The Sunday Papers

By John Walker on August 19th, 2012 at 12:01 pm.

Sundays are for staring in confusion at being asked to write a column called “the bumday poopers” or something. I’ve no idea. Apparently I’m supposed to put links to all those tabs you leave open on articles you haven’t finished reading yet. Is that it?

  • Simon Parkin on Hookshot uses the game Papa & Yo, and some interview quotes from Jade Raymond to argue that games need to off er more than a gun-barrel view. It’s hard to disagree with the sentiments. It’s also hard not to think, “Er, yes, so play all the games that don’t then?” He concludes, “But as the men and women working in games – and those of us who buy them – grow older, start families, assume new responsibilities and different worldviews, there’s a growing hunger for games that explore new themes, ideas and messages. I cannot be the only one tired of looking at the world down the barrel of a virtual gun.”
    • You know what you hear a lot about? How games, gamers and game developers are sexist pigs. What about a positive story instead? Tiffany Martin’s cake-pie.com ran a piece this week celebrating Gaslamp Games, they behind Dungeons Of Dredmor. Having beaten the game, Tiffany took to the forums to see if this was a regular thing, or a proper achievement. And while many celebrated her rogue-like prowess, it took a turn for the sadder. It has a happy ending. “I want to say thank you to David Baumgart, to “Daynab” the forum mod, and to all the future men of the Gaslamp Games forum. I want to welcome all women who enjoy being badasses to play Dungeons of Dredmor, possibly the least sexist game in the world, made by the most inclusive developers known.”
    • GOG.com this week released Tomb Raider: The Angel Of Darkness. I found this a little sad, not because the dreadful game shouldn’t be archived in their collection, but because they didn’t point out just how terrible it is in their description. In 2010, during their relaunch, they promised that their product pages would be written by fans of the games, and not quoting marketing speak. The page for AoD is the precise opposite of that. Which reminded me of an absolutely fantastic piece from EDGE on the making of the game, and how it went so very wrong. “We got wrapped up in that whole beautiful big animation experience. I don’t know if we ever would have understood what we got wrong with the animation until the game was out. We could have easily used another two or three months. We could have used another year.”
    • Eurogamer launched a new partner site this week called Outside Xbox. It’s a site focusing on video content about our console chums, by people who are rather good at that. You can see their Gamescom coverage here, for instance. And then maybe have a word with them about auto-playing videos and the lack of tags.
    • Talking of Eurogamer, Tom “Tom Bramwell” Bramwell had a bit of victory this week after spotting that EA were raising money for war veterans by selling… weapons, based on Medal Of Honor. The tomahawk was particularly egregious, and he pointed this out. This led to EA doing a 180 on the deal, and dropping the tomahawk entirely. “EA is partnering with real-world weapons manufacturers not only to make sure that the guns in Medal of Honor: Warfighter are authentic but to make real-world weapons based on the game. I’m putting all this stuff in italics to emphasise how much it doesn’t compute to my middle-class British liberal brain. Look! Here’s a f***ing Medal of Honor tomahawk!”
    • Destructoid has an interesting piece on those who did not see their names in the credits for Darksiders II.
    • A man who does get credit is Cliffy “Cliffy B” B, who has written a piece for Gamasutra in which he explains how arguments work between developers. “I’ve learned that while developers are incredibly intelligent, they can sometimes be a bit insecure about how smart they are compared to their peers. I’ve seen developer message boards tear apart billion-dollar franchises, indie darlings, and everything in between by overanalyzing and nitpicking.”
    • While The Verge is in desperate need of a more enthusiastic copy editor (their tiny scroll bars scare small children), this lengthy piece on body hacking makes for some extraordinary and gruesome reading. “Tim, the proprietor of Hot Rod Piercing in downtown Pittsburgh, put down the scalpel and picked up an instrument called an elevator, which he used to separate the flesh inside in Sarver’s finger, creating a small empty pocket of space. Then, with practiced hands, he slid a tiny rare earth metal inside the open wound, the width of a pencil eraser and thinner than a dime. When he tried to remove his tool, however, the metal disc stuck to the tweezers. “Let’s try this again,” Tim said. “Almost done.”"
    • Scare the pants off yourself with this piece from Naomi Wolf on how facial recognition technology is being used for surveillance all around the world.

    And I believe I’m supposed to link to some music. So why not some Jens Lekman having an argument with himself?

    __________________

    « | »

    .

    354 Comments »

    1. Bobka says:

      I had only just heard about the Gaslamp story a few days ago, on some Gamasutra blog post, but I was so happy to hear about that. Great folk at Gaslamp; I remember once seeing on a post where they were asking for job applications that they also openly state they have a strict zero-tolerance policy vis-à-vis harassement or exclusion of LGBT individuals in their offices. Granted, they are just a handful of devs, so it’s easier to make sure everyone is cool, but it’s nice to see them being so dedicated to treating people fairly.

      • MaXimillion says:

        I’m all for moderating sexist comments but considering how the Thecakepie replied to it, any fair moderator would have banned her as well. Just because one person initiates a flamewar doesn’t mean the other side should be allowed to retaliate with far worse insults and get away with it.

        • jalf says:

          Far worse? I don’t see it.

          And I think most moderators do (and should) cut people a bit of slack when they respond to insulting comments.

          When people treat you like shit, you get upset, and when you’re upset, you might say something foolish. A good moderator takes the context into account.

          Saying bad things about others is bad no matter who does it, when, where and why. But unprovoked bullying of a new community member is kind of different from delivering a snarky response to said bullying.

          And, honestly, there’s a lot to be said for drawing attention to problematic behavior, rather than just trying to sweep it under the rug, whether by ignoring the user, or with a ban or deletion of the offending post.

          • Lemming says:

            Are we even sure the original post wasn’t being ironic, and her response was actually just a straight up reactionary insult? His follow-up apology being mocked and dismissed would certainly suggest that it wasn’t intended to be received at face-value.

            I read the first article and thought ok yeah, she called him out, he got a temp ban – fair enough.

            Then she gets a PM apologising and she just mocks it on her blog and the devs attack him for it as well? I really don’t understand that bit, and she comes off as kind of a bitch in that part, especially seeing all the sycophants in her comment section joining in the braying.

            • Thecakepie says:

              He may have said he was sorry but he wasn’t apologizing. He was sorry that he looked bad to other people. Read it again.

              It’s typical manipulation. Person A acts the way they want without thinking of how it will affect others but when those other people get mad the Person A just explains how it was “not on purpose so just relax”. This doesn’t make him an evil guy (and I didn’t ever say he was one) but people like that don’t have the right to tell me how to feel, and if they don’t like the reactions they’re getting part of growing up is to learn how that happened and do better next time. It’s much simpler to act how you want and then try to convince people out of their feelings after the fact but it’s not very effective.

              This isn’t a misunderstanding where he was trying “to have a laugh with me– but seriously let’s be friends.” He wasn’t thinking about how I feel. Most guys don’t have to think about how women feel and that’s changing in the online environment and I’m seeing that a lot of guys don’t like it.

            • jonnycardboard says:

              It was the classic ‘I’m sorry if anyone took my comments the wrong way’ non-apology apology, which has the veneer of apology, but is nothing of the sort, and shifts the blame onto the other party.

              It has become especially rife over the last few years. Examples here from Rush Limbaugh:

              http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/03/a_statement_from_rush

              And the NME: http://www.nme.com/news/morrissey/64270

              I hate this tactic. If you’re not apologetic, don’t apologise. The non-apology apology is far worse than not apologising at all!

            • Bonedwarf says:

              Lemming: So being offensive and bullying is fine if it’s ironic then is it? So clearly by you it’s alright to tell an African American to get back to the cotton fields, so long as it’s done “ironically”.

              See, people like you are the problem, trying to justify the original derogatory comment in some fashion that makes it “okay”.

              So the next time you see a someone being abused because of their gender, skin colour etc… think about what you said here.

              Some imaginary ironic intent doesn’t change the meaning one iota. Grow up.

            • Ritashi says:

              If you actually read his PM he does in fact say that he’s sorry. Not that he’s sorry his comments were taken the wrong way – he says, without qualifiers, that he is sorry for causing offense. That’s worlds away for being sorry that his comments were taken the wrong way. Whether or not he thinks that his comments were inherently wrong or offensive, he recognizes and takes responsibility for the fact that they caused offense. He also says that *he* never intended his comments to come out that way, but he did *not* once say or imply that the fact that you took offense was your fault. He thinks that how the forum moderators reacted was a bit harsh, considering his intent, which could be argued against. He does still appreciate that the forums are strictly moderated and does not make any further attempt to claim that he was treated unfairly. He then offers you an olive branch. You chose to hold it up and ridicule him for it.

            • Lemming says:

              @Bonedwarf do you even know what ironic means? By definitiion if it was ironic, it wasn’t bullying – It was self-mocking. Or are you just here to throw hyperbole and insults around? You sir/madam, are the problem.

              @ Thecakepie: thanks for replying, but I think Ritashi in the above says it better than I can. Also well done on the DOD. I can’t imagine being able to manage finishing it!

            • Oli says:

              So the amount of missing the point entirely, clutching at straws to defend an inherently sexist statement and dismissing well raised points as ‘attacks’ because they threaten male privilege in Lemming’s post made me (finally) register on RPS so I could respond, but I see thecakepie has taken time out of her roguery to beat me to the punch.

              However, I would like to add that Lemming’s opening gambit – ‘Are we even sure the original post wasn’t being ironic, and her response was actually just a straight up reactionary insult?’ – is a pretty awful way to think about things. The original post was sexist and yeah, sure, we’re not really in a position to know with absolute certainty that it wasn’t an incredibly witty deconstruction of a sexist gamer’s attitude (I’m actually lying here, we do know this) but that’s a ridiculous line to take. Are we to do a background check on every instance of dubious sexual politics we encounter just so we can turn around and say ‘HEY GUYS, TURNS OUT HE ABSOLUTELY WAS BEING SEXIST!’ and know, without a shadow of a doubt, that when we take action against sexism we don’t upset a poor little man who was only trying to be ironic?

              Lemming I’m sure you think of yourself as a generally decent person. You’re probably right, but don’t throw yourself over the sexism cliff because you don’t want to reconsider a position you didn’t even realise you were taking. As thecakepie said on her website we are trained from birth to behave in certain ways according to our gender. This isn’t our fault, but it is our responsibility to act against it if we believe in equality.

              That aside, I’m pretty pleased with Gaslamp’s response to this so I’m definitely going to be giving Dredmor a punt. Huzzah!

              Edit: Then I read the comments below and get the sad feelings again.

            • Lemming says:

              @Oli

              I was playing devil’s advocate. I think it’s fair to weigh up both sides of a debate, even if it at first glance it seems one-sided – I’m sure, as you say, that the ‘sandwich’ remark was a direct insult and not witty irony, but you never know for sure.

              What made me consider and post that thought was the fact he seemed to genuinely apologise. Surely most in that regard would just say nothing and move on? His actually PMing an apology (as it seemed to me) was beyond what you’d expect, and I felt a bone thrown was deserved in that regard.

            • Thecakepie says:

              I’m certain that he is more interested in his reputation than he is feeling sorry that I had to put up with that crap.

              How?

              If he were really sorry he’d just say “I’m really sorry” and leave me alone. Any version of that would have been what a “good guy” would do. Extra credit would be learning as much about why it was wrong and preventing himself from acting like that again, but I’m not a perfectionist.

              Even his PM is good evidence because he says a lot, and though part of his focus is on being sorry that he offended (that’s good right) he then justifies his actions with a defensive statement about his intentions, and he requests friendship. He wouldn’t do that if he wasn’t concerned with looking good to us (he sent the PM to me and David Baumgart) or making himself feeling better. If we’re all friends now, everything’s okay, right? It can all go away and then he doesn’t have to feel bad about what he did. I think he should feel bad. No “good guy” would talk like that, and if he wants to be treated like a good guy he has to earn it, instead of just acting any way he wants then explaining until people can be manipulated into agreeing with his explanation of how he’s such a good guy. I’m not sorry that he can’t act like a jerk then explain that he didn’t mean it and then walk around feeling good about himself. Real good guys work hard to learn how what they do affects others, they learn to communicate better, they’re thoughtful. A person doesn’t get to wear the good guy medal just because they want it without working for it.

              If I just offended someone on the internet, I’d consider that their feelings might be hurt and they may not want to be friends or interact with me at all, and I’d also not defend my crap! If I decided to apologize I’d say what I did that was wrong so they’d know I understand what I did that hurt them, and then I’d explain what I would do in the future so that they wouldn’t have to worry about me anymore.

              Not only did he not do that, but he kept sending messages, continues to send messages, and follows me around on the internet trying to get me to talk to him. It’s boring so I’m not blogging it, so don’t look for it. I also don’t think it’s fair for people to chase him down or attack him. While the thing he said was stupid, and subsequent things he said weren’t better, it happens literally everywhere to all of the women who are involved in games and he’s not some uniquely evil Kitchen Joker. That said, he’s not my friend, and I won’t be playing games with him. If in a year or two he cleans up the mess in his head that lets him act like this to people maybe he’d be a good guy, and a good person to play games with but until then I cannot be convinced of that he’s a misunderstood good guy no matter how cleverly it is explained.

            • Lemming says:

              @Thecakepie

              Thank you for clarifying. I’m sorry I didn’t get it quite so quick as others have. When you put it like that, what you said/did sounds pretty cast-iron justified. Good luck with the roguelike domination!

            • Thecakepie says:

              @Lemming You raised a good point worth discussing; I don’t mind clarifying it because it makes more sense now.

            • ffordesoon says:

              @thecakepie:

              I’m on your side in this argument, for the record, but I’m interested to know what I can do to be better at apologizing when I say something stupid, because I’m worried I might be someone who’s done exactly what you’re describing without being conscious of it. As a straight white dude with straight white dude privileges who’s aware of said privileges, I’m constantly striving to be that elusive Good Guy of whom you wrote above. As such, I feel it’s my duty to tell you what I’m afraid I’m doing wrong and ask how to do it better.

              To wit:

              When I’m apologizing on the Internet (and in real life, but we’re talking about Internet discourse in this case), , I tend to explain, you know, my side of the story. Where I was coming from, why I said what I said, what I meant by it, etc. I do go out of my way to say that I’m not attempting to recontextualize the debate into one where I’m somehow the victim of a misunderstanding, and that I understand that hurting others’ feelings is Not Good. I like to think I provide context in order to foster understanding and compassion between myself and the injured party, but I always worry that it’s really just an attempt to justify my actions so I don’t have to feel bad about them.

              I’m very conscious of manipulative tactics in the responses of others, though my policy is to give them the benefit of the doubt for at least one post, and I try to stay conscious of my own tendency to slide into manipulative verbiage when I’m defending myself, but I do always worry that I’m not holding myself to the same standards. I realize you haven’t read any apologies I’ve written, so your response must of necessity be rather general, but is there anything you think I could do to be a little more considerate?

              Any advice at all would be invaluable to me.

              (And yes, I know I use “I” way too much. Bad habit I’m trying to break.)

            • Ritashi says:

              Sorry, did you seriously say that you expect anyone who offends you (and is actually a good guy, made a mistake, etc.) to then take effort to ensure that you never have to deal with them again? So, what, you expect him to just leave those forums and never come back? A self-imposed permanent ban? You yourself said on your website that you didn’t want to just ban people who say hurtful things. Moreover, you have no right to tell him where he can and can’t go on the internet, just because he said something hurtful once. So then, given that he’s going to coexist on the same corner of the internet as you, he offers you friendship, or at least neutrality. He understands that you might not want to be friends, but he does want to know that you and he can coexist peacefully.

              As to the point about defending his actions – I sort of doubt that he said what he did with the intent of causing offense. Which is what he says in his PM. Does that excuse his actions? No, and he doesn’t pretend that it does. He doesn’t use that to qualify his apology. He does use it to qualify his punishment from the forums, but that’s really an entirely separate argument. And yes, he’s concerned about his reputation. That’s only natural. He should be. He should also be concerned about your feelings, and indicates that he is. In fact, he has to be since you two will be frequenting the same forums. He treats you just like he likely would any other forum member who he unintentionally offended. The degree to which is he concerned about his reputation in no way changes the degree to which he is concerned about your feelings.

              As to him repeatedly following you and sending you messages – ya, that’s wrong. You don’t owe him any sort of response, even though it would have been the right thing to do. He has no right to demand a response from you, and you have no obligation to give him one. He is once again in the wrong in this situation. I should note, however, that being in the wrong at one point does not make him perpetually in the wrong, nor does that make you perpetually in the right.

            • kavz1987 says:

              Today’s recommended! Special Offers!

              Super Speed ​​USB 3.0 Multi Memory Card Reader! Buy now to get $ 5 discount! Price only $ 14.90! http://kurl.rs/31541

            • Lambchops says:

              @ TheCakePie

              Let’s see if I can reply in the right place this time!

              While I’m with you in this case (constant pestering after you’ve made it clear that you want nothing to do with the guy is most definitely out of order and the apology itself was overly defensive) I don’t think it’s fair to expect that “If he were really sorry he’d just say “I’m really sorry” and leave me alone.”

              I’m sure of most of us think back to school, that wasn’t how we learned to apologize to people. I can never remember someone telling me to “apologize and leave them alone.” Nope it was more something like “say sorry, shake hands and be friends” or something of that ilk. Certainly on the rare occasions where I feel the need to apologize for something that’s how I go about it. Obviously it’s a different scenario over the internet when you don’t actually have to see this person on a daily basis but you shouldn’t be surprised if many people (of either gender) still carry this sort of approach towards apologies. It doesn’t necessarily mean they are a bad person and if you make clear your desire to be left alone most would comply but it would be harsh to tar them with a “bad person” brush for anything other than their initial comments.

            • Cooper says:

              I’m happier with a community where someone’s first reaction to a woman is a ‘get to the kitchen remark’ is faced with instant removal from the community.

              It does not matter that it was “just a joke” even if it was “ironic”.

              “Just a joke” is not an excuse for sexism.

              If anyone here has done similarly dickish things. The lesson from this is not “how do I apologise better and make amends”. Rather the lesson is to THINK before your idiot brain produces hurtful comments.

              If people are incapable of that moment of reflection before jumping to prejudice, then all I can wish for are more places where there’s such small tolerance for idiots.

              It is impossible to over-react to abuse directed to someone for no other reason than that someone merely existing.

            • Faxmachinen says:

              Ironic, really? That excuse has been used more times by the “make me a sandwich” crowd than the collected number of viewings of “Starwars kid”, and it’s still just as inane.

              Edit: Upon reading the article I discover it was indeed a “make me a sandwich” comment. Oh internets, how you delight me with your cleverness.

        • Stellar Duck says:

          The happy thing is that mods can do whatever the fuck they like. It’s their turf. And in this case her insult was pretty good.

          It certainly wasn’t “far worse”. She called him out on being an asshole, as was right and proper.

          • meatshit says:

            “She called him out on being an asshole, as was right and proper.”

            And, more importantly, she did it in a manner that was far more amusing than the original comment.

            • Stellar Duck says:

              A point well made. And one I intended to make but forgot due to hangovers and a groggy brain.

            • Ritashi says:

              I have to say, I read her piece and I came away with very little respect for Tiffany Martin. Yes, the guy made a dumb and potentially offensive comment. She responded with an equally dumb and potentially offensive comment. Was hers “funnier”? Not really. Hers was just as predictable and pointless as his. She called him a child, said that his mom does everything for him, and said that he’ll never get a girl to “make him [a sandwich].” I’ve heard that one a thousand times, and interestingly enough always against men. She went for the “nerdy guy in basement” stereotype. It was unoriginal, dumb, and potentially offensive. She escalated the conflict. Honestly, had she simply made a response about how original the insult was and left off the rest of her comment, that would have done everything she needed it to. Insult the post, not the poster. That would have highlighted the issue without the high potential to start a flamewar (if one had started after the post she made, she would have been equally culpable for escalating the situation, whereas had she made the shorter reply the blame would have only rested with the people throwing insults). And to anyone thinking it, no the fact that she might expect from previous experience that a flamewar would start regardless does not excuse her actions.

              Then, the guy sends her a private message. In it, he apologizes, while also saying that he hadn’t intended to be insulting. He had felt like the joke was lighthearted, which is understandable. Stupid, perhaps, but understandable (I should point out that irl I make similar jokes with girls that I know. It’s funny because all of us know that I’m not in any way serious, but I could see someone making the joke online in the same vein. Stupid because obviously the context can’t carry over online, but understandable.) He’s concerned about letting her and the forum moderators know that his intent was never to cause trouble or to insult. He asks if they can put the past behind them, and continue forward as “friends, or at the very least neutral-aligned.” Her reaction to this made me instantly lose a lot of respect for her. First, she blames society for how she wanted to react to it at first. She claims that “my whole life as a female I’ve been actively trained to make nice, keep people happy…” She acts as though she’s been thoroughly brainwashed to the point that she refuses to take responsibility for her initial reaction, which was to *assume that the guy talking to her is a decent human being* and that he actually meant what he said. But, of course, that’s (and I quote) “bad feminism”. I’ll refrain from speculating here, but as food for thought consider what would constitute “good feminism” if “bad feminism” involves believing people and thinking that maybe they mean what they say, even if they’ve done something bad *once*. I know enough women who are able to think for themselves that I refuse to believe that society is somehow brainwashing all women, which Tiffany claims it is.

              Then, her followup to her initial reaction. She came to the realization that while he was apologizing, he also wanted to protect his image. THE HORROR. In case anyone is wondering, yes protecting your image usually matters in online communities. In case anyone is thinking about taking her side, note that people can carry out multiple agendas at the same time. Protecting his image in this case involved concern for her feelings. The two were not mutually exclusive, as she pretends. She also claims that him contacting her somehow hurt her feelings. This makes no sense; since he did not want to simply leave the forums they were going to run into each other again in some thread. He didn’t want that to happen and have there still be hard feelings between them. He was trying to deal with the situation like an adult. Sometimes shit happens, sometimes you piss people off and it was your fault, but you still have to interact with them. He apologized and asked if they could continue on in peace. The response she was going to type was basically “no”. And she had the nerve to consider her reply as “intelligent and compassionate”.

