Conflict of interest in game journalism.

[SMOGZINN]

Internet Argument Rule #4: If you can't win an argument just lump them into a catagory and act like that makes your argument. The cool thing about this is that you don't even have to defend why they fit into that category or how being a member of that category would invalidate their argument. For example, if someone dismantles your rant on how the Kennedy assassination was actually committed by Mark Hammill by pointing out that Mr Hammill was only 10 years old at the time, you can reply "fine, now we have heard from the Trekkies".

You know how I know when I won an argument? The opposition has no response but to try shoving me into a stereotype.

 

[SMOGZINN]

You can take a serious threat seriously by preparing to face it, not running away and complaining about it on the internet. Facing down those that hate you and want to harm you is the only way to defeat them. That's why you've gotta drive the black routes, and visit the hostile villages. If you run from people that threaten you, you're just ceding ground. How long can you do that for? What message does it send?

That's right Stand Your Ground. Maybe you will finally get to kill someone! Wouldn't that be nice.

 

[BoberFett]

Internet Argument Rule #4: If you can't win an argument just lump them into a catagory and act like that makes your argument. The cool thing about this is that you don't even have to defend why they fit into that category or how being a member of that category would invalidate their argument.

The irony is killing me. See if you can spot it...

 

[Nebor]

That's right Stand Your Ground. Maybe you will finally get to kill someone! Wouldn't that be nice.

What are you, some kind of idiot?

 

[Nebor]

Internet Argument Rule #4: If you can't win an argument just lump them into a catagory and act like that makes your argument. The cool thing about this is that you don't even have to defend why they fit into that category or how being a member of that category would invalidate their argument. For example, if someone dismantles your rant on how the Kennedy assassination was actually committed by Mark Hammill by pointing out that Mr Hammill was only 10 years old at the time, you can reply "fine, now we have heard from the Trekkies".

You know how I know when I won an argument? The opposition has no response but to try shoving me into a stereotype.

You mean like all the anti-gamergate people are doing? Hah.

You know how I know when I won an argument? When 3 people out of 40 posting in a thread disagree with me.

 

[Mai72]

You guys are still debating about this nasty woman? So she slept around. Big whoopee!

 

[ThinClient]

You guys are still debating about this nasty woman? So she slept around. Big whoopee!

It involves so much more than the dev who was sleeping around. There are far more people involved.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

It involves so much more than the dev who was sleeping around. There are far more people involved.

Why does it involve her at all?

 

[Nebor]

Why does it involve her at all?

Because she slept with people to manipulate the gaming industry into making and then highly reviewing her game. Then she slept with more people to try to suppress the story. And that's what touched off gamergate. It's no different than giving out bribes.

 

[RampantAndroid]

And this is fair. But, she was resilient. She has been getting literally thousands of threats for more than a year. It was not until someone took those threats to a level that made them believable that she balked.

And the correct response to a credible threat is not to print it out and make it into 1000 posters exclaiming you were threatened. It's the same with things like Columbine and Sandy Hook - Monkey see, Monkey do. You NEVER publicize this stuff, you report it to authorities. By doing so, you don't encourage MORE threats and as a result the FBI has a better chance of doing something.

Sarkeesian and the likes however go around with posters saying "I was threatened, poor me." Maybe they're just ignorant of the effect that has...but I suspect they parade that around because it lets them show off that they're a victim. They play it up.

That of course ASSUMES the threats are even credible. Which I have some doubts about.

 

[ThinClient]

Why does it involve her at all?

Initially, the developer who slept around was involved because she got caught exchanging sex for good reviews of her terrible game and exchanging nude photos of herself for money, exclusively to game journalists.

Somebody made a correlation between those who'd been caught and outed a huge list of game journalists from different companies who were all taking part in a giant conflict of interest circle, deciding what games would get good reviews based on who got paid what.

The dev who was sleeping around and selling nude pics kinda became a secondary note at this point.

One of those involved, a woman named Sarkeesian, in an effort to take heat off of herself, decided to fabricate this entire "gamers are dead" article where she crucified gamers for being woman-hating chauvinists and how the gaming industry hates women as a whole and how all men are pigs and must die.

It exploded from there.

The original spark for this fire, the dev that slept around, has long since been lost in the noise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45H25Sc6fig

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Because she slept with people to manipulate the gaming industry into making and then highly reviewing her game. Then she slept with more people to try to suppress the story. And that's what touched off gamergate. It's no different than giving out bribes.

No, she didn't. That's all very much debunked, and the fact that people are obsessing over one game developer's sex habits is the reason that rational gamers are labeling this "movement" as sexist and misogynistic. If you want to have a real discussion about the state of corruption in the gaming industry, you talk about the millions of dollars that EA and Activision are dumping into IGN and Gamespot for favorable coverage, not a single developer who was falsely accused of trading sex for reviews by a jilted ex-lover.

