First, Caucheka, if you want to make a point, it's kinda' bad form to simply link three long videos instead of, like, actually making a ****ing point. "get the word out and explain what's happening" is really, really vague. Do you want to get the word out about things that Quinn did? 'Cuz that's ****ed up; you, I, and everyone else have no business sticking our noses in the sex lives of others. Or is it something else? I have no clue. Please explain. Using words.
Second, I got less than three minutes into the first video and have no desire to ever finish it or watch the other two. It took me that long to figure out that the first video was going to focus pretty much entirely on Zoe Quinn's sex life. As I said above, we don't have any business sticking our noses into that. It doesn't matter whether or not she did the things she's accused of, it's a ****ed up line of inquiry, and it isn't okay to pursue. I do not say this because she is a woman, but rather because she is a person, and this isn't an acceptable way to treat people. It is especially problematic, as a line of inquiry, when it is tied to an extremely hateful group of people (presumably male) who have expressed highly misogynistic views and made extremely violent threats of death and rape towards Quinn and others. As I am a feminist, which I assume surprises no one, I also find it a little difficult to separate the scrutiny of a woman's sex life from wider trends of how society treats women as sexual objects while also not allowing them to actually express sexual desire, but that's probably more of a feminist reading of this situation than anyone reading this is actually interested in. So moving on.
Third, focus on Quinn doesn't let us talk about any of the actually interesting things that could come out of this whole #gamergate thing. We could instead talk about what level of disclosure about financial ties and the like is necessary in order for us to be able to trust gaming journalists. We could talk about what kind of coverage we want from gaming journalists. We could talk about the ethics involved in the close relationships between gaming journalism and game developers (which exist, and are impossible to remove, due to the size of the industry). But we aren't going to talk about any of those things by talking about Quinn. Focusing on Quinn only lets us talk about the single least interesting bit of what this could be about.
Also, for interesting and related reading, today Rock, Paper, Shotgun posted a bit of a response to some of the concerns being thrown at them.
Second, I got less than three minutes into the first video and have no desire to ever finish it or watch the other two. It took me that long to figure out that the first video was going to focus pretty much entirely on Zoe Quinn's sex life. As I said above, we don't have any business sticking our noses into that. It doesn't matter whether or not she did the things she's accused of, it's a ****ed up line of inquiry, and it isn't okay to pursue. I do not say this because she is a woman, but rather because she is a person, and this isn't an acceptable way to treat people. It is especially problematic, as a line of inquiry, when it is tied to an extremely hateful group of people (presumably male) who have expressed highly misogynistic views and made extremely violent threats of death and rape towards Quinn and others. As I am a feminist, which I assume surprises no one, I also find it a little difficult to separate the scrutiny of a woman's sex life from wider trends of how society treats women as sexual objects while also not allowing them to actually express sexual desire, but that's probably more of a feminist reading of this situation than anyone reading this is actually interested in. So moving on.
Third, focus on Quinn doesn't let us talk about any of the actually interesting things that could come out of this whole #gamergate thing. We could instead talk about what level of disclosure about financial ties and the like is necessary in order for us to be able to trust gaming journalists. We could talk about what kind of coverage we want from gaming journalists. We could talk about the ethics involved in the close relationships between gaming journalism and game developers (which exist, and are impossible to remove, due to the size of the industry). But we aren't going to talk about any of those things by talking about Quinn. Focusing on Quinn only lets us talk about the single least interesting bit of what this could be about.
Also, for interesting and related reading, today Rock, Paper, Shotgun posted a bit of a response to some of the concerns being thrown at them.
OTGBionicArm wrote: Armored wimminz = badass.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
Okay I wrote a long post but obviously my browser crashed so TL;DR, This is not my final reply, but my first impression of the first half of the first vid:
What they did is not ****ing important. I mean, them ****ing is not important. It's not important that they ****ed. Please, for ****'s sake, don't spend 10 out of 15 minutes restating that some people had sex. I don't care about their relationship and I don't care about the fact that one of them was married. What is this, it's even worse than a soap opera review by a recently disillusioned 6 year old.
I can live with a lot of harsh language, but if you want to talk, and even judge, about blown-up things like this, you can't talk through your video with this attitude and expect to be taken seriously. I know this is the internet, but I do appreciate a slight indication of objectivity.
Currently I'm considering counting how many times the verb "****" is used in this video, and cry myself to sleep about it. Share this with your friends dear friends, the internet must know the truth about this review. This can not be forgotten. w r anonimus expekt us kthx pls bai hihihi
EDIT: Well looks like I was ninjad during my sad loss of the first post. Well said lifebaka.
What they did is not ****ing important. I mean, them ****ing is not important. It's not important that they ****ed. Please, for ****'s sake, don't spend 10 out of 15 minutes restating that some people had sex. I don't care about their relationship and I don't care about the fact that one of them was married. What is this, it's even worse than a soap opera review by a recently disillusioned 6 year old.
I can live with a lot of harsh language, but if you want to talk, and even judge, about blown-up things like this, you can't talk through your video with this attitude and expect to be taken seriously. I know this is the internet, but I do appreciate a slight indication of objectivity.
Currently I'm considering counting how many times the verb "****" is used in this video, and cry myself to sleep about it. Share this with your friends dear friends, the internet must know the truth about this review. This can not be forgotten. w r anonimus expekt us kthx pls bai hihihi
EDIT: Well looks like I was ninjad during my sad loss of the first post. Well said lifebaka.
********'s a pretty good fertilizer
this is not about her sleeping around, whats important is who she slept with and how that affects her career and those of the people she slept with.
this has nothing to do with feminism, with women in video games, or any other social justice ******** that likes to get thrown around these days. its about the blatant corruption in the indie development and games journalism scene. its about the nepotism and the conflict of interest in what a 'journalist' does and how their relationships spew their views. it is fully about their lack of ethics.
yes the videos are long at 80 minutes in total but i fully believe one needs to watch all 3 of them and learn exactly what is going on and why there is a problem.
another post coming, i read that rps article and will respond.
edit: i'll post my thoughts on the rps article later don't have time currently.
this has nothing to do with feminism, with women in video games, or any other social justice ******** that likes to get thrown around these days. its about the blatant corruption in the indie development and games journalism scene. its about the nepotism and the conflict of interest in what a 'journalist' does and how their relationships spew their views. it is fully about their lack of ethics.
yes the videos are long at 80 minutes in total but i fully believe one needs to watch all 3 of them and learn exactly what is going on and why there is a problem.
another post coming, i read that rps article and will respond.
edit: i'll post my thoughts on the rps article later don't have time currently.
I like things that make me feel stupid. - Ken Levine
caucheka wrote:
this is not about her sleeping around, whats important is who she slept with and how that affects her career and those of the people she slept with.
So first, I believe I already said this, but that is not what this is about. Scrutinizing the sex life of a private person is ****ed up. Period. End of story.
Second, the funny thing about journalistic integrity, which is what everyone talking about Quinn wants to talk about, is that JOURNALISTS are the people who have it and have to worry about it. Not game developers. So if we want to talk about journalistic integrity, Quinn, and her sex life, isn't a part of the discussion.
caucheka wrote:
this has nothing to do with feminism, with women in video games, or any other social justice ******** that likes to get thrown around these days.
See, the thing about feminism is that just about anything can be approached, thought about, and talked about from a feminist viewpoint. So yeah, this has something to do with feminism. Unambiguously. You can think that the feminist reading of the situation isn't as useful as other readings, but no one gets to try to tell the feminists that they can't read the situation from a feminist viewpoint. Nor do feminists get to tell you that you can't read the situation from other, perhaps opposing, viewpoints. (Although we can, and will, tell you that certain viewpoints are morally repugnant.)
And when we're talking about women, anywhere, ever, feminism is probably going to come up. Unless you want to deny feminist viewpoints in general--which I don't suggest, a lot of very smart people have spent a lot of time thinking about these issues--trying to say that this isn't about feminism is... Wrong. Just straight up wrong. It is about feminism. You just don't want to talk about feminism. And that's fine. No one is actually making you talk about feminism. It's just that when you try to suggest that this isn't about feminism, you are talking about feminism, and therefore shouldn't be surprised when other people come in and also talk about feminism. Prime example: I would have talked about feminism far less right here if you hadn't mentioned it.
Also, I don't suggest ever talking about "social justice", ******** or otherwise. It's a loaded term, due to the number of people who use it pejoratively (as you do here). And it puts you, apparently, in opposition to justice, so one can only assume that you instead support social injustice. Which doesn't sound very good.
caucheka wrote:
its about the blatant corruption in the indie development and games journalism scene. its about the nepotism and the conflict of interest in what a 'journalist' does and how their relationships spew their views. it is fully about their lack of ethics.
