Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mizhara]

Forgot to mention, the source of this is suspect and there's a decent chance it's entirely made up.

[Louella Dougans]

cursory google suggests it is a youtube comment, that is copy-pasted from a 4chan post, of uncertain origin.

basically, it's somewhat believeable, but provenance is meh.

which is the whole problem with everything on the internet.

Anyone can write anything on the internet, there's no cost, no consequence, and so on.

which is why, it's not just gaming journalism, but mainstream journalism as well - reporting stuff at face value, because they don't or won't or can't investigate the authenticity, because of the expense and time that would take. Everything must be done NOW! before the competition gets ahold of the story!

[Vikarion]

From the Costikyan article:

To defend the honor of Anita Sirkeesian, Zoe Quinn, Leigh Alexander, or yes, Anna Anthropy, I will be willing to meet any of you, on horse or afoot, with sword or pistol, at a time and place of your choosing.

I don't really know who Leigh Alexander or Anna Anthropy are. I know that Anita Sarkeesian has produced some videos analyzing games from a feminist perspective, which I think she has every right to do. I think that it's also reasonable to point out that it's entirely reasonable to criticize her videos, and I agree with some of the criticism. For example, searching through a game wherein the player kills dozens or hundreds of men to find three or four females killed in order to complain about promoting violence against women seems a bit odd, unless one holds the view that women are hundreds of times more valuable than men, a viewpoint that I would probably not ascribe to her. But she undoubtedly has some good points to make as well. What can certainly be said without a doubt is that threats of violence and personal attacks against her are bad. Some have alleged that she has instigated some of them herself, but I find it rather unlikely (to use an epic understatement) that she managed to generate all of that sludge, or even most of it, for some sort of astro-turfed self persecution campaign. I mean, truly? Not even a little bit plausible, in my view.

As well, I think it's pretty doubtful that Zoe Quinn slept around to get her games on Steam. It's a bit more plausible that she cooked up the wizardchan harassment. Even if she was attacked by them, it's a reasonably small board, and when I decided to go read it, I found it mostly pretty sad and a little depressing. Trying to get sympathy by claiming harassment by wizardchan seems to me to be a bit like whining about being attacked by a diabetic angry kitten with asthma. Then again, maybe not. If I recall correctly, Eliot Rodgers posted on that board.

What I do find interesting is how all these "game journalists" are suddenly absolutely sure that Quinn's sex life is none of our business. Well, Max Temkin sure got a lot of coverage when someone - with no proof on offer aside from their own word, I might add - claimed he raped her. Kotaku did publish an article that initially came damn close to claiming he shouldn't have defended himself, which I thought was just ducky. On a wider note, no one seemed to be claiming Conor Oberst's sex life should be private when someone alleged that he raped her, an accusation which was later found to be certainly false.

Of course, Zoe Quinn did not, except perhaps by her own standards, rape anyone. So maybe we have a societal exception for really serious accusations. But then, no one has a problem with David Lucado's infidelity being plastered everywhere (partner with Britney Spears), or the rapper "Future"s cheating being exposed, to name a couple of recent examples. And Quinn's boyfriend gave quite a bit of evidence, although one might question the taste of burping the whole thing out onto the web in a morass of somewhat self-pitying narrative.

To me, though, the important thing here is the harassment, and Quinn's behavior.

My word is, as much as I can make it, my bond. What I promise, I make every effort to deliver. To me, it's living out the idea that one must be, at least in some sense, truthful to oneself - and in that truthfulness to one's own commitments, one finds the only sort of foundation one can have for one's dignity and humanity. I'm not a prude: I'm perfectly fine with people having open relationships, or kinky ones, or whatever. But if I were to cheat on a partner - to break my commitment to them - I think I might kill myself, because I would feel and believe that there was nothing left inside to build anything worthwhile on. One's commitments should be sacred, one's promises should be kept. After I write this, I'm going out back to work into the night, because I promised a job to a client tomorrow - and while he suggested we could put it off, well, I promised.

I think that we, as a society, have every right to publicize and look down on cheaters (and rapists, just to make a note about the previous example of Max Temkin). Not on people who sleep around - your number of partners doesn't say much about whether others can depend on you - but on cheaters of every stripe. Those who cheat, whether in business, in love, in politics, or in any other arena, destroy the bonds of trust that allow us to work with our fellow human beings. Which is why a general such as David Petraeus had to resign after his scandal.

Of course, the response we got from the other side wasn't any better. The correct response to someone cheating is to refuse to work with them, or be with them, not to attack them. And what the use of gendered slurs and threats of physical violence is supposed to accomplish is beyond me. Zoe Quinn, assuming that the evidence against her is reliable, didn't cheat because she was a woman or a game developer, but because she is a bad person to trust. And the only thing that one could conclude from the most vicious attacks was that there are quite a few men out there who believe that women are an inferior class, for whom Quinn's behavior provides a one-person referendum. Well, fuck that.

Which leads one to respond to the challenge by Costikyan with the consideration that, while dueling is not legal, were it, I might well accept, as I assert that one ought to have a bit more respect for where one allocates the label of honorable behavior. And also, I'm probably a good deal better with a sword than he is. 

[Nmaro Makari]

cursory google suggests it is a youtube comment, that is copy-pasted from a 4chan post, of uncertain origin.

basically, it's somewhat believeable, but provenance is meh.

which is the whole problem with everything on the internet.

