|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This just came to my attention
I hate Dragon Age 2. I think its one of the worst things ever to come out of bioware. It suffers heavily from consolitis, has sub-par graphics for the year it came out, and is too streamlined for my own taste.
Also the story is not that cool.
But, however, I do not condone this sort of disgusting behavior those people exibit. Calling someone to threaten them with the lives of their children because they are crappy writers? What. The. Hell.
I sincerely hope that people who sent death threats are all caught and put in jail for this.
I understand hating a game. I understand hating a game studio for screwing up. I understand being p****d by the writer of the game.
What I don't understand how can anyone threaten another person's life over a piece of software. Is 60 bucks worth a person's life now? Man if i new a guy who did this, i would gladly go to jail for Aggravated Assault.
yeah, my other half just told me about this. I am incredibly angry about the peoples behaviors. :(
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The sad thing is, she is not the only developer who has received death threats recently.
The design director for Call of Duty: Black Ops II received death threats just last month . The reason? What sounds like a minor tweak to a weapon to make it more balanced.
And this article from April covers a number of situations where developers received such threats, Hepler included.
And a lot of people--a lot of the gaming audience--unfortunately wave this off as a handful of idiots blowing off steam. The problem is, for every few people who are just talking out of their ass, there is one who means it. Most cases where people ARE in fact stalked, harmed, or killed by someone they knew or knew of them from an Internet started with "silly" threats like this. And you never have any way of knowing of who is just making a lot of noise, and who is really the psychopath, until it is too late. I once knew someone who received such threats and then found the person near their home, and going through their mail, preparing for something nasty. This s%&% actually can and does happen.
Not to mention, the threats of course are themselves a form of emotional violence that should not be (but sadly, by some troglodytes, will be) discounted for the amount of damage they can do a person (such as making you feel so frightened for your family you feel you have to abandon your career).
And it's increasing more and more and more. In addition to more developers reaching threats, gamers bullying fellow gamers is STILL a big problem, one which not enough is being done about. Microsoft only just a few days ago banned a poster who one month ago sent explicit rape threats in a voice message to a fellow Call of Duty player. Suspiciously, Microsoft was entirely unresponsive to the threatened player until she started posting about it on the Internet and it started to hit bigger and bigger media outlets.
It should not take one month to investigate a threat of violence.
Industry leaders should be taking THE LEAD in helping end this sort of culture, not ignoring it and hoping it goes away.
Threats of violence, last I checked, are in fact illegal. I really hope more and more people go to the police when these things happen. It seems really extreme, but the more I see this kind of thing pop up, the more I am convinced that, if nothing changes, it is only going to lead to "game developer found beaten to death" headlines. I pray I am wrong.
In the meantime, what we as gamers can do is speak out against this kind of behavior, and make sure it does not perpetuate in the circles that we personally run in. Every person who says "it's just the Internet" or "if you can't take the heat, then don't get involved in gaming" are just as guilty as those who make the threats and those who try to act on them, because they enable these bullies, if not passively defend them in the most cowardly way possible, and thus tacitly support a culture where violent threats are considered normal, acceptable behavior, and where those who are victims of such inhuman behavior are held to blame.
In the interests of accuracy, Jennifer Hepler did NOT leave BioWare because of these issues. She left because she wanted to go freelance and because (apparently) her husband got a job in another location that was not conducive to her being able to continue working at BioWare. In the Polygon article linked from Metro, she says specifically that she did NOT leave BioWare because of these threats. In addition, based on DRAGON AGE III's development cycle they are also at the point where the main writing and narrative has to be locked in so they can develop the areas, characters and encounters (though of course tweaking to the writing will continue up until the voice-overs are recorded), so the bulk of her work on the game will be done.
That doesn't effect the issue that such threats are illegal, disgusting and unacceptable, and are becoming a disincentive for developers to stay in the business. It's easy to say grow a thicker skin, but when people are saying they are going to harm your family and a tiny minority of people are nuts enough to do just that, it's hard to simply ignore it. What I fear is a backlash where developers start withdrawing from their communities and stop listening to fans altogether (the reverse of what is happening elsewhere with Kickstarter and more involvement for fans).
This is timely as I'm just finishing up DRAGON AGE II now. It's a very solid game. I can see the complaints and agree with the main ones: there is too much re-use of limited environments, the combat is ludicrous (especially the constantly spawning waves out of nowhere, though given the extreme ease of the game even on the hard difficulty, this isn't as annoying as it could be) and the gameplay is less impressive than DRAGON AGE: ORIGINS. On the other hand, it is a FAR more narratively bold and interesting game than the original, which was generic epic fantasy corncheese BS. The characters are much more interesting and the writing is vastly superior (this is more of a comment on how awful DA:O's writing was than how great DA2's is overall). The weaker gameplay is frankly worth it for the much more interesting story and roleplaying options.
