Support NeoGAF

[freethought]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=148922495&postcount=407

I said in a previous post in this very thread that I believe, actually not only that because I know for sure, that some GG supporters are misogynistic.

Actually you said some of them are " misogynistic" which is different to saying some of them are misogynistic.

I'd advise against using unnecessary punctuation so loosely, it leads to these kind of derails.

But even your assertion that it isn't a misogynistic hate campaign holds no water. The 'scandal' it erupted over was thoroughly debunked and even if it were true would be so minor as to be invisible next to the utterly corrupt relationship between journalists and publishers.

Furthermore, no-one involved in gamergate ever showed some massive industry wide practice of female developers sleeping with journalists for coverage. To my knowledge there was never even a single other example given of such an ethical breach occurring. Not one.

So then it was about feminism being shoved down our throats. But why? How does one situation follow from the other in any logical capacity? It doesn't. The only link between these two topics is literally that if they bothered you enough to send rape and death threats over, then you probably have some issues with women or at least women's rights.

Done. Gamergate is either the smallest scandal in gaming journalism in recent history and vanished two days after it started because there weren't any decent 'shops or it's an ongoing and thoroughly vile targeted campaign of harassment and bullying directed at two or three women who dared not to shut up when they were told to.

 

[Forkball]

So they are harassing Ryulong.

He's protected his Twitter account, so no one can see his Tweets.

About an hour ago, KiA had around 8 threads on the frontpage about him.

It also seems like PressFarttoContinue is specifically targeting him.

Yeah I checked KiA and they are obsessed with this guy. These people seriously need to get a life, and this is coming from someone who spent an hour today trying to get green stars in Super Mario 3D World.

 

[tonysidaway]

According to his post history, it was also the first post he'd made in 6 years. Just seems odd to me that they would jump into a thread after six years just to defend gators. Not saying they should've been banned for it, but it does raise questions about the reasoning behind the post.

It would be a guess, but I might suspect that somebody noticed that multiple usernames had been registered.

 

[Reclaimer.]

I might be the only one that doesn't know what gamergate is all about. I don't think a topic has ever repelled me so much. I feel so out of the loop haha

 

[jstripes]

That's just your interpretation. GG is a movement with a lot of pepole, some of them are "mysoginistic" others are not. Probably this will be my last post here but I can't stand when people abuse their powers to force their opinions.

You can build a community on a toxic waste dump, plant flowers and trees, and give it a nice name like Love Canal, but that doesn't change the fact that it was built on a toxic waste dump.

Jesus that's amazing. Why has no-one caught onto this, or if they have why is he still so revered?

He comes across as such an ass.

 

[Forkball]

I might be the only one that doesn't know what gamergate was all about. I don't think a topic has ever repelled me so much. I feel so out of the loop haha

This is a loop you want to stay out of.

 

[tomtom94]

I might be the only one that doesn't know what gamergate is all about. I don't think a topic has ever repelled me so much. I feel so out of the loop haha

I'd say enjoy being out of the loop, but if you're interested:

http://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/wiki/timeline

Warning: very long.

 

[Zukuu]

I can understand AND support that decision. I don't know what those particular writers wrote and if it was a fair move, but Wikipedia should be neutral and objective. Any bias towards any side is unwelcome - just like in history books. If they tried to paint things 'to their liking' it's justified.

 

[Parmenide]

Actually you said some of them are " misogynistic" which is different to saying some of them are misogynistic.

I'd advise against using unnecessary punctuation so loosely, it leads to these kind of derails.

But even your assertion that it isn't a misogynistic hate campaign holds no water. The 'scandal' it erupted over was thoroughly debunked and even if it were true would be so minor as to be invisible next to the utterly corrupt relationship between journalists and publishers.

Furthermore, no-one involved in gamergate ever showed some massive industry wide practice of female developers sleeping with journalists for coverage. To my knowledge there was never even a single other example given of such an ethical breach occurring. Not one.

So then it was about feminism being shoved down our throats. But why? How does one situation follow from the other in any logical capacity? It doesn't. The only link between these two topics is literally that if they bothered you enough to send rape and death threats over, then you probably have some issues with women or at least women's rights.

