|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
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.
...That's what we're trying to do, but then we keep getting told that we can't separate them.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
dismissal of factual evidence,
I haven't dismissed any factual evidence.
and the placement of words in others' mouths
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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!
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.
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!
The push behind GamerGate is that these people believe that video games and video game journalism should be completely devoid of opinions or emotion.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Also frankly, given that this thread was the first I'd heard of it and the opening post included
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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)?
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.
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.
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!"
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
John Kretzer wrote:
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.
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.
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.