Initially written late Friday, updated and copy edited late Saturday.
On Thursday night, I did a thought experiment. Basically, I was saying “I am not a #gamergater, but if I were, this is what I would do in order to take this anger and turn it into purpose and results.” Responses did not go well. Among the various feedback, there was enough common threads that I thought I might respond to some of them. However, I would ask that you read the article first. Like seriously. At least read it before yelling at me. No, go read it. That being said, here are some responses to some of the more common responses.
“You’re a shill.”
The shill gambit is a logical fallacy that rejects a person’s ideas because they come from outside your cause. Which means, quite literally, if #GamerGate holds this worldview consistently, as they are trying to do now, any sort of outreach to them is impossible, and therefore developers and press should just stop trying. And so if this becomes the default answer when one of us not on your side of the fence throws out a proposal, you’re going to keep seeing what I see – press and developers choosing to ignore the cause, because really, what’s the point in engaging?
“The name is stupid.”
Dude, I care so little about the name that I didn’t even bother figuring out what ‘M’ stood for. It is, quite literally, the least important thing in the whole idea – I was just tired of typing ‘this new consumer advocacy group‘ over and over again.. And if this is the biggest thing you think is wrong, then either its a great idea, or you didn’t really read the proposal. The important thing is that I’m NOT PROPOSING changing the name of #gamergate. #Gamergate MUST continue to exist for the new organization to have power. At any rate, #GamerGate must feel like they own the organization, so they should probably name it anyway.
“You’re not the right person to drive this. You’re not a gamergater.”
I know! I said this! Emphatically! First off, I’m a developer, which is to say, I’m sitting on the outside while watching mommy and daddy fight. Secondly, I don’t agree with all of #gamergate’s philosophies, and I make no secret or apologies about this. This new consumer advocacy group will only work if it is started and owned by Gamergaters. I have no desire to run it, be a part of it, infiltrate it or whatever, but I would like to be able to debate it, read sanctioned position papers from it, negotiate with it. Right now, all of these are impossible, so my primary option is to just begin ignoring it.
“This was started by a secret cabal on a shadowy IRC channel.”
Actually, a group of us announced on Twitter we were going to go into the room, and the IRC channel name was announced to the world and left open. The IRC channel was open to all, and we only had to deal with one troublesome person who named himself ‘ZoeQuinnLovesNig’. The proceedings were really super secretive, you can tell from this ominous line:
[21:46] <DamionSchubert> I gotta go guys. If this gets posted somewhere, someone IM it to me.
The logs can be found here, and at the bottom of the proposal. For what it’s worth, the idea pretty much entirely mine and mine alone before I threw it into this room, although I have seen similar people suggest consumer orgs or leadership for #gamergate in different formats.
“Maybe some of these people you mentioned like TotalBiscuit don’t WANT to do this.”
I was just mentioning these as examples. Clearly, this proposal would require a constitutional congress of people who actually gave a shit, and their first order of business would need to be a fair, public and transparent election. This new consumer advocacy group will only work if it is started and owned by Gamergaters. It will also only work if its deliberations are as transparent as is possible.
“A leader can be character assassinated! Not having one is our strength!”
By and large, spokesmen don’t get character assassinated. Look at the white house press secretary. Sometimes he screws something up, but people don’t GO AFTER HIM for anything other than that minor screwup which is usually forgotten in a day or two. Instead, the press goes after Obama or Bush, and the POLICIES they espouse. His job is to protect them, and to do so in a relatively faceless sort of way. Put another way: how often has the IGDA been character assassinated? The ECA? The ESA? How about real political or consumer groups like the NRA? The AARP? Consumer Reports? The NAACP? All of these groups invite attacks on their principles and their press releases, and very RARELY on the character of their leaders or spokespersons. But then the discussion is on your principles and/or your tactics, and those are above reproach. Right?
At any rate, judging by the ferocity that #gamergate defends its heroes like Adam Baldwin, Milo, Christina, etc, etc, I’m pretty sure any leader or spokesperson that actually won an election for the cause would pretty much find himself bulletproof.
“But an official, structured group is possible to be infiltrated and subverted from within!”
News flash: this is already happening all of the time, and its really hurting the reputation of #gamergate, and of gamers and the games industry as well. Gamergate has constantly, since the beginning, suffered almost daily from self-inflicted damage caused by either well-meaning idiots (on their side) or malicious trolls (either from the other side or from troublemakers who just want to watch the world burn). The part where the angry mob accused Zoe of not giving to charity (since disproven) made #gamergate look bad. The part where the angry mob accused Anita of not going to the FBI (since disproven) made #gamergate look bad. The random schmucks who still drop cartoons of Zoe having sex for reviews in my Twitterfeed make #gamergate look bad. Whoever DDOSed my blog on Friday made #gamergate look bad. The part where a random guy snuck onto Raph Koster’s private facebook feed and exploded at some of the most important developers in the games industry as they were discussing how to engage with #gamergate made #gamergate look bad. The part where enough creepers do enough creepy shit to make the IGDA feel its necessary on how to give counseling to devs on how to protect themselves makes #gamergate look bad. The part where someone tried to take the chat logs for THIS VERY PROPOSAL and spin them to the mob as a secret underground cabal, when that person must clearly have been in the room and known it was nothing of the sort, makes #gamergate look bad. And don’t even get me started about how both sides started throwing poo at each other over Kate Von Roeder’s suicide – even though I think this guy is an anti-GGer and probably full of shit (or maybe found on abhorrent asshole I couldn’t find while searching), the poo flinging is very much a product of the toxic environment around #gamergate-the-scandal that makes people who stumble upon the subject want to flee the conversation. THIS is the gamergate that devs see when they scan their twitter and facebook feeds casually. It’s not just #gamergate-the-side, it’s #gamergate-the-overall-clusterfuck-of-a-scandal.
No, I’m not saying that all gamers do this, or that all gamergaters are either responsible for stupid shit like this, or are stupid enough to fall for this. I’m also not saying that Gamergaters sanctioned all of these. In fact, some were repudiated – much too late to undo the damage. What I’m saying is that there is a constant drumbeat of stories across my facebook, twitter and reddit feed every day of GamerGate actions that make skeptics of the cause less likely to grant you their sword. The movement isn’t vulnerable to character assassination, but it is currently suffering from movement assassination, and it’s a death by a thousand cuts.