So first, you might want to explain exactly what corruption you're talking about. Is it the whole idea that some journalists were trading sexual favors for good reviews? 'Cuz yeah, that's ****ed up, no one is arguing otherwise. But that's small and isolated and is tied very closely to some people who want that situation to sling mud at Quinn instead at the journalists involved, so we can't really have an actual conversation about it. And even if we could, we shouldn't, because, as I already mentioned, scrutinizing the sex lives of private people is ****ed up and not okay.
Or is it something else? Please explain. And yes, you do have to, I'm simply not aware of anything going on that actually looks particularly unethical.
OTGBionicArm wrote: Armored wimminz = badass.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
HailtotheQueen
<Member>
<Member>
lifebaka wrote:
So first, I believe I already said this, but that is not what this is about. Scrutinizing the sex life of a private person is ****ed up. Period. End of story.
Second, the funny thing about journalistic integrity, which is what everyone talking about Quinn wants to talk about, is that JOURNALISTS are the people who have it and have to worry about it. Not game developers. So if we want to talk about journalistic integrity, Quinn, and her sex life, isn't a part of the discussion.
See, the thing about feminism is that just about anything can be approached, thought about, and talked about from a feminist viewpoint. So yeah, this has something to do with feminism. Unambiguously. You can think that the feminist reading of the situation isn't as useful as other readings, but no one gets to try to tell the feminists that they can't read the situation from a feminist viewpoint. Nor do feminists get to tell you that you can't read the situation from other, perhaps opposing, viewpoints. (Although we can, and will, tell you that certain viewpoints are morally repugnant.)
And when we're talking about women, anywhere, ever, feminism is probably going to come up. Unless you want to deny feminist viewpoints in general--which I don't suggest, a lot of very smart people have spent a lot of time thinking about these issues--trying to say that this isn't about feminism is... Wrong. Just straight up wrong. It is about feminism. You just don't want to talk about feminism. And that's fine. No one is actually making you talk about feminism. It's just that when you try to suggest that this isn't about feminism, you are talking about feminism, and therefore shouldn't be surprised when other people come in and also talk about feminism. Prime example: I would have talked about feminism far less right here if you hadn't mentioned it.
Also, I don't suggest ever talking about "social justice", ******** or otherwise. It's a loaded term, due to the number of people who use it pejoratively (as you do here). And it puts you, apparently, in opposition to justice, so one can only assume that you instead support social injustice. Which doesn't sound very good.
So first, you might want to explain exactly what corruption you're talking about. Is it the whole idea that some journalists were trading sexual favors for good reviews? 'Cuz yeah, that's ****ed up, no one is arguing otherwise. But that's small and isolated and is tied very closely to some people who want that situation to sling mud at Quinn instead at the journalists involved, so we can't really have an actual conversation about it. And even if we could, we shouldn't, because, as I already mentioned, scrutinizing the sex lives of private people is ****ed up and not okay.
Or is it something else? Please explain. And yes, you do have to, I'm simply not aware of anything going on that actually looks particularly unethical.
I was going to make a lengthy post but this pretty much covers it.
I spent several hours researching this discussion before joining. You guys better be grateful >:[
Agreed. This was a pretty lazy way of stirring up discussion.
It didn't focus entirely on her, but the majority of the video did.
The third video is by far the most relevant to the discussion as it brings up a lot of examples of corruption. But they are all relevant, even if the first one has an unhealthy focus on Quinn.
It actually is.
The discussion is about corruption. Quinn's sex life has allegedly caused corruption. It is an example of the problem.
That is not to say that the example should be the focus of the conversation, that would be pretty silly. But it is a part of the discussion.
And if it were a man I and many others would be equally outraged. It's not about gender, you just made it about gender, just like Cau brought feminism into the conversation by mentioning that he'd like for it to remain outside of it.
Yeah, let's do that.
If the author has personal connections with or accepts any kind of favor or gift from a party that has a vested interest in the success of a product you're writing about then it needs to be clearly disclosed. That goes for all content.
It is as simple as that.
If we use the "Quinnspiracy" as an example we have Nathan Grayson, writing an article about Depression Quest, a game made by Zoe Quinn, whom he has a personal connection to.
No mention of their connection is made in the article.
That is a perfect example of how not to do things.
