A clean analysis ; Gamergate.

BlueFeena said:

I think Breitbart's just fine. :) I visit it quite a lot for non-gaming related stuff, but that's beside the point.

So what's your beef with game journalism? It's OK for Andrew Breitbart to slander an entire nonprofit, causing its demise and putting its employees out of work.

Why's a chick sleeping with a few dudes for free publicity such a big deal?

h.brick said:

Point being: Breitbart has a history of not giving a fuck about journalism ethics -- which makes it ironic that someone's citing them in a debate about journalism ethics.

All right, fair enough. But the mailing group is still valid.

h.brick said:

So what's your beef with game journalism? It's OK for Andrew Breitbart to slander an entire nonprofit, causing its demise and putting its employees out of work.

Why's a chick sleeping with a few dudes for free publicity such a big deal?

That's called bribery. Paying with money, or with pussy in this case, still the same. That's not legal. Although i dont know who would want to fuck that pussy, who knows how many STDs it has. But that's besides the point. Gamergate is about consumer rights, and like other consumer rights before it, they have been branded "hate groups", "anti-american", and such. And it will continue well into the holiday season, where all the big money is spent. or expected to be spent.

doomgargoyle said:

That's called bribery. Paying with money, or with pussy in this case, still the same. That's not legal. Although i dont know who would want to fuck that pussy, who knows how many STDs it has. But that's besides the point. Gamergate is about consumer rights, and like other consumer rights before it, they have been branded "hate groups", "anti-american", and such. And it will continue well into the holiday season, where all the big money is spent. or expected to be spent.

Jesus christ dude. Do you even hear yourself?

Hah. Wow.

doomgargoyle said:

That's called bribery. Paying with money, or with pussy in this case, still the same. That's not legal. Although i dont know who would want to fuck that pussy, who knows how many STDs it has. But that's besides the point. Gamergate is about consumer rights, and like other consumer rights before it, they have been branded "hate groups", "anti-american", and such. And it will continue well into the holiday season, where all the big money is spent. or expected to be spent.

Captain Red said:

Nathan Grayson has never written a review of depression quest and has only even mentioned the game two times, both before the time when the alleged affair took place.

No, see, it's ok because doomgargoyle is probably about 17. We were all mentally handicapped at that age.

TheCupboard said:

No, see, it's ok because doomgargoyle is probably about 17. We were all mentally handicapped at that age.

This is pretty true.

With that said, I'm pretty sure it's only illegal to bribe cops. Everything else is fair game.

I've been paying attention to Gamergate for the past couple weeks, and it's not really surprising to see why people would be angry about a bunch of gaming journalism sites crying out that gamers are a dead identity, along with the stupid shit they spout on Twitter like http://i.imgur.com/MeNQuTe.png

Bucket said:

WOMEN FOR #NOTYOURSHIELD IS BULLSHIT

"Women are not entitled to have an opinion that does not fit my narrative!"

the hypocritical bullshit is off the chart here, gj Bucket

If only any of this was illegal or caught onto mainstream media instead of just being some Internet debate that means nothing.

doomgargoyle said:

That's called bribery. Paying with money, or with pussy in this case, still the same. That's not legal. Although i dont know who would want to fuck that pussy, who knows how many STDs it has.

This is a perfect example of cognitive dissonance.

"This chick is using her vagina to lure dudes into talking about her game"

"Nobody would want to fuck that woman. Her vagina is so full of STDs"

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/gamergate-an-un-pc-rebellion#.VESUesxx0xA

h.brick said:

So what's your beef with game journalism?

It's suspected for as long as I can remember that video game journalism has been giving favorable reviews to products -- ostensibly games -- that do not deserve it. The firing of Jeff Gerstmann more or less made it official, but everyone yawned. Video game journalism sites take out massive, paid for spreads for certain games, and none of this is thought to be a conflict of interest? In recent times, gaming journalism has not been about video games, but seems more and more about promoting whatever pet agenda is currently hip and counter culture. It takes considerable work to find a game journalist who'll just talk about video games and actually leave his or her personal politics out of it. See my original post in this thread.

h.brick said:

It's OK for Andrew Breitbart to slander an entire nonprofit, causing its demise and putting its employees out of work.