“You’re trying to replace GamerGate with something weaker.”
This new consumer advocacy group does not replace Gamergate. It augments it as a smaller, secondary organization, and focuses it. It’s existence alongside Gamergate makes it stronger. In fact, this new consumer advocacy group is useless without the GamerGate population to act as its hammer. If the consumer advocacy group fails, then GamerGate will STILL be there, and can revert to the unguided nihilism it calls progress now.
“Address our issues with the press!”
I’ve addressed the press before, and come to the conclusion that it needs an ombudsman for #gamergate to be satisfied. The problem is that the relationship between media and players are so screwed up that I don’t know if they’d trust one if the press set one up themselves. My proposal gives that power and responsibility to the PLAYERS (similar to how consumer reports reviews cars & other stuff by consumers and for consumers) – this new consumer advocacy group would have an ombudsman website that would reward good press and punish bad press – which means that the players can TRUST it, rather than just be forced to trust the press when they say ‘no really, everything’s all up and up from now on’.
“But we’re winning doing what we’re doing!”
That’s debateable, but I don’t think you are. GamerGate has had one serious victory in five weeks, Intel backing out of advertising in Gamasutra. Problem is that this move has pissed off the developers to the degree where the IGDA, who was previously largely sitting out of this fight, mobilized developers to protest to Intel which has prompted Intel to apologize for pulling ads largely because #Gamergate does such a poor job of hiding it’s zealous anti-feminist wing. (I should note that it turns out game developers buy a LOT of intel hardware, and sometimes decide whether or not to, say, put them into game consoles). I would be surprised if more companies succumbed to the boycott after that blew up in Intel’s face. But still, that’s one victory in 5 weeks.
Sure, a couple of magazines seem to be struggling, and there’s been traffic fluctuation, but Kotaku, Gamespot, Polygon, and IGN are all doing better or within a stone’s throw of where they were a year ago on Alexa and are all still crushing Gamergate darling site The Escapist. RPS is struggling, which is interesting in that they are one of the few sites that actually addressed the issue head-on instead of now just pretending to ignore it.
“Selling T-Shirts seems crass.”
Then don’t. Or sell them at a loss. Making Gamergate feel like it has a presence off the Internet and in the real world would help your cause dramatically, but if that’s not how this new consumer advocacy group wants to present itself, I give literally zero fucks. Any such organization needs to figure out these details for themselves, and be sure it’s compatible with #gamergate’s ideals.
“No one will give money to this organization.
If the invested people of #gamergate will give thousands of dollars to the TFYC and to iFred over a petty personal feud, but won’t give it to a host organization that actually has a chance to accomplish the goals of checking press corruption and improving relations with developers, then it and GamerGate should die.
“You should no way be part of this.”
I don’t want to. For all the reasons I listed above, as well as the fact that I’m really a lazy guy. If no one picks up this ball and runs with it, I’m not going to carry it myself. However, let me tell you what I DO want.
What I want is for GamerGate to be able to send a person to talk to devs at GDC. I want them to be able to send someone to a sitdown and make demands at intel, at EA, and at Gawker. I want them to be able to send someone to congressional hearings if necessary. I want an organization that can help GamerGate focus on the good things that they do, and stop doing the things that make the games industry a depressing place to work right now. I want the press to beg #gamergate for their stamp of approval instead of just ignoring it and doing what they’ve always dones. The current structure of #gamergate makes all of these things impossible. A new sister organization makes all of these things possible, and acts as a force multiplier for Gamergate’s enthusiasm and anger.
“You’re an SJW.”
My friends still think this is hilarious. I’m the one who thinks that the ‘Dickwolves‘ cartoon is sublime game design commentary, and people should fucking stop being so precious about boobplate. Incidentally, I can’t count how many times I’ve explained what a “Social Justice Warrior” is to someone, and they’ve responded “… and so this is a bad thing?” Seriously. Think about how throwing around that as an insult makes someone look.
“You’re a hipster.”
Dude, I had terrible fashion sense before it was cool. Also, ad hominem and irrelevant.
“You are a middle aged, white, balding man.”
My hair is FINE.
“You can just eat shit out of my asshole. You suck, your games suck. You’re human garbage. Swallow your own tongue.”
Well, I guess we’re done here.
I applaud your patience and how you try to engage in a conversation you’re not needing to have.
Seconded.
I do think it’s a conversation that needs to be had, and while I think the responses in this article and the suggestions in the previous article are clear and well presented with a definite goal. It’s a change that will only come when the broiling mass of GGers have that conversation amongst themselves.
And for all I know there are the rational few that are.
But, as with any large movement there will always be the extremists that respond in harmful ways thinking their derogatory puerile epithets add in any meaningful way to the discussion.
I’m hoping once this issue starts to resolve itself (usually by the mass tearing itself apart from internal dissent, resolving itself into smaller fragments, each less able to effect change than the original) Damion will have a little time to put up an article or two about insights into gaming and lessons learnt with a career in MMOs.
I second this sentiment. I salute your impressive patience, I certainly don’t have that trait.
I can understand why Gamergate is so wary of these sorts of ideas. Put simply they view themselves as being constantly miss-interpreted by everyone, they therefore reason that if they did form an organisation it would simply be ruthlessly misinterpreted by the “powers that be” until it could be discarded.
I can definitely see their point of view but honestly I’m not convinced that would happen. [I don’t think even the most maliciously motivated “anti-GGer” could fight against a proper consumer advocacy organisation without looking so absurd no one could agree.] But alas “perception is reality” as they say.
Having said that, even if the org failed it doesn’t stop GG. GG’s primary weapon is the boycott, they can boycott while simultaneously setting up this organisation. The organisation has no impact on this boycotting whatsoever. I’m unsure what interest GG has in “PR” at this point, even if *all* media turned on them boycotts would still be workable, assuming they have the numbers.
I’m also more than a little bit sure that if such an organisation was set up some developers and even journalists would (perhaps warily) come on board with the idea, simply because it is, at its root, a constructive effort rather than a destructive one and humans are always drawn to the former and perturbed by the latter.
Sadly dialogue/ constructive efforts seem squarely out the window now, which is really depressing.
I think I’m fascinated by the problem because I’m a game designer, and I’m looking at #gamergate-the-scandal as a completely disfunctional game.
Damion, thank you.
