Basically meant to continue the conversations going on in the Zoe Quinn thread that weren't turning into a Mosh Pit.

Though like people there highlighted, let's try to focus this on developers, journalists and such in general and not make our main focus the Zoe Quinn cases and the ripple effects of it.

Also, once I noticed the Zoe Quinn thread was closed I'll be honest. I only skimmed through most of the posts, I wasn't going to read them in detail if I couldn't reply. But whatever it was sparking the strong argument that mad a Mod or Admin close it can we either

a) Drop it, at this point it's apparent no one's convincing the other. It's gone past the "Provide your points, let's see how we both learn from this" stage of debate.
b) Keep it civil, stick to the facts, avoid attacking the person etc.

Not really much to say, but blaming the same exact people that you as a journalist are trying to appeal to is less than effective. I somehow doubt this entire situation had to do with corruption in gaming journalism, freedom of speech or Zoey Quinn herself. This is more along the lines of gamers feeling offended for being generalized due these articles or to their intolerance of people such as Zoey and/or Anita's actions who believe that acting a certain way is justified by stomping on a term that neither if them seem to understand too well -- "Social Justice".

That's just my two cents anyway, I'm clearly Pro-Gamergate, but I can say I'm less than fond of some of Gamergates actions on Twitter and the like.

Makes you wonder when people will stop caring about this issue.

I find it definitely started around game journalism and integrity, Zoe Quinns case was honestly just the last straw for some people.
Plus the fact it involved multiple Journalists and not just one, also helped get her more attention. I think those who say "This is about the sex scandal, why isn't IGN being attacked otherwise?" was covered pretty well by Dipper in that this case specifically IGN was out of, but IGN has been the constant focus for several years. It's not as if IGN was stayed immune for criticism for bad journalist tactics overall.
+IGN for a long time was known as a Big Dishonest Corporation, them being dishonest was common knowledge so most people universally knew to ignore them. Zoe Quinn's case partly hit as hard as it did because the Journalist involves were smaller ones, those who thought did remain honest, those we didn't expect to be dishonest like IGN was known to be.

However, I that's all just in regards to how this all started. I will more than admit that at this point the issue has evolved past Zoe Quinn and Journalist Dishonesty and has grown to involve feminist/sexism attacks on gaming over all, plus a lot of anger over essentially being told "Gamers don't matter in Gaming". What started as a final trigger explosion against dishonest journalism has expanded into a far wider and more complex topic.

I have mad my stance on the Dev-Journalist relationships clear before.

But I will say this aswell. Now it has another huge problem, it is no longer able to operate as "free press" becouse if its content is not to the liking of a organized digital mob, it is bound to come under attack. Its revenue streams get cut off. Journalism does not get to evolve to something higher, and now there will be a toxic cloud looming over anyone daring to critizing 'gamers. You call it dishonest, but organized campaings to shut off journalists for critizing you makes you a bully and a tyrant. You now have a group, who has enough pull to attack and damage its own critics. That is in itself, a form of powerabuse, a form of corruption. It's a unchecked powerhouse. And I am sorry if that offends any GG supporter, as I know there are good people who huddle behind that very hashtag. But its not proving any of your critics wrong, when you attack them. It's confirming their fears of being bullied for their opinion. You are sending a message "If we don't like your opinion, we are shutting you down." There is no longer any attempts at open, proper debate. Its two side slugging it out in a dirtier and dirtier fight.

Some called it a consumers revolution. I call it lobbyist. GG is a private interest group for disgruntled gamers. Actively suppressing opinion they do not approve of.

Hellis said
I have mad my stance on the Dev-Journalist relationships clear before.But I will say this aswell. Now it has another huge problem, it is no longer able to operate as "free press" becouse if its content is not to the liking of a organized digital mob, it is bound to come under attack. Its revenue streams get cut off. Journalism does not get to evolve to something higher, and now there will be a toxic cloud looming over anyone daring to critizing 'gamers. You call it dishonest, but organized campaings to shut off journalists for critizing you makes you a bully and a tyrant. You now have a group, who has enough pull to attack and damage its own critics. That is in itself, a form of powerabuse, a form of corruption. It's a unchecked powerhouse. And I am sorry if that offends any GG supporter, as I know there are good people who huddle behind that very hashtag. But its not proving any of your critics wrong, when you attack them. It's confirming their fears of being bullied for their opinion. You are sending a message "If we don't like your opinion, we are shutting you down." There is no longer any attempts at open, proper debate. Its two side slugging it out in a dirtier and dirtier fight. Some called it a consumers revolution. I call it lobbyist. GG is a private interest group for disgruntled gamers. Actively suppressing opinion they do not approve of.

