Gamergate, Feminisim, and Journalistic Ethics

[Beta Test]

So? That's not the point. The conflict of interest is there. The writer gives it a positive review, causing people to buy the game. It's a breach of the trust of the audience of the writer.

Buy? Yep, that's a sure sign you did not even bother to do research. Depression Quest was a free game.

Oh that's right. Fucking hell I forgot about that. That's embarrassing.

Despite this. The point remains. It's a breach of trust to recommend anything if you have a close, personal relationship with the creator without disclosing this information.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Buy? Yep, that's a sure sign you did not even bother to do research. Depression Quest was a free game.

Oh that's right. Fucking hell I forgot about that. That's embarrassing.

Despite this. The point remains. It's a breach of trust to recommend anything if you have a close, personal relationship with the creator without disclosing this information.

I want to have a close personal relationship with the bacon in your flag. Is that enough disclosure?

[Beta Test]

Oh that's right. Fucking hell I forgot about that. That's embarrassing.

Despite this. The point remains. It's a breach of trust to recommend anything if you have a close, personal relationship with the creator without disclosing this information.

I want to have a close personal relationship with the bacon in your flag. Is that enough disclosure?

Yes it is. You may proceed.

[Tahar Joblis]

1: Again, it's a free game. What was she supposedly gaining from this?

League of Legends is free to play. Revenues from the game are getting close to $1B per year.

Being free to play doesn't mean the creator can't figure out how to monetize it somehow (potentially), and even if they don't, games like that are resume-builders that get you jobs in other places. If they're good enough.

2: It casts a poor light on the opinion of the Judge she slept with (and on her). I don't see how the other judges are tarnished by the actions of one.

It casts a poor light on the opinion of the judges she had a close personal relationship... and because panels of judges generally deliberate, and even non-deliberatory panels can have a margin solely dependent on how a single judge casts their ballot, that damages the whole panel.

3: You mean the blog post where the guy repeatedly says that the claims about Maya unverified )and possibly unverifiable)?

That blog isn't the origin of that claim. Neither is this one.

Whether or not they actually slept together, they did have a close personal relationship, which went undisclosed going onto the panel; and she's tied through her job to many of the smaller media outlets that gave ZQ early favorable coverage after the scandal broke.

4: Yes, he was her boss. Yes, sleeping with your boss is a professional ethics problem. However, "GamerGate" is supposedly about journalistic ethics (and indeed this is what I asked about) and neither Zoe Quinn nor Joshua Boggs are journalists...

Which explains why Joshua Boggs hasn't gotten as much attention as, say, Nathan Grayson from actual GamerGaters.

As you may have noticed, I've talked about the whole of the pattern of ethical lapses. These are divided into two categories, professional ethics and personal efforts, which overlap, and that list was headed as a list of professional ethics lapses.

It's fascinating to see the people you defend.

I mentioned two people in that post, Zoe Quinn and Michael Vick, and drew a comparison which more or less used Michael Vick as a standard to talk about how bad Zoe Quinn was.

You may need to look at the meaning of the word "defend." You appear to be somewhat confused on the matter.

[Greater Beggnig]

I would like to invent my own theorem. It's called the EbilGamerGate theorem.

Acts by any crazy misogynist douchebags on the internet are not just a few crazy people, perhaps coming out of the woodwork as an unintended side-effect of GamerGate, but are rather evidence of a GamerGate plot to discredit their own movement and make people pissed off at them, by allowing the media to further strawman them as crazy sexist terrorist rapists.

Brianna Wu posted some memes on 8chan. GamerGate people and their ilk made some parody memes, and she called it garbage and blamed GamerGate for it.

Then, someone posted her personal details, leading to wankers being wankers, since they know they can get their five minutes of fame if they send her death/rape threats.

