What is Adam Baldwin thinking?

[JayBlanc]

I would like him to try his hand at burning up my great big wall of text here:

viewtopic.php?p=741543#p741543

Instead of using circular logic to ignore it.

le sockpuppet face

I'm sorry, but your application to editorially appraise your massive wall of text to try and identify the salient points you were trying to make, has been turned down. You can resubmit your application within the next 30 days. Submissions should contain a clear list of what points you actually want to make, and the 60 dollar handling fee.

I note that the one coherent point I found was a repeat of one that I already addressed, that if you organise a sock-puppet concern-trolling campaign you shouldn't be surprised if people try to identify the source. And yes, there were some real notyoursheild submissions, but there were also a ton of newly created twitter accounts with appropriated profile photos. You also seem to acknoledge that he had said some pretty nasty things and engaged in harrasing behaviour. But you seem to want to use "But he's Black" as a defence.

On the race, gender, ability and class issue... You seem to want to flip this around and say that GamerGate are the side with the real bisexual black disabled females, and the SJW side is made up of white straight male middle class phonies. Well, for a start, you're picking a fight with a disabled genderfluid bisexual, so yeah, please do accuse me of not representing myself.

You bring it up as a defence of GamerGate behaviour, but it does not stand, and not just because there are bisexual female black disabled people opposed to GamerGate too.

Feminism is not defeated when you find a women who disagrees with feminism. Racism isn't diminished if you search around to find the black guy who thinks it's okay. It doesn't make the need for disabled parking spaces disappear if you find one guy in a wheelchair who says he doesn't need them. Even if it hadn't been used as a sock-puppeting concern-troll spam campaign, that's the fundamental problem with NotYourShield. Because it promotes the idea that if you find a black bisexual woman to say it, what ever gets said is okay.

Then worse, you get to conflate NotYourShield with GamerGate, by associating them as the same thing, so you can present the things being said in the name of GamerGate as also by-implication supported by anyone who ever used the NotYourShield tag. I'd like to note that this tactic is also used by the likes of the BNP and EDL, so they can claim that they're not racists, they have a black supporter!

[Crocochow]

One thing that I really liked is how RPGCodex did their top 70 RPG picks. They had multiple community members weigh in on a game title and ranked it according to the community's preference.

You can reasonably implement something similar to this in general game reviews, where multiple writers with different tastes and preferences will shape a larger review by examining it through different perspectives. How does this FPS appeal to a person who doesn't generally play FPS games? How does this appeal to a hardcore Call of Dooty (heh) fan?

If your answers are "Well, one hates it, and one loves it" then you're doing yourself a disservice because within the context of game reviews specifically you can actually be very technical and criticize mechanics without having tastes and preferences completely shape the review.

You can analyze writing and storytelling from a cohesive point of view that takes into accord the content of the rest of game (eg. does this science fiction game actually respect its own internal logic and fiction?) outside of the player. You may disagree with a game's overall story, but you can still respect it for how it chooses to deliver sound and imagery, tie mechanics towards exploring that narrative point, and how it handles player agency regarding that goal for example. You can also objectively review game buggyness, technical specs like the engine it runs on, and things like options menu and UI.

I will concede that it is completely impossible to rule out personal bias in a review, but a strive towards harder objectivity is definitely obtainable. Statement 1 and Statement 2 are also self fulfilling in their own right. You can make the distinction that this is a game review, but with the disclosure that it's being reviewed by a person who doesn't particularly care for this genre.

I said I'd bow out, but I do have to jump in on this.

I see this as a very limited view of critique, and one that I hope we don't limit ourself to. It's the review as consumer advice column, and it's a very old mode of games criticism that I am thrilled we've left behind, instead preferring a more holistic model that allows for things such as using a game to discuss wider issues, integrating mechanical analysis into narrative analysis, and otherwise thinking about the game as a thing within the world rather than as just a set of code that somehow stands apart from it.