I have no regrets over the demise over an organization that was nothing more than shill for Democrats. Also, your link was heavily basing itself on Media Matters; you sure you want to play the "your source is evil" card? :)

I addressed this earlier, but liberalism has been invading video games for roughly a decade and has completely taken over the film industry. You want your video games to be about, well, entertainment and not a load of political posturing? You know who to blame.

h.brick said:

Why's a chick sleeping with a few dudes for free publicity such a big deal?

Are you hearing yourself? Have I stepped into the Twighlight Zone? Legitimate developers struggle for legitimate press whether it be positive or negative, and this woman literally fornicates her way on to Steam, sympathy, free press, considerable money, while all along being an incapable hack who more than likely can't code her way out of a paper bag? You have no qualms with her actively destroying someone's marriage? You have no problem with gratuitous fornication and have a complete disregard for the biological and psychological scaring that can occur for both parties?

geo said:

If only any of this was illegal or caught onto mainstream media instead of just being some Internet debate that means nothing.

It did, and the main stream media played right along with evil white male narrative.

h.brick said:

This is a perfect example of cognitive dissonance.

"This chick is using her vagina to lure dudes into talking about her game"

"Nobody would want to fuck that woman. Her vagina is so full of STDs"

You display an alarming lack of morality and, to be quite frank, common sense. I strongly encourage you to take a sex ed course.

BlueFeena said:

It's suspected for as long as I can remember that video game journalism has been giving favorable reviews to products -- ostensibly games -- that do not deserve it. The firing of Jeff Gerstmann more or less made it official, but everyone yawned. Video game journalism sites take out massive, paid for spreads for certain games, and none of this is thought to be a conflict of interest?

Of course it's a conflict of interest. But that's not limited to games journalism. PR spin, paid spreads, and sponsored articles are poisoning all journalism. John Oliver made an excellent video about this. I don't know how often this happens in game journalism vs other journalism, however. Point being: if you're pissed about companies shilling their way to the front page, you should focus on where it's happening: all of journalism.

I have no regrets over the demise over an organization that was nothing more than shill for Democrats. Also, your link was heavily basing itself on Media Matters; you sure you want to play the "your source is evil" card? :)

Calling a politically-progressive source that calls out conservative spin "evil" is really stretching the word.

Plus, Media Matters pooled their information from the California state government, the US federal government and an independent investigator hired by ACORN. Whether those 3 sources can be trusted is up to you, but Media Matters isn't pulling this out of their ass.

I addressed this earlier, but liberalism has been invading video games for roughly a decade and has completely taken over the film industry. You want your video games to be about, well, entertainment and not a load of political posturing? You know who to blame.

People want video games to be accepted as a universally-enjoyed form of art. In order for that to happen, gams have to dip into politics. Not EVERY game, but art is about making a point. Sometimes, an uncomfortable point.

So, no. I have no problem with games being political. Even if I disagree.

Are you hearing yourself? Have I stepped into the Twighlight Zone? Legitimate developers struggle for legitimate press whether it be positive or negative, and this woman literally fornicates her way on to Steam, sympathy, free press, considerable money, while all along being an incapable hack who more than likely can't code her way out of a paper bag?

But see, that's where you're not making sense. You yourself admitted that it's really hard to get into the gaming industry. So if Zoe Quinn could so easily get famous and rich by fucking about... why hasn't another woman stepped up and done this? Actually, if it was that easy, why is Zoe Quinn the first? (or the first notable)?

You display an alarming lack of morality and, to be quite frank, common sense. I strongly encourage you to take a sex ed course.

How is a sex ed course gonna teach me about game journalism?

