things like that. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BzoKKRqIMAA8kaf.png

You're going to find pricks on both sides of the movement like that. That woman actually had to leave her house because her address was posted online and people talked about going to find and rape her and kill her family.

1) Except there was no reason to ban the discussion. The comments were civil. There was nothing illegal about discussing gamergate, and it was on a board dedicated to that discussion. Funny how child porn can be tolerated on reddit, but talking about games journalism can't.

2) Except if you read his responses he states that being associated with Gamergate immediately makes you a harasser. Association fallacy.

3) 4chan is (in)famous for allowing anything to be talked about. Gamergate started on 4chan and stayed there for months. Then we find out that the the owner, moot, was associated with some of the game journalists around the same time the discussion suddenly became taboo.

4) Again, it's called collusion. You focus on that because, uh... it's the problem you see?

5) Except that this kickstarter was hacked by an anti-gg supporter. It was a charity run by the Fine Young Capitalists that was backed by 4chan. Guilt by association apparently!

6) The difference is that Gamergate refuses to tolerate harassment
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/news....png_large

and in case helped a victim of it.
https://manboobz.files.wordpress.com/201....png?w=604

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.

Val · **02-15-2015, 09:53 PM**

(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

That new Law and Order episode

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