Anyone can write anything on the internet, there's no cost, no consequence, and so on.

For great victory.

Am I still the only one who's thinking Storm in a Teacup?

But that's probably because I don't read much games journalism, professional or not. Matter of fact, I can't even read.

[Jace]

I agree that reading is super hardsies.

[Kala]

@Vik

Well, we agree that criticism is fine but abuse and harassment isn't.
I think the article I linked was very much against the latter camp.

I'm critical of a few aspects of Sarkeesian's work.  I don't feel willing to go into what specific parts at the moment because the broader conversation is so toxic.  I.e I'd be unwilling for legitimate criticism to be co-opted by what I consider an illegitimate standpoint. I think her criticism, and criticism of her work, are both valid (provided done reasonably) - and she's set the tone for that.  Had she ranted and railed about games being awful sexist things which should be banned (as many people have taken her criticism) I could understand ranting and railing back at her.  She hasn't, though.  Whether I agree with what she's said or not, she's made her argument in a reasonable and civil discourse.

I actually think that's why certain people are threatened by her.  The links I've seen argued between her and Jack Thompson are ridiculous, because he really was campaigning to ban video games, whereas Sarkeesian is just studying tropes in games.  But Thompson was easy to dismiss, because despite being a lawyer, he came across as an ambulance chaser who had completely lost the plot (disbarment cemented that impression).  Sarkeesian, whether you agree or disagree on various points, does not come across as crazy (apart from to the worst of her detractors, who I suspect are being somewhat hysterical).

To just talk from my stance a bit - the bit you quoted, the pistols at dawn stuff, I expect may be somewhat anticipatory statement to the accusation of being a white knight.  (which tends to be directed at any man who happens to disagree with abuse directed at someone who happens to be a woman). But he may have genuinely meant his stance that men should defend women, not attack them, in general.  I don't necessary agree with that statement, I would phrase it broader terms.

Regardless of gender, if someone is being unjustly abused and harassed by many simultaneous people, I will defend them.  That's just rooting for the underdog - I don't like to see bullying, it makes me genuinely angry.  In this particular case, the underdogs here are women.  And you can argue that in particular geeky male dominated spheres the underdogs are automatically going to be women.  Gaming is not the only sphere this kind of thing has happened in. This looks remarkably familiar:

Women in comics are the deviation, the invading body, the cancer. We are the cure, the norm, the natural order. All you are is a pair of halfway decent tits, a c*nt and a loud mouth. But see, it doesn’t matter how loud you get. It doesn’t matter how many of your lezbo tumblr and twitter fangirl friends agree with you and reinforce your views. You can be all “I’m not going to be silent about misogyny so f*ck you!” all you want. In the end all you are is a pathetic little girl trying to effect change and failing to make a dent. You might as well try to drain the ocean of fish. That’s the kind of battle you face with people like me. We won’t quit. We won’t stop attacking. We won’t give up. Ever.

http://comicsalliance.com/sexual-harassment-online-rape-threats-comics-superheroes-lessons-men-geek-culture/?trackback=twitter_mobile_top&trackback=tsmclip

From the comments and tweets I've been reading recently, that statement could absolutely be interchangeable with 'women in games'.

That said, while I don't believe if Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn were men they would've received the same amount and type of abuse, if they had been, I would still be equally against it. 

(The following is not a comparable scenario, but I'm bringing it up to demonstrate that I would be)

Some time back, Jonathan Ross was suggested to present an award ceremony in somewhat geeky circles - in all honesty, I forget what it was.  Something to do with science fiction writing, I think.  He's friends with Neil Gaiman, his wife had won one of these awards before, and he's done some documentaries in geeky topics before.  (He's also been on telly, so is quite a good showman etc).  So he got picked.  There wasn't a vote.  People were outraged.

Some people seemed outraged specifically because he was a rich white male.
Others, because they viewed him as sexist, and this particular venue had been trying to move away from sexism in the past.
Some specifically cited the Sachs scandal with him and Russell Brand as why they didn't want him representing them. (which, admittedly, was a shitty thing to do on Ross' part).

I suspect as well that many Americans had no clue who he was, so read our tabloid coverage of the Sachs scandal and based their opinion accordingly.  (There are many, many ways Jonathon Ross situation and Anita and Zoe Quinn situation are not analogous, but a lack of critical thinking on the part of people attacking them is certainly one of them.  Consider the sources, people.  Always consider the validity of your sources.  And if, like me, you do not think a tabloid gossip rag is a good source of balanced information, then a blog written by a jilted ex-boyfriend certainly isn't  )

Anyway, people then (and many of them feminists) jumped on twitter en masse to make their feelings known to Ross in no uncertain terms; he was not welcome.  That he was a sexist abusive monster etc etc.  They did this until he was driven away and backed out.  It's a shoddy way to treat someone, whatever you think of them.

And I've heard it argued that this didn't constitute bullying because of the power dynamics - i.e the people trying to drive him out were women in a geeky sphere so they had equivalently less power than a (very) rich white man. I genuinely believe that statement, in this context, to be nonsense.  Because when hundreds of people dog pile an individual on twitter telling them what an awful human being they are, the power dynamics change.  It's many people vs one person.

