Felicia Day writes post about #GamerGate, gets doxxed

[Noir Angel]

More evidence of Grayson having inappropriate relationships with people his articles have covered:

 

https://medium.com/@aquapendulum/reality-check-supplement-reading-for-historyofgamergate-com-graysons-relationships-308dc510c680

[Anthony Tosie Veteran]

The post of mine that you quoted was comparing the two. Perhaps you should read the context of what you're quoting next time. You suggested that the article I linked to wasn't accurate reporting. I'm asking you to explain yourself and tell us how exactly it isn't accurate.

 

I couldn't give a fig about anyone's sex life. What irritates me is how writers used privacy as an excuse for not covering the scandal and how it relates to journalistic ethics, despite them having no qualms about covering similar stories involving men in graphic detail. Would you not agree that is hypocritical?

 

You're completely misunderstanding the whole of #Gamergate if that's what you think this is about. No one cares how many people she slept with or cheated on, what people care about is the fact that game journalists/sites are in bed (literally) with developers/game makers, often funding them, and having questionable personal relations with the subjects they write about.

 

When it impacts journalistic integrity and blurs the line between reviewer and reviewee, then it absolutely concerns everyone. It's also not just about a single inappropriate relationship with Nathan Grayson. It has raised questions about abuse of power (fine young capitalists) and widespread corruption. If you think these issues aren't in the interest of the public, then you need to ask yourself what is.

 

She has used her influence in multiple ways, such as torpedoing the Fine Young Capitalists' competition that encourages female game developers and shutting down debate on reddit. But this issue isn't just about Zoe Quinn, whom most of us care little about, it's about game reviewers/reporters' lack of disclosure and questionable biases about their subjects. Take Patricia Hernandez for example, for whom the notion of reviewing a personal friend's games raises no ethical queries, and who failed to disclose a conflict of interest in her reporting. This behaviour is so widespread it beggars belief.

The fact that journalists then tried to cover all this up through colluded censorship is what resulted in the furore.

 

Then don't inject yourself into the conversation if you find the idea of tackling journalistic ethics so distasteful.

Oh, look, you're back on the approved message of "journalism ethics." As someone who actually has a background in this very topic, it's something I love discussing.

 

First, let's start by talking about what #GamerGate is: A bullying movement designed to force gaming websites to not to cover feminist topics or anything related to "social justice." The movement has a thinly veiled guise of trying to classify itself as a discussion on journalism ethics, but it eventually always comes back to the sex lives of a handful of women. That's evident from the previous Neowin subject on this bullying movement that relied almost entirely on the sex life of Zoe Quinn as evidence of journalistic malfeasance instead of discussing the reporters themselves. On top of that, the bullying movement has often been represented with a logo for the restaurant Five Guys Burgers and Fries because that's supposedly the amount of people she slept with.

 

How exactly does mocking a woman's sex life relate to journalism ethics again? Regardless of whether it's true or false, that comes back to the origins of this movement: An angry ex that claims he was cheated on by his girlfriend.

 

Of course, followers of this bullying movement tried to create a loose link to a Kotaku reporter, Nathan Grayson, who Quinn later formed a relationship with, saying he gave her positive coverage while they were in a relationship together, including a glowing review of her game, "Depression Quest." Kotaku then directly addressed this and provided the timeline that he was not in a relationship with her when he wrote an article regarding her. More importantly, this article wasn't even about her game, nor did it give it any positive coverage. And that supposedly glowing review he wrote of her game? It doesn't exist. It never existed. Somehow, this bullying movement has been unable to provide any evidence of it, even though it would be extremely hard to wipe off the internet.

 

Grayson also previously freelanced for Rock Paper Shotgun, and the only time he covered "Depression Quest" was an article that was simply a list of Steam Greenlight games. This list was also allegedly before he was in a relationship with Quinn. If the argument that this is some sort of glowing coverage of her game, then that's completely false. Since they began their relationship, he hasn't covered anything regarding her, gaming or otherwise.

 

It is not unethical to be in a relationship with someone in the industry you're in or cover; this is how people meet, and that's the case in any industry -- it's extremely common to be in a relationship with someone who has similar work to your own. It would, however, be unethical to cover that person. The complete lack of evidence that Grayson did that while he was in a relationship with Quinn is the perfect example of why this bullying movement has no true ethical motive, despite its claims to the contrary.

