Michael Koretzky | May 25, 2015
Yelling can be telling.
When I was but a lad, my father umpired Little League games. I don’t know why he did it, because the abuse from parents and coaches was many times greater than anything he must’ve been paid.
After one game, during which his calls were repeatedly and angrily disputed, I asked him, “Daddy, doesn’t it make you mad when the coaches yell at you?”
He smiled and replied, “As long as they’re both yelling at me, I know I’m doing my job.”
Umpiring and journalism have a lot in common.
It’s seldom both sides of a controversy ever email a reporter, “Wow, your nuanced and balanced prose fairly represented me and the assholes I hate with the heat of a thousand supernovas.”
If only one side heaps such high praise – “You did right by me, expect a Hallmark card” – reporters start doubting their objectivity.
Same goes with AirPlay.
I’m trying mightily to be hated equally by both sides of GamerGate. But it’s not working – because GamerGaters are being much nicer than I expected, based on dire warnings from, oh, everyone outside of GamerGate.
For sure, many don’t like me. When I made a joke about GamerGaters not loving their mothers, I got a few offers to have my face punched. This was my favorite…
And of course, there are tweets from both sides calling me naive for even hosting AirPlay – because their side is so right, there’s simply no need. For instance, Adam Baldwin (the actor who coined the term GamerGate) told me…
Some GamerGaters are just annoyed with me…
Some don’t trust me at all…
Then there are the emails from GamerGaters who laud me whenever I make a point they perceive as a notch for their side (“That is what we are talking about, my man!”) and excoriate me days later when I’m critical. (“You really have no fucking clue what is really going on, do you?” – from the same person.)
That’s to be expected in any group of passionate people. It happens in politics all the time. Alas, I’ve so far received no such back-and-forth with anti-GamerGate forces. It’s all been “no fucking clue.”
I had privately emailed Jay Allen, who’s notorious in GamerGate circles for his criticism of the movement. GamerGaters hate him, but I find his tweets no more outrageous nor less passionate than many of their own, just in the opposite direction.
I asked Allen’s advice for making AirPlay fair to his side, and without telling me, he posted some of our exchange on Twitter and criticized AirPlay. Which is fine, because it allows me to quote him without violating any privilege…
Allen: GamerGate hasn’t confused rational journalists. They have calmly and reasonably identified it as a hate mob using nebulous ethics concerns as a smokescreen for abuse. … GG is an abusive hate mob with no legitimacy.
Me: What percentage of GamerGaters is part of the hate mob? If it’s 100 percent, I can’t agree, since I’ve met some who have at least been reasonable for more than a week. If it’s a lesser percentage, my goal is to engage with them.
Allen: What percentage is willing to use the hateful people as leverage, while enabling and excusing them? 100%.
I told Allen, “Sadly, you’re mimicking right now what the worst GamerGaters are saying about your side.”
Indeed, I’ve received many calm and supportive tweets…
And because I doubt anyone who claims perfection in their clan, I’ve been impressed with several like this…
Sure, the pleasantries and contemplations pale compared to the tweets, emails, and Reddit comments of doubt, insult, and anger. But if anti-GamerGaters like Allen insist everyone attached to the movement is evil, I simply can’t believe that after a month of dealing with both sides. And if that claim isn’t true, what else isn’t?
Finally, I had privately emailed another GamerGate critic, feminist writer and CUNY PhD candidate Katherine Cross. She never replied. Instead, she began tweeting about me. That was fine, since her criticisms were her opinion, even if I disagreed with some (while also agreeing with some).
But then she tweeted this…
…and I don’t even know what that means.
Cross is surely referring to a GamerGate website launched last month called Deep Freeze, which lists what it deems as violations of journalism ethics – and which has received its own charges of unethical reporting. It’s sure to be a topic at AirPlay, and if Cross believes evil people will use Deep Freeze as a hit list, well, she knows more about that than I do.
Even if Cross wants to call me a GamerGate “advocate,” she certainly can, although I don’t know how many advocates get face-punching offers from their constituents. But how am I using doxing for “political purposes”? That one confuses me. I still welcome a chat with Cross, but I won’t be waiting by my inbox.
If you would’ve told me when I began this odyssey that I’d contact someone seeking advice, be ignored, then get publicly accused of harassment, I would’ve predicted a GamerGater did that to me.
Of course, that sentence will surely offend both sides. So I guess I’m doing my job.
If my dad understood GamerGate, I think he’d be proud of me.
Fair is Fair
well, I honestly don’t know what to say. I’m a GamerGate supporter since the very beginning and the Airplay thing is like a godsend to me.
This Airplay update has just reinforced my believe that this is going to be great.
The whole point of starting a twitter hashtag was to politely and calmly. inform more people what GG actually is and fight the media smear. Some people seem to have forgotten about that, judging from the tweets you shared from GG supporters. But thanks for not judging an entire group based on a few individuals.
I’m… not sure why I should be offended by that sentence?
I mean I don’t particularly like being called “a GamerGater” since that’s adding too much identity to the term and loading it up but I understand its use for brevity’s sake.
I mean any of us could’ve told you that’s exactly what we’d expect you to have been told and be familiar with. We’re the devil incarnate in the narrative, of course that’s what we expect you to have been told and is what you’d predict. Thing is that sentence just tells everybody that you’ve pierced through it and you won’t find any of us offended for that, we’re too busy laughing at that being the truth and a bit embarrassed that we’re blessed with opponents like this.
If we were so easily offended like our opposition, we’d have the studio that filmed that SVU episode in ruins by now. Instead, we actually made something more… -what’s the best word to use – entertaining out of it than just a pile of rubble. We made dank memes out of it and laughed our asses off.
I shall begin where you left off, Koretzky. No, that sentence does not offend me, a staunch supported of GamerGate. Why? Because when an entire world of media pushes the narrative that we’re an unreasonable hate group, what else could we possibly expect the uninitiated to think? If anything, it is an acknowledgement of how monumentally unfair the coverage of ‘our side,’ as it were, has been.
While I hesitate to make claims about your own personal experiences, it -seems- to me that you’ve begun to experience a modicum of what we’ve gone through these last nine months. Reasonable attempts at conversation are greeted with bizarre, hostile, uncorrelative accusations.
I shall not be overly verbose today.
There are people in support of GamerGate that I believe go too far in many respects. I agree with a great deal of Allistair Pinsof’s criticism of DeepFreeze, for example. I have added a few more of my own on my website (the right of accused journalists to reply, as an example). That said, I still believe SPJ AirPlay is both our best chance at having a fair hearing, and also a chance to bring out the very best in our side. I shall continue to implore you to cut your way through whatever obstacles come in the way, and see that this event happens.
R
are you suggesting that journalists and publications listed in deep freeze are being deigned a right to respond? I for one as I’m sure the rest of GG would welcome their response.
I can’t tell if you really meant deigned there, or denied, which means almost exactly the opposite thing in this particular circumstance.
What I meant, and what I still stand by, is that it would go a long way to having a space on each journalist’s page where they can write an apologia or apology, or whatever else as the case may be.
>Of course, that sentence will surely offend both sides. So I guess I’m doing my job.
This is something I suspect those who are unsure of AirPlay are missing.
You’re not here to be our friend or be in our corner.
You’re working to provide a structured, fair and honest venue for the core criticisms at he heart of GamerGate to be brought up, discussed and debated.
You may not be what some of us want, but you are most certainly what we all need.
As for you calling out things you see as issues on both “sides” where you see them?
I wouldn’t have it any other way.
That’s part of what makes this whole thing fair and ultimately that’s the only way it’s going to work.
Keep on doing what you’re doing.
The vast majority of us in #GamerGate are in full support of seeing AirPlay go forwards and in full support of your efforts. We don’t want or expect special treatment, it’s up to us to ensure the points we raise stand on their own merit and not by any special treatment from a friend.
Keep on doing what you do.
Keep it coming. Tell us who else skipped the olive branch to take to social media and try to get ahead of this story by smearing you.
As a supporter of GG, I do think you might be seen as leaning more towards our side. Why? In my eyes because the other side (mostly) refuses to play ball, while GG supporters are (again, mostly) welcomming it with open arms, and thus gets more attention from you. So I’d say from an outside perspective you might seem biased towards GG, but not really much you can do about it until they are ready to have the conversation out in the open.
I’d also say that there are douchebags in GG, and also people wiht political leanings and meanings I’m against. But as long as they keep that outside of GG, not really much I can say on it. One thing is clear, politicians could learn a lot from GG about putting aside differences to get things done.
Other than that, I hope you’re making progress and isn’t just met with radio silence.
you’re doing the best you can, nobody can ask more of you. but i doubt you’d be able to get AGG to come to the table.
still please keep trying, i just hope when this is all over you’ll find satisfaction in the outcome.
Going to start sounding like a broken record, and you’ve probably heard this a hundred times by now, but journalists, journalists, journalists. We don’t want to talk to Jay Allen or Katherine Cross. They’re distractions who have been thrown into our path at every step. We just want to get to the journalists.
I’d go so far as to say Airplay is a waste of time if Jay Allen or Katherine Cross are the people being talked to about representing anti-GG.
Cross claims to be an Academic and has studied ‘Gamergate’, she should be willing to tell Journalists her findings and Gamergate panelists should be easily able to refute them.
Jay Allen of course is a waste of everyone’s time, but mainly his own.
Cross has as much to do with the issues GamerGate cares about as Allen does. They are people that inserted themselves into a debate they have nothing to do with, one because he’s a troll and one because she needs something to make her relevant.
YOU don’t get to decide what they think, or who is qualified to talk about it.
Just like we had a fucking painstaking process to decide, they didn’t get to say somebody is irrelevant, because it was not their choice.
They should have the opportunity to choose their representatives, though.
I doubt there are many GamerGate supporters that will be offended or even surprised by that last statement. We’ve been demonized to the point that we expect that reaction form people on the outside. I’ve been told I’m a member of a hate group and one of the worst harassers on the internet so many time it doesn’t even make me angry anymore, it’s just another day at this point.
We are the time-traveling video games jihad. VIDYA AKHBAR! There is only one lord and he is Vidya, and Kojima is his prophet.
Damn right. If Kojima asked me to follow him into the desert for 40 years, I’d follow in the hope of a new MGS game. Kojima is the prophet and our savior!
First: Vivian is a woman, second: our prophet is GabeN, you heretic! But VIDYA AKHBAR! is all right.
NO GabeN is our god You fool our Saviour from the barren lies of false deities like Kotaku amen :3
#AndN
I don’t think any of us would be surprised if you thought GamerGate would be the one to accuse you of harassment, it’s what the media spin on us has been the past 9 months.
This update actually made me grin ear-to-ear, multiple times, for various reasons.
While I can empathize with the frayed nerves of my pro-ethics peers, I can’t say that I have much respect for the reflexive bile they can spew at times. It’s obvious that many of us are at least half-expecting this whole event to be yet another setup for a smear though some of us appear to be much more capable of coping with the threat of disappointment than others.
Hope looks a lot like a liability when it feels as though the world is against you. The promise of respectable moderation, in neutral ground, just sounds far too good to be true. Burn a dog often enough and it will snap at even benign warmth.
I’ll say this. I really do wish you the best and would love to see this event happen how you imagine it. However, I truly do believe you won’t have much luck finding willing anti-GamerGate participants. Say what you like about us, but you can still go to KiA for example and be as critical as you want. The worst that’d get you is some negative votes. In my experience, even those slightly NEUTRAL to GamerGate get banned in a heartbeat on GamerGhazi.
I’ve seen the what many of them have said about this debate and any potential or past debate on AgainstGamerGate. They say GGers are as bad as creationists, flat-earthers, etc. and cannot make any non-stupid points, so there is no reason to bother proving them wrong. They just are, end of story. I’ve seen this used to justify Kluwe laughing and interrupting constantly in his debate against Mercedes which was on the Pakman show.