You have just proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that #Gamergate — like Anonymous, like the Occupy Movement, like ISIS and the Tea Party — is just a bunch of spoiled kids who really don’t want to do anything but play at the game ,”Making Revolution,” without the faintest clue as to how to get shit done.
Actually, ISIS is being the most mature and effective of the bunch at the moment.
Look, I think GamerGate is an inherently misogynistic movement that’s literally become videogames’ Tea Party (a reactionary conservative movement that seeks to portray the privileged as victims in order to consolidate their power), but let’s not compare them to the fucking murderers of ISIS. ISIS is literally kidnapping children and forcing them to be the wives of militia leaders.
For all GamerGate is horrific, it’s an aching hangnail compared to ISIS. Let’s not get fucking stupid here.
Will have to throw Sarkeesian in that group as she is just a shit disturbing agitator who is out to rake in money by falsifying her identity as an avid gamer I order to gain consulting work. She is pretty much just as heretical and self absorbed as all the groups mentioned above.
You shouldn’t care how much of a gamer someone is. If you don’t like someone’s opinion, you don’t have to attack her. For there to be shit stirring, there has to be shit.
Game culture has a lot of shit. Anita damn well stirred it up. You don’t have to like it.
“Will have to throw Sarkeesian in that group as she is just a shit disturbing agitator who is out to rake in money by falsifying her identity as an avid gamer I order to gain consulting work. She is pretty much just as heretical and self absorbed as all the groups mentioned above.”
Citation needed.
Also, you seem to have no problem with Christina Hoff Sommers, who by her own admission hasn’t played games since Pac-Man, using gamers to further her own agenda? So it’s fine to use gamers to further your agenda as long as you agree with their politics.
Why are you so bothered that someone has an opinion different than yours on video games?
Are you talking to me? Because I don’t think this comment makes sense with my comment you replied to.
Sorry think that was a misclick. Branching in this is rough sometimes.
Allies are allies, regardless of where they come from, would you reject the aid of a Moroccan songwriter while you are being mugged by someone with clear intent to kill, just because you don’t think they could fight?
That is just bomb-throwing and trolling, a completely unproductive attempt to say something outrageous so that someone else says something intemperate.
Just for the record, I went through today and made sure that every single comment on the original thread was left undeleted. Feel free to link it anytime anyone asks you why people moderate discussions about #Gamergate.
Don’t blame me buddy, I’ve been trying to push them into turning this cold war hot for quite some time. I am definitely with Roguestar on this, burn the entire corrupt system, and damn anyone caught in the crossfire. We need to level up alright, to the IRA!
And people wonder why GameDevs are feeling threatened by #GamerGaters…
I know, right?
You can call the IRA terrorists or freedom fighters — there are certainly people across the decades who have viewed them from both angles.
Less debatable is the fact that the IRA killed more than 3600 people across its 30 year campaign. Is that really the group you want to invoke?
This is precisely the kind of language that puts people off. If I dismiss you as a loudmouth on the Internet, you’re a loudmouth on the Internet with no grasp of the words you type or the actions you recommend.
If I take you seriously, you are advocating for a campaign of terror, intimidation, and murder. Bombings. Assaults. People beaten in the streets. People blown up in their homes. These are things the IRA did and you cannot simply say “Oh I was just using them as an example,” unless you want to be stuffed into the “Loudmouth on the Internet” category and dismissed.
There are numerous examples of campaigns and movements across history that sparked social change and a reevaluation of principles without resorting to violence, fear, intimidation, and murder. I suggest you use them instead.
And incidentally, I feel exactly the same way about a Dell employee invoking ISIS.
I fully agree. This is a rule that applies to both sides. GG is not a group of Nazis or an extension of ISIS. “Leveling up” to the IRA should not be a goal of any side of this discussion.
If you want to level up, level up to MLK Jr. Level up to Gandhi. Level up to peaceful protest and societal change if your cause is just and inspiring to a large enough group of people, but let’s leave the terrorist movements out of it.
We’re not being unreasonable. Escapist did the right thing, apologized, set up full disclosure, and allowed discussion. Do they get any hate in all this? They host Bob Chipman (anti-gg) for god’s sake, and still we love them.
At every turn you ignore how badly the rest of these press sites have acted. Maybe you should write a few blog posts telling them what to do.
Why is “allowing discussion” important? Nobody is obligated to host any conversation on their servers.
This idea that YOU MUST HAVE OPEN COMMENT SECTIONS OR YOU ARE COMMITTING CENSORSHIP is easily one of GamerGate’s stupidest ideas, and that is saying something.
The press sites have only “acted badly” in the minds of the ultra paranoid.
I think the anti-censorship angle is one of the strongest and most important, and clinging to a technical, 20th-century dictionary definition of the term misses the point.
No, you don’t need to have a comment section. They cost time and money to maintain, and those are limited. But IF you have comment section, and you use it to suppress opinions you don’t like, you’re committing fraud and you’re doing violence to free speech. Free speech is a culture and an atmosphere. It must be actively fostered and maintained by everyone.
The larger your reach, the larger your obligation to be open to people who say disagreeable things. Someone used this analogy to explain it to leftists: If it is pointless and demeaning to say that a millionaire and a beggar have the same right to healthcare, namely to buy what they can afford, if it is the obligation of society to help them realize this right, how can you say that a man with ten megaphones and a man standing alone in a muffled corner have the same right to free speech?
“But IF you have comment section, and you use it to suppress opinions you don’t like, you’re committing fraud and you’re doing violence to free speech. Free speech is a culture and an atmosphere. It must be actively fostered and maintained by everyone.”
I do not agree.
You have the right to say whatever you want in public. You do not have the right to say it in my front yard. I have the right to say “I do not want this on my site” because it’s my fucking site and I can do what I want with what I privately own.
“how can you say that a man with ten megaphones and a man standing alone in a muffled corner have the same right to free speech?”
This is an absurd analogy, especially in this day and age. Write a blog post. Make a YouTube video with ominous music. Take to the “streets” of Twitter. Those are all your avenues for free speech.
You have the right to say what you want, but you do not have the right to force me to listen to it. And more to the point, you do not have the right to say it in my home or my business.
