"If freedom is important, then which freedoms are paramount here? It seems to me that freedom of the press, which GamerGate has previously espoused as important, is totally undermined by this approach (as was pointed out when GG forums started trying to organise campaigns of targeting advertisers). Freedom of speech is also probably more important than imaginary freedoms to not see things that you don't like."
American supreme court (most of this is going on in America) has ruled that boycotting is not censorship, so freedom of speech isn't being impeded.
People are allowed to address their concerns with advertisers on websites like this if they feel that continual dealings with the website in question is a problem. If you don't like that, feel free to take it up with someone (I can't imagine who) legally.
There's no reason for anyone other than industry people to have "dealings" with Gamasutra. Crying to advertisers that a site you have nothing to do with called you a doodoohead until they pull advertising comes off as utterly idiotic.
Anyway, I'll continue this conversation with the wall - it displays more sense.
You're trying to assign a stance to Intel, when there isn't any. There's a controversy going on, and they wanted out of it. Simple as that.
I'm assigning no stance at all - I actually agree with your assessment. It's still corporate manipulation of the press, though. It's a highly ironic result, and you'd think GamerGaters would take issue with it.
People are allowed to address their concerns with advertisers on websites like this if they feel that continual dealings with the website in question is a problem. If you don't like that, feel free to take it up with someone (I can't imagine who) legally.
There's no reason for anyone other than industry people to have "dealings" with Gamasutra. Crying to advertisers that a site you have nothing to do with called you a doodoohead until they pull advertising comes off as utterly idiotic.
Anyway, I'll continue this conversation with the wall - it displays more sense.
Not really.
Alot of oppressed groups have done this historically in order to gain well deserved freedoms. Would you consider those fine folks idiotic?
You're trying to assign a stance to Intel, when there isn't any. There's a controversy going on, and they wanted out of it. Simple as that.
I'm assigning no stance at all - I actually agree with your assessment. It's still corporate manipulation of the press, though. It's a highly ironic result, and you'd think GamerGaters would take issue with it.
It's not corporate manipulation of the press, because Intel hasn't said "change your stances or we'll leave". They just left in order to avoid being assigned a stance in the controversy. The context isn't sufficient to really call it manipulation in my opinion. They're just bailing on something that could be bad business for them.
I'm assigning no stance at all - I actually agree with your assessment. It's still corporate manipulation of the press, though. It's a highly ironic result, and you'd think GamerGaters would take issue with it.
It's also manipulation of the press through means other than reading/not reading it. If a bunch of people who don't read a site decide to boycott it, that has no impact. This is a bunch of people who don't read a site actively targeting how that site makes money, it's an incredibly cynical thing to do in order to expressly silence a specific kind of writing that's not even intended for their consumption.
Apparently that manipulation is okay because it's being done by "gamers". Ugh.
It's not corporate manipulation of the press, because Intel hasn't said "change your stances or we'll leave". They just left in order to avoid being assigned a stance in the controversy. The context isn't sufficient to really call it manipulation in my opinion. They're just bailing on something that could be bad business for them.
But they HAVE left, specifically as a result of that article. No threats necessary - they went and did it. I'm not saying they're twirling their moustaches in their evil lair, but by leaving due to the fallout over a specific article, they imply they didn't like it or its results, and that Gama had better stop doing that if they want their funding back.
It's exactly what GG's been yelling about all along - behind-the-scenes pressure (through sex, money, favours, whatever) to change the content and types of articles. It's hilariously ironic.
I'm assigning no stance at all - I actually agree with your assessment. It's still corporate manipulation of the press, though. It's a highly ironic result, and you'd think GamerGaters would take issue with it.
It's also manipulation of the press through means other than reading/not reading it. If a bunch of people who don't read a site decide to boycott it, that has no impact. This is a bunch of people who don't read a site actively targeting how that site makes money, it's an incredibly cynical thing to do in order to expressly silence a specific kind of writing that's not even intended for their consumption.
Apparently that manipulation is okay because it's being done by "gamers". Ugh.
Not really, because it's part of the boycotting process. People boycott by affiliation. Intel wanted out. That's all there is to it.
Boycotting isn't censorship. You can call it manipulation if you want. There's alot of manipulation going on, on all fronts though, so I don't really care what you call it.
ala google : boycott = a punitive ban on relations with other bodies, cooperation with a policy, or the handling of goods.
It's not corporate manipulation of the press, because Intel hasn't said "change your stances or we'll leave". They just left in order to avoid being assigned a stance in the controversy. The context isn't sufficient to really call it manipulation in my opinion. They're just bailing on something that could be bad business for them.
But they HAVE left, specifically as a result of that article. No threats necessary - they went and did it. I'm not saying they're twirling their moustaches in their evil lair, but by leaving due to the fallout over a specific article, they imply they didn't like it or its results, and that Gama had better stop doing that if they want their funding back.
It's exactly what GG's been yelling about all along - behind-the-scenes pressure (through sex, money, favours, whatever) to change the content and types of articles. It's hilariously ironic.
No, they didn't leave because of the article. They left because of the controversy around the article. It's different. If they hadn't received mails and been aware of the huge outcry online, they wouldn't have cared.
I see though, that you're confusing press corruption with the idea of boycotting, which are fundamentally different.