Nathan has claimed that their relationship only began shortly after the article, but relationships don't magically appear out of nowhere and they clearly knew each other to some extent before the article. There is overwhelming evidence indicating that they had a connection of some sort, even if it didn't involve sex.
By the way, if you weren't aware, this kind of thing has happened before. It involved a man writing an article about how cozy sponsors were getting with the journalists and how that might be a problem. That very same man later lost his job over the article and an absolute *****torm occurred.
I think this event was called Doritogate.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=497024
lifebaka wrote:
First, Caucheka, if you want to make a point, it's kinda' bad form to simply link three long videos instead of, like, actually making a ****ing point.
Agreed. This was a pretty lazy way of stirring up discussion.
Quoted:
Second, I got less than three minutes into the first video and have no desire to ever finish it or watch the other two. It took me that long to figure out that the first video was going to focus pretty much entirely on Zoe Quinn's sex life.
It didn't focus entirely on her, but the majority of the video did.
The third video is by far the most relevant to the discussion as it brings up a lot of examples of corruption. But they are all relevant, even if the first one has an unhealthy focus on Quinn.
Quoted:
As I said above, we don't have any business sticking our noses into that.
[...]if we want to talk about journalistic integrity, Quinn, and her sex life, isn't a part of the discussion.
[...]if we want to talk about journalistic integrity, Quinn, and her sex life, isn't a part of the discussion.
It actually is.
The discussion is about corruption. Quinn's sex life has allegedly caused corruption. It is an example of the problem.
That is not to say that the example should be the focus of the conversation, that would be pretty silly. But it is a part of the discussion.
Quoted:
I do not say this because she is a woman, but rather because she is a person
And if it were a man I and many others would be equally outraged. It's not about gender, you just made it about gender, just like Cau brought feminism into the conversation by mentioning that he'd like for it to remain outside of it.
Quoted:
We could instead talk about what level of disclosure about financial ties and the like is necessary in order for us to be able to trust gaming journalists. We could talk about what kind of coverage we want from gaming journalists. We could talk about the ethics involved in the close relationships between gaming journalism and game developers (which exist, and are impossible to remove, due to the size of the industry).
Yeah, let's do that.
If the author has personal connections with or accepts any kind of favor or gift from a party that has a vested interest in the success of a product you're writing about then it needs to be clearly disclosed. That goes for all content.
It is as simple as that.
If we use the "Quinnspiracy" as an example we have Nathan Grayson, writing an article about Depression Quest, a game made by Zoe Quinn, whom he has a personal connection to.
No mention of their connection is made in the article.
That is a perfect example of how not to do things.
Nathan has claimed that their relationship only began shortly after the article, but relationships don't magically appear out of nowhere and they clearly knew each other to some extent before the article. There is overwhelming evidence indicating that they had a connection of some sort, even if it didn't involve sex.
By the way, if you weren't aware, this kind of thing has happened before. It involved a man writing an article about how cozy sponsors were getting with the journalists and how that might be a problem. That very same man later lost his job over the article and an absolute *****torm occurred.
I think this event was called Doritogate.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=497024
"Blizzard spoke thus; Thou shalt not BM. And the players replied Nay, I shall Play my hand with Lethal already on the board. And so Blizzard sent unto them this Brawl of Yogg, As a lesson for their sins of Pride and Greed, for he is the Prophet of Madness and RNG. On that day, the tavern descended into an era of chaos and darkness, until the weekend passed and everyone forgot all about it. Amen. Book of SMOrc, Verse 20, Chapter 4." - Feam T
this video is also worth a listen, its related to the topic and only lasts 9 minutes. its about ethics and journalism.
and adam baldwin (famous actor), and internet aristocrat (the guy in the 3 original videos) went on a radio talkshow to talk about what gamergate is. its definitely worth a listen to the topic but it can be a lengthy one.. starts at about 58:30
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/52292531
and adam baldwin (famous actor), and internet aristocrat (the guy in the 3 original videos) went on a radio talkshow to talk about what gamergate is. its definitely worth a listen to the topic but it can be a lengthy one.. starts at about 58:30
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/52292531
I like things that make me feel stupid. - Ken Levine
Searz wrote:
I spent several hours researching this discussion before joining. You guys better be grateful >:[
I'll try. It's hard to keep a cool head about these things.
Searz wrote:
It didn't focus entirely on her, but the majority of the video did.