 

There are ethical issues in the gaming journalism community, of course, but this bullying movement has been completely silent on those. IGN and GameSpot, for instance, have very little distinction between their editorial coverage and their business operations with publishers and developers. They routinely host events with these companies, and they often work out exclusive coverage agreements. So, where is this bullying movement's fight against this clear ethical violation? Instead, it focuses on the developer of a free game and her sexual relationships.

 

You say you don't care about the sexual relationships of these people, yet it's almost all you've focused on. You again say their relationship has blurred lines, and you call her a "reviewee." But, yet again, Grayson never reviewed her game in all of the two articles he's written that involve her or it (again: one simply being a list of games released on Steam Greenlight and the other not even being about her game).

 

In regards of what I was responding to, I was quite clearly taking issue with what you classify as an unbiased report. I was not discussing the Forbes article mentioned earlier in the thread, and I never even remotely implied I was; the single sentence I was referring to was clearly about the link you gave. I was talking about the absurdity of your link being presented as an unbiased source when it comes from one of the people behind this bullying movement, and it comes from a website known for being so conservative it makes Fox News look liberal.

 

You can keep pretending this is about journalism ethics, but anyone with a modicum of common sense can see that this is a bullying movement designed to make certain female members of the gaming community look bad and to stop the gaming press from coverage feminist topics. But guess what: There's absolutely nothing unethical about covering these topics, and you haven't provided any clear rationale of why you think they're unethical topics to cover. If you don't want to read them, you don't have to.

 

Also, let me make one thing clear: Neowin's forums are open to anyone to discuss what they want, so long as it fits within our community rules. You do not have the right to tell members -- any members, from a basic user to a staff member -- not to "inject" themselves into a conversation. If you want to have a private conversation, you can use the private messages; otherwise, it's a public conversation that any of our members have a right to respond to, unless they've been banned.

[Noir Angel]

For someone who has a major in this matter you have a clear lack of understanding of how the industry works.

 

Having close personal relationships with the people you write about is an ethical dilemma *full stop*. It's a very basic rule of journalism that you're never meant to break, it's the only way to ensure fair and unbiased coverage.

 

The fact that games journalists have been colluding to spread certain narratives has been proven. It comes back to the same deal time, and time, and time again. When caught with your pants down you viciously defend your privilege to lie to people.

[spenser.d]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/opinion/sunday/the-disheartening-gamergate-campaign.html?referrer=

This pretty much sums it up well. I'd post some good posts directly if I weren't on my phone. But i suppose it's just more mass media drivel...

[Noir Angel]

No, it's not. The mass media are the ones covering it up and blaming the gamers because they don't want to be slandered.

[Noir Angel]

Among other things gamers have been labelled

 

-Neckbeards

-Nerds

-Misogynists

-Rape apologists

-Have received tweets from people like Sam Biddle (high up in the Gawker network, which owns Kotaku) saying that we should bring back bullying of 'nerds'

-Faggots

 

The way the press have treated gamers in this matter is utterly reprehensible, and it simply doesn't get covered because it's not part of the social justice narrative the feminist demagogues want to present.

 

WARNING: A FAIR AMOUNT OF THIS IS NSFW

 

They are getting slandered

Developers are being threatened with blacklisting for supporting gamergate (source)

Labelled as child molesters (Source)

Even large scale newspapers are already deciding what narrative they're going to present without even investigating the facts (source)

 

This website also has a bit more of the kind of treatment people on the side of gamergate are getting

 

I could go on... but the fact is, the way this issue is being lied about and covered up is absolutely reprehensible.

[Athernar]

Regardless of whether it's true or false, that comes back to the origins of this movement: An angry ex that claims he was cheated on by his girlfriend.

 

Mmm yes, it's not really surprising you'd try and typecast Eron Gjoni despite the indications of emotional abuse by Zoe Quinn.

 

He's not the only one either, it's just other victims are too scared to come forward out of fear of media/industry reprisal, like as was seen with Wolf Wosniak.

 

Now, if this was perpetrated against a woman, regardless of the validity of the allegations there would be a media circus, like we saw with allegations against a certain Neowin staff member that was smeared by a certain news site. One-sided indeed.

[Anthony Tosie Veteran]

For someone who has a major in this matter you have a clear lack of understanding of how the industry works.

 

Having close personal relationships with the people you write about is an ethical dilemma *full stop*. It's a very basic rule of journalism that you're never meant to break, it's the only way to ensure fair and unbiased coverage.

