Support NeoGAF

[hurricanes]

Wow, so many cavemen and gators out of the woods... What a time.

 

[Aflyingbanana]

Wow, so many cavemen and gators out of the woods in the thread... What a time.

I agree that a majority of the people coming at Anita are awful. There is no excuse for the behavior that some exhibit.

However, I feel like those who level legitimate criticism against her often get caught in the crossfire. On these forums you get very little margin of error if you decide to challenge her points.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Nice to see Anita doing something for real change.

I still think a lot of her content is pandering and nonsensical. I know thats an unpopular opinion here at gaf, but i truly think a lot of her content cherry picks.

I dont want to get banned for stating my opinion, but ill elaborate just so I don't come off like a hating idiot. I'm not saying I hate her or think she's trying to destroy white men or anything. I think the topic she covers is worth exploring and very important, and I agree with a number of the things she points out in her videos. But very often I feel as though she almost creates some of the problems she points out.

She'd kind of have to be an active game developer and/or screenwriter to be creating some of the problems she's pointing out.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

The 13 Most Ridiculous Things #GamerGaters Have Said About Anita and Zoe’s UN Visit (Reddit Edition)

I love how they repeat that they are saving the world.

 

[Aflyingbanana]

She'd kind of have to be an active game developer and/or screenwriter to be creating some of the problems she's pointing out.

A valid point, not what I meant however. I mean how for example in one of her videos she points out the strippers in a hitman level are the "window dressing" as she nails as a very valid complaint in many of her examples.

I'm pulling this one up because its the only example I can think of off the top of my head. But i feel like that Hitman level should receive a pass, because I think SE could have chosen a strip club for their level because it fits with the game and not just for the sexual element. I could be wrong about this, of course, but I think that one specifically is worth further examination.

 

[Platy]

I agree that a majority of the people coming at Anita are awful. There is no excuse for the behavior that some exhibit.

However, I feel like those who level legitimate criticism against her often get caught in the crossfire. On these forums you get very little margin of error if you decide to challenge her points.

Never saw someone being banned for giving actual arguments while respecting people.

They usualy goes "because it is" or go berserk in rage with direct atacks =P

 

[wowlace]

I haven't kept up to date on the Anita Sarkeesian topic. Did she ever explain what she did with all that money?

 

[Deleted member 126221]

I haven't kept up to date on the Ana Sarkeesian topic. Did she ever explain what she did with all that money?

She bought weapons and is ready to overtake the government with her army. That's what I read on KotakuInAction (neutral source).

 

[Yrael]

I haven't kept up to date on the Anita Sarkeesian topic. Did she ever explain what she did with all that money?

This has zero relevance to this particular topic, but yep, she did.

 

[Golnei]

However, I feel like those who level legitimate criticism against her often get caught in the crossfire. On these forums you get very little margin of error if you decide to challenge her points.

It's unfortunate that the discussion has become heated enough to stifle any criticism of the many problems inherent in Sarkeesian's work; with innocent comments pounced upon and twisted to look for hateful intent which simply doesn't exist; or conflating disapproval of her radical ideology for any ill intent towards the woman herself.

Which do you think was the most unjustifiable case of people piling onto someone who was just trying to have a productive conversation about Sarkeesian's work?

 

[wowlace]

This has zero relevance to this particular topic, but yep, she did.

Not zero. Her name is in the title.

Thanks for the link though btw.

 

[Aflyingbanana]

It's unfortunate that the discussion has become heated enough to stifle any criticism of the many problems inherent in Sarkeesian's work; with innocent comments pounced upon and twisted to look for hateful intent which simply doesn't exist; or conflating disapproval of her radical ideology for any ill intent towards the woman herself.

Which do you think was the most unjustifiable case of people piling onto someone who was just trying to have a productive conversation about Sarkeesian's work?

You know, that's a great question. If I come across a specific example I will respond with it. Specifics really would be the best way to attack this issue.

 

[Yrael]

Not zero. Her name is in the title.

Thanks for the link though btw.

No worries.

(I mean that it isn't relevant in the sense that the topic isn't about her kickstarter/videos.)

 

[Dryk]

I wonder when they will realise that THEY are the reason Zoe and Anita are at the United Nations.

Without Gamergate Zoe and Anita would just be a random game designer and a random youtuber

The Critical Miss webcomic on the Escapist pointed that out to them today. The point went straight over their heads. This ecosystem, where Anita is famous and basically the only prominent voice in video-game feminism. That was built by them, and it's being maintained by them.