Here’s a better example: You and your friends are protesting in the street/sidewalks. (The public area, Youtube/your own blog/Twitter/etc). I own a restaurant nearby. I cannot stop you from protesting in public, but I can shut my windows so my customers aren’t bothered (blocking you). I can demand that you leave your signs and placards at the door when you come in to eat (forbidding discussion of a topic) or, if you refuse, I can kick you out.
Because that is my personal property. And to suggest I don’t have rights over it is sort of, what’s the word you used, leftist?
It’s interesting that your examples for the analogues of public areas on the net are, in fact, all private. Youtube, my blog hoster and Twitter might currently be somewhat tolerant, but legally, they can behave like your restaurant owner and silence me or you tomorrow. I find that deeply problematic, especially when every avenue is under so much pressure to conform to a singular code of ethics. (And a singular body of law, as all are US companies)
And how did we arrive at that list, by the way? Why isn’t Reddit on it? How large does a private business have to become until it effectively controls the right to free expression?
Should we only look at it globally, or perhaps also locally for each community? The gaming press, collectively, silenced many voices, and we’re in the middle of their counterreaction.
The disconnect for all parties must be immense. The “SJWs” thought they needed to give a voice to those structurally marginalized by some “Patriarchy”, and thereby became a structure which itself marginalized others. Without fairness and equal rights for all, this cycle of exclusion and rebellion will continue.
True. Twitter, YT et al are technically private, and as such they would have the right to do so. (Also, I would think that “don’t be fucking bigots” is a rather universal code of ethics, apparently not, though?)
I didn’t put Reddit on the list because it didn’t occur to me, actually. But same thing, really.
The gaming press did not silence anybody, collectively or individually. All it said was “say it out in the street.” Nobody was silenced at all.
The idea that “SJWs” are “marginalizing” anybody is laughable. All that’s happening is that people are being pushed off the pedestal of preferential treatment.
I mean sure, I guess removing privilege that holds you and those like you above anyone else is, from the perspective of the privileged, being brought down, but really it’s just making everyone equal.
Twex – I share your concern over the ambiguity of social media, which sort of wants to have its cake and eat it. “Hey, this is your space!” “You can’t say that here – this is out space.”
I took issue with a site owner some years ago for this very reason, arguing that his banning me was cutting me off from a community that I should be allowed to engage with.
However – and this is a big however – in your analogy, the man with ten megaphones might as well be #gamergate. They have made an explicit, concerted effort to drown out other conversation and to try to force other people to talk about the issues they want to talk about. Not only that, but much of their discussion amounts to tactical debate as to how best to destroy the platforms for other kinds of views.
The job of a moderator who wants to preserve free speech here is not to let anarchy reign but to do something to curb the excesses of the mob so that other people with other issues actually get the chance to be heard above the din.
Game websites with huge community hubs whose fans are often associated with blunt Twitter hate mobs sort of shrug, they say things like ‘we delete the really bad stuff, what else can we do’ and ‘those people don’t represent our community’ — but actually, those people do represent your community. That’s what your community is known for, whether you like it or not.
When you decline to create or to curate a culture in your spaces, you’re responsible for what spawns in the vacuum. That’s what’s been happening to games.
Bullshit. If you are in the business of running a community, you are in the business of being sure that community is not disrupted or destroyed by assholes.
Free Speech does not mean that you have the right to print what you want in the New York Times. The NYT is free to choose which letters appear in the Letters to the Editor.
Free speech does not give you the right to stand up in the center of my bar and tell off my other customers. If you tried that in real life, a bouncer would escort you out so fast you’d probably get motion sickness. He has no obligation to try to determine if your point was good if you are alienating other customers.
Free speech means the GOVERNMENT can’t censor you. People who own private megaphones by all means do not have to be forced to hand them to you.
Did you read Gamasutra before Leigh wrote her column?
If not, you can go back to not reading it. It’s OK.
I DID! You might remember me calling Leigh’s article ‘mindbogglingly stupid’, or the blow by blow history of the gaming press and the list of 7-8 things that are heinously wrong with it right now.
As an IT journalist and gamer (though I only dabble in gaming coverage) I just wanted to say thank you for the consistently excellent degree of insight and discussion you have attempted to bring to this issue. Voices like yours are few and far between.
Gotta say, speaking as someone who has followed GamerGate more-or-less since the inception (somewhere between the mass censorship wave and the Gamers Are Dead articles), this article makes several good points, and there’s actually been more than a little discussion on how to do exactly that (you can find a proposal most everyone I’ve seen more-or-less agrees with here: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.860762-GamerGate-Discussion-Debate-and-Resources?page=192#21422052 ).
However, none of that is going to happen in the near future. Personally, I kinda wish it would, but the prevailing sentiment is that there is nothing but losses to be had by trying to set up such an organization until after the dust settles. I’ve heard arguments all across the credulity scale, ranging from “it would be bad to split focus” to “it gives the opposition a clear, structured target to infiltrate just like they did the press”, but as far as I’ve seen, it’s pretty universally agreed by GamerGate supporters that such an endeavor will have to wait until after the “fight” is over.
As for how to end it, that’s a bit more complicated. I have maintained, and continue to do so, that if the sites that attacked gaming culture were to only apologize for the perceived attacks, clarify their original statements in unambiguous terms, and establish basic ethical guidelines, the entire movement would fizzle and die in a matter of hours. As evidence, I put forth the Escapist, which did pretty much exactly that and is universally lauded by GamerGate supporters, even though roughly 90% of the visible staff are clearly against the movement.
I really don’t see any other way to move forward. GamerGate supporters are not going to let the perceived insults and attacks go. It doesn’t matter if the articles meant to say something else, or if you interpreted it to not be an attack on them. The fact of the matter is, they did, and every time someone says “get over it”, it’s perceived as simply agreeing with and adding to the insult. Telling people who are angry and mouthy that they’re bad people and should shut up and do what you say is not conducive to calming them down.
Just my $0.02
I can’t claim to have paid attention to 100% of the controversy as it evolved across 100% of the websites — but from what I have seen, the GG movement has been generally driven and represented not by thoughtful people with articulate good points but by a surge of absolutely vile, hateful claims and statements.
I read Leigh Alexander’s original article and disagreed. I watched Sarkeesian on YouTube and thought: “I don’t agree with everything she thinks, but she raises some interesting points.” And that was the extent of my involvement or engagement on either topic until the accusations of conspiracy and collusion began, often based on outright lies regarding motivations, reviews, and sexual favors. I still see these points churning the muck and while I appreciate people like Damion for churning the mud to find genuine points worth discussing, far too many people in the GG community seem to believe they have a right to be as nonsensical, irrational, and hateful as they please, while it’s the responsibility of journalists everywhere to thoughtfully sift their dreck to find the few genuine points worth conversing over.