On the other hand, DRAGON AGE II was crippled at birth. EA mandated a sequel to be rush-developed to help atone for the high costs of DA:O, and I can see their point: five years of development for a PC-only RPG at a time when the format was going downhill in sales? BioWare were losing their business sense entirely there. For a game made in less than 18 months and presumably with nowhere near as much money, DRAGON AGE II is actually pretty good. That doesn't excuse the creative problems entirely (for a start they could have simply reused the DA:O engine with the new storyline, which would saved money and made for better gameplay), but it does explain the reused locations problem and some of the other issues.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This just came to my attention
I hate Dragon Age 2.
[morpheus]
What if I told you
That contributing to a gaming culture where actively expressing disgust for a game you're not personally a fan of is okay (and in some cases encouraged or defended!) is one of the enabling factors that reassures the people issuing death threats to developers' families that what they're doing is acceptable?
[/morpheus]
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if I told you
That contributing to a gaming culture where actively expressing disgust for a game you're not personally a fan of is okay (and in some cases encouraged or defended!) is one of the enabling factors that reassures the people issuing death threats to developers' families that what they're doing is acceptable?
I'd tell you that you were a fully-paid up passenger on the crazy train.
Criticising a game for valid reasons is perfectly fine.
Saying you want to personally find and murder the family members of the people who made it are not.
There two are not equatable in any fashion.
What you seem to be suggesting is that no criticism of a game on any level is permissable, because if you do you automatically are encouraging other people to go and threaten to shoot their goldfish or something.
This is a position that makes no logical sense whatsoever.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This just came to my attention
I hate Dragon Age 2.
[morpheus]
What if I told you
That contributing to a gaming culture where actively expressing disgust for a game you're not personally a fan of is okay (and in some cases encouraged or defended!) is one of the enabling factors that reassures the people issuing death threats to developers' families that what they're doing is acceptable?
[/morpheus]
No, just no. Expressing your dislike of something is fine - everyone has that right. Do not conflate that with rape/death threats. You don't get to blame a policeman being beaten to death on the guy who chains himself to railings to protest.
Put the blame where it belongs.
Not to speak for Scott, but I think his point was that the criticism was phrased as, "I hate Dragon Age 2," rather than, "I hate nut-job gamers."
'Cause one of those statements blames a video-game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I don't think Scott expressed himself as clearly as he could have, he has a point. The same phenomenon is being observed and addressed in light of the recent attention to sexual assault in the military.
Criticizing a product we're unhappy with is, I think, a necessary and good thing. However, too often the expression of that criticism strays into the realm of absolutely ridiculous hyperbole. There's a big difference between pointing out specific failings in a game and claiming the game's designers are idiots, implying that they specifically set out to create a bad game, etc.
If folks simply treated game designers/developers and each other with respect, discussion would be a lot more productive. Instead, the anonymity of the internet allows people to express themselves in ways they flat out know are unacceptable. That the general population sees fit to do so only encourages the small minority that is crazy enough not to know the difference, or sociopathic enough to not care.
As I said, the same phenomenon is now being adressed across the military. Making inappropriate, degrading comments or telling off-color jokes to or about one's co-workers is a far cry from sexual assault. However, when such things go unchallenged, it sends the message that such things are acceptable. It encourages predators.
For example, recently a young man was observed telling a group of co-workers, some of with outranked him by a LOT, that he had a party planned for the coming weekend at which he was determined to get laid and would be secretly spiking the punch to facilitate doing so. NO ONE SAID A WORD. Worse, many of them laughed. Perhaps they were nervous, perhaps they didn't think he was serious. Regardless, no one reported anything until early the next week when some female co-workers were overheard relating that they'd been assaulted at the party after getting drunk unintentionally.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd tell you that you were a fully-paid up passenger on the crazy train.
Criticising a game for valid reasons is perfectly fine.
Saying you want to personally find and murder the family members of the people who made it are not.
There two are not equatable in any fashion.
Which is why I'm not equating them.
What you seem to be suggesting is that no criticism of a game on any level is permissable,
That's pretty much exactly not what I'm saying. Criticism is fine. "I hate Dragon Age 2 and Bioware is dead to me," or "Mass Effect 3 was terrible and EA can go to hell," or "Activision can rot for all I care after putting out another Call of Duty," - those sorts of sentiments are non-productive and create an environment that reinforces the notion that it's okay to treat companies like trash when they create something you're not a fan of. It's a very short hop from there to treating those companies' employees like trash for their role.
because if you do you automatically are encouraging other people to go and threaten to shoot their goldfish or something.
This is a position that makes no logical sense whatsoever.
And this is part of the problem - point out that it's contributing to an atmosphere of rabid mob-mentality hate, and people start to defend it, which means now not only do you have an environment where that behavior is tolerated, but now it's also protected!
This just came to my attention
I hate Dragon Age 2.
[morpheus]
What if I told you
That contributing to a gaming culture where actively expressing disgust for a game you're not personally a fan of is okay (and in some cases encouraged or defended!) is one of the enabling factors that reassures the people issuing death threats to developers' families that what they're doing is acceptable?
[/morpheus]
No, just no. Expressing your dislike of something is fine - everyone has that right. Do not conflate that with rape/death threats. You don't get to blame a policeman being beaten to death on the guy who chains himself to railings to protest.
Put the blame where it belongs.
No one's confusing anything with anything. Most of the blame belongs on the people responsible for these threats. Some of the blame also belongs with the gaming community for making vitriolic behavior the accepted norm.
No, just no. Expressing your dislike of something is fine - everyone has that right. Do not conflate that with rape/death threats. You don't get to blame a policeman being beaten to death on the guy who chains himself to railings to protest.
Put the blame where it belongs.
No, but you can blame a universal disrespect for police officers and acceptance/protection of hate speech directed toward them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"I hate Dragon Age 2 and Bioware is dead to me," or "Mass Effect 3 was terrible and EA can go to hell," or "Activision can rot for all I care after putting out another Call of Duty," - those sorts of sentiments are non-productive and create an environment that reinforces the notion that it's okay to treat companies like trash when they create something you're not a fan of. It's a very short hop from there to treating those companies' employees like trash for their role.
No, no it isn't. Companies aren't people, period. Saying "Chick-fil-a can kiss my ass" because of its stance on homosexuals is in no way, shape, or form comparable/contributing to me telling a randomly selected Chick-fil-a employee that I'm going to kill them. Anyone who jumps from one to the other has pre-existing mental issues.
I'd be far more concerned about the short hop from conclusions like yours to the abridgement of free speech.
I know you enjoy debates, Scott, and you're generally quite good at them, but these are dots you just aren't going to be able to plausibly connect.
What I don't understand how can anyone threaten another person's life over a piece of software.
You and me both.
No, no it isn't. Companies aren't people, period. Saying "Chick-fil-a can kiss my ass" because of its stance on homosexuals is in no way, shape, or form comparable/contributing to me telling a randomly selected Chick-fil-a employee that I'm going to kill them. Anyone who jumps from one to the other has pre-existing mental issues.
I'd be far more concerned about the short hop from drawing conclusions like yours to abridging free speech.
I know you enjoy debates, Scott, but these are dots you just aren't going to be able to connect.
The government should not be abridging free speech, but that doesn't mean we have to tolerate all speech as a community. I think it's perfectly acceptable and responsible for us to use peer pressure to quash inappropriate and hurtful speech.
I think it's perfectly acceptable and responsible for us to use peer pressure to quash inappropriate and hurtful speech.
I don't disagree at all. What I took exception to was Scott's assertion that it is a "very short hop" from rude message board posts to threatening people's lives. But Meh...I've expended all the mental effort I'm willing to spare. :)
No, no it isn't.
For you, it's not.
Companies aren't people, period. Saying "Chick-fil-a can kiss my ass" because of its stance on homosexuals is in no way, shape, or form comparable/contributing to me telling a randomly selected Chick-fil-a employee that I'm going to kill them.
No one is saying it is. What I'm saying is that it contributes to an environment that makes it seem - to someone with less well-developed reasoning skills than you - like it's okay to go after companies and, by extension, the people who work for them when you don't like something they put out.
This is made all the worse by a gaming community that is responsible for things like, for example, voting Electronic Arts as the worse company in the world multiple years in a row, beating out corporations that have undertaken truly evil actions and which probably deserve to be brought up on criminal charges.
Anyone who jumps from one to the other has pre-existing mental issues.
Those mental issues are sometimes no more complex than teenager-itis.
I'd be far more concerned about the short hop from conclusions like yours to the abridgement of free speech.
Don't hide behind free speech. I'm not trying to muzzle you. You're free to say what you want about these games and companies. That doesn't mean that you should.
I know you enjoy debates, Scott, and you're generally quite good at them, but these are dots you just aren't going to be able to plausibly connect.
The fact that you believe this is exactly the problem.
My message is no more complex than: Maybe be less vitriolic about video games (and be less tolerant of vitriol), because the ugliness of the gaming community is encouraging people to say threatening things that they probably would not have said otherwise.
@Scott: I still don't see how "I hate this product", no matter how vehemently and unreasonably it is stated, is in any way connected to "F*#$ you I'll chop your babies to pieces and feed them to my ferret".
Even criticism of a game with no basis (which is unreasonable and kind of childish) is in no way conflated with death threats (which is far beyond those things, into the realms of psychopathic).
@OP: Yeah that's messed up. I saw a similar story a while back (when this first started happening) and waaaay too many people seemed on board with this s+$!. Rather than passion and criticism of a product (deserved or not), the real cause of this is probably just connected to the GIFT effect, and young teenager's needs to be "shocking", coupled with some real mental cases to rally behind.