 

[Deleted member 20920]

A valid point, not what I meant however. I mean how for example in one of her videos she points out the strippers in a hitman level are the "window dressing" as she nails as a very valid complaint in many of her examples.

I'm pulling this one up because its the only example I can think of off the top of my head. But i feel like that Hitman level should receive a pass, because I think SE could have chosen a strip club for their level because it fits with the game and not just for the sexual element. I could be wrong about this, of course, but I think that one specifically is worth further examination.

It's less about not giving Hitman a pass and more about collating examples of the troupe. You have to watch her videos with the idea that she's basing her arguments on broad observations and not in-depth analysis of any one particular game. When she mentions Hitman, she's not saying that Hitman is a misogynistic game. She's saying "look another example of what I've observed over a large amount of games" and that these examples all add up to contributing to a prevalent use of sexist tropes.

And personally I don't think Hitman should get a pass. The developers know what they were doing when they choose a stripclub. They could have used another location but they used a stripclub, just like how many other games have used stripclubs. It's a convenient location. You don't need to use a stripclub in a game about assassination.

 

[Eidan]

A valid point, not what I meant however. I mean how for example in one of her videos she points out the strippers in a hitman level are the "window dressing" as she nails as a very valid complaint in many of her examples.

I'm pulling this one up because its the only example I can think of off the top of my head. But i feel like that Hitman level should receive a pass, because I think SE could have chosen a strip club for their level because it fits with the game and not just for the sexual element. I could be wrong about this, of course, but I think that one specifically is worth further examination.

I'm still not understanding what you mean when you say she "creates some of the problems she points out". Do you just mean you disagree with some of the examples seen in her videos?

 

[DICKS AHOY]

It's unfortunate that the discussion has become heated enough to stifle any criticism of the many problems inherent in Sarkeesian's work; with innocent comments pounced upon and twisted to look for hateful intent which simply doesn't exist; or conflating disapproval of her radical ideology for any ill intent towards the woman herself.

Which do you think was the most unjustifiable case of people piling onto someone who was just trying to have a productive conversation about Sarkeesian's work?

This is what (hopefully) people mean when they say GamerGate made these people untouchable through making an already heated debate even more toxic. People concern-troll like crazy in these and the 'Tropes' threads, but at the same time it's annoying having to preface posts with 'I respect this persons right to an opinion but I don't agree with it' before you state your argument. Her running commentary on a lot of stuff at E3 just felt outright dumb to me, yet at the same time you don't want to comment on it since it just feels like you'd be inadvertently adding to the GG dogpile as opposed to if it was just you talking to someone, one on one. There's probably people shamed into not openly talking about her if it's not glowing, but there's likely just as many who're just put off with the company they'd attract if they did even a little bit.

I wouldn't really consider her videos 'radical' in the broader sense though; I've always made this argument about her work but it really does just read like the same TVTrope pages that have existed for years but with a feminist perspective. Her examples can get increasingly pedantic and in situations like that one Hitman example just further piss people off, but the overall 'this is a trope that exists in a lot of video games' point of the videos never struck me as particularly wrong.

 

[Aflyingbanana]

I'm still not understanding what you mean when you say she "creates some of the problems she points out". Do you just mean you disagree with some of the examples seen in her videos?

You're correct, I should have phrased it that way.

It's less about not giving Hitman a pass and more about collating examples of the troupe. You have to watch her videos with the idea that she's basing her arguments on broad observations and not in-depth analysis of any one particular game. When she mentions Hitman, she's not saying that Hitman is a misogynistic game. She's saying "look another example of what I've observed over a large amount of games" and that these examples all add up to contributing to a prevalent use of sexist tropes.

And personally I don't think Hitman should get a pass. The developers know what they were doing when they choose a stripclub. They could have used another location but they used a stripclub, just like how many other games have used stripclubs. It's a convenient location. You don't need to use a stripclub in a game about assassination.

Right, so nothing you said here is wrong. However, I believe if you present a piece of evidence, you need to be able to defend it (In regard to Sarkeesian not you ;P). I guess what I'm getting at is, it would be a shame if this sort of thing got so out of hand that a developer ends up going.

"Where should we put this level? A strip could would be really cool! That totally fits with the mood and theme of this story bit. But that could be poorly recieved due to the media outlash, so lets do it in a normal nightclub and give up on some of the bits that would fit with the strip club" ...What are the bits that are NEEDED for the strip club? I don't know, but creativity is supposed to be that, creative and unrestricted, and sexuality is a part of that whether people like it or not. Some people exploit it, some use it.