Which, to me, is bullying.  So I defended Ross, because that's shitty behaviour.

Now these people were angry, and were presenting their views in strong terms because of that. It didn't make it right.

Some people are doing the same to Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian. It doesn't make it right.

Other people are going further, and doxxing them, suggesting they be harassed and stalked in real life and sending them death threats and rape threats.  Not only is it private individuals doing this as a personal response (that happens to be at the same time as other private individuals), but there's also a concerted campaign that's taken place on 4chan raid channels discussing how best to direct the attacks, going forward with blackhat hacks, what strategies to take, what hashtags to utilize on twitter, and how a 'win' would be to drive Zoe Quinn to suicide.

Which is where the comparison ends, because Ross - despite being a public figure and a celebrity - did not get any near that level of harassment from the people on twitter who didn't want him hosting an awards ceremony/convention.

And the #gamergate harassment showing stuff from the 'other camp'?  That's also utterly incomparable, but for different reasons.  It clearly is meant to de-legitimize criticisms of abuse for Sarkeesian and Quinn "look, we're harassed too!", and if one person says something nasty, even if it's properly nasty like "I'll kill you and your family" it's not the same as many people doing it at once as part of a hate campaign against you, and definitely not the same level of danger if you haven't been doxxed and your address isn't available online for people to locate you.  (Which doesn't make it right, just not the same).  And really, I've seen screenshots up there from people basically saying "fuck off".  Which is abusive, but it's not harassment.

So, like Costikyan, I would defend the underdog if I felt they were being unfairly targeted.  I wouldn't agree the underdog is always female,  just that it clearly is in this case.


On the topic of Quinn's sex life - she wasn't accused of rape*, so it's not really comparable (as you point out).  Though I would ask you, if the argument is that the media shouldn't automatically implicate the alleged rapist of actually committing the crime without proof, in the same way that the idea shouldn't circulate that Quinn is sleeping her way through journalists for good reviews without proof, how do two (or three) wrongs make a right?

*whether or not she defined cheating on someone and still sleeping with them as rape, it doesn't make it so.  it's a grey area of consent, sure, but not rape.

As for rappers or the partner of Britney Spears, that's (again) shitty tabloid rags and gossip magazines; the definition of click-baiting if you like - tawdry sensationalism.  It's seedy, and nasty, but it's considered in the public interest because they are high profile celebrities and certain people lap that shit up.
(It's argued, as it was on the celebrity nude hacks, that if you court fame then you've automatically given up any claim to privacy.  I don't really agree with this stance.  Some people are fame whores, others aren't).

Zoe Quinn is not a high profile celebrity.  She is an indie developer.  Her sex life being public interest is about on the same level as mine, in the celebrity stakes.  I.e not at all.  (and yes, for different reasons, it's considered public interest for politicians, as well.  but politicians make laws that effect all of us, Zoe Quinn does not).

You feel you have the moral right, and that society should have the moral right, to publicly denounce cheaters wherever they are found in whatever walk of life?  Well, I don't feel that way.  That's a step away from grabbing the pitchforks and torches to enforce morality.   

Bottom line:  We don't know shit about their relationship.  We have one side of a very biased story.  We don't have hers because we're not entitled to it.  We aren't entitled to his, either, but he willingly divulged it in order to smear her, so there we go. The relationship between her and Grayson has been confirmed, but as well as nebulous grey areas like 'on a break' - we have no idea of what Zoe Quinn and Eron Gjoni's relationship was like , how healthy or how toxic it was, and how committed those two people actually were to each other.  Because it is, in no uncertain terms, none of our business.

As for you grabbing a sword and meeting Costikyan for a duel, I believe that was to defend people from abuse.  Since you outright spoke against harassment and abuse in the first part of your post, I don't think a duel would be necessary. 

(I, on the other hand, could go toe to toe with you if you like, but I'm small, quick and fight incredibly dirty, so you'd lose  /flexes internet tough guy muscles)

[Kala]

As an aside, Leigh Alexander is a games journo on gamesutra, RPS and probably other places too. She wrote one of the 'gamers are dead' articles, so is fairly relevant to the 'journalists are dead' topic.  (And while the title is typically click-baity, I would encourage people to interrogate what she actually means by 'gamers' before jumping to conclusions, as she does not mean 'people who play games'.  She means people who tell other people they can't play games, or aren't 'proper gamers' unless they play a specific type of game.  I.e gatekeepers. Which, she argues, is an attitude that will die as the demographic broadens).

Anna Anthropy is an indie game dev or a writer of interactive electronic webgames/texts depending on your respective definitions.  (Covering extremely kinky subjects, or at least one that I saw did). She's also trans.  Which is why the "yes, even" qualifier.  Arguably, it should be written without that qualifier, but I think his point was "yes, and I consider Anna Anthropy a woman too, whatever you think." 

[Vikarion]

First, I agree with pretty much everything you said, aside from the ideas which I quote a bit of below. I think there's even some partial agreement there, so I'll comment and clarify. Also, it's nice to receive a reasonable, rational, and calm response.

Zoe Quinn is not a high profile celebrity.  She is an indie developer.  Her sex life being public interest is about on the same level as mine, in the celebrity stakes.  I.e not at all.  (and yes, for different reasons, it's considered public interest for politicians, as well.  but politicians make laws that effect all of us, Zoe Quinn does not).