You (by which I mean the group of people who have become the loudest voices within the GG community) do not win a seat at the table or the bully pulpit by screaming obscenities, lies, and vicious attacks at people — and taking steps to “end” it by pandering to such viewpoints is never going to be acceptable.
Speaking as a journalist: I don’t want readers who engage in the kinds of flame wars that have too often been a hallmark of the GG movement. If that meant I could no longer be a journalist because those readers were the bulk of my website’s traffic, I’d stop being a journalist. I value discourse, difference of opinion, and thoughtful analysis, but Damion’s work here stands out precisely because it’s a lighthouse in a sea of garbage.
I’m not completely certain about which parts of your post are actually a reply to mine, so bear with me if I miss something. I also have no idea why Sarkeesian came up, as I was pretty clearly talking about the websites and writers who sparked this whole affair.
If I understand correctly, you seem to have 2 primary points in response to me that can be boiled down to 1)”I saw things on the internet I disagreed with and didn’t kick up a fuss, why didn’t you guys do the same?” and 2)”It is not the responsibility of the journalist to sift through the coal to find the diamonds”.
This drains out some of the nuance, but that appears to be the core thrust of your argument. Is that correct?
Assuming that is the case, I will respond to each point individually. Please correct me and clarify if I misunderstood something and I will try to respond accordingly.
First, I’ll tackle people kicking up a fuss over something on the internet that they disagree with. I feel the need to point out here that I addressed this in my previous post. Specifically, “It doesn’t matter if the articles meant to say something else, or if you interpreted it to not be an attack on them. The fact of the matter is, they did, and every time someone says “get over it”, it’s perceived as simply agreeing with and adding to the insult.”.
A lot of people didn’t see those articles as something they disagreed with. They saw them as smear pieces insulting them and attacking their culture. Maybe the articles were intended to say something else, something calmer and less, well, toxic, but that’s not how they came across to a great many people. People are upset because they see the articles as attacking a culture they belong to and even them personally.
That’s why it doesn’t matter what the articles are meant to say or what your interpretation of the articles are. Many of the people up in arms perceived them as hit pieces aimed squarely at them, angering them quite a bit. Telling them to shut up and get over it is going to do nothing but fan that anger even higher.
Now for your second point. I would posit that yes, it is the responsibility of a journalist to sift out the dross. That’s what journalists are paid for. To dive into the crap and pull out the gem that’s worth reporting on.
I’ll be the first to say that no one deserves to be harassed or abused in any way, and I don’t blame anyone for walking away if/when that ever happens. They’re fully within their rights and anyone who tries to start that shit needs a swift kick in the nuts.
That doesn’t really change anything though. Professionals, especially professionals specializing in the written word, are going to be expected to conduct themselves to a higher standard than random faceless anons who are not professionals. That’s why professionals get paid. I fail to see why expecting professionals to adhere to professional standards is a problem.
Opinion pieces, when labeled as such, are subject to a different standard of scrutiny than “articles.”
All the articles that said things that were mean about gamers were opinionated commentary. If the objection is that mean things were said, then it’s a question about taste and sensitivity of the reader. If the objection is that the accusations were baseless, then it’s a question about the author’s agenda.
No professional author wants people to stop reading what they write, nor does a publisher want readership to stop.
Posit: Most people who got mad at these articles didn’t read the publications they came from regularly. If you’re not pursuing a career in the games industry or are fascinated by the machinations about game development, there isn’t a lot of reason to read Gamasutra.
I have no idea how many people upset about the articles were regular readers (though from the comments I’ve seen I think you’d be surprised). What does that have to do with my point though?
If the people kicking up a fuss aren’t the sites’ readers, then the sites can just ignore them and their business won’t be harmed. There’s no incentive to change. That’s how capitalism works.
And if that’s the case, then GamerGate is going to fail and collapse, likely by carving out its own space in the market using other, smaller sites that have catered to them quite well in this affair, and the larger sites that GamerGate is trying to enact change on well carry on in whatever way they deem best.
Something tells me that’s not the case, but that’s probably just my own bias peeking in.
“If the people kicking up a fuss aren’t the sites’ readers, then the sites can just ignore them and their business won’t be harmed. There’s no incentive to change. That’s how capitalism works.”
Unless they get advertisers to pull their support from the sites they didn’t read in the first place. That’s exactly what Gamergate represents. There is no other reason to acknowledge it except for its noise, and the good principles that come from it are leaderless and malleable.
That’s what this article and the one before it were trying to argue. Go look at the comments from the previous one. There are people who support Gamergate that want everyone to think Gamergate is about that.
First, a clarifying point: I brought up Sarkeesian because her body of work, already controversial, was rapidly incorporated as part of what GG was attacking — not because of anything you specifically said.
You’ve captured part of what I meant, but missed what I think is some important differences.
1)”I saw things on the internet I disagreed with and didn’t kick up a fuss, why didn’t you guys do the same?”
Everyone is free to have their own opinions on the explosiveness or problems with any given story. Sometimes readers will seize on a sentence that the author included as an offhand explanatory statement or remark and it becomes the center of the conversation thread. The problem here is not that people became upset or disagreed with Alexander, or Sarkeesian, or Zoe Quinn. It’s really not.
The problem is the manner in which that disagreement has all too often been expressed. This is where I agree with Damion on the need for a group or at least a formal structure that can present the legitimate concerns and issues of the GG community without simultaneously amplifying the character assassinations and threats.
My problem with GG is not that some people were angry about what any given journalist or individual said — it’s the manner and nature of how that anger was communicated and the torrent of misogyny and lies that accompanied it.
2).”It is not the responsibility of the journalist to sift through the coal to find the diamonds”.
There’s a key difference here. Let me address it with an example.
There are people who believe that vaccines cause autism, that the HAARP weather station in Alaska could change the weather, and that airplanes are responsible for seeding “chemtrails” in the atmosphere. All these things have been repeatedly and scientifically debunked. Nonetheless, there are people who continue to loudly insist that it’s all a grand conspiracy to poison us / steal our precious bodily fluids / make money for Big [INSERT NAME HERE].