In games, like with movies, TV or any form of creative media, sometimes real life locations or situations are depicted where things are wrong or misogynistic. Just because they display these situations doesn't mean that they support them or encourage them. Take Game of Thrones as an example. Everyone was freaking out about all the rape scenes. George martin was spot on when he basically responded "look, that is what the world was like during feudal times, I'm depicting that, not sugar coating it".

Now lets say the strip club location wasn't solely chosen for its sexual pull. Or maybe it was, either way lets talk about it. Here's a direct quote from the video.

Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters. It's a rush, streaming from a carefully concocted mix of sexual arousal. Connected to the act of controlling and punishing representations of female sexuality.

Alright see this is where I need to pump the breaks. Lots of big phrasing being thrown around here, something I often did to pad my college essays, and it was very effective as it is here. What she's saying pretty plainly here is that the game is encouraging players to desecrate the bodies and tarnish them with very little penalty.

While this is possible, and yes I totally agree it is possible, it is not meant for the player. Hitman games give the player pretty simple objectives- murder this person, and if you could do it in this way with this weapon that would be great. I watched a few play through of this level, and at no point was the player encouraged to desecrate the corpses of strippers (If I'm wrong about this please let me know). The fact is, any corpse, stripper, bouncer, douche at the bar- they are all fair game to be tossed around in the hit man sandbox. It just so happens in this instance strippers are available because its a strip club.



This is where I feel criticism is valid of her observations. She points out the heinous crimes we can commit as a player to unwitting civilians in so many games, but then she singles out a sexualized character who these crimes are capable of being done to. The problem in this is not that you can run over a girl dressed in a bikini in GTA or Sleeping Dogs, its that that girl in the bikini is too prevalent a theme, which to her credit is the entire topic of her video about Women as Background Decoration. It is when she accuses Square Enix and other developers of encouraging the player to let out their willing misogynistic rage upon the "Dolls" that I take issue with her argument.

A sex object is still a sex object, whether you intend to use it or not

Again, to her credit, this is a good response to "well what if I don't use them?".

Well yes, they are there, they are sexualized and available. My point is simply, saying the player was encouraged and meant to do that is not universally true.

There is much much more I could say, so if you want to continue this discussion, please keep it specific because its a pretty broad topic haha. But I'm always up for it and am glad we can do it in a civil manner here on GAF.

 

[$h@d0w]

It's less about not giving Hitman a pass and more about collating examples of the troupe. You have to watch her videos with the idea that she's basing her arguments on broad observations and not in-depth analysis of any one particular game. When she mentions Hitman, she's not saying that Hitman is a misogynistic game. She's saying "look another example of what I've observed over a large amount of games" and that these examples all add up to contributing to a prevalent use of sexist tropes.

And personally I don't think Hitman should get a pass. The developers know what they were doing when they choose a stripclub. They could have used another location but they used a stripclub, just like how many other games have used stripclubs. It's a convenient location. You don't need to use a stripclub in a game about assassination.

The analysis on Hitman was very in depth and Anita was amazingly astute in the blatant objectification of the women in that game. They are literally reduced to barbie dolls that are manipulated to do anything the player wants.

We should make an example of these games and I am completely for a global body like the UN to get involved in reducing the amount of instances of misogynistic and outright violence against women (online or off). If this epidemic is not dealt with on a global basis, we will end up with the silly system we have now - uneven rules where countries like Germany and Australia are protecting their people from sexism and this protection is not uniform across the world.

We can do better for the good of everyone.

 

[Aflyingbanana]

The analysis on Hitman was very in depth and Anita was amazingly astute in the blatant objectification of the women in that game. They are literally reduced to barbie dolls that are manipulated to do anything the player wants.

We should make an example of these games and I am completely for a global body like the UN to get involved in reducing the amount of instances of misogynistic and outright violence against women (online or off). If this epidemic is not dealt with on a global basis, we will end up with the silly system we have now - uneven rules where countries like Germany and Australia are protecting their people from sexism and this protection is not uniform across the world.

We can do better for the good of everyone.

I'd like to hear your response to what I've examined about it in my post above. I agree with you, a lot needs to be done on a global scale. But were talking about games, and how examining them in a pedantic nature can do more harm than good.

 

[Dicktatorship]

Someone should really start a thread for betting on which GG sympathiser gets banned next for posting in GG threads. We could put steam gifts on the line in lieu of money.