It's the same thing that leads to "4Chan Justice" and all the b*$@%#%& that entails.
@Dragon Age 2: I hate the game too. It took one of my favorite games of all time and sucked pretty much everything I liked out of it.
It had some good bits (I liked a lot of the characters, though not the story or environments, and the gameplay was fun if simple and easy beyond belief), and great potential, but it absolutely reeks of EA mucking about with it to make it more "generally marketable".
It's a pretty good game...if taken completely alone with no connection to the first or its world. But it borrows too much from the established mythology for that to be the case, and as a follow-up to DA:O it was a terrible disappointment.
The 8.0 average score it received (if I remember right) was deserved I think, I just personally hated it.
Doesn't mean I hate the devs or have any feeling toward them at all. They tried to make a good game, and sorta succeeded. Unfortunately, they also tried to make a good SEQUEL, and failed there. Everybody goofs.
I still like every other game I've ever played by them (including Mass Effect 3), so it's not like they're untalented dorks who got lucky with a single game (and even then they'd at best deserve a "*Groan* ANOTHER one?").
Man, this place is dead. @#$@#$ Gen Con (and my Gen Con envy).
@Scott: I still don't see how "I hate this product", no matter how vehemently and unreasonably it is stated, is in any way connected to "F&$& you I'll chop your babies to pieces and feed them to my ferret".
I get that you don't see any connection between a vitriolic online environment and members of that environment feeling enabled to escalate that vitriol. That's the problem. It's difficult to see that you have a hand in creating that environment, and even more difficult to accept and change.
@Scott: I still don't see how "I hate this product", no matter how vehemently and unreasonably it is stated, is in any way connected to "F&$& you I'll chop your babies to pieces and feed them to my ferret".I get that you don't see any connection between a vitriolic online environment and members of that environment feeling enabled to escalate that vitriol. That's the problem. It's difficult to see that you have a hand in creating that environment, and even more difficult to accept and change.
Maybe if you explained the first sentence and redacted the third?
I get that you don't see any connection between a vitriolic online environment and members of that environment feeling enabled to escalate that vitriol.
But it's not really an "escalation of the vitriol" it's in an entirely new category.
"F*@$ this product" and "F$+& this person" are two entirely different things.
Both normally reasonable people and a*$*+$~s can do the former on occasion. Only a@$%~*#s (and worse) do the latter.
These are the kind of people who would be doing this kind of thing anyway. The kind of people that sent in death threats in "Letters to the Editor" LOOOOONG before the internet was a thing.
Yes, condoning that sort of activity by joining in with it is harmful in many different ways. But it's not caused or even really exacerbated by someone expressing their displeasure (even incoherently) at a product.
But it's not really an "escalation of the vitriol" it's in an entirely new category.
To you.
"F#&& this product" and "F#@# this person" are two entirely different things.
To a lot of people, "F#&& this product" easily enables "F#&& this company" (which we see plenty of online), which in turn easily enables "F#@# this person".
People don't need to think the way that you do for your words and actions to influence their own.
Both normally reasonable people and a~%#@#!s can do the former on occasion. Only a&*$#++s (and worse) do the latter.
Normally reasonable people are not the only people participating in the online gaming community.
These are the kind of people who would be doing this kind of thing anyway.
I think the fact that we see a much higher degree of employee abuse stemming from the gaming community than from other similar communities is a sign that this might, in fact, not be true at all.
The kind of people that sent in death threats in "Letters to the Editor" LOOOOONG before the internet was a thing.
You don't think that the internet has made this more prevalent?
Yes, condoning that sort of activity by joining in with it is harmful in many different ways. But it's not caused or even really exacerbated by someone expressing their displeasure (even incoherently) at a product.
Are you sure? Or do you just really not want that to be the case because it means your actions have consequences you weren't prepared for?
Maybe if you explained the first sentence and redacted the third?@Scott: I still don't see how "I hate this product", no matter how vehemently and unreasonably it is stated, is in any way connected to "F&$& you I'll chop your babies to pieces and feed them to my ferret".I get that you don't see any connection between a vitriolic online environment and members of that environment feeling enabled to escalate that vitriol. That's the problem. It's difficult to see that you have a hand in creating that environment, and even more difficult to accept and change.
I don't feel the need to explain or redact any of that. I don't think anyone who is confused about what I'm saying would be helped by my explaining the connection for the eighth time.
To a lot of people, "F#&& this product" easily enables "F#&& this company" (which we see plenty of online), which in turn easily enables "F#@# this person".
I think the fact that we see a much higher degree of employee abuse stemming from the gaming community than from other similar communities is a sign that this might, in fact, not be true at all.
I see a lot of this from any kind of fandom if they post on the internet. The gaming community just has a larger online presence than most since a lot of gaming is, well, online.
Like I said, it's all part of the GIFT effect.