Voting with your wallet isn't the same as writing exaggerated reviews because you were paid to (or whatever applicable deed related to press corruption)
No, they didn't leave because of the article. They left because of the controversy around the article. It's different. If they hadn't received mails and been aware of the huge outcry online, they wouldn't have cared.
By ratifying the controversy, you ratify what *caused* the controversy, intentionally or not. Again, I'm not painting Intel as a bunch of cartoon villains, but their actions send a pretty clear message here, whether they like it or not.
I see though, that you're confusing press corruption with the idea of boycotting, which are fundamentally different.
The only difference between the two is the perceived intention behind them. The end result is the same - people can't write what they want to. This would be fine if what Gama was writing was actively harmful, but I don't see how examining the changes in the subculture is a horrible thing.
No, they didn't leave because of the article. They left because of the controversy around the article. It's different. If they hadn't received mails and been aware of the huge outcry online, they wouldn't have cared.
By ratifying the controversy, you ratify what *caused* the controversy, intentionally or not. Again, I'm not painting Intel as a bunch of cartoon villains, but their actions send a pretty clear message here, whether they like it or not.
I see though, that you're confusing press corruption with the idea of boycotting, which are fundamentally different.
The only difference between the two is the perceived intention behind them. The end result is the same - people can't write what they want to. This would be fine if what Gama was writing was actively harmful, but I don't see how examining the changes in the subculture is a horrible thing.
People can write whatever they want to. But if they keep getting on the bad side of consumers, people will make sure they don't make any money out of it. That's kinda the point of a boycott.
We're going in circles here. Gama didn't insult their consumer base. Their consumer base is game developers. Nor was there an insult - how did they do anything more than examine how demographic changes were affecting the subculture? How does this warrant a boycott?
We're going in circles here. Gama didn't insult their consumer base. Their consumer base is game developers. Nor did they do anything more than examine how demographic changes were affecting the subculture. How does this warrant a boycott?
Feel free to tell that to all the devs who are pro GG.
I also don't see how you get to claim you know who's offended and who isn't. Alot of people were offended. Hence GG.
Devs working for big companies just know better than to speak about it publicly, because it will probably hurt them in these murky waters.
And they did alot more than examine how demographic changes were affecting the subculture. It also doesn't matter if you or anyone else thinks anything warrants a boycott. They think it does. And so they will do it.
We're going in circles here. Gama didn't insult their consumer base. Their consumer base is game developers. Nor was there an insult - how did they do anything more than examine how demographic changes were affecting the subculture. How does this warrant a boycott?
BEACUASE GAMENING IS UNDAR ATTAK!
The people arguing are not arguing rationally, they're just attacking because that's all they know how to do. Everything is about attack: Their feelings are about being under attack, the actions they try to orchestrate are attacks...
It's really stark when compared to people who aren't busy trying to prop up GamerGate, you start seeing how people are trying to facilitate dialog and open discussion. Neither of those things can be accomplished through attack.
We're going in circles here. Gama didn't insult their consumer base. Their consumer base is game developers. Nor was there an insult - how did they do anything more than examine how demographic changes were affecting the subculture. How does this warrant a boycott?
BEACUASE GAMENING IS UNDAR ATTAK!
The people arguing are not arguing rationally, they're just attacking because that's all they know how to do. Everything is about attack: Their feelings are about being under attack, the actions they try to orchestrate are attacks...
It's really stark when compared to people who aren't busy trying to prop up GamerGate, you start seeing how people are trying to facilitate dialog and open discussion. Neither of those things can be accomplished through attack.
Again, you're diminishing a huge demographic of people based on the NOTHING that you know about them as individuals. That kind of mindset alludes me to think that you'd generalise people based on other things too........
Anyway.
You're not doing anyone any good by being facetious about people you don't know
Okay. Let's twist this around a bit, from the homogenous ideological mishmash that is GG to the individual level. How were you personally offended by the article? What raised your ire enough to support a Gama boycott based on this article? What is your rationale? What are you, personally, trying to convince us of?
Okay. Let's twist this around a bit, from the homogenous ideological mishmash that is GG to the individual level. How were you personally offended by the article? What raised your ire enough to support a Gama boycott based on this article? What is your rationale? What are you, personally, trying to convince us of?
I refuse to go into that, because I know it will be met by personal attacks, and unnecessary ideological bullying. :)
If I am trying to convince anyone of anything, it'd be that you should try to understand that people can be pissed off about things that they perceive to be offensive/unethical, and they have the right to retaliate by means of boycott if they so wish. THAT'S ALL.
Uh... no. I'm actually interested. People have stated time and time again that they aren't attacking you, but you've continually thrown up your shields and made this into a grand battle, meaning that our attempts at debate have been frustrated. You've chastised others on the thread for making sweeping assumptions based on the vast patchwork blob that is GG, but we haven't exactly had anything else to work with here.
If you're going to insist on viewing this entire thread as a big nasty ideological pile-on rather than an attempt at understanding through debate, then I'm afraid I can't engage any further, and we're not going to get any further. *shrug*
Yeah, admittedly I lost my composure, due to dislekcia assigning various things (including misogyny) to my statements, and I truely did not think that it was a fair correlation to make. (Again due to the generalisation of a huge demographic)
I apologise for losing my composure. It really wasn't cool.