 

[RubberJohnny]

I think it's kind of ridiculous the only point of contention is ever Hitman - it's like people think they can just find a single chink in the armour and then the whole facade will come down and undo the hundreds and hundreds of other examples of sexism in gaming, and all the abuse that she's gotten will someone not have happened and the industry will magically be no longer misogynistic or something.

She could be wrong on Hitman? Maybe she is. As a single example in a single video with dozens if not hundreds of examples, being wrong on a single one is no condemnation and does nothing to undermine the greater point. Sorry.

 

[A Link to the Past]

noted international law expert AlphaOmegaSin

It killed me when I saw him guesting w/ Mike Matei on Cinemassacre

I think it's kind of ridiculous the only point of contention is ever Hitman - it's like people think they can just find a single chink in the armour and then the whole facade will come down and undo the hundreds and hundreds of other examples of sexism in gaming, and all the abuse that she's gotten will someone not have happened and the industry will magically be no longer misogynistic or something.

She could be wrong on Hitman? Maybe she is. As a single example in a single video with dozens if not hundreds of examples, being wrong on a single one is no condemnation and does nothing to undermine the greater point. Sorry.

It's entirely silly, yeah. I can't imagine that any of the people they worship are even remotely, consistently accurate.

 

[airmangataosenai]

Never mind.

 

[Aflyingbanana]

I think it's kind of ridiculous the only point of contention is ever Hitman - it's like people think they can just find a single chink in the armour and then the whole facade will come down and undo the hundreds and hundreds of other examples of sexism in gaming, and all the abuse that she's gotten will someone not have happened and the industry will magically be no longer misogynistic or something.

She could be wrong on Hitman? Maybe she is. As a single example in a single video with dozens if not hundreds of examples, being wrong on a single one is no condemnation and does nothing to undermine the greater point. Sorry.

I never said i was trying to destroy everything she represents or bring down some facade, but simply respond to her points I disagree with. When you cast down those who level any sort of constructive or valid arguments just because a bunch of idiots can't handle a mature back and forth(Like those people who send anita death threats), that type of disposition is just as unhelpful to the overall conversation.

Also why do you assume I would discredit the threats to her life if she was wrong? What has happened to her is terrible. No one should have to go through that. The worst part is it distracts from the initial topic, which is what I was trying to focus in on here.

I'll stop now though.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I never said i was trying to destroy everything she represents or bring down some facade, but simply respond to her points I disagree with. When you cast down those who level any sort of constructive or valid arguments just because a bunch of idiots can't handle a mature back and forth, that type of disposition is just as unhelpful to the overall conversation.

There is no attempt to block criticism. Yeah, it's made it harder to make an honest criticism of her work, but to be frank, a large portion of the people who mention the Hitman portion are not interested in an honest criticism, because it isn't objectively wrong in any conceivable way, and yet is made out to be as such.

 

[Dicktatorship]

i don't know why people bother getting themselves banned for something so stupid. People have to accept that rational debate over the merits of Anita's arguments can never happen on NeoGAF and move on. It's silly to get mad about it. Even if you were skillful enough to walk the line, that line is just too thin for the risk to be worth it.

Well acknowledging the meta is actually illegal so enjoy your ban Mr.Airmangataosenai


EDIT: If the mods banned me for jokingly insinuating that another user would get banned that would be hilarious and I totally wouldn't be mad.

 

[airmangataosenai]

Well acknowledging the meta is actually illegal so enjoy your ban Mr.Airmangataosenai


EDIT: If the mods banned me for jokingly insinuating that another user would get banned that would be hilarious and I totally wouldn't be mad.

Well I wasn't aware so can I delete my post and avoid the ban? It's pretty hard to know what's kosher here if you miss the initial announcement thread for any sort of moderation policy change, where do they keep the list?

 

[Dicktatorship]

Well I wasn't aware so can I delete my post and avoid the ban?

Too late you MRA scum. Enjoy your gafless hell filled with anti-vaccination pamphlets and Red Dawn on VHS.

 

[Agent Gibbs]

I never said i was trying to destroy everything she represents or bring down some facade, but simply respond to her points I disagree with. When you cast down those who level any sort of constructive or valid arguments just because a bunch of idiots can't handle a mature back and forth(Like those people who send anita death threats), that type of disposition is just as unhelpful to the overall conversation.

Also why do you assume I would discredit the threats to her life if she was wrong? What has happened to her is terrible. No one should have to go through that. The worst part is it distracts from the initial topic, which is what I was trying to focus in on here.