As someone who supports #Gamergate, I entirely agree with you. It is nothing more than a toxic movement, it's returned bullying in a way. As many "gamers" have tolerated hatred for mostly being "cis, white and male" (this is actually true by the way, as someone who used to use Tumblr myself) from people similiar to Zoey Quinn and her supporters, it's no surprise that they'd lash back. However, despite the mistreatment, it does not justify their actions in any way.

Ooh, a hashtag. That's kind of neat, I guess.

But at the end of the day, it's not really making much of a difference. At least that's what I think, anyway.

I'll clarify right now, my responses below are in regards to gamers reactions and behaviour in general.
I'm not following GG specifically at all, so although what Hellis argues below may be true for GG specifically I am responding from the stance of all the non GG gamers, who are still pissed off at Zoe Quinn and Journalist for other reasons (or the same reasons, but simply don't react in the way GG does).

Hellis said it is no longer able to operate as "free press" becouse if its content is not to the liking of a organized digital mob, it is bound to come under attack. Its revenue streams get cut off.

Actually, feminist and social justice warrior groups tend to have far more control over direct revenue streams than Gamers do.
The only real control Gamer's have is the profits made off their clicks/views, and honestly at that point a Journalist losing money for disagreeing with gamers is just a natural reaction.

If a service provider (Journalist) provides a serve/product that the consumer (Gamer) dislikes, the consumer will often stop dealing with the provider (Views/Ad money) and go somewhere else. That's not an organized attack against certain people, that's just people not giving the views to people they don't agree with.

Hellis said and now there will be a toxic cloud looming over anyone daring to critizing 'gamers.

Extra Credits addresses issues with the gaming community, character design, game design etc. all the time. But Gamer's love them. It's not the fact that gamers are being criticized that's the issue, but that the criticism they lash out against isn't actually offering anything.

While Extra Credits goes "This is the problem, here are ways we can fix this, let's band together and do this", while a lot of Journalist are going "You people are sexist. You people suck, you should feel bad as your hobby abandons you". They don't offer solutions, they don't make any actual effort to make gaming better. It's sole purpose is to make gamers feel bad, so obviously gamers are going to react badly. You just took a shit on them for the sole purpose of making them angry.

Hellis said You call it dishonest, but organized campaings to shut off journalists for critizing you makes you a bully and a tyrant.

The majority of what I've seen was either the consumers going elsewhere as detailed above, or people wanting Journalist to be honest about personal connections before hand.

The former is just how business works no matter what when the service provider pisses off their consumers, the latter is wanting some level of honesty/integrity.
If the Journalist turn around and say "Well I don't want to, deal with it!" then that's their choice to not listen to the consumers, and therefore get less views and such. That's not a conspiracy or plan to take them down, that's people not wanting to waste time on a service that doesn't want to be honest with them.

Hellis said You now have a group, who has enough pull to attack and damage its own critics.

Books, Movies, Sports etc. Every field's critics can get negative results/reactions from their audience if they piss them off.
That's the nature of being a critic, especially when you do back door deals that you're not honest about.

Hellis said It's a unchecked powerhouse.

Actually, although gamers themselves have united pretty well and get a lot of support from Indie Developers. We are still get the shit kicked out of us pretty hard by big companies who are listening to the social justice warriors. We're only a powerhouse in the same sense I described above, we are consumers and can take our money elsewhere if we don't like a certain service or product. That's business, that's the nature of the economy and life. And I highly doubt anyone here think's forcing gamers to buy games they don't want or support is a good idea.

Magic Magnum said Actually, although gamers themselves have united pretty well and get a lot of support from Indie Developers. We are still get the shit kicked out of us pretty hard by big companies who are listening to the social justice warriors. We're only a powerhouse in the same sense I described above, we are consumers and can take our money elsewhere if we don't like a certain service or product. That's business, that's the nature of the economy and life. And I highly doubt anyone here think's forcing gamers to buy games they don't want or support is a good idea.

What? In what way have major companies bowed to the pressures of SJWs?

Also, forcing gamers to buy games they don't want? What do you mean? I don't know many people, if any, who will pay for a game simply because some reviewer somewhere said it was good. Regardless, no one is forcing anyone. And since the internet exists, there are tons of not paid by the company shills who review games. Take each review with a grain of salt, look at the trend of comments, decide for yourself if its worth it. No one is forcing you to buy anything.

Vanq said What? In what way have major companies bowed to the pressures of SJWs?

Bioware for one when it comes to Anita.
SJW don't legitimately sit there is pay cheques to pay the developers with, but they've gain enough pull and support that they easily have the power to boycott sales or rep a lot simply by declaring ________ to be sexist.