After reading about this whole gamersgate debate I can't help thinking that there are far bigger things to worry about and much bigger problems than Gamersgate. If every person who gets wrapped up in this would put their time, energy and effort into something worthwhile the world would greatly benefit from it.

16-years old anti-GG girl doxxes a man and threatens him over twitter. Man ends up talking with the girl on phone and she breaks down after realizing there are real people on the internet.

^^^^
Definitely worth of reading.

In other news, Pro Vs Anti GamerGate - Two Interviews, by Mangotron.

deathz0r said:

"Women are not entitled to have an opinion that does not fit my narrative!"

the hypocritical bullshit is off the chart here, gj Bucket

You clearly haven't been paying attention to #Gamergate as you say, otherwise you'd know that #NotYourShield was conceived in a raid thread, and sockpuppet accounts with stock photos of women as their avatars perpetuated it. Like I said, bullshit.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/09/new-chat-logs-show-how-4chan-users-pushed-gamergate-into-the-national-spotlight/

If any REAL LIFE women have joined #NotYourShield after that ball got rolling, I'd have only one word to describe them: the same word I have for people who still think Zoe Quinn had any hand in journalistic corruption, the same word I have for you: "Misinformed".

Well from everyone posting these stupid articles this 'Gamer Gate' thing is the best thing to happen to gaming journalism! People are talking about the journalists now! Huzzah!

Everyone writes an article drawing in traffic like all of the traffic gained from journalists saying GTA 5 not coming to PC followed up with our bad, GTA 5 is really coming to PC. 2 articles for the price of 0. More content to fill our useless sites!

Bucket said:

Re: #NotYourShield:
https://archive.today/cKzAx

CorSair said:

Re: #NotYourShield:
https://archive.today/cKzAx

Like I said: misinformed.
Mostly due to whitewashing cons like you.

And since I'm absolutely certain you paid no attention to the article I posted, Here's a relevant image from that page.

Bucket said:

Like I said: misinformed.
Mostly due to whitewashing cons like you.

And since I'm absolutely certain you paid no attention to the article I posted, Here's a relevant image from that page.

Not misinformed, internalized mysoginy.

We need to find proof she did anything wrong. We also need to find a gay guy that did sex for good reviews from male reviewers to prove this is or isn't about hating women.

We also need to prove all of this gamer gate bullshit isn't just a bunch of 13 year olds.

To Bucket and co: I like how you tend to blame pro-GG people of confirmation bias with their sources while ignoring the fact that you yourself only use non-neutral anti-GG sources. Could you maybe call that...confirmation bias? ;)

Bucket said:

And since I'm absolutely certain you paid no attention to the article I posted, Here's a relevant image from that page.

There's proof of one sockpuppeted twitter account? THE HORROR. Now how is this one single account supposed to be proof of anything other than whoever created it (which could be either a 100-year old Tibetan monk or a 10-year old girl from Peru for all we know) just wanted to add to the noise. You've got to have more than that to prove anything else in the chaotic mess that is internet.

RationalWiki is neutral. It contains exhaustive research and sourcing.

That image is only one of many sources. I hesitate to spam this thread with articles, because it's not my responsibility to inform people. I assume they're as informed as I am until proven otherwise; they have the same access to the same information as I do. The difference, it seems, is that I can discern which sources are irrefutable fact, which are tinfoil-hat speculation, and which are repeated lies. Would you like an illustration?

Irrefutable fact: #Gamergate was conceived in response to the Five Guys video.
Tinfoil-hat speculation: (1) Bloggers give glowing reviews to games they donate to. (2) ? (3) PROFIT
Repeated lie: Zoe Quinn doxed Fine Young Capitalists.

I think I'm perfectly in the right to insult the intelligence of anyone who is unable or unwilling to make these distinctions.

It's easy to lie with real evidence.

The post that off-hand comes up with the name #notyourshield is replying to two posts. The first was a fairly angry person saying they were upset that these sites were improperly representing them ("minorities") and using it as a weapon. The second was also a reply to the first, saying that they (misrepresented minorities) need to organize with their own hashtag to make their point. The article links to it.