Done. Gamergate is either the smallest scandal in gaming journalism in recent history and vanished two days after it started because there weren't any decent 'shops or it's an ongoing and thoroughly vile targeted campaign of harassment and bullying directed at two or three women who dared not to shut up when they were told to.

It was so small that we are still talking about it.
GG started as a movement about ethics in the so called gaming "journalism", an issue that we have discussed many many times here, we started tons of jokes about it (IGN and Doritos memes). It also happened that someone wanted to use the movement to attack Zoe for other reasons, that's not my concern, I was interested (and I still am) in discussing why we can't have a competent critic like other medias, people on the side of customers. And now I can't express this opinion here because EVERY GG supporter is bad a priori.

 

[tonysidaway]

It was so small that we are still talking about it.
GG started as a movement about ethics in the so called gaming "journalism", an issue that we have discussed many many times here, we started tons of jokes about it (IGN and Doritos memes).

No. It started as a specific troll campaign against a specific person (who was not a journalist). Public IRC discussions make this quite clear.

 

[Parmenide]

No. It started as a specific troll campaign against a specific person (who was not a journalist). Public IRC discussions make this quite clear.

Have you ever been in the birthplace of GG, /v/? It's a pretty chaotic place and every one shouts loudly their opinion, be it legit, stupid, offensive of whatnot. GG was made by them, pepole who can't agree with eachother even on the most basic things, it was and is still an unorganized movement.

 

[freethought]

It was so small that we are still talking about it.
GG started as a movement about ethics in the so called gaming "journalism", an issue that we have discussed many many times here, we started tons of jokes about it (IGN and Doritos memes). It also happened that someone wanted to use the movement to attack Zoe for other reasons, that's not my concern, I was interested (and I still am) in discussing why we can't have a competent critic like other medias, people on the side of customers. And now I can't express this opinion here because EVERY GG supporter is bad a priori.

We're not talking about it. Nobody has talked about it in months. We're talking about the stream of abuse that hasn't stopped since this "scandal" broke.

Go into any thread and express the opinion that review scores are bought by advertising or that previews are PR puff pieces or that journalists are at the mercy of the big publishers. You'll be greeted with a resounding 'well, duh'. Gaf is a traditional centre of such criticism and has been for years.

The idea that Gaf is hostile to any of it is absurd. Almost as absurd as the idea that gamergate has a claim to any it.

 

[jstripes]

It was so small that we are still talking about it.
GG started as a movement about ethics in the so called gaming "journalism", an issue that we have discussed many many times here, we started tons of jokes about it (IGN and Doritos memes). It also happened that someone wanted to use the movement to attack Zoe for other reasons, that's not my concern, I was interested (and I still am) in discussing why we can't have a competent critic like other medias, people on the side of customers. And now I can't express this opinion here because EVERY GG supporter is bad a priori.

Holy fuck. It never ends.

#GG started as an excuse to harass women in gaming, and then came up with the "ethics" nonsense as a smokescreen. (And I say "nonsense" because it focuses almost entirely on female-related stuff, rather than actual problems.)

I've been following this bullshit since it emerged from a swamp in August.

 

[Parmenide]

We're not talking about it. Nobody has talked about it in months. We're talking about the stream of abuse that hasn't stopped since this "scandal" broke.

Go into any thread and express the opinion that review scores are bought by advertising or that previews are PR puff pieces or that journalists are at the mercy of the big publishers. You'll be greeted with a resounding 'well, duh'. Gaf is a traditional centre of such criticism and has been for years.

The idea that Gaf is hostile to any of it is absurd. Almost as absurd as the idea that gamergate has a claim to any it.

I've seen the GG OT in the first page for a lot.
I didn't say that GAF is hostile towards the legit critcs that we move to game journalism, I said that I think it's unfair that supporting a movement born to face the issue is bannable.
GG is a group with some of the absolute worst pepole you will ever meet, and I bet some of them don't even care about gaming but you will also find kind and civil people (like the banned user) who want to change the situation of gaming journalism.
Judging an entire gruop is unfair, judge the single individuals instead.