It's not quite my greatest hill to die on (That's the burgeoning indie-game scene, which has basically been the only thing in gaming I've found interesting for years now) but it's up there. This is the kind of criticism that film, art, books and just about every other medium has done, and the pushback against it in gaming has been deeply, profoundly disappointing to me.

I get that there's a place for the kind of 'would you like this game' review, just as there's a place for Leonard Maltin. But I think criticism is capable of more, and I want to see more of it.

The pushback is profoundly disappointing to you because people are disagreeing with you.

Particularly, people are disagreeing because what the see is the same bland superficial narrative pushed through multiple outlets. https://i.imgur.com/TFHeHe2.jpg

If you actually had works being validly critiqued you wouldn't have people complaining about this clickbait bullshit. But you are not. You are seeing one perspective of one narrative being pushed (in this case tangentially relevant to games) and it's both dishonest to its audience and insulting.

With reviews, you're left with pandering trash like this http://www.polygon.com/2014/9/26/625417 ... 4-xbox-one Yay 9.5!

And wonderful opinion pieces like this http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/1/68811 ... -terrorism

So yes, I think in the face of narrative shaping outlets, even disregarding the asshattery of GameJournoPros, and total lack of depth, I would rather reviews focus on objectivity.

[Crocochow]

Aren't you basically describing Metacritic? A (weighted?) average of multiple reviews, and more importantly, links to those reviews? By trying to iron out bias by combing reviews from multiple people, you remove nuance, and create a situation where game makers will basically dumb down their games, and take no risks to create the widest appeal.

Yes! but a metacritic that's not tied down to a score which is bought and sold depending on how many outlets you can wrangle in giving you high scores, and how many websites are being used artificially inflate that number. If your bonus is tied to hitting a certain metacritic score then I feel like something needs to change.

I do not see how combing reviews from multiple people would remove nuance. You're showcasing multiple perspectives towards the same game. What is nuance in this case, and more importantly, how is it lost?

Frankly, I want subjective reviews. I want to know if a person likes it or doesn't like it. I want to know why they thought a mechanic worked or didn't. I look to reviewers that have tastes that match my own, as they are likely to have the same reaction I would. I'm not interested in how reviewer X can describe the mechanics, I want to know if they liked the mechanics, cause that's what I need to know to be interested in a game.

There's an old writer's adage that goes along the lines of 'show, don't tell' and I often think about it when looking at fledgling youtubers trying to review games. I can like their personalities, but sometimes their stuff just lacks depth, and hearing them say something like "I liked it!" or "it sucks!" doesn't really describe anything. For example, look at LGRs old top 17 worst games, and compare that to his more recent reviews like the Sims 4. He knows his old scripts sucked, and he knows where he needs to grow. You have to be able to objectively showcase something before you can begin to tear it down and explain why it appeals or doesn't appeal to you.

Quite frankly, in the context of current video game journalism, you don't see that at all, and that's where my (quite shitty imho) suggestion was thrown at. It's a strive towards more evenhanded and informed discussion of a game. I get that pure objectivity is impossible. But I'm not striving for a vacuum definition here. I'm looking for real world application accounting for bias.

An obvious example would be someone like Movie Bob. He may be a left leaning SJW type, to frame him as many GGers have, but so am I. So his impression of a movie means a lot more to me than the guy who can look at the movie completely objectively (if that's even possible).

If you really want fair reviews, and objectivity on a general scale, you need more, and different, subjective voices. You need as many voices as you can get, providing all sorts of views. You need websites that say "Gamers are dead". You need sites that say the opposite, you need sites that ignore it all.

One problem that I seem to have, and perhaps you do it too, is that with subjective reviews you begin liking the reviewer more than actually focusing on the review. So whatever MovieBob (or in my case JimSterling) would recommend, I'd take it with a higher praise despite the fact that it might not stand up to its abject standards. You kinda do need a more mechanical analysis of something to really see if your like minded reviewer's arguments actually make sense.