              Basically, after reading this article I have no respect for Tiffany Martin. First, she escalates the situation by replying to an unoriginal, stereotypical and not very funny insult with more unoriginal, stereotypical and not very funny insults (and then proudly links to her “awesome reply”.) Then, she blames society for brainwashing her into thinking that people are sometimes good, and can honestly mean what they say when they try to make amends. Finally, she fails to properly understand how people can have multiple agendas, and the fact that being self-interested (which is a fundamental part of humanity according to the vast majority of philosophies, particularly western philosophies) does not make a person evil.

            • jalf says:

              She escalated the conflict. Honestly, had she simply made a response about how original the insult was and left off the rest of her comment, that would have done everything she needed it to. Insult the post, not the poster.

              And? The problem was the poster, not the post. The problem was that he, like many others, felt that it was ok to make these kinds of jokes, and not the fact that he made this specific joke at this specific time.

              Pointing out that “there is a problem with *you* specifically, you as a person, and how you think about half the world’s population” is absolutely the best thing that could be done.

              Pretending that “I have no problem with you, but I don’t like this specific post of yours” would have been ridiculous, and it likely wouldn’t have gotten the message across.

              Then, the guy sends her a private message. In it, he apologizes, while also saying that he hadn’t intended to be insulting. He had felt like the joke was lighthearted, which is understandable. Stupid, perhaps, but understandable

              Mmmm, no. Well, yes, it is understandable because we know full well that a large part of the world’s population are still living in the past, where women *do* belong in the kitchen, and black people are slaves. I understand that they feel this way, but I have no sympathy for it.

              (I should point out that irl I make similar jokes with girls that I know. It’s funny because all of us know that I’m not in any way serious, but I could see someone making the joke online in the same vein. Stupid because obviously the context can’t carry over online, but understandable.)

              Which context is this, precisely?
              Why is it that these “jokes” are funny?

              And are you sure those girls you know in real life enjoy the jokes as much as you do?

              This kind of jokes are only “jokes” because they mean something, because they’re *not* random. They are “funny” to some people because the sentiment that “women belong in the kitchen” is a real thing.

              If people had not felt that way, then these “jokes” would be complete nonsense. By making such a joke, you’re reminding everyone of this stereotype, you’re saying “by the way, let’s not forget the whole “women-kitchen” thing”.

              That’s really kind of unpleasant, *even* in real-life, *even* with all the context in the world, even with people you know. In the same way that making jokes about “black people – slavery” is kind of tasteless, even if you don’t personally think that “we ought to go back to enslaving black people”.

              It doesn’t *matter* that you don’t think this way. Some people do, and making jokes like this encourages them to speak up, to come up with more jokes or to argue that “this is how it is”. And it is a constant reminder for the “victims” that “you’re allowed to walk around freely, but you can never escape the “kitchen” thing…”

              I guess at this point we know why you reacted so strongly to her response: you, like the so-called “Kitchen Joker”, didn’t get why it was offensive.

              And that is why calling it out in this manner was absolutely the right thing to do.

              When so many people can cause offense, *and not understand why they offended, then sweeping it under the rug, saying “oh, I didn’t like that comment, but you want to be friends now, so that’s ok” is *not* going to make the problem go away.

              I’ll refrain from speculating here, but as food for thought consider what would constitute “good feminism” if “bad feminism” involves believing people and thinking that maybe they mean what they say, even if they’ve done something bad *once*.

              You’re assuming that it was an isolated occurrence. That, somehow, the words fell out of his mouth completely incidentally, that he would never *intentionally* make a joke such as this.

              That is absurd. He made this joke because he thought (note, I said ‘thought’, not ‘thinks’ because I’m hoping/assuming that this has made him a little wiser) was funny. So the question that I find interesting is “does he now understand *why* what he did was wrong?

              The PM he sent does not really make that clear. I think it is very clear that he never intended to cause offense, and that’s great. But to veer this debacle into a positive direction, it would be nice to know that he has understood *why* it caused offense, and not just that it *did* cause offense. And, perhaps, to make sure that others learn the same lesson at the same time.

              I know enough women who are able to think for themselves that I refuse to believe that society is somehow brainwashing all women, which Tiffany claims it is.

              Are they the same ones who, you believe, find your “sandwich” jokes amusing? Just asking…

              You say she “escalated the situation”. Did she, now? It started out as an example of the passive hostility towards women that is so ubiquitous in online games. It was a shining example of why women do not feel welcome in such communities. Did it escalate to anything worse than that? It started out as something that made 50% of the world feel unwelcome. I’d say that’s a pretty fucking big deal to begin with. But it was a situation that the “Kitchen Joker” and you did not *understand* the severity of.

          • dE says:

            She replied to a gender based stereotype (sandwitch bullshit) by using gender based stereotype (male mommy’s boy nerd bullshit). It’s not far worse. It’s the same.

            • Ergates_Antius says:

              It’s not the same. Don’t be stupid.

            • dE says:

              Elaborate or shoo.
              Try using arguments over insults too.

            • Nate says:

              Maybe I can offer a little elaboration?

              Why is that “you live with your mom and she does everything for you” is an insult leveled only at men? It’s not as if women never live with their parents, yet doing so isn’t a reason to be ashamed for women. It’s because men are expected to be independent and powerful, and if they aren’t, they’ve failed. Using this attack exclusively on men, then, implicitly says that women are not expected to be independent and powerful– and I think the root of that is the old idea that women should be subservient to their husbands. The idea is that it’s not’s a big deal for a woman to to live with her parents until she marries, because a woman is never going to be independent– she’ll be subservient to her parents before she marries, and subservient to her husband afterwards. Please understand that I’m not describing my own world-view, but the world-view that lies at the root of many of these sexist jokes and insults.

              As with so much that’s sexist, it’s easy to dodge behind, “but that’s not what I meant”– but if it’s equally shameful for a woman to be dependent, why are only men ever insulted in that way?

              All that said, I think it’s a fine line, and I can understand how difficult it is to respond to attacks perfectly appropriately. Martin was relatively restrained with her reply, and I wouldn’t have bothered saying anything except that dE brought it up.

            • PleasingFungus says:

              There is a difference between insulting someone for being part of a societal group that is regularly discriminated against, versus insulting someone for being privileged. It’s the difference between “nigger” and “cracker”. Hint: one of those insults hurts, because it reflects real problems in society. The other is a joke.

              tl;dr: Misandry don’t real. Don’t be willfully dense.

            • dE says:

              @Nate, it’s still an insult levelled at the posters gender. Both rely on negative stereotypes (which are bad, no argument from me here) to directly attack the gender of the person. I’m not arguing that it isn’t understandable that she reacted the way she did. Conflict, emotions and all.
              I’m merely pointing out the double standards that are applied here. That has nothing to do with “being stupid” or “being willfuly dense” like two folks claim. With surely more to follow, its the internet after all. Something the Internet has always troubles with, are opinions that aren’t based on the dichotomous relation of two points of view.

              That I think her response was in kind and bad form, doesn’t change the outcome itself. The sandwich comment was stupid, stupid poster being ridiculed was fair enough. I would have liked and respected it a lot more, if it weren’t a gender based retort.

            • Capt. Eduardo del Mango says:

              PleasingFungus; “Misandry don’t real. Don’t be willfully dense.” There you have it, folks! Misandry, defined as “the hatred or dislike of men or boys”, isn’t real. It’s impossible for somebody to hate men or boys. Impossible! Don’t be dense!

              PleasingFungus, In what way is it impossible for people to hate men, to generalize about men, or to apply harmful gender stereotypes to men?

              (Hadn’t seen the story the first time ’round – had a look, males acted childishly, female turned their bullshit ’round on them, nicely done, but Nate’s comment still warrants consideration and PleasingFungus’ comment that misandry doesn’t exist is still baffling.)

            • JohnS says:

              Of course there are individuals out there who do hate men, but the term “misandry” suggests that it is a widespread societal problem the same way misogyny is. For all intents and purposes, misandry is a meaningless term describing a problem which doesn’t exist made up by people with a persecution-complex. See also “The war on Christmas”.

            • Capt. Eduardo del Mango says:

              Yep, I’d go with that. Although feminism tends to conflate “misogyny” with “patriarchalism” which doesn’t really help (examples of people treating women as per patriarchal gender roles aren’t automatically also examples of people hating women – if we accept that there isn’t a widespread problem with “misandry” in the sense of “lots of people hate men”, that doesn’t relate to the issue of patriarchal gender roles still stereotyping and restricting men. Nate’s example wouldn’t really be “misandry”, but another box-exercise – sad lonely mummy’s boy gamers go in this box, girls who like ponies go in that box – and nobody’s come back on that properly yet.

            • JohnS says:

              Please, don’t definition dance. You were the one responding to “Misandry isn’t real” with “No hating of men?”.

              With your new definition of misandry: when men casually introduce themselves as guys and get responses like “lol hows your mums basement?”, then we can discuss if the problem is on the same level as womens.

              Really, no matter how you cut it, the problems are nowhere near comparable. Misandry doesn’t exist, misogyny does.

              Nates specific example about “mums basement” only being leveled at men: it’s only aimed at gamers, the overwhelming majority of which are men. It’s never really aimed at non-nerds anywhere, and it is *never* aimed at someone *because* they are men. Sandwhich comments are aimed at women because they are women. Really, how are the two comparable?

            • Capt. Eduardo del Mango says:

              Sorry, didn’t mean to ‘definition dance’ – Fungus’ comment was clearly fallacious so I objected to it, you’ve questioned my response, I’ve accepted your questioning – yes, ‘misandry’ in terms of hating men does not exist as a social problem on the scale of ‘misogyny’ in terms of hating women. That doesn’t stop Fungus’ comment being less wrong. Misandry means ‘hating men’, I haven’t changed the definition – I said people do hate men and agreed with you that it’s not a widespread societal problem like misogyny, so I think we’re on the same page there. Wasn’t trying to be obtuse, sorry if I was.

              What I claimed, separate to that, was that issues of stereotyping men that couldn’t really be described as ‘misandry’ do exist and have a negative impact that warrants investigation, not just because following patriarchal gender roles if you’re a guy isn’t any fun either and it’d be nice on trying to release men from it, but also that stereotyping men (“you can’t be as good a parent as a woman, demonstrated by your likelihood of receiving custody of your child after a divorce”) affects women (“men aren’t very good parents, that’s your job, woman”). That’s why I think it’s so important we consider all this together – because untangling the bullshit ways men and women think about women requires us to untangle the bullshit ways that men and women think about men, too.

            • Thecakepie says:

              That’s false equivalence. It’s not the same. Here’s why: just being a woman is enough for others to give criticism socially or think they are less than other people (especially online). But if you’re a man there has to be a reason for criticism. No one goes “Ugh, why did you have to say you’re a man?”, “You should use a less masculine screenname than ‘guywhoplaysgames’”, “If you turn off your mic no one will say anything about your deep voice”. Isn’t that strange that women do get criticized though? Just for exisiting! Like we’re some kind of other species or people who are not part of this group.

              Perhaps it’s “unfair” to penalize men who live with their moms but even so that IS a reason, it’s not just being male. Women just have to exist to get looked down on, no reason needed. If society didn’t look down on women and favor men you’d have a point.

            • Ergates_Antius says:

              Elaborate? Very well. Context is everything. Comments such as these do not exist in a vacuum. We exist in a world where women face a constant stream of comments (both verbal and written) that marginalise, belittle and demean them. The reverse is not true for men. Within this context, a gender based insult targeted at man is not the same as one targeted at a women.

              Also, “Don’t be stupid” isn’t in insult, it’s a request – one which you are, obviously, free to ignore.

            • Capt. Eduardo del Mango says:

              I believe it’s ‘false equivalence’ in the example you gave because you’ve picked a specific scenario. Yes, people judge you automatically in a video games forum because video games have a troglodyte attitude to women. That’s a very, very gendered space you’ve picked there – and that sucks and I fully acknowledge it sucks.

              However, when I went along to events based around gender inclusion at university, I felt that turning up with a white penis that’s attracted to females put me under additional scrutiny – “Wait, we’re here talking about gender and sexuality and you’re a man? Did the patriarchy send you?”. When I first went to the doctor with (what’s been subsequently put down as a quite serious) mental health issue, I got “pull yourself together” – a response that IMO is typical for men seeking advice on ‘non-manly’ health issues. I also like kids – I find myself getting broody over children. I enjoy playing with kids, and am used too pedophile comments (by no means all jokes).

              Now, I’ve also given two specific examples of what I consider ‘gendered spaces’ – so I’m not claiming my experiences in those two places somehow universalises to describe a fundamental feature of how gender relations currently work. But I do believe it’s a similar type of reaction to the one you got there. That is, people look at a man and go “Ooh he’s a man so he’s [x]“. Not saying it’s ‘equivalent’ in terms of impact – just as how a white middle class New York woman may well say that issues of discrimination don’t affect her nearly as much as, say, a woman in Saudi Arabia – but that men can be judged and excluded from things based on their gender too. You said, “Women just have to exist to get looked down on, no reason needed. If society didn’t look down on women and favor men you’d have a point.” In the specific environment of a video game forum (with all of the vile gender based bullshit that presently goes with it) that’s true, but in my opinion that’s true for me as a man in other environments.

              I think it’s important because, in my opinion, you’re not going to get men mired in patriarchal thinking to accept “women can do your job just as well as you can” without getting them to think “because you can be a parent too, if you want”.

              I’m not claiming “men have it just as bad as women” because that’s a damn foolish thing to say, what I was kinda aiming for was “the patriarchy is a bum deal for everyone, straight men have to take the smallest bite out of the shit sandwich but it’s still a bite out of a shit sandwich.”

              PS – if nothing else, could you at least recognise the fact that I’m – even if you think I’m going about this in entirely the wrong way – aiming for “making it better for everyone”? Like I said, even if you think I’ve got entirely the wrong idea about it, the way Gormongous came in you’d swear I was trying to gun down a women’s right’s march whilst wearing a brown shirt and jackboots.

            • JohnS says:

              Yea Captain Eduardo, I see what point you’re trying to make – that there are negative stereotypes hurting men as well, just because you’re a man doesn’t mean that you get handed everything on a silver platter, etc. The patriarchy does really bring everyone down, as you say.

              But as you also say, the problems that most men face regarding negative stereotypes are really peanuts compared to the problems most women face regarding negative stereotypes. And similarly for other societal problems stemming from the patriarchy.

              Saying that “Hey, men have it bad too!” is a bit like saying that “Yes, there are problems with the democratic system in Russia, but hey, the US also has problems with their system!”. It’s technically true, but most russians would still dream of having a system like the american one – bringing it up in a discussion is at best pointing out what noone is disputing, at worst it comes across as defending the current situation. Bringing it up in a discussion about gaming communities is almost provoking.

              It must be very frustrating if you’re a man and people start whispering behind your back if you say you want to be a kindergarden teacher. But then I look at my other tab, where I read about how female rape victims are treated by the police in my country. I still think I have my priorities straight if I work actively for women’s rights and not for men’s rights.

              I don’t know what the best way of changing the patriarchy is. Pointing out that it hurts white males too is probably one part of it.

            • Capt. Eduardo del Mango says:

              “It must be very frustrating if you’re a man and people start whispering behind your back if you say you want to be a kindergarden teacher. But then I look at my other tab, where I read about how female rape victims are treated by the police in my country. I still think I have my priorities straight if I work actively for women’s rights and not for men’s rights.”

              Oh absolutely. Case A is massively worse than case B and if I gave you the impression that I thought otherwise then I did so in error and I apologize. What I believe in addition to that is that both cases do exist and are created by the same type of thinking and form a whole – patriarchal people go “women MUST do this BECAUSE men MUST do that”, so you can’t change their thinking without addressing both their attitudes towards stereotyping men (“you can’t be as good a parent/as emotionally mature as a woman”) and women (“you can’t be as good a boss/driver as a man”) – or, as per your phrasing, that I believe succeeding in advancing women’s rights requires some advancement in the way men think about themselves (in terms of rejecting the patriarchal bullshit that feminism guards against for women – i.e. ‘you can’t drive’ – but is still hammered into men – i.e. ‘you are not as emotionally advanced as a female’). In the example you gave, I personally believe there is at least some connection between the patriarchal stereotype of men as prone to sexual deviancy and immorality (as others have said, ‘pervert’ is often a gendered insult) and sexual violence against women. In your US/Russia example, perhaps I’d say that what I was seeking to do is to turn that into “why do all politicians suck and why do they screw everyone over and why is it worse in the USSR than the USA?” That acknowledges everyone fairly, I think (as per your example at least).

              But this is a bigger discussion than a comment thread like this – just so long as I’ve made a valid* point and it’s clear it’s not come from me being some sort of misogynist asshole (as Gormongous seemed to be implying), that’s cool.

              *That’s ‘valid’, not ‘correct’, as in it’s not a wholly unreasonable thing for me to think IMHO YMMV BSc SSc etc.

            • Nate says:

              Just to clarify a few things:

              dE: Yeah, I was agreeing with you, and trying to clarify (how I understood what you were saying) because it didn’t seem to me that people were getting it.

              PleasingFungus: Yeah, I understand what you’re saying– I don’t ALWAYS agree with that sentiment, it depends on the circumstances, but I frequently do. However, that’s not what I was saying. I don’t believe it’s especially insulting to men to accuse them of living in moms’ basements. What I think is that using that attack exclusively against men is insulting to WOMEN.

              Really, I don’t believe that it’s particularly easy, when it comes to sexism, to unravel sexism purely on the basis of who it helps and who it hurts. Each gender is defined in terms of the other (for most of the world– apologies to TG). There are, at times, advantages that come to those considered relatively helpless, and disadvantages that come to those that are considered to be active agents in the world. That doesn’t make it any less sexist to expect women to fall into the former category and men to fall into the latter category, and ultimately, it’s impossible to deal with only the effects of sexism (which is where “who benefits” gets answered) without dealing with the ideologies that are responsible for those effects.

            • alundra says:

              @ JohnS

              Question, do you win a lot of pussy with your stupid demean misandry in favor of misogyny speech??? On thing is sure at least, women never respect manginas like you, they just use them ass tools.

            • Cooper says:

              Again:

              Abuse given in response to someone simply existing IS NOT THE SAME as abuse given in response to someone being a total arsehole.

            • Sarissofoi says:

              Its worse.
              He was just fool and don’t wanna hurt anybody feeling.
              She attack him ad personam with clearly intent to hurt.

              Also her ‘response’ lack style. It is just cheap vulgar trashtalk expected from some teen idiot not from adult.
              She don’t have really higher moral ground here.

        • MadMatty says:

          So, who´s gonna make the Sandwich then?

          Seriously though, misoginy, on the internet.
          Who would have thought?

          • Stellar Duck says:

            So we should let it fly?

            • MadMatty says:

              Why ofcourse not, and i totally see it never happening again after intelligent and earnest discussions like this, by people who would never do such a thing in the first place.

              Not like guys like me ever get called faggots, arseholes, criminals, get deaththreats etc.

              Any trouble, i usually post gore, transvestites or that .gif with the scrotum, hammer and nails, myself :) If you´re gonna be childish, you better get some skill!

              *disclaimer* this usually leads to IP ban, and quite possibly, a lawsuit or two, unless its on 4Chan /B/

            • Thecakepie says:

              @Madmatty I think you’re right that discussion like this helps. I think if most people thought about it for even 5 minutes they’d see why it’s stupid and stop. The problem seems to be more about knee jerking than about evil villains of the internet.

            • Droopy The Dog says:

              I’m not sure if I’m missing the light sprinkling of irony in the cakepie’s post or the massive dollop of irony in mad matty’s went right over cake’s head.

              Regardless, let this be a cautionary tale that irony in text always leads to confusion and murder (<- This is ironic (<- and this is an example of the only consistant way to convey irony on the internet)).

              Seriously though, it's a source of constant wonder to me that no matter how inherently and obviously absurd you think what your saying sounds, someone on the internet will take it in the most litteral way possible and think it makes perfect sense.

            • MadMatty says:

              Well said Droopy- its hard to tell without a vocal tone to tip you off. Personally, i think its much more hillarious not to state sarcasm too obviously.
              Never repeat, never explain hahaha

        • Reverant says:

          I wouldn’t call what she said “worse” by any means, but I do think it was uncalled for. Retaliating childishness with more childishness does nothing to advance the level of maturity in the community. By responding with an insult, she devolved the conversation into pure smack talk.

          If we want to have a genuine conversation about equality in the community, we have to approach the topic with a certain level of tact and maturity. All this woman did was join in this guy’s immature game of insults. Trading verbal jabs based on sensitive topics is very common among men. It’s just something stupid we do. You can’t cry insensitivity and then join the melee. You either be the rational adult and identity and educate against discrimination, or you let yourself be dragged into ordinary locker room insults.

          • PopeJamal says:

            Here’e the important bit in case anyone missed it:

            “You either be the rational adult and identity and educate against discrimination, or you let yourself be dragged into ordinary locker room insults.”

            Retaliation doesn’t mean it’s OK to be a jerk on the internet. Oddly enough, she was treated differently for being a woman (sandwich joke) and then was again treated differently for being a woman (we’ll let your remarks slide because you get treated like shit for being a woman).

            Not that I necessarily disagree with the ultimate outcome, but at the end of the day, she was still being treated differently for being a woman. Just nicer the second time around.

            • toastmodernist says:

              People who are subjected to sexist abuse have no responsibility whatsoever to be nice to the people making the remarks.

              There is no moral equivalency between someone actually acting like a dick and someone telling the dick they’re being a dick. Concern trolling people who are subjected to sexism, etc. into not being angry and being super polite about it is v. problematic.

            • PleasingFungus says:

              Oh, man, you said what I said but much better! Can’t believe I missed your comment.