You feel you have the moral right, and that society should have the moral right, to publicly denounce cheaters wherever they are found in whatever walk of life?  Well, I don't feel that way.  That's a step away from grabbing the pitchforks and torches to enforce morality.

I think that if someone like ToadyOne (Dwarf Fortress), or Notch (MineCraft) were to cheat, that it could easily be news. And, actually, yeah, indie developers in the news are public figures, at least within their own circle. But - and I don't think I said this explicitly, but I do mean it - I don't know why the gaming press should devote much attention to it.

That said, I do think that cheating - in any area - is destructive to human society. When people cheat at war, they get put on trial for war crimes. When people cheat at economics, we put them in prison for fraud and theft - when we don't, we end up with things like the 2008 financial crisis. When people cheat at relationships, however, we're just supposed to sit back and go "eh, guess their partner must have done something to deserve it"?

You know, I don't really seem to hurt when others hurt, a lot of the time, but I recoil at that sort of logic. I mean, if I pick your pocket, or enroll you in a pyramid scheme, I'm a horrible person who needs to do jail time. Yet if I hit you where it hurts most - in your self-respect, your trust, your intimacy, and your willingness to love, well that's just bad luck for you. This in a world where people are willing to give up fortunes to try to get someone to love them.

A relationship is a responsibility, a charge to keep, a commitment. A world in which everyone practiced truthfulness and fidelity in their relationships would be a better world than a world in which cheaters of any stripe were given a blank check, and is almost certainly better than the world we have right now.

That said, I don't know how one could make it a crime, or even if one should. But I don't blame Quinn's boyfriend for making it public, and I think that his screen captures, video, and other testimony make his evidence reasonably reliable. I do not necessarily find his presentation of any particular quality, but at least any future partners will be reasonably forewarned.

As for you grabbing a sword and meeting Costikyan for a duel, I believe that was to defend people from abuse.  Since you outright spoke against harassment and abuse in the first part of your post, I don't think a duel would be necessary. 

(I, on the other hand, could go toe to toe with you if you like, but I'm small, quick and fight incredibly dirty, so you'd lose  /flexes internet tough guy muscles)

Actually, he said that it would be to defend their honor. I think yowling about dueling is silly, as it would prove nothing, but it's worth pointing out that he'd never go through with it via the calling of a bluff. I also think that the "honor" of Zoe Quinn is of much the same quality as the existence of the dodo: extinct. Should you like to spar with me, hit me up anytime you're in Northern California (bring your own protective gear). I'm always up for some fun, and I think you'll find that a highly active lifestyle and exercise program will make me an exciting opponent. 

[Kala]

Also, it's nice to receive a reasonable, rational, and calm response.

<3

I think that if someone like ToadyOne (Dwarf Fortress), or Notch (MineCraft) were to cheat, that it could easily be news.

...do you?  I know Minecraft is immensely popular now (vastly more than DepressionQuest will ever be, don't know if it's made up but saw a story the other day about Microsoft wanting to buy Mojang for a cool couple of billion  ) but I'm not sure people would care that much if Notch cheated on his wife.  (if he even has one. see? I don't even know if Notch has a wife!)

What I consider newsworthy and what other people do may be entirely different, mind.

That said, I do think that cheating - in any area - is destructive to human society. When people cheat at war, they get put on trial for war crimes. When people cheat at economics, we put them in prison for fraud and theft - when we don't, we end up with things like the 2008 financial crisis. When people cheat at relationships, however, we're just supposed to sit back and go "eh, guess their partner must have done something to deserve it"?

You know, I don't really seem to hurt when others hurt, a lot of the time, but I recoil at that sort of logic. I mean, if I pick your pocket, or enroll you in a pyramid scheme, I'm a horrible person who needs to do jail time. Yet if I hit you where it hurts most - in your self-respect, your trust, your intimacy, and your willingness to love, well that's just bad luck for you. This in a world where people are willing to give up fortunes to try to get someone to love them.

A relationship is a responsibility, a charge to keep, a commitment. A world in which everyone practised truthfulness and fidelity in their relationships would be a better world than a world in which cheaters of any stripe were given a blank check, and is almost certainly better than the world we have right now.

I'm not arguing it's morally right or acceptable.  Nor am I saying Gjoni must have deserved it.
What I'm saying is, I'm in no position to judge.  I'm thoroughly external to proceedings. The only people who can are the people in that relationship.  They're the only ones who know the ins and outs, fully.  Which may not be the same as what Gjoni chooses to tell us, omit, or the slant put on things from his perspective.
I also think relationships, emotions and people in general are complex messy beasts.  So I'm not sure it's as black and white as picking a pocket, enrolling in a pyramid scheme, fraud or theft.

But I don't blame Quinn's boyfriend for making it public, and I think that his screen captures, video, and other testimony make his evidence reasonably reliable. I do not necessarily find his presentation of any particular quality, but at least any future partners will be reasonably forewarned.