So, to sum up. Wankers gon' Wank.
The media circus around this is intensifying it, not making it go away.
Generally, when people receive death threats, they should be kept quiet and simply inform the authorities if it seems genuine.
It allows the authorities to determine which threats are legitimate by reducing the amount of people giving these threats for a mere stunt.
It is not linked to GamerGate, or at the absolute maximum, very tenuously linked to it.
Sarkeesian has been getting shit since before GamerGate started.
Brianna Wu got shit, again, from someone not linked to GamerGate.
I hate these assholes as much as anyone, but to call GamerGaters mysogynist rapist terrorists as bad as ISIS because of people not even linked to it is horse shit.

[Dyakovo]

Ok. Did you play DQ?

All that positive effort is lost when the game turns out to be a dud.

DQ only got attention because the gamegaters starting whining about the situation.

If they remained quiet; DQ would have died a quiet death.

So? That's not the point. The conflict of interest is there. The writer gives it a positive review, causing people to buy the game. It's a breach of the trust of the audience of the writer.

1: The game was never reviewed by someone Zoe Quinn slept with/was alleged to have slept with.
2: The game is free, so no-one bought the game.

[Dyakovo]

1: Again, it's a free game. What was she supposedly gaining from this?

League of Legends is free to play. Revenues from the game are getting close to $1B per year.

Being free to play doesn't mean the creator can't figure out how to monetize it somehow (potentially), and even if they don't, games like that are resume-builders that get you jobs in other places. If they're good enough.

2: It casts a poor light on the opinion of the Judge she slept with (and on her). I don't see how the other judges are tarnished by the actions of one.

It casts a poor light on the opinion of the judges she had a close personal relationship... and because panels of judges generally deliberate, and even non-deliberatory panels can have a margin solely dependent on how a single judge casts their ballot, that damages the whole panel.

3: You mean the blog post where the guy repeatedly says that the claims about Maya unverified )and possibly unverifiable)?

That blog isn't the origin of that claim. Neither is this one.

Whether or not they actually slept together, they did have a close personal relationship, which went undisclosed going onto the panel; and she's tied through her job to many of the smaller media outlets that gave ZQ early favorable coverage after the scandal broke.

4: Yes, he was her boss. Yes, sleeping with your boss is a professional ethics problem. However, "GamerGate" is supposedly about journalistic ethics (and indeed this is what I asked about) and neither Zoe Quinn nor Joshua Boggs are journalists...

Which explains why Joshua Boggs hasn't gotten as much attention as, say, Nathan Grayson from actual GamerGaters.

As you may have noticed, I've talked about the whole of the pattern of ethical lapses. These are divided into two categories, professional ethics and personal efforts, which overlap, and that list was headed as a list of professional ethics lapses.

It's fascinating to see the people you defend.

I mentioned two people in that post, Zoe Quinn and Michael Vick, and drew a comparison which more or less used Michael Vick as a standard to talk about how bad Zoe Quinn was.

You may need to look at the meaning of the word "defend." You appear to be somewhat confused on the matter.

1: There is no mechanism for earning money from Depression Quest.
2: Yeah, still not seeing how the possible impropriety of one judge hurts the credibility of the rest of the judges.
3: Not getting the point are you? Your own source was saying there's no evidence to back up that claim.
4: So, basically you're admitting that it has absolutely nothing to do with what GamerGate is supposed to be about and does not in anyway address the challenge I gave you, and yet you included it anyway.

[Ashmoria]

It occurs to me that even if it was true that she was fucking someone from the industry (and that has been proven to be false), who the fuck cares? It's her life.

And even if the ex's statements of abuse were proven to be true, gamergaters are not making this their agenda so talking about gamergaters on the concept of male abuse from women is like talking about the merits of orange jelly when people are establishing we're talking about the merits of peanut butter. Simply not relevant to the discussion.

Now, if there was a movement that was focused on male abouse from women THEN it is relevant to talk about and share experiences from male abuse form women and how is it wrong, but this isn't the fucking issue here, or at least that's what they're trying to sell us.

that is certainly the problem *I* have with this issue and this thread. no matter that the pro gamergate posters insist that its about bad journalism, whenever I drop in to read about it all that is being discussed is gossip about zoe Quinn.