            • Ritashi says:

              But she didn’t just tell the dick he was being a dick. That’s obviously fine. What she did was throw a bunch of unrelated childish insults. If she’d just said “wow, how original, you’re a dick” I think everyone would have been ok with that. Instead she threw a bunch of insults about his mom doing everything for him and him being a child. That’s a long shot from just saying “you’re a dick for insulting me”.

          • PleasingFungus says:

            For those reading, Reverant’s comment is known as a tone argument. “You have to be nice if you want people to listen to you! Why aren’t you being polite like a good woman should?”

            It’s made particularly transparent by the fact that the people making the tone argument will desperately latch on to any moment of impoliteness to ignore the entire rest of the argument. (This is known as derailment.)

            Now you know!

            • F33bs says:

              That’s a little rude, don’t you think? Insinuating a RPS poster is sexist because they make a simple observation. Maybe it’s possible to have disagreements on an issue without acting like a snarky sarcastic jerk towards those who share an opposing view?

            • Ed123 says:

              Quiet Feebs! You might say one thing, but the Geek Feminist wiki knows what you’re really thinking!

            • Apolloin says:

              Oh bullshit, Fungus. That was an appeal to authority, by dressing up your hackneyed deconstruction of Revarant’s opinion with jargon! That and you’re conflating his decision not to drink the WhiteKnight Koolaid as support for Misogyny in the first place with your “like a good woman” comment, which is putting words in his mouth.

              The use of terms Misogyny and Misandry is divisive and pointless – much the same as the use of the term Reverse Racism is. There is only Sexism and Racism. Misogyny and Misandry both ABSOLUTELY exist and they are moral equivilancies, the two sides of the Sexism coin.

              As for this idea that what the sexist jerk said basically excuses anything that the offended party chose to do or say to him, I’m going to call that as more bullshit. You can either keep the moral highground or you can wade down into the muddy hollow. I think Cakepie gets to choose which she wants to do, but I think that she only gets to make the choice once and that once she decided to roll up her trouserlegs and get mucky, she loses the ability to climb back up onto the high ground when she’s done.

              Cakepie – absolutely keep calling sexist bullshit out when you see it. That’s how we change perceptions of what is ‘okay on the internets’ but being polite is NOT solely a feminine virtue, it is a human one.

              Mods get +1 for enforcing anti-sexist rules.

            • Ritashi says:

              Not only are you misapplying the term you’re using, but your link is completely biased and useless. It actually claims that any call by the party with “more power” in a given situation for civility is in fact a power play designed to silence dissent. That’s just dumb. Civility is a requirement for reasonable discussion. If I were to, say, sit here and insult you instead of arguing a point then we couldn’t have a reasonable discussion. A call for civility does not ignore anything but it asks that any discussion be kept to more civil terms. Claiming that any call for a reasonable discussion made by the party in power is in fact oppressive is a common tactic among groups arguing about unfair treatment towards some group. That argument is in fact a silencing tactic, because it prevents any opposing view from being discussed.

              In short: you’re making claims that I have to assume you know are false in an attempt to villainize anyone who opposes you. Also, that website is dumb and anyone using it seriously should feel dumb.

            • Josh W says:

              I have issues with this description. Firstly, when anyone is rude, anyone, there are ways to “tell a dick he’s being a dick”. What you do is insult their behaviour. How idiotic it is etc.

              To jump beyond that to making suppositions about a person is just retaliation, which is intentionally giving up your moral high ground to scrap in the dirt with them.

              Now, keeping your temper when this happens a lot is hard, people get training in this stuff if they work in customer service roles, so yes people will slip on this every now and again, but you cannot assume that just because women are encouraged to be particularly polite in american society, that women should therefore never try to be polite when someone is rude to them.

              It’s absurd. In my part of the world, everyone is expected to reach a certain level of politeness with idiots, and there’s no femaleness about it at all. The same goes for taking apologies in good faith. So from here it just looks like over-correction.

              In other words, the behaviour was wrong, but excusably wrong, given the position she is likely in, to suggest there is nothing wrong with the behaviour is to abandon ethics to politics.

              Edit – people have posted while I was typing.

              Asking for civility is a way to silence protest; just as people made cleanliness complaints about occupy wallstreet and others, asking for people to calm down and not make such a fuss really is a way to silence dissent.

              In short, ranting, protest, etc is vital. People must be able to express their dissent, their grievances etc. And they must also be able to tell people off for unintentional hurt, because being in an underprivalidged situation means that your concerns and sensibilities will naturally be under-emphasised.

              But that shouldn’t cause people to disregard the actual value of civil conversation.

          • Thecakepie says:

            @Reverant

            It would be a “locker room insult” if we were both men together hanging out as equals in a locker room. With that analogy you’re close but you made a mistake in your understanding.

            The better description would be a “discussion” between a bully and a nerdy kid. I go to the locker room and mind my own business. The bully comes around every day and tells me to get in the kitchen, and instead of ignoring it, walking away, telling a teacher (all of which I’ve done before and none of which have done anything to solve the problem) I stood up for myself.

            This isn’t the first bully I’ve encountered in my life, but it is honestly the first time I’ve stood up for myself on the internet like this. And as a responsible adult I shared my story and discussed it rationally and gave credit to the “teachers” (Gaslamp Games & Mod) who stepped in and resolved the matter.

            At the end of the day this is bullying and I said no to it, and I’m not sorry that I did it.

            • Ritashi says:

              So, what, he’s supposed to treat you as being unequal to him? In this scenario, you *are* hanging out as equals in the “locker room” (in this case a gaming forum). Being a woman *does not* make you unequal, and it does not make you the nerdy kid. You should expect to be treated like an equal, just like anyone else on the forums. And your “bully” does not come around and tell you every day to get in the kitchen; he came around *once* and said that. And you took offense, which is entirely understandable. You got mad, which is entirely understandable. And then you responded to his comments by throwing childish insults at him. Your insult was no more original than his was; at least he tried to make some reference about your tag (dumb as it may have been). I’ve seen insults about being a child and a momma’s boy more often than I have kitchen jokes, let me assure you. All you had to do was say that you thought his post was insulting. You could have even gotten away with a snide remark about it being unoriginal. But you weren’t satisfied with that.

              A sidenote: this isn’t bullying. Bullying requires more than a single comment by a single person, and it cannot happen between equals. Bullying occurs when the target is in some real or perceived way powerless to stop it. You weren’t being bullied, you were being insulted. And you had all of the leverage you needed to respond to that insult in a reasonable manner. You would have gotten just as much support had you made a simple comment about how what he said was rude, or even made fun of his insult. But instead, you decided to try to turn the tables on him. You decided to insult him, and when you found that the authorities were on your side you lorded the fact over him on your blog. He came to you with an apology, and you held it up and laughed at him. You say he ignored your feelings; did you ever consider his? What happens when he reads your blog and sees that you’ve held him up (by name no less) and ridiculed and insulted him? How does he feel when he realizes he has no power to make any kind of reasonable response to you? Just because you feel like you’re usually not supported by the authority figures of any particular space doesn’t give you the right to abuse that support when you get it. Ya, his original comment was uncalled for. But in the end, you’re the bully in this scenario. It’s the classic role reversal, where the kid who once got bullied finds himself in power and proceeds to bully those who can’t stop him. He’s a long shot from blameless, but this isn’t a constant sum game. Him being wrong does NOT make you right.

        • Thecakepie says:

          You wanted them to ban me too? That’s silly. It’s like that old double-bind from high school where someone bullies you and if you don’t say anything you have to suffer for the entertainment of the bully, but if you fight back, the principal suspends you for fighting. I’m tired of going to forums, telling mods someone is being a jerk and having nothing happen.

          I also want to mention that “flamewar” is a pretty extreme way to describe an interaction that had so few comments. Relax, man.

          • Sarissofoi says:

            Nah its more somebody try to bully you and get suspended then you bully him when he try to apologize to you and the director let it slide.

          • CrookedLittleVein says:

            “It’s like that old double-bind from high school where someone bullies you and if you don’t say anything you have to suffer for the entertainment of the bully, but if you fight back, the principal suspends you for fighting. ”

            http://i.imgur.com/6HEAz.gif?1

          • Ritashi says:

            See, but you’re misconstruing the whole scenario. No one gets suspended in high school for *saying something mean*. The only way to get in trouble is physical fighting. And if the bully was using words but you punched him, then you deserve to be suspended. If the bully was physically attacking you and you fight back in self-defense, then the system is broken. However, we don’t have those situations on the internet. On the internet, there is no “self-defense”, because there is no danger to your person. One person throws an insult, and then you have a choice. You can insult him back, or you can respond like an adult. I’m not familiar with the code of conduct on the forums you were on, but I’m guessing you can get banned for insults (he did). You threw childish insults, but did not get banned. That’s unequal treatment. You should have responded like an adult, pointing out that his comment was rude and insulting (snide “and unoriginal” optional), but you did not. This isn’t like the situation you described. You had an easy way out where you win and don’t have to stoop to his level.

            • Thecakepie says:

              Obviously you’ve never been to high school.

            • Ritashi says:

              Excellent job refuting my points. I have in fact been to high school. (See, refuting points is easy. Your turn!) Ad hominem aside, care to discuss my actual points, or should I just assume that you have no argument against them?

              Besides, my whole point was that the internet isn’t like high school, because there is no threat of anything turning physical, which is what you were talking about. Unless your high school suspended people for insulting each other? In which case you’re still wrong because the metaphor fails to hold up, notably because forums follow their own clearly defined set of rules which are not the same as the rules that might be followed in high school.

            • gritz says:

              It’s amazing the lengths of pedantry one will go to do defend misogyny on the internet.

            • Josh W says:

              It’s not defending misogyny, it’s being against unbalanced responses to it.

              It’s like saying you don’t like the death penalty, that doesn’t mean that you don’t think a crime was committed!

              Although on the other hand, it is really nitpicky; the double bind expressed in the analogy is a real one, although there is a solution to it.

            • Ritashi says:

              I have never once defended the kitchen comment that the guy made. It was, intentionally or not, offensive and sexist. I have only defended one thing (his apology) and I have attacked inappropriate responses to his behavior. Your mother probably told you that two wrongs don’t make a right, and that is the case here.

              Incidentally, I find it interesting that every response I’ve received which has disagreed with me has simply dismissed my arguments without so much as referencing a single one of them. My arguments are clear; either argue against them, claim them to be unclear, or accept that they are correct. Dismissing them just helps to bolster my case, since it shows that you read them but could not think of a valid argument against them.

            • Thecakepie says:

              @Ritashi You’re asking me to refute your points? Okay.

              This won’t be hard.

              First I want to establish your points. I can’t refute anything if I don’t address what you’re actually saying. I will stay organized so there won’t be any misunderstandings.

              1. “You’re misconstruing the whole scenario”
              Ok, I’m listening. But I’m a rational person so I’ll wait to see your reasons and evidence. I can learn nothing from a statement like this alone.

              2. “On the internet, there is no “self-defense”, because there is no danger to your person. ”
              So you’re saying you think this is an issue of self defense. And you’re saying the only kind of attack is a physical attack that threatens your body.

              There’s a flaw in these premises. First, this isn’t an issue of self defense. It’s an issue of inclusion. Everywhere I go men won’t leave me alone and let me play games. They force their stupid kitchen jokes on me and other women when we just want to play games. I am literally minding my own business and people will go out of their way to engage me with varying degrees of garbage. Sometimes it’s mild stuff like “Get in the kitchen” other times it’s so abusive they could be arrested for crimes. That I still play games and interact in online communities is proof that I can take a joke because what a lot of men don’t realize is that this isn’t just a one-time thing and one girl overreacted, but it’s a constant thing all the time everywhere no matter what I do. I know a TON of women who play games. I also know tons who can’t play certain games because it’s too much trouble to get in a game and have to deal with constant garbage from kitchen jokers. If this were about self-defense, I’d say to the one guy, “Please do not interact with me good sir, for I am unliking of your villainous humor and have no need of it. Good day!” and go about my business because that’s just one person in a personal interaction with me and I’m actually rather civil. I’m a writer so I practice communication for a living. But because it’s an issue of inclusion, and this guy led with this foot, unsolicited, and unprovoked, just like the hundreds of other men who have done it before, I stood up to it.

              3. “One person throws an insult, and then you have a choice. You can insult him back, or you can respond like an adult.”
              You’re saying there are only two ways to think about these non-physical threats: a. insult him back, b. respond like an adult?

              What does it mean to “respond like an adult?” Should I have asked the mod to ban him? If I did that it wouldn’t have ruffled feathers the same way for sure. But then so many men would be able to walk around and say “What ho! There are no kitchen jokes on the internet! Yon ladies are making this up for your own attention-seeking needs!” I’m not inclined to promote erasure of problems because if we just make them invisible they won’t go away. Adults know this. Saying nothing and asking the mods to ban him is rejected.

              If you think I should have just asked him not to talk to talk like that or not talk to me, it would have most likely created a shitstorm or been ignored. Ignored means he can go about making more kitchen jokes without having to pay attention. If someone says a hurtful thing on the internet and they don’t know it hurts people what reason do they have to stop doing it? Some otherwise decent guys are likely doing that right now. Then there are some people who don’t care about the feelings of others (plus how would you compel them to care in an online forum?), so we have to show them it’s wrong in other ways. I chose: making fun of his joke. Asking politely means being ignored politely. This is rejected.

              If you think I should have ignored it altogether I would have suffered. My suffering would buy this nice kitchen joker peace but it would be at my expense. Imagine that this happens everywhere women go, every time, and all the time. Other people don’t have the right to be jerks and then expect to be respected. You could argue that if I ignored it the forum wouldn’t have had to deal with it, but I think my reply made a lot of people happy because it’s an embarrassment to the games community that people still act this way and I’m not the only one who thinks so. The problem of erasure like I explained above applies here too. Further, I made my one reply and left it alone. I took my personal feelings to my own personal blog and didn’t say more on the forum because I wanted people to be able to have a fun time on the forum and if they didn’t want to talk about inequality they didn’t have to. I think that was pretty good restraint on my part. Ignoring the problem is rejected.

              4. “You threw childish insults, but did not get banned. That’s unequal treatment. ”

              False equivalence. I didn’t do the same thing he did. He came out of nowhere and posted garbage at me. We had never interacted before, it was an intro thread, and I didn’t say anything that warranted any negativity. He literally came of his own volition to this thread and blew his joke all over the place. If I had said a mean/rude/shitty thing to someone for no reason I should rightly be banned but that’s not what happened.

              And I did have a reason, didn’t I? Yes, I did. Someone personally came at me and said something stupid, horrible, and diminishing. I wasn’t kidding when I said I cried. I’m not the type of person who cries easily but this was crushing. After everything I had done in the game of Dredmor I might not be welcome among “my people” (other Dredmor fans). I weighed my choices and I thought if I replied to him well it might be that he doesn’t make any more women uncomfortable enough to leave online communities again. I also thought if I replied well other men reading the thread would decide not to make kitchen jokes either. A lot of good could come of that, and it’s more than just “GET THAT GUY”. I am not interested in “getting” anyone, I just want this kind of thing to stop and ideally it’d be nice if other people knew why it should stop. I JUST WANT TO BE ABLE TO PLAY GAMES, bro.

              5. “You should have responded like an adult, pointing out that his comment was rude and insulting (snide “and unoriginal” optional), but you did not. You had an easy way out where you win and don’t have to stoop to his level.”

              @Ritashi You’re asking me to refute your points? Okay.

              First I want to establish your points. I can’t refute anything if I don’t address what you’re actually saying. I will stay organized so there won’t be any misunderstandings.

              1. “You’re misconstruing the whole scenario”
              Ok, I’m listening. But I’m a rational person so I’ll wait to see your reasons and evidence. I can learn nothing from a statement like this alone.

              2. “On the internet, there is no “self-defense”, because there is no danger to your person. ”
              So you’re saying you think this is an issue of self defense. And you’re saying the only kind of attack is a physical attack that threatens your body.

              There’s a flaw in these premises. First, this isn’t an issue of self defense. It’s an issue of inclusion. Everywhere I go men won’t leave me alone and let me play games. They force their stupid kitchen jokes on me and other women when we just want to play games. I am literally minding my own business and people will go out of their way to engage me with varying degrees of garbage. Sometimes it’s mild stuff like “Get in the kitchen” other times it’s so abusive they could be arrested for crimes. That I still play games and interact in online communities is proof that I can take a joke because what a lot of men don’t realize is that this isn’t just a one-time thing and one girl overreacted, but it’s a constant thing all the time everywhere no matter what I do. I know a TON of women who play games. I also know tons who can’t play certain games because it’s too much trouble to get in a game and have to deal with constant garbage from kitchen jokers. If this were about self-defense, I’d say to the one guy, “Please do not interact with me good sir, for I am unliking of your villainous humor and have no need of it. Good day!” and go about my business because that’s just one person in a personal interaction with me and I’m actually rather civil. I’m a writer so I practice communication for a living. But because it’s an issue of inclusion, and this guy led with this foot, unsolicited, and unprovoked, just like the hundreds of other men who have done it before, I stood up to it.

              3. “One person throws an insult, and then you have a choice. You can insult him back, or you can respond like an adult.”
              You’re saying there are only two ways to think about these non-physical threats: a. insult him back, b. respond like an adult?

              What does it mean to “respond like an adult?” Should I have asked the mod to ban him? If I did that it wouldn’t have ruffled feathers the same way for sure. But then so many men would be able to walk around and say “What ho! There are no kitchen jokes on the internet! Yon ladies are making this up for your own attention-seeking needs!” I’m not inclined to promote erasure of problems because if we just make them invisible they won’t go away. Adults know this. Saying nothing and asking the mods to ban him is rejected.

              If you think I should have just asked him not to talk to talk like that or not talk to me, it would have most likely created a shitstorm or been ignored. Ignored means he can go about making more kitchen jokes without having to pay attention. If someone says a hurtful thing on the internet and they don’t know it hurts people what reason do they have to stop doing it? Some otherwise decent guys are likely doing that right now. Then there are some people who don’t care about the feelings of others (plus how would you compel them to care in an online forum?), so we have to show them it’s wrong in other ways. I chose: making fun of his joke. Asking politely means being ignored politely. This is rejected.

              If you think I should have ignored it altogether I would have suffered. My suffering would buy this nice kitchen joker peace but it would be at my expense. Imagine that this happens everywhere women go, every time, and all the time. Other people don’t have the right to be jerks and then expect to be respected. You could argue that if I ignored it the forum wouldn’t have had to deal with it, but I think my reply made a lot of people happy because it’s an embarrassment to the games community that people still act this way and I’m not the only one who thinks so. The problem of erasure like I explained above applies here too. Further, I made my one reply and left it alone. I took my personal feelings to my own personal blog and didn’t say more on the forum because I wanted people to be able to have a fun time on the forum and if they didn’t want to talk about inequality they didn’t have to. I think that was pretty good restraint on my part. Ignoring the problem is rejected.

              4. “You threw childish insults, but did not get banned. That’s unequal treatment. ”

              False equivalence. I didn’t do the same thing he did. He came out of nowhere and posted garbage at me. We had never interacted before, it was an intro thread, and I didn’t say anything that warranted any negativity. He literally came of his own volition to this thread and blew his joke all over the place. If I had said a mean/rude/shitty thing to someone for no reason I should rightly be banned but that’s not what happened.

              And I did have a reason, didn’t I? Yes, I did. Someone personally came at me and said something stupid, horrible, and diminishing. I wasn’t kidding when I said I cried. I’m not the type of person who cries easily but this was crushing. After everything I had done in the game of Dredmor I might not be welcome among “my people” (other Dredmor fans). I weighed my choices and I thought if I replied to him well it might be that he doesn’t make any more women uncomfortable enough to leave online communities again. I also thought if I replied well other men reading the thread would decide not to make kitchen jokes either. A lot of good could come of that, and it’s more than just “GET THAT GUY”. I am not interested in “getting” anyone, I just want this kind of thing to stop and ideally it’d be nice if other people knew why it should stop. I JUST WANT TO BE ABLE TO PLAY GAMES, bro.

              5. “You should have responded like an adult, pointing out that his comment was rude and insulting (snide “and unoriginal” optional), but you did not. You had an easy way out where you win and don’t have to stoop to his level.”

              I’ve already addressed responding like an adult above. The easy way out is apparently “being nicer” or “ignoring the problem” but that’s not actually a way out. What you say is oversimple. If I did those things I’d be done with that interaction, but the cost would be either leave the boys club community never to return or I’d stay and secretly hate it and never feel like it’s a safe or good place. I’d probably not want to play Dredmor anymore either. That’s how I and other women feel every time a guys say invalidating crap in a community. It’s not just a comment, it shows how people feel about me and my gender. Pointing out my gender as a reason to make fun of me, giving other men free reign to tease and bully me is diminishing. That’s what kitchen jokes are but you might not know because this differs so much from your own experience as a man. Even pretending to be a girl can’t teach you this because somewhere in your heart you know you’re still a man and at the end of the day you can walk away from it. I can’t walk away from it it follows me everywhere. It’s like horrible stalker who goes to all my online games, all the forums, and every convention. Every time he says “Get in the kitchen” he says ‘You don’t belong! And if you stay we’re going to keep this up.” So you’re right, I could walk away from it all, but that’s hardly “easy”. Would you want to leave the game community and never play games anymore?

              Saying nothing solves nothing. And if you want to talk about what people should do you risk ignoring what actually works. In this case, based on results saying nothing for like 20 years has gotten me ZERO good results. Being polite has gotten me ZERO good results. This is the first time I’ve stood up for myself in an online community and look at how many people responded to it. This shows how rarely women “take the adult solution” and the fact that kitchen jokes are still a problem shows how well that solution obviously worked for them. I don’t expect everyone who reads my blog to agree or understand but some will. I know I have gotten some people to see at last and that’s one more person who won’t diminish a woman who JUST WANTS TO PLAY GAMES. Just let us have the same as what you have: a place to go, and talk, and play, and be around people who love the stuff we love.
              Saying nothing solves nothing. And if you want to talk about what people should do you risk ignoring what actually works. In this case, based on results saying nothing for like 20 years has gotten me ZERO good results. Being polite has gotten me ZERO good results. This is the first time I’ve stood up for myself in an online community and look at how many people responded to it. That shows how often women “take the adult solution” and also how well that obviously worked for them. I don’t expect everyone who reads my blog to agree or understand but some will. I know I have gotten some people to see at last and that’s one more person who won’t diminish a woman who JUST WANTS TO PLAY GAMES. Just let us have the same as what you have: a place to go and talk and play and be around people who love the stuff we love.