 

The fact that games journalists have been colluding to spread certain narratives has been proven. It comes back to the same deal time, and time, and time again. When caught with your pants down you viciously defend your privilege to lie to people.

Good thing that isn't happening, then! Guess you missed that part. Let's move the goalposts to something else we can say this bullying movement is about now.

 

Mmm yes, it's not really surprising you'd try and typecast Eron Gjoni despite the indications of emotional abuse by Zoe Quinn.

 

He's not the only one either, it's just other victims are too scared to come forward out of fear of media/industry reprisal, like as was seen with Wolf Wosniak.

 

Now, if this was perpetrated against a woman, regardless of the validity of the allegations there would be a media circus, like we saw with allegations against a certain Neowin staff member that was smeared by a certain news site. One-sided indeed.

Oh, cool, so then we're back to the point where this isn't about journalism, it's about exactly what this bullying movement isn't supposed to be about.

[Athernar]

Oh, cool, so then we're back to the point where this isn't about journalism, it's about exactly what this bullying movement isn't supposed to be about.

 

Does Neowin's reporting on Apple products preclude it from discussing Microsoft? Besides, you're the one that went on a diatribe about Zoe Quinn.

 

How curious that you have no comment on the emotional abuse incidentally.

[Anthony Tosie Veteran]

Does Neowin's reporting on Apple products preclude it from discussing Microsoft? Besides, you're the one that went on a diatribe about Zoe Quinn.

 

How curious that you have no comment on the emotional abuse incidentally.

A. But here I was told this bullying movement isn't about that! So why are we talking about it then? I went on a "diatribe" about how another user kept bringing her up despite the supposed fact that this bullying movement isn't about that. So is it about that or isn't it?

B. So I'm supposed to comment on the fact that some random guy made an hour-long video saying she was emotionally abusive because he talked to her ex and was previously in an emotionally abusive relationship himself? No, sorry, not even going to dignify what you strangely think is a legitimate talking point. (But it's about ethics in gaming journalism!)

[Athernar]

A. But here I was told this bullying movement isn't about that! So why are we talking about it then? I went on a "diatribe" about how another user kept bringing her up despite the supposed fact that this bullying movement isn't about that. So is it about that or isn't it?

B. So I'm supposed to comment on the fact that some random guy made an hour-long video saying she was emotionally abusive because he talked to her ex and was previously in an emotionally abusive relationship himself? No, sorry, not even going to dignify what you strangely think is a legitimate talking point. (But it's about ethics in gaming journalism!)

 

Presumably it's talked about for the same reason that Kotaku dragged Brad's name through the muck, because there are allegations of abuse of some form and the participants are "in" the games industry. Oh, and the fact you keep bringing it up.

 

I'm sorry that you're too close-minded on this issue to take the time to watch a video of conversation logs compiled by a social justice activist that has had prior activism published in numerous mainstream media outlets that provides examples and explanations of emotional abuse. Really, it's a damn shame you're willing to dismiss things out of hand merely because they don't fit the narrative you're trying to push.

[Anthony Tosie Veteran]

Presumably it's talked about for the same reason that Kotaku dragged Brad's name through the muck, because there are allegations of abuse of some form and the participants are "in" the games industry. Oh, and the fact you keep bringing it up.

 

I'm sorry that you're too close-minded on this issue to take the time to watch a video of conversation logs compiled by a social justice activist that has had prior activism published in numerous mainstream media outlets that provides examples and explanations of emotional abuse. Really, it's a damn shame you're willing to dismiss things out of hand merely because they don't fit the narrative you're trying to push.

Nope, sorry, I'm not going to dignify a discussion about a personal relationship as some sort of aspect of a gaming discussion when the things you want to talk about don't even relate to gaming. Try again if you want to talk about ethics in gaming journalism or how this relationship relates to that.

 

Also, I'd like to take this moment to quote a post I made just a few hours ago:

The movement has a thinly veiled guise of trying to classify itself as a discussion on journalism ethics, but it eventually always comes back to the sex lives of a handful of women. 

[simplezz]

Oh, look, you're back on the approved message of "journalism ethics." As someone who actually has a background in this very topic, it's something I love discussing.

Well that's what #GamerGate started as. Of course it has branched out to detail wider corruptions and misdeeds, but that's still the heart of the matter.