 

[jstripes]

I've seen the GG OT in the first page for a lot.
I didn't say that GAF is hostile towards the legit critcs that we move to game journalism, I said that I think it's unfair that supporting a movement born to face the issue is bannable.

Supporting #GG isn't bannable.

Regurgitating debunked talking points is bannable.

GG is a group with some of the absolute worst pepole you will ever meet, and I bet some of them don't even care about gaming but you will also find kind and civil people (like the banned user) who want to change the situation of gaming journalism.
Judging an entire gruop is unfair, judge the single individuals instead.

If the group contains the worst people you would ever meet, why would you want to associate with them?

 

[BrutishMrFish]

And now I can't express this opinion here because EVERY GG supporter is bad a priori.

Anyone who feels that video games are more important than the wellbeing of actual living, breathing people with hopes and dreams of their own has bad priorities. Anyone who is willing to ignore that GamerGate only made any headway by making people in the industry bend out of fear for their own privacy and safety (and not because said industry people actually agreed with GamerGate's laughable ideas about journalism) has bad priorities. Anyone who thinks that Anita, Zoe, and any other of GamerGate's targets deserved what they got (and that includes saying, "I don't agree with the death threats, buuuuut") has bad priorities.

GamerGate has been going on for months now. Anyone who supports GamerGate at this point has done one of the three things above, at the very least. Discussing ethics in gaming journalism under the banner of a hate campaign like GamerGate is not going to improve anything, no matter how rational such discussions appear to be.

Talking about ethics in gaming journalism instead of the toxic attitudes that are clearly visible in the gaming community is the equivalent to worrying about your house's paint job when the rest of your neighborhood is on fire. Sure, your house might really be in need of a new coat of paint, but focusing on that instead of the real problem at hand shows how little you (not you specifically, I mean you in the general sense) give a shit about people. Like I've been saying, bad priorities.

 

[Zomba13]

There isn't much point trying to convince a gator that GG is a harassment movement. He already knows it and is proudly flying their "look at us, we have a woman mascot. So diverse, much women love" flag.

Judging an entire gruop is unfair, judge the single individuals instead.

Not really. If a bunch of people join a hate movement and fly the flag of said hate movement I think it's fair to criticise them for being part of that hate movement. They might not be saying the hate but they are standing with the people saying the hate and holding up the flag.

Protip: You disagree with what a group does, don't join said group and defend it when called out for the shit it does.

 

[Deleted member 10571]

If the group contains the worst people you would ever meet, why would you want to associate with them?

And this, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the so-called "point".

It's hilarious how people go all out to defend a movement based on harassment, misogyny and pure hate with the excuse of "Well some people in here aren't that bad". I'll never understand that shit. You post the same hashtag people post after making death threats to women. You post the same resources people use that doxx and SWAT people just because they happen to be female. Don't fucking tell me "yo I'm different" while siding with these people. Just don't.

 

[Zomba13]

And this, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the so-called "point".

It's hilarious how people go all out to defend a movement based on harassment, misogyny and pure hate with the excuse of "Well some people in here aren't that bad". I'll never understand that shit. You post the same hashtag people post after making death threats to women. You post the same resources people use that doxx and SWAT people just because they happen to be female. Don't fucking tell me "yo I'm different" while siding with these people. Just don't.

Exactly. Just because you personally don't email Anita and Zoe death threats or post their information online you are still self-identifying as part of the group that does and deserve the shit thrown at the GG umbrella. Don't like catching shit? Leave the umbrella and go far away.

 

[sqwarlock]

I've seen the GG OT in the first page for a lot.
I didn't say that GAF is hostile towards the legit critcs that we move to game journalism, I said that I think it's unfair that supporting a movement born to face the issue is bannable.
GG is a group with some of the absolute worst pepole you will ever meet, and I bet some of them don't even care about gaming but you will also find kind and civil people (like the banned user) who want to change the situation of gaming journalism.
Judging an entire gruop is unfair, judge the single individuals instead.

