Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23
  1. #1
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    112

    A balanced perspective article on Gamergate

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...c5pPhgt-EuZNmY

    This is an article I written for an American Multiculturalism class I had in university recently.
    I tried my best to represent the arguments put forth by different sides.
    Please feel free to comment and discuss the findings I made.

    Tell me what you think and whether you agree/disagree with my assessments.

    Thank you and Regards
    Tommy Stillman

  2. #2
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Wolfenswan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,564
    Regardless of it's content, at the moment I wouldn't publish anything Gamergate-related on the internet under my full name unless I'd be required to.

  3. #3
    Network Hub Ethelred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Bristawl
    Posts
    298
    Understandably, gamers were upset over the videos Sarkeesian was making because the series generally had an agenda towards portraying videogames as sexist and stereotyped towards women while ignoring the examples of equality and normalcy

    I would be specific here or imho you are generalising. Is this your opinion or quoted?

    Essentially, these cases focus on a small subset of behaviours displayed in fringe groups existing within a wide diversity of gamers in America.

    My limited understanding of this is that the majority of #gamersgate WAS attacks on women in the gaming industry, so if you could quantify this, or point to data where it has been quantified that would help your statement or otherwise it's a (baseless) assertion.

    Instead of properly addressing and condemning these harassment actions, most journalists participated in groupthink and proceeded to write editorials mirroring each other’s pieces and referencing from the same sources.

    which were?

    The backlash against gaming journalism was inevitable under these circumstances.

    why? If this is your conclusion I would really spell it out - X caused Y because Z.

    Overall I think your conclusion needs to be much stronger and spelled out more clearly -

    It is, thus, prudent for journalists and media outlets as the facilitators and gateways of mass communications to consider everyone’s political right to the freedom of expression. Otherwise, they risk becoming instigators of scandals and losing credibility in the eyes of the public.

    So so specifically in terms of Gamersgate? They shouldn't have closed comments and allowed harassment? I think you need to relate it back to the specifics you are discussing.

    finally the title is misleading "What is Gamersgate?" as your essay isn't a descriptive one as at the end you conclude with recommendation. It's an opinion piece and therefore the title should reflect that - Recommendations for online games journalism post Gamersgate would perhaps be more apt?
    Last edited by Ethelred; Yesterday at 02:29 PM.

  4. #4
    "Understandably, gamers were upset over the videos Sarkeesian was making because the series generally had an agenda towards portraying videogames as sexist and stereotyped towards women while ignoring the examples of equality and normalcy."

    Understandably?
    Also, they thought/felt the series generally had an agenda.

    Additionally, the people Quinn had sexual relationships with “included Joshua Boggs, Quinn’s Boss; and Nathan Grayson, a reporter for Kotaku” who has previously covered Depression Quest favourably
    It'd be nice if you mentioned that Nathan Grayson, at the time still working at RPS, never actually wrote that "favourable" article.

    Meanwhile, articles indirectly addressed at censuring gamers

    ? You even contradict your own words by giving a more accurate description of those articles later.

    These editorials were interpreted as an attack on the “gamer” identity at large, majority of whom had never heard of Gamergate or involved themselves with the issues related to Quinn, be it debate or harassment.

    Source?


    within a wide diversity of gamers in America.

    When did it become about America?

    Your conclusions are not really argued using the material you give, just stated as if they were obvious consequences of what you had us read. The last paragraph and the quote about censorship at the end really is out of place, considering the only "censorship" happened in some comment sections of privately-owned websites, and no one's right to speak on the internet was actually hurt in the slightest. What kind of information manipulation happened? From which side? You didn't show us any, really, you only talked about opposed perspectives in a debate.