Online anonymity breeds vocal and vitriolic people who do it because they know they can get away with it, even if they would not normally condone such behavior.
I've seen it for TV shows that kill off fan favorite characters (Joss Whedon gets a lot of this) or put out bad storylines, books for the same ("Misery" was not entirely based in fiction), and comics (the mention of "One More Day" around Spider-Man fans can prove this one).
It's not a gaming related phenomenon.
You don't think that the internet has made this more prevalent?
Only in the sense that it takes a lot less effort to access the internet, type a response, and hit "Send" than to write a piece of mail, put it in an envelope, stamp it, lick it, and walk it to the mailbox.
Are you sure?
No, but neither are you so I think that's fine for our purposes.
Does any producer of popular media not receive death threats?
To a lot of people, "F#&& this product" easily enables "F#&& this company" (which we see plenty of online), which in turn easily enables "F#@# this person".
I think the fact that we see a much higher degree of employee abuse stemming from the gaming community than from other similar communities is a sign that this might, in fact, not be true at all.
I see a lot of this from any kind of fandom if they post on the internet. The gaming community just has a larger online presence than most since a lot of gaming is, well, online.
Like I said, it's the GIFT effect.
You don't think that the internet has made this more prevalent?
Only in the sense that it takes a lot less effort to access the internet, type a response, and hit "Send" than to write a piece of mail, put it in an envelope, stamp it, lick it, and walk it to the mailbox.
Are you sure?No, but neither are you so I think that's fine for our purposes.
To be fair, Rynjin, that sentence I bolded is a fairly big "only in that." At the the very least it takes a lot more effort to walk to the Post Office and buy a stamp than it does to dash off an angry interwebz message board post, right?
|
|
My message is no more complex than: Maybe be less vitriolic about video games (and be less tolerant of vitriol), because the ugliness of the gaming community is encouraging people to say threatening things that they probably would not have said otherwise.
I find myself in agreement here. We have the internet which basically makes us a faceless, unknown person that take no real repercussions from talking down to and about fellow posters, companies, celebrities and anything else we want to complain about. Once the anger starts coming out people have the tendency to want to "one-up" and shock posters to make themselves into the focus of attention. Even on Paizo it is common to see some of this going on in certain threads that seem to breed contention. A lot of stuff is said on the internet that people wouldn't say in a face-to-face discussion for fear of either an adverse reaction of because they could be looked down upon for their extreme view.
If everyone acted a bit more mature and showed some respect for their fellow humans (not just posters) we would be able to rationally have discussion on the web. Instead we have extreme behavior that escalates when the poster finds someone who shares his view and attitude.We could all behave better to our fellow humans and start realizing that the names we are insulting belong to actual people and not just random objects.
I really am getting sick of seeing "cyberbullying made XXX commit suicide" and other such behavior by people online. It really shows how much respect for other people there is in the world....
To be fair, Rynjin, that sentence I bolded is a fairly big "only in that." At the the very least it takes a lot more effort to walk to the Post Office and buy a stamp than it does to dash off an angry interwebz message board post, right?
Yes, which I won't deny.
However, what Scott is saying is that it's the gaming community's fault for somehow endorsing this sort of behavior through criticism of the PRODUCT.
I disagree.
I think it's just the nature of the internet, the ease of communication, and possibly most importantly, the fact that you can type out a long angry rant and hit "Send" before you have the chance to calm down, think rationally, and analyze if your post/letter was really something you'd write if you were thinking straight.
I'm sure there's a lot of people who type/write angry letters, get it all packaged up, and then go "The hell am I doing?" on the way to the mailbox and just shred the damn thing.
|
|
Does any producer of popular media not receive death threats?
Does that mean they should just accept that they are gonna be targets of hate or violence? I would rather that the people who toss out random, violent threats be punished, in a way that allows media to know so that people contemplating such actions could see a real consequence for their behavior. Currently there is almost no consequence for such actions until the violence escalates into the physical and then the offender still believes that they are the ones who were wronged most of the time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't mean that at all. I was just despairing at how commonplace this phenomenon is.
To be fair, Rynjin, that sentence I bolded is a fairly big "only in that." At the the very least it takes a lot more effort to walk to the Post Office and buy a stamp than it does to dash off an angry interwebz message board post, right?Yes, which I won't deny.
However, what Scott is saying is that it's the gaming community's fault for somehow endorsing this sort of behavior through criticism of the PRODUCT.
I disagree.
I think it's just the nature of the internet, the ease of communication, and possibly most importantly, the fact that you can type out a long angry rant and hit "Send" before you have the chance to calm down, think rationally, and analyze if your post/letter was really something you'd write if you were thinking straight.
I'm sure there's a lot of people who type/write angry letters, get it all packaged up, and then go "The hell am I doing?" on the way to the mailbox and just shred the damn thing.
I'll let Scott tell me what he is, or isn't, saying.
Otherwise, I just wish everyone would do a rough draft on the internet, even just for posting. :P
However, what Scott is saying is that it's the gaming community's fault for somehow endorsing this sort of behavior through criticism of the PRODUCT.
It's a combination of a lot of things. Certain people criticize the product. That's cool. Certain other people escalate, and criticize the product with unrestrained vitriol. That's not cool.
Now the mob mentality starts to ramp up. Some people point out that the vitriol is uncalled for, but they are quickly shouted down. Then some other people escalate further, and start to criticize the company. This starts to seem reasonable - after all, the company is responsible for the product, right? When this escalates further into vitriolic territory (now directed at the company instead of the product), the people who ask for a more moderate tone are once again shouted down ("How dare you tell me what to think!" or "I'm entitled to my opinion!" or "You're just a blind fanboy!").
Now you've got a bunch of people making vitriolic comments about the company, and no real voices pointing out that the vitriol is harmful. This is the storm that I'm trying to highlight: an online environment where it's seen as acceptable to attack a company in a hateful manner for them putting out a product you don't like.
Now it jumps off the rails. Certain people experience this environment, and make the following leap: If it's okay to hate on a company for their product because they're responsible for it, it should be okay to hate on the people who work for that company because ultimately they are the ones responsible for the product. The obvious question of whether that is a morally justifiable reaction is utterly ignored, because at no point has the question of whether anyone's reaction was justified been raised (or listened to). The reaction serves as its own justification, and now you suddenly have people who see it as okay to make personal attacks or threats against the employees of the company they've decided to hate.
It doesn't matter that these people don't have the presence of mind that you do. That doesn't excuse what you have a hand in. You need to be aware of that, and be aware of the effect that the environment you contribute to has on others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, Rynjin, that sentence I bolded is a fairly big "only in that." At the the very least it takes a lot more effort to walk to the Post Office and buy a stamp than it does to dash off an angry interwebz message board post, right?Yes, which I won't deny.
However, what Scott is saying is that it's the gaming community's fault for somehow endorsing this sort of behavior through criticism of the PRODUCT.
I disagree.
I think it's just the nature of the internet, the ease of communication, and possibly most importantly, the fact that you can type out a long angry rant and hit "Send" before you have the chance to calm down, think rationally, and analyze if your post/letter was really something you'd write if you were thinking straight.
I'm sure there's a lot of people who type/write angry letters, get it all packaged up, and then go "The hell am I doing?" on the way to the mailbox and just shred the damn thing.
Although I don't think Scott initially made his point very well, I don't think he is saying "criticism is bad", what he is saying is "emotional ranting criticism" is bad. If you want to point out the problems of a product, go ahead. If you are going to just post a vulgarity strewn rant, or even just rattle off a series of "THIS SUCKS WHAT WERE THEY THINKING", without actually providing a clear reason why it sucks, than yeah, you are probably increasing upping the emotional stakes in a conversation and contributing to the anonymous hate culture on the internet.
It doesn't matter that these people don't have the presence of mind that you do. That doesn't excuse what you have a hand in. You need to be aware of that, and be aware of the effect that the environment you contribute to has on others.
So... How about people who attack people about critism and claim their leading to death threats? Something to say about those people? Could you calm down, saying things like that are going to get people riled up instantly. Doesn't really help anyone.
So... How about people who attack people about critism and claim their leading to death threats? Something to say about those people? Could you calm down, saying things like that are going to get people riled up instantly. Doesn't really help anyone.
It looks like you're trying to flip things around and portray me as guilty of the thing I'm criticizing, but I'm not really sure. Also, if that's what you were trying, you're proving my point (see the part above where I talk about calls for a more moderate tone being shouted down).
So... How about people who attack people about critism and claim their leading to death threats? Something to say about those people? Could you calm down, saying things like that are going to get people riled up instantly. Doesn't really help anyone.It looks like you're trying to flip things around and portray me as guilty of the thing I'm criticizing, but I'm not really sure. Also, if that's what you were trying, you're proving my point (see the part above where I talk about calls for a more moderate tone being shouted down).
My point was don't flame.
My point was don't flame.So... How about people who attack people about critism and claim their leading to death threats? Something to say about those people? Could you calm down, saying things like that are going to get people riled up instantly. Doesn't really help anyone.It looks like you're trying to flip things around and portray me as guilty of the thing I'm criticizing, but I'm not really sure. Also, if that's what you were trying, you're proving my point (see the part above where I talk about calls for a more moderate tone being shouted down).
If you feel that there is flaming going on in this thread, you ought to report it. This thread has pretty clearly maintained a civil tone, however, and there hasn't been any flaming going on.
Anything else?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This just came to my attention
I hate Dragon Age 2.
[morpheus]
What if I told you
That contributing to a gaming culture where actively expressing disgust for a game you're not personally a fan of is okay (and in some cases encouraged or defended!) is one of the enabling factors that reassures the people issuing death threats to developers' families that what they're doing is acceptable?
[/morpheus]
[Kanye]
Yo, Scott Betts, I know you trying to point out the irony of Hama's post and Imma let you finish, but I hate DA2 too.
[/kanye]
Scott let me start by saying I love your posts. You are able to make the soberest of points in a sea of insanity that is the internets. Man you just have a certain panache when you post that I cant help but love even when I disagree with you. However, saying that "I hate Bioware" somehow encourages some mental midget to send death threats to actual people is a bit of a stretch. A stretch that can be made I'll give you that but am I really supposed to worry about every dumb comment I make on the internets?
I worry about mine own. If I am sitting down with family or friends and they say something ridiculous about threatening somebody you better believe I'm going to correct that crap. When it comes to the net though am I really responsible for everyone out there? If I post "fire is cool" and some guy burns down a hospital am I to blame for encouraging that?
You have to admit even though Hama's post are often dripping with emotional vitrol, he started this very thread to say "here is the line."
If folks simply treated game designers/developers and each other with respect, discussion would be a lot more productive. Instead, the anonymity of the internet allows people to express themselves in ways they flat out know are unacceptable. That the general population sees fit to do so only encourages the small minority that is crazy enough not to know the difference, or sociopathic enough to not care.
The general population does not post on gaming message boards (or, for the most part, any message boards). What you get on the gaming board is the most enthusiastic and invested part of the fanbase, who are perhaps more prone to hyperbole or are younger and have the free time to actually spend on message boards. That doesn't excuse the disgusting comments that are made, but it is inaccurate to imply that the majority of people who play games are fine with things when such comments are made and excuse them. The overwhelming majority probably are not aware of them at all.
Criticism is fine. "I hate Dragon Age 2 and Bioware is dead to me," or "Mass Effect 3 was terrible and EA can go to hell," or "Activision can rot for all I care after putting out another Call of Duty," - those sorts of sentiments are non-productive and create an environment that reinforces the notion that it's okay to treat companies like trash when they create something you're not a fan of. It's a very short hop from there to treating those companies' employees like trash for their role.
Those are hyperbolic statements and probably not conducive to good discussion. They are, in themselves, not a major problem because it is a company that is being criticised, not an individual person (and decisions made by EA and to a lesser extent BioWare did contribute to DA2's problems though also, I would argue, it's many strong points). Saying, "I don't like BioWare and won't buy their new games because their last few games were rubbish," is a valid POV. Replace the "don't like," with "hate," and it's an exaggeration but one that is a perfectly human reaction ("I hate Auntie Doris after what she said about Little Timmy's singing at the wedding!" is equally an exaggeration and equally acceptable, if silly).
Saying, "I hate BioWare and am going to go their HQ and blow it up and kill all their employees," OTOH, is crossing the boundaries and the sort of thing that should result in banning. But not everyone who is saying the former is saying or even 'enabling' the latter.
point out that it's contributing to an atmosphere of rabid mob-mentality hate, and people start to defend it, which means now not only do you have an environment where that behavior is tolerated, but now it's also protected
As I have said repeatedly, making these kinds of threats and comments is totally unacceptable. People should go to jail for it. Your clearly-stated position that any criticism with even a light frosting of hyperbole is unacceptable because it inevitable leads to such problems is untenable, however.
No, but you can blame a universal disrespect for police officers and acceptance/protection of hate speech directed toward them.
And you can blame such disrespect on the minority of police officers who abuse their powers, get away with murder (in some cases, literally) and who do not serve the public trust. The wheel does turn.
However, you should not blame the majority who do their duty with diligence and honesty for the activities of the minority who do not.
I think the fact that we see a much higher degree of employee abuse stemming from the gaming community than from other similar communities
This isn't true at all. Justin Bieber is regularly threatened on Twitter with torture and death. The level of vitriol directed at George R.R. Martin for taking five years to write a thousand-page book is beyond ridiculous. Damon Lindelof claims that death threats he received for 'ruining' STAR TREK and the ALIEN franchise convinced him not to pursue any role on the new STAR WARS movie, despite one of his friends directing it. This stuff happens all the time in multiple fandoms and mediums.
It does not excuse any of it, of course.
A stretch that can be made I'll give you that but am I really supposed to worry about every dumb comment I make on the internets?
Well...yes.
They are your comments, and the internet isn't a license to become a willing participant in JGGIFT.
I realize that's it's kind of a downer to think that you need to self-moderate in order to avoid making things worse, even though you're not the one who is ultimately responsible. That's part of what being a member of a community is about, though. You take some ownership of the shared environment.
I worry about mine own. If I am sitting down with family or friends and they say something ridiculous about threatening somebody you better believe I'm going to correct that crap. When it comes to the net though am I really responsible for everyone out there?
Not everyone, but if you see an opportunity to try and moderate things, consider taking advantage of it. I'm not saying you need to become a crusader for this stuff. But if the opportunity is there, try to rein someone in a little. It'll add up over time.
If I post "fire is cool" and some guy burns down a hospital am I to blame for encouraging that?
It's sort of like how we approach firearms in the United States. There's a pretty significant segment of our culture/population that equates gun ownership and firearms enthusiasm with patriotism, individualism, and masculinity. As a result, a sort of fetishism has risen up around firearms that contributes to them being seen as a solution to a lot of problems that are definitely better approached in different ways. It's part of the reason (though certainly not the entire reason) we have such high levels of gun crime. Even though we, individually, are not the most proximate causes of gun crime (in most cases), our attitudes regarding guns contributes to the thinking of guns as a means to more ends than they ought to be considered for.
|
|
The guns are offtopic but I get your point. I do believe there is more than one culture around guns to blame and that getting the patriotic ones to loosen up isn't going to fix the problem.
It is a downer having to self-moderate but I do my best. I'll try harder to take opportunities to tell people when they are being unreasonable.
Sorry, I don't see why i would have to protect other people from their own stupidity.
Self moderation is a good thing, but not always.
No man is an island unto himself. As part of a community, it behooves us to protect that community - even from itself.
If your having yourself in any form of celebrity/public presence there's consequences to that, which is why a majority of population avoids celebrity/public status so being known is in itself a double edge sword. I'm pretty sure this is why companies us pr firms as employees are buffered by people to take heat for them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Death threats are disgusting and whomever makes them need to face the full force of the law.
I am going to shift this to sport... I spent and hour swearing at my team last night, and I might go on the intarwebz to a forum that discusses Rugby and continue to swear about the uselessness of my team and how certain people need a kick in the arse or a rocket put under them.
I may spend time raging about how on one hand the Kiwi captain is the greatest player in the world and on the other hand what a cheating arse he is... At least he got penalized 4 times this game for his usual tactics in the ruck.
I can't complain about the ref this game he wasn't too bad.
None of my vitriol is going to translate into violence none of the invective and disappointment of several million Australians is going to translate into the team being taken out and shot.
It is rare that sporting figures are killed by disappointed fans and as there can only be one team or one person at number on there are a lot of disappointed fans, who swear and say they wish to do violence to players and yet can distinguish between "hating" and inappropriate behavior.
Fans do riot but this has more to do with social problems and alcohol then the sport itself.
U.s. does have laws against threats, but at the same time all celebrity/public figures should have lawyers ready to file those charges & the public figure in question shouldn't say things that could inflame their following.
So if your doing things while having any 'celebrity' theres sharks in public sphere keep that in mind as every public figure has people aiming for your spot too.
This is the dual edge sword i'm speaking of.
>.>
1. Hama, I think your post is a little over dramatic. Death threat's are crappy things to live with (I know), but it's a reality of being what is a relatively public figure to a large community. While I don't think they should have to exist, my wish isn't reality. The article you quoted blew the writer's comments out of proportion, and and on the whole your response, including the whole "assault charges if I knew someone" stuff seems way over the top for something that has unfortunately become relatively mundane.
2. Scott, I disagree with your assertion by and large. I think it is much more reasonable to attribute the increased vitriol on the anonymity and ease of posting online, rather than suggesting that criticism or rants in some way typically empower individuals to make death threats. I think there may be some small bit of truth in your thought process here, and I'm certain a few people have felt egged on by such mentalities, but I don't think it is widespread enough to suggest that curtailing free of speech is somehow an appropriate response. At the end of the day I don't buy into the social collective responsibility model. I believe we are all responsible for our own actions, and nothing but. At the end of the day it doesn't matter if there were fifty people standing in the guy's living room screaming that he should murder Bioware employees - the author is responsible for his own actions.
That said, I also don't think that preventing one in a million people from doing some awful thing is worthy of stepping all over people civil liberties either, which may put me in the minority.
3. I ****ing hate Mass Effect 3's ending, and EA can go to hell for all I care. Activision can rot for all I care after putting out another Call of Duty. Finally, Force Unleashed II was a bad enough game that I'm glad Lucas Arts went out of business.
|
|
1. Hama, I think your post is a little over dramatic. Death threat's are crappy things to live with (I know), but it's a reality of being what is a relatively public figure to a large community. While I don't think they should have to exist, my wish isn't reality. The article you quoted blew the writer's comments out of proportion, and and on the whole your response, including the whole "assault charges if I knew someone" stuff seems way over the top for something that has unfortunately become relatively mundane.
So, because it became mundane (which is a horrible notion unto itself), i should be like pshh whatever? That is a horrible notion.
I am a dramatic person.They threatened her children. If somebody threatened my child's life, i would put them in the hospital.
Death threats should be punishable by law, and should be considered attempted murder. Then people would not give them out so easily.