I don't think he's necessarily lying or doctoring evidence, what I mean is he's unreliable - like an unreliable narrator.  (I read the whole thing, and yes, there's screenshots, but he gets to provide all the context). The Jonathon Ross stuff the tabloids reported on actually happened; they didn't make it up.  They just gave an very coloured viewpoint because whipping up peoples outrage helps sell papers.  Which is why I wouldn't trust the tabloids (ever) and if anyone links a Daily Mail article I have a pinch of salt to hand. By the same token, I would not base my view of a person from the perspective of an ex-boyfriend (particularly a wronged one, we assume) because it's likely to be a hatchet job.  He is necessarily biased.

While Gjoni isn't me, I am highly sceptical of the noble intention of forewarning future partners.  I think that's a lie he's told himself to justify it, because I've spun that shit to myself before, and I don't think I believed it then.  Ultimately, I didn't care about 'saving future partners', not really, 'this person deserves to know x' - well, yes, maybe they do, but it's not my place.  The point is to get back at someone, to hit at them because you're hurt.  To ruin their future happiness because you're unhappy.

Gjoni probably succeeded there beyond his wildest expectations (though given he was sitting in on the 4chan channels where they were discussing how to attack her, maybe he did expect that.  I don't know).

Actually, he said that it would be to defend their honor. I think yowling about dueling is silly, as it would prove nothing, but it's worth pointing out that he'd never go through with it via the calling of a bluff.

Yeah. but I still think he meant it in the context of defend them from abuse and harassment there - along with the general 'thrust' of his piece    And I'm not sure it was meant literally, re: white knight stuff (though he's certainly doing the defending verbally).
 

Should you like to spar with me, hit me up anytime you're in Northern California (bring your own protective gear). I'm always up for some fun, and I think you'll find that a highly active lifestyle and exercise program will make me an exciting opponent. 

Sure! I'll totally take you down next time I'm in Northern California. Rawr.
.../knows will never be in Northern California >.>

[Kyoko Sakoda]

Everything is OVER!

[Vikarion]

I think this is a really good article from the non-SJW side of the story, and I'll link it here, as well as post it in a spoiler:

https://github.com/GamerGateOP/GamerGateOP/blob/master/FAQ.md

[spoiler]This was written on 1 Sep 2014, and does not reflect any information that may have emerged since.

Q: What is this debacle about?

A: Currently this is about three semi-related subjects: Ethics in journalism, censorship, and biased coverage (both suppressing negative coverage about journalism itself, and pushing an extremist Social Justice Warrior [SJW] agenda). We will address these three issues further down, but first to address the biggest question those new to this are probably thinking about:

Q: If this is about journalism ethics/censorship/biased coverage, why is Zoe Quinn at the center of this storm? Why are Zoe/Anita getting so much harassment by "terrorist gamers"?

A: OK, take one step back. WHO told you that Zoe Quinn is at the center of the storm? WHO is emphasizing these harassment allegations so strongly? The journalists whose ethics are in question? And who might benefit if they distract you from the real concerns by focusing on harassment claims by Zoe Quinn/Anita Sarkeesian? Thereby painting this whole movement as a misogynist witchhunt which the public should dismiss? So that they can maintain their current corrupt status quo? THOSE journalist?

If you don't believe that this is NOT just misogyny, or NOT just about Zoe/Anita, try reading/watching some of these:
http://gamesnosh.com/gamergate-silly-sounding-sincere-call-fair-representation-gamers-within-media/
http://nastythingssaidabout.wordpress.com/2014/08/26/the-terrible-misogyny-in-the-games-industry/
http://techraptor.net/2014/08/29/witnessing-end-gamers/
http://www.gamerheadlines.com/2014/08/moving-forward-worst-week-gaming-whats-next/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km3DZQp0StE (Warning: Strong Language)

That said, it must still be acknowledged that Zoe Quinn has managed to become a symbol for all the issues above, despite not being a Journalist. Just like the Watergate scandal is named after the initial incident at the Democrat's HQ building, despite the case being against (then) Republican President Richard Nixon, similarly, most of the allegations INITIALLY brought up, involved her, or those associated with her. Some of these allegations against Zoe have since been disproved, but they have nonetheless prompted the movement to dig around and unearth other allegations against journalism, with MUCH better proof. Efforts are underway to rebrand this debacle as #GamerGate.

Q: But what is wrong with game journalism ethics?

A: We begin with a list of what SHOULD be ethical. (Note that this is NOT a comprehensive list of journalism ethics, it only covers principles which have been clearly violated in this particular case).

Journalists should strive to the best of their ability, to report verified facts. Where such stories are newsworthy but not verifiable, they should also report the fact that they are uncertain.

Journalists should strive to be objective and unbiased. They should certainly not be linked to their subjects personally, financially or romantically, to avoid the possibility or even suspicion of bias (conscious or otherwise). Where there are such links, journalists should recuse themselves, and get someone else to do the reporting. But if they must do it themselves, they should disclose these links in their reporting, in order to remain completely honest with their audience.

Journalism should strive to provide fair and balanced coverage, and include all sides of the story (All this does not necessarily have to be done by a single journalist, the chief editor could assign one journalist to cover each angle). This is ESPECIALLY so in cases where they plan to report on a newsworthy but currently unverifiable story. If you are already prepared to sacrifice fact-checking for timeliness, then you should give all sides their say.

Below, we will give examples where these principles have been breached, but in order to keep this FAQ short, we will only cite a few clear-cut examples. As the situation evolves, more allegations may be unearthed, and a comprehensive listing of all of them is beyond the scope of this FAQ. The thing to remember is this - although some gaming sites have already started revising parts of their policy due to public pressure, more changes may still be needed.