Which is why I'm trying very hard to be as reasonable as possible at the moment.
But I still will not open up regarding that, because I know, despite you assuring me the contrary that I will be met with personal attacks, and ideological bullying. I'm sorry. I can't engage you on that. (This isn't based on the people present in the discussion, I'm basing that on personal experience from various sources.)
But that's ok. We can call it then, if you wish. :)
Any and all pro-GG arguments that are railing for the protection of people who currently aren't actually losing anything or being hurt, oppressed or marginalised while simultaneously ignoring the very real loss, damage, oppression and marginalisation of the targets that GG is aimed at really has no place being made in rational, reasonable discussion.
I reckon you should all write to Intel to complain about their decision to pull advertising from Gamasutra.
@esculpt Boycotting a product means not buying it. Boycotting a site means not visiting it. Boycotting does not mean campaigning to have advertising pulled.
Reassess your argument because it is crap.
And I was asking who in this specific debacle is oppressed.
Any and all pro-GG arguments that are railing for the protection of people who currently aren't actually losing anything or being hurt, oppressed or marginalised while simultaneously ignoring the very real loss, damage, oppression and marginalisation of the targets that GG is aimed at really has no place being made in rational, reasonable discussion.
I reckon you should all write to Intel to complain about their decision to pull advertising from Gamasutra.
Yeah, ok. People get hurt in the process of boycotts. It's a sad reality. But if they feel offended by the press behaviour, they have the right to boycott.
And you can do that, but you'll only further their conclusion that Gamasutra is too hot to advertise on right now.
@esculpt Boycotting a product means not buying it. Boycotting a site means not visiting it. Boycotting does not mean campaigning to have advertising pulled.
Reassess your argument because it is crap.
And I was asking who in this specific debacle is oppressed.
And again senor ala google : boycott = a punitive ban on relations with other bodies, cooperation with a policy, or the handling of goods.
It means they're letting associated companies know, that they'll be boycotted by association. That's part of the boycott process. Your argument is crap sir. xD
I didn't say anything about anyone being oppressed, except that the process of boycotting has done great things for many oppressed people and consequently the process of boycotting is not "idiotic" as you've stated.
"A boycott is an act of voluntarily abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with a person, organization, or country as an expression of protest, usually for social or political reasons. Sometimes, it can be a form of consumer activism."
Yeah, ok. People get hurt in the process of boycotts. It's a sad reality. But if they feel offended by the press behaviour, they have the right to boycott.
This rephrases my statement as though it's about boycotts, which it wasn't - it was about the harassment and bullying and the relative scales of morality employed by GamerGate arguments depending on in-group or out-group targeting. The re-stating of what GamerGate called "Operation Disrespectful Nod" as a boycott is also under dispute. Referring to it as a boycott does not make that true and it's only a useful technique if others also start calling it that. I would suggest people don't ;)
And you can do that, but you'll only further their conclusion that Gamasutra is too hot to advertise on right now.
This assumes that Gamasutra is somehow in the middle of a controversy and that writing about feminism, making observations about the culture of gaming or employing excellent writers like Leigh Alexander is in any way controversial. None of these things are bad or liable to tarnish anyone's reputations (in fact, a strong case could be made that standing against these things is truly brand damaging), nor should they be held as such. Acting as though there truly is a controversy not only lends credence to unfounded and nonsensical accusations, but also sets the stage for further harassment and bullying by emboldened GamerGate members planning continued "operations". This sort of appeal against manufactured controversy is a classic silencing tactic. Intel has taken an action and is thus open to critique for that action's outcomes.
Don't forget that the end goal of all these actions is to silence people that a self-appointed subset of GamerGate do not want to hear. If this were truly about free speech, then you would see GamerGate championing the rights of writers to say whatever they like and simply exercising their right to disagree and not participate. But what you're actually seeing is an organised campaign to deny that writing not only to anyone, but to the writers and outlets that hire those writers as well.
Does this mean that @RustyBroomHandle's comment is somehow an attack on @eSculpt? That's a very strange position to hold because that's simply not true...
Whatever man. We can have this battle of biases for an eternity.
If you want to call over a million mentions on twitter and consistent posting for over a month a lie(?!?!?!?!) then you can do that.
~3000 tweets an hour (for the last 24 hours) is significant enough that the people who actually matter can't ignore it.
The statistics are out there.
I'm done with your misinformation.
I'm sorry, what are you disagreeing about here specifically? This is an appeal to the masses, but I don't even know what the appeal is supposed to be supporting.
The only time I mentioned a possible lie was in saying that I don't understand why you said "This" to @Gazza_N. Yes, I assumed that it might be in reference to something being an attack on you personally and thus supporting why you didn't want to talk about your own motivations - that's why I checked that assumption by asking about it. I'm totally open to that being wrong, but then I still have no idea what your "This" meant ;) Plus I have no idea what the appeal above is about then either (I very much doubt there were millions of mentions on twitter about how Rusty was attacking you, that's a little far-fetched).
This made me very angry all day; it took me a while to figure out why this particular orchestrated move (among so many others) made me so angry that I almost lashed out on the forum. (I decided to vent my anger more productively at Intel and write them a letter as @Dislekcia suggested, a bit toned down). It's disheartening to see there are people that actually think these people have a right to hurt one of our (very few) professional resources, especially for the reasons that they do... ;_; ;_; ;_;
Shouldn't we all just stick to making games and not conform to the mass hysteria epidemic that is currently circulating our industry like a badly scripted Resident Evil movie rip-off? How many posts in this thread? Really?