[Ashmoria]

what places are those?

A couple people have made claims of hurting sites. But, no numbers offered.

ya but what sites would those be if they existed? what KIND of sites even?

[Avenio]

And even if the ex's statements of abuse were proven to be true, gamergaters are not making this their agenda so talking about gamergaters on the concept of male abuse from women is like talking about the merits of orange jelly when people are establishing we're talking about the merits of peanut butter. Simply not relevant to the discussion.

Now, if there was a movement that was focused on male abouse from women THEN it is relevant to talk about and share experiences from male abuse form women and how is it wrong, but this isn't the fucking issue here, or at least that's what they're trying to sell us.

that is certainly the problem *I* have with this issue and this thread. no matter that the pro gamergate posters insist that its about bad journalism, whenever I drop in to read about it all that is being discussed is gossip about zoe Quinn.

Exactly. I mean, where was this crusade for journalistic ethics when Jeff Gerstmann was fired from a gaming website for publishing a negative review for a game that was heavily advertised on that site? or during 'Doritogate', when another game journalist spent his coverage of a game surrounded by marketing materials and merchandise for that game? Why is it that 'GamerGate' has chosen a he-said-she-said tale in which the journalist didn't actually do anything 'corrupt' as it's rallying cry? I mean, make hay about Zoe Quinn all you like, but let's not pretend it has anything to do with 'GamerGate's actual stated goals.

[Ashmoria]

that is certainly the problem *I* have with this issue and this thread. no matter that the pro gamergate posters insist that its about bad journalism, whenever I drop in to read about it all that is being discussed is gossip about zoe Quinn.

Exactly. I mean, where was this crusade for journalistic ethics when Jeff Gerstmann was fired from a gaming website for publishing a negative review for a game that was heavily advertised on that site? or during 'Doritogate', when another game journalist spent his coverage of a game surrounded by marketing materials and merchandise for that game? Why is it that 'GamerGate' has chosen a he-said-she-said tale in which the journalist didn't actually do anything 'corrupt' as it's rallying cry? I mean, make hay about Zoe Quinn all you like, but let's not pretend it has anything to do with 'GamerGate's actual stated goals.

just the pretense that there is something compelling about the charge that a woman who has a crappy free game used her charm to get noticed is ridiculous (and gossip) when there are actual problems with big time companies paying for good reviews on big time outlets (or using their "charm" to get good reviews in whatever way that happens).

and, for god's sake, it is a problem in ALL reviews in ALL industries. only a naif doesn't know that reviewers aren't always honest or helpful in their reviews. who goes to a movie because the guy from the sacramento bee raved about it?

[Xomic]

A couple people have made claims of hurting sites. But, no numbers offered.

ya but what sites would those be if they existed? what KIND of sites even?

Presumably, those sites practicing the corrupt gaming journalism. In particular, Mercades Benz has pulled out of Gawker media, when it was pointed out to them that Sam Biddle were caught posting things such as this, during anti-bullying month no less. Intel pulled its ads from Gamesutra. There's also been rumors of Bonobos pulling out (of Gawker) as well. It's also been suggested, in the manner of a third party/rumor that it's likely that other companies will not be so interested in advertising on gaming websites in the future, and if they do, they'll ask for lower rates.

[Ashmoria]

ya but what sites would those be if they existed? what KIND of sites even?

Presumably, those sites practicing the corrupt gaming journalism. In particular, Mercades Benz has pulled out of Gawker media, when it was pointed out to them that Sam Biddle were caught posting things such as this, during anti-bullying month no less. Intel pulled its ads from Gamesutra. There's also been rumors of Bonobos pulling out (of Gawker) as well. It's also been suggested, in the manner of a third party/rumor that it's likely that other companies will not be so interested in advertising on gaming websites in the future, and if they do, they'll ask for lower rates.

no the poster was talking about those awful feminists and how this whole thing has been bad for them.

