Ginella Leonis

Just a new-time forum user on a long-time RPing character in the Balmung server. You might have seen me booping people on their snoots or RPing with Gerel Kha.

[align=center]QDvgHkUCCtA [/align] [align=center]TRIPLE TRIAD THREAD MOTHERFUCKERS [/align] [align=center]Every other Golden Saucer game is irrelevant.[/align] Discussion of the best gods damned card game in video game history. Arrange matches, share your past victories, lament shameful losses, and share your tactics and deck builds. Live free and believe in the heart of the cards.

Estabelle doesn't have any experience with cooking or singing and all that, but she would definitely go for the receptionist position. You might wonder why a black mage would care about a mundane job like that, well... one can learn a lot when one interacts with people on a daily basis.

srujv6YNPAg Step aside, best Cyberpunk ost comin' through.

I'm fairly certainly I said many posts above, if you weren't so rabidly foaming at the mouth to defend yourself, that I realize it isn't a harassment campaign. The media has however spun it as one, and it will forever be considered one regardless of how much you want it to be otherwise. I'm not going to sit and talk circles with you, so I'll respectfully bow out now that my point has been ever so painstakingly made. And because the media says it, it must be true, right? Ah well, at least this didn't turn into a name calling fight. That's the most I could hope for.

"THE MEMES, OFFICER!" Nice meme.

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. 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. 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. I don't know if you realize this, but neutral tweets don't mean that they're for or against a topic. It just means it's being discussed. So it's not a harassment campaign? Thanks for finally understanding.

"THE MEMES, OFFICER!"

https://medium.com/@cainejw/an-actual-statistical-analysis-of-gamergate-dfd809858f68 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. 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. 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.

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!

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? 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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scandals_with_%22-gate%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. Whether it's silly or not doesn't change the fact that the name fits the scandal and subsequent events that started it.

https://medium.com/@cainejw/an-actual-statistical-analysis-of-gamergate-dfd809858f68 Nope <3 They hit the nail on the head! Thanks for that.

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? 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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scandals_with_%22-gate%22_suffix

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." 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 with 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: