Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Sheriff Belor Hemolock

Scott Betts's page

Goblin Squad Member. 6,929 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 6,929 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:
In contrast, I don't see the WotC/Hasbro of today providing useful artistic input (TSR or the WotC of D&D 3.0/early 3.5 days could have been another matter, but alas, that is all gone),

Considering that the first two Dungeons & Dragons films were released in 2000 and 2005, respectively (in other words, the first developed when TSR owned D&D, the second developed during the 3.0/early 3.5 days) and were both widely panned, I think you might have a case of rose-colored-glasses-itis.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alceste008 wrote:
Slaunyeh wrote:

Uh. That's not the disgusting trend that is being exposed here. The disgusting trend being exposed is how a vocal minority (hopefully) will latch onto anything to spread disgusting lies and lash out at women, while hiding behind weak claims of "journalistic integrity".

I mean, they are literally discussing the pros and cons of harassing Zoe Quinn until she kills herself. (warning: not for the faint of heart.)

Are you sure that's the side you want to be on?

What these people are doing to her is utterly despicable. Their presence on one side of the debate utterly and totally taints that side's message especially in regards to this issue.

When people like this are agreeing with you, you should rethink, reevaluate, and respecify your message by leaving the entire incident involving her out. Because otherwise, your message will get lost with the likes of these truly disgusting individuals and normal people will just ignore anything you say.

...That's what we're trying to do, but then we keep getting told that we can't separate them.


thejeff wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
shadram wrote:

This is the most rational thing I've read about the accusations of corruption in games media:

Link

There's no conspiracy, and the lack of evidence that there is no conspiracy is because no conspiracy exists for there to be a lack of evidence of. I think. I'm confused...

EDIT: Linkified

I think the fact that seven different gaming news organizations put out articles using recycled language on the topic of the "death" of the gamer identity in the span of 24 hours in the middle of this debacle puts to rest the notion that there was no organized attempt to manipulate the discussion by a rather ridiculous number of games journalists.
From the Forbes article you pointed me to
Quote:
This many articles at once all saying the same thing seemed fishy to many, though I would argue it had nothing to do with coordination and everything to do with like minds feeding off of one another.

And I disagree - had these articles been spread out over the course of months, it wouldn't be a concern. But they came out in alarming proximity to one another and with a shared set of language that no one outside the games journalism community was using.

I hate conspiracy theories, and this does qualify as one (however minor), but come on. When seven different sites decide to report on the "death" of a specific identity on the exact same day, it's stretches credulity to believe that this wasn't planned.


Muad'Dib wrote:

Not to dodge your questions Scott, but why fight this battle here?

The debate that journalists should be held to a higher standard as noble as it sounds is being discussed entirely due to dubious claims made by an ex boyfriend. Horrible things were done to a fellow human and gamer in public venue. The chat logs are about as disgusting a thing as I've read on the internet. Zoe is ground zero of this particular debate.

It's not that the idea of journalists being held to a higher standard does not have merits. It's just in the context of what was said and done to a fellow human it just feels...wrong.

For the same reason that it "feels wrong" to advance a cause like firearms control in the wake of a school shooting - it's a worthy cause, but one that people aren't particularly motivated to do something about until it rears its head in dramatic fashion. The unfortunate reality is that change can only happen during periods of unrest, and periods of unrest tend to be infrequent.


shadram wrote:

This is the most rational thing I've read about the accusations of corruption in games media:

Link

There's no conspiracy, and the lack of evidence that there is no conspiracy is because no conspiracy exists for there to be a lack of evidence of. I think. I'm confused...

EDIT: Linkified

I think the fact that seven different gaming news organizations put out articles using recycled language on the topic of the "death" of the gamer identity in the span of 24 hours in the middle of this debacle puts to rest the notion that there was no organized attempt to manipulate the discussion by a rather ridiculous number of games journalists.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Muad'Dib wrote:

Scott has been reasonable and as always presents a spirited debate. However I'm a bit surprised he is picking up the OP's banner and running with it. The entire case made to support his argument has been tainted.

If this was a court case I think it would be a mistrial.

-MD

I'm not arguing on behalf of 4chan, reddit, or any other particular community. The people harassing Quinn suck. The people using Quinn's harassment as a cudgel against anyone trying to get a word in edgewise aren't much better. There are unpleasant people on both "sides" of this (I don't actually think this discussion is limited to two factions, but there are certainly two factions dominating its narratives).

But you mention "his argument" here. I'm curious as to what you think my argument is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ThreeEyedSloth wrote:
Line-by-line antagonistic debate (note, debate. Not discussion),

Debate is a form of discussion, usually between two people who disagree with one another.

Debate isn't a bad thing.

Quote:
dismissal of factual evidence,

I haven't dismissed any factual evidence.

Quote:
and the placement of words in others' mouths

Like what?

Are you saying that you didn't paint everyone who disagrees with your position as either duped or malicious? An apology here would go a long way.

Quote:
is identical to every other conversation I've tried to hold with people involved in GamerGate.

It may be time to consider that the only real consistent thread throughout your interactions with other people on this topic has been you and your tactics and attitude. If the conversations sound sort of similar, that's one thing. If they sound identical, though, there's a good chance that's because you are consistently steering those conversations to a specific place time after time.

Quote:
The copy-and-pasted "conversation" is old and tired by this point, and I have no interest in playing your games. Sorry.

I'm not playing a game. I am, however, beginning to believe that you really, really want to make it seem like I am.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ThreeEyedSloth wrote:
I don't know exactly what your agenda is, Scott. I hope it's not malicious, I like to assume the best in everyone I talk to.

You began by accusing literally everyone who disagreed with your position of being either a) duped and stupid, or b) malicious.

What did you expect?

Quote:
But you obviously have no desire to actual discuss anything, only to pick apart posts looking for a fight. Sorry, I've had this dance with others online and like I said before, it sadly doesn't lead to anything meaningful. I wish it did, but your confrontational approach implies otherwise.

Asking you to answer a handful of questions is now "confrontational"?

And this, from someone who painted the entire "opposition" as malicious or stupid?

If you want an actual conversation, it's here. I have not been hostile, called you names, or dishonestly misrepresented you. It would be nice if you had held yourself to those standards, too.

Quote:
Anyway, for those that are wanting to learn more about the grossness that festers under the guise of GamerGate, I hope this and this provide some proper insight. Of course, they'll just be labeled as "biased" sources because it's not what they want to hear.

It would probably help if, like I said earlier, you were able to locate sources of information that aren't on websites literally dedicated to getting into fights with misogynists on the internet.

Do no such sources exist?

Why don't they?

Does no non-activist source of coverage consider this important enough to provide a fact-based breakdown of what happened in a way that validates your beliefs?

Quote:
Like Muad'Dib said, the fact that GamerGate insists on ignoring the harassment of Zoe and Anita to push their own agenda is the only thing morally bankrupt going on. If they really cared about things so passionately like they claim, it's sad to not see that compassion directed towards a victim instead of such a broad and nebulous thing like "gaming journalism."

No one is ignoring that! Who is ignoring that? Who here is claiming that this harassment isn't happening or that it isn't morally reprehensible?

I've asked you a lot of questions. You haven't answered any of them. I would love it if you'd take the time to answer the ones that you have been asked, instead of painting those who disagree with you as stupid or sexist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
xn0o0cl3 wrote:
But video games aren't free from social baggage. Of course they are political. They're a form of media that can convey ideas, just like films or books. The people consuming them, creating them, and writing about them aren't magically exempt from having to address the political issues within and surrounding video games simply because they're video games.

I agree with all of this!

Quote:
Also, I'm still not sure what journalistic integrity is supposed to mean in the context of video game reviews.

The same thing that it is supposed to mean in the context of any media reviews.


ThreeEyedSloth wrote:

Scott, you don't *think* you're fighting for harassers or misogynists, but the sad reality is that you are. They are the ones that started GamerGate, and continue to use it as a deflection tactic for their awful and shameful agenda.

There is a lot of information out there that proves this. I hope you do some research on this and other potential organizations or causes that you decide to champion; not all of them are as noble as they seem.

There have been nearly a dozen sources of information posted in this thread that support the notion that there are some genuinely reprehensible things going on in gaming journalism surrounding this. There have been precious few sources of information to the contrary (and all of them from sites literally dedicated to getting into fights with misogynists on the internet). If you have more neutral information to share, by all means share it.

More importantly, ThreeEyedSloth, please describe the type of support I am providing to these misogynists. How am I helping them, exactly? I'd love to know what it is I'm doing that is inadvertently hurting women!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ThreeEyedSloth wrote:
The push behind GamerGate is that these people believe that video games and video game journalism should be completely devoid of opinions or emotion.

Source?

This isn't what I believe, and I haven't spoken to anyone who believes this.

So where did you come up with this idea?

Quote:
They claim that giving a game coverage because it promotes a feminist or typically-liberal "agenda" is biased and unfair, for example.

No, I think that one of the concerns was that a game was getting an inordinate amount of positive coverage because of its politics, regardless of the game's actual quality.

Quote:
Or get mad when journalists call out blatant sexism or racism in video games, because again, they feel it's "pushing their liberal agenda."

You don't get to call anything "blanket" after a post like this.

Quote:

But the thing is, every bit of journalism has an agenda. They don't comprehend that.

Well, SOME do -- the ones that created the whole GamerGate idea in the first place.

So which one am I, ThreeEyedSloth? Am I one of the people who don't comprehend that journalism cannot be separated from agenda? Or am I one of the people who dishonestly created GamerGate as a way to deflect criticism of sexist harassment?


ThreeEyedSloth wrote:
I believe there are some genuinely good people that have mistakenly bought into the idea of GamerGate. It makes me sad to see it, because they are fighting for something that sincerely does not care about them or even journalism ethics.

Those of us concerned with the journalistic integrity side of this aren't "fighting" for harassers or misogynists. Why do you insist on pushing that narrative?

Quote:
Since my previous efforts to actually have a conversation with many GamerGate folks have been met with name-calling and closed ears, I've decided to just ignore them completely. It's too bad, because there are certainly legitimate concerns about journalism that could be talked about, but they only care about their agenda. Nothing else.

I don't see any of that happening in this thread, and there are a number of people here concerned with the journalistic side of things. Is this literally the only discussion you've come across on the topic where you haven't been called names?


Muad'Dib wrote:
Scott you are obviously not in on it the joke that is the news media.

It would be impossible not to be in on that "joke" - the ones laughing at it take every available opportunity to remind you how little trust they have for the "lamestream media".

I simply don't hold to that narrative, that's all. It doesn't line up with my understanding of how many news media organizations operate.

Quote:
Seriously, crappy journalism is pervasive in every single industry.

There are plenty examples of crappy journalism out there. There are also examples of quality journalism.

Quote:
I know you don't think Zoe's part in this story is newsworthy but I would argue that it's the bigger story. A story with a lesson towards those who think it's ok to bully, harass, and slut shame.

I'm okay with you making that a story, but it doesn't have anything to do with video games. As long as you aren't purposefully attempting to crush discussion of the actual games-related story going on here, you'll have no objections from me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
xn0o0cl3 wrote:
Can anyone explain what a piece of "honest" game journalism would look like? I honestly can't really conceive of it. What can a game review actually be except for an extension of game advertising? Are honest game reviews supposed to be objective or something? How would that even be possible if the review is literally just the opinion of the journalist? What else could it possibly be?

"Can anyone explain what a piece of "honest" film journalism would look like? I honestly can't really conceive of it. What can a film review actually be except for an extension of film advertising? Are honest film reviews supposed to be objective or something? How would that even be possible if the review is literally just the opinion of the journalist? What else could it possibly be?"

"Can anyone explain what a piece of "honest" literature journalism would look like? I honestly can't really conceive of it. What can a book review actually be except for an extension of publisher advertising? Are honest book reviews supposed to be objective or something? How would that even be possible if the review is literally just the opinion of the journalist? What else could it possibly be?"

"Can anyone explain what a piece of "honest" art journalism would look like? I honestly can't really conceive of it. What can an art review actually be except for an extension of art advertising? Are honest art reviews supposed to be objective or something? How would that even be possible if the review is literally just the opinion of the journalist? What else could it possibly be?"

There are dozens of other media fields out there, and many manage to have well-respected journalistic communities that surround them. Games journalism does not, and it appears to be getting worse, not better.


ShadowcatX wrote:
Welcome to the real world. This (and much worse) happens. A lot. In every industry. The food you believe safe, the drugs you believe will make you well, the brake pads that will protect you and your loved ones, even our precious table top rpg community, they all have flawed and outright bad people working on them. Trust no one.

Should those people be exposed as "outright bad" when the opportunity arises?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

You want to talk about journalistic ethics in games coverage?

Then you should talk about where the money comes from. A website plastered with advertising for a Triple-A game by a huge publisher like EA, also reviews said game. How "unbiased" do you think that coverage is? How unbiased will their coverage of other games from that publisher be?

Indie developers are not the problem when it comes to the ethics of games journalism.

Games journalism is mostly extended PR, except for the odd editorial, or consumer advocate. You want to talk about the ethics of games journalism, then follow the damn money.

That sounds great. Do you think that we should make an effort to hold games journalism to a baseline level of integrity that nearly every other segment of media journalism is held to? Or should we be content to let it remain a joke, perpetually?


thejeff wrote:
Also frankly, given that this thread was the first I'd heard of it and the opening post included
Quote:
what if a group of academics decided to use social pressure and selective censorship to slowly change the culture and aesthetics surrounding a particular hobby (while the majority of enthusiasts didn't care for the interference). It would be wrong on so many levels. It would also be a conspiracy worth keeping an eye on.

I'm really not predisposed to this kind of conspiracy theory.

As I said earlier: Oooh the scary academic cabal

He was using it as a metaphor for what was being done by the games journalism community (overtly - this isn't a secret plan, nor is it even one whose goals I personally disagree with regardless of what I think of its methods). The parallel is that most people have an expectation of integrity and disclosure for both communities, and these are examples of those expectations failing on a massive scale.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Let's look at the Data.

For those of you who don't like reading, less than 0.5% of articles talk about feminist topics.

Not your shield also started on 4Chan as another method of harassment and distraction. I am happy to dismiss a side of an argument that has no basis in reality.

Cisgender heterosexual white dudes already have all the cards, your perceived inequality to white people is fear that people (women, poc, queer and gender fluid) without our privileges having the same power we do.

As a kid, I wondered why girls didn't play video games. Now when women want to play and try to tell us how they can be included, they get threatened, harrassed and ignored.

So yeah, I'm dismissing a side of this "argument" because one side is wrong. The opposition to the feminist "agenda" is that women don't deserve the same rights as men.

I haven't claimed that feminism is taking over games journalism. I haven't claimed that cisgender, heterosexual white dudes don't hold all the cards. I haven't claimed that this is about the feminist agenda at all.

Because it isn't.

I am not a good target for you to accuse of siding with anti-feminists.


thejeff wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Zoe Quinn is not the news here. She is a footnote in this. Her conduct (if even half-true) is morally reprehensible, but is not, itself, newsworthy. The conduct of video game journalists, whose currency is their credibility, is newsworthy, and there are a lot of people who don't want that to receive more exposure out of the misguided belief that it's the best way to defend Quinn from further harm.

What is the actual accusation?

I gave up about a 1/4 of the way through the exe's rant and am not going to sit through accusatory youtube videos.

The only accusation I've actually seen is the bit about her sleeping with a reviewer. Which might be bad, if he'd actually reviewed her work or had some other effect.

Is there a relatively unbiased summary out there somewhere?

I like this article by a Forbes contributor (note: not a particularly legitimate journalist by any stretch, but it nonetheless takes pains to remain neutral). It's focused less on the details of Quinn's behavior (which is, again, not the story) and more on the interplay between the gaming community and the games media world, and those aligning themselves with one side or the other.


Kryzbyn wrote:
Orthos wrote:
Damn. A thread where I find myself near constantly agreeing with Scott. It's kind of surreal.
Even a broken clock is correct twice a day :)

I think we probably have different opinions on how that ought to be read.


Muad'Dib wrote:
And I would say your attitude is incredibly naïve.

That's an unfortunate belief that I honestly don't think would stand up to anything beyond superficial scrutiny. I don't think that it's been particularly well-examined, and, perhaps more importantly, I think that the notion of journalistic integrity remains a goal that we as a society ought to aspire to, and that begins with holding journalists accountable. It's mind-boggling that there seems to be a genuine, dedicated movement to prevent games media from being held accountable for breaches of integrity.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Zoe Quinn is not the news here. She is a footnote in this. Her conduct (if even half-true) is morally reprehensible, but is not, itself, newsworthy. The conduct of video game journalists, whose currency is their credibility, is newsworthy, and there are a lot of people who don't want that to receive more exposure out of the misguided belief that it's the best way to defend Quinn from further harm.


Slaunyeh wrote:
Are you sure that's the side you want to be on?

Are we painting an entire segment of population by the actions of a handful of people claiming to be part of that group? I just want to make sure that's something you're cool with.

Obviously you're comfortable in your total knowledge that no one defending Zoe Quinn or the journalists in question has used hostile, demeaning, or abusive language, right?


Muad'Dib wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Muad'Dib wrote:

Let's be realistic,

There is no expectation of integrity in journalism.

What the crap did I just read?
So you believe every news article you read?

There are a number of journalistic sources whose integrity I trust because they have repeatedly shown that they hold themselves to high standards. And, when there are rare mistakes or lapses, they actively seek to correct them.

Your attitude here is incredibly cynical.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Albatoonoe wrote:
Scott, I'm dismissing this other side because I don't think they deserve to be treated like news.

A massive, at least somewhat organized violation of journalistic integrity across the video games journalism field isn't news?

It sure as hell is news in my book. It should be in yours, too.

Quote:
The only source for all of this is a biased party.

No, it isn't. You haven't been following this, but you have the opportunity to do so now.

Quote:
Exes are obviously such a reliable source of info about someone.

And if it were nothing more than an ex, this wouldn't be an issue.

Quote:
I base things on facts and being a decent person. These guys are just a bunch of jerks with a misogynistic chip on their shoulder. And the fact that people are treating this like news is even more absurd. This isn't news. This is rumor mongering. It's the equivalent of TMZ. Don't treat it like "news".

You have had a lot of resources provided to you in this thread. Have you looked at all of them? If not, why haven't you?


Muad'Dib wrote:

Let's be realistic,

There is no expectation of integrity in journalism.

What the crap did I just read?


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm really disappointed in the level of discourse in this thread. There is a lot of dismissal of one entire side of this discussion going on - people convinced that this controversy is about the fact that a woman makes games instead of the colossal exposure that the lack of integrity in video games journalism is suddenly receiving.

Ask yourself this - if Zoe Quinn had been a man, and these same incidents of journalistic favoritism and misconduct had come to light, would it be reasonable for the gaming community to be upset and concerned over it?

Of course it would. No one would claim that gender-based persecution is going on, and we'd have a chance to affect real change.

Yes, there is a minority of people involved in this debate who are incredibly misogynistic and are motivated more by that than by anything else.

That does not give you the right to dismiss the entire other side of the argument as being utterly consumed by misogyny. That's incredibly offensive to those who see this as a worrying pattern of breaches of journalistic integrity.


JoeJ wrote:

Are we actually having an edition war in a thread about why there has been less edition warring?

At the very worst, you have to admit that this is an excellent study in contrast between the edition wars of yore (still raging seven years after they started) and the current "edition wars" which largely seem non-existent despite 5e's reported popularity.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Kenjishinomouri wrote:

Why is Wotc wasting their time follying up a whole new edition of their game when they should just cave in and market their settings and own adventures. They could at least make some money on the success of their most recently successful edition 3.75.

Seriously with all their settings they have more than enough products they could sell and easily make a decent profit. WE NEED EBERRON, DRAGONLANCE, FORGOTTEN REALMS, GHOSTWALK, RAVENLOFT..... The list goes on, right there you have 5 months worth of just hardcovers, then you could go for adventures, miniatures, etc.... seriously do they have apes sitting in the ceo chairs making these pathetic decisions. If they are gonna continue to blindly destroy everything they had worked on for so long they could at least get along with it faster and sell the dnd license to paizo, at least then it would be put to good use.

Frankly I think it would just be better for everyone involved if you chose not to concern yourself with anything having to do with published D&D products going forward.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HerosBackpack wrote:

I look around me and see at least 5 genders, right here in the present world. That's my world, the one I live in. I'd like to have the same chance of seeing all of those genders just having a great story to tell. Without it being hyperfocused on the gender. "This is Danny, he's bashing orcs with a greatsword." "This is Alex, zie's shooting the orcs with a longbow." "This is Qatz, they're guarding Danny's back as he fights."

Even Paizo, inclusive as they are, doesn't really have much that represents me. I like that they are inclusive, but I'd like to see NPCs and characters like me too....

At a certain point, one has to accept that certain aspects of one's own character put them in so small (and so poorly understood) a niche that representing those certain traits or characteristics in something like a Pathfinder iconic simply isn't feasible. I'm all for Paizo introducing characters that make it clear that there is no stigma attached to one's sexual orientation, but the sexuality/gender/identity spectra are so diverse and so (to be frank) poorly organized in terms of vocabulary and consistency (try getting a room full of genderqueer people to agree on a set of neutral-gendered pronouns like zie/zir) that going for even finer granularity isn't something I see happening in the near future.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
It should be obvious which ones are the more racist of the posts to tell the truth...

You're essentially pulling the activist version of "If you don't know why I'm mad I'm not going to tell you!" Do you think that's how a healthy dialogue works, GreyWolfLord?

Quote:
but if you want to look at some...look at the first two pages, it's awful.

We should comb through literally 100 posts to try and figure what meets your personal standards of racism (that no one else appears to share)?

Quote:
In addition, after reading the original TOR post, and from what I've seen here, I'm not so certain I'd ever want to go to Gen Con...I'm part of a minority, and if they are that racist against an Asian who merely pointed out demographics and asked for ways to get more minorities gaming...I can only imagine how horrendous they'd be towards me.

Oh my gosh I know they were just soooooooo horrible.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
I actually did point out quite a number of the posts to Paizo...they did not take action.

It's almost as if the incredibly inclusive people at Paizo do not necessarily share your (to be honest, rather extreme) perception of what qualifies as racism and racist support!


5 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

This is a very interesting thing for people to note. There IS discriminatory posts in this thread that are derogatory towards some minorities.

I imagine this could be a good test. Most minorities probably can see it...and those who have experienced it could as well.

Those who deny it...perhaps there should be a re-examination of how you view the world.

Or maybe - maybe - you could actually point out which posts you feel are discriminatory and defend your accusations of discrimination, instead of pulling this "If you have to ask why you're being called racist, it just proves that you're a racist," nonsense.

The only post I can even think of that you might latch onto is the "I don't see race" one, and even that was simply an issue of vocabulary, not any actual discrimination.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Having been several times to GenCon, I'm going to have to say that A.A. George's article is right on the money. The number of nonwhite attendees is still vastly outnumbered by the nonwhite cleaning and service staff.

The only possible argument you can make from this is, "It must be racist, because it's full of white people!"

Quote:
It is... it can't help being racist, because the people that founded the hobby like most of us grew up in a racist culture with certain preconceptions for norms.

And, what, somehow the entire hobby was left in the dark ages? Hell (no disrespect to them), many of the people who "founded" the hobby aren't even alive anymore!

"It can't help being racist," is just an enormous cop-out. Both of the major players in the industry (Paizo and WotC) now take major pains to foster inclusiveness and diversity. Actual racist incidents are quickly identified, publicized, and condemned because this community loves to be outraged by things.

I have seen zero evidence that there is a widespread and debilitating racially prejudiced undercurrent in the tabletop RPG community. Is it possible that such evidence exists, and that I've just managed to miss it entirely? Absolutely. But it does mean that you have to actually produce that evidence.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
You have a guy who blogged a post similar to those posted by people part of racist organizations (most notably stormfront...though you could probably find similar items on Arian Nations, KKK, or other racist sites)

It has some questionable elements, and people are rightly saying that they disagree with those elements.

Quote:
and people all over this thread are posting their support for it.

No, they aren't. At the most, they're saying that they understand some of Correia's points and that they disagree with George.

Quote:
Then again, racist people almost never consider themselves racist

Which makes it okay for you to accuse anyone who doesn't meet your personal standards of zealotry of supporting racism, right?

Quote:
In regards to racism this is basically, white=right and minority and anyone else are wrong.

I don't see anyone, anywhere in this thread stating or even implying that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

I am not really focused on George's statement or document.

In fact, what infuriated me was NOT George's post, but the racist statements made by Mr. Correia, and even more shocking the acceptance of Racism and discrimination among individuals on these boards.

I don't see anyone accepting racism or discrimination on these boards. (At least, not in this thread.)

What a see a whole lot of is people accusing others of being racist or supporting racism - including members of this board - without little or no evidence supporting it.

So you'll either come up with defensible proof that the people you're talking to are supporting racism, or you'll kindly keep your accusations to yourself.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Kittyburger wrote:
Wait, people literally running around GenCon in Nazi paraphernalia isn't a specific actual incident?

I want you to read what you just wrote, and then try to see how you might have inadvertently used radicalized language here to describe the event in question.

I read Correia's article. Then I read George's article. Then I read the article that George's article linked to describing the Nazi "incident".

You said "people" - the article mentioned a person. Singular. You said "literally running around GenCon" - the article placed the cosplayer outside of GenCon, on the street. And the "incident" in question was a costume. There was no confrontation. There was no show of support for what was being worn. There was no context at all for what was going on.

Convince me that you're not taking an utterly context-free situation and fabricating your own context whole-cloth to fit a narrative. Because, based on my understanding of the situation, you just said a bunch of things that either aren't true at all or are total guesswork on your part and passed them off as fact.

Which, you know, probably isn't something you should be doing.

Quote:
If I was a person of color, knowing that white people are eager to latch onto any excuse to ignore the experiences of people of color that don't reinforce white supremacy, I'd be reluctant to share specific examples from my own experience, too.

"These situations totally exist at GenCon it's just no one's talking about them because they're too scared!"

I don't buy it.

Quote:
So, given that this is the perception, and it seems to be a fairly widespread perception among people of color given that it's one that I've seen online and heard in person many times before, might it not behoove us to examine our own behavior and see if it might actually possess merit, instead of rejecting it out of hand?

I think you're talking to a whole bunch of people who have examined their behavior - repeatedly - and have made changes to their behavior when they have found that behavior lacking.

You don't need to "try and start a discussion" - we're having it. You don't need to convince us to start examining our behavior - we've been examining it. You don't need to start shining light on these events - light is shone on them every time something happens because this is an extremely vocal community.

We're past that. How about you tell us what's next?


thejeff wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Kittyburger wrote:
Correia dismisses discussion of actual incidents of sexism by women, discussion of actual incidents of racism by people of color, actual incidents of gender identity and sexual orientation bias by LGBTQIA+ people (notice a running theme here?).

Where?

George never mentioned any actual incidents of racism, sexism, or sexual orientation bias. He insinuated that the predominately white, straight, male makeup of GenCon is the result of racism, sexism, and sexual orientation bias, but never actually bothered to identify the actual source of any of those problems. I'm guessing this is primarily because: a) Insinuating that racism is a problem is easy to do (and doesn't require pesky evidence), while actually identifying its source is hard; b) the primary cause of the lack of diversity he sees probably isn't actually racism, sexism, or sexual orientation bias - that's a far less parsimonious explanation than, say, socioeconomic status, geographic location, and so on; and c) bringing up actual incidents would open George up to people actually involved in those incidents offering alternative (contradictory) explanations for them.

In short, Correia literally cannot be dismissive of something that was never mentioned there to begin with.

I believe Kittyburger actually went back and read Correia's other posts to establish a pattern of dismissing such discussion.

If that's actually the case, Correia seems like kind of an unpleasant person. I can't say I'm much enamored with him based on the one article I did read, and being genuinely dismissive of those things would put him firmly in the no-love category.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Kittyburger wrote:
Correia dismisses discussion of actual incidents of sexism by women, discussion of actual incidents of racism by people of color, actual incidents of gender identity and sexual orientation bias by LGBTQIA+ people (notice a running theme here?).

Where?

George never mentioned any actual incidents of racism, sexism, or sexual orientation bias. He insinuated that the predominately white, straight, male makeup of GenCon is the result of racism, sexism, and sexual orientation bias, but never actually bothered to identify the actual source of any of those problems. I'm guessing this is primarily because: a) Insinuating that racism is a problem is easy to do (and doesn't require pesky evidence), while actually identifying its source is hard; b) the primary cause of the lack of diversity he sees probably isn't actually racism, sexism, or sexual orientation bias - that's a far less parsimonious explanation than, say, socioeconomic status, geographic location, and so on; and c) bringing up actual incidents would open George up to people actually involved in those incidents offering alternative (contradictory) explanations for them.

In short, Correia literally cannot be dismissive of something that was never mentioned there to begin with.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Saying someone has white privilege is NOT the same as saying they are personally and offensively racist.

Then you have a language problem.

When I hear "told they bear a share of responsibility for a state of racial, gender, or similar inequality in society" that sounds a whole hell of a lot like saying they're part of the problem.

Quote:
We've gone around and around this on this thread and somehow people are still coming up with this strawman, that people who are saying "check your privilege" are actually saying "you're a racist m*!#$@@+&*$*". A statement that a person has racial privilege is NOT a statement that they are racist.

You're not simply saying that they enjoy racial privilege. You're saying that they enjoy racial privilege, that they are responsible for it being perpetuated, and that they have a duty above and beyond what they are already doing to fix the problem they are a part of, regardless of what they are actually doing.

This is radicalized language. It isn't grounded in reality.

Quote:
Well, if a person is benefitting from the oppression of minorities, and isn't doing a thing to mitigate that, how is that not being part of the problem?

You aren't making any distinction here between those who are doing something to mitigate it and those who are not. Your insinuation is blanket - that all whites, males, and Christians are part of the problem and are not part of the solution.

Quote:
I'm actually white, as well, and of course I wasn't saying that everyone is harboring unconscious fears of those things.

You aren't? Because that's exactly what your phrasing said.

You said:

Quote:
The reason people become uncomfortable with being told they bear a share of responsibility for a state of racial, gender, or similar inequality in society, insofar as they benefit from it in ways that minorities cannot, is because they are scared, subconsciously, that their privileges are going to be taken away.

I've highlighted the relevant bit. There is no such thing as "the reason" people are uncomfortable with that. There are a whole bunch of reasons people are uncomfortable with what you are describing, and some of those reasons are simply that they're not part of the problem but that you keep insisting that they are.

Quote:
If I had meant that I would have said that. But I suppose someone had to come in with #Notallmen.

See, right here: You didn't need to throw that hashtag out, but you did because - to you - someone who disagrees with your methods must also disagree with your goal.

Quote:
What a person is fearing when they are told they have privilege may not be the loss of a job, or of having their kids become atheists, but they're afraid of SOMETHING, even if it's just fear of being called racist, and this fear is what causes defensiveness.

Or - or - just maybe they're not fearing anything except being unfairly characterized as part of the problem by some guy on the internet!

To come at it from another direction, it seems, to us, that the only reason you would characterize our reaction to being told we're privileged as fearful is so that you can paint us as working consciously or subconsciously against it - it makes it incredibly easy to hop from "They're afraid of change" to "They're afraid of change and that's why they are hostile to it."


The 8th Dwarf wrote:
I liked one of Scott's comments. it's like the 3rd time

*notches bedpost*


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

If we stop using the word 'privilege' and use a different word, then pretty soon THAT word will become the emotionally charged one that Caineach and those coming from the same position will be advising us not to use because it turns people off.

To hell with that. The reason people become uncomfortable with being told they bear a share of responsibility for a state of racial, gender, or similar inequality in society, insofar as they benefit from it in ways that minorities cannot, is because they are scared, subconsciously, that their privileges are going to be taken away. White people are scared of having more trouble getting jobs because they don't have a built in advantage over everyone else when being hired. Men are scared of having a harder time getting laid because they have to acquire enthusiastic consent before having sex with a woman. Christians are scared of having their children being taught that other religions, and nonreligiousness are the legal and logical equals of Christianity, because it may make it harder to keep their children in the faith when they know that there are other options.

These are not conscious fears, but they are one of the reasons why people get defensive and upset when you discuss their privileges.

I think you're going a bit far with the insinuation that every white person, every male, or every Christian who is made uncomfortable by being told that they are personally and offensively racist is harboring subconscious fears of losing privileges they are not even conscious of enjoying.

I think there are plenty of people who are consciously afraid of those things. And there may be some who are subconsciously afraid of those things. But that every single white person, male, or Christian who objects to being accused of being part of the problem is subconsciously trying to avoid losing out is going a few steps too far.

I'm going to be blunt: You need white people on your side. You need men on your side. You need Christians on your side. No matter what major social shift you are trying to make happen, you need these people to be on your side. By all means, assign blame where it's due. But restrain yourself from becoming so zealous in your rhetoric that you end up causing those who are already on your side (to say nothing of those who aren't, but who could be) to question whether they want to be associated with that kind of fervor.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Both of the articles in question are terrible.

George's article is an exercise in purposefully shallow thinking, and while I can forgive Correia being dismissive of George's eminently dismissible argument, the fact that he decided to respond in the first place is awful. George is making some really horrible allegations about the con and the gaming community at large with literally nothing to back it up. No one is stopping him from feeling marginalized, but it's on him to identify why he feels marginalized, and is not incumbent on the rest of the gaming community to figure that out for him, because that's simply not possible.

George's article could have said meaningful things about gaming and race, but it didn't. Correia's response starts a "dialogue" that is really just bringing the level of discourse surrounding the topic down to the level of bickering.


Drejk wrote:
Wrath wrote:

15 million would employ far more than 100 people when you consider most folks in the industry aren't making big money. We're not talking triple figure incomes here I'm guessing.

Cheers

As far as I understand it 15 million is sales at shops and other channels. Subtract what shop gets, subtract printing and shipment costs, taxes, and what is left is probably much lower number.

How much shops get? 10-15%? Transport? 10-15%? Taxes?

Retailers take a huge chunk (in excess of 20%). Logistics is a significant chunk. Production is an enormous chunk. Non-salary overhead is another chunk (utilities, equipment, non-salary employee benefits, office rent, etc.). By the time the industry gets around to actually cutting checks for employees, that $15 million is probably down to a few million. I wasn't forecasting huge salaries for RPG industry employees; around $50,000 per annum, plus benefits.

I'd be astonished if, based on these figures, there were even 100 people in the world who derive the whole of (or close to the whole of) their income from working on tabletop RPGs.


Thelemic_Noun wrote:
Pan wrote:
My gamer buddies complain all the time how much more expesive Magic is than your typical BG or TTRPG. If cost is a huge berrier why does Magic-pokemon-yu-gi-oh make cash hand over fist?
Because they manipulate customers using the same mechanisms that casinos, bookies, and B.F. Skinner developed to make people gamble away their money.

Casinos and bookies don't feature a robust secondary market that allows those "gambling away their money" to recoup losses and trade risk and reward among other players.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Did anyone actually think that it was big?

No, but the idea that the entire tabletop RPG industry can support (and this is being charitable) fewer than 100 full-time workers is sort of jarring.


John Kretzer wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
I think the actual numbers are meaningless (and they are just estimates) - it's the relative numbers I find surprising.

Again I think the medium of the survey (IE just counting Gaming Stores sales numbers) are also a bot skewed as I think people are more likely to buy collectible games via a store than the internet as opposed to RPG books which I pretty much buy all of them online.

Not saying that CCG and the like does not out sell RPGs I just don't think it is by as high as a margin as this would lead you to believe.

I agree. In my experience, enthusiast TCG players to purchase TCG boosters in store where they can play/trade/sell on the spot. RPG players also buy in hobby stores, but they are much more inclined to simply order from Amazon (or Paizo) and receive shipments when they come - their needs once the book arrives are less immediate.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tsoli wrote:
I'd be surprised if it got two quarters. One, sure, because people will just buy what there is to take a look at it, but all in all, I wasn't terribly interested.

Ah, yes. The "My personal lack of interest practically guarantees its widespread commercial failure!" hypothesis - nigh unassailable.

At this point, given the game's reception and sales, the only thing I can see preventing it from holding the top place on ICV2's list is if WotC decides to stop putting new books on the shelves.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I thought this might be relevant to this thread: this afternoon D&D broke through to the number one spot on Amazon's bestseller list.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Danbala wrote:

If that was happening it wasn't clear where that was. Wizards had their own zone in Hall D which was a literally walled off area. Behind the wall they had something like 30 or so tables where they were running their demos. Not all of the tables were for D&D (some were for Waterdeep, etc). On Thursday morning, I tried to reserve a demo for any time during the Con and was told that they were all sold out before the con started.

(In comparison, Pathfinder was in the Sagamore ballroom with 150 tables -- they were doing about 900 players per slot. The space was large enough that they could accommodate walk ins.)

In addition to a prominent position in the Exhibit Hall, Paizo had these massive banners flying at all the entrances. they had a local pub redone to be Pathfinder themed. Wizards had nothing in the exhibit Hall but they did have a banner up at Hall D and a castle themed wall around their space. But mainly their presence seemed to be low key by comparison.

This was particularly striking when you compared Wizards small and out of the way D&D area to its large and centrally placed Magic the Gathering space. Unlike the D&D zone, the Magic area was adjacent to the Exhibit Hall and featured a huge (Sagamore-like) play space. Magic promotional materials were prominently placed through the convention space. I only saw two 5e banners -- one at the entrance to Hall D and another in St George street across from the food trucks. It was clear that Wizards saw the convention as key to their promotion -- of Magic.

I'm not sure how you managed to miss all of this, but D&D's presence there was much larger than you're making it out to be. Again, you can check the Gen Con event listings if you don't believe me (or the photos) to confirm how many players they were running.

1 to 50 of 6,929 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.