What is the source of all this? All I see is people shouting over various different things - trying to push their own agendas. Woof! Woof!
Personally I don't really care about any particular minority/majority/superiority/inferiority group's perspective right now. I am here to embrace the art of making games - as long as it is FUN and doesn't thrust some agenda down my throat. Even if it does, it's okay, I'll acknowledge it and know that I have a delete button.
It doesn't always have to end up as some *meaningful* debate about some noble socio-political melodrama. Lets keep it simple and not succumb to our own ego's here and try to convince everyone else that our way is the right way. Whatever side of the fence you decide to sit on is cool in my book, trust me.
Yes, in games we have a power to convey a *responsible* message. Is ANY message responsible or necessarily the right way? No, but it depends on your perspective. It's called freedom-of-speech, which I believe should be ALL encompassing.
There should be no GATE-keepers of the "TRUTH" whether right or wrong, everyone should be allowed to make their own decisions. Freedom of speech/choice to read what we want and NOT to dictate what other people *should* read or write or play. Let's enjoy our differences of opinion. But lets acknowledge the fact that human nature will always step in and spoil that party - somehow we always need to choose a side to exist - it's pathetic really. What about the fence? It's high and comfy as long as it's not electrified.
Is the issue here woman-bashing in games or the fact that there is some conspiracy in games journalism? I don't really care.
Make games. It's pure, it's simple, it's art. Don't give a platform to the spin-doctors and those that have become jaded in their own industries and are now seeking a voice in ours and are sowing the seeds of discord - think about who is causing this. Who are they? What do they want? Who cares? Let's just make games. We're not all that important in the bigger scheme of things anyway...
Is the issue here woman-bashing in games or the fact that there is some conspiracy in games journalism? I don't really care.
You should care.
It matters because people who could be making games and producing interesting new things for you to interact with are being told they can't, because of who they were born as or how they identify themselves. It matters because sites and resources that are useful to your desire to make games are being held to ransom by people that have no idea what you want and believe that they should get to control how other people think. It matters because people are being hounded from their homes by others that think this is all just a game. It matters because the status quo in the games industry is one that makes you complicit in making gaming hostile to women unless you stand up against it. It matters because being quiet is an abuse of the privilege you haven't earned but have been given anyway, the same privilege that means you're not constantly reminded that your body is simply one violent moment away from no longer being yours.
@dislekcia We should be careful about caring for the right things in life and not be confused into caring for the wrong things in life by those who have specific agendas. There is law to guide us here. Should be fairly simple? or is there some sinister other force that we should be wary of? A guy and girl breaks up and suddenly the whole industry has some weird identity crisis? I don't get it? Is the status quo about to change? Do I need to go and get my tin foil hat for this one? :) I just want to make games man, without offending anyone, without anyone telling me what and how I should go about my business... is that too much to ask?
it's really hard not to see this stuff everywhere, because we're drowning in it.
I'm sorry to say this, but to me this statement quite strongly underpins what's wrong with this whole debacle. If you look hard enough you will find anything everywhere... Confirmation Bias is such a dangerous thing, and if you add some creative types doing what humans do best... then you get this type of social pattern emerging... it's not the first time, and neither will it be the last.
Any system without some measure of tolerance is bound to fail at certain stress levels, and this is exactly what we are witnessing...
Ignoring a massive social issue because it doesn't affect you, except by putting you in a place of privilege to the degree that you can simply ignore it, is irresponsible. It is the game makers, particularly the white male game makers, who have the opportunity to make waves of change and improve the world of game development for all people who enter into it.
Do you not want more diversity in the game development industry? Because diversity in people will mean diversity in games and that means more for us to play, learn from, explore and understand. It also means attracting a larger consumer based which means the potential for you to make more money in game development.
Yes, doing social good could actually be rewarding for you, in the long run, as much as it would be rewarding for the individuals affected and society as a whole.
Ignoring a massive social issue because it doesn't affect you, except by putting you in a place of privilege to the degree that you can simply ignore it, is irresponsible.
Making games does not ignore the social issue. It contributes a new voice to the ongoing narrative.
It is the game makers, particularly the white male game makers, who have the opportunity to make waves of change and improve the world of game development for all people who enter into it.
And we do that how? Making games, and being better game makers.
Because diversity in people will mean diversity in games and that means more for us to play, learn from, explore and understand. It also means attracting a larger consumer based which means the potential for you to make more money in game development.
Which we do by sitting and making more games, with more people, about more things.
Yes, doing social good could actually be rewarding for you, in the long run, as much as it would be rewarding for the individuals affected and society as a whole.
And how do we drive this social good? Making the right games, with the right attitudes.
The more we talk about this issue, the less time we're spending on doing the things we need to do to fix it. I'd rather engage with people on this forum about the art and science of making games, not the vitriol and politics of the internet. And maybe if enough of us do that, we'll sideline the loud and the vicious.
Or is that not the right course of action, and should we rather fight fire with fire and make everything worse?
Your original comment of agreeing with @Konman about "just stick to making games." implied that you intended to bury your head in the sand about these issues and simply carrying on making games without considering the issues in the industry.
