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:

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 is 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? 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/newsfeed/000/847/972/25a.png_large and in case helped a victim of it. https://manboobz.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/anitaharasserrr.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.

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. 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. 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 in 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 your 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. "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. 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. 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. "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. "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

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! http://ogeeku.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/banhammerexplodesreddit.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/files/2014/09/tfychack.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.

Her relationships don't matter. What matters is the crazy amount of censorship on gaming sites that followed when people discovered that two of the guys where journalists that covered her game. There were people who harassed her because of the scandal, and those are the people the antis put under a spotlight, since it fits into a neat black and white good vs evil narrative. Gamergate has moved on from the "Quinnspiracy", since it became obvious that there was no way to convince anyone that it was about journalists colluding with devs and mass censorship and not "THE WOMAN SLEPT WITH FIVE GUYS HARASS HER!"

No, I did not. There are probably more than 11 articles about most things. I don't know what point that is supposed to prove? o_o I can easily believe thousands of comments on Reddit were pure vitriol, but regardless, Reddit deletes Reddit comments. This faceless entity that's the "media" doesn't swoop in and erase content from their website. ....wat? Did you ever think it was all dredged back up by the Law and Order episode a la your own post right here? Except all of those sites banned discussion of GG from the very beginning. It was damage control. And when that failed, they started churning out "gamers are deeeeead!" articles. And when that failed, they just resorted to ad hominem attacks. We're all sexist racist white men. Notyourshield gets created on twitter aaaand... we're still sexist racist white men who apparently control minorities now. That's what critics of the movement do: deflect evidence, move goalposts, and make ad hominem attacks on invisible boogeymen. Also, another ten second google search brings up an article on February 9th, before the episode aired. Even further back is January 28th. Just because they say it, it doesn't make it true.

Maybe it's just that I don't feel like dredging through pages of a random tumblr, but so far I don't see much there but complaints about clickbait/misleading titles (and not even all gaming related) which is a pretty widespread problem in all internet journalism and not specific to gaming at all. It's been dead because Gamergate has been dead. What's your point with that? The tumblr you linked also contained a lot of slander and mockery as could be expected of any random tumblr our there, so that doesn't seem like anything worth mentioning. The rest is just... not even worth responding to lol. People will believe whatever they want to believe, especially when their priorities are so skewed they care more about some mostly imagined war on video games than they do the harassment of real people. Did you not see the eleven or so "Gamers are dead" articles that sprung up when the movement started? Or the thousands of reddit comments that got deleted because the media didn't want people to have any discussion at all? And no, you cannot tell me that every single comment was pure vitrol. And what does the language of the tumblr have to do with anything? It's a mockery of clickbait journalism, which is more prevelant in games journalism than any other. There's not a whole lot you can say about it without insulting the writers for being shallow and money-grubbing. What I'm getting is that you don't want to check one or two pages of a dissenting opinion. Also, a ten second google search of "Gamergate" brings up 4 articles about it that were published 9 hours ago. It's still the most trending topic on Know Your Meme. The /gamergate/ board on 8chan is active. It's still very much alive.

This. And this. To add my own two cents about the ridiculousness of Gamergate, though... I don't believe ethics in game journalism is that rampant or serious of a problem (at least, none of the people who've raved to me about it could actually give credible evidence to me of how it was). But if people really want to champion that cause, more power to 'em, but they A) should probably form an actual group with clear cut goals and ideas how to make progress that's not just a lot dudes yelling on the internet in a formless, aimless mass that does nothing progressive but send hatemail (and often not even to game journalists...), B) should probably form their own movement rather than piggybacking on a movement that was literally made to harass women and then wonder why everyone thinks they're misogynists and whine about how people are making it about hating women when "it's actually about ethics in game journalism," and C) should probably find a different name for themselves than "Gamergaters" since it's become synonymous with harassing women and if they really do want ethics and are supposedly thoroughly against harassment and sexism, they shouldn't want to be associated with such things, especially since it completely distracts from their goals of promoting ethics. But something truly wonderful came out of Gamergate--this meme. A) Evidence that ethics in game journalism are practically nonexistent, condensed into a convenient tumblr: http://loltaku.tumblr.com/ If you want something more recent, you can look up the time Gawker spammed a Coca-Cola "spread happiness" or something campaign with quotes from Mein Kampf, because the campaign was... promoting happiness for straight white males, obviously. B) The movement is based on an anonymous imageboard, where anyone can say literally anything. People have taken screenshots of one person screaming about how women are terrible and branded the entire movement is against women. What they leave out is the ten or so replies to that comment telling the poster to get out and stay out. If Gamegate hated women, why did they fund The Fine Young Capitalists, a movement that aimed to get women into the games industry? Why did they choose a female avatar to represent their movement? Why does #NotYourShield exist? If more people actually dug past what the media says and did proper research, they'd realize that the story is heavily skewed to favor one side over the other. Becaaaaaaause when you're going against the media, guess who's going to do everything to discredit you? The media! C) Feminists don't disassociate themselves from the title "Feminism" because of a minority being hardcore misandrists or attention seekers. Gamergate doesn't betray itself because a minority is what the media has chosen to represent them. Also that meme has been dead for months, and is just another example of the opposition using slander and mockery, since the evidence they ignore contradicts the narrative they want to spin. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/gamergate The actual history behind it, if anyone's interested.

Except the disgusting creeps were the only representation of gamers, if you don't count all the guys chanting over an FPS. The writers oversimplified the Gamegate controversy, and "people who hate all women" is one of the common misconceptions about the movement. The fact that you can say that the cartoon supervillain misogynist gamer characters in the episode could be an actual minority shows that the episode, in some way, worked. It's the 90s again, people who play video games are "dangerous" again. At least baneposting is gone on 8chan though.

AKA remember when all gamers were terrorists who can't tell the difference between a game and reality and have a BURNING HATRED OF ALL WOMEN? Law and Order: SVU remembers. n7faUHdlh9g

Cause I get tired of looking like A pirate with every peice of pugilist clothing that comes out >He doesn't want to be a pirate. What is wrong with you?