I know you're banned now, but no. Why associate with a movement where you have to tell people to cherry pick through the individuals to find someone that's not a complete tool? It makes no sense to me.

 

[Zukuu]

I might be the only one that doesn't know what gamergate is all about. I don't think a topic has ever repelled me so much. I feel so out of the loop haha

Why was this a bannable post? I don't see anything in his recent post history which would warrant one either so I assume it was this post. Can someone clarify? I don't want to step into the same trap, so I want to understand the reason behind it.


Btw, did Wikipedia ever done a similar thing in the past? I mean, of course they ban troll users all the time, but I don't think I've ever heard that they lock accounts out of specific topics.

 

[tonysidaway]

Btw, did Wikipedia ever done a similar thing in the past? I mean, of course they ban troll users all the time, but I don't think I've ever heard that they lock accounts out of specific topics.

It's a common remedy on Wikipedia; in the early days (2001-2005, say) site bans were a more common remedy. Thinking on this changed over time.

Bans cannot be fully enforced by software, so a topic ban has the advantage of encouraging the editor to stick with their existing account and find a new area of Wikipedia to work on. A site-banned editor has nothing to lose by creating a new account, which makes monitoring the problem behaviour a little more difficult.

As a practical matter, though, we have no issue with a banned problem editor just starting afresh and never causing a problem again. We know that having an online persona can make it harder to change for the better. We find we can easily recognise banned editors who sock puppet by their repetition of specific problematic behaviour.

 

[Cyan]

Why was this a bannable post? I don't see anything in his recent post history which would warrant one either so I assume it was this post. Can someone clarify? I don't want to step into the same trap, so I want to understand the reason behind it.

It wasn't. The guy was an alt of a previously banned member.

 

[tonysidaway]

There has been some last minute vote switching on the Wikipedia arbitration case. The Ryulong site ban may not pass. The clerks themselves are seeking clarification. This kind of last minute surprise is not that unusual, really, as I warned in an earlier post.

 

[May16]

Wikipedia has been going downhill for a while. This was an inevitability.

Its eventual successor can't come soon enough.

 

[tonysidaway]

And it's over.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Final_decision

 

[Pop-O-Matic]

And it's over.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Final_decision

TL;DR version:

Review of articles urged:

The Arbitration Committee urges that knowledgeable and non-conflicted users not previously involved in editing GamerGate-related articles, especially GamerGate-related biographies of living people, should carefully review them for adherence to Wikipedia policies and address any perceived or discovered deficiencies. This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case.

Ryulong is banned.

NorthBySouthBaranof, Tarc, The Devil's Advocate, Tutelary, ArmyLine, DungeonSiegeAddict510, Xander756, Titanium Dragon, Loganmac, and Willhesucceed are topic-banned.

TaraInDC and TheRedPenOfDoom are admonished.

Tarc and The Devil's Advocate are warned.

The Devil's Advocate is allowed only one page revert within a 48 hour period.

The Devil's Advocate is not allowed to edit any administrative or conduct noticeboards.

 

[Stinkles]

It was so small that we are still talking about it.
GG started as a movement about ethics in the so called gaming "journalism", an issue that we have discussed many many times here, we started tons of jokes about it (IGN and Doritos memes). It also happened that someone wanted to use the movement to attack Zoe for other reasons, that's not my concern, I was interested (and I still am) in discussing why we can't have a competent critic like other medias, people on the side of customers. And now I can't express this opinion here because EVERY GG supporter is bad a priori.

I know you're still reading this, because you were obsessed enough to create an alt account, so can I just point out that if DOZENS, possibly HUNDREDS of people call women "c***s" and threaten them with death for being feminists, you really don't need to use quotes around the word "misogynist"

 

[tonysidaway]

NorthBySouthBaranof, Tarc, The Devil's Advocate, Tutelary, ArmyLine, DungeonSiegeAddict510, Xander756, Titanium Dragon, Loganmac, and Willhesucceed are topic-banned.

The topic bans concerning Tutelary, ArmyLine DungeonSiegeAddict510, Xander756 and Titanium Dragon were already imposed by the community process, and so the Committee there is just translating the ban status to arbitration level (different appeal procedures, mainly).