There’s a difference between sifting coal for diamonds and getting shot with it — particularly when said coal is laced with blatant lies, distortions, and personal attacks fired by people who have a direct personal interest in perpetuating these statements, and who are blatantly uninterested in understanding anything about the situation. Being skeptical is one thing. Being a conspiracy theorist is something else.
The comments left on some of Damion’s other posts illustrate this difference. On the one hand you have people who are having thoughtful conversations. On the other, you have people who show up to scream their particular favorite invectives with absolutely no interest or regard for the facts of any given situation.
Then there’s documents like this: http://makealist.com/content/quinngategamergate-boycott-list Which purport to compile a list of journalism companies actively “colluding” with each other. The first sentence sets up the battleground:
“This is a list of sites, companies, causes/events, and people that have colluded with Zoe Quinn in illegal and/or unethical ways and/or publicly defended associated corruption and/or censored its exposure and/or advanced associated toxic agendas.”
To some of the people in GG, it is apparently obvious that Gawker, Conde Nast, Vice, The Verge, IGN, GameSpot, RPS, and the frickin’ NEW YORKER — all of whom are either competitors with each other or concerned with vastly different areas of coverage — colluded to spread lies and disinformation. To journalists who actually work in the field and are aware that the fastest way to ensure nobody listens to you is to attempt to tell fellow journalists how to do their job, this is patently ridiculous. But telling people that doesn’t make them believe it, anymore than telling people “Chemtrails aren’t real,” doesn’t actually make them stop believing in chemtrails.
I would guess the reason you see fewer game journalism sites engaging with GG isn’t just “Let’s all ignore it and hope it goes away.” It’s that the arguments advanced by many of its loudest members have no factual accuracy. There’s nothing to engage *with.*
I *agree* with you that just telling angry people to ‘get over it’ is not productive. The problem, from my view, is that the people who might have genuine concerns are buried nearly at once in any thread or conversation on the topic. Stories that were intended to discuss the “real” issues end up threadjacked and diverted — often by such a toxic cloud of miasma that publications are stuck between enforcing their own TOS (and being then attacked with cries of censorship) or allowing people to make all manner of threats and baseless accusations. It’s a no-win scenario.
I valued this compliment so highly that I’ve changed the tagline of my blog. Thank you.
“GamerGate supporters are not going to let the perceived insults and attacks go.”
Then it will remain an angry mob with no goal, only a grudge.
If you want there to be more, you might have to work at it.
Can you clarify?
GamerGate very clearly has a goal: establishing ethical standards similar to every other reporting industry for the gaming press.
Part of that process is taking steps to rebuild the damaged trust between the offending sites and their audience, and an apology is but the first and easiest step on that road. I fail to see how people being upset about being, from their perspective, unapologetically insulted invalidates that goal.
http://www.polygon.com/pages/ethics-statement
Did you know that was there?
Further, how does Operation Disrespectful Nod apply to what you state is Gamergate’s goal?
I fail to see how people who use 4chan can legitimately take offense to anything anyone else writes on the Internet.
Finally, if you didn’t come to Gamergate from 4chan, why do you need Gamergate at all?
I was not actually. I must’ve missed it when they published it. Giving it a quick read it looks solid enough, and if they can stick to it I don’t have much issue with Polygon. Now they just need to rebuild the last trust. That explains why they haven’t come up much in the last couple weeks at least.
As for ODN, that is simply the application of the tools available to a boycott and consumer revolt. It’s one of the most fundamental elements of such. It’s the exact same logic as telling the public to not eat at Chick-Fill-A or whatever.
What’s 4chan have to do with anything? I’ve never visited the site in my life. And I fail to see how how I found out about GamerGate (which for the record was on the Escapist) had any bearing on how I’d view its legitimacy. The movement is a push for better, more transparent journalism. What does “visits 4chan” have to do with that?
Because it came from and has been largely buffeted by 4channers.
Boycotting can mean you don’t pay attention to it. Trying to pull advertising from something you don’t like but don’t read regularly is shitty. The worst anyone said is that “Gamers” have a contingent of immature, disgusting, boorish people who prevent a real culture from forming.
I think your heart might be in the right place, but there’s more you should read. Good thing is, there are other articles on this very site to provide some perspective.
Trying to control the opinion pieces of a periodical by pressuring their advertisers is the direct opposite of “establishing ethical standards”.
The very actions of #GamerGate make it clear that claims to be about Journalistic integrity are a smoke screen.
Well said
Riight.. So first it was.
“Why dont you just do a boycott”
boycott works
“Youre censoring us”
Just admit it, you never thought wed actually have any effect.
That’s exactly what the people at gamesultra have been telling themselves. And then they lost their advertising.
In any case, you can’t look at this through traditional methods. Internet culture is new, and there’s too much blatant lies and corruption being spread around. Traditional views assume honestly. Reality is quite different from that.
No means no.
So you said:
>I can’t count how many times I’ve explained what a “Social Justice Warrior” is to someone, and they’ve responded “… and so this is a bad thing?”
Then you are not doing a good job of explaining what a social justice warrior is.
SJWs are the people who go out of their way to look for sexism in the most benign of statements. They are the people who call any criticism of their views ‘misogyny’ or ‘anti-feminist’, even if all you’ve done is point out that their facts were incorrect. They are the people who think that the simple fact of being white, or cisgendered, or male, or middle class automatically makes ALL of your views and opinions worthless. SJW is not just a synonym for “somebody who cares about gender equality”.
Social justice warriors are among the most radical, irrational extremists of the feminist movement. They use social justice as an excuse to vilify and harass people. Anybody who actually wants to bring about gender equality (or any other equality, really) should be vehemently opposed to SJWs.
Now, people professing far more moderate views often get accused of being social justice warriors, but that’s little different from somebody who says we should raise taxes getting called a communist, or indeed somebody being called a misoynist or anti-feminist for daring to question a specific claim. The misuse of these terms when used as insults doesn’t change the underlying ‘true’ meanings.
Being a social justice warrior is absolutely a bad thing. But that’s different from just being somebody who happens to get accused of being one?
That last sentence was not supposed to be a question. The question mark was a typo.
Your definition here doesn’t apply to *any* of the games journalists who have been called SJWs. So it seems that either #gamergate or you are using the term incorrectly.