Talking about these issues is incredibly important. If we don't, we run the risk of (a) assuming that people are aware of the issues when they are not, or aware of how to deal with the issues when they are not and (b) through silence, showing a lack of support for those being vocal about the issue - in a way creating a confirmation bias when an issue appears to be unsupported because not many people are vocaling supporting it.
So, what is the "right game" that you're working on now?
@dammit Ah, so you have inference bias - you read things into my comments which I do not say, and then hold me accountable for them. Where did I say I was burying my head in the sand, or not considering the issues in the industry?
I agree that talking about the issues are important, but I wholeheartedly disagree that it's the most important. People talk about important issues all the time, all over the world, and it's only when you roll up your sleeves and do something about it, that change actually happens.
And right now, all of us here, and anyone coming across this forum, has thousands of words about this issue to read. Well done guys everybody, good job, now can we get back to the really important thing, which is to shift the landscape in OUR favor? GamerGate made one thing clear - big studios pandered to a white male audience because the white male audience spent the most money.
Shift that dynamic by producing better games, building bigger audiences, and generating more revenue, and as sure as death and taxes, the big business interests will swing in our favor, and we get to relegate the Oppressed White Minority of GamerGate into the rubbish bin of history.
What am I working on? I'm building a game I believe in, that does not pander to any audience, that does not contain thinking along strict gender, orientation or race lines, that embodies some of my personal views and beliefs, and that, hopefully, will bring some money my way, so I can build more games like it.
I hope that you, everyone on this forum, and everyone who builds games is doing that exact same thing, because that's the exact opposite of how we got to where we are today, and I think will result in a different (and hopefully better) future.
@dammit Ah, so you have inference bias - you read things into my comments which I do not say, and then hold me accountable for them. Where did I say I was burying my head in the sand, or not considering the issues in the industry?
Yes, I'm human. As are you. I had a certain amount of information to go on (all the information that was provided by the text communication here) and I drew a conclusion. This is how we all work, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up as if to point out that you're superior in some way? Bringing it up like this implies that you know better and thus are someone who does not do the same thing.
I agree that talking about the issues are important, but I wholeheartedly disagree that it's the most important. People talk about important issues all the time, all over the world, and it's only when you roll up your sleeves and do something about it, that change actually happens.
And right now, all of us here, and anyone coming across this forum, has thousands of words about this issue to read. Well done guys everybody, good job, now can we get back to the really important thing, which is to shift the landscape in OUR favor? GamerGate made one thing clear - big studios pandered to a white male audience because the white male audience spent the most money.
Shift that dynamic by producing better games, building bigger audiences, and generating more revenue, and as sure as death and taxes, the big business interests will swing in our favor, and we get to relegate the Oppressed White Minority of GamerGate into the rubbish bin of history.
What am I working on? I'm building a game I believe in, that does not pander to any audience, that does not contain thinking along strict gender, orientation or race lines, that embodies some of my personal views and beliefs, and that, hopefully, will bring some money my way, so I can build more games like it.
I hope that you, everyone on this forum, and everyone who builds games is doing that exact same thing, because that's the exact opposite of how we got to where we are today, and I think will result in a different (and hopefully better) future.
Yes, I agree with what you're saying here. But this is quite different from your statement of "just stick to making games." I wish you had just said all this to begin with and then I would have simply agreed with you. Making good games is important and I'm glad that you're doing your part.
The idea that talking to people is not "doing something" is silly.
On a different note, if you're interested in this kind of thing, this video is an excellent piece on the nature of conspiracy theories and what constitutes evidence, in general. Well worth a watch.
@Wogan: I hope that you realise what you've said in the post above and "Yes. Full stop, end of story, everyone go home the conversation is over." are two very different things. It's not @Dammit's job to sniff out what you really meant when you failed to communicate it the way you meant to.
As for the fact that you can just go home and make games, well that's cool for you, please make more :) The fact that some of my friends can't do exactly that because an internet hate machine has targeted them because they happen to be women doing exactly what you're advocating they should be allowed to do is the problem.
I agree that making games from an educated perspective and being aware of the potential biases you bring to what you create is a good thing, you're totally right about that. I just don't think that the way we get more people to do that is to stop talking about the need to do it. I think we can make positive change through both our games AND our conversation. This thread alone has made it clear that many people trying to make games here in SA really don't understand these problems well enough to make games that have a positive impact on them. How do you propose we deal with that, other than talking about it?
This is how we all work, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up as if to point out that you're superior in some way? Bringing it up like this implies that you know better and thus are someone who does not do the same thing.
@dammit You're implying again. Yes, all of us work this way. Not all of us choose to base our conversations on things that are not said. Again, you're somehow inferring that this means that I think I'm "superior" to you, that I "know better"? Where the hell are you getting all this? It's like I'm talking to you, and you're hearing three different people say stuff and none of them is me.
Yes, I agree with what you're saying here. But this is quite different from your statement of "just stick to making games." I wish you had just said all this to begin with and then I would have simply agreed with you.
It's not @Dammit's job to sniff out what you really meant when you failed to communicate it the way you meant to.