    1) What course is the essay for? What skills do you need to show?
    2) Why is the "balanced" approach the correct one? Are both sides wrong? Is one side right in the theory, but wrong in the method? It almost seems, from your conclusion, taht you believe the anti-GG side is right, they were just too aggressive in how they reacted to GG. If it's so, you need to state it a bit more clearly. What about gamers wanting to be a part of mainstream culture without wanting to give space to the same kind of criticism that the rest of mainstream culture is subjected to? Because they're still "sensitive" over being excluded as geeks and nerds? Doesn't seem like the best argument. "Well, yeah, you're a racist, misogynist pig, but we treated you like a loser nerd for 20 years, so now you should be allowed 20 years of free pass over your faults"
    Last edited by MelodyMeows; Yesterday at 02:33 PM.

  5. #5
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,585
    Can we discuss the multicultural phenomenon which is why Asians often adopt a western name or vice-versa on game forums - both of which alway sound like characters from GTA?

    Safer than gamergate by about 1000x1000000 times

    yours

    The Real Jin Ping
    Last edited by trjp; Yesterday at 02:45 PM.

  6. #6
    Activated Node
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    57
    Not really about Gamergate, but about ethics in games journalism and also a chance to spread the word that DIGITISER IS BLOODY BACK

  7. #7
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by trjp View Post
    Can we discuss the multicultural phenomenon which is why Asians often adopt a western name or vice-versa on game forums - both of which alway sound like characters from GTA?
    It is a pen name.

  8. #8
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus somini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NEuro Troika Franchulate #3
    Posts
    3,755
    Quote Originally Posted by trjp View Post
    Can we discuss the multicultural phenomenon which is why Asians often adopt a western name or vice-versa on game forums - both of which alway sound like characters from GTA?
    I would want to know why this happens in real life. Things like Hu Jintao are not that hard to read.
    I'm not asking for chinese characters, that would be true multiculturalism, just use your real name. Or does it have to do with the "intimate name" thing, as portrayed in the Ghitzerai, or the Hanar?
    Steam(shots), Imgur, Flickr, Bak'laag, why do you forsake me?

  9. #9
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus somini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NEuro Troika Franchulate #3
    Posts
    3,755
    It is perhaps fitting to end with a quote from the game, Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, released before the turn of the millennium – before the meteoric rise of social media:
    *slow clap*

    I just can't read a paper without IEEE-style citations. It feels wrong, somehow.
    Steam(shots), Imgur, Flickr, Bak'laag, why do you forsake me?

  10. #10
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    3,744
    Quote Originally Posted by Junkenstein View Post
    Not really about Gamergate, but about ethics in games journalism and also a chance to spread the word that DIGITISER IS BLOODY BACK
    Ace, thank you!

  11. #11
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Squiz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Arcadia
    Posts
    4,635
    Mod note: Moving this to the Other Stuff subforum.
    Forum janitor in training.

  12. #12
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by Ethelred View Post
    Understandably, gamers were upset over the videos Sarkeesian was making because the series generally had an agenda towards portraying videogames as sexist and stereotyped towards women while ignoring the examples of equality and normalcy

    I would be specific here or imho you are generalising. Is this your opinion or quoted?
    Its my opinion. I should have worded it better as thought/felt. The sources I gave implied as much. I recommend you read them too.

    Essentially, these cases focus on a small subset of behaviours displayed in fringe groups existing within a wide diversity of gamers in America.

    My limited understanding of this is that the majority of #gamersgate WAS attacks on women in the gaming industry, so if you could quantify this, or point to data where it has been quantified that would help your statement or otherwise it's a (baseless) assertion.
    I don't really understand what you mean. I provided sources on how the majority of gamergate is not attacks on women.

    Instead of properly addressing and condemning these harassment actions, most journalists participated in groupthink and proceeded to write editorials mirroring each other’s pieces and referencing from the same sources.

    which were?
    Check the links I provided. I think there were 4 of them. Gamasutra, Kotaku, Dan Golding, Ars Technica etc.