[Czechanada]

If we are to break the corporate stranglehold on gaming journalism, we should foster an environment of competition where anyone is allowed to make a game, and thus should also abolish console gaming.

[Xomic]

Presumably, those sites practicing the corrupt gaming journalism. In particular, Mercades Benz has pulled out of Gawker media, when it was pointed out to them that Sam Biddle were caught posting things such as this, during anti-bullying month no less. Intel pulled its ads from Gamesutra. There's also been rumors of Bonobos pulling out (of Gawker) as well. It's also been suggested, in the manner of a third party/rumor that it's likely that other companies will not be so interested in advertising on gaming websites in the future, and if they do, they'll ask for lower rates.

no the poster was talking about those awful feminists and how this whole thing has been bad for them.

Such a poster is delusional.

Regardless of what you may think of Gamergate,or it's goals or drives, it's unlikely people like Anita are being hurt financially by this.

[The Black Forrest]

Ok. Did you play DQ?

All that positive effort is lost when the game turns out to be a dud.

DQ only got attention because the gamegaters starting whining about the situation.

If they remained quiet; DQ would have died a quiet death.

So? That's not the point. The conflict of interest is there. The writer gives it a positive review, causing people to buy the game. It's a breach of the trust of the audience of the writer.

Ok. So you haven't looked at DQ.

How do you buy a free game?

And as mentioned many times in this thread. Hasn't the breech of trust already been violated when the site or publication has game ads?

I don't see much of an issue in this particular instance as I don't use paid game reviews to decide my games.

[The Black Forrest]

I mentioned two people in that post, Zoe Quinn and Michael Vick, and drew a comparison which more or less used Michael Vick as a standard to talk about how bad Zoe Quinn was.

You may need to look at the meaning of the word "defend." You appear to be somewhat confused on the matter.

Now you are being disingenuous. I have been on the site for awhile and seen you go on your rants many times.

It is fascinating to see who you defend.

[The Black Forrest]

If we are to break the corporate stranglehold on gaming journalism, we should foster an environment of competition where anyone is allowed to make a game, and thus should also abolish console gaming.

That will not happen because people still have this habit of needing money and gamers aren't willing to spend enough to free a publication from the need for ads.

As mentioned previously, there was once a magazine in the Mac arena that wrote hard hitting reviews. It went out of business when all software companies pulled their ads as the magazine wasn't fair.

[The Black Forrest]

no the poster was talking about those awful feminists and how this whole thing has been bad for them.

Such a poster is delusional.

Regardless of what you may think of Gamergate,or it's goals or drives, it's unlikely people like Anita are being hurt financially by this.

Indeed. Madonna was a master at using bad publicity to her advantage. As somebody once said there is no such thing as bad publicity.

Like I said before. Gamergate was the best thing that every happened for DQ. Left on it's own; it would have died a quiet death.

[Avenio]

Ok. Did you play DQ?

All that positive effort is lost when the game turns out to be a dud.

DQ only got attention because the gamegaters starting whining about the situation.

If they remained quiet; DQ would have died a quiet death.

So? That's not the point. The conflict of interest is there. The writer gives it a positive review, causing people to buy the game. It's a breach of the trust of the audience of the writer.

See, that's the thing - neither Grayson or Kotaku ever wrote a review of Depression Quest.Grayson only wrote a piece dealing with Quinn's involvement with an unrelated botched reality show, and that was evidently before they ever became involved. No wrongdoing was committed.

[The Black Forrest]

So? That's not the point. The conflict of interest is there. The writer gives it a positive review, causing people to buy the game. It's a breach of the trust of the audience of the writer.

See, that's the thing - neither Grayson or Kotaku ever wrote a review of Depression Quest.Grayson only wrote a piece dealing with Quinn's involvement with an unrelated botched reality show, and that was evidently before they ever became involved. No wrongdoing was committed.

Obviously they are lying *nods*

[Soldati Senza Confini]

1: Again, it's a free game. What was she supposedly gaining from this?

League of Legends is free to play. Revenues from the game are getting close to $1B per year.