The third video is by far the most relevant to the discussion as it brings up a lot of examples of corruption. But they are all relevant, even if the first one has an unhealthy focus on Quinn.
The third video is by far the most relevant to the discussion as it brings up a lot of examples of corruption. But they are all relevant, even if the first one has an unhealthy focus on Quinn.
I'll try to go back and watch the third. Later, though, since my laptop is ****ping out a bit at the moment (I need to replace my fan again) and I've got a couple of busy days ahead.
Searz wrote:
It actually is.
The discussion is about corruption. Quinn's sex life has allegedly caused corruption. It is an example of the problem.
The discussion is about corruption. Quinn's sex life has allegedly caused corruption. It is an example of the problem.
I definitely disagree. Part of this is a decidedly feminist reading of the situation (unavoidable when the blame is focused on the woman involved rather than the man), but another large part is that a huge part of the focus was on parts of Quinn's sex life that had absolutely nothing to do with the asserted unprofessional relationship. Even if we accept that we need to talk about the fact that Quinn was sleeping with some specific people, it's still unnecessary (and IMO ****ed up) to include pretty much anything else about her sex life.
Searz wrote:
And if it were a man I and many others would be equally outraged. It's not about gender, you just made it about gender, just like Cau brought feminism into the conversation by mentioning that he'd like for it to remain outside of it.
Yeah, it's really hard for me to read people saying things about women and not assume that it's about gender. A huge part of this is sensitivity to feminist readings on my part, which means that I shove these kinds of readings into stuff.
I don't think it's true that I brought gender into this, though, because it's pretty obvious that we're talking about people. Who have gender. So gender's kinda' part of this. Nor do I think that Cau brought feminism into this. Because this involves a woman, so feminism is already a part of it. Asserting that these things aren't a part of the conversation is... Untrue. You can decide not to have these parts of the conversation or engage with them, but you shouldn't try to tell other people that the parts of the conversation you don't want to have don't exist or only exist because those other people are shoehorning them in.
Also, for the record, I'm not really interested in a major discussion of feminist theory at large here either; ultimately that kind of discussion isn't going to go anywhere. So I'm going to stop responding to comments in this vein in general now to avoid derailing what might otherwise be a fruitful discussion.
Searz wrote:
If the author has personal connections with or accepts any kind of favor or gift from a party that has a vested interest in the success of a product you're writing about then it needs to be clearly disclosed. That goes for all content.
It is as simple as that.
It is as simple as that.
Mm. I'm not really sure. "personal connections" is pretty vague. Are we talking about actual romantic relationships? 'Cuz, yeah, you probably shouldn't review art created by a significant other (or ex-). I don't think that's very controversial. Or are you talking about something a little more acquaintance-y, like going out to have drinks with someone a few times? I'm not sure that kind of personal connection is actually very problematic, in general. And, honestly, I'd reasonably expect that any journalist would end up meeting with and talking to any game developer whose game they happen to be covering. So I don't think that this level of transparency really does much except give people who don't want to trust game journalists some (IMO unpersuasive) evidence of the wrong-doing they already assume is happening. And if you mean something even less close than that? I don't think that even says anything.
It's difficult for me to comment specifically about Grayson, I'm... Not really finding the articles about Depression Quest he's supposed to have written. The internet informs me that they're supposed to be at RPS, but I'm just not seeing them there. I am finding some (i.e. maybe two) mentioning Depression Quest in passing, and certainly positively, but... I'm not convinced that's corruption. Stupid and unprofessional, at worst.
Also, I'm gonna' put it out there that people needing to meet one another before having sex is an unconvincing argument that journalists need to list when they meet people they're writing about. We expect them to meet the people they're writing about. That's their job. To meet people and know things. And then write about them. I'd be much more worried if journalists didn't meet the people they're writing about.
Searz wrote:
By the way, if you weren't aware, this kind of thing has happened before. It involved a man writing an article about how cozy sponsors were getting with the journalists and how that might be a problem. That very same man later lost his job over the article and an absolute *****torm occurred.
I think this event was called Doritogate.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=497024
I think this event was called Doritogate.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=497024
Yeah, I need to look into this more deeply. I'm just not going to right now because it would take a lot of time to have an informed opinion and I am tired.
OTGBionicArm wrote: Armored wimminz = badass.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
You need to log in before commenting.
basically watch these videos. heh