Any particular reason RPS didn't write about the latest Crusader Kings 2 announcements? It seems rather uncharacteristic.
You mean these ones?
Or has there been more made since then?
Looks like I have missed that one. I swear I read RPS that day.
I e-mailed RPS about this but I figure it's worth posting here as well. Raw Gaming is massively plagiarising RPS articles: http://raw-gaming.org/home/category/steam/
@LTK what in the blue hell is that about? Did I miss any mention of RPS or someone affiliated to the site on the Raw Gamer site there or are they really that cheap? Never seen that site before.
Some (not all) of those plagiarised articles add "Thanks To RockPaperShotgun for this article." at the bottom, but that's it. Still cheap.
That has happened before, and I think RPS used server trickery to make all the images display something rude. It even happened to my own blog... which I wrote for about 2 months in 2007 and which wasn't really very good.
The X-Rebirth preview box thingy at the top of the site definitely has an image from The Mandate. Just saying...
Why are the comments turned off in the article about Tropes vs Video Games? The author mentioned something about previous comments having written poorly about the author of those particuilar videos - is that a problem? Are readers expected to be feminists, or not debate feminist issues regardless of their stance?
out of experience, any sarkeesian article attracts hundreds and hundreds of pure bile, resulting in heavy moderation and inevitable locking the comments. Why waste time and resources? And the forum is here for any other arguments that may happen.
Why are the comments turned off in the article about Tropes vs Video Games?
Comments on previous articles about the Tropes series have devolved rapidly from disagreement (which is OK) to insults, slander and other nasty behaviour (not OK), and have had to be heavily moderated. I don't think people are expected to take a particular stance or to not debate the issues, but they are expected to play nice and remain civil. Past experience suggests that for Tropes posts, this is unlikely.Quote:
I’ve switched comments off on this post, because the hosting for RPS cost us a fortune, and I’m naffed if I’m going to pay for the usual Sarkeesian-haters to spew bile at our expense.
I'd imagine that John (or RPS as a group) decided that any constructive comments on the article would be outweighed by the volume of the negative, and that as such the discussion would be more trouble to moderate than it would be worth. Given that by this point most people will have made up their mind about Sarkeesian one way or another, this is probably a good call.
^that and of course, the forum is more moderated.
One half of the post was a link to a video with John basically saying "Ha! What a silly trope!". The other half is an excusal for disabling comments and mockingly preempting would-be challengers. It reads like him sticking a finger in his critics eyes, even if it wasn't.
I understand that the comments quickly turn to shit whenever Anita's involved, and RPS can run their site as they see fit. I just hope this doesn't become a standard practice whenever she's the subject of a newspost. That or at least have an article of substance that would warrant this kind of shielding.
In my opinion that's rather counter-productive. Comments below an article make me come back again at a later point, reading different opinions about the topic to further help me forming a differentiated opinion on the topic. Without that. I just glance over said post and myself, "Alright, John's banging his drum again, and if I'm not completely on his side I am a terrible human being as usual. Nothing new to see here."
I'm fine with the fact that John turned the comments off. Probably a good idea really. But then he comes off as a bit...abrasive...immediately after he mentions that fact. It may not have been his intent at all, just letting it be known that it's how I saw it personally.
"...are unable to at the bottom of this post, and I’m sorry about that. Thankfully my freedom-of-speech-destroying censorship powers only extend to the boundaries of this single website."
"Anita Sarkeesian forced people to give her millions of dollars and has spent it all on feminism things and never makes any videos.Good point. We’re sorry."
Sounds a bit condescending, and that doesn't help foster good debate, y'know. Taunting anyone that may have been an asshole on that post doesn't help. Only gives them more fuel to say "Oh look another feminist being a dick because my opinion differs!" I don't think we need to hand them any more ammo.
And I agree with some of the points Anita makes, and how you feel about it, but it's just the way both of you seem to present it that I don't agree with. Not saying she is being hostile by the way.
I agree that RPS should have have allowed comments, in theory.
In practice, the article published right after has a thread discussing it, so it's quite grating to read the same arguments all over again.
Which is also fine, and my general approach to sexist bigots too. But then that doesn't really gel well with posting a bunch of articles covering these issues in the first place. If you want all the bigots to piss off and stop reading your website, then you just end up preaching to the converted.
Honestly, there's value in people realizing that being sexist jackasses makes them unwelcome in at least some gaming circles. If you're convinced that Tropes vs. Women is an important attack on men or gaming, such that you stop reading the site if you're not allowed to fulminate against it, then you're not worth talking to or having around anyway.