Being free to play doesn't mean the creator can't figure out how to monetize it somehow (potentially), and even if they don't, games like that are resume-builders that get you jobs in other places. If they're good enough.

League of Legends is a freemium

Sure, your starting characters are free, but they suck and you are forced to pay if you want to have access to better stuff before everyone else.

[Arkinesia]

I know feminists and other people behind Quinn and supporting her are trying to say that this is a problem, but not a problem to persecute women, and I think this is what deters the gamergaters and the feminists behind this as well, that both are focusing on Quinn, and the focus shouldn't be on Quinn. As long as the focus is on her, this is going to keep attracting misogynistic characters; because who else would capitalize out of making female reviewers and female gamers and game developers look bad than misogynists themselves?

Anyone who thinks this is about Zoe Quinn needs to get off twitter and look into the discussions going on 8chan, reddit, and so on.

Social media has always been home to scum (and the people threatening Sarkeesian et. al. are precisely that), and to pretend that the only discussion of the so-called Gamergate movement is restricted to just twitter is outright lunacy at this stage.

We've had people being investigated under RICO (Phil Fish comes to mind), and while people keep saying stuff like this:

Indeed, to react as they have is to prove that they’ve already lost.

It's becoming increasingly apparent that the anti-Gamergate side has also run out of arguments, because it seems that any time I see it in the news (most recently, a column by Brianna Wu for the Washington Post), the only discussion is about the harassment. Not that Phil Fish and some of his business partners and friends are being accused of racketeering. Not the meat and potatoes of whether or not people like Anita Sarkeesian have valid points about issues relating to gender and gaming. Not anything substantive. Just more mewling about abuse.

I'm not trying to belittle the abuse going on. But to make it the primary focus of “this is why a thing is bad” is foolishness, especially when you start prying open the (perfectly civil) discussions going on elsewhere, and even with people holding different views discussing this matter like adults.

tl;dr, abuse bad, discussion good, and all the screeching about abuse does is quash discussion and dissent, which if the social justice movement was in the right on these various issues, they would have no need for quashing discussion.

[Dyakovo]

I know feminists and other people behind Quinn and supporting her are trying to say that this is a problem, but not a problem to persecute women, and I think this is what deters the gamergaters and the feminists behind this as well, that both are focusing on Quinn, and the focus shouldn't be on Quinn. As long as the focus is on her, this is going to keep attracting misogynistic characters; because who else would capitalize out of making female reviewers and female gamers and game developers look bad than misogynists themselves?

Anyone who thinks this is about Zoe Quinn needs to get off twitter and look into the discussions going on 8chan, reddit, and so on.

Social media has always been home to scum (and the people threatening Sarkeesian et. al. are precisely that), and to pretend that the only discussion of the so-called Gamergate movement is restricted to just twitter is outright lunacy at this stage.

We've had people being investigated under RICO (Phil Fish comes to mind), and while people keep saying stuff like this:

Indeed, to react as they have is to prove that they’ve already lost.

It's becoming increasingly apparent that the anti-Gamergate side has also run out of arguments, because it seems that any time I see it in the news (most recently, a column by Brianna Wu for the Washington Post), the only discussion is about the harassment. Not that Phil Fish and some of his business partners and friends are being accused of racketeering. Not the meat and potatoes of whether or not people like Anita Sarkeesian have valid points about issues relating to gender and gaming. Not anything substantive. Just more mewling about abuse.

I'm not trying to belittle the abuse going on. But to make it the primary focus of “this is why a thing is bad” is foolishness, especially when you start prying open the (perfectly civil) discussions going on elsewhere, and even with people holding different views discussing this matter like adults.

tl;dr, abuse bad, discussion good, and all the screeching about abuse does is quash discussion and dissent, which if the social justice movement was in the right on these various issues, they would have no need for quashing discussion.

So what discussion has there been about what to actually do about the journalistic ethics problems in the videogame industry?

[Gravlen]

*Secret post*