 

First, let's start by talking about what #GamerGate is: A bullying movement

By labeling #GamerGate, and the people who support it as a "bullying movement", you reveal yourself as both intolerant to the opinions of others and uninformed. If anything it's the other way around. So what does that make Gawker's Sam Biddle who advocated for a return of bullying of nerds and gamers? Or the death threats levelled at youtubers like boogie2988 and his wife. There's a minority of idiots everywhere. That doesn't mean a whole movement or group of people can be tarred with the same brush. I'm not going to call all feminists bullies because of the few bad apples, and neither should the same be said of #GamerGate. This is a divisive issue, and the internet is the internet.

The difference of course is that GG's who have been threatened don't go running to the police and twitter in order to get publicity and cash-in like a few well known characters have done so.

 

designed to force gaming websites to not to cover feminist topics or anything related to "social justice."

To put it bluntly, I think gaming websites and the journalists who write for them have gone off-topic to a degree. Instead of covering topics gamers want to read, they have been advocating their own personal ideologies and political leanings, and that's reflected in the response to this scandal; Preferring to shape the news (by consensus), than actually reporting it. Hence the slew of identical articles declaring "The death of the Gamer" on the very same day.

I firmly believe in equality for all as well as social concern. What I don't support is the labelling of a group of people as misogynistic, racist, or anything else simply because they dare to criticise. And that's precisely what many gaming websites and journalists have been doing as a means to repel accusations of ethical misconduct, and to control the conversation. And it worked too, at least for a while.

Then #NotYourShield rose up to demonstrate that women and minorities were gamers too, and that they wouldn't stand idly by and watch journalists, white knights and SJW's speak for them. They have a voice of their own and they don't support radical feminism or social justice warriors trying to co-opt them for a political agenda.

 

The movement has a thinly veiled guise of trying to classify itself as a discussion on journalism ethics but it eventually always comes back to the sex lives of a handful of women.

Gamergate is the expression of a collective dissatisfaction for gaming journalism and the corruption that is so pervasive and conspicuous. It's been bubbling away for sometime. The Zoe Quinn scandal merely brought it to the forefront.

 

It doesn't matter if it's sex, money, or just writing a glowing review for a personal friend, it's all a corruption of the contract between a writer and his/her reader. Namely the expectation of objectivity. Without which, everything just becomes one big paid advertisement.

 

That's evident from the previous Neowin subject on this bullying movement that relied almost entirely on the sex life of Zoe Quinn as evidence of journalistic malfeasance instead of discussing the reporters themselves. On top of that, the bullying movement has often been represented with a logo for the restaurant Five Guys Burgers and Fries because that's supposedly the amount of people she slept with.

Well the truth is Zoe Quinn started the ball rolling. Her sex scandal can't be entirely extricated from a dialog on the subject. That being said, I have absolutely no interest in it. Only that she has/had relationships with journalists who have given her and her game favourable coverage. And lest we forget, she's not the only developer to have questionable ties to journalists. This has now expanded to corruption in other areas as well like Developer competitions she won where she had relationships with judges. The rabbit hole goes quite far here.

 

Of course, followers of this bullying movement tried to create a loose link to a Kotaku reporter, Nathan Grayson, who Quinn later formed a relationship with, saying he gave her positive coverage while they were in a relationship together, including a glowing review of her game, "Depression Quest." Kotaku then directly addressed this and provided the timeline that he was not in a relationship with her when he wrote an article regarding her. More importantly, this article wasn't even about her game, nor did it give it any positive coverage. And that supposedly glowing review he wrote of her game? It doesn't exist. It never existed. Somehow, this bullying movement has been unable to provide any evidence of it, even though it would be extremely hard to wipe off the internet.

To say there's no inappropriate relationship between Zoe and journalists stretches credulity. Even ignoring the romantic elements, there's still the issue of on-going payments to her and other developers from journalists. This alone illustrates a blurring of the writer-subject line.

And as Javik pointed out, Grayson gave Depression Quest favourable coverage on RPS. Then there's this anaysis (thanks again to Javik), which shows Grayson had a questionable relationship with Zoe long before #Gamegate. This kind of behaviour describes a pattern of unprofessionalism in game journalism where the writer's objectivity is brought into question.