I'll stop now though.

No don't stop, RubberJonny's post, whilst perhaps unintended is entirely endemic of the type of defensiveness of those in these discussions, where they elaborate a post to twist it and shut down debate, its a prime example of your original post

When i've watched her video's i've thought some of her examples are flawed, some of her arguments are flawed. I would elaborate, but given how despite your eloquent and thought out replies are still getting torn up I'd rather not risk it

Even now i can imagine I could get torn to shreds just for posting myself - perhaps i should add a final note, That i respect Anita's opinions and she is on point with the majority of it and that the vitriol that women ALL WOMEN not just Anita and Zoe face on-line is utterly abhorrent and never justified

 

[dickgumshoe]

It's unfortunate that the discussion has become heated enough to stifle any criticism of the many problems inherent in Sarkeesian's work; with innocent comments pounced upon and twisted to look for hateful intent which simply doesn't exist; or conflating disapproval of her radical ideology for any ill intent towards the woman herself.

Which do you think was the most unjustifiable case of people piling onto someone who was just trying to have a productive conversation about Sarkeesian's work?

I don't think Anita has ever spoken about people's intent when she criticized something, only the effects of those things, which I think is a valid approach. Even without malicious intent something you do or say can be harmful.

But I may be not aware of something she said. Could you link me to an example of her talking about the intent behind the things she criticizes?

 

[Yoshi]

This is what (hopefully) people mean when they say GamerGate made these people untouchable through making an already heated debate even more toxic. People concern-troll like crazy in these and the 'Tropes' threads, but at the same time it's annoying having to preface posts with 'I respect this persons right to an opinion but I don't agree with it' before you state your argument. Her running commentary on a lot of stuff at E3 just felt outright dumb to me, yet at the same time you don't want to comment on it since it just feels like you'd be inadvertently adding to the GG dogpile as opposed to if it was just you talking to someone, one on one.

The problematic thing here is that there is no dogpile here in NeoGAF (which until here is a good thing I have to add), but a supremely aggressive moderation of these topics without giving explanations. For instance there was this guy criticizing the choice of Harper. While I don't think her behaving shitty necessarily disqualifies her, looking at that argument, we have one person who tries to argue his position (again, which I don't share), whereas most people responding to him just use ad-hominems, trying to call him out as a "gator" (I like aligators, so maybe that might be a reason why I hate this term ^^) with super-dubious shit that you could bring up against Richard Dawkins even, who certainly is not a harrasser. Then moderation just bans this person without any comment whatsoever.

A similar thing happened just a few posts ago where someone posted a video of some youtuber. I don't know that video guy's history, but what I heard from the video did not seem like something where I'd go "Oh no, this is vile, obviously you need to get banned for sharing this". In fact, in a forum where I am moderator someone posted that video, so this is the reason I saw this video. So as a fellow moderator on another forum, I'd also of course would appreciate knowing if posting videos of this guy is problematic for a good reason.

Maybe there is a good reason to react so harshly to posting a video from that guy or to ban the person who was questioning Harper's role, but why do we not get to know that reason? And why, on the other hand, is aggressive ad-hominem-posting in turn seemingly completely fine? Discussions regarding feminism in video games on this forum are a minefield as a result and without any useful comments by the moderators as to why they did what they did, you cannot even get a useful conversation because it necessarily yields the impression that you can get banned for arbitrary misssteps that cannot properly be identified, if you argue against some position of Sarkeesian and others, whereas you can behave like a total dick the other way around.

I'm not talking about bannings in general, if someone gets aggressive or spews bullshit to discredit people it's fine to ban them, but please, give us some background so that we know what the rules are and what these people did wrong. It also has nothing to do with agreement or disagreement here. For instance, I disagree with the decisions regarding Opiate's pedophelia discussion, but I appreciate that it was made very clear why the moderation acted like it did, so I would say this was good moderation work, just not one that I would have done the same way.

If you as moderators somehow feel endangered for making clear that you were the ones to hand out the bannings, then you still have Modbot to give us the reasons anonymously without running at a risk of getting attacked personally by others (though I would think on this forum this would not be a huge problem anyway, judging by the relatively nice behaviour around this place and also your position to easily stop people from harrassing you here).