    The backlash against gaming journalism was inevitable under these circumstances.

    why? If this is your conclusion I would really spell it out - X caused Y because Z.
    I did under Factors heading

    Overall I think your conclusion needs to be much stronger and spelled out more clearly -

    It is, thus, prudent for journalists and media outlets as the facilitators and gateways of mass communications to consider everyone’s political right to the freedom of expression. Otherwise, they risk becoming instigators of scandals and losing credibility in the eyes of the public.

    So so specifically in terms of Gamersgate? They shouldn't have closed comments and allowed harassment? I think you need to relate it back to the specifics you are discussing.
    It is my personal opinion that if people are writing editorials, then they should open the comments for the opportunity of others to dicuss. Not doing so just makes it seem like its an objective piece with no room for discussion. Verbal/Textual harassment on the Internet is inevitable because of annoymity. If everything offensive was considered a threat, then it would be ridiculous. For example, I can write here. I will kill Obama with my RPG on Christmas day when he is dining with his family. This is a threat or can be considered a threat but its on the Internet and I am annoymous. Are people really going to take it at face value?

    finally the title is misleading "What is Gamersgate?" as your essay isn't a descriptive one as at the end you conclude with recommendation. It's an opinion piece and therefore the title should reflect that - Recommendations for online games journalism post Gamersgate would perhaps be more apt?
    You are right in that my article is mis-titled, I should think about changing that.
    Last edited by fenghuang; Yesterday at 03:58 PM.

  13. #13
    If you cite several conflicting source, you need to clearly state which one is right.

    You talked about several different perspectives without discrediting any of them or suggesting one's right and the others are not. In other words, you provided sources saying that GG is mostly harassment and sources that GG is not just harassment, but you haven't argued why one is correct and the other is not.

  14. #14
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Jesus_Phish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    4,399
    Quote Originally Posted by MelodyMeows View Post
    If you cite several conflicting source, you need to clearly state which one is right.

    You talked about several different perspectives without discrediting any of them or suggesting one's right and the others are not. In other words, you provided sources saying that GG is mostly harassment and sources that GG is not just harassment, but you haven't argued why one is correct and the other is not.
    What if neither is right? Or if the piece is just meant to show it from a neutral view point?
    "Halo is designed to make the player think "I look like that, I am macho sitting in my undies with my xbox""

    Steam ID

  15. #15
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Grizzly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The Bishopric of Utrecht
    Posts
    2,175
    Quinn’s Boss;
    Zoe Quinn is self employed.

    Noteworthy additions: Depression Quest was published on the 14th of February 2013, and the harassment about that game had been going on atleast since then. I have heard that miss Quinn has been harassed even before that, might be a noteworthy thing to seek out. It seems that quite a few people were already interested in making Quinn "go away" before depression quest was released (let alone released on steam)

    I also note that you often say that things "have been reported". However, you make no note to discuss the validity of these reports. If you want to make a balanced report on gamergate, you need to research stuff like that. Otherwise, you risk creating false equivalence (and that is rather important, as GG is a very touchy subject and people have had to leave their homes due to the fallout)

    Instead of properly addressing and condemning these harassment actions, most journalists participated in groupthink and proceeded to write editorials mirroring each other’s pieces and referencing from the same sources.
    I don't think "most journalists" is a fair description
    Last edited by Grizzly; Yesterday at 04:14 PM.

  16. #16
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by MelodyMeows View Post
    If you cite several conflicting source, you need to clearly state which one is right.

    You talked about several different perspectives without discrediting any of them or suggesting one's right and the others are not. In other words, you provided sources saying that GG is mostly harassment and sources that GG is not just harassment, but you haven't argued why one is correct and the other is not.
    I disagree with your style of going about an essay. I believe the sources I quoted may not be objective because they are mostly editorials or opinion pieces, which is what the majority of Gamergate-related articles are.

    I don't believe there is a need to argue for who is correct or who isn't. Clearly, there has been harassment. Clearly, the majority of Gamergate supporters do not believe themselves to be harassing women or do not harass women.
    The harassment parts have been widely reported on.
    The "Gamergate isn't about harassment, extremists amongst us are" part has been less reported on, but browsing through my sources, I have determined that this is true.