[Amake]

Me, I've only bought games based on Let's Plays made by people I like for the last two or three years. You develop a little personal taste, you stop being bothered by the opinions of people with different tastes, you find the entire professional pop media review industry a quaint remainder of that age when you needed people to tell you what to like and why it's objectively right to like it.

But, you know, whatever works for you.

[Crocochow]

I would like him to try his hand at burning up my great big wall of text here:

viewtopic.php?p=741543#p741543

Instead of using circular logic to ignore it.

le sockpuppet face

I'm sorry, but your application to editorially appraise your massive wall of text to try and identify the salient points you were trying to make, has been turned down. You can resubmit your application within the next 30 days. Submissions should contain a clear list of what points you actually want to make, and the 60 dollar handling fee.

I note that the one coherent point I found was a repeat of one that I already addressed, that if you organise a sock-puppet concern-trolling campaign you shouldn't be surprised if people try to identify the source. And yes, there were some real notyoursheild submissions, but there were also a ton of newly created twitter accounts with appropriated profile photos. You also seem to acknoledge that he had said some pretty nasty things and engaged in harrasing behaviour. But you seem to want to use "But he's Black" as a defence.

On the race, gender, ability and class issue... You seem to want to flip this around and say that GamerGate are the side with the real bisexual black disabled females, and the SJW side is made up of white straight male middle class phonies. Well, for a start, you're picking a fight with a disabled genderfluid bisexual, so yeah, please do accuse me of not representing myself.

You bring it up as a defence of GamerGate behaviour, but it does not stand, and not just because there are bisexual female black disabled people opposed to GamerGate too.

Feminism is not defeated when you find a women who disagrees with feminism. Racism isn't diminished if you search around to find the black guy who thinks it's okay. It doesn't make the need for disabled parking spaces disappear if you find one guy in a wheelchair who says he doesn't need them. Even if it hadn't been used as a sock-puppeting concern-troll spam campaign, that's the fundamental problem with NotYourShield. Because it promotes the idea that if you find a black bisexual woman to say it, what ever gets said is okay.

Then worse, you get to conflate NotYourShield with GamerGate, by associating them as the same thing, so you can present the things being said in the name of GamerGate as also by-implication supported by anyone who ever used the NotYourShield tag. I'd like to note that this tactic is also used by the likes of the BNP and EDL, so they can claim that they're not racists, they have a black supporter!

*rubs hands together*


So I think in a sense we agree, minority status shouldn't grant you special privilege.


I'm merely pointing out the more prominent voices on both sides of the debate, and to my humor, the pro-GG side seems to be more diverse despite being on the 'bad' side from your perspective. Why is this significant? Because a lot of anti-GG rhetoric is centered around minority status,and that's a fallacy they're unwilling to address. Every voice should be weighed the same, but appeals to argumentation are dismissed on the fact that some people 'talk white' or are trying to 'mansplain', and because they don't have super special snowflake status #3212, their arguments are thrown out.

On the subject of identifying the sources and looking for conspiracies: Perhaps a lot of people using the tag didn't want to be identified through their real accounts so they made alts? I'm actually acknowledging the opposite regarding the guy who made the notyourshield tag. I'm saying that even though he's black he can be dick. And that's significant because even though you're a disabled genderneutral bisexual, you can still be wrong on issues regarding gender. Your minority status doesn't grant your opinion more or less weight. Just to be the poor devil's advocate, I'm a demisexual trans croc.

You bring it up as a defence of GamerGate behaviour, but it does not stand, and not just because there are bisexual female black disabled people opposed to GamerGate too.

What behavior are we talking about here? It seems like you're trying to conflate GamerGate with negative stereotypes despite the fact that them movement doesn't condone one particular ideology or accept harassment.

Nobody is trying to defeat feminism or instill racism here. You are conflating a consumer revolt focused around ethics in video game journalism with a social issue that's tangentially related around cult personalities involved in video games. If you want, I can throw a tu quoque and say that bad things have been done by people claiming to be on both sides. Does this discredit NotYourShield and validates harassment and doxxing that happened to pro-GGers? I don't think so.