 

It is not unethical to be in a relationship with someone in the industry you're in or cover;

You say you don't care about the sexual relationships of these people, yet it's almost all you've focused on. You again say their relationship has blurred lines, and you call her a "reviewee." But, yet again, Grayson never reviewed her game in all of the two articles he's written that involve her or it (again: one simply being a list of games released on Steam Greenlight and the other not even being about her game).

It absolutely is unethical without disclosure of said relationship. The probity of the writer and the veracity of the coverage can and should be challenged in such instances.

 

When a relationship brings a site's objectivity into question, that does concern me. Whether it's sexual favours, monetary compensation, or just doing a friend a favour, it's still wrong, and light needs to be shined on it. Grayson in particular has given positive coverage to DQ. Just because he didn't do a full blown review doesn't mean his relationship with Zoe didn't influence what he wrote about her and her game. And who knows whether he exerted his influence on other journalists. After all we know that they all colluded and conducted consensus based reporting.

 

I was talking about the absurdity of your link being presented as an unbiased source when it comes from one of the people behind this bullying movement, and it comes from a website known for being so conservative it makes Fox News look liberal.

I'm neither conservative nor liberal. I don't identify with such classifications. Milo has been one of the few that has actually dared to question the politically correct opinions of the media who feared upsetting the radical feminists and social justice extremists that were dictating the narrative.

 

You can keep pretending this is about journalism ethics, but anyone with a modicum of common sense can see that this is a bullying movement designed to make certain female members of the gaming community look bad and to stop the gaming press from coverage feminist topics.

Once again, you're labelling an entire group of people as bullies and misogynists when that's simply not the case. It's insulting, patently untrue, and detracts from the real issue. It's absolutely about ethics, accountability, and objectivity.

[Athernar]

Nope, sorry, I'm not going to dignify a discussion about a personal relationship as some sort of aspect of a gaming discussion when the things you want to talk about don't even relate to gaming. Try again if you want to talk about ethics in gaming journalism or how this relationship relates to that.

 

Also, I'd like to take this moment to quote a post I made just a few hours ago:

 

You're not going to "dignify" it because you don't have a response provided by your prepared narrative and you know you're wrong. Hence why you're only capable of responding to specific sections of my responses - ignoring the rest.

 

What you want is to silence abuse victims when their abuse doesn't support your ideology, sorry but that's not how social justice works. Abuse is abuse, to quote a section of an article Phillip Wythe (The same activist from the videos) posted:

 

So why do I bring this up? We have a problem with exploitation and manipulation in social justice. We have a problem with people who say good things, but don?t really mean it. They act in bad faith, and put their desire for personal gain ? whether professional or not ? above others. In other words, we have a problem with abusers gaining the power to abuse by enabling the very institutions they were attempting to dismantle.

And because so many people equate actions with personal compassion, we begin to sanitize our community?s wrongdoings. We assume that anyone fighting the good fight can be given a little leeway for unhealthy actions. Who cares if a white male equates video gamers with ?ISIS with Steam accounts?? Who cares if you call someone a ?scummy neckbeard with Cheetos,? because the concerns behind those insults are all in good faith, huh? Who cares if a critically acclaimed writer tells a fan ?I hope you die,? because, hey, they?re fighting the good fight ? right? And if a powerful forum owner and feminist ally decides to enter the discussion, does it really matter if he openly mocks a non-feminist woman?s genitals? He simply meant to fight misogyny with misogyny, right?

[simplezz]

Also, let me make one thing clear: Neowin's forums are open to anyone to discuss what they want, so long as it fits within our community rules. You do not have the right to tell members -- any members, from a basic user to a staff member -- not to "inject" themselves into a conversation. If you want to have a private conversation, you can use the private messages; otherwise, it's a public conversation that any of our members have a right to respond to, unless they've been banned.

I regret saying that and apologise. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Sometimes it's easy to get carried away.

[MightyJordan]

Another good summary: https://storify.com/glinner/gamergate-round-up

The whole #GamerGate thing is a toxic ****storm that shows up seemingly every day now on my Twitter feed, due to the attacks some people I follow receive for tweeting about it. I'll provide a few rolling examples: Dara ? Briain (comedian, TV presenter and avid gamer), Graham Linehan (TV comedy writer and avid gamer), Matt Lees (does a bunch of gaming-related videos on YouTube - he's the one who does the

, on the "list of SJW gaming journalists")

There are a few within the hashtag genuinely there to voice their concern about game journalism ethics, but they're not going to be noticed or taken seriously thanks to all the insults, death threats and doxing from the angry mobs that flood the hashtag. The genuine ones need to just abandon the hashtag and start anew; not necessarily with another hashtag, as I'd bet it'd just as easily be poisoned by the same angry mobs. Maybe if some prison sentences came as a result of #GamerGate, it'll start to die down when they realise they can actually be punished; over here, you can currently get up to six months for malicious tweets - as a few people have already found out this year: http://news.sky.com/story/1200521/twitter-trolls-jailed-for-sending-abusive-tweets / http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11127808/Twitter-troll-jailed-for-campaign-of-hatred-against-Stella-Creasy.html - but it looks set to be increased to two years.