    To me, there is no way of crediting or discrediting any editorial piece or claim because the majority of evidence is online and over online conversations/dealings.
    But to me, that isn't the point. I am not writing this piece as an investigative work. Im writing it as an opinion piece on why nd how Gamergate began.

    If we are to go by "evidence" provided, then I can only rely on the "evidence" from Internet Aristocrat and TotalBiscuit, as well as the police reports and 4chan text logs provided by Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian.
    Most of these "evidence" are screenshots and personal reports and are very difficult to verify. I am not about to arrange meetups with all the involved parties and verify them myself. (I suspect they will not entertain a no-name like me anyway.)
    Thus, as I said, it isnt an investigation, more of an editorial on the how/why/what of Gamergate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grizzly View Post
    Zoe Quinn is self employed.
    I provided sources. Perhaps you should take a look at them.

    Otherwise, you could provide your own to dispute mine and I'll take a look.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jesus_Phish View Post
    What if neither is right? Or if the piece is just meant to show it from a neutral view point?
    That was exactly my intention.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grizzly View Post
    Noteworthy additions: Depression Quest was published on the 14th of February 2013, and the harassment about that game had been going on atleast since then. I have heard that miss Quinn has been harassed even before that, might be a noteworthy thing to seek out. It seems that quite a few people were already interested in making Quinn "go away" before depression quest was released (let alone released on steam)

    I also note that you often say that things "have been reported". However, you make no note to discuss the validity of these reports. If you want to make a balanced report on gamergate, you need to research stuff like that. Otherwise, you risk creating false equivalence (and that is rather important, as GG is a very touchy subject and people have had to leave their homes due to the fallout)

    I don't think "most journalists" is a fair description
    I am well aware Depression Quest was published before August. But August was the Steam release. I think I addressed that part.
    Also, I addressed the allegation that ZQ claimed to have been harassed before August too.

    False equivalence by whose standards? If we are to visit Reddit's forum as example. Then KotakuinAction, slant pro-GG, is way bigger than GamerGhazi and the others combined, those that are slant anti-GG.
    If we are to read articles on major publications as example, then majority are slant anti-GG, while a few are slant pro-GG.
    So do we go by gaming personalities count or annoymous Internet users count?
    Also, how do we address the "third-parties" that just "cover" the editiorial pieces? Are they artificially increasing the count too?
    It is my opinion that it is very difficult to account for false equivalence on this topic, because the findings are not objective to begin with. (Objective in the sense that experiments can be done to prove it right. Or that someone that definitely represents Gamergate can take authority and give statements.)

    I intended on taking a neutral stance. I explained, in my opinion, the motives and angle of critics and supporters alike in equal representation.


    Lastly, the 10-18 that were quoted in that source were largely on "major publications". When that many prominent industry journalists participated in the groupthink to write similar editorials, I think I can justifiably say "most".
    Last edited by QuantaCat; Yesterday at 06:18 PM. Reason: meeeeeeeeeeeeeeerge

  17. #17
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Grizzly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The Bishopric of Utrecht
    Posts
    2,175
    I provided sources. Perhaps you should take a look at them.
    Nah. You lifted a quote from Gjoni's article (which should not be considered a valid source under any circumstance).

    False equivalence by whose standards?
    Journalistic ones! The problem with Gamergate is that there's hardly any substance to their claims. As such, they should not be reported on (Because that would be false equivalence - merely the *act* of reporting on them already gives them more credebility then they are worth).

    Lastly, the 10-18 that were quoted in that source were largely on "major publications". When that many prominent industry journalists participated in the groupthink to write similar editorials, I think I can justifiably say "most".
    Except that there's no sign of groupthink if you actually read the articles, which is the whole point.
    Last edited by Grizzly; Yesterday at 04:42 PM.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by fenghuang View Post
    I disagree with your style of going about an essay. I believe the sources I quoted may not be objective because they are mostly editorials or opinion pieces, which is what the majority of Gamergate-related articles are.