I admit, part of me just wants to see them debate with us just because I don’t believe they can go without using false statistics and easily disproven arguments and a public space with credible sources like yourselves would be the perfect scenario for the narrative they’ve had perfect control of thus far to come crashing down upon them. To see all the blatant errors on Wikipedia fixed, to see all these various sites accused of all these ethical breeches finally forced to acknowledge their faults and admit they’ve been lying about GamerGate all this time to divert attention away from them, it’s simply something I’d love to see happen.
At this point, I admit I want to see these people run out of room and admit they were lying about us almost as much as seeing them reform themselves.
So yeah, without turning this into a ridiculous-huge rant on things, I’ll just say it again. Keep it up!
Cross is supposed to be an Academic. It’s fine if Jay Allen wants to act the silly beggar, his role after all is to police twitter.
But Cross has written extensively and claimed to study Gamergate in an Academic capacity. And she straight up not only ignored a request to talk about HER OWN CHOSEN FIELD, but implied the person trying to set up a debate was involved in Harassing and ‘doxxing’ people.
Nobody expected Nyborg or Jay Allen to be professional (just look at Jay Allens latest mess up on twitter), but when you can’t even get an Academic who has been involved in the whole thing and inserted herself into it, to behave like that, you know the panel will not be considered by anyone.
I guess. We do have speakers selected to counter that side of the argument. I just think that whenever the discussion starts to stray from journalism, we need to start thinking about how to push it back in that direction.
Here’s the way I look at the anti-SJW/anti-feminist side of GamerGate. The ideologues who have infiltrated the gaming community rely heavily on having the game journalists in their pocket. Straighten out the games journalists and you deal a huge blow to the SJWs/feminists, effectively killing two birds in one stone.
So I guess there’s a discussion to be had with the likes of Cross, but only to a limited degree. As you said above, the people we have chosen to represent us will be able to refute her claims easily.
I think tarring folks in GG who are anti SJW/anti fem in nature as ideologues who infiltrated gaming is a bit rich, GG contends at length and daily with very hostile and very unpleasant individuals of an SJW and Fem bent, personally I don’t stray out of the hashtag often and these two groups are the chaff we have to choke through to get on.
The primary focus though is, has always been and will remain the press. Regardless of how many authoritarian bigots try to deflect us, they remain nothing more the a irritation to most, in most cases more to be pitied than hated.
Uhh, liberal arts academic, it’s not real academia.
Remember the recent dust-up with that diversity officer who “ironically” tweeted death to all men, death to whites, and said a student was white trash… she got a doctorate by “studying” Japanese cartoon porn.
There’s a reason employers put little value on academic credentials; the academic standard these days is just embarrassing.
Are you referring to Bahar Mustafa? If so, lol. Did not know that.
I know you aren’t a supporter of GG, Michael, but I feel like saying “Welcome” anyway. The treatment you’re getting is what we’ve been getting for months. Your fellow journalists who warned you that you were jeapordizing your career by covering us were right…but not in the way they suggested. If you keep pushing, you’ll be having an article about you in Salon or TheGuardian ‘exposing’ you for not being a ‘real Journalist’ in the near future, I suspect.
Nevertheless, games journalism IS corrupt, and we ARE exposing it. Thanks for working to give us a hearing.
I don’t understand why I should be “offended” by that sentence. Sounds like another one of your “tests”, actually.
But good read, keep it up and going.
I just want the media to stop calling me worse than kkk/Nazis/Isis/Ebola for things I never did. Is that too much to ask?
If 100% of gamergate is supporting the evil acts of a few then 100% of antigamergate are supporting those same acts committed by their prominent members, plus worse acts like how jian ghomeshi raped 15 women. He’s an antigamergater. Sarah butts is an anti and admitted pedophile.
Actually, that’s not enough really, there needs to firm legal action taken. The vilification of GG has been a coordinated assault on thousands of citizens across many countries, the press is wilfully driving this.
Sooner or later this has to go to court, if it doesn’t then the state will have conceded this behaviour is acceptable. If that is allowed to happen, well I’m sure you can imagine.
To get that kind of status, GamerGate would need to officially be a recognized group that would then need to prove discrimination and/or harassment. Good luck herding all the cats