            • Ritashi says:

              Actually, what I said you should do is point out how what he said was hurtful. That’s not ignoring the problem, that’s not asking a mod to ban him or cover it up. You can even get away with a clever and slightly insulting remark, so long as you’re talking about the insult itself and not making unfounded insults at the poster. And seeing as the mods were on your side, this would have been plenty to get their attention without stooping to his level. Incidentally, this was in fact a personal interaction. This is not a grand issue for you to deal with; this is in fact a personal interaction between two people. The fact that the other guy made a dumb and hurtful remark which happens to also relate to a larger issue of misogyny does not mean that you were having anything other than a personal interaction with him, nor does it change what constitutes reasonable interaction with him.

              And yes, I recognize that what he said and what you said aren’t exactly equivalent. You were provoked, he was not. His comment was sexist, yours was not. I’m not saying necessarily that you should be banned (I don’t know that forum’s code of conduct). I am saying that your reaction was wrong and uncalled for. Childish insults are beneath you, or should be.

              Incidentally, I do understand where you’re coming from. I get that you’re treated like shit for being a woman in gaming groups, and that’s wrong. Fight against that by being *better* than the idiots who give you that kind of shit. Don’t just respond with childish insults. Respond “like an adult”. By this I mean state your grievances openly, and don’t sink to their level. Basically, act like you might in person. Ya, sometimes you’ll get ignored, and that sucks. But sometimes, people will actually listen and take note. I promise you that intelligent people are a lot more likely to take you seriously if you act like an adult rather than use childish insults.

            • ffordesoon says:

              @Ritashi:

              Why is it her responsibility to explain why what he said was wrong? Why does the burden of proof have to be on her? How is that fair?

              If someone comes to a forum I frequent, and I find out they’re black, and I say “Black people steal!” as a joke (which, to be clear, I wouldn’t), why is it the black person’s resposibility to explain why that’s appalling? Shouldn’t it be self-evident to any thinking person on that forum that what I said was gross? Why does it fall to the offended party to calmly explain why that’s a shitty thing to do? Furthermore, why should the offended party firing back not be acceptable? I said something horrible and totally uncalled for, and you’re telling me it’s now the job of a person I’ve never met before to explain why I’m being an asshole, as opposed to just saying “fuck you” and getting on with their lives? Why? Because it’s bad to be rude to people who say horrible shit?

              The fact of the matter is, guys are allowed to bust each other’s chops and fire back at each other, but when a woman comes along and busts a guy’s chops, she’s seen as rude and uncivil and bitchy. Maybe it would’ve been better for everybody if she’d calmly educated the dude, but that always – always, without fail, I have seen this happen a million times – kicks off a circular discussion of the pros and cons of feminism, which then devolves into an argument over feminism, and then the thread’s locked and/or deleted, and everyone stays angry, and nobody learns anything. It is so, so much easier for a bunch of dudes on a gaming forum to dismiss someone when they say “As a feminist, I find that offensive, and here’s why!” than it is for them to dismiss someone who says, “Hey, asshole, go suck a tailpipe!” One response otherizes her even more, and one response tells them that she’s just a gamer like the rest of them.

              Is it playground-level trash talk? Sure. That’s the language most people on gaming forums speak. You’re acting like she walked into the Four Seasons and pissed on the floor, but I bet you a lot of those dudes (and dudettes – she can’t be the first woman to have signed up) trade “your mom” jokes like baseball cards. She wasn’t being mean as much as speaking the language. It’s easy to ask people to behave like they’re at a dinner party when they’re at a dinner party, but sometimes stooping to their level – whoever “they” might be – is the only way to be heard.

            • jalf says:

              Incidentally, I do understand where you’re coming from. I get that you’re treated like shit for being a woman in gaming groups, and that’s wrong. Fight against that by being *better* than the idiots who give you that kind of shit.

              Er, she *did*. By your own admission, she did *not* do what he did. She did not insult anyone with no provocation, and she did not use sexist remarks. She fought it by being better. Perhaps she wasn’t good enough to live up to *your* ideals for how women should behave when they’re insulted, but she was certainly *better*.

              Don’t just respond with childish insults. Respond “like an adult”. By this I mean state your grievances openly, and don’t sink to their level.

              Isn’t that what she did? Here and on her blog, for example?

              I promise you that intelligent people are a lot more likely to take you seriously if you act like an adult rather than use childish insults.

              Isn’t it funny how you seem to be nearly the only one who has a problem taking her seriously with this approach? Are you really in a position to “promise” anything?

              Her approach seems to have worked, you’ll note. When was the last time we saw this issue being tackled so effectively? I can’t remember *ever* seeing it. Usually, it either turns into a swift ban, a thread deletion or an endless argument over feminism and how bitchy women are.

              If you can truly, honestly “promise” that her post had been more effective had it been more polite, show us the evidence. When did a more polite answer to sexist insults on an online form turn out to be more effective than this has been?

              If you can’t conclusively *prove* that this would have been a more effective way to achieve her ends, then I really really don’t think you’re in a position to tell her how to best tackle sexism remarks. I kind of suspects she has a wee bit more experience with it than you do.

              Yes, she’s a woman, but that doesn’t automatically mean that you know better, or, for that matter, that you get to grade her performance.

        • Sarissofoi says:

          There is no girls on Internet.
          There are only gamers.
          If somebody claim to be a girl its mean that she/he want attention or some sort of better treatment.
          Some guys can see it as trying to take advantage over them in cheap way.
          I really don’t care if you a man or a woman on Internet. And I don’t wanna know that.
          What matter is that what you can share(story or experience) and not your sex.
          She should be banned for stating that she is a woman.

          ALL GLORY TO THE UNISEX!

          • Thecakepie says:

            You may not care that I’m a woman, not everyone is like you. Guys don’t have to hide their gender in order to “just play games”.

            It’s fun to play games and it isn’t fun to have uncomfortable interactions. I’d rather just play games and be at peace but I have to work hard to hide my femaleness just to play like you get to or I have to endure abuse for “being a female”. It’s stupid. In the end I want it to be okay that I’m a woman. I don’t post hot pics of myself to get guys to give me free stuff, I’m not tricking anyone, I’m just not hiding my femaleness. That’s not a crime, and I should get to play games just like you do: Without thinking about how to hide myself or putting up with bullshiterony.

          • JackShandy says:

            Boy, it never fails to depress me how RPS turns into this stuff with even the slightest hint of a story about sexism.

            • Shouldbeworking says:

              Jack, today at least I don’t get depression from this. I think thecakepie has eloquently and reasonably clearly stated her case here. It is heartening to see her story well communicated. I don’t think success should be assessed as “winning the entire internet to her(/our) cause”, but more as “explaining and educating those who don’t understand but are willing to consider why this is wrong”. In other words, I believe there are others who may not be posting who are changing their views.

              To be fair, I really didn’t get what the issue (sexism in gaming) was for a long time, and there are still issues around equality in gaming that I find difficult to address. For example, when I first read these kinds of stories, I still initially side with the guy and want to show the girl why she is wrong. It generally takes some time before I can read the facts objectively. This is something I find rather unsettling, since I usually pride myself on immediate, clear headed thinking. RPS has been instrumental in changing my views on this, and it certainly didn’t happen by reading just one article, but by reading a series of articles over a length of time.

              TL;DR – take some hope, some people’s views are changing. Mine did.

            • jalf says:

              I think what @Shouldbeworking said is a really really important point.

              Most of us don’t get it.

              It really is remarkably hard to put yourself in someone else’s shoes (and that’s not just true for men making offensive remarks about women). It *is* hard to understand why people make such a fuss about a stupid comment which obviously wasn’t intended to cause offense.

              Unless you’re the person who’s had to listen to these kinds of remarks for your entire life, that is.

              It’s easy to have good intentions. I’m 100% sure that the “kitchen joker” had good intentions. He just wanted to have a bit of light-hearted fun, and he certainly didn’t want to cause offense. I have no problem with his intentions. But he didn’t get *why* it wouldn’t be perceived that way.

              To me, that’s the really important part. It’s not about making him apologize for an inappropriate joke (which he did, or he thought he did, and which, at the end of the day, is completely insignificant and changes nothing). It’s about making him, and others, understand *why* the joke was inappropriate.

              It’s about making it a little bit less likely that the same joke pops up again tomorrow.

              That takes a lot of time, and a lot of hard work. And honestly, I think many, *both* men and women, underestimate the task. Because we’re not changing our minds from day to day. It’s not enough to shout “make privilege”, for example. Not even if you do it repeatedly and in a loud voice.

              But it’s a worthy goal to strive towards.

          • jalf says:

            If somebody claim to be a girl its mean that she/he want attention or some sort of better treatment.

            Hmm, really? So if I were to use the name ‘Joe’, what would that mean? Does it mean “I am a man and I want attention and better treatment”, or does it merely mean “I just decided to go by the name Joe for now”?

            Now, if I were to pick the name ‘Jane’ instead, why on Earth should that mean anything different? If we are allowed to use “male” names online with no consequences, no mistrust, no accusations of being attention-whores, why should we not also be allowed to use “female” names?

      • ScorpionWasp says:

        Anyone who parachuted into a game forum claiming to be a “badass” for “totally owning” the game in question would be greeted by a tidal wave of trash talk. Oh, but it’s a tiny little girl with a fragile little ego who can’t handle that sorta thing, therefore it’s totally unacceptable. I ask. WHO’S being sexist here?

        Where are all those outraged white knights when the thousands of Mr. Scrawny Acne-Ridden Nerds get “abused” in similar veins?

        • PleasingFungus says:

          Who’s being sexist?

          Hm, I don’t know, you make some good points. Let me think… is it the moderator who moderated a troll/harasser on the internet, or the guy who told a woman to “get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich”?

          It’s so hard to decide!

          (Oh, think of the poor persecuted mens!)

          • ScorpionWasp says:

            Indeed, if moderation of trolling was the norm for EVERYONE, ALWAYS, then “sexist” is not an accusation I’d be able to level at it (“stuck-up” and “puritan” I could in that case, but not “sexist”). But these things only ever become a problem when some girl goes in, gets treated THE VERY SAME as anyone who did the things she did, and starts crying because she knows that, unlike the scrawny nerds that would just get re-laughed at again, called cry-babies, called losers, accused of living in their parents’ basement etc (no one has sympathy for men. You’re expected to “man up”), her tears will attract a horde of men to do her defending for her.

            But of course, NONE of that will be even considered. Everyone just “knows” that men are privileged and that’s that, end of the conversation, no need to examine the facts, get out of here you white anglo-saxon male. It’s a dogma that not even all the evidence in the world will convince otherwise. Like trying to prove the Earth is round to medieval people.

            • LennyLeonardo says:

              Oh, that’s helpful. I thought “WHO’S BEING SEXIST?” was a rhetorical question, but you kindly answered it for us. It’s you.

        • Thecakepie says:

          I didn’t get any trash talk when I posted my win, actually. Further, the kitchen joke was made in the introductions thread where I literally introduced myself the same way I saw other people do, I did not even mention my achievement. I wouldn’t have a problem if people had heckled what I did instead of knee-jerk diminished me for being a ladyperson and it’s super weird that you think I would have. This isn’t my first rodeo.

        • dE says:

          On a final sidenote from me:
          It’s a perfectly fine and normal behavior for roguelike players to talk about their wins. Roguelikes are difficult, really difficult. If you look at games like Stonesoup Dungeon Crawl, you will notice that a lot of people have only ever won a game by reading about the experiences of others. YASD and Run Topic are the very center of the roguelike community. And yes, there’s a bit of boasting as well. And it’s fine. A roguelike beaten is a rare occurance.

          • Thecakepie says:

            Yeah it is! It’s not my first roguelike, nor my first win (I also beat powder, multiple times). I got very close on Nethack (IMO the hardest!) but it’s such a grind I saved my game and left it for a week. I came back on one of those “It’s 3am and I can’t sleep” days and did something stupid (I forgot that I had already gotten every positive intrinsic in the game but I fucking ate a corpse trying to get the intrinsic and didn’t remember that I had a amulet of unbreathing, I didn’t put it on and I choked to death). After that day I was so discouraged I didn’t play Nethack anymore. I’ll probably play it again someday because I want to beat it.

            I’ve played nearly every rogue, and I love them so much. Something about the one chance to win coupled with the strategy elements and precision that speaks to me I guess. I wish more people knew how fun they were but most just die, die, die, die, die and get discouraged then quit. It’s such a high to finally live, keep trying!

        • Ergates_Antius says:

          Well done. you’re the first person I’ve ever blocked on RPS.

      • jimjam says:

        Yes they seemed very proactive at slapping down sexist comments.
        I recommend using the internet’s golden rule; Never rely on other people that don’t know you!

        I certainly don’t expect anybody to agree with this post of mine! ;)

        EDIT: I now notice that cakepie states the remark was made in the intro thread.

        • Ergates_Antius says:

          1) The kitchen comment was made in response to the introductions thread, not the boasting thread.

          2) Just because something is prevalent doesn’t mean we should just accept it and not try to do something about it.

          3) Based on my experiences with Dredmor, I’d say the boasting was totally justified.

    2. thestage says:

      Yeah, Cliffy B, who needs criticism!

      by the way your games suck

    3. RedViv says:

      Gaslamp made me adore my eyebrows, and I will adore them in return. This only heightens the adorinessity by 28.7%, roughly estimated.

    4. WebFusion says:

      I think you would be surprised how many mature gamers look down on the sexual harassment of female players. Our game community is in it’s 5th year, and we’ve had a long-standing zero-tolerance policy for sexual harassment of females on our servers (and several serve in the highest admin positions in our community). In fact, we’ll be holding our second “Women of War” tournament next year, exclusively for our female members.
      .

      Not every group are a bunch of cavemen. As far as we’re concerned, we don;t care where you come from, what color your skin is, or what sex you are (or prefer), as long as you can play as a team, you’re welcome.

      • Vander says:

        And you do “men at war” tournament? Because if not, it is sexist to refuse the entrance of a tournament because you have a penis, no?

        This comment is of the tongue in cheek sort, to be honest, but not entirely. If you in fact did a tournament only for men, you could be sure that someone would have moaned, but the contrary doesnt raise a eyebrow.

        • PleasingFungus says:

          Vander, here’s a question for you. Turn the situation around and ask: why do people think it’s acceptable to hold “women’s-only” events, but not men-only?

          (One of those groups is systemically harassed and discriminated against online, to the point where most hide their gender while gaming. Maybe it makes sense for that group to get a safe space, where they don’t have to worry about being attacked for who they are, while the opposite would be just another example of privilege and discrimination against a persecuted group? Maybe-just-maybe?)

          • RvLeshrac says:

            Having non-inclusive events simply makes things worse for the parties involved.

            “Oh, a girls-only game conference? What, couldn’t compete with the guys?”

            • Thecakepie says:

              There’s your proof right there that women are valued less.

        • Thecakepie says:

          What would be the point of having a tournament for men? All of them are already for men. It’d be like having “White history month” when we already overinclude the stories of whites as the historically important ones and exclude the stories of other races as “special” history that we can ignore.

          You say it’s sexist to have a tournament only for women but I think you’re missing the point. The big problem of sexism isn’t about whether we treat the sexes “the same”. Right now the biggest problem in sexism is oppression. Right now, one group has power over the other, is chosen over the other, and is valued over the other. So when you want to fix that you have to do work to include the group that is left out (and in this case that’s anyone not a man).

          • Capt. Eduardo del Mango says:

            As a man I’m chosen over women? What about if I have a divorce, and I’ve got less than a 10% chance of gaining custody of my children? I am valued over women? So why am I three to four times more likely to kill myself than a woman? I have power over you? How?

            Bullshit patriarchal gender roles apply to all of us, Cakepie. They define me as a breadwinner, as practical, as emotionally uninterested in children. You see that as my being ‘valued’ over women – well, what if I don’t want to be a breadwinner? What if I want to be a parent, but society – as evidenced by divorce custody figures – values you more as a parent than me as it believes my place is in the office? Your focus on women’s oppression seems to imply that you think it acceptable that I be placed into one box (office), but unacceptable that women be placed in another (kitchen). I would say that both boxes are bad ideas.

            Please, please, don’t turn it in to haves and have nots. Patriarchal gender roles hurt all of us, not just women, and it is vital that we all examine them rather than rendering them off limits to men.

            • Thecakepie says:

              Those things may suck but it’s not valid to the context of gaming. In online forums, in game tournaments, in actual games, and in the perception about who is good at games men do have power. Men are the default power here, because they are the default “person who plays games and is good at them”. As the default, non-men are considered “other” and they carry less value in the context of games. Men have more power to perpetuate this status as well because they get status and power and inclusion for just being men.

              When men have higher status in a community, men then also have to power to destroy women reputationally. All you have to say to your gamer friends is “that girl’s a bitch” or “that girl’s crazy” and now she’s a social pariah. No one will play games with her, and if they do they’ll treat her as a person of low status and not with respect. If you don’t think this happens it’s because you’re not a woman so this hasn’t been your experience.

              As for how society itself disadvantages men, the things you complain about are actually also part of the patriarchy that has rules for how men and women must be and behave and the different value they place on men and women arbitrarily (“women are more caring” and “men are good leaders and earners”). Depending on what you want, sometimes men get shafted in favor of women, but in most ways women aren’t even included because the dominant default person is still a man. Movies, TV shows, in the workplace, and tons of other places we treat guys as standard and women as other, like a fun minority or an accessory. I’m a woman and I feel the same way about bias and unfair decisions as you do, so in the end I really think we have more in common than we disagree on.

              So instead of displaying your point by proving my point understand my point. I think it’s terrible when people make decisions about how to treat an individual person by simple biases instead of good reasons. A person who is a woman isn’t necessarily the best carer for a child, and a person who is a man isn’t necessarily a better leader than a woman. If we can all learn to discard these bias we’ll all be better, and we’ll all suffer less, and our world will be more fair.

          • RvLeshrac says:

            There are more female voters than male, in the US.

            There is a higher turnout among female voters than male voters, in the US.

            http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/voters/turnout.php

            So exactly how in the holy fuck do Men have “power” over women?
            How, exactly, do so many Republicans who are anti-women’s-rights get elected?

            If women want to change things, they don’t have to look any further than the voting booth. Because women *ALREADY* have a larger amount of power than men.

            • Thecakepie says:

              Are you trying to say that voting and politics are the only/best kind of power? Something fishy must be going on if it IS true that men are in power and it IS true that there are a significantly more women voters. One conclusion is that even women can be affected by sexism to where they think men are better leaders and women are weak because society has taught us that this is the case just like they have taught men. And men may naturally vote for each other because they have shared experiences and would want someone in power who they think understands them.

              There are very rigid gender roles we are trained into and we don’t just “grow out of” that. We have to unlearn it. It’s not just going to be a matter of “all the women banding together” to vote up the right woman. Look at how men in power are voting to strip women of tons of healthcare rights?

          • Vander says:

            Well, i will say that the solution is to organize all tournaments without insult against women, and punishing those who do not follow the rules. If the group WebFusion speak of is really against discrimination, its not very difficult to enforce. Someone see a guy behaving badly, screenshot send to a modo, done.

            And like Capt. Eduardo del Mango say, women do have some advantage in everyday life. To the points he made, i will add reproduction right, where a women have all the choice when it concern their body, wich is perfectly normal, but the man have to assume this choice even if he doesn’t want to and was tricked…wich is not.

            Or the fact that for the same crime, women are uually condemned with lower sentences (spelling?).

            Or the army. As an ex foreign legionnaire, my unit was entirely male, but in the others units, females have physical requirements lower than those of men for the same job. Same for the firefighters. Wich actually can cause serious problems.

            Anyway, to return to the point: I see no reason to do a tournament specially for women. Nothing in the fact that you are a woman warrant that. Why do it then? If women want that we treat them equally, its not the right way. And no, i do not treat women equally. I don’t hit women for example, never did, and would do it only to defend myself against serious injury.

            And i would like to add that it is a lot of “drama” (not a very good word but the best i found, english is not mu first language like you probably noticed) for a sexist asshole who was dealt with. (or i missread and he was not?)

        • Gormongous says:

          I love how any event where the hetero white male isn’t welcome with open arms is vastly more troubling to some people than any actual racism or sexism.

          Don’t worry, your privilege is still intact, for now. It’s just this one thing you’re excluded from. You still have the run of all society otherwise.

          • Capt. Eduardo del Mango says:

            I reiterate – family, child raising, alarming suicide rates in men, much higher likelihood of violent deaths/criminal convictions. Repeating the word “privilege” does not prove a point that every element in society favours men. Gender roles affect all of us – they put all of us in boxes. They only ‘privilege’ men according to the bullshit patriarchal gender roles that we are trying to get rid of. I don’t want to be ‘privileged’ by being designated ‘breadwinner’ and expected to work 8.30am-6.30pm in an office every day of the week. I do not have the run of “all society” because I am a man. You are wrong.

            You are lumping “all men” in as one and not listening to them. Please, stop generalizing so much. You are talking to people who want these ridiculous gender roles to stop applying to everyone, stop claiming “Oh it’s all fun for men and you’re all privileged bastards”. It’s hurtful and it’s a comment you are in no position to make.

            • Gormongous says:

              Funny that you’re the one quoting statistics and then claiming I’m over-generalizing. I know my privilege. I know I can walk into any job or any neighborhood and get treated better than someone with darker skin or an X chromosome. I know that, on the whole, authorities find me more trustworthy than those other groups, which is probably why I get paid better too.