The scandals in gaming journalism seem to get progressively more minor, but the responses get progressively more major and in this case, less civilised. We all remember Jeff Gerstmann, yeah? Fired from Gamespot seven years ago for giving Kane & Lynch a 6/10. That was a scandal. Then two years ago, we had "Doritogate"; Rab Florence was forced to leave Eurogamer for speaking out about that BS. That was a scandal. (Uncensored version of Rab's article is here, by the way.) The outcry from those two controversies both pale in comparison to the shitstorm of #GamerGate which - in my opinion - is setting our (gamers) image and reputation back several years.

[Anthony Tosie Veteran]

You're not going to "dignify" it because you don't have a response provided by your prepared narrative and you know you're wrong. Hence why you're only capable of responding to specific sections of my responses - ignoring the rest.

 

What you want is to silence abuse victims when their abuse doesn't support your ideology, sorry but that's not how social justice works. Abuse is abuse, to quote a section of an article Phillip Wythe (The same activist from the videos) posted:

You're right, Athernar, I'm not responding to you because I know I'm wrong and I'm afraid of being compared to you, the pinnacle of human achievement.

 

Or it could simply be that I'm not a terrible human being and I have no interest in dragging a woman through the mud for her personal relationship that none of us have any real idea about. The "social justice activist" you refer who made an hour-long video dedicated to this subject to is a young student with no discernible specialty in this subject. He for some reason decided to critique a failed relationship based on one side's information using definitions and articles that he stretches to this relationship, as well as the evidence compiled by the one side. I take issue with many of his conclusions presented in the video as well, yet you for some reason find this complete random person to be the sole arbiter of the relationship.

 

Sorry, but what you want to do is have a debate about this failed relationship based solely on the testimony of Zoe Quinn's ex, who clearly is disappointed in the dissolve of the relationship. We're not doing that. You're straying so far off the topic that it's beyond the point of taking you seriously now.

[Athernar]

You're right, Athernar, I'm not responding to you because I know I'm wrong and I'm afraid of being compared to you, the pinnacle of human achievement.

 

It must be so hard for you, not being me.

 

Or it could simply be that I'm not a terrible human being and I have no interest in dragging a woman through the mud for her personal relationship that none of us have any real idea about. The "social justice activist" you refer who made an hour-long video dedicated to this subject to is a young student with no discernible specialty in this subject. He for some reason decided to critique a failed relationship based on one side's information using definitions and articles that he stretches to this relationship, as well as the evidence compiled by the one side. I take issue with many of his conclusions presented in the video as well, yet you for some reason find this complete random person to be the sole arbiter of the relationship.

 

Sorry, but what you want to do is have a debate about this failed relationship based solely on the testimony of Zoe Quinn's ex, who clearly is disappointed in the dissolve of the relationship. We're not doing that. You're straying so far off the topic that it's beyond the point of taking you seriously now.

 

This response just goes to show a complete lack of integrity on your behalf, because had you actually watched the video you'd see the analysis is based on screen captures of chatlogs between Eron and Zoe - not "one side's information" or Eron's testimony as you keep continuing to try and claim. This is in addition to the aforementioned tweet from Wolf Wosniak, and the content of the logs match the style of tone of another incident involving Mallorie Nasrallah.

 

So really the only thing that's clear here is you already made up your mind and are too obstinate too even look at information that challenges your position.

 

Oh and lastly, since you love the ethics angle, how about the time when Zoe Quinn and Maya Kramer sabotaged and DDoSed a competing gamejam for women with false accusations of transphobia. Mmm?

[Anthony Tosie Veteran]

Well that's what #GamerGate started as. Of course it has branched out to detail wider corruptions and misdeeds, but that's still the heart of the matter.