Precisely! It's not his job to sniff anything out, and it's not my job to fully explain myself if I choose not to. We each get to set our own level of involvement here, don't we? I don't recall a rule anywhere saying that "every statement must be backed up by full reasoning and logic" - I can just make statements for the hell of making statements because that's what conversations are sometimes. Bananafish.
The idea that talking to people is not "doing something" is silly.
Oh, definitely. If you're an even half-avid watcher of Bill Maher's Real Time, you'll know they're trying to flip a congressional district, and that involves 100% getting out in the street and talking to people. In that case, the talking has a purpose - it's to inform, and to question, and to invoke social change, and that's good.
There's also bad talking. There's talking for the sake of talking, for fanning the flames, for scoring points in a game nobody else is playing. I'd say most of the 'talking' happening around GamerGate is this latter kind. We've identified the core issue, we've identified the resolution, all that's left is to do it. We've reached the talking saturation point on this long, long ago.
Thanks for that video link - I remember seeing that bald-headed jackass in one of the many articles about GamerGate, always been curious what he'd come up with.
Precisely! It's not his job to sniff anything out, and it's not my job to fully explain myself if I choose not to. We each get to set our own level of involvement here, don't we? I don't recall a rule anywhere saying that "every statement must be backed up by full reasoning and logic" - I can just make statements for the hell of making statements because that's what conversations are sometimes. Bananafish.
Fine. But then you can't get annoyed or trot out lines like "inference fallacy" if your unsupported ramblings aren't interpreted the way you'd like. This is a conversation and there needs to be give and take. You do have to be prepared to back up what you're saying with reasoning and logic, otherwise your conversation isn't useful to anyone and this is a community that's built on useful feedback and thoughtful criticism. If you want to say random things, there are other places for that.
I feel like the "Don't be a dick" rule covers that all quite nicely ;)
And no, I will keep talking about GamerGate because it's still happening. It's still having an impact well beyond what it should be influencing. It's still causing harassment and it's still generating misinformation that needs to be addressed. It is, in essence, not dead yet and I want to kill it.
@wogan It's difficult to have a conversation with someone who provides only limited information rather than "fully explaining" himself. This leaves the listener to have to make inferences. And it's no surprise that those inferences won't always be correct, but don't be surprised by this. This then gives you the opportunity to correct these. But don't be a dick about it because you didn't give enough info in the first place.
Fine. But then you can't get annoyed or trot out lines like "inference fallacy" if your unsupported ramblings aren't interpreted the way you'd like.
I wasn't annoyed that my ramblings were misinterpreted. I was annoyed that the misinterpreter invented an entirely different story and then responded to that. Let me quote said misinterpreter: "implied that you intended to bury your head in the sand" - I don't imply things, I outright say them. I did not outright say X, therefore X is not up for discussion. Had I said "I think we should ignore GamerGate", then yes, absolutely, that's the position I'm stating and you can respond to that.
What I said was actually just agreeing to someone else's statement that we should stick to making games. I stated only the positive, without in any way alluding to the negative form, which is "make games and ignore everything else", and yet somehow the negative form was inferred, and responded to, which is what drove me up the wall. If you're gonna argue, argue what's on the table, not what's in your head.
You do have to be prepared to back up what you're saying with reasoning and logic, otherwise your conversation isn't useful to anyone and this is a community that's built on useful feedback and thoughtful criticism.
Which I've since done, in abundance, and will continue to do, because this community is evidently also built on extracting fantasy data from brief responses to other people's positions.
Comments
American supreme court (most of this is going on in America) has ruled that boycotting is not censorship, so freedom of speech isn't being impeded.
Shh.
Anyway, I'll continue this conversation with the wall - it displays more sense.
Alot of oppressed groups have done this historically in order to gain well deserved freedoms. Would you consider those fine folks idiotic? It's not corporate manipulation of the press, because Intel hasn't said "change your stances or we'll leave". They just left in order to avoid being assigned a stance in the controversy. The context isn't sufficient to really call it manipulation in my opinion. They're just bailing on something that could be bad business for them.
Apparently that manipulation is okay because it's being done by "gamers". Ugh.
It's exactly what GG's been yelling about all along - behind-the-scenes pressure (through sex, money, favours, whatever) to change the content and types of articles. It's hilariously ironic.
People boycott by affiliation. Intel wanted out. That's all there is to it.
Boycotting isn't censorship. You can call it manipulation if you want. There's alot of manipulation going on, on all fronts though, so I don't really care what you call it.
ala google : boycott = a punitive ban on relations with other bodies, cooperation with a policy, or the handling of goods. No, they didn't leave because of the article. They left because of the controversy around the article. It's different. If they hadn't received mails and been aware of the huge outcry online, they wouldn't have cared.
I see though, that you're confusing press corruption with the idea of boycotting, which are fundamentally different.
Voting with your wallet isn't the same as writing exaggerated reviews because you were paid to (or whatever applicable deed related to press corruption)
Focus, man, focus!
I also don't see how you get to claim you know who's offended and who isn't.
Alot of people were offended. Hence GG.
Devs working for big companies just know better than to speak about it publicly, because it will probably hurt them in these murky waters.
And they did alot more than examine how demographic changes were affecting the subculture. It also doesn't matter if you or anyone else thinks anything warrants a boycott. They think it does. And so they will do it.
The people arguing are not arguing rationally, they're just attacking because that's all they know how to do. Everything is about attack: Their feelings are about being under attack, the actions they try to orchestrate are attacks...