 

[More_Badass]

The problematic thing here is that there is no dogpile here in NeoGAF (which until here is a good thing I have to add), but a supremely aggressive moderation of these topics without giving explanations. For instance there was this guy criticizing the choice of Harper. While I don't think her behaving shitty necessarily disqualifies her, looking at that argument, we have one person who tries to argue his position (again, which I don't share), whereas most people responding to him just use ad-hominems, trying to call him out as a "gator" (I like aligators, so maybe that might be a reason why I hate this term ^^) with super-dubious shit that you could bring up against Richard Dawkins even, who certainly is not a harrasser. Then moderation just bans this person without any comment whatsoever.

A similar thing happened just a few posts ago where someone posted a video of some youtuber. I don't know that video guy's history, but what I heard from the video did not seem like something where I'd go "Oh no, this is vile, obviously you need to get banned for sharing this". In fact, in a forum where I am moderator someone posted that video, so this is the reason I saw this video. So as a fellow moderator on another forum, I'd also of course would appreciate knowing if posting videos of this guy is problematic for a good reason.

Maybe there is a good reason to react so harshly to posting a video from that guy or to ban the person who was questioning Harper's role, but why do we not get to know that reason? And why, on the other hand, is aggressive ad-hominem-posting in turn seemingly completely fine? Discussions regarding feminism in video games on this forum are a minefield as a result and without any useful comments by the moderators as to why they did what they did, you cannot even get a useful conversation because it necessarily yields the impression that you can get banned for arbitrary misssteps that cannot properly be identified, if you argue against some position of Sarkeesian and others, whereas you can behave like a total dick the other way around.

I'm not talking about bannings in general, if someone gets aggressive or spews bullshit to discredit people it's fine to ban them, but please, give us some background so that we know what the rules are and what these people did wrong. It also has nothing to do with agreement or disagreement here. For instance, I disagree with the decisions regarding Opiate's pedophelia discussion, but I appreciate that it was made very clear why the moderation acted like it did, so I would say this was good moderation work, just not one that I would have done the same way.

If you as moderators somehow feel endangered for making clear that you were the ones to hand out the bannings, then you still have Modbot to give us the reasons anonymously without running at a risk of getting attacked personally by others (though I would think on this forum this would not be a huge problem anyway, judging by the relatively nice behaviour around this place and also your position to easily stop people from harrassing you here).

Oh, trust me, explanations have been given many many times for many months. The #GG-related threads even had guidelines in the OTs

You have to understand that those who have been following this stuff since the beginning are well versed in the tactics that are commonly used. We've tried to discuss and engage many times, and it's futile. At this point, it's not worth the effort

People don't get banned for not agreeing with Anita or Zoe. They tend to get banned for drive-by shitposting that tends to involve lies or info that was debunked a year ago.

 

[Yoshi]

Oh, trust me, explanations have been given many many times for many months.

You have to understand that those who have been following this stuff since the beginning are well versed in the tactics that are commonly used. We've tried to discuss and engage many times, and it's futile. At this point, it's not worth the effort

People don't get banned for not agreeing with Anita or Zoe. They tend to get banned for drive-by shitposting that tends to involve lies or info that was debunked a year ago.

I don't want to claim this is false, don't get me wrong, but not everyone is so heavily involved in this that he knows every detail. But it is still legitimate to have an opinion in that regard and to want to express it. Seeing people being banned all the time who at least on the surface don't seem to act maliciously, is quite frightening, especially if on the other hand extremely aggressive behaviour is tolerated.

It may be tedious to explain your actions if you are moderating such a topic, I can understand this, but I would even say that I'm more of a regular in those topics and still feel quite lost on why certain persons get banned. If the reasons are all the same so many times, then it shouldn't be too much work anyway to reuse the explanation from last time.

 

[DICKS AHOY]

I meant more in general discussions online than only GAF when I was talking about being lumped in with people when you make your stance known on this issue. Though you just said yourself; somebody brings up a video or an article and suddenly gets damned for not knowing an apparent history with something, which sorta ties into what I meant, just... In the opposite direction, I guess?

I'd say part of the issue with moderation when it comes to GG is last year was filled with so many instances of someone just making a throwaway account to derail threads with irrelevant GG talking points (I think I saw that one ReturnOfKings article about Anita clearly doxxing herself on twitter for some banal reason and then questioning if she gets off on harassment like, a dozen times even when the conversation had nothing to do with her) that the mods got increasingly paranoid anytime someone in support of it or 'just asking questions' cropped up. When 4chan decides to (somewhat) ban GG discussion due to legal fears, I can see why a smaller gaming forum with a cleaner reputation and a sole owner would opt to take a hardline stance on it.