Granted, losing support of gamers (who aren't SJW) is an even bigger hit to money/profits, but it doesn't take one criticism/protest to cause a boycott.
Most gamer's take their own research and effort into forming an opinion, there's no cases where it simply takes one person saying "This is a bad game" for gamers to universally shun it.
People would like to think otherwise because of the reputation of people like Anita or Zoe Quinn, going "Well if Gamer's weren't organized, they wouldn't be so much universal hate/backlash against them".
But gamer's acting independently doesn't mean they're immune to having a majority opinion, if someone is clearly spreading bullshit, if someone is clearly being dishonest the majority of gamers will be able to recognize this. And then you will get the majority of gamers against them, not because of some movement but because Gamer's aren't fools and can recognize crap when they see it.

Vanq said Also, forcing gamers to buy games they don't want? What do you mean?

I was highlighting how games such as say "Depression Quest" or Journalist from sites like Kotaku are making far less money because of all the people that are now boycotting/avoiding them for their dishonest tactics. But someone people were using this to claim there was some organized plot/scheme to silence them and I was highlighting how that's not a plot or scheme, that's just the consumers avoiding a shitty product. And how gamers should not be expected to pay for shitty products simply so the creators can keep producing more shitty products, and that's where the whole "And I highly doubt forcing gamers to buy games they don't want" thing was going.

Vanq said I don't know many people, if any, who will pay for a game simply because some reviewer somewhere said it was good.

Regardless, no one is forcing anyone. And since the internet exists, there are tons of not paid by the company shills who review games. Take each review with a grain of salt, look at the trend of comments, decide for yourself if its worth it. No one is forcing you to buy anything.

It's not that simple, reviewers will often times go into detail about how good or bad a game is and why. Some dishonestly (Kotaku, IGN) and some honestly (Totalbiscuit, Angry Joe).

For example, there's been two cases with Angry Joe where he really liked games and I went out and bought them because all the reasoning he gave for it seemed solid, but I ended up less than satisfied with the purchase.
He didn't simply say "This is good, buy it" he went "This is good, here's a long explanation as to why", but through play I just found myself not sharing the same opinions. I could see why he liked it, where his points came from. He wasn't lying, it just turned out after the purchase we had different perceptions/likes in regards to it.

But honestly? That will happen sometimes with games, even if the critic is honest, even if the majority of people like it you yourself may find yourself getting it because of all the great reviews and then find it's something you personally don't like. But even if that happens we still want critics to be honest about their reviews, most people recognize going in that a review is an opinion piece that you may not always agree with. But we want the opinion to be sincere and to have actually considered the quality of the game in question, not for the rating to be completely dishonest because of a behind the door deal.

It's why people like Totalbiscuit and Angry Joe get so much praise, but places like Kotaku and IGN don't. If you end up disagreeing with the former two it's usually just a difference of opinion, you weren't purposely misled into buying the game, but IGN and Kotaku would have never even bothered to give you honest reasons, they spewed bullshit so you'd buy it. So no, no one is forcing anyone to buy games. You're right, but when we go looking for reviews, opinions, impressions etc we at least want them to be sincere, and not outright lies.

I can count the actual journalists in gaming I like on one hand, even if I disagree with them; like most traditional journalists they tend to be bound by ethics and integrity. But the fact of the matter, "game journalism" is little more than informal blogging; which somehow allows these bloggers to say things that would get actual journalists slammed for slander or other clauses. Now, I don't like blogging or most commentators (I think Joe Vargas has turned into an idiot, personally) but there are some well-worded people out there who do blogging/commenting well without a journalistic doctrine or degree.

I also hate the seemingly "legit" companies like IGN posting articles that are little more than cheap shots (and not real journalism) painting gamers as self-entitled mob mentality trolls/children. When the public rejected the ending of Mass Effect 3, I understood why, and I liked how they were putting their frustration into a public but well-meant place (charity drives for example).

Reviews imo, should be more in line of well-written and ethical comments on the mechanics of a game with maybe some art theory thrown in. Critics will always have their biases, so there is no such thing as absolute objectivity. It's a subjective writing form; but why is game journalism so awful and amateurish to the point of where Rock Journalism was in 1969? This is one of our major mediums, it should have integrity and ethical foundation just like cinematic critics (Christy Lemire, Roger Ebert, etc) and so on.

Oh, and I dislike Anita because she's an idiot who doesn't have a leg to stand on with her lack of research and flawed study, not because she's a woman with an opinion. I'd think the same of a man with the same opinion.