In fact, I know of precisely one person who even comes close to thinking “that the simple fact of being white, or cisgendered, or male, or middle class automatically makes ALL of your views and opinions worthless”, and I know a lot of social justice activists. It sounds like you’re talking about such an outlier minority that the term is close to useless.
The IGDA and Gamasutra are not separate enough for their reaction to count as anything more than protecting their own.
Odd, since the IGDA and Gamasutra are two entirely different organizations, with no shared governance.
Don’t forget who you are talking to Mr Weinstein
In the eyes of a ggater, agreeing with each other is a strong sign that there is collusion going on behind the screen.
No conspiracy here, I saw this all occurring firsthand with the animal rights movement, I even attempted to play whistleblower to no avail to stop the cooption. Many of the heads of these so-called unrelated organisations (especially the PCRM) happen to support and endorse one another in an endless chain of money, and they’re nowhere near as amateur as the ones in gaming, who are getting only a few million from a 93 billion dollar industry, no they have a revolving ‘cost’ of at minimum $400 million, with nearly half of that in one particular group, the sounds-so-feelgood Humane Society of the United States.
Seriously?
Your proof is claims that you found a conspiracy in a completely unrelated field that has absolutely nothing to do with games or game development?
Even if that were true, it would be completely and utterly irrelevant.
The only way for them to become “separate enough” would be if one of those organizations chose a different industry. IGDA is an association for game developers. Gamasutra is a trade publication. What they share is an industry. Neither one is an arm of the other.
Am I to understand that the IGDA should not be allowed to call in law enforcement to investigate documented instances of harassment? Or that Gamasutra should not be allowed to host opinion pieces by people whose opinions do not toe the party line?
The Intel apology also included this wording: sorry if you were offended – no ads have been reinstated. Ouch.
ahahahahhahahaha:
https://i.imgur.com/bxIVnrw.png
Intel stock closed on Tuesday, September 30th, at 34.82 (that’s the top right before the drop on the chart you were using).
Wednesday morning, Intel dropped the ads on Gamsutra.
Intel stock closed on Friday at 4pm at 34.02.
Now frankly, the notion that anything #GamerGate related is moving Intel stock at all is ludicrous, but if it is, it is moving it *opposite* the direction your little image claimed.
A few articles responding in the same way to the same stimulus at the time it is happening? Impossible. There MUST be corruption/collusion
Gamergate having an influence over the stock market : Totally plausible
I think we ought to stop using arguments against them. We’re losing precious time of our short lifes.
You are apparently unfamiliar with leftist groupthink and how they collaborate. I would implore you look up JournoList, or if you really want to do some legwork, trek back into the mid-90s and how a similar barrage of nearly-identical articles kept sprouting up nationwide after the Center of Consumer Freedom was formed to combat PeTA (slayer of owned domesticated animals everywhere), Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Sea Shepherd, HSUS, and the dangerous wacko pseudo-science of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.
Honestly that’s where I’m coming from, true environmentalists lost the fight against the ‘animal wrongs’ groups, and I only hope this will encourage a similar movement to arise once again with universal support to free environmentalism from the loony left’s yoke, and perhaps achieve the same successes in getting real media scrutiny to hammer them into the ground the way Breitbart and now Spectator is coming to bat. Heh, I wonder what that could be. #meatgate? #puppygate? #petgate?
I mean there are so many tiny little sites around talking about them, but then, there are so many little sites, devs, and journalists we’re now learning were talking about the practices of these guys, all under the radar, all silenced and facing the same forms of censorship net-wide when they try to break from their little bubbles. I hope this emboldens the people affected by crazed cat-cuddling commies at the heart of dismantling such a necessary movement to finally fight back after nearly 25 years of suppression.
They’ll never set anything up. I applaud your attempts though. They’d rather have their zero accountability and their conspiracy theories by people who say horrible things that they can instantly distance themselves from with the drop of a hat.
Like the guy who started #notyourshield, he was a big topic on reddit for awhile but when someone found screenshots of what he said to get him in trouble they dropped him like a bad habit.
Even though this is not a question, I would still like to hear a response of some sort to this.
Gamergate only seems to carry momentum as long as there is opposition to it. The message board censorship, the refusal to properly respond, the slander articles, and the tweets made against it made a large enough commotion to warrant such a negative and vocal response.
If all the websites made a decent response and revised their guidelines, like the Escapist has, Gamergate would effectively end. Sure there would be future incidents to incite outrage, but not regularly enough to support an entire organization (which it must if we are talking about this being funded with patreon.)
I would still like to see an organization dedicated to fighting corruption in video game press, but even that seems to be moot seeing as how all these journalist sites are bleeding to death as both user generated feedback (twitch and Youtube) and developer generated coverage (Nintendo Direct and the Firaxis Games Youtube channels) take their place.
I suppose my question is, how would you address these issues?
Andrew — some of these sites HAVE apologized or put out clarifying statements (RPS) or HAVE put up ethics statements (Polygon). Both have still gotten boycott threats and outright hostility and both are on the ‘blacklist’ that I’ve seen.
At any rate, you have to remember, it is in a journalist’s DNA to resist retracting an opinion piece due to popular opinion. Retracting a news piece because it is inaccurate is one thing. Retracting an unpopular opinion due to journalistic ethics is something that journalists feel is actually quite wrong. In fact, bending in that way IS, in many of their minds, a breach of journalistic ethics. As an example, the New York Times has some very conservative columnists who post stuff that their core readership (which is generally liberal) absolutely hates. The rest of their newsroom probably hates them too. But that newsroom is programmed genetically to defend their right to say it.
As a journalist, albeit not a gaming journalist, this is absolutely accurate.
Many of the individuals associated with GG appear to assume that all journalists are one or more of the following things:
1). Pushing viewpoints they don’t actually hold to generate traffic / revenue.
2). Pushing viewpoints they hold because they are corrupt / angry / frustrated / brainwashed (pick your adjective) to generate traffic / revenue.
3). Colluding behind the scenes with other journalists to generate traffic / revenue.
4). Accepting bribes or other forms of kickbacks to generate traffic / revenue.
5). Hold viewpoints GG disagrees with, and are therefore just wrong.
The voices pointing solely to #5 are few and far between. Invariably, no matter who the individual journalist is, or how storied the publication, you’ll see some form of the following: “I know Mr. Doe has a personal reputation for good work, but there’s something really fish here — I think there’s a lot more we haven’t been told or aren’t aware of.”