It's really stark when compared to people who aren't busy trying to prop up GamerGate, you start seeing how people are trying to facilitate dialog and open discussion. Neither of those things can be accomplished through attack.
Anyway.
You're not doing anyone any good by being facetious about people you don't know
If I am trying to convince anyone of anything, it'd be that you should try to understand that people can be pissed off about things that they perceive to be offensive/unethical, and they have the right to retaliate by means of boycott if they so wish. THAT'S ALL.
If you're going to insist on viewing this entire thread as a big nasty ideological pile-on rather than an attempt at understanding through debate, then I'm afraid I can't engage any further, and we're not going to get any further. *shrug*
I apologise for losing my composure. It really wasn't cool.
Which is why I'm trying very hard to be as reasonable as possible at the moment.
But I still will not open up regarding that, because I know, despite you assuring me the contrary that I will be met with personal attacks, and ideological bullying. I'm sorry. I can't engage you on that. (This isn't based on the people present in the discussion, I'm basing that on personal experience from various sources.)
But that's ok. We can call it then, if you wish. :)
I reckon you should all write to Intel to complain about their decision to pull advertising from Gamasutra.
Reassess your argument because it is crap.
And I was asking who in this specific debacle is oppressed.
And you can do that, but you'll only further their conclusion that Gamasutra is too hot to advertise on right now. And again senor ala google : boycott = a punitive ban on relations with other bodies, cooperation with a policy, or the handling of goods.
It means they're letting associated companies know, that they'll be boycotted by association. That's part of the boycott process.
Your argument is crap sir. xD
I didn't say anything about anyone being oppressed, except that the process of boycotting has done great things for many oppressed people and consequently the process of boycotting is not "idiotic" as you've stated.
"A boycott is an act of voluntarily abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with a person, organization, or country as an expression of protest, usually for social or political reasons. Sometimes, it can be a form of consumer activism."
Bite me.
bite me senor. xD
Anyway.
@Gazza_N This.
Don't forget that the end goal of all these actions is to silence people that a self-appointed subset of GamerGate do not want to hear. If this were truly about free speech, then you would see GamerGate championing the rights of writers to say whatever they like and simply exercising their right to disagree and not participate. But what you're actually seeing is an organised campaign to deny that writing not only to anyone, but to the writers and outlets that hire those writers as well. Does this mean that @RustyBroomHandle's comment is somehow an attack on @eSculpt? That's a very strange position to hold because that's simply not true...
If you want to call over a million mentions on twitter and consistent posting for over a month a lie(?!?!?!?!) then you can do that.
~3000 tweets an hour (for the last 24 hours) is significant enough that the people who actually matter can't ignore it.
The statistics are out there.
I'm done with your misinformation.
The only time I mentioned a possible lie was in saying that I don't understand why you said "This" to @Gazza_N. Yes, I assumed that it might be in reference to something being an attack on you personally and thus supporting why you didn't want to talk about your own motivations - that's why I checked that assumption by asking about it. I'm totally open to that being wrong, but then I still have no idea what your "This" meant ;) Plus I have no idea what the appeal above is about then either (I very much doubt there were millions of mentions on twitter about how Rusty was attacking you, that's a little far-fetched).
Shouldn't we all just stick to making games and not conform to the mass hysteria epidemic that is currently circulating our industry like a badly scripted Resident Evil movie rip-off? How many posts in this thread? Really?
What is the source of all this? All I see is people shouting over various different things - trying to push their own agendas. Woof! Woof!
Personally I don't really care about any particular minority/majority/superiority/inferiority group's perspective right now. I am here to embrace the art of making games - as long as it is FUN and doesn't thrust some agenda down my throat. Even if it does, it's okay, I'll acknowledge it and know that I have a delete button.
It doesn't always have to end up as some *meaningful* debate about some noble socio-political melodrama. Lets keep it simple and not succumb to our own ego's here and try to convince everyone else that our way is the right way. Whatever side of the fence you decide to sit on is cool in my book, trust me.
Yes, in games we have a power to convey a *responsible* message. Is ANY message responsible or necessarily the right way? No, but it depends on your perspective. It's called freedom-of-speech, which I believe should be ALL encompassing.
There should be no GATE-keepers of the "TRUTH" whether right or wrong, everyone should be allowed to make their own decisions. Freedom of speech/choice to read what we want and NOT to dictate what other people *should* read or write or play. Let's enjoy our differences of opinion. But lets acknowledge the fact that human nature will always step in and spoil that party - somehow we always need to choose a side to exist - it's pathetic really. What about the fence? It's high and comfy as long as it's not electrified.
Is the issue here woman-bashing in games or the fact that there is some conspiracy in games journalism? I don't really care.
Make games. It's pure, it's simple, it's art. Don't give a platform to the spin-doctors and those that have become jaded in their own industries and are now seeking a voice in ours and are sowing the seeds of discord - think about who is causing this. Who are they? What do they want? Who cares? Let's just make games. We're not all that important in the bigger scheme of things anyway...