 

By labeling #GamerGate, and the people who support it as a "bullying movement", you reveal yourself as both intolerant to the opinions of others and uninformed. If anything it's the other way around. So what does that make Gawker's Sam Biddle who advocated for a return of bullying of nerds and gamers? Or the death threats levelled at youtubers like boogie2988 and his wife. There's a minority of idiots everywhere. That doesn't mean a whole movement or group of people can be tarred with the same brush. I'm not going to call all feminists bullies because of the few bad apples, and neither should the same be said of #GamerGate. This is a divisive issue, and the internet is the internet.

The difference of course is that GG's who have been threatened don't go running to the police and twitter in order to get publicity and cash-in like a few well known characters have done so.

 

To put it bluntly, I think gaming websites and the journalists who write for them have gone off-topic to a degree. Instead of covering topics gamers want to read, they have been advocating their own personal ideologies and political leanings, and that's reflected in the response to this scandal; Preferring to shape the news (by consensus), than actually reporting it. Hence the slew of identical articles declaring "The death of the Gamer" on the very same day.

I firmly believe in equality for all as well as social concern. What I don't support is the labelling of a group of people as misogynistic, racist, or anything else simply because they dare to criticise. And that's precisely what many gaming websites and journalists have been doing as a means to repel accusations of ethical misconduct, and to control the conversation. And it worked too, at least for a while.

Then #NotYourShield rose up to demonstrate that women and minorities were gamers too, and that they wouldn't stand idly by and watch journalists, white knights and SJW's speak for them. They have a voice of their own and they don't support radical feminism or social justice warriors trying to co-opt them for a political agenda.

 

Gamergate is the expression of a collective dissatisfaction for gaming journalism and the corruption that is so pervasive and conspicuous. It's been bubbling away for sometime. The Zoe Quinn scandal merely brought it to the forefront.

 

It doesn't matter if it's sex, money, or just writing a glowing review for a personal friend, it's all a corruption of the contract between a writer and his/her reader. Namely the expectation of objectivity. Without which, everything just becomes one big paid advertisement.

 

Well the truth is Zoe Quinn started the ball rolling. Her sex scandal can't be entirely extricated from a dialog on the subject. That being said, I have absolutely no interest in it. Only that she has/had relationships with journalists who have given her and her game favourable coverage. And lest we forget, she's not the only developer to have questionable ties to journalists. This has now expanded to corruption in other areas as well like Developer competitions she won where she had relationships with judges. The rabbit hole goes quite far here.

 

To say there's no inappropriate relationship between Zoe and journalists stretches credulity. Even ignoring the romantic elements, there's still the issue of on-going payments to her and other developers from journalists. This alone illustrates a blurring of the writer-subject line.

And as Javik pointed out, Grayson gave Depression Quest favourable coverage on RPS. Then there's this anaysis (thanks again to Javik), which shows Grayson had a questionable relationship with Zoe long before #Gamegate. This kind of behaviour describes a pattern of unprofessionalism in game journalism where the writer's objectivity is brought into question.

 

It absolutely is unethical without disclosure of said relationship. The probity of the writer and the veracity of the coverage can and should be challenged in such instances.

 

When a relationship brings a site's objectivity into question, that does concern me. Whether it's sexual favours, monetary compensation, or just doing a friend a favour, it's still wrong, and light needs to be shined on it. Grayson in particular has given positive coverage to DQ. Just because he didn't do a full blown review doesn't mean his relationship with Zoe didn't influence what he wrote about her and her game. And who knows whether he exerted his influence on other journalists. After all we know that they all colluded and conducted consensus based reporting.

 

I'm neither conservative nor liberal. I don't identify with such classifications. Milo has been one of the few that has actually dared to question the politically correct opinions of the media who feared upsetting the radical feminists and social justice extremists that were dictating the narrative.

 

Once again, you're labelling an entire group of people as bullies and misogynists when that's simply not the case. It's insulting, patently untrue, and detracts from the real issue. It's absolutely about ethics, accountability, and objectivity.

You've completely ignored a large bulk of what I wrote.

 

I'm labeling an entire movement as a bullying movement because that is what it's proven itself to be. There have been no clear calls for reform, and when they have called for reform, it was been unethical calls. Demanding that websites stop covering certain subjects because you don't want them to cover those subjects is unethical in itself. You're not the owner of Polygon or Kotaku; if you have a problem with any of their coverage that you feel is feminist, don't read it. It's not your call to make, and there's nothing unethical with them discussing those topics.