[Amake]

Because a lot of anti-GG rhetoric is centered around minority status,and that's a fallacy they're unwilling to address.

Gonna need some examples of that. From this thread ideally.

Nobody is trying to defeat feminism or instill racism here.

If you say so

[Amake]

Like if you want so badly to tie yourself to a movement famous for being used by fundamentalist conservatives as a thinly veiled excuse to hit women where they're weak, that's your headache. But pointing out that people who have a problem with the fundamentalist conservatives have also behaved badly does not absolve you from associating yourself to the fundamentalist conservatives.

[Firbozz]

I fail to see what ethics has to do with getting Intel to pull an ad campaign from Gamasutra. If I were to ask five people what GG's goals were, I'd get five different answers.

[Crocochow]

Nobody is trying to defeat feminism or instill racism here.

If you say so

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uv0Fg20i1iA

[Amake]

Can you summarize why that 15 minute rant proves that "nobody is trying to defeat feminism"? My ears are busy.

[JayBlanc]

So I think in a sense we agree, minority status shouldn't grant you special privilege.

No, I was saying an *individual* is not right or wrong because of their minority status. (Or being female. Females being a majority. You do know that right?)

But that's a league away from saying minority status shouldn't grant special privileges. I mean, I like that I get special privileges to have legislation that promotes building ramps and putting elevators in stores, so I don't have to cope with stairs everywhere. You realise that there's a reason why we have to make special effort to represent the under-repesented in video games? Because they're under-represented.

Why is this significant? Because a lot of anti-GG rhetoric is centered around minority status,and that's a fallacy they're unwilling to address. Every voice should be weighed the same, but appeals to argumentation are dismissed on the fact that some people 'talk white' or are trying to 'mansplain', and because they don't have super special snowflake status #3212, their arguments are thrown out.

No. What was being said was that the complaints amounted to "But why are we wasting time on games and news articles that aren't Targeted To Me!", when almost all games and games related media are targeted for precisely the people complaining. "Mansplaining" is shorthand for "Someone who clearly has benefitted from male privileges trying to explain why they don't really have privilege from being male", that's what the phrase means, it isn't a blanket label to all men. These terms are applied to people who have privilege in society, but insist on claiming that they're in the same position as everyone else.

And again, we go back to everyone isn't being treated equally in society, and ignoring that is part of the problem. And some of the un-equal treatment is there as correction or aid for people who are disadvantaged from the start. Tie that up with someone who simply dismisses criticism by using "You just say that because I'm not a minority", and it causes a huge amount of conflict.

On the subject of identifying the sources and looking for conspiracies: Perhaps a lot of people using the tag didn't want to be identified through their real accounts so they made alts? I'm actually acknowledging the opposite regarding the guy who made the notyourshield tag. I'm saying that even though he's black he can be dick. And that's significant because even though you're a disabled genderneutral bisexual, you can still be wrong on issues regarding gender. Your minority status doesn't grant your opinion more or less weight. Just to be the poor devil's advocate, I'm a demisexual trans croc.

A) Yes I might be wrong. But I try not to be, and I present arguments for why I think I'm right.

B) Genderfluid is very very much not the same as Genderneutral. So I do appear to know more about issues regarding gender than you do.

See, that's the point. You turn 'You might not be right just because you're a minority' into an implication of 'I am right'. That is not an argument, it's an insinuation. The person who brought up the minority status of the person making an argument here, is you. That's a problem.

What behavior are we talking about here? It seems like you're trying to conflate GamerGate with negative stereotypes despite the fact that them movement doesn't condone one particular ideology or accept harassment.

If it doesn't condone any particular ideology, what the hell is the point of it? If it's supporting everything, then it's supporting nothing, and just an excuse for people to get angry.