 

[ThinClient]

No, she didn't. That's all very much debunked, and the fact that people are obsessing over one game developer's sex habits is the reason that rational gamers are labeling this "movement" as sexist and misogynistic. If you want to have a real discussion about the state of corruption in the gaming industry, you talk about the millions of dollars that EA and Activision are dumping into IGN and Gamespot for favorable coverage, not a single developer who was falsely accused of trading sex for reviews by a jilted ex-lover.

Link to proof that Zoe Quinn didn't exchange sex for favors or sell nudes for money?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Link to proof that Zoe Quinn didn't exchange sex for favors or sell nudes for money?

Well, first off, you don't get to accuse someone of something and then demand proof that it's not true; the burden of proof is always on the accuser. But here's the pro-gamergate folks at Breitbart talking about the issue:

Zoe Quinn’s sex life is not the story here. While the accusation that Quinn’s relationship with Kotaku writer Nathan Grayson may have started this discussion about journalistic ethics and transparency, the fact is that Nathan Grayson never reviewed Quinn’s game, Depression Quest, or wrote about it again after beginning a sexual relationship with her.

So, you know, the entire accusation that kicked off the firestorm was just a lie from an ex-lover who was trying to damage the reputation of his ex. That's what I don't get about gamergate. In the world of impropriety in gaming journalism, you've bypassed the obvious targets of major video game publishers to focus on slut-shaming a small indie developer who was innocent of the crimes she was accused of. Here you are, weeks later, spreading the same lies about how big a whore Zoe Quinn is and you're surprised that people think gamergate is misogynistic?

 

[RampantAndroid]

Well, first off, you don't get to accuse someone of something and then demand proof that it's not true; the burden of proof is always on the accuser. But here's the pro-gamergate folks at Breitbart talking about the issue:



So, you know, the entire accusation that kicked off the firestorm was just a lie from an ex-lover who was trying to damage the reputation of his ex. That's what I don't get about gamergate. In the world of impropriety in gaming journalism, you've bypassed the obvious targets of major video game publishers to focus on slut-shaming a small indie developer who was innocent of the crimes she was accused of. Here you are, weeks later, spreading the same lies about how big a whore Zoe Quinn is and you're surprised that people think gamergate is misogynistic?

They also leveled the accuasation of her having sex with, among others, Robin Arnott. Who chaired a "games festival" that awarded Quinn's game, Depression Quest, the award "Official Selection - Indiecade 2013"....

 

[SMOGZINN]

You mean like all the anti-gamergate people are doing? Hah.

I don't really know what the anti-gamergate people are doing, nor was I defending them. I was making an argument directly against your argument that she should not have taken the threats seriously.

You know how I know when I won an argument? When 3 people out of 40 posting in a thread disagree with me.

Maybe that is more of an indictment of why we have almost no women that will come here. Anandtech Forums has become a particularly hostile environment towards women.

 

[Sulaco]

I think the bigger story is that someone actually got it up...

...for that.




This is not OT; save those kinds of comments for that forum. If you want to actually discuss the topic, then feel free to do so here.

Anandtech Administrator
KeithTalent

 

[RampantAndroid]

I think the bigger story is that someone actually got it up...

...for that.

While I've been thinking this, I've been avoiding saying it.

To each their own?

 

[Fulle]

You guys don't bang fat ugly women with bad morals? lol, prudes.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

They also leveled the accuasation of her having sex with, among others, Robin Arnott. Who chaired a "games festival" that awarded Quinn's game, Depression Quest, the award "Official Selection - Indiecade 2013"....

A couple things:

First, the source of that rumor was the same jilted ex-lover, so I both take his claims with a grain of salt and question the motivation for posting her sexual history in the first place. All we have is the illusion of impropriety, and that's reason enough for total strangers to start discussing this woman's sexual past? That's fairly absurd, and it's all based on claims which remain unsubstantiated.

Second, even if that's true, so what? You're telling me that people are basically fine with Gamespot and IGN being paid shills for companies like EA and Activision, but as soon as a single independent game developer sleeps with a single judge at a gaming festival, WHOA, THAT'S OVER THE LINE! If you want to tackle a very worthy subject of impropriety in media and the conflict of journalistic ethics with regards to the gaming industry, that's a worthy discussion, but NOT if your only concern is about the sexual history of a single woman. People jumped on this because it was titillating, not because they gave a damn if it was indicative of some broader trend of corruption. "What's that, a developer we never heard of slept with a reviewer on the tenth most popular gaming blog on the internet, allegedly for a good review even though he never reviewed her game? SAUCY."