I'm not really familiar with this youtube guy either so I have no clue if it's just a random commentator or a channel that more or less exists to counter every argument against GG to be pulled up on, but the reasoning was probably down to 'concern trolling', which... I dunno; I can talk to friends into GG about that sort of stuff personally for the most part, but I can see why someone who's job it is to monitor these threads with upwards thousands of posters who sees that just a page after someone flippantly telling them to shut up without even really talking about this UN story would lump them in the same group after seeing how often down the same path that sort of post eventually leads, even if under normal circumstances you'd just let it go.

Ultimately I think it'd probably be better if GAF went back to banning GG discussion outright, even in significant news like this UN thing. Having GG threads as 'bait' threads isn't the best idea and realistically if people are lining up to account suicide over GamerGate, they're probably just going to bring it up in a non-GG thread tangentially related to these people anyway if they have the urge so badly. That Nyberg thread from a month or so ago also showed sometimes it's not even GG'rs who're going to have something controversial to say about a topic before shit completely bubbles over.

 

[Golnei]

You know, that's a great question. If I come across a specific example I will respond with it. Specifics really would be the best way to attack this issue.

I'm sure you could dig up a few from the multiple threads on here discussing her work. I'd love to see a more detailed dissection of this unprovoked retaliation to benign criticism - the baseless accusations leveled at innocuous comments have to be indicative of a larger problem.

 

[Agent Gibbs]

You have to understand that those who have been following this stuff since the beginning are well versed in the tactics that are commonly used. We've tried to discuss and engage many times, and it's futile. At this point, it's not worth the effort

People don't get banned for not agreeing with Anita or Zoe. They tend to get banned for drive-by shitposting that tends to involve lies or info that was debunked a year ago.

You see thats an issue, not everyone has the time to read 3 or 4 different threads on GAF spanning 30 pages on the topic, let alone read Twitter hastags infinite in length - so this view that only those completely in the know can post gives off this air that if you don't conform you get banned (as well as creating an echo chamber)
Equally drive by shitposting? i've seen short posts called that before when they are just short posts, you shouldn't have to write an essay in hopes you're not automatically described as shit posting and banned
Rules aren't clear at all in OT's quite often they read as if discussion is banned only back patting is allowed, seriously there's so many restrictions it is literally as others have said a minefield to navigate if you have a slightly differing view or want to discuss the issues - its so linear sometimes it seems to only allow agreement
For a topic on a discussion board, some times its like the topic isn't open to discussion

I think some people forget discussion does not equal opposing/disagreeing wholly

 

[More_Badass]

You see thats an issue, not everyone has the time to read 3 or 4 different threads on GAF spanning 30 pages on the topic, let alone read Twitter hastags infinite in length - so this view that only those completely in the know can post gives off this air that if you don't conform you get banned (as well as creating an echo chamber)
Equally drive by shitposting? i've seen short posts called that before when they are just short posts, you shouldn't have to write an essay in hopes you're not automatically described as shit posting and banned
Rules aren't clear at all in OT's quite often they read as if discussion is banned only back patting is allowed, seriously there's so many restrictions it is literally as others have said a minefield to navigate if you have a slightly differing view or want to discuss the issues - its so linear sometimes it seems to only allow agreement
For a topic on a discussion board, some times its like the topic isn't open to discussion

I think some people forget discussion does not equal opposing/disagreeing wholly

There's a difference between having a reasonable discussion about disagreeing with Anita or Randi (see Technomancer's post a few pages back) and coming into the thread to post about how they want to ruin gaming or that they need to "shut the fuck up" or that the women are professional victims, among other examples from this very thread

 

[QuantumZebra]

I don't think Anita has ever spoken about people's intent when she criticized something, only the effects of those things, which I think is a valid approach. Even without malicious intent something you do or say can be harmful.

But I may be not aware of something she said. Could you link me to an example of her talking about the intent behind the things she criticizes?

Yep I think that is one thing she sticks to very well - she never assumes intent; just points out the shortcomings/prejudice in media.

 

[QuantumZebra]

Who is this man - what the hell makes this man qualified to speak about this subject?

He's a privileged internet user... I mean come on. That gives him license to get on his soapbox and bitch about things he doesn't understand regarding issues he doesn't have to deal with.

 

[Eidan]

You're correct, I should have phrased it that way.