And again, I have to stress that saying you don't accept harrassment rings false when the whole movement started out and mainly continues as personally targeted towards Zoe Quinn. Go re-read the above thread, see how it all keeps circling back in on Zoe Quinn with accusations and references to sexual misconduct. The movement was founded on the idea of mass swarming around Zoe Quinn to berate her. That's harassment. GamerGate does not accept harassment, except for the harassment the entire movement is based on. And they have to keep doing it because they have to sustain the idea that there was some legitimate Zoe Quinn related conspiracy to justify their behaviour.

I'm not 'conflating' GamerGate with personal harassment, GamerGate came into the world as a personal harassment campaign towards Zoe Quinn.

Nobody is trying to defeat feminism or instill racism here. You are conflating a consumer revolt focused around ethics in video game journalism with a social issue that's tangentially related around cult personalities involved in video games. If you want, I can throw a tu quoque and say that bad things have been done by people claiming to be on both sides. Does this discredit NotYourShield and validates harassment and doxxing that happened to pro-GGers? I don't think so.

The "tangental relationship" to individual personalities is hardly tangental. The organising IRC channel and forum on 4chan were named after references to supposed sexual behaviour of Zoe Quinn. That's not a "tangental relationship". GamerGate started as a way to harass Zoe Quinn, then harass those who supported her, and the whole rest of it has been about trying to legitimise that harassment.

[Crocochow]

Like if you want so badly to tie yourself to a movement famous for being used by fundamentalist conservatives as a thinly veiled excuse to hit women where they're weak, that's your headache. But pointing out that people who have a problem with the fundamentalist conservatives have also behaved badly does not absolve you from associating yourself to the fundamentalist conservatives.

I specifically called it a tu quoque because it is an informal fallacy.

I think, again, that's your take on it. #GamerGate is not about fundamentalist conservatives attacking women where they're weak. This was actually made last night, for kicks and giggles.

https://i.imgur.com/Qvo6Ost.png

To be honest, I think that argument is just pathetic. Simply because it hinges on labeling the opposition bigoted and denying the capability of rational thought. And is kinda deluded in reality too.

It's also quite silly to see the legitimacy of that claim come from people who actively worked together to push that angle. Like hell, you might disagree with the relevance of GameJournoPros, but the emails are there along with pleas for folks not to cover it because it affects other journalists they're friends with.

If you've got any sort of patience, at least give this a casual glance and follow through the links http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2014/09/gamergate-game-journalists-ignored-facts-to-push-gamers-are-dead-agenda-according-to-e-mails/

[Crocochow]

Can you summarize why that 15 minute rant proves that "nobody is trying to defeat feminism"? My ears are busy.

If you choose to ignore the rebuttal then I shall deny yours as well.

[Amake]

I guess I can't hide the fact that I'm really badly informed about gamergate and don't have the desire to know anything more than what I absorb by pop culture osmosis. I'm just telling you what the public perception is, and that if you want the public to buy that you're not about attacking women you have a lot of work to do. Particularly if you need people to watch a 15 minute youtube video for them to get your point. Ignore that as much as you like.

And before anyone asks "why are you sitting here inflicting your uneducated opinions on people?": Because this reminds me so much of arguing with Racist PArty defenders back at my local newspaper's website's comment sections, who bring out their polished, workshopped rhetoric about the horrors of letting refugees over our borders and you don't need to be hip with current events to see right through them and poke at the unexamined fear of everything new and different that motivates them.

You Gaters are less convincing about the dangers of biased enthusiast press, though.

[flakaffe]

The "tangental relationship" to individual personalities is hardly tangental. The organising IRC channel and forum on 4chan were named after references to supposed sexual behaviour of Zoe Quinn. That's not a "tangental relationship". GamerGate started as a way to harass Zoe Quinn, then harass those who supported her, and the whole rest of it has been about trying to legitimise that harassment.

This is simply a lie or grossly uninformed.