              So you can take your White Man’s Burden and shove it, really. You’re oppressed by societal expectations of work and achievement? So are we all! Only, some women and minorities have to do it with a thumb or two on the scale. The whole reason you can’t do ballet and remain manly is because women’s activities are denigrated. The oppressor can’t take on the role of the oppressed, that’s unseemly. But the existence of taboo does not equate to a lack of privilege. You just don’t get to have every little thing, and it’s telling how distressing that is to you.

              Seriously, RPS. I know that, for some of you, the article hit too close to home for you to come out in open support, but I thought we were better than the average gaming community.

            • Capt. Eduardo del Mango says:

              Oh, dear. What a depressing reply.

              Your model is built entirely on the concept of ‘privilege’, which is fine – mine isn’t, I don’t think that’s very useful. We might have been able to discuss it but you’ve arrived and been so, so overwhelmingly hostile…Apparently I’m just bitter ‘cos I can’t have “every little thing!” You have much, much confidence in your own gaze.

              “The oppressor can’t take on the role of the oppressed,”

              I AM NOT OPPRESSING. Just because I am a man I do not hate women or support patriarchal gender roles. I’m on your side. Don’t call me the ‘oppressor’. I have never, ever called anyone a ‘slut’, I never used gendered insults, I do everything that I think I can to make gender roles impact less on everybody including women, I will stand up against misogyny whenever I think I see it. I want to help, and I want to talk to people who also want to help but have different opinions.

              You don’t know my life, my situation, my context. I’m just trying to say gender affects all of us, I’m not trying to say “I have it worse” or “we all have it the same”, just that “hey, this bullshit isn’t fun for us either.” And you’ve flipped, said a man can’t say that and accused me of having a tantrum because I “want everything”. You’re not going to treat me like a human being, are you? You want to shout at a nasty man.

              How sad.

            • Gormongous says:

              You say you’re not oppressing even as you type out apologies for oppression. You’re not on my side, not with that attitude.

              http://www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/

            • Capt. Eduardo del Mango says:

              Aw, man. I’m not typing out apologies for oppression, I’m saying that when I see somebody being an asshole to somebody else based on their gender I try to make a point that I don’t think it’s OK (and because you’re primarily concerned about women I made the example specific – when I see somebody being an asshole to somebody else because they’re a woman I try to make a point that I don’t think it’s OK), and that still makes me an “oppressor”?

              You say I’m not on your side because of “that attitude”. What attitude? You said a problem exists, I agreed and said I try to tackle that problem. You’re trying really, really hard to keep positioning me as being somehow hostile to yourself and I think that’s very telling.

              If you don’t want to discuss things then I’ll stop trying to have a discussion with you, which is a shame.

          • RvLeshrac says:

            Excluding white men isn’t the issue. The issue is excluding everyone who isn’t the same as you. What’s retarded here is that you can’t seem to understand that excluding people is wrong, no matter the reason. Period. End of story.

            If women want to change things, they already have the power. But society doesn’t change from the top down.

            • Gormongous says:

              If excluding people is the issue, why does the explicit exclusion of men from one event deserve your attention and anger, rather than the mass exclusion of women from most other events? You talk about fairness, but what you’re really concerned about is upsetting the status quo.

            • RvLeshrac says:

              From exactly what events are women excluded?

              The presence of some assholes does not “exclusion” make. I’m sure there are racists at some events, but that doesn’t mean black/mexicans/jews/asians are ‘excluded’ from those events, it just means there are some assholes attending those events as well.

            • Consumatopia says:

              The presence of some assholes does not “exclusion” make.

              Yes, harassment excludes people. It deters people from participating.

            • RvLeshrac says:

              Harassment isn’t ‘excluding’ anyone. Harassment is making them feel uncomfortable, but if someone is making you feel uncomfortable, you DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

              And that ‘SOMETHING’ should not be ‘Immediately leap into accusing their entire gender or race of the same harassment.’

              Again, these posts are rarely “We need to work harder to stop/ban/whatever these assholes,’ but ‘Why are gamers/men such assholes?’

            • Ergates_Antius says:

              1) Harrassment very much *is* exclusive. Making people feel uncomfortable in an environment is a method of excluding them from that environment.

              2) Nice bit of victim blaming there – if people are made so uncomfortable in an environment they feel compelled to leave it, then it’s their fault?

              3) Also a nice staw man – no one here (or in any of these arguments I’ve ever seen) has ever accused all men/gamers of being arseholes. That isn’t the argument here – it only exists in your imagination.

            • Cooper says:

              @Levshrac

              Harassment is a form of exclusion. (because how the hell would you want to be part of a grouping that harasses you?)

              Secondly. “Exclusion” through regulation (i.e. all women games) is open, honest exclusion. The kind of exclsuion you are blind to is the kind of exclusion that is a result of sexism (often unintended, unthought, and thus invisible to those perpetuating it and not on the recieving end of it).

              You cannot see the kind of exclusionary processes which make it difficult for those who do not ‘fit in’ by simple virtue of gender. Just because you cannot see them, does not mean they do not exist.

              Gaming communities are often exlcusionary without realising they are. One response to this is to produce safe, welcoming places.

              Creating safe places is very much not the same as creating places that tolerate harrassment and predjudice.

          • CrookedLittleVein says:

            As a white Caucasian male from a veeeeeery poor background and a sufferer of mental health issues I’m intrigued by the idea that I somehow have the run of all society, rather than being distrusted, labelled a failure and accused of “faking it”.

            Oh wait, stereotypes.

            • Capt. Eduardo del Mango says:

              Healthcare’s a good example – it’s the epitome of what has long, reasonably, been described as a bastion of male privilege. For example, witness how control of birthing was taken from midwives and given to doctors through the C18th, how the birthing position changed to the detriment of women, etc etc.

              But focusing on that stops us thinking about how we now relate healthcare and gender. Witness fund-raising rates for women’s cancers versus men’s cancers, or the growing sense that men are excluded from mental health issues (as you, and I, have experienced).

              Clearly this isn’t to say “Ooh healthcare now works for women” – that’s a moronic thing to say. But claiming it’s run ‘by men for men’ also stops us thinking reasonably and logically about it.

              Gormongous – it’s people like me and CrookedLittleVein who are very much hurt by your comments, because we’re white men who haven’t “had the run of society”, and have found our white male-ness generates problems of its own. And, despite the fact that we have penises, we’re people too. Please consider us at the same level as you would a woman.

            • Gormongous says:

              I feel for you, honest I do. My family isn’t exactly wealthy either. But conflating class privilege, white privilege, and male privilege isn’t productive, in the end.

            • CrookedLittleVein says:

              But it is productive, because they are often inextricably linked. Class, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation; they all play a role in how you fit into society and, in the case of bigots and pea brains, how people will assess your overall value as a person.

              I genuinely look forward to the day when humanity as a whole can overcome this weird hatred of the “other”.

            • RvLeshrac says:

              That’s my point. Why can’t it be “us vs. assholes’ instead of “Women vs. Men’ or ‘Black vs. White’?

              Whenever I see one of these posts, it doesn’t take long for “this asshole said something stupid” to turn into “ALL MEN ARE SCUM” parodical-feminism.

            • Thecakepie says:

              @CrookedLittleVein
              It sounds like you have other complex factors against you that undermine a lot of the power you’d ordinarily get for being a default white male. Disability and class are serious factors too and in certain areas it supercedes gender.

              We can all learn from this to stop making snap judgment about what people are like based on categorical classifications about them. We all do it, so we have to practice new habits. I’m sorry if you have a hard time, as a disabled person from a poor background I hear you. It must be especially tough to have a disability that is so burdened with stigmatization in our culture.

            • jalf says:

              Well, you can ask yourself if you’d be better off if you were a black woman “from a veeeeeery poor background and a sufferer of mental health issues”. Would that make you more or less distrusted? More or less branded “a failure” or accused of faking it?

              I don’t think anyone ever claimed that “every single white male owns the entire world and can tell everyone everywhere what to do”.

            • CrookedLittleVein says:

              “Well, you can ask yourself if you’d be better off if you were a black woman “from a veeeeeery poor background and a sufferer of mental health issues”. Would that make you more or less distrusted? More or less branded “a failure” or accused of faking it?”

              That really has very little to do with my point, but;

              I just might be, actually. In my fairly extensive experience, women are treated far better than men with regards to mental illness. Women can often get by with being more socially reserved or shy, without it being seen as overtly wrong. As a man suffering from crippling social anxiety however, I’m viewed as the complete antithesis of what a man should be and therefore, either a failure or faking it for attention/some kind of handout (which I have deliberately NOT sought out because I’d rather stand on my own two lower limbs). I’ve known many women who’ve revealed their mental illness and received much sympathy for their plight and rightly so. My own experience however, upon revealing one or two of the problems that have plagued me (not really comfortable revealing any more hilariously painful handicaps), is often a noticeable distrust, as though I might attempt to attack them at any moment. And any time I do get the slightest bit angry, they react as though I’m planning to blow up the building or gun down half the faculty. I’m mentally ill. I am not the Joker. I am not Hannibal. Your faces and large piles of money are safe from me. Promise. ;)

              On the other hand, I imagine a black man would almost certainly have it far worse than me.

              “I don’t think anyone ever claimed that “every single white male owns the entire world and can tell everyone everywhere what to do”.”

              That’s true to a degree, but the core belief does exist in the minds of many people. I for one am fed up of people looking at me and seeing nothing but a white guy, who must automatically be well off, never stopped by the police, never treated with suspicion, never excluded for something I can’t change, rather than a complex human being who just might be more than the stereotype a lot of people seem to imagine.

          • Ritashi says:

            Probably because those events represent completely institutionalized and socially accepted racism and sexism, as opposed to individual discrimination such as one guy making a sexist comment on a gaming forum. If it’s not ok to have a male-only event, then it’s not ok to have a female-only event. Saying that a female-only event is ok but that a male-only event is not just screams double standards, and I think a lot of people fear that as a society we’re beginning to once again find racism or sexism acceptable, so long as it’s happening to the majority. We’ve gotten to a point where most discrimination against women and minorities (not all, but most) is a collection of individual discriminations rather than institutional discrimination. Women may get paid less, but that’s because of a consistent phenomenon where an individual woman is discriminated against rather than because businesses have a policy of paying women less. There are very few institutions that discriminate against women as part of their policy. I know I don’t want to see us return to a point where it’s considered acceptable for institutions to discriminate via policy. As it is, we can continue to work on reducing individual discrimination, without needing to make policies that discriminate.

            • Cooper says:

              Except you miss that most events are ‘male only’ not by dessign but by the community being filled with harassment and predjudice.

              In this situation, produing welcoming environments through excllusion is more than justified.

              Arguing about “equality” in regulation (i.,e: who and who is not allowed into a grouping) only totoally misses the background of unthought, unsees predjudice.

              Were there no such thing as harassment and predjudice, a discussion about regulation would make sense. Until such utopian existence exist, we do what we can.

            • Ritashi says:

              2 points. First, if you want to create a welcoming environment, it only takes a mod or two and a group of people who aren’t dicks. Men can be just as welcoming to women as women, so long as those men both understand how sexist comments hurt women and aren’t dicks. I’m heterosexual, but I’ve attended a few LGTB events at my school. Because I have friends in that community. None of them ever wanted to force me away because I was straight; instead they welcomed me because I was a person who understood their position and wasn’t a dick. It was still a welcoming environment for people who were uncomfortable with their sexuality or with how they were treated when talking about it. The only people you have to exclude to create a welcoming environment are the ignorant and the dicks who know better and don’t care. I can welcome female gamers (I’ve known several, both irl and online only) just as well as a female can, and I daresay it’s more meaningful when I, as a man, treat them exactly like I would any other gamer than when they’re accepted into a safe place with only women because men are scary.

              Second, I made an explicit point about institutionalized discrimination through policy as opposed to collective individual discrimination. One of those is what we used to have before major civil rights movements of the last century. And one of them is what we have today. Women are not institutionally excluded from gaming circles (in the vast majority of cases). They are excluded from some because the individuals in that group discriminate against them via sexist insults and comments. However, those are two very different types of discrimination. You can bet that any group that had a policy of “men only” would get a lot of flak for being sexist. Socially, sexism via policy is simply not acceptable anymore. Now we have a different problem, which is that the majority of gaming groups (I’m guessing at majority, I don’t have hard evidence for that) include some members who make sexist remarks, and do not have any sort of moderation via mods or peer pressure which acts to stop those members. This is a much harder problem to solve, and it will never go away completely (dicks will be dicks). Informing people of how it can hurt women helps. It’s worth noting that there are a lot of well-moderated groups on the internet. Inform these groups of how sexist comments can hurt, and then inform women of where to find these groups that actually moderate their members. XBox Live voice chat will never improve, for women or for anyone else. It’s a worthless pile of garbage, because there is no moderation so it’s full of trolls. If women don’t want to deal with dicks and trolls, then given the dissemination of relevant information women can simply find a better-moderated group to hang out in. That’s the long-term solution, in gaming circles. Dicks will be dicks, and it makes no difference what happens in the future; they will be spewing sexist and racist comments until the end of time. If you don’t want to deal with them (I sure as hell don’t) then find well-moderated parts of the internet, like RPS or those Dungeons of Dredmor forums. The major hurdle is to make sure that those groups moderate sexism as much as any other form of douchebaggery.

              As an aside, I’m honestly curious about something. I almost never reveal my gender online (particularly in games) except when I’m on voice chat, not because I’m hiding it or anything but just because it never comes up (I reveal my gender whenever it does, but it simply almost never comes up except over voice comms when it’s apparent from my voice. I’m guessing that the forums from the article had a gender identification on the profile, which I’ve seen before). Is the major problem with sexism then primarily over voice comms, or is there a reason that women reveal their gender in other places that I’m not thinking of? I ask only because I’m genuinely curious. I’m not in any way trying to claim that the problem is unimportant or less significant, I just want to understand more of how female gamers are affected.

    5. kwyjibo says:

      It’s not Naomi Klein, it’s Naomi Wolf.

    6. applecup says:

      Dang. I think I now love Gaslamp Games.

      I should really actually try to play Dredmor sometime…

    7. Sleepymatt says:

      The Dredmor/sexism articles are very heartwarming to read… perhaps a small chink of light in the cesspit of internet “behaviour”. It’s sad to see that even then, some jerk felt moved enough to whinge about “freedom of speech” whilst ignoring “responsibility for speech” and finishing off with some classic idiotic misanthropy in the comments on the second one. Top marks to the blogger for managing to reply to him with a rational post!

    8. Beartastic says:

      I don’t see your italics :(

    9. gschmidl says:

      Jesus Christ this EA promotion is the worst thing. Plus their classy response to Eurogamer after pulling the Tomahawk!

      “OH WELL I suppose if you sissy-ass liberals HATE AMERICA then we JUST CAN’T GIVE MONEY TO CHARITY. Why DO you hate America?”

      • Hoaxfish says:

        It’s like they don’t understand the concept of charity.

        “If you pay us to shoot your family, we’ll give some money to a medical charity”
        “What do you mean you find that distasteful! If we can’t shoot your family, where do you expect our money to come from!”

        EA is probably confused as to why there isn’t a “gun for every child” or “no child left unarmed” charity

        • Shuck says:

          “why there isn’t a “gun for every child” or “no child left unarmed” charity”
          I have, in fact, heard about such charities. America: We don’t try to parody ourselves, it just happens.

      • Dances to Podcasts says:

        I’m slightly confused, actually. Did they just withdraw the tomahawk and leave all the other weapons?

      • Leosaurus says:

        Just wanted to point out that tomahawks are REALLY fucking useful for outdoorsy people like me. I don’t carry a bush knife with me anymore when I go into the deep woods for a few days’ hike. I carry a cold steel tomahawk and a machete. The hawk can do everything a bush knife is capable of and replace a camp axe at the same time. It’s an excellent tool, and that’s exactly what it is: a tool. It’s not a weapon, it just got used at one in extremis….the same way eastern peoples turned the hand scythe into the kami.

        That being said, I’m a veteran. I’d have bought this shit anyways, so why not have the profits go to charity? The person who kicked up a stink like this is a fucking doofus who just ensured that the money goes to line the pockets of the weapons manufacturers and not to the charity. Good job shooting yourself in the foot, you self righteous dumbass.

        • Cooper says:

          Tomahawk sold as ‘outdoors’ equimpent =!= tomahawk sold as a deadly weapon.

          Though the design may be the same, context matters.

    10. Bluefox says:

      I’m confused by the GOG piece here. OK, so Tomb Raider: AoD wasn’t good. And maybe the description could do with a little less marketing.. But paging through the rest of the catalog, I don’t see much subjectivity elsewhere. No game says “this is actually pretty terrible.” The Indigo Prophecy description doesn’t mention that it starts out cool and innovative, and degrades into idiocy after the second act. Or that Chronicles of Riddick: Dark Athena is a half-baked sequel with the sole redeeming feature of the re-release of Butcher Bay. Etc, etc.

      All of that info is in the user-written reviews, not a quarter of the page down. Tomb Raider: AoD has several two-star reviews already. If a game is genuinely bad, it will get rated down. If a buyer can’t find it within themselves to scroll down a little bit to make sure they’re not getting a stinker, then, well, buyer beware.

      GOG’s purpose, as a retailer, is to sell games. Their “promise” to have fans write the description is *inherently* biased towards writers that *liked the game*. You’re bound to get people who like anything, even agricultural simulators, or bad Tomb Raider gymnastics, especially if there’s even a little bit of nostalgia attached.

      • grundus says:

        Exactly, it’s hardly surprising that a shop that sells products would try to make said products sound more appealing than they might actually be. GOG is far better than, say, Steam at telegraphing what other actual players think of the games, on Steam you usually have a bullshit Metacritic score but otherwise you have to browse the forums and see what criticisms people have of the game and what the response to those criticisms are. GOG gives you an average user score and often wordy reviews on the page right under the blurb which is excellent and hasn’t (in conjunction with YouTube research) steered me wrong yet. I must say, I love buying stuff from GOG, but that’s quite often due to overwhelming nostalgia.

      • BobsLawnService says:

        GOG is littered with crap and unless you’ve had experience with a game it isn’t worth buying anything. The last game I bought was Aquanox 2 on the basis of its genre, the blurb and the gushing user reviews GOG seems to boost to the front page.

        I’d rather save my money thanks.

        • Kaira- says:

          I’d say GOG has a higher ratio of quality games to rubbish than, say, Steam or GamersGate. Unless you hate adventure games of old with a fiery passion, that is.

          • BobsLawnService says:

            Besides the fact that Steam and GamersGate don’t have *Good* Old Games as a name the business models are completely different. In GOG’s case they have a different way of sourcing their older games. They actaully select which games they get to sell as opposed to the others which tend to publish just about everything.

            • Kaira- says:

              Well, actually it’s just GOG nowadays. Also, I wonder what this “crap” is that GOG is filled with, because I’m hard pressed trying to find more than a few.

        • grundus says:

          “GOG is littered with crap and unless you’ve had experience with a game it isn’t worth buying anything.”

          That’s a bit unfair, what about Descent, Freespace, Syndicate and, to an extent, Myst? Of course you need to research them like any other purchase to make sure it’s what you think it is but those games are all still great to play now, maybe not unique or the best of their genre but they still stand out in my opinion and are well worth playing.

        • pertusaria says:

          A quick look at “see all user reviews” for Angel of Darkness with the option set to “newest first” rather than “most useful first” shows that the reviews that are on the main page at the moment are more negative than some others. I doubt GOG is guilty of quietly up-rating positive reviews, although it or its users may be down-rating very short reviews like “It’s crap, would not buy”.

      • V. Profane says:

        Perhaps since the “old” is no longer relevant they also don’t care about the “good”. It’s just Games now.

      • pertusaria says:

        It’s hard for me to be sure, since I read the description in GOG after reading about how disappointing and unloved the game was, but I think you can tell that they’re not all that enthusiastic about it in the sales blurb. True, they do tell the reader “not to miss” this game, but compare it to the description of Master of Orion (I picked a game I thought GOG staff would probably be keen on). “Play as Lara or her male counterpart… story-driven gameplay… new controls allowing hand to hand combat” versus “One of the best 4x games ever… absolutely addictive gameplay… tactical ship combat”.

        Fair enough, they should be held to their promise not to write their pages in marketing speak, but I don’t think their description of this game would lead me to think it was the best-ever Tomb Raider title. (Disclaimer – I haven’t played it, so I don’t know how far off the description is from reality.)

    11. Anthile says:

      It’s not only Angel of Darkness but plenty of other famously terrible games like Daikatana, Crusaders of Might & Magic, Might & Magic 9 and others that are advertised as if they were legitimately good games.

    12. Valvarexart says:

      I remember EA saying something like “well, at least we don’t sell weapons, RIGHT?” during the whole EA worst company of all time debacle.

    13. Moni says:

      How about a game where you play as an anthropomorphic gun. That thing about first-person shooters where it looks like you have a gun sticking out of the front of your face is there because you have a gun sticking out of the front of your face.

      Also the ‘talk’ button would make you shoot angry bullets at people.

      • LionsPhil says:

        How about a game where you play as an anthropomorphic gun.

        Sounds decidedly dubious.
        “Yes! Slam that fresh magazine in! Now line me up and give my trigger a firm squeeze!”

        And then the protagonist holds E to swap you for the slightly bigger gun an enemy dropped. ‘Tis a sad tale.

      • Hoaxfish says:

        Pretty sure I was reading a japanese manga this morning which matched that idea, though it was pretty much wrapped in the common “school girls are actually X” (in this case, guns).

        • Salix says:

          I’m slightly depressed I know exactly which manga you’re talking about.

          • The Random One says:

            Is it the one in which they change into guns? Wait, no, in that one they didn’t change into guns, they changed into tanks and fighter jets.

            …which means there are at least two ‘schoolgirls are military hardware’ anime out there. Huh

            • PleasingFungus says:

              There’s a long-running turn-based-strategy series in which you control schoolgirls which are actually tanks.

              I wish I did not know this.

            • YourMessageHere says:

              It’s a budding genre. Mecha Musume, that’s what it’s called.