Right, so nothing you said here is wrong. However, I believe if you present a piece of evidence, you need to be able to defend it (In regard to Sarkeesian not you ;P). I guess what I'm getting at is, it would be a shame if this sort of thing got so out of hand that a developer ends up going.

"Where should we put this level? A strip could would be really cool! That totally fits with the mood and theme of this story bit. But that could be poorly recieved due to the media outlash, so lets do it in a normal nightclub and give up on some of the bits that would fit with the strip club" ...What are the bits that are NEEDED for the strip club? I don't know, but creativity is supposed to be that, creative and unrestricted, and sexuality is a part of that whether people like it or not. Some people exploit it, some use it.

In games, like with movies, TV or any form of creative media, sometimes real life locations or situations are depicted where things are wrong or misogynistic. Just because they display these situations doesn't mean that they support them or encourage them. Take Game of Thrones as an example. Everyone was freaking out about all the rape scenes. George martin was spot on when he basically responded "look, that is what the world was like during feudal times, I'm depicting that, not sugar coating it".

Now lets say the strip club location wasn't solely chosen for its sexual pull. Or maybe it was, either way lets talk about it. Here's a direct quote from the video.



Alright see this is where I need to pump the breaks. Lots of big phrasing being thrown around here, something I often did to pad my college essays, and it was very effective as it is here. What she's saying pretty plainly here is that the game is encouraging players to desecrate the bodies and tarnish them with very little penalty.

While this is possible, and yes I totally agree it is possible, it is not meant for the player. Hitman games give the player pretty simple objectives- murder this person, and if you could do it in this way with this weapon that would be great. I watched a few play through of this level, and at no point was the player encouraged to desecrate the corpses of strippers (If I'm wrong about this please let me know). The fact is, any corpse, stripper, bouncer, douche at the bar- they are all fair game to be tossed around in the hit man sandbox. It just so happens in this instance strippers are available because its a strip club.



This is where I feel criticism is valid of her observations. She points out the heinous crimes we can commit as a player to unwitting civilians in so many games, but then she singles out a sexualized character who these crimes are capable of being done to. The problem in this is not that you can run over a girl dressed in a bikini in GTA or Sleeping Dogs, its that that girl in the bikini is too prevalent a theme, which to her credit is the entire topic of her video about Women as Background Dercoration. It is when she accuses Square Enix and other developers of encouraging the player to let out their willing misogynistic rage upon the "Dolls" that I take issue with her argument.



Again, to her credit, this is a good response to "well what if I don't use them?".

Well yes, they are there, they are sexualized and available. My point is simply, saying the player was encouraged and meant to do that is not universally true.

There is much much more I could say, so if you want to continue this discussion, please keep it specific because its a pretty broad topic haha. But I'm always up for it and am glad we can do it in a civil manner here on GAF.

I haven't watched the video being discussed in a while, but from my recollection the argument was that games have the direct ability to discourage player actions, the most powerful of which being the fail state. If a game allows you to take an action with little penalty, or a penalty that can be reversed, it is in effect, encouraging the act. I can't say I disagree with the statement.

Honestly, I've found the fact that so many people feel the need to go to bat for Hitman of all games to be quite odd. The series has a history of sexist ad campaigns, and in the very game people are defending, players are rewarded for shooting a woman who is undressing provocatively in her room.

 

[Yoshi]

He's a white male.... I mean come on. That gives him license to get on his soapbox and bitch about things he doesn't understand regarding issues he doesn't have to deal with.

As if you intended to give an example for those vile posts that I meant that seem to get by easily. Discrediting someone for their sex and their ethnicity? Really? Why can't you just
(a) either ignore the video, since the person who posted it is already banned, so a discussion on that doesn't make much sense anyway
(b) or properly argue about the points being made?

I get that you hint at some form of argument (he does not understand something), but what you really do is just to post a personal insult based on sex and ethnicity. Maybe there's some cultural difference involved here, but from my point of view, this is the lowest of the low kinds of arguing.

 

[QuantumZebra]

As if you intended to give an example for those vile posts that I meant that seem to get by easily. Discrediting someone for their sex and their ethnicity? Really? Why can't you just
(a) either ignore the video, since the person who posted it is already banned, so a discussion on that doesn't make much sense anyway
(b) or properly argue about the points being made?

I get that you hint at some form of argument (he does not understand something), but what you really do is just to post a personal insult based on sex and ethnicity. Maybe there's some cultural difference involved here, but from my point of view, this is the lowest of the low kinds of arguing.

It was just sarcasm (myself being a white male) but I see your point, changed my post!