And with that statement, I make my entry into the discussion. I've been fairly active on the pro-GG side since I've been along for the ride ever since the first few hreads popped up on /v/, were banned and everyone moved over to 8chan afterwards. I hope we can have a fruitful discussion about these matters.

To return to my adressing of your statement, here is a timeline of the events of the last two months, direct and succinct.
http://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/336432/The-GamerGate-Chronicles/#vars!date=2014-08-28_16:13:18!
Combine this timeline with this chart of the mentions of #gamergate, Quinn and Saarkesian:

Out of this you will be able to see that #gamergate has not arisen out of any sort of combined hate attack against any personages but rather as a reflexive explosion of rage of ordinary gamers against blatant marginalization and shaming by games journalists. This has within a few days morphed into a movement for journalistic integrity and against corruption in the games industry as a whole.

Going beyond that, the GameOverGate storify information is pretty laughable as it's a public IRC, which I had joined into at one point during those weeks but left again because there wasn't anything being discussed in it other than what was discussed in the threads on /v/ during that period anyway, which are documented in this other article:
https://medium.com/@cainejw/a-narrative-of-gamergate-and-examination-of-claims-of-collusion-with-4chan-5cf6c1a52a60
With plenty of lines to archive.moe which is a 4chan archive site that accurately documents and saves all threads run on the boards that it covers in real-time. You will not find any sort of misogynistic agenda there; just the average rage of any anon.

This is the specific section I am referring to. I officially encourage you to follow those links to the 4chan archive and see for yourself. Beware of bad words that could hurt to read! 4chan is quite unfiltered.

[JayBlanc]

Well, obviously these graphs are actually meaningless. Because otherwise, I just appeared to have "proven" that GamerGate has nothing to do with Journalism or Ethics.

[Metcarfre]

[Matt]

Out of this you will be able to see that #gamergate has not arisen out of any sort of combined hate attack against any personages but rather as a reflexive explosion of rage of ordinary gamers against blatant marginalization and shaming by games journalists.

Fucking lol.

-m

[flakaffe]

I like the strawmanning since I grew my internet wings on a site made from strawmanning and logical fallacies but you're not disproving any arguments like that so I won't be able to answer to your non-arguments.

[Metcarfre]

[Trevor]

Nobody is trying to defeat feminism or instill racism here.

If you say so

Even in those posts I see some examples that support the idea of people on the 4chan side disagreeing with harassment and not being all anti-feminist. Not very much, and not very strongly mind you, but I'm assuming these are the worst she could find that she was posting.

I have not been in the IRC chat, but I have seen plenty of the 4chan gamergate threads (because I browse 4chan even though I wish I didn't sometimes, and this discussion was as unavoidable there as it seems to be anywhere else), and there never seemed to be any general intention to work against women in games or the game industry that I noticed.

[Amake]

Some examples that can be read to support the idea of people disagreeing with harassment is not the same thing as "nobody" committing harassment.

[Deedles]

I like the strawmanning since I grew my internet wings on a site made from strawmanning and logical fallacies but you're not disproving any arguments like that so I won't be able to answer to your non-arguments.

Seeing as I've seen two people use 'logical fallacy' as a way to dismiss an argument I just thought I'd pop in and give a 101 in argumentation;

A logical fallacy doesn't discredit the point of the arguement, but is often used by people to dismiss an arguement that they have no answer to by shifting away from the point and onto the 'logical fallacy'.

Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false.[1] It is also called argument to logic (argumentum ad logicam), fallacy fallacy,[2] fallacist's fallacy,[3] and bad reasons fallacy.[4]

Fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions, so this is an informal fallacy of relevance.[5]

Anyway, carry on gentlemen, ladies, and everything inbetween!

[JayBlanc]

I like the strawmanning since I grew my internet wings on a site made from strawmanning and logical fallacies but you're not disproving any arguments like that so I won't be able to answer to your non-arguments.

[Lord Chrusher]

I would not say I am completely bored of this yet but still I want to know why we are still talking about this.