Q: Journalists have reported unverified claims without evidence as fact?

A: They have indeed. As one example, in December 2013, Zoe alleged that she had been harassed by members from a board Wizardchan. Without bothering to check the evidence, the Escapist reported it as if it were verified fact. In the words of Editor Greg Tito, "We will signal-boost those incidents because I think it's important to create change"

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.858347.21285187

Because it was easy to show that there was no real evidence, Escapist has since backpedaled, and modified their article to reflect that these are merely allegations instead of fact. Note the update in article below: "This post has been edited to correctly assert that the claims were made by the accuser and have not been confirmed by another party."

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/130525-Depression-Quest-Dev-Faces-Harassment-after-Steam-Submission-Update

Nonetheless, this misreported fact has since been propagated down the news network, lending truth to the words of C. H. Spurgeon: "A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on". For example at the time of this writing, GameSkinny still says this about the event: "Because for the SECOND time, Zoe Quinn is being excessively harassed by online users ... How bad? She had to change her phone number because she was receiving sexually harassing phone calls."

http://www.gameskinny.com/o3t09/depression-quest-dev-faces-extreme-harassment-because-shes-a-woman

Q: Journalists had personal & financial ties with the subjects they were supposed to cover, and did not recuse themselves or disclose such ties?

A: They did, and they are not even disputing these ties, or at least, not the ties that were clearly obvious for all to see (such as Patreon financing). Kotaku has since instituted a policy of not allowing their journalists to have Patreon links with developers (link 1), and Polygon has demanded disclosure of such links from their journalists (link 2).

link 1: http://kotaku.com/a-brief-note-about-the-continued-discussion-about-kotak-1627041269
link 2: http://www.polygon.com/forums/meta/2014/8/26/6071669/on-patreon-support

Similarly, Journalist were previously promoting certain games, without disclosing that those games were made by their friends (link 1). Now that this debacle has erupted, they going back and once again modifying their articles (link 2). Note the added text: "Update: full disclosure... Anthropy was housemates with me and a mutual friend in the summer of 2012."

link 1: http://i.imgur.com/7JrUrHZ.png
link 2: http://kotaku.com/5976294/now-there-is-a-whole-game-about-a-gay-planet

Q: Journalists have been giving biased coverage?

A: Indeed. We describe this in more detail later on.

Q: And what about censorship?

A: There is censorship in the form of suppressing negative press, which some gaming sites are doing. This is detailed in the biased coverage section. The other issue of censorship relates more to forum moderators. There is clear evidence of one or more forum mods on reddit, attempting to suppress discussion during the early days of the Zoe Quinn scandal, by mass deleting (link 1) and shadowbanning (link 2) users. It should be noted that it is BECAUSE of censorship, that this debacle has grown so large. Attempts to suppress discussion backfired in a major way, and the Streisand effect (link 3) quickly escalated the initial minor incident into a full blown debacle.

link 1: http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/2dz0gs/totalbiscuit_discusses_the_state_of_games/
(Note: a lot of the deleted posts are hidden, click "Load More Comments", and you will see that the other deleted posts will not even load)
link 2: http://imgur.com/a/f4WDf
link 3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

Q: And what about biased coverage?

A: There are two aspects to this. Firstly major gaming sites are suppressing negative coverage about journalism itself (for obvious self-serving reasons). Secondly, they have promoted an extremist SJW version of the narrative. The first problem is self-evident: Currently, you don't see the major gaming sites talking about journalism's mistakes much. Either their own, or those of their colleagues. (To be completely fair, news of this scandal HAS appeared on smaller sites such as gamesnosh.com, gamerheadlines.com, etc). Instead, as mentioned above, they try to divert your attention by focusing on other things, like "social justice". Except that they are apparently not interested in REAL justice, but only in an extremist form of SJW "justice".

Q: What is wrong with wanting social justice?

A: There is nothing wrong with wanting social justice. But there are SJW extremists, whose viewpoints and actions are as bad, if not worse, then the "terrorist gamers" they demonize. These SJW extremists can best be characterized by a hypocritical double standard: Harassment is wrong, unless WE are doing it to those against us. Some merely hold this viewpoint, others put it into practice with harassment attacks of their own.

Q: And this relates to biased coverage in journalism?

A: Biased Coverage for the extremist SJW cause takes 2 forms:
1. They happily report claims made by those on the SJW "side", even when those claims are clearly dubious after some research.
2. They will not report on those who question or speak out against anybody on the SJW "side", thereby suppressing valid questions and negative coverage.
We begin by showing a few examples where they are happy to report SJW claims, but not the counter-claim:

As mentioned above, in Dec 2013, Zoe Quinn claimed to have been the target of harassment by Wizardchan. The gaming press gladly reported this based on her word, and screenshots of 2 posts. Additionally, they reported this allegation as if it were hard fact (but have since backpedaled).

Wizardchan has since made claims of innocence, and have pointed out some plausible indications that the attack was probably a false flag (i.e. made by someone else in their name). Notably, Wizardchan's target audience are socially inept, depressed virgin men who get anxious just being around phones. It is therefore unlikely that THEY made any harassment calls. And as an imageboard with no access control, someone aside from their target audience could have made the posts on Wizardchan which Zoe screenshot. Wizardchan thinks it might be CWCwiki, but really any internet troll could have done it. In other words: reasonable doubt.

None of the major gaming sites have covered this claim of innocence? Why not? If the initial unsubstantiated allegation of harassment was newsworthy, then surely the claim of innocence (with reasonable doubt) by the alleged attacker would be newsworthy as well? This is important, because as a result of the initial allegations (which were ALSO misreported as fact), Wizardchan (a group of socially inept, depressed virgin men, who were already generally miserable) received an outpouring of hate speech from the extremist SJWs. This is the result of the major gaming press NOT researching Wizardchan (whose target audience alone would cast doubt), and NOT reporting their point of view.

http://imgur.com/a/4VOcx

Another example is Phil Fish (another person in the SJW camp). His company website was allegedly hacked by "/V/" of 4chan, and it was reported here:

http://www.polygon.com/2014/8/22/6057317/fez-developer-polytron-hacked-harassment
http://www.dailydot.com/geek/4chan-hacks-phil-fish-over-his-defense-of-zoe-quinn/

We would like to point out that (at the time of this writing) neither of these articles have been updated to mention that these alleged hack attacks are most probably false flags (i.e. not done by "/V/" of 4chan). Because /v/ NEVER refers to itself as "/V/" (yes, the capitalization matters). Again, the major gaming sites are NOT doing research, and NOT letting those accused defend themselves. (Although in this case, 4chan is a MUCH harder target than Wizardchan, so any SJW extremist attacks probably will not work nearly as well).

The above highlight how the major gaming press has been happy to report allegations by those on the SJW "side". But what about allegations AGAINST the SJW extremists?

Jayd3Fox: Alleged to have been doxxed, and received harassing phone call from an SJW extremist. The resulting distress has apparently caused her breakdown and withdraw from the public eye. Not reported (warning this video is heartbreaking):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhV4BDjP0-M

Wolf Wozniak: Claims to have been sexually harassed by Zoe Quinn. Not only was this not reported, the poor fool was basically shouted down on twitter.

http://i.imgur.com/5DDiW86.jpg

TotalBiscuit: Wrote a twitlonger on how if the allegation of DMCA abuse against Zoe Quinn is true, it would be very bad, and she should not have done it. (He does NOT say that she is guilty, merely that it would be bad if she is).

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1s4nmr1/

For daring to even TALK about this subject, he claims (and we shall quote him here): "Those interested in "social justice" today have called me a misogynist thug, a nazi and a variety of interesting lies." He also says "Which is the reason why the internet's idea of "social justice" is something I want no part of. Justice through lies and abuse? Not justice". Except for a minor website, this harassment against what is easily one of the biggest names in youtube gaming, has otherwise gone unreported.

http://gamesnosh.com/the-ugly-side-of-justice-total-biscuit-denounced-over-zoe-quinn-scandal-comments/

The Fine Young Capitalist (TFYC): They have claimed various attacks (doxxing, DDoS, death threats) by extremist SJW supporters against their FEMINIST CHARITY GAME COMPETITION. Although there are still questions over whether Zoe Quinn personally orchestrated these, it should be noted that at the very least, some of these alleged attackers were her associates (which again relates to how she wound up becoming a symbol of this debacle).

We shall quote TFYC here: "An associate of hers (Zoe), posted my Facebook information... The subsequent death threat I received via email was not orchestrated by Zoe. Nor was the DDOSing of our website or the banning of us from Twitter. She was simply the most famous voice in a choir of people that did not understand the project... The fallout from the posting of my info costed me around $10,000 dollars". These doxxing and death threats allegations were not reported by the major gaming sites.

http://i.imgur.com/JbZGSzh.png http://www.thefineyoungcapitalists.com/PeaceTreaty

Zoe herself was apparently quite happy about the DDoS with tweets like: "oops we DDOS'ed something on accident", "I like how a conversation between me and @legobutts resulted in accidentally crashing an exploitative startup's website" and "Lol we blew up the site and it's returning over quota errors HOW FUCKING APPROPRIATE". This is an example of the double standards we mentioned above: Harassment is wrong, unless done by us.

http://i.imgur.com/6SVLxB0.png

Credit where it is due, when the TFYC indiegogo charity website was allegedly hacked, that WAS reported, but again, not by the major gaming sites:

http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/25/indiegogo-campaign-hacked-this-weekend-but-wasnt-part-of-a-widespread-attack/
http://www.crowdfundinsider.com/2014/08/47715-indiegogo-reports-recent-campaign-hack-considered-widespread-attack/
http://nichegamer.net/2014/08/the-quinnspiracy-continues-vivian-james-indiegogo-is-reportedly-hacked/

Are you beginning to see a consistent pattern here?

Q: But what about the harassment Zoe Quinn/Anita Sarkeesian received?

A: There are three things that should be said about this: Firstly we do not condone harassment in any way, shape or form. We do not condone doxxing, raids, or other forms of intimidation. These are all unacceptable, even if used in the name of a good cause... ESPECIALLY if used in the name of a good cause, because you tarnish the reputation of said cause. If you have received any form of criminal harassment, we STRONGLY recommend that you notify the police.

It is NOT that harassment against women in the video game industry (or any other field for that matter) is not real. It is NOT that there are no 'misogy-nerds' spreading hate speech about women in gaming. It is NOT that there are no 'terrorist gamers' willing to employ harassment and/or hacking attacks either just for fun, or to further their cause.

These things are all real. But if you believe these things are wrong, it should be obvious that they are wrong no matter who they are done to, or who is the perpetrator. If it is wrong to dox and harass Zoe, then it is just as wrong to dox and harass the TFYC charity and Jayd3Fox. But by reporting only attacks against SJWs and their supporters, and remaining quiet about the attacks by SJW extremists, the major gaming press encourages and enables these SJW extremists to keep up their campaign of terror, and indirectly condones their hypocritical double standard. We are not asking for much: Just apply the same standards to everyone, regardless of what labels they may carry.

Secondly, we do not believe that being the target of harassment, immediately and automatically exonerates you of any alleged wrong-doing. To give a fictional example, lets say the press reports that a man is alleged to have embezzled money from a charity organization he works for. This charity is much beloved by the rest of town, and in their anger, various people start sending him and his family death threats.

Would it be right for the police to say "oh well, you've received death threats, so we are not going to investigate the embezzlement charges"? Of course not! The police should continue to investigate the embezzlement charges. And if the man is found guilty, he should be punished accordingly. At the same time however, the police should also offer the man protection, and investigate the death threats, in order to bring whoever else broke the law to justice.

Thirdly, and perhaps most important of all: slandering the many, based on the actions of a few. Because a whole horde of "gamers" are pushing for change right now, a whole lot of gaming sites are promoting a one-sided narrative of "terrorist gamers", trying to discredit anybody with the "gamer" label. Between 28-29 Aug 2014, various gaming websites and personalities, released a slew articles basically trying spin this as a misogynist witchhunt, and thereby tar the whole group, based on the actions of a few:

http://markdownshare.com/view/a524affd-e679-40be-8aa1-72058065dc2a

Yes, there are a few "terrorist gamers", and as mentioned above, we thoroughly condemn their actions. And in this writing, we have tried to show you how the actions of the extremist SJWs are just as bad as those of "terrorist gamers" (but you are less aware of them because of biased coverage). We have consistently called them "extremist", as we would like to believe that not everyone who considers themselves SJWs condones such attitudes or actions. We have extended the courtesy, of not letting a few rotten apples spoil the whole basket. Please do the same for us - do not condemn the entire gaming population, just because of the actions of a few.

Thanks for reading.

TL;DR: Question everything the gaming press is telling you, and just as importantly, about what they might NOT be telling you.[/spoiler]

[Kala]

I have a few inevitable objections 

OK, take one step back. WHO told you that Zoe Quinn is at the center of the storm? WHO is emphasizing these harassment allegations so strongly? The journalists whose ethics are in question?

I observed that myself from reading comment threads and on twitter - the hate was clearly directed at her.  Not journos.

There is nothing wrong with wanting social justice. But there are SJW extremists, whose viewpoints and actions are as bad, if not worse, then the "terrorist gamers" they demonize. These SJW extremists can best be characterized by a hypocritical double standard: Harassment is wrong, unless WE are doing it to those against us.

Well, sure, there are always bad apples that spoil a bunch etc.  But...I haven't seen SJW extremists being as bad, if not worse, than the "terrorist gamers" who are attacking Quinn and Sarkeesian.  And that includes trawling through the #gamergate harassment tumblr. 

Zoe herself was apparently quite happy about the DDoS with tweets like: "oops we DDOS'ed something on accident", "I like how a conversation between me and @legobutts resulted in accidentally crashing an exploitative startup's website" and "Lol we blew up the site and it's returning over quota errors HOW FUCKING APPROPRIATE". This is an example of the double standards we mentioned above: Harassment is wrong, unless done by us.

None of that is harassment.
When lots of people look at something at the same time it can crash a website.  It happens.
Hence accident.

If it is wrong to dox and harass Zoe, then it is just as wrong to dox and harass the TFYC charity and Jayd3Fox.

Yes, it is.
(Though doxxing and harassing the TFYC is not what Quinn did).

TL;DR: Question everything the gaming press is telling you, and just as importantly, about what they might NOT be telling you.

No, question everything anyone is telling you.  Read around an issue.  Use critical thinking.
...and be particularly wary of conspiracy theories.

[Vikarion]

I don't actually agree with everything in the article - I just thought it was a good one from the "opposing side" so to speak, and a good deal less hysterical than most. However, to play devil's advocate, I don't think that the idea behind talking about Quinn there is to claim she was directly responsible as much as to show that she has no problem with people she doesn't like being harassed. In which case it is hypocritical (albeit, perhaps understandable) for her to suddenly decry harassment aimed at her.

The more I look at the Wizardchan harassment claim, the more I'm convinced that Quinn invented it. On the other hand, I don't think Anita invented hers, and it appears she did report it to the FBI.

Honestly, when it comes to gaming, I have far less irritation with either of them than I do with Bioware and the Mass Effect 3 ending. Although being upset at Bioware apparently makes me an asshole as well, at least according to Bioware.

[Mizhara]

And some posters on this board, for that matter. Because artistic integrity or whatever.

[Lyn Farel]

lolbioware.