Nobody in the chat logs seems to be talking about faking the whole thing, based on what I could find just by searching for the tag. There was a mention of using an alt, in the context of somebody not wanting to connect their personal information to the whole thing. Not hard to imagine why.

So, a single confirmed fake account and a secondary account, likely a sockpuppet. Not exactly game-changing evidence. If, as was claimed, #notyourshield was launched by a campaign of sockpuppets, and illegitimate in that the people creating these accounts weren't who they were claiming to be, then it shouldn't be hard to put together a fairly concise report on that. If it happened, it should already exist in more than one form. Since you're already convinced, you should link that instead.

As for the chat logs linked, well, that's a massive fuckton of text for the relative few people, the userbase of the channel completely changing over the course of some days. From what I could gather from skimming it, most of it seems to be shooting the shit or catching everyone up on things that have already happened. I saw one case of somebody definitely saying they should go after Zoe (being just after the doxxing incident) and somebody arguing with them about why that's stupid. I'd say their summary was a bit off. Dropping a massive chat log with almost entirely irrelevant information to the point they were trying to make is just ridiculous.

As for RationalWiki being neutral, no. It contains exhaustive research and sourcing from blogs and incredibly biased articles which all reference each other. They may get things right when it's just factual things, anti-science and all that, but they shit the bed whenever gender politics is involved.

Akira_98 said:

As for RationalWiki being neutral, no. It contains exhaustive research and sourcing from blogs and incredibly biased articles which all reference each other. They may get things right when it's just factual things, anti-science and all that, but they shit the bed whenever gender politics is involved.

HEH

Skimming that article, I see citations by...

-The New York Times
-The New Yorker
-Forbes
-The Globe and Mail
-Ars Technica
-The Guardian
-Salt Lake Tribune
-Washington Post

Some bias here, totally. It isn't because decent people across the board see this movement for the mess of bullshit that it is, surely it's a conspiracy!

Sigh...

You can feign skepticism all you like, but the opposition's narrative has even less substantial evidence than mine. That's how confirmation bias works, FYI. That 4chan thread is a typical staging ground. It's not an exploration of journalism ethics, it's purely a discussion of an attack strategy, including talking points, and #NotYourShield was conceived there. I posted proof that sockpuppet accounts had a hand in it. That's enough to see this astroturf movement for what it is. The idea that NYS rose out of some natural reaction is laughable.

Since you're being especially obtuse today, here's another post with explicit instructions on how to use #NotYourShield:
http://img.pixady.com/2014/09/202517_bwm9q3ciaaxi4t.jpg

And here's the first volley of hashtags. The posts seem oddly similar, and they're not all retweets.
http://topsy.com/s?q=%23notyourshield&window=a&sort=-date

And yes, RationalWiki is neutral. If you disagree, maybe you could provide some proof of what specific agenda it promotes.

Just wanted to chime in and say that this analysis by an actual Boston Globe reporter of the gamergate movement is basically the best I've seen:

http://np.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2h36ue/another_poorlyresearched_hitpiece_from_the_boston/cldrqeu

tl;dr: It's more of a collective McCarthyist-like irrational fear of "Social Justice Warriors" than anything to do with journalism or corruption/ethics.

fraggle said:

Just wanted to chime in and say that this analysis by an actual Boston Globe reporter of the gamergate movement is basically the best I've seen:

http://np.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2h36ue/another_poorlyresearched_hitpiece_from_the_boston/cldrqeu

tl;dr: It's more of a collective McCarthyist-like irrational fear of "Social Justice Warriors" than anything to do with journalism or corruption/ethics.

Did you know there was brigading attempt? What about if you read this?

And here's the rebuttal to brigaded comment. Missed this one.

Because sending syringes with strange fluids to somebody is ok as long as that person is GG supporter, right? BTW, that guy, didnt go crying to MSNBC about it, just laughed it off.