    I don't believe there is a need to argue for who is correct or who isn't. Clearly, there has been harassment. Clearly, the majority of Gamergate supporters do not believe themselves to be harassing women or do not harass women.
    The harassment parts have been widely reported on.
    The "Gamergate isn't about harassment, extremists amongst us are" part has been less reported on, but browsing through my sources, I have determined that this is true.

    To me, there is no way of crediting or discrediting any editorial piece or claim because the majority of evidence is online and over online conversations/dealings.
    But to me, that isn't the point. I am not writing this piece as an investigative work. Im writing it as an opinion piece on why nd how Gamergate began.

    If we are to go by "evidence" provided, then I can only rely on the "evidence" from Internet Aristocrat and TotalBiscuit, as well as the police reports and 4chan text logs provided by Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian.
    Most of these "evidence" are screenshots and personal reports and are very difficult to verify. I am not about to arrange meetups with all the involved parties and verify them myself. (I suspect they will not entertain a no-name like me anyway.)
    Thus, as I said, it isnt an investigation, more of an editorial on the how/why/what of Gamergate.
    Then you need to say that. Because if you tell me "Side A saw themselves and Side B like this, and Side B saw themselves and side A like this", there's no "clearly". That's what I meant. If you give me a source that says "GG is mostly about harrassment", then you need to tell me that you believe that assessment is incorrect.

    That's what I meant. If you give me a lot of contrasting sources and then don't tell me what your point of view among them is, what your reading of them is, I don't know what you think happened. For someone who may not even know what GG is before reading your essay, there is no "clearly".

  19. #19
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by Grizzly View Post
    Nah. You lifted a quote from Gjoni's article (which should not be considered a valid source under any circumstance).

    Journalistic ones! The problem with Gamergate is that there's hardly any substance to their claims. As such, they should not be reported on (Because that would be false equivalence - merely the *act* of reporting on them already gives them more credebility then they are worth).

    Except that there's no sign of groupthink if you actually read the articles, which is the whole point.
    Have you considered that journalists might have given Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn too much coverage and, in your own words, gave them more credibility than they are worth?
    As I have said previously, I consider false equivalence more applicable when claims are backed by objective studies or authority figures. In this Gamergate case, neither side can be considered truly objective in the same way that scientists agree on global warming via experiments etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by MelodyMeows View Post
    Then you need to say that. Because if you tell me "Side A saw themselves and Side B like this, and Side B saw themselves and side A like this", there's no "clearly". That's what I meant. If you give me a source that says "GG is mostly about harrassment", then you need to tell me that you believe that assessment is incorrect.

    That's what I meant. If you give me a lot of contrasting sources and then don't tell me what your point of view among them is, what your reading of them is, I don't know what you think happened. For someone who may not even know what GG is before reading your essay, there is no "clearly".
    I get what you mean. I suspect the problem is in my title. I spent most of my article addressing the How/Why portion instead of the What portion because I believed my readers would be more interested in How/Why instead of the multitude of Whats that they can already Google on the Internet for an answer.
    To that end, I provided 2 main "Whats" of Gamergate, but never expanded on them because I did not find them imperative further.
    Last edited by QuantaCat; Yesterday at 06:18 PM. Reason: meeeeeeeeeeeeeeerge

  20. #20
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Grizzly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The Bishopric of Utrecht
    Posts
    2,175
    Quote Originally Posted by fenghuang View Post
    Have you considered that journalists might have given Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn too much coverage and, in your own words, gave them more credibility than they are worth?
    No, as the claim has no merit. Sarkeesian coverage is simply because she is the only one doing analysis of sexist tropes. Zoe Quinn makes rather good games and as such gets coverage as a gaming dev. Gamergate has nothing in that regard.

    I mean, how would you turn that into a news story? "The harassers of Zoe Quinn feel that we talk too much about Zoe Quinn" is not really a story.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •