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. 6,950 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 6,950 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:

Hold on there this is hypocrisy.

You are demanding an impossible standard for real feminists while giving men who would never help women get an equal share the pass. You can only argue so many issues before your viewpoint becomes diluted and irrelevant. I would LOVE to see the reaction you would get if you said "shut up and also help all those other people who are suffering too like Latinos, disadvantaged white children, or women" to all those mobs fighting for equal rights for blacks. I have never met a real feminist who didn't care that some boys were being mistreated and if presented with an opportunity to make things better wouldn't have hesitated to do so. BUT those little steps forward that Dr Sommers likes to point to as proof we should all shut up would NEVER have happened without real feminists bringing those issues forward. Sexism is the single largest -ism facing the world today not just for the appalling treatment of women in third world countries but also the way we are still treated here at home in the first world. The time for us to shut up will be when inclusivity and equality is the NORM not the outlier. It gets real annoying being a real feminist when on one side you have fake feminists like Dr. Sommers saying every thing is roses and the other tiny few but VERY vocal extreme feminist man haters out there making bad press...

Ahh, so a real feminist is whatever you agree with, and a fake feminist is whatever you don't agree with.

Got it. No True Scotsman in spades.

It's mind-blowing that you're accusing anyone of hypocrisy is the middle of a post where you try to marginalize a subset of people ostensibly in the name of fighting against the marginalization of a subset of people.


Hama wrote:
Have you played the original and 2?

We don't judge video games solely on how they measure up against earlier titles in the franchise.


MMCJawa wrote:

I do think it's interesting that earlier in the thread, people were arguing that you can't paint all the people who complain about Sarkeesian, GamerGate, what have you as misogynists, because the people behind the death/rape threats are an extreme viewpoint that doesn't reflect gamers

But some of those same people think you can paint all feminists as bad, because of a few perhaps extreme individuals

No one is saying that. Literally no one. Why the strawman?

What is being said is that people don't want to self-identify as feminists (or "modern feminists", or whatever) because to do so is to associate with what they see as a movement that is steered primarily by hostility and toxic behavior. No one is saying that all self-identifying feminists are hostile and toxic. But enough of them are to turn people off from wanting to identify with that group. I could give you examples of other communities that face the same challenge, but hopefully that's unnecessary.


mechaPoet wrote:
I was honestly curious what your advice was, but I just don't agree with it. There are plenty of feminists who are capable of calm discussion, and do so. I just don't buy into the dichotomy that says that anger and rationality can't co-exist in a person or argument.

No one is saying they can't co-exist. That doesn't mean that that's the best way to present yourself.

Quote:
I also think that phrasing this as a "debate" is not helpful, since (to me at least) it implies that it's more important who is the "winner" of the debate rather than the subject being debated.

That's the wrong way to see a debate. Both are important. A debate is simply a discussion where the parties involved do not agree with one another. There is a debate happening, on a societal level. And the winner does matter.

Quote:
The other problem I often see is that I and others are told they're being "hostile" just for identifying or pointing out problems of inequality. Have you ever tried to explain the word "privilege" to people who have it? I have. It ain't easy; people get defensive even with copious explanations and links to illustrate exactly what I'm talking about.

Yes, they do. Patience is the order of the day. It's not fun, it's not fair that you have to have the patience of a mountain, but you do need to have the patience of a mountain.

Quote:
That said, it's not my job to be an ambassador to all of feminism. There are plenty of people who aren't hostile within the movement (but are sometimes perceived as such, as I outlined above), so why focus on saying that "we" need to curtail the more extreme elements?

If you don't feel like you are personally responsible for the movement, that's fine. You can disregard what I'm saying. But I think you probably should consider that you should be personally responsible for the movement. Cause ownership is an important part of movement politics.


Loving it so far, but encountering some characteristics that make the game less enjoyable. Many that Werthead mentioned above are sticking points for me as well - the massive disparity in utility between combat-oriented skills (Assault Rifle and Field Medic) versus non-combat skills (Alarm Disabling and Toaster Repair) without a similar disparity in cost is a big one, as is the unforgivable design choice to make safecracking and lockpicking two different skills (to say nothing of the massive overlap between Brute Force and Lockpicking that makes you feel like a chump for investing points in both, especially since the very first companion you pick up has a number of ranks in Brute Force). I like the supply scarcity, though I'm only playing on Seasoned so it might become unbearable at higher difficulty levels.

I feel like this is the sort of game that really needs a new player guide to avoid getting stuck in some of the game's pitfalls.


Blazej wrote:
I just find it odd given that this is largely what I would say to those on the side of GamerGate. For every comment that actively condemns a lot of the bile I saw, there is another that supports, justifies, or casually dismisses comments made for the general cause.

But you are seeing comments that condemn that bile, by people trying to dissociate themselves from the misogynistic, abusive segment of that community.


Albatoonoe wrote:
What makes you think we don't do this? We certainly do, but it doesn't account for much. We live in the information age where anyone can talk to anyone. We can ostracize extremists but they can still be heard. Then the opposition takes that as our gospel. We freaking try, but the internet makes that mighty difficult. It's a Sisyphean task you're asking us to undertake just to get some credibility.

Welcome to movement politics. No one said it would be easy. What you have encountered here is a hard problem. It is not an insurmountable one. Merely hard. Start coming up with solutions.


Sissyl wrote:
When a sensible person of a larger group finds that an extremist, hateful part of the same group is making too much noise, to the point where the actions of the extremists taints the perception of the entire group, that person's job (if they still want to save the group) is to make sure people understand that they personally are taking exception to what the extremists are doing, work to marginalize the extremists within the group by strengthening the more sensible sub-groups, and support movements to exclude the extremists. This goes for ALL groups. If they do not do this, it is going to end up at the point where the sensible person must either break with the entire group or accept sharing the tainted perceptions the extremists gave rise to.

This.


thejeff wrote:
It's a perception problem. A PR problem. The fix is a perception fix and a PR fix, not a sanitize the movement so it doesn't scare anyone fix.

I think most PR people would acknowledge that your campaign probably ought to avoid scaring away the people it needs supporting it. The question is whether the movement can keep its goals intact while still avoiding coming across as indiscriminate or out of control.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Albatoonoe wrote:
Here's the thing. I've never seen this problem. I've seen people talk about it, but I've never seen the problem. And when they talk about it, I never see any actual proof that it's a common thing. So, I'm not denying a problem. I'm not convinced there is one. By all means, if you have evidence to point to an ongoing and common problem (more so than a perceived problem), then I'll be right on board.

Perception is the problem. It doesn't matter whether it's real (and it is, to some degree - I've seen dozens of angry, hostile, dismissive rants on my own Facebook feed, every one of which I have given a 10-foot pole's berth to) or merely perceived. Your movement is perceived to be toxic and hostile, even to those who aren't opposed to it.

So what do you plan to do about it?


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Albatoonoe wrote:
I don't buy it. That whole "bunch of man haters" thing is the same exact rhetoric that has been thrown at feminism since it began. Man Haters are an extremist minority. A very loud one, but they are still a minority.

Stop denying that this is a problem. You have a veritable crowd of people telling you that they like your ideals but can't associate with your movement because that vocal minority makes association toxic.

Your job is now to clean house (if you'll pardon the unfortunate chauvinism inherent in that metaphor). You need these people on your side, and bad apples (whether they are few or many isn't the point) are preventing that from happening. Reclaim your movement, stop letting extremists run away with it, and start making popular progress. I'm seeing a lot of parallels in the feminist community right now to what happened with the recent Tea Party movement - it's fun to have the injection of enthusiasm that the Tumblr teenager and radical crowds bring, but those groups cannot be expected to moderate their beliefs or tactics; you have to do it for them, or they will hijack your movement.


thejeff wrote:
Of course every wave of feminism has faced the same criticism. Often from those who supported the previous one.

Which obviously means any such criticism is automatically invalid, right?


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Albatoonoe wrote:
The idea of "modern feminist" is dishonest at best.

No, it isn't. Third-wave feminism is an actual thing (though, arguably, not a particularly cohesive thing).

Quote:
It's a diversionary tactic.

No, it's not. Why do you want it to be a diversionary tactic?

Quote:
By calling the other side "crazy" you don't have to acknowledge them. You don't acknowledge crazy talk.

Or maybe they legitimately see that position as silly. Besides, how is what you're doing here any different? You're effectively dismissing the entire notion that subsets of feminism can be criticized by painting anyone who does so as simply wanting to avoid acknowledging those subsets!

Quote:
So, drop it. Drop this arbitrary division between "feminists" and "modern feminists" because it's starting to sound like the crazy ones are the ones you don't agree with.

I know a great number of men and women (probably the majority of those I know, in fact) who consider themselves feminists (in the equity-feminist sense, and possibly in the gender-feminist sense) but who are terrified of using the word feminist to describe themselves because of the tactics, goals, and beliefs held by the most vocal people who call themselves feminists. It seems, to me, to be very similar to how segments of Christianity have been drowned out by the extreme and the vocal, to the point where some Christians are reluctant to be vocal about their faith for fear of appearing to associate with the extremist fringe.

You don't consider this an identity issue, for feminists?


6 people marked this as a favorite.
mechaPoet wrote:

Regarding Gamer Gate: Zoe Quinn's final thoughts, with lots of helpful links

Here's what GamerGate is actually about: punishing a woman for, I dunno, being a woman? Having a relationship with someone other than her spiteful ex-boyfriend? Trumped up rumors, outright lies, and horrible sexist threats?

Do you feel like you have the authority to decide, unilaterally, what a movement you are not a part of is "about"? Putting the shoe on the other foot, would you feel justified in being angry if someone opposed to your own movement tried to define, for you, what your movement is about based on the actions of a fraction of people who identify with it?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
That's okay. "male-bashing, propaganda-driven, female chauvinism" seems like the same kind of absurd, tribalistic strawman created to make opposing it easier to stomach to me.

I wouldn't call that accurate, either. Why is it okay to portray either side that way?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Werthead wrote:
A key complaint of GamerGate proponents is that "Gameplay is king," and people should be talking about the gameplay as the most important thing and anything social or cultural should be ignored. "It doesn't matter if a game is sexist as long as the game is fun," is a fundamental touchstone of the movement, and the suggestion that sexism makes the game less fun for many players (including male gamers as well as women) seems to genuinely baffle them.

Do you feel that this is an accurate portrayal of people concerned about the GamerGate events? Where was it enshrined that "Gameplay is king" is a "key complaint" of the movement? Who and where are these people who believe that everything cultural or social about video games should be ignored? Who and where are these people who are "genuinely baffled" by the idea that sexism can make a game less enjoyable?

I don't want to be associated with people like that, but at the same time I'm having a hard time believing that they even exist in numbers large enough that they can be said to define the movement. It sounds like an absurd, tribalistic strawman created to make opposing it easier to stomach.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
mechaPoet wrote:

I don't trust anyone who asserts that they're relying on "facts" as a form of asserting their authority. Especially when it's pretty obviously presented in opposition to anyone who disagrees. Sort of a "You can't argue against my argument because it is based on FACTS" thing.

Sommers may have "facts," but she's also interpreting a lot of them in a dishonest manner. Also, how is "I talked to a bunch of gamers and they said they don't care who you are as long as you love games!" any sort of valid point?

Anyway I give this video 1/10. Try harder, leave the gender essentialism in the garbage.

Could you elaborate on the facts that she is interpreting in a dishonest manner?

Also:

Quote:
I don't trust anyone who asserts that they're relying on "facts" as a form of asserting their authority.

This seems like a silly thing to say. You're essentially saying that evidence (generally taken to be the most valid basis for one's authority on a subject) is in fact one of the least valid grounds to base one's authority on. What would be your preferred basis? Popularity? Wealth? Physical strength?


thejeff wrote:
Necromancer wrote:
An interesting dialogue between Dr. Sommers and Adam Weinstein (Gawker employee) held two weeks ago.
What's interesting about it, other than characterizing disagreement as "male-bashing, propaganda-driven, female chauvinism"?

Come on. That can't have been your entire takeaway.


GreyWolfLord wrote:

Is there anyway to play it offline and single player if you wanted?

We have Internet, but the fastest that comes to the area I'm at is around 150 Kps...which is really slow comparatively to what's around these days in more populated areas.

The game is online only, though the main campaign can be completed solo. Your bandwidth may or may not be sufficient; I don't know what sort of data demands Destiny puts on your connection.


thejeff wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Necromancer wrote:

Further information:

A detailed look at Dr. Sommers, her claims, and the data referenced.

This is really, really good stuff. Thank you.

"Really really Good stuff", except where it doesn't connect the points.

I agree with argument that there's a gender gap between hardcore and casual gamers and with the existence of a difference between the two classifications.

I'll even agree at least that there is no evidence that video games cause sexism or sexist attitudes and provisionally that millennials are less prejudiced.

None of this says that the games more frequently played by the hardcore gamers aren't sexist and that the sexism in those games, while they may not make those gamers more sexist, might still be part of the reason there is a gender gap.
Games not causing sexism certainly doesn't justify sexism in games. Nor does it justify the appalling abuse of some feminist commentators.

What really is the point of this again? Not quite shooting down a strawman, but not really on target either.

I wasn't commenting on the video itself as "good stuff". Rather, it was the fact-checking that I appreciated for its thoroughness. I'm not going to wade into the larger debate here, mostly because I don't feel there's really a "good side" worth supporting.


Necromancer wrote:

Further information:

A detailed look at Dr. Sommers, her claims, and the data referenced.

This is really, really good stuff. Thank you.


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?


10 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 to 50 of 6,950 << 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.