Translation: “Mr. Doe is probably corrupt or tainted in some fashion and I am suspicious of him despite decades of hard work within the field.”
Typically when an article begins generated unexpected and significant controversy, editors from within the publication will revisit it. They may ask to see sources or to explore a train of thought in more detail. The author may be asked to revisit the topic to answer questions raised by the comment thread, or to address unclear points from the original story. In drastic cases, sites may revise their ethics policies or issue new guidelines as both Polygon and Kotaku have done.
In the case of editorial content, however, provided the author can provide backup for any assertions or facts baked *into* the story (meaning, when you quoted this graph or data, was the graph or data itself legitimate?), that’s the end of it. Freedom of speech. In non-editorial content, if the data presented is confirmed to be factually accurate and the conclusions are fair, the piece will typically be allowed to stand.
The reason that controversies like the Kane and Lynch saga from several years ago made the news in the first place is because it’s genuinely rare for an advertiser or affiliated company to be given any feedback into the editorial process. Websites will edit or amend a story to correct factual inaccuracies or sometimes to insert a pertinent paragraph or explanation for an issue that’s confusing readers — but pulling stories means you’re granting someone else — readers or advertisers — the authority to determine what your content will look like.
In a GG-like scenario where a topic is confirmed to have been covered accurately (or is an op/ed piece), a publication will typically run a second story that addresses, discusses, or clarifies the points that made the first story controversial rather than retracting the original.
I believe a significant portion, including myself, have no intention of eliminating opinion pieces on these websites. We could into detail on disagreements with the statements of RPS or the ethics of Polygon, but that’s not really the point of my comment above.
In fact, it seems like you only focused on that single aspect and completely dismissed everything else in the comment, not even answering the question presented.
I only see two topics you raise to be responded to. The first is the issue of altering current or future standards and the discussion over how those alterations should be made, what would calm the storm, etc.
The second was the last thing you said: “seeing as how all these journalist sites are bleeding to death… how would you address these issues?”
But you began by saying: “Even though this is not a question…” which means I took your *principle* point to be the retraction / coverage issue, not the “How games journalism is changing” issue, which actually WAS a question.
I cannot speak to resolution of those issues because I have seen no hard evidence to suggest that the games journalism business is bleeding dry for reasons other than the macroeconomic shift towards online publication, which earns a fraction of the revenue that print does due to the inherently low efficiency of current advertising models. Meanwhile, while I scarcely claim that modern journalism has perfected ethical standards, the fact that commenters and streamers on YouTube can receive direct funding or perks for the titles they are playing is a classic no-brainer conflict-of-interest.
When I write a review of something, I’m not paid by the company to write it. My review scores are kept separate from any consideration of site advertising. It’s much more difficult to establish that kind of barrier when you serve as both the editorial and money-making side of your own venture. Still, these are issues that the press industry faced when it was in its nascent form, and I believe the online streamers can find ways to beat them.
Speaking strictly personally, I loathe streaming. I loathe watching streaming. Watching someone else play a game is about as an enjoyable to me as watching paint dry — I either want to play the game myself, or I want to be doing something else. I even hate video tips and walkthroughs save in the extremely specific circumstances where I absolutely *must* see visual representation of something.
If I had to guess, I would guess that as streaming becomes a larger phenomenon, games journalism sites will themselves curate and cultivate relationships with specific streamers to provide commentary and ongoing video updates. The largest streamers will go on to form their own brands of content, but many smaller, effective, but less widely known individuals will likely ally with larger brands in order to more efficiently promote their product.
Good enough answer for me. Thanks.
The problem I have with this idea is that it would be literally legitimizing harassment and abuse. The tag started as a response to the press not covering Zoe Quinn’s sex life. Adam Baldwin’s first use of the hashtag linked to a video about the Quinnspiracy after all. Any attempt to spin this into a positive for gaming would be retroactively legitimizing all that bullshit it originated from.
At the very least, that congress would have to issue an apology to a long list of journalists and devs who were wronged by GamerGate (not least of whom Zoe Quinn herself), but I have a hunch that wouldn’t fly with the rank and file.
I actually don’t think so. In many respects, if they started a new organization that was SEPARATE from Gamergate, it would have a clean slate. So long as they made it clear that they weren’t interested in Zoe or Anita. Once or twice, if there was a flare-up, they might have to issue a clarifying statement, and if things were going very badly, they would have to call off the dogs.
Play it out in your mind. Imagine that someone like TotalBiscuit comes out and says “GAMR is about journalistic corruption, and is not about harassment or these social issues. In fact, we repudiate the former and have no interest in the latter. Others can pursue those issues – what we want to do is just focus on cleaning up games journalism.” Bam. Clean break.
Remember, a key part of GAMR is that literally only a handful of people are actually making real decisions in the name of GAMR. This is a huge part of the appeal over #gamergate, where everybody is doing all sort of stuff for all sorts of agenda, and claiming they have the blessing of the tribe, even when they have horrible, horrible plans.
Excluding the MILLIONS of NON US Gamers = really really stupid.
#Gamergate is GLOBAL.
IGDA is an International organization. There’s no reason this can’t be as well.
Just commenting to say that your blog posts on this have been outstanding. I admire your patience in search of a positive outcome in dealing with people I would immediately write off as completely terrible.
I have a question for you:
Gamergate has always had an undercurrent of misogyny at its best, and a well-documented hatred for women at its worst. That was also the origin of the movement. The only evidence against this that I have seen (as a casual observer who has read about it on a variety of news sites and twitter) have been cynical, orchestrated ploys attempting to discredit people pointing this out. While I’m sure that there are people using #gamergate who aren’t sexist, the bulk of the movement’s earnest energy and the vast majority of comments I see about it seem to come from tapping into what is basically social reactionary anger, i.e. sexist, anti-feminist fears. It’s very similar to the political hard right wing, with which it shares some popular writers.
So, do you think there is actually anything worth salvaging, any critical mass of activism left over, once that aspect is taken out of it? And if not, would the organisation be worth it? Supporting (or at least not attacking) feminism isn’t the only requirement for such an organisation as you propose, but it would be unfortunate for an industry that as a whole struggles with issues of sex and gender to have a powerful organisation that labels any remotely feminist viewpoint as SJW and evil.