 

This isn't a "minority of idiots." The most prevalent voice in this movement has been the voice of bullying. It's been the voice of harassment toward women, it's been the voice of demanding websites not cover subjects you don't want covered -- it's been bullying in every sense of the word. No one is stopping you from critiquing that coverage if you want, but don't expect to not be called out for bullying or harassment when that's what you begin doing to their journalists in your demands to stop covering the topics. And guess what? No one's forcing you to visit those privately owned websites. We're big boys and girls -- don't go there if you don't like their writing.

 

I'm done discussing the Grayson-Quinn relationship. I'm completely sick of you guys trying to latch on to this disgusting topic of her sex life when it's already been explained when their relationship began and that he stopped covering her and her game. Furthermore, I already addressed (directly addressed, in fact) many of the points you brought up, you just apparently decided to gloss over them.

 

If this movement is "absolutely about ethics, accountability, and objectivity," then why can we not talk about any of those things in this topic when they aren't related to a completely debunked inappropriate sexual relationship?

[Anthony Tosie Veteran]

It must be so hard for you, not being me.

 

 

This response just goes to show a complete lack of integrity on your behalf, because had you actually watched the video you'd see the analysis is based on screen captures of chatlogs between Eron and Zoe - not "one side's information" or Eron's testimony as you keep continuing to try and claim. This is in addition to the aforementioned tweet from Wolf Wosniak, and the content of the logs match the style of tone of another incident involving Mallorie Nasrallah.

 

So really the only thing that's clear here is you already made up your mind and are too obstinate too even look at information that challenges your position.

 

Oh and lastly, since you love the ethics angle, how about the time when Zoe Quinn and Maya Kramer sabotaged and DDoSed a competing gamejam for women with false accusations of transphobia. Mmm?

Let me be clear when I say this: I'm not responding to you again after this post, because what you want to discuss is completely disgusting and inappropriate.

 

Zoeposts is a website curated by a man attacking his ex-girlfriend. You want to rely on that website's evidence and the analysis of that evidence by a young student who you keep referring to as a "social justice activist." So, yes, it is one side's information and testimony. You want to have a discussion based on this information -- information that came from a man who went into IRC rooms and other areas seeking help to harass his ex. Regardless of what she did, that's a load of bullcrap. Stop it. I don't care if she cheated on him. If she did, it absolutely sucks that happened, but crap happens -- be an adult and move on. Maybe she's a crappy person, I neither know nor care, and I don't give credence to either side in the breakup. Harassing her is not a solution.

 

The fact that you even want to discuss these things is the perfect example of why this is a bullying movement that has nothing to do with ethics in gaming journalism.

[Athernar]

Let me be clear when I say this: I'm not responding to you again after this post, because what you want to discuss is completely disgusting and inappropriate.

 

Zoeposts is a website curated by a man attacking his ex-girlfriend. You want to rely on that website's evidence and the analysis of that evidence by a young student who you keep referring to as a "social justice activist." So, yes, it is one side's information and testimony. You want to have a discussion based on this information -- information that came from a man who went into IRC rooms and other areas seeking help to harass his ex. Regardless of what she did, that's a load of bullcrap. Stop it. I don't care if she cheated on him. If she did, it absolutely sucks that happened, but crap happens -- be an adult and move on. Maybe she's a crappy person, I neither know nor care, and I don't give credence to either side in the breakup. Harassing her is not a solution.

 

The fact that you even want to discuss these things is the perfect example of why this is a bullying movement that has nothing to do with ethics in gaming journalism.

 

By all means Anthony, run away when you cannot respond meaningfully to any of the information I provide that challenges your laughably weak position.

 

You're an enabler that utilises diversionary tactics and smear attacks to misrepresent people and issues that do not fit your ideology and worldview. Abuse is a-ok when it happens to people you don't agree with. Again and again your intellectual dishonesty rears it's head as you harp on and on about Zoe Quinn's cheating - despite the focus of my posts being on emotional abuse of Eron and other individuals which is only tangentially related to the issue of cheating. You completely ignore the TFYC debacle.

 

You've been completely unable to challenge even a single issue raised thus far, you've been proven to be too lazy to even review confliction information, you ignore points you cannot explain or handwave away, and your continued use of lies, slander and deflection speaks volumes.

[Marshall Veteran]

This thread has run it's course.

 

Closed