TaraInDC and TheRedPenOfDoom are admonished.

A slap on the wrists. For when the Committee can't agree to a formal editing restriction of any kind.

Tarc and The Devil's Advocate are warned.

The Committee says in effect, "if we see any more valid sanctionable complaints about you, you may be site-banned. Last chance."

The Devil's Advocate is not allowed to edit any administrative or conduct noticeboards.

The Devil's Advocate is being sanctioned for being a notorious bullshit dispenser, a disruptive source of noise. Their name is a noble aspiration for which they lack the skill in execution.

 

[crimsonheadGCN]

A gater is now trying to get other feminist editors banned:

Also, another Gater decided to resurrect an old account to go through Ryulong's edit history and revert any work that he has done on subjects that has nothing to do with GG.

 

[tonysidaway]

A gater is now trying to get other feminist editors banned:

Also, another Gater decided to resurrect an old account to go through Ryulong's edit history and revert any work that he has done on subjects that has nothing to do with GG.

Hilarious! They think they won, but that they need to try even harder to win more. Wikipedia has strong defences against that kind of behaviour.

 

[Deleted member 10571]

I wonder what whoever runs Wikipedia thinks about all this. Is someone actually running it at this point, or is it just whichever group shouts loudest? Because then I would be somewhat scared, gaters can shout very loud.

I really don't know how Wikipedia works, no offtopic intended here.

 

[Brakke]

I wonder what whoever runs Wikipedia thinks about all this. Is someone actually running it at this point, or is it just whichever group shouts loudest? Because then I would be somewhat scared, gaters can shout very loud.

I really don't know how Wikipedia works, no offtopic intended here.

"running Wikipedia" is a complicated question.

Jimmy Wales said this last year:

I’ve recently seen web pages in which people who are – and I don’t know how else to put it – vicious assholes – are gathering data to attack the personal lives of volunteers. It is very difficult for me to buy into the notion that gamergate is “really about ethics in journalism” when every single experience I have personally had with it involved pro-gg people insulting, threatening, doxxing, etc.

No, not all pro-gg people. But there’s a huge contingent to the extent that for good people – and I respect your letter and assume good faith that you are a good person – the name “gamer gate” is toxic.

Even if 90% of the supporters are good and 10% are bad, the bad are poisoning the message for everyone. That’s not an evaluation of right and wrong, just an observation of a clear fact.

You see, a big part of the problem is that #gamergate is not a movement, but a hashtag. And so there is literally no way to have any quality control of any kind. There is no way to see what is or is not a position of gamergate.
I have had several people over the past weeks say to me “It is not about mysogyny.” I was prepared to believe that. But discussions usually very quickly move to attacking a female game developer for events surrounding her personal life. That’s sick.

http://www.themarysue.com/jimmy-wales-not-taking-gamergate-crap/

Here's a statement from ArbCom on why they took up this case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Statement.

 

[tonysidaway]

...whoever runs Wikipedia...

It's the nearest thing to a benign anarchy that you will see on this earth. There is a Foundation that raises the money, then there are uncountable numbers of volunteers who write the policies and the content. And that's about it.

 

[charlequin]

TL;DR version:

Any easy way to see what role each contributor here had and (sigh) get an idea of which agenda each one was bringing to the article?

 

[Pop-O-Matic]

Any easy way to see what role each contributor here had and (sigh) get an idea of which agenda each one was bringing to the article?

Looking through the various examples of misconduct here, this seems to be how it breaks down:

Pro-GG:

• DungeonSiegeAddict510
• The Devil's Advocate
• Titanium Dragon
• Tutelary
• Loganmac
• Willhesucceed

Anti-GG:

• NorthBySouthBaranof
• Ryulong
• Tarc
• TheRedPenOfDoom
• TaraInDC

Also, out of curiosity, why ask this now, over two days since the thread was last active?

 

[charlequin]

Also, out of curiosity, why ask this now, over two days since the thread was last active?

I was out of town, I checked my subscriptions after I got back, spaced on the last-posted date.