It matters because people who could be making games and producing interesting new things for you to interact with are being told they can't, because of who they were born as or how they identify themselves. It matters because sites and resources that are useful to your desire to make games are being held to ransom by people that have no idea what you want and believe that they should get to control how other people think. It matters because people are being hounded from their homes by others that think this is all just a game. It matters because the status quo in the games industry is one that makes you complicit in making gaming hostile to women unless you stand up against it. It matters because being quiet is an abuse of the privilege you haven't earned but have been given anyway, the same privilege that means you're not constantly reminded that your body is simply one violent moment away from no longer being yours.
You really, really should care.
But if you don't care enough about that stuff up there, at least care enough to read up a little about what's going on right now. This is a good starting point: GamerGate Fights Corruption in Journalism By Encouraging Corruption in Journalism
Once you care, even a little, it's really hard not to see this stuff everywhere, because we're drowning in it.
Any system without some measure of tolerance is bound to fail at certain stress levels, and this is exactly what we are witnessing...
EDIT: Neeeermind - using this: https://www-ssl.intel.com/content/www/us/en/forms/corporate-responsibility-contact-us.html :)
No we shouldn't just stick to making games.
Ignoring a massive social issue because it doesn't affect you, except by putting you in a place of privilege to the degree that you can simply ignore it, is irresponsible. It is the game makers, particularly the white male game makers, who have the opportunity to make waves of change and improve the world of game development for all people who enter into it.
Do you not want more diversity in the game development industry? Because diversity in people will mean diversity in games and that means more for us to play, learn from, explore and understand. It also means attracting a larger consumer based which means the potential for you to make more money in game development.
Yes, doing social good could actually be rewarding for you, in the long run, as much as it would be rewarding for the individuals affected and society as a whole.
The more we talk about this issue, the less time we're spending on doing the things we need to do to fix it. I'd rather engage with people on this forum about the art and science of making games, not the vitriol and politics of the internet. And maybe if enough of us do that, we'll sideline the loud and the vicious.
Or is that not the right course of action, and should we rather fight fire with fire and make everything worse?
Your original comment of agreeing with @Konman about "just stick to making games." implied that you intended to bury your head in the sand about these issues and simply carrying on making games without considering the issues in the industry.
Talking about these issues is incredibly important. If we don't, we run the risk of (a) assuming that people are aware of the issues when they are not, or aware of how to deal with the issues when they are not and (b) through silence, showing a lack of support for those being vocal about the issue - in a way creating a confirmation bias when an issue appears to be unsupported because not many people are vocaling supporting it.
So, what is the "right game" that you're working on now?
I agree that talking about the issues are important, but I wholeheartedly disagree that it's the most important. People talk about important issues all the time, all over the world, and it's only when you roll up your sleeves and do something about it, that change actually happens.
And right now, all of us here, and anyone coming across this forum, has thousands of words about this issue to read. Well done guys everybody, good job, now can we get back to the really important thing, which is to shift the landscape in OUR favor? GamerGate made one thing clear - big studios pandered to a white male audience because the white male audience spent the most money.
Shift that dynamic by producing better games, building bigger audiences, and generating more revenue, and as sure as death and taxes, the big business interests will swing in our favor, and we get to relegate the Oppressed White Minority of GamerGate into the rubbish bin of history.
What am I working on? I'm building a game I believe in, that does not pander to any audience, that does not contain thinking along strict gender, orientation or race lines, that embodies some of my personal views and beliefs, and that, hopefully, will bring some money my way, so I can build more games like it.
I hope that you, everyone on this forum, and everyone who builds games is doing that exact same thing, because that's the exact opposite of how we got to where we are today, and I think will result in a different (and hopefully better) future.
On a different note, if you're interested in this kind of thing, this video is an excellent piece on the nature of conspiracy theories and what constitutes evidence, in general. Well worth a watch.
As for the fact that you can just go home and make games, well that's cool for you, please make more :) The fact that some of my friends can't do exactly that because an internet hate machine has targeted them because they happen to be women doing exactly what you're advocating they should be allowed to do is the problem.
I agree that making games from an educated perspective and being aware of the potential biases you bring to what you create is a good thing, you're totally right about that. I just don't think that the way we get more people to do that is to stop talking about the need to do it. I think we can make positive change through both our games AND our conversation. This thread alone has made it clear that many people trying to make games here in SA really don't understand these problems well enough to make games that have a positive impact on them. How do you propose we deal with that, other than talking about it?
Also, talking about doing this IN YOUR GAMES can be a great way to generate coverage.
-edit: welp, errbody said what I was trying to say ;)-
There's also bad talking. There's talking for the sake of talking, for fanning the flames, for scoring points in a game nobody else is playing. I'd say most of the 'talking' happening around GamerGate is this latter kind. We've identified the core issue, we've identified the resolution, all that's left is to do it. We've reached the talking saturation point on this long, long ago.
Thanks for that video link - I remember seeing that bald-headed jackass in one of the many articles about GamerGate, always been curious what he'd come up with.
I feel like the "Don't be a dick" rule covers that all quite nicely ;)
What I said was actually just agreeing to someone else's statement that we should stick to making games. I stated only the positive, without in any way alluding to the negative form, which is "make games and ignore everything else", and yet somehow the negative form was inferred, and responded to, which is what drove me up the wall. If you're gonna argue, argue what's on the table, not what's in your head. Which I've since done, in abundance, and will continue to do, because this community is evidently also built on extracting fantasy data from brief responses to other people's positions.