The movement has been based on bull**** from the beginning. Find a new movement to talk about the conflict of interest in gaming journalism and I'm right there with you. Wrap it up in slut-shaming and death threats and you've completely lost me.

 

[ThinClient]

They also leveled the accuasation of her having sex with, among others, Robin Arnott. Who chaired a "games festival" that awarded Quinn's game, Depression Quest, the award "Official Selection - Indiecade 2013"....

Owned.

 

[Topweasel]

Owned.

Only if it was more substantiated other then he tried to white knight her and had past experience with her. Must be because she banged him. The Kotaku guy was at least named. The BF didn't release two names but released the other kid because he was a journalist. Which makes me doubt the other two were media guys. But that's the point with GG from the start, it never needed actual facts. It was and has been driven by the air of impropriety not the actual proof of it. Then takes its anger out mostly on those in media that challenges its power instead of actually going after groups that are an actual issue.

One of the GB guys get fired in 2007 for a bad review of a sponsored game. Internets reaction. Well I am going to pretend not to read gamespot anymore. But then uses it in every discussion where a review of theirs agrees with a point they are making. In 2012 He goes live with confirmation of what went down. Perfect opportunity for GG to start up and and take the internet by storm. Everyone shrugs, says they stopped paying attention to gaming sites a long time ago because they are all schills.

So what about any of whats gone on with GG been anywhere near as damning and unethical for a company to accept millions in advertising for a product that a reviewer is reviewing and pressure the release of the reviewer for a sub par review? What has Gamasutra done that was so much worse that they pressured Intel into dropping advertising? Or Gawker and BMW?

 

[norseamd]

Or Gawker and BMW?

Or actually much more like their personal and moral conduct on twitter.

 

[ThinClient]

Only if it was more substantiated other then he tried to white knight her and had past experience with her. Must be because she banged him. The Kotaku guy was at least named. The BF didn't release two names but released the other kid because he was a journalist. Which makes me doubt the other two were media guys. But that's the point with GG from the start, it never needed actual facts. It was and has been driven by the air of impropriety not the actual proof of it. Then takes its anger out mostly on those in media that challenges its power instead of actually going after groups that are an actual issue.

One of the GB guys get fired in 2007 for a bad review of a sponsored game. Internets reaction. Well I am going to pretend not to read gamespot anymore. But then uses it in every discussion where a review of theirs agrees with a point they are making. In 2012 He goes live with confirmation of what went down. Perfect opportunity for GG to start up and and take the internet by storm. Everyone shrugs, says they stopped paying attention to gaming sites a long time ago because they are all schills.

So what about any of whats gone on with GG been anywhere near as damning and unethical for a company to accept millions in advertising for a product that a reviewer is reviewing and pressure the release of the reviewer for a sub par review? What has Gamasutra done that was so much worse that they pressured Intel into dropping advertising? Or Gawker and BMW?

This is you using a lot of words to basically say nothing.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

Yeah, that's my point. I don't even have time to care about all the stuff that is important. Seems like most people in this thread (at least the ones who keep posting page long rants 2-3 times a day) need to get a life outside of the internet.

You seem to have enough time to continually comment on this topic however.

We already have seen what your type of apathy has done.
You think these people really care about gaming?
No, they are posers, they are opportunistic frauds.
They infiltrated things like occupy wallstreet and destroyed it, then atheism, now this, if you don't think they'll move onto another target after they are done you are kidding yourself.

*snip*

This goes beyond gamergate, its a cultural infection in our society and these people will shit things up wherever they go next. Its only that they chose the wrong target this time. Occupy wallstreet was destroyed by these people, and that matters, atheism conferences were as well. The mainstream media has never been called to account for their coverage and this is the first time they've faced any opposition because as Internet Aristocrat joked, they underestimated our autism. You can pretend none of this matters, but again, your apathy is responsible for the damage these people do, and will continue to do if not stopped.

Yeah, this is the thing, this is not new to many of us who are part of the atheist and skeptical movement, we saw an increasing number of SJWs and feminists in the atheist movement and various controversies like ElevatorGate with feminist Rebecca Watson, this lead to the poisoning of these movements with various SJW nonsense the peak of which was them creating atheism+ which is "atheism plus social justice", which died in a few weeks.

They're just like a plague hopping from one popular medium to another, they never create anything of value themselves they leech from existing systems and use politics to push their agenda by being loud, shrill and obnoxious.

They'll invade something else after this without a doubt, it'll probably be male centric because white CIS male guys make the best target as no one really cares about that group, and they'll go to town with their usual SJW nonsense. It's already a predictable cycle, question is, who is next?