              It’s mad as anything, but I put it down to the general suppression of pro-real world military sentiment in Japan. Unless you want people thinking you’re some sort of ultra-rightist, you can’t really be gung-ho about the JSDF the same way people in other countries (particularly the US, which has a massive cultural influence on Japan) tend to. It gets displaced in various ways: there’s all the historical stuff (Sengoku Basara, Dynasty Warriors and so on), the sci-fi stuff (Gundam, Ghost in the Shell, Space Battleship Yamato and the like), there’s generally realistic circumstances with fantastical characters (the whole Girls With Guns thing) and then you have more overtly fantastic takes on reality like the whole Mecha Musume thing: Strike Witches, Sky Girls, statues and art by Humikane Shimada and toys of numerous kinds all did it with planes and tanks; now the dreaded Upotte, that series that it seems no-one here dares name, does it with assault rifles.

              I watched an episode of the anime version, I admit it. It was heinous.

      • lowprices says:

        But what if you could talk to the guns? Now wouldn’t that be something.

      • Dilapinated says:

        I remember reading a cyberpunk novel a while back that had a protagonist with a sapient assault rifle. I think it became the Singularity in the end, or something like it, by merging with a computer virus. Can’t remember the name, though.

        I can’t decide whether it’d be an interesting game mechanic or Navi levels of annoying. Probably depends on the developer.

      • PopeJamal says:

        You, are a true patriot. A real life, American hero!
        *salute*

    14. crizzyeyes says:

      Well, RPS, I appreciate reading the Eurogamer article, because I like emotional stimulation of any kind, but unfortunately now I hate Tom Bradwell with a burning passion. I think he’s giving you Englishmen a horrifyingly bad image in that piece.

      He begins the article by admitting that the US and the UK are very different. That’s fine.
      And a few paragraphs later, he’s asking “what anyone could possibly use a tomahawk for” and making it sound like raising charity is the worst thing ever.

      Look, I know you guys can’t buy guns like candy in the UK, so let me explain it to you. Here, gun ownership is usually a hobby. It’s like playing football to you guys. It’s the same fucking thing. You go out to the range, shoot five rounds at a target, and see how tight you can get your group. It’s fun. It’s not sadistic manslaughter.

      Now, I think it’s bad taste to brand name a magazine extender with “EA,” as in I would never buy such a thing, but brand-naming a common household item here in the US is hardly something to get upset about and post about on an internationally-read news website.

      • LionsPhil says:

        You can’t entirely blame the Brits for buying into the pre-crime notion that the only reason to possess a weapon is because you plan to commit murders with it, given that that’s what the people in this country who are legally armed on the street use theirs for.

      • Stellar Duck says:

        Eurogamer, weirdly enough, has a Euro slant.

        Aside from that, what would anyone want a tomahawk for?

        And he does not say that raising a charity is worse than Hitler. He says that raising charity by selling weapons is bloody strange and crass.

        And I’m fairly sure that playing football don’t, as a rule, end up getting people killed by random penalty kicks in the street.

        Edit: and on a purely personal note (I’m only speaking for myself): the gun fetish in the US is really, really weird and offputting. I did my draft service years ago and if I never have to see an assault rifle again I’ll be happy. Heck, I don’t even think the police should be armed.

        • Unaco says:

          “Aside from that, what would anyone want a tomahawk for?”

          Chopping things. And I don’t mean ‘people’ things… I mean like wood things. It’s a lightweight, small axe. Axes have many, many uses than warfare and combat.

          • Stellar Duck says:

            Thing is, I normally use an axe for my wood chopping needs. They tend to be designed for the purpose whereas, as far as I know, a tomahawk is not really designed for chopping wood. And I doubt that EA was thinking ‘Hey, let’s brand a wood chopping tool to our 5 hour killing spree game!’.

            • Mattressi says:

              Tomahawks are used like axes. I know quite a few people who carry a tomahawk when hiking, because it’s lighter weight than a hatchet while still retaining much of the functionality.

              And yes, the EA tomahawk is clearly being marketed as a weapon. The quote from Eurogamer wasn’t “why would anyone in the world need THIS PARTICULAR tomahawk”, however, and simply generalised all tomahawks as having no purpose. Even if their purpose was purely combat (which it isn’t), are soldiers not people? Soldiers in Vietnam used tomahawks and, from what I can tell, many modern soldiers do too.

            • LionsPhil says:

              I’d hazard a guess that the writer believes that “nobody needs” soldiers (except for those cases in which you “obviously” do, where “obviously” means “when it’s my livelyhood at risk”).

            • PleasingFungus says:

              I’d hazard a guess that the writer believes EA(R) Branded Tomahawks, or other items from this auction, are probably not going to be bought or used by militaries, but rather by combination FPS/gun fans?

              You can criticize his article without making ridiculous strawmen out of his position.

            • The Random One says:

              The last thing I want is for soldiers to think they would enjoy killing much more if it had a videogame tie-in.

          • shitflap says:

            Unless I’m mistaken, I can’t seem to find any videos that support it’s multitude of in-game uses.
            So I imagine the fans of the tomahawk in MoH, who want one for their own, want one for it’s efficacy in chopping people in the face, not for it’s varied uses and colourful history.

            • Unaco says:

              Yeah… people want a promotional item, tied with a video game, to smash people in the face with. Not to, you know, hang on their wall and admire. If people wanted some sort of weapon to smash people’s faces in, they wouldn’t be getting it through a video game promotion.

            • shitflap says:

              Tomahawk enthusiasts will already have ones they admire, and wont want MoH branding.
              Smashing people in the face enthusiasts will not care about the branding either, and rightly, ain’t been waiting for a videogame to come out with one that shows their victims how much they *totally* love MoH.
              The people who will want a MoH one will want it on the basis of how it’s represented in-game. Will it be desirable cos it’s slightly lighter than an axe?
              Or will it be due to all the smashing people in the face?
              I’m certainly gonna have egg on my face if the main character is some kind of tomahawk enthusiast.
              Or the first Tier 1 Operator in history who has risen through the ranks despite all the adversity and prejudice that stems from actually being a tomahawk.

            • Unaco says:

              Tomahawk enthusiasm, like Mormon marriage, is not limited to a single object of affection though. They’d, surely, want multiple Tomahawks to admire… and why not the MoH branded one? It’s probably going to be in limited supply and the like, quite unique.

              Smashing people in the face enthusiasts on the other hand, aren’t going to care about the branding… so why would they be buying a tie in Tomahawk to a video game? Why not the equivalent, cheaper, non-branded Tomahawk?

      • lordcooper says:

        Can’t buy them, don’t want them, *really* don’t want the nutters who actually want them to able to get them.

        • Mattressi says:

          Please tell me you’re talking about guns and not tomahawks. Anyone who thinks a tomahawk is some kind of mass-murder weapon is a complete moron who clearly revels in knowing nothing about what they’re talking about. Why are hatchets just regular camping tools, while tomahawks are horrible man-killing weapons? They do the exact same job – that is, they both chop wood and they are both dangerous to people if the user is careless or wants to be dangerous.

          Now, if you’re talking about guns – yes, you can own them, unless you’re under a certain age. Wherever you are in the world, you can own guns and so can most other people. Most places put arbitrary restrictions on guns (magazine size limits, banning semi-automatics, etc), but you can always buy some kind of gun. It really is a shame that some people think that anything with an edge or anything that projects an object at a certain velocity, is inherently a “killing” “weapon” which no one could ever have a use for.

          As for the Eurogamer article, I can agree to an extent, but that quote about “why would anybody in the world need a tomahawk for anything” was just ridiculous. Is it some kind of “city person” stereotype that people wish to live up to, whereby they purposely fail to see the use of things like machetes, axes, guns, etc? Or do the only people in the world who can’t as “people” surround themselves with buildings and other people? And the food comes from the stores, right? The wood we use is made by the hardware store? Hell, half these morons probably haven’t even been to a hardware store.

          Point is, people live in different places, do different things and enjoy different things. Just because someone in the country can’t see why anyone would use an iPhone, doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a use. Likewise, just because a city person can’t see why the person who grows the food to feed the city people might need something, doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a use.

          And, for the record, I agree that it’s in bad taste for EA to be linking videogames to weapons. Firearms enthusiasts need to have common sense, not be 4chan morons who think guns are toys. Not saying all gamers are like that (I’m certainly not), but if you’re getting people to buy guns because of a videogame, chances are many of them will treat the guns as regular game merchandise (i.e. like a toy).

          • LionsPhil says:

            They do the exact same job – that is, they both chop wood and they are both dangerous to people if the user is careless or wants to be dangerous.

            Bear in mind that the British are skittish about carrying knives. You know, cutting blades, useful for things like opening parcels without injuring yourself because you tried to do it with a pair of scissors or a car key or something and had to use too much force to control it. Ones that are designed against causing harm to persons, since you don’t want that happening by accident to the wielder.

            • Mattressi says:

              I know all to well, unfortunately, since Australia is the same. While I’d love to be able to carry my Leatherman on me (so many times I’ve wished I’d had its attachments – including the *gasp* blade…for cutting things not people), I tend to just leave it in the car and get it if I need it. From what I can tell, though, this too is illegal – I actually need to have a specific purpose for carrying it in my car each time I do so, and “general use” doesn’t count. I just figure that my car is less likely to be searched than me.

        • derbefrier says:

          ”The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non ["something essential" lit. "without which not"] for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or police.”
          ~Adolph Hitler

          The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
          ~Thomas Jefferson

          ”You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”
          ~Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

          Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe.”
          ~Noah Webster

          I am more scared of the nuts that DON’T want us to have them.

          • The Random One says:

            “I believe in the exact opposite this poster’s author believes. Also, I’m Hitler.”
            - Adolph Hitler

          • BAshment says:

            Maybe in an age before atomic weapons and technological warfare you had a point. But to think civilians with small arms could stand against armies with chemical, biological and atomic weaponry seems a bit deluded.

          • killias2 says:

            “”You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”
            ~Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto”

            I liked this one in particular because it’s ridiculous. Why? Well, while the Japanese were, perhaps, afraid of a well-equipped U.S. citizenry, we were afraid of the same on the island of Japan. We fervently believed that a land invasion of Japan would be disastrous, due to widespread arms availability and fervent nationalism.

            So what did we do instead?

            We dropped atomic bombs on Japan.

            • Bork Titflopsen says:

              “”You cannot invade the mainland United States. You blow it up from the other side of the planet.” ~ People with rockets.

          • The white guar says:

            Man ,that’s some nasty reductio ad hitlerum you do there
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum
            Bad form, sez I, baaad form

          • beekay says:

            Yes, it’s very sane of you to suggest that American democracy is about to explode because the evil military will start killing people. How can we fight against a professional military force? We need civilian-use pistols! That’ll scare ‘em off!

      • bladedsmoke says:

        One day I went out and bought a football, to play around with it with my friends. Unfortunately, my young child found the football, and played around with it. She kicked it into a wall – the ball bounced back and hit her in the face, killing her instantly.

        One of my friends also bought a football, but forgot to follow proper football safety precautions. He kicked the ball into his own arm, which later had to be amputated.

        Wait, hang on, this doesn’t happen, because footballs aren’t weapons of war explicitly designed to maim and murder people, and your analogy is useless.

        • Walsh says:

          Way to miss the point! The analogy was concerning gun ownership as a hobby. There are plenty of hobbies that will kill you, you frothing nut.

          • shitflap says:

            He should of used one of those hobbies as an example, you impetuous defender of “freedom”, you.
            We think gun ownership isn’t safe, stow the insults, yeah?

          • Stellar Duck says:

            What hobbies, other than guns risk killing innocent bystanders (and yourself)? I reckon rock climbing might do the trick. But then, people don’t carry around the rock in the mall and force me to climb it and making me fall to my death.

            • LionsPhil says:

              Any kind of motorsport comes to mind. In particular, if you fail to do so at an appropriate venue with appropriate safety precautions—say, idiots in dropped-suspension Astras tearing around your housing estate at night.

            • Stellar Duck says:

              Yea, but I’m also not alright with Astras tearing around my house.

              As for cars in general, I’ve plenty issues with those and wouldn’t mind abandoning private cars, provided public transportation gets a mighty boost to make up the difference. A pipe dream, I know, but I like dreaming. :)

            • LionsPhil says:

              If you’re honestly saying you’d also eradicate private ownership of automobiles for use on dedicated tracks (compare: private ownership of firearms for use on firing ranges), then I don’t know how to even continue this conversation, since your idea of utopia is both alien and horrifying to me (and, presumably, anybody who values individual liberty).

              In fact, come to think of it, I think you’re describing Demolition Man.

            • Stellar Duck says:

              I’m saying that in an ideal world private cars would not be needed. I was merely musing on what is, by all means, a utopia. I’m not going to start a revolution to ban cars. I just think they could be rendered obsolete with careful planning.

              But as I said, not going to happen.

            • PleasingFungus says:

              Mass car ownership exists for utilitarian reasons, not “as a hobby”. If cars were only owned by hobbyists, and created the same horrifying death/injury tolls as they do today, well, I rather hope they would be banned!

          • MadMatty says:

            Walsh is right…but on the whole US gun ownership spectacle:

            The US has comparable crimerates to other Western countries, except for murder rates: They are Four times as high in the US. People who buy guns for keeping their house safe are more likely to be shot with their own weapon, than they are to shoot any unwelcome intruders.

            Gnight.

            • Mattressi says:

              MadMatty, that statistic includes suicides. Oddly enough, people who own a gun and want to commit suicide are going to pick the quickest, most painless method of death – a gunshot.

              You might care to note that states like Montana (very relaxed gun laws) have lower murder rates than places like Australia (where I live). Culture is a much more important factor than gun laws, for determining the murder rate. States with high murder rates are often those with strict gun laws, like New York and Illinois. New Zealand has lax gun laws compared to Australia, yet has a lower murder rate. I’d back this up with links, but I’ve commented on here about this so many times that I’m just sick of linking everything. Just do some bloody research before you spout off.

              But, if you want to blindly look at statistics without accounting for anything else (like culture) in order to determine things to ban, why doesn’t the US ban males and blacks? Clearly, males cause crime, since they make up for at least 65.9% of the murders, despite making up roughly 50% of the population. Likewise, according to that FBI data, blacks make up 37.4% of murder offenders, despite making up approximately only 10% of the population. Please note: I’m not sexist or racist; I don’t actually want people to be banned and I’m merely making a point by quoting FBI statistics. The point is, one set of statistics doesn’t mean anything. Culture, population density (cities always have higher murder rates compared to surrounding countryside, for example) and many other factors come into play regarding murder rates. To simply say that more guns = more murders is as intellectually dishonest as saying that videogames = more violence (even moreso, since 50 years ago, gun laws were more relaxed in most countries and murder rates were much lower than modern times – videogames don’t have that history to help back them up).

            • Axess Denyd says:

              The “shot with their own weapon” statistic is bogus, and always has been. The only time it can be true is if suicides are taken into account. Suicide rates are also unaffected by gun ownership.

            • MadMatty says:

              So, i guess Americans count their suicides into their murder rates? Thats quite a novel way to do it.

              Ofcourse, a suicide victim, did “murder” himself.

              I checked 3 surveys for the murder rates, see if you can beat me.

            • MadMatty says:

              But if the whole US banned guns, thenwouldnt there, say 10 years later, be a comparable murder rate to Western Europe?

              I mean im very responsible myself, expert gun controller and all. Would always get the drop on an intruder myself. I´m sure criminals would never get the hands on my SMG, if there were a burglary etc.
              I´m not the problem.

              I´m also an expert beer drinker.
              And driver!

              As for the wrong statistics on people getting shot by their own weapon, being wrong. Go ahead – you can have it- i´m in no mood to trawl reports today.

            • Mattressi says:

              I would be extremely interested in seeing a source that states that gun owners are more likely to be murdered by their own gun than that they are to defend themselves with it. The only paper I’ve seen on this was the inherently flawed Kellermann paper, which counted suicides (making up ~86% of the deaths). It also didn’t account for cases where the homeowner defended themselves without killing the intruder and also did not distinguish between murders using a firearm and not (let alone the homeowner’s firearm).

              Edit: I don’t think that restricting weapons would reduce the murder rate significantly. Perhaps it would decrease the number of massacres, but if people want to kill each other, they will. Definitely the murder-by-firearm rate will drop, as it did here in Australia; but, personally, I don’t feel that being murdered by a person with a gun is worse than being bludgeoned or stabbed to death.

            • MadMatty says:

              well, it was “likely to be shot with their own weapon” which didnt grammatically *not* include suicides, so youre quite possibly right, but i think thats a minor point.

              How about those super-long prison sentences tho? Are they just keeping the crimrates the same as in Europe?
              Punishing bad people is ofcourse also a factor.

            • MadMatty says:

              And yeah, i´ve heard about States where people have to wear their firearm openly, if they are going to wear it. I´m sure its quite discouraging, for a would be perpetrator to be surrounded by people with firearms, whom you do not know, and are quite capable of posing a serious threat.

              Say the Martin Trayvon case: If Zimmerman had wore his pistol openly, then maybe Martin wouldn´t have assaulted him with his fists….. .

              But its a very if/when/but situation. I think we have good baseline stats with controlling firearms in Europe, Americans have yet to clinically refute.

              If some bully threatens you with violence, one survey had shown you were 50% less likely to be attacked, if you threatened him back, instead of walking away or trying to talk your way sensibly out of the situation. *rattling the saber*

            • Treymoney says:

              Maybe if Zimmerman hadn’t ignored the 911 responder and stopped harassing the fellow denizen of his housing complex, Martin wouldn’t have attacked him with his fists.

            • InternetBatman says:

              The non-gun murder rate in the US is also much higher than other industrialized countries. It’s simplistic to blame guns.

            • Consumatopia says:

              Suicide rates are also unaffected by gun ownership.

              Just typing “suicide rates gun ownership” into Google, the first hit is “Guns in Homes Strongly Associated with Higher Rates of Suicide”, so I’m not so sure.

              Personally, I don’t think the problem is the availability of guns as the culture that surrounds guns here. There’s a lot of whackos who think having a gun means they don’t have to take crap from anyone–the capacity to hurt and kill other people is central to their identity.

              Fortunately, America is improving in this area.

            • MadMatty says:

              I should think Zimmerman should atleast have to spend some time in jail, for ignoring a 911 operators directions, with lethal outcome.
              In addition to anything else they can clarify about the events that night.

        • JackShandy says:

          If only it were possible to use footballs with anything other than lethal force, these tragic accidents could have been avoided.

      • Hoaxfish says:

        In a cross-company promotion with Ubisoft, to promote up-coming Assassin’s Creed 3 featuring a “native American ancestry” character, employees of both companies will get a wage bonus from any scalps they collect from the other company’s employees.

      • StingingVelvet says:

        I wrote a long response on Eurogamer that spoke of commonly-held beliefs in sociology about the differences in America regarding weapons, etc. Basically we are a frontier country, and spread West using guns and other weapons to “tame the land” and, unfortunately, slaughter the natives. Even coming here originally from Europe was a “tame the frontier” act, and then we violently opposed our home country and king.

        All of this colors modern ideas and values. We fear the government and are always prepared for another revolution, the seeds of which are actually in our own Constitution. We praise the lone hero, the frontier man, the weapon-smith. It influences every difference, from gun ownership to fearing government health care.

        It’s okay to be different. England seems different to us, with your Queen and cameras on every street corner. Differences still exist, despite the internet, which was the core point of the Eurogamer article for a paragraph or so.

        The problem is the article quickly turns from “hey I noticed we’re different” to “oh my God you guys over in the US are so fucking crazy.” Yes, he “won” a victory by getting EA to change their promotion, but he only “won” in the sense that he saw a cultural difference not as something to note, but as something to stop and punish. RPS does the same thing quite often… instead of respecting America’s differences on these issues you view the majority of our population as wrong or stupid.

        Not really a surprise though, Europe does this a lot (and so do we, on different issues, to be fair).

        • Chandos says:

          Just so that we’re not singling out Europeans in this: I live in Canada and I have to say Americans don’t look any brighter (on gun control) from here either. It’s not that we don’t get where the fascination with and attachment to guns is coming from, it’s just that it looks reeeally unhealthy in this day and age for an entire society to be so casual about weaponry.

          • StingingVelvet says:

            And honestly I agree with you. I also wish like crazy we could shut up about evil government and pass a fucking health care system into law.

            I’m just saying the social factors involved are old, complex and relatively unbeatable at this stage.

            • InternetBatman says:

              I don’t think they’re unbeatable, I think that the US is so young that people forget how recently the entire area has been industrialized and placed under the rule of law. Traditions take time to build and time to dismantle.

            • StingingVelvet says:

              Which is why I said “at this stage.”

        • Zwebbie says:

          @StingingVelvet: The odd thing is that the USA is almost ridiculously safe. Since the US constitution was written down, France has had 15 or so changes of government and has been invaded multiple times by anything that is even remotely German. Surely the French would be more justified in having an arms culture?

          • StingingVelvet says:

            It’s not really a rational fear. We fear our own government even though we can completely change it every 2 years. We fear other countries even though they would have to become tremendously more powerful to invade us. It’s born out of the idea of defending one’s own against those who are different, which is sadly at the core of our culture.

          • InternetBatman says:

            Safe from shifts in government. Less safe from other citizens.

        • John Walker says:

          I’d love you to name an example of this!

          Not only is one of our writers American, but we all love visiting the States, and certainly none of us holds any such daft opinions that Americans are stupid, etc. People, on the other hand. Now people are stupid.

          • StingingVelvet says:

            A writer of your talent should know you don’t have to write “Americans are stupid” to say “Americans are stupid.” And I of course meant on this issue, or a select few others, not in general.

            I know you guys are blind to how pretentious this website can be, but I’m just writing what I see.

            • mispelledyouth says:

              Pretention is the last thing I’d expect to read on this site, outside of the comments section of course.

              I had to go look it up just in case I’ve been misusing the word my entire adult life, or in fact had no appreciation at all of its true meaning.

              Turns out you’re wrong.

              I’m consistently engaged by good humoured, sometimes silly, mostly interesting and, so I believe, always honest games journalism written by people I’ve ( weirdly ) come to like because of all of the above. It’s why I come here first for all my gaming news tidbits.

              I really am surprised that you find ( some, if any ) articles on here to be pretentious.

            • StingingVelvet says:

              Someone who likely shares their views saying “dude nu-uh” does not really sway me, sorry.

              I’m not saying the site is evil or that John Walker is a bad man, not at all. I check the site more or less daily and enjoy the majority of the articles. They do indeed get on a massive high-horse from time to time though, usually about some liberal issue or another, or the portrayal of violence or sex.

            • mispelledyouth says:

              Sanctimonious then. Not pretentious.

              Apology accepted.

            • abandonhope says:

              Right, but he didn’t say they didn’t write “Americans are stupid.” You invented that and then proceeded to refute it, which you followed by not coming up with an example. Someone who likely shares their views saying “dude yuh-huh” does not really sway me, sorry.

        • jalf says:

          I’m not sure I follow the part where everyone should *automatically* respect other people’s differences. Heck, most child molesters, I believe, come from a background where that kind of stuff is normal. It’s part of their culture.

          Coming from a background which does X does not automatically justify doing X.

          Sometimes it is *not* ok to be different.

          Now, that’s obviously quite different from a country where owning lots of guns has near-religious significance.

          But the point remains. Saying “we needed guns 300 years ago” does not automatically mean “we should be able to buy guns like candy”. To establish that, you need to show that it is a good and/or harmless thing.

      • abandonhope says:

        Apparently reading about what a UK game writer thinks of people in the US is about as excruciating as listening to someone tell generic British jokes.

        I steer clear of warshooters because I have no war fantasies, and I’m highly suspicious of the fact that the military does free and, IIRC, conditional consulting for many of these manshoot devs. I also won’t touch Gears of War or any game with burly-bloated character design, because I’m not 12 and don’t aspire to be bigger than my bully. And I’m a largely pro-Second Amendment liberal. The sad state of politics in America could be marginally improved by never fucking talking about it again.

        I’m also lazily wondering whether the promo doesn’t have something to do with the notion of: military does consult for EA, EA raises interest in actual guns among its demo, young people take more easily to the idea of fighting in wars.

        • StingingVelvet says:

          Yeah man, you’re so much better and smarter than all those people. Way to go at being so awesome!

          • abandonhope says:

            Way to go right to the meat of the topic. If someone not liking a sub-genre you enjoy bothers you enough that you feel the need to ride in and defend its honor, you’re probably a war shooter-obsessed man-child. Be confident about the things you like. It’s really okay if other people don’t like them. I’ll bet you’re as big as your bully now! Go beat him up!

            • StingingVelvet says:

              It’s not about what you like or even the legitimacy of your perspective. It’s about HOW you say it, namely insulting and belittling others to make yourself look smarter.

            • abandonhope says:

              I’m assuming you’re referring specifically to my statement about Gears of War. Understand that this was not meant as an insult to people who play it; my impression of the series and its character design is that they are literally for 12-year-olds with power fantasies. Obviously grown men also enjoy what I take to be games meant for the teenage-minded, and clearly I’m taking liberties in assuming I know anything about why that is. I will readily admit that I have no real idea.

              The comment was intended to contrast my general distaste for what I take to be the more childish, Bay-styled, hyper-war shooters with my view on the Second Amendment–as a means of speaking to what I took to be an article filled with fairly ridiculous assumptions, which probably makes my responding with assumptions ironic and hypocritical, qualities I would also assign to both of your replies.

            • StingingVelvet says:

              You fill your posts with so much pretentious grandstanding it’s hard to find the point in there, but my main retort is: power fantasies are not just for kids or the ignorant.

            • abandonhope says:

              I’m pretentious, RPS is pretentious. Got it. My last post was worded carefully to avoid confusion, which I suppose could come across as pretentious to someone who doesn’t like words. If you found my first post unclear I suggest you read more carefully next time, so we don’t get into a situation in which you progressively set out more bait leading to the argument you want to have instead of staying focused on the actual topic of discussion.

              Keep in mind that “with power fantasies” was a modification of “12-year-olds”–I’d expect the power fantasies of adults to be somewhat different from the power fantasies of children–but don’t let that stop you from trying to win an argument I didn’t want to have over a personal reflection on my own tastes mentioned as a setup to an entirely different point.

      • InternetBatman says:

        I’m from the US, and I hate guns. Hate em, hate em, hate em. But barring the deeper historical analysis, I’ve found that more often than not the gun debate can be framed in two different ways:

        An urban / rural thing. The vast majority of people I know that support unlimited gun ownership rights are from rural areas. There aren’t really innocent bystanders in rural areas and hunting is huge (some counties close down schools for a week when hunting season starts because no one would be there).

        The other is a xenophobia thing. Fear of the outsider, the belief that there are lots of people that want to take what you have, etc. This pretty frequently combines with the rural thing, so guns become a way of establishing identity in the face of external pressures.

        There are a few gun nuts, collectors, and obsessives, but that’s not really where the deep-seated support for gun rights comes from. They just give everyone else a bad name, and deepen what is normally a genuinely innocent culture clash.

        • alseT says:

          Well of course Batman hates guns. It’s his one rule!

        • Mattressi says:

          I’d imagine they hold the belief that lots of people will try to take what they have because, well, they do. Gun owners in the US have seen a lot of restrictions on their hobby (even restrictions that England doesn’t have – banning suppressors/silencers, as if they’re some kind of deadly assassin weapon, rather than hearing protection) and rural property owners face much more strict regulations regarding their own property, with some being forced to be connected to city water, sewage, etc and removing their own tanks – taking away some of their independence. There are so many laws which seemingly are enacted with urban and suburban areas in mind, yet they’re passed on to rural areas because rural people tend to be forgotten about. I’d imagine most of them would happily let you wall off your cities and make them a “gun free” zone (just like the Aurora cinema…) and pass whatever legislation you want. Most legislation makes perfect sense for urban areas and I completely agree with it – just not when it’s applied to rural areas as well.

          Also, and this isn’t meant to be combative, do you hate hate hate knives, swords, spears, bows, sticks and fists, as well as guns? People really did quite a fine job of killing each other before guns came around – the main difference was that the person killed was usually the weak one, where nowadays it can be the strong one too.

          • InternetBatman says:

            Knives can be used for another purpose, as can sticks and fists. The problem I have with guns in particular is that they quickly escalate a conflict into a point of lethality, they’re far more dangerous to bystanders, they have a significantly lower skill barrier, and they’re much harder to run away from. I don’t think having something that makes killing so much easier is a good thing.

            I don’t think all of them should be illegal; I know more than one person that significantly supplements their food purchases with game, and I’ve worked for a butcher who cut and served game. These are good things. But I also think there’s a large category of guns that should be illegal, devices where the only real purpose is to kill other people and those are bad things.

            And I think it was really stupid for EA to sell guns which blur the line between reality and a game where you’re constantly killing people. That couldn’t possibly go wrong in the hands of a child, a delusional person, or worse, a teenager.

      • Consumatopia says:

        Culture is funny. I mean, sure, I’m a good lefty American, those Republicans, the NRA, and our constant wars and the video game propaganda that goes with it all piss me off. But, yeah, I still have the American perspective here. “What would you want a tomahawk for?” I dunno, just so I can show it to people and we can laugh over it? Why wouldn’t I want a tomahawk? Are you having some kind of tomahawk sale? Well, I don’t have any particular interest in tomahawks, but I’m always looking for bargains.

        This might be more a symptom of American hoarding culture than gun culture.

        Video game themed accessories for real guns creeps me out a lot more, though. “Hey, kids, guns aren’t toys! Do not play with guns! Play with video games! Wait, no, that’s a real gun, not a Medal of Honor toy!”

        That said, just because EA and I don’t think owning or selling weapons is a big deal doesn’t mean that the British are automatically crazy for thinking otherwise. Both viewpoints are legitimate! Even if I don’t intend to harm anyone (seriously, how do I even use a tomahawk? Why did I buy this thing? I mean, come on, what would I want a tomahawk for?) it is at least designed to resemble a tool made for harming people. Even if the probability of actual harm is negligible, maybe the idea of harming people should bother me more than it does.

        Then again, we all play video games, so, never mind.

        • Mattressi says:

          I think it’s a very American attitude to give a reason to ban something, rather than asking a reason to NOT ban it. Here in Australia we must submit our lawful purpose for wanting to own a firearm, on the application to get one. Lawful purposes include target shooting, hunting and recreation, but do NOT include self defence. In Victoria (Aussie state), it’s also illegal to buy or own a knife without having an exact purpose for it in mind. To say it’s for collecting requires some kind of collectors license/permit.

          It’s just a very different (and frankly, obscenely irritating and irrational) attitude over here and in Europe. To own or do anything, you must justify why and even then you still might not be allowed to have/do it because it’s too dangerous. It’s like being guilty until proven innocent.

          • Consumatopia says:

            Dang, you need licenses for knives?

            My brother-in-law collects knives and swords. When he married my sister, he actually gave all of the groomsmen a sword (somewhere he found cheap swords?) just because he thought it would be awesome/hilarious if everyone had swords. And it was, except when my uncle and brother got into a drunken sword fight as the reception was winding down. Wait, no, that was also hilarious.

            While that Euro/Australian regime does sound really irritating, well, that doesn’t necessarily make us the sane ones…

            • Mattressi says:

              Not all knives. Some (like kitchen knives) have a lawful purpose other than collection. But double edged blades (daggers), butterfly knives, throwing knives and all other manner of pieces of steel with a sharpened edge require some kind of license/permit (can’t remember which they call it, but it’s really the same thing).

              Of course, we aren’t allowed to own pepper spray, stunguns or anything like that either. It confuses me that self defence really is frowned upon over here. Maybe it’s because all Australians are just waiting to get their hands on pepper spray and go on a temporary-pain-inducing rampage?

              Being against self defence, to me, makes us the insane ones and the US the sane ones. Banning guns is one thing, but banning non-lethal self defence tools is just ridiculous.

      • jalf says:

        Here, gun ownership is usually a hobby. It’s like playing football to you guys. It’s the same fucking thing. You go out to the range, shoot five rounds at a target, and see how tight you can get your group. It’s fun. It’s not sadistic manslaughter.

        With the tiny li’l exception that if a football player gets pissed off, someone gets a leather ball kicked at them.

        If a gun owner gets pissed off…

        I don’t know, I’m pretty sure there’s a difference between kicking a ball and firing a gun. Heck, look at the statistics. How many people were killed by footballs in the last year?

        Like it or not, some people got crazy and shoot other people with guns awfully frequently. There are more school shootings than I like to see. And it’s really hard to carry out a school shooting without a gun.

        Obviously, *some* people can’t handle having access to guns. Equally obviously, many *other* people can handle it just fine. But it seems a bit simplistic to say that “just because I know how to handle a gun, everyone should be allowed to own guns, whether or not *they* know how to handle it”.

        There are other ways to “get tight with your group”, there are other ways to “have fun”.

        Oh, and this really isn’t about “being able to buy guns like candy”. It’s about intentionally trying to blur the lines between games (fantasy, make-believe, and, not least, a setting deeply soaked in excessive violence, gore and, well, mass murder, where if you pull the trigger on a gun, you get an achievement) and reality (where, if you pull the trigger on a gun, people get hurt).

        And, oh, one last itty bitty point: EA is a big company. They’re not American, they’re present globally. That means they have to answer for their actions not just in the US, but worldwide. Just like British companies are expected to conform to American standards when they do business in the US, American companies should expected to be held against British standards if they want to do business *there*.

    15. Jason Moyer says:

      There’s something weird about an article called “Basement body hackers” starting with a bit about a completely mainstream, touristy piercing place.

    16. Kollega says:

      Not to be a pedantic jerk, but the CliffyBs’ Gamasutra article was already mentioned in last week’s Sunday Papers.

      Also, the whole thing with facial recognition software is pretty horrible. Not only are we sliding into the realm of totalitarianism and repression, but we’re also not doing those other things because of it. Billions of dollars spent on spying on average people could instead be spent on colonizing the Moon or the ocean floor, building a space elevator, creating nanobots, fusion power, artificial intellegence, or a myriad of other things which would be more conductive to bettering the overall human well-being than a global surveillance network. In three words, i am disappoint.

      • LionsPhil says:

        Without the liberating safety of total government surveillance, any of those other endeavours would be thwarted at great cost to human life by terror attacks from Our Enemies.

      • Quirk says:

        Eh, the facial recognition piece was pretty much scaremongering. As a coder who’s unfortunately currently working for a CCTV company, and has some slight background with image recognition: facial recognition’s a crock. It works okayish for passport photos. In the CCTV context it’s highly unreliable. I got to play with a few vendors’ systems at a recent conference; there were some nice rigged demos, and one was pretty good at recognising all the bearded staff on the stand from the clean-shaven passersby, but we’re still at a point where a 30% false positive or false negative rate in pretty favourable circumstances is considered good going.

        There are a lot of people who would cheerfully deploy a working system, which is quite alarming; but the systems as they stand don’t work well. They worked even less well 10 years ago, when the police in Newham, London ran such a system for a bit, which you can read about here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/jun/13/ukcrime.jamesmeek
        (which goes to show that just because a large bureaucracy has signed up for something that sounds like a good idea to some manager doesn’t mean the tech actually works).

        And the actual piece is astonishingly light on facts. Disney are using biometrics and might be interested in facial recognition. Some odd-looking CCTV cameras went up and hearsay was that they “were enabled for facial recognition”. (A hint here: facial recognition is done in software, pretty much universally. Any old CCTV camera will do, though the better the image quality the better your results). And “at present, there is no law to prevent US government and law enforcement agencies from building facial recognition databases.” Seriously? That’s the best the author can do?

        So, yeah. Terrible journalism. It’ll be a fairly lengthy time before we get facial recognition from CCTV robust enough to recognise people through changing hairstyles, sunglasses, etc. It’s disturbing that there are people pushing in that direction, but we have a few years yet to get our legalities in place before any systems exist that need to be taken seriously.

    17. iGark says:

      The argument that games need to grow up is silly — the popular things in other forms of media aren’t deep, meaningful messages either. Blockbusters movies are The Dark Knight Rises, Inception, Avengers, Transformers, blockbuster books are Harry Potter, the Hunger Games, blockbuster music is catchy, short tunes, and blockbuster games are Call Of Duty, Assassin’s Creed, Mass Effect.

      Of course there are deep, meaningful movies, and sometimes they are popular too. But you can make this argument for other media also.

      It’d be great to play games without guns but there’s no reason for the games with guns to go away, they could coexist. Kind of like they do now.

      • lordcooper says:

        A fair point, but I can’t help thinking it would be pretty sweet if all these talented people stopped churning out derivative blockbusters and spent their effort on something a little more meaningful. If anything, I’d say the argument needs to be applied to all forms of media, rather than call it silly. These things are rather subjective though.

      • bladedsmoke says:

        I’d say the writing in the movie and book examples you give is *significantly* better than the writing in the games examples you give (with the significant exceptions of Transformers, which has worse writing than most things in any medium ever, and Mass Effect, which was stupid in places but not awful in terms of writing).

        I don’t know, I feel like the writing in books and movies in general is still much better than the writing in games. Obviously there are outliers, but still. This is probably something to do with the fact that a book with bad writing is nothing, and a movie with bad writing is very little, while a game with bad writing still has gameplay with which to win over its audience.

        • JackShandy says:

          Yeah, Inception has terrible gameplay. I honestly don’t think it’s fair to hold games to the same standard of writing as movies. There’s so much other shit they have to get right.

        • studenteternal says:

          I feel like you have not watched many movies lately. Game writing can be bad, but at least I am usually vested to some degree in the story because I have some agency in it, even if it is just moving the plot along. I have not been able to sit through an awful lot of movies because they are also terribly written and I have no vested interest in seeing it through.

          • LionsPhil says:

            Yeah. Although a lot of that is also godawful cinematography/effects in the string action scenes that the plot is trying to justify (c.f. the rather more straight-up excusing of ’80s/’90s Schwarzenegger flicks: he good, them bad, dakkadakkadakka). Give me a scene of models blowing up where you can actually see what’s happening (say, to the characters you’re supposed to be invested in) over shakeycam, rapid cuts, and cheap slap-dash CGI every time. Making action scenes incomprehensible messes undermines any kind of emotional response to what’s going on in them, and they could be equally replaced with billowing dust clouds with “BIFF, KAPOW” written on top.

    18. LTK says:

      That biohacking article is awesome. I’m bookmarking this. It’s something pretty close to my area of study; I was recently researching the possibility of memory enhancement using electric currents, though with an extremely wide safety margin. A sixth sense is something I’ve always dreamed of. I hope I’ll one day help in creating it.

    19. Lambchops says:

      Yay, Jens Lekman.

      Boo, Angel of Darkness (if it hadn’t come free with a graphics card I’d never have suffered its terribleness).

      Also I reckon those Cliffy B “developer flashcard” things could equally well apply to most jobs. Hmm . . . now which one does that statement make me guilty of?

    20. JackShandy says:

      I challenge the idea that games should outgrow combat. Games are hypothetical situations. The point of a hypothetical situation is to explore something you can’t in real life. In the course of my life I constantly have to make friends, solve puzzles, and create things. I’ve never had to kill anything. My body is the product of thousands upon thousands of years of humans killing things to survive, and I’ve never actually done it.

      I can’t imagine a hypothetical situation more compelling than life-or-death combat.

      • jalf says:

        As I read the word “outgrow”, it does not mean “stop portraying life-or-death combat”, but rather “stop being *confined* to life-or-death combat”.

        Really, there’s nothing wrong with violent games, there’s nothing wrong with games about war, or games about killing.

        But there’s something very, very sick about a 25-year-old entertainment medium which is still *incapable* of dealing with other emotions than, well, “bloodlust”, which triggers no other impulses than the fight-or-flight instinct.

        • JackShandy says:

          Hold on a second, it’s a bit much to say we’re incapable of anything but bloodlust. Joy, curiosity, wonder, the urge to explore – and that’s just Super Mario Brothers. Emotions are dumb, though, anyway.

          Re-reading Parkins’ article, he really seems to be just railing against call of honor-style shooters. Which feel like a pretty small section of the medium to me – perhaps the section where the paying jobs are, but still pretty easy to ignore.

        • CrookedLittleVein says:

          “But there’s something very, very sick about a 25-year-old entertainment medium which is still *incapable* of dealing with other emotions than, well, “bloodlust”, which triggers no other impulses than the fight-or-flight instinct.”

          So you missed

          Mario
          Sonic
          Pokemon
          Kirby
          The Sims
          Tetris
          Fifa (and all the other sports series to boot)
          Guitar Hero
          Bejeweled
          Pathologic
          The Void
          Amnesia
          Sam & Max
          Flower
          The Journey
          Portal
          L.A.Noire
          Myst
          Dear Esther
          Braid
          Final Fantasy
          Minecraft

          . . . to name but a few. Looks like you’ve got a lot of fun ahead of you. :)

          The medium is more than capable of exploring complex emotions and activities other than gunblasting mayhem, and has done so to an admirable degree.

          • Shuck says:

            Most of the games that you mention aren’t dealing with emotion at all, though. Perhaps the particular issue under discussion needs to be formulated in a different way? (That of games that seek to provoke an emotional reaction, almost all do so through violence.) It’s difficult to argue that games are dealing, in any sophisticated or nuanced way, with issues of emotion – the number of games attempting it is small, the number doing so through anything other than cut-scenes and static content is vanishingly small.

            • CrookedLittleVein says:

              “Most of the games that you mention aren’t dealing with emotion at all, though. Perhaps the particular issue under discussion needs to be formulated in a different way? (That of games that seek to provoke an emotional reaction, almost all do so through violence.) It’s difficult to argue that games are dealing, in any sophisticated or nuanced way, with issues of emotion – the number of games attempting it is small, the number doing so through anything other than cut-scenes and static content is vanishingly small.”

              With the best will in the world, do you think it would be possible for you to elaborate a little further? I may be being slow today, but I’m not sure I fully understand your point here. For instance, in what way do you believe the games I mentioned aren’t dealing with emotion? Or could you give me an example of a game that you believe does?

              Not trying to start an argument, just curious. :)

            • Bork Titflopsen says:

              “It’s difficult to argue that games are dealing, in any sophisticated or nuanced way, with issues of emotion.”

              It seems like you are under the impression that the only way to evoke emotion is by putting down a masterpiece of linguistic and artistic subtlety, which is a terribly pretentious way to approach things and only leads to convoluted storytelling. Antoine de Saint-Exupery once said: “Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.”
              Wall-E wasn’t a terribly deep or complicated story but it nonetheless managed to make me shed multiple a single manly man-tear. The same goes for Up! or many other Pixar movies. They’re good because they don’t pretend to be more than they are nor do their makers intend for them to be so.

              Similarly games are enjoyable on a very basic level, you do stuff and you get awarded for it. It speaks to our inner child in that you learn the rules and interact with the game much in the same way that a child learns from and interacts with the rest of the world.

              Also don’t forget that oral storytelling is a staple of humanity, writing has been around for eons to perfect and the first motion picture ever made was made in 1878 while computer gaming has only been around since the early 70′s.

            • jalf says:

              Well, looking at the games on this list, let’s try a little experiment, and categorize the games on this list based on how they “explore complex emotions”:

              - take all the games which are “neutral”, which don’t really try to impart a specific experience on the player. That is, puzzle games like Bejeweled, or sandbox games where the player can just do what she likes, such as The Sims
              - now find all the games which are simply about the hero defeating all the bad guys, with no further nuances, no background or character development or anything else that might impart stronger feelings than an adrenaline kick (this would cover Mario and Sonic, for example)
              - then there are games which just portray real-life activities as accurately and neutrally as possible (FIFA)

              now, what’s left? The games we’ve discarded made no attempt to “explore complex emotions”. They might have been short on blood and decapitation, but they didn’t try to create a deeper experience either

              But your list certainly looks a lot smaller now, doesn’t it?

              Of course, one could also ask what Final Fantasy is doing on your list. That game is pretty combat-heavy, isn’t it? It’s a good example of how, even when game developers *try* to give players another experience (FF obviously tries to impart an emotional story, with debatable success), they coat it in combat because, well, that’s how we’ve always done it. For some reason, books or movies don’t need to do this. Heck, even comics have outgrown it, and are capable of telling stories without using 66% of the panels on combat.

              Yes, there are games on your list which honestly, genuinely *do* cover more ground that just “the lone hero beating all the bad guys”, which *do* try to touch more complex emotions and experiences. But they’re too few, and nowhere near as varied as I’d expect from a relatively old medium such as this. We can’t keep pretending that the games industry is in its infancy. We can’t keep giving it a blank checque, saying that “at least there are *some* games which aren’t just about cutting people’s heads off”.

          • Josh W says:

            I bet if you asked the designers, all of those were created with consideration of emotion, including tetris!

          • jalf says:

            And you feel that all of these got as much showtime at E3 as the latest manshooter, or anything featuring decapitation, blood and sex?

            What do you think EA or Activision looks for when they’re looking at games to publish?

            Is it the depth of the story, the deep emotional experience, the artistic value, or is it how many hundred nazis you get to violently dismember?

            Yes, well done, you caught me exaggerating. Bravo. Yes, I do know both Sonic and Tetris are real games which exist.

            But I can’t help feeling, and correct me if I’m wrong, that if you look at the “typical” game being made in western countries in 2012, it’s closer to Call of Duty than it is to Kirby.

            The *medium* is capable of much, much more, sure, absolutely.

            But the *industry* is not, it seems. “The industry” is still mentally 13 years old and obsessed with guns and boobs.

            Sure, in the last couple of years, a lot of indies have really started exploring what *else* the medium can do. But they’re still the outliers, the exceptions. But violence is still the norm.

            Even many games that try to be “deeper”, which try to deal with other issues, typically resort to violence “in between”, to flesh out the gameplay. It’s a funny thing, but most books do not need to resort to life-or-death battles or gunfights to advance the plot.

            If we can get back to the point, the one of “games outgrowing combat”, that, to me, means that “combat should no longer be the focal point of games *as a whole*. It shouldn’t be the default, it shouldn’t be the face of the indusrty, it shouldn’t be what nearly every game resorts to for its gameplay”.

            The statement does not mean “No game has yet been made which does not feature combat”. It does not mean “combat should be banned from videogames”. It simply means that today, in 2012, combat, violence and blood play a disproportionate role in the games industry, and *because* we can do better, as some of the games on your list showed, we *should* do better.

    21. Om says:

      That Eurogamer article captures (despite my lack of English-ness) just how alien that US attitude to guns is for me. What summed it up was a comment on the original (non-Eurogamer) piece:

      “Please, tell me how linking to a legitimate business [ie, guns stores] is deplorable, it’s not any worse then dlc or micro-transaction”

    22. RobF says:

      http://gamasutra.com/blogs/CorvusElrod/20120814/175918/Be_Better_Stewards.php

      Related to the Gaslamp and EA things amongst many others, Corvus provides this weeks “look, games industry…”.

      Couldn’t agree with him more, really.

      • Stellar Duck says:

        Thanks for that link Rob. A refreshing read, even if I’m still undecided on the girlfriend mode situation.

        I genuinely can’t make my mind up as I think it all comes down to context. A context I don’t have as I haven’t seen anywhere the exact words the dev used. As for Randy Pitchford, he can go jump in a hole. He’s a moron most of the time.

      • PopeJamal says:

        Honestly, I’m a bit tired of the entire situation. This isn’t a new problem and I passed the “being angry” exit ramp years ago, when nobody gave a damn about the issue. That’s probably because:

        a) I’m not a “white” guy
        b) I don’t treat women like shit

        So really, I’m tired of hearing about it because there is literally nothing I can do about it. I can’t even participate in the public shaming of the “bad people” because my opinion has no value in the gaming community since I’m not a caucasian male. *shrug*

        The only reason anyone “who matters” cares now is because a few of the people in the industry with foresight see how much “Angry Birds” money is being left on the table from the “affluent caucasian women with expensive phones and tablets” market. That’s it as far as I can tell.

        Otherwise, they couldn’t care any less about being inclusive.

        • RobF says:

          That’s honestly not why Corvus or myself or most people I know actually care about it at all. I understand how you can get to such a view of things and I appreciate it because this industry is a shitpit, but not everyone is like that.

          Some of us genuinely just do want a better place, y’know?

        • Thecakepie says:

          @Popejamal
          “Honestly, I’m a bit tired of the entire situation. This isn’t a new problem and I passed the “being angry” exit ramp years ago, when nobody gave a damn about the issue.”

          I’m tired of it too. I would love to be able to play games without having to think about this stuff at all. People keep approaching me to push me down and I don’t like it so I’m not letting them anymore and now they don’t like it.

          “So really, I’m tired of hearing about it because there is literally nothing I can do about it. I can’t even participate in the public shaming of the “bad people” because my opinion has no value in the gaming community since I’m not a caucasian male. *shrug*”

          I don’t want public shaming for people who do this. In my instance I was standing up to a person with the intent that he know that it’s not okay with me. I do not want people to chase down or vilify this person because he is a symptom of the problem and not the problem himself. I just want others to see it as not okay and stop doing it. As for something you can do, if you’re interested in a suggestion you can be the change you want to see in the world. Conduct yourself well, and go “Really?” or “What?!” when you see this stuff if you don’t want to be compliant with it. It’s nice because that doesn’t take considerable effort. If you know it’s wrong and your only reason for giving up is “I’m sick of it” I can understand why because being non-white is pretty awful too and so no one requires that you fight this fight too. Do what’s right for yourself.

          “The only reason anyone “who matters” cares now is because a few of the people in the industry with foresight see how much “Angry Birds” money is being left on the table from the “affluent caucasian women with expensive phones and tablets” market. That’s it as far as I can tell.”

          I’m okay with companies understanding that failing to tap into the female marketshare is foolishly leaving money on the table, but I take exception to your point because it’s painting women in an effed up way. I’ve been here the whole time, as have many other women, and only now are people able to see us because only now do we have reliable voip, social networking, and online multiplayer bringing us together. It’s part of the erasure of women to think that women in gaming is a new thing.

          • CrookedLittleVein says:

            “I’ve been here the whole time, as have many other women, and only now are people able to see us because only now do we have reliable voip, social networking, and online multiplayer bringing us together. It’s part of the erasure of women to think that women in gaming is a new thing.”

            I’d like to highlight this, because I think it’s a fairly good point. I’ve known quite a few people suggest women are entirely new to gaming , and even some who have gone on to claim that their presence is somehow damaging the industry by slanting it in their favour – less manshoots, more sims. This isn’t so. There have ALWAYS been female gamers. My gran owned an original Gameboy and loved Tetris, I used to watch my mum play countless hours of the Alien and Die Hard games on the PS1, whilst my sister plays almost as many games as I do. The thing is, we’re only just beginning to notice how many there really are, plus gaming has become more popular/accessible than ever, meaning that there’s been an influx of female gamers. This is a good thing. Mediums that can’t adapt, can’t appeal to broader audiences, tend to stagnate or remain in a strange niche.

            Gaming is growing up (to some degree at least) and we should be celebrating that.

    23. Unaco says:

      The bodyhacking article is a little disappointing… No mention of the Haptic compass, possibly the first of these ‘body hacks’ that got any attention (and easy enough to do yourself, without slicing your body open). Nor Microsoft’s Sense Cam (perhaps understandable as this seems to be about the ‘Underground’, but it’s a genius piece of kit, and it’s doing some wonders in research of memory – if buying Windows leads to more things like it, I’ll keep paying). Nor non-intrusive methods for detecting muscle activity produced by sub-vocalisations, i.e. talking without making a sound (the Archer tactical turtleneck IS, nearly, a reality).

      • LTK says:

        I disagree, I think it’s much more interesting than those projects. The haptic compass and SenseCam are useful to strengthen the knowledge and experiences that we are already familiar with. Implanted magnets, on the other hand, give a person a whole new sense that was completely inaccessible to them before. I admit it’s a much less practical sense than a haptic compass, but I think the prospect of augmenting a healthy person with new abilities is much more exciting than any clinical treatment.

        I haven’t heard of the technology to detect vocal muscle activity, do you have a source for that? Or is it just achieved by applied MEGs?

      • Josh W says:

        Those examples are marvellous, cheers!

    24. Matt-R says:

      I honestly thought the tomahawk was cute. But then I own swords. I have of course become the worlds most deadly serial killer killing the entirety of norwich without anyone knowing (noone would notice anyway).

      Though to be fair swords are nice to look at axes are pretty ugly to me so I guess there is that.

      • Mattressi says:

        I’m both surprised and grateful to hear that neither you nor your swords have yet committed a violent act. Clearly you’re crazy, though, since sane people ensure that edged objects (also blunt objects…anything non-padded, really) are not owned by themselves, unless they have a government-sanctioned lawful purpose. After all, kitchen knives can’t be used to murder people, but a switchblade will MAKE YOU DO IT.

    25. Hoaxfish says:

      Make a man a sandwich and he eats for a day, teach a man how to make a sandwich and he can feed himself for life?

    26. NightShift says:

      Why Vigil? Why? I thought you were good developers! Unless it was THQ’s fault, which is also rubbish since I like THQ.

    27. MadMatty says:

      https://www.facebook.com/battlefield :)

      finally, a radio station with Dubstep done right: http://www.di.fm/dubstep
      Haters gonna hate- guess you didnt get your psy-trance/death metal ready in time, when it was still hot.

    28. RegisteredUser says:

      So it appears Dredmore girl disabled her comments?
      Or they are just broken?

      Maybe she might come across it here.
      I typed it up before finding out the blog just throws error fits (insert sexist remark about women and pink blog technology here) and since I am a selfish prick and everything is now online and in the cloud, I figured I’ll just post it here and try to repost it some other day if I remember.

      This is for her:

      —-
      I feel sorry for you for being treated like that. Because that kind of behavior is silly/stupid/retarded/take a pick.

      I however also feel that you, just like anyone else going down that road, are a downright douche if your reaction is to simply huffnpuff because of ALL the evil males, instead of realizing that no, not all men are alike, yes, there are people who will simply nod you a respectful “props” and think you’re just another cool fellow gamer.

      No, you really aren’t making it better by making it about you. Or whining on about how you thought “indie gaming fans” were “better”.

      Look at yourself. You’re generalizing people while you’re complaining about being generalized.

      Do you know how we, men and women alike(or, if this already is an issue: women and men alike) would be moving much faster towards getting over this crap?

      By doing the same thing we do with all idiots:
      Ignore them, and be with the cool people that aren’t.

      By launching pink blogword attacks(or standing next to all the “oooh, videogames create sexsim / men are sexist assholes / we are constantly under attack” people), you’re simply placing yourself right next to Mister Master Troll by simply comfortably sliding into the “poor little me, can’t even be allowed to be good at a game” victim role.
      Instead you should recognize the fact that a very huge portion of anyone who enjoys gaming, roguelikes, Dredmore, very well knows exactly how tough it is to do what you did, respects you for that and would raise a glass of Digglenog to you. Regardless of anything else.

      Being a whiny whine(that goes for the male commenters, too) just makes me want to close this page, roll my eyes and go “Oh god, not ANOTHER one of those.”.

      So what are you? Another to be respected gamer who knows trolls gonna be trolls, just as equal as the next guy, or a whiny girl, become victim yet again, that demands attention because someone in the world wasn’t nice to you?

      You’re not alone with other human beings being utter dicks towards you for your race/creed/belief/gender/etc take your pick again. Anyone can and does suffer that.
      It is up to you whether you want to dwell and fill the role or overcome it.

      Think about it, maybe?

      Same goes for all the other divisive perspective promoters that are becoming so saddeningly damn popular lately. With such a hypnotized, seemingly addicted emphasis on “what is” instead of helping to be “what should” people are just becoming part of the problem instead of solving it.

      -
      Honest props from me for beating DoD the way you did.

      • RegisteredUser says:

        Small P.S. maybe.

        Part of the issue with all of this sexism stuff is something that you can see in basically the same mechanisms elsewhere. Do you know the kind of alternative / conspiracy theory / hippie / whatever guy that always sees “the man” trying to hold him down?
        That is stopping him from succeeding, manipulating him at every step, constantly explains and excuses everything that goes wrong in that guy’s life?

        Or how about the black guy that sees racism in everything? Some movies(especially black ones) have parodied this par excellence, with a nice skit being the part in CB4 where you get to see an ex-member of the posse perform “I’m black y’all”.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFY2kJ96jNY
        Come across in any way ridiculous? I hope so, that’s because it is.
        By reducing yourself to your race, and making every thing wrong in the world revolve around it as well, you are removing any room for personal factors, personal achievement, individuality itself.

        Basically, by complaining about being reduced, “held down” and oppressed, you are yourself feeding the very mechanism and blocking yourself from ever coming out of it’s shadow. Because you define yourself by it, and you live by it, and you limit yourself by it.

        The people that brought emancipation, ended segregation and fought slavery were the ones who _no longer_ identified with their mistreatment and instead started behaving PAST their mistreatment. By standing up for themselves, or by sitting down where they want to instead of where they should.
        By _moving past_ their perceived and actual oppression, not by endorsing, cherishing, using, abusing, living and integrating it into their identity.
        By stepping past it.

        And all these women like Sarkeesian or what he name is, Dredmore girl or any of the other “Oh its all so terrible NOW and we need to complain about what IS and stay stuck on the issues HERE” people are falling into the same mechanism of the people I tried to outline above.
        Some will certainly argue that they ARE indeed moving past and trying to simply be and act as they should when past the inequality, and that it is “the others” that are preventing them from doing this without a hitch that are the problem, not the women trying to move past it.

        I don’t agree. Yes, they are playing the games that supposedly some people don’t think they could or should(Who, I always wonder. Its nonsensical). Women are also working jobs they once were told they were incapable of. But the issue or rather the problem we have here is this:
        I think the tone overall is far too much focussed on the wrong and the here and the now, and there is little to no thinking in the “I have a dream” version. Only complaints that at any attempt to do something, you get stamped back down.

        What you need to do is stop being bothered by the resistance from the idiots and just overcome it.
        Not get stuck by it, distracted by it or hindered by it.
        They don’t like that you’re just as good? Too bad. You’re doing what you enjoy, and if they don’t recognize you for it, a whole lot of non-morons will.
        But you have to actually open yourself up to THAT truth as well, not just go “oh well I thought THESE people would be different”.
        They are, or rather they aren’t. Because maybe most males are actually far less assholes on their own than one might think after all these posts and articles.
        And that you’re just making some bad examples represent a whole group. You know, kinda what men do when they say all women are sluts, because one girl cheated on them or didn’t hand out their number nilly-willy.
        Clearly a healthy mechanism, ey!

        So:
        Don’t focus on the bad, wrong and moronic side. You’ll just feed it.
        Move past it. Enjoy the achievements and don’t dwell on the paranoid “all those evil males are out to get me” side(and then make it worse by generalizing people and groups yourself).
        We don’t need xxx times overfunded kickstarters to move past this, webseries, boohoo blogsposts from men and women alike or comissioners.
        We need to all together socially dismiss the idiots behaving like assholes towards women in nonchalant agreement and focus on being normal human beings towards one another.

        • RobF says:

          I’d break my comments section if I knew someone was going to post that, man.

          I’m sure she appreciates the lecture on how she should react and live her life though. Keep going!

          • RegisteredUser says:

            She posted 3 public blog entries on the internet about it and has a comment section.

            Are you suggesting she doesn’t want a public reaction from what she writes?

            And you can see it as berating if you want. All I know is I have roughly a decade worth of being stalked, bullied and excluded and a close friend who has a similiar background.
            I’ve gone through more than online forum boo-hooism and I learned to live a better life by changing it.

            Sorry for trying to help someone else out with the experiences I had in my life, dude.
            We really should have a society where we all just keep to ourselves.

        • Eddy9000 says:

          Yes, obviously by fighting online sexism she’s actually causing the problem, and not the people who make comments like “get back in the kitchen”.
          Obviously the best thing people can do to evoke change is just sit back quietly and be repressed.

          You silly boy.

          • pipman3000 says:

            if people stopped pointing out sexism when they saw it nobody would be aware it happens, that’s the same as ending sexism right???

            • RegisteredUser says:

              I am not sure whether its not reading what I wrote properly, or whether the point didn’t come across well enough(partly due to how messy my writing sometimes gets, or me swallowing some missing logic sentences by only thinking instead of writing them).

              But since it’s clearly in there, I am not going to regurgitate in this reply.

        • Tetragrammaton says:

          Never fear womankind: If you just shut your mouths and get on with your lives in dutiful silence, all this age-old entrenched misogynism will disappear like yesterday’s racism! Because as we all know, the greatest force for change in the world is to do fuck all. Genius!

          • lurkalisk says:

            It wasn’t exactly Shakespeare, but if you didn’t go straight into his post thinking nothing but that standard combative “They’re probably not on MY side! Time to willfully misinterpret whatever I can! ATTACK! ATTACK!!”, then you might have gleaned that this fellow’s got a point, and it’s a point you willfully butchered for the sake of being right in your own eyes. I simply can’t believe you’re dumb enough to think, after reading all they wrote, that RegisteredUser means for women to just sit there and take whatever comes their way.

            If there’s anything to be learned from history, it’s that positive change comes not from attacking the standard, but by upholding the ideal. That, seen here in the most concise form I could conjure, is what I got from RU’s posts, and I have a feeling you know it as well. Stop being so adversarial and try and actually learn about people and their arguments, then you might be able to make a post of any substance .

            • RegisteredUser says:

              Thanks dude. :)

              I realize I often make a complicated mess out of simple points. For that I’m sorry.

            • jalf says:

              If there’s anything to be learned from history, it’s that positive change comes not from attacking the standard, but by upholding the ideal

              Huh? Are we looking at the same history here?

              That is an absurd claim. Why *shouldn’t* we call attention to it when people treat us like shit? Why should we *not* criticize the things we disagree with?

              And, for that matter, did you guys bother to read the part where she said that she’s spent most of her life “upholding the ideal” without making a difference?

              Really… I don’t even…

            • lurkalisk says:

              If you know much about history, you’d know that the most radical, often negative (no matter the intent) change is the sort brought about by aggression. Simply doing it the right way, and encouraging others to as well, is what brings long lasting positive change, and history is full of examples. The accuracy of my assessment here obviously varies, as nothing’s quite so simple, so what I’m saying is somewhat a generalization.

              Anyway, your post is a good example of a lack of something developed societies used to have in abundance: adaptive comprehension. It doesn’t seem to me that RU’s posts suggested everyone just shut up about it. Living life the way we should also means encouraging others to do the same, it does not mean fighting with bigoted pricks.

              *Note* My position on all this is certainly not that she or the mod made any wrong decisions, I’m only saying that, in a greater scope, RegisteredUser has a point. Though, to be fair, if this had its own article, a title like “Progress: Prince charming saves damsel in distress from tasteless joke” would be sadly apt.

          • MadMatty says:

            I think he means that misoginy is indeed taught as a cultural thing, religion etc.
            If you just shut up and observe, you´ll see theres nothing to it, like racism, and that it will dissapear by its own accord.
            I´m surprised that the episode got so much attention, its just a troll, and some chick having a go at each other.
            How about we discuss workplace discrimination against women, and personal sexual harrasment from co-workers?

            • jalf says:

              Racism disappeared just by people “shutting up and observing”?

              That’s news to me.

              More on-topic, I see no reason to consider him “a troll”. I see no reason to question his motives. I don’t think he wanted to offend anyone. I also don’t think he’s quite as unique as you make him out to be.

              A lot of people make jokes like that all the time, and see nothing wrong with it. The problem is not just a few “trolls”.

    29. Hoaxfish says:

      BBC world service has a program called The Culture Of Gaming with Aleks Krotoski (who remembers Bits on Channel 4), with some words from Peter Molyneux

    30. RvLeshrac says:

      Stop posting that fucking CliffyB article. Does someone have their lips wrapped around his cock?

      He’s an idiot, and you don’t have to look far beyond his own games to see that most of the “Terrible Things” he mentions in the article would have made them not boring-as-fuck cover shooters where all you do is take a few potshots at enemies then cower behind a wall for a minute.

    31. DrBomb says:

      The game is called Papo & Yo, not papa

    32. DeepSleeper says:

      It’s great that we’ve reached the critical milestone where a woman can be protected from sexism by a man swooping in to defend her. I’m pretty sure that’s totally how that’s supposed to work.

      • Bluefox says:

        Damn, I can’t find the “Like” or “+1″ buttons anywhere for individual comments. I’m sure this one would be rated +3000, though.

      • InternetBatman says:

        I don’t think it’s a bad thing because it can create positive peer pressure. It’s just an intermediate stage though.

    33. alundra says:

      Speaking of EA, how come RPS hasn’t given this any coverage:

      sale to private equity firms, according to a New York Post report. Coming amid weak financial results for EA, the report casts doubt on the company’s ability to transition into digital publishing effectively.

      http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/374794/20120817/electronic-arts-ea-games-sale.htm

    34. vash47 says:

      @PleasingFungus
      Yeah, I’m gonna need a name for that “schoolgirls who are actually tanks” TBS.

    35. pipman3000 says:

      It’s kind of weird how when someone says something racist people (4chan, stormfront, reddit, and freep excluded) can usually agree they’re a shitty person but whenever someone says something misogynist a bunch of dudes suddenly come out of the woodwork to white knight them

      • alundra says:

        Care to elaborate?

        • JohnS says:

          Before anyone elaborates, I’d like to point out that Alundra said this at the first page:

          “@ JohnS

          Question, do you win a lot of pussy with your stupid demean misandry in favor of misogyny speech??? On thing is sure at least, women never respect manginas like you, they just use them ass tools.”

          He probably feels hurt by your misandrous comment, pipman3000.

    36. MadMatty says:

      Anyway, Congrats on completing Dungeons of Dredmoor on “hardcore”.
      You, Madam, are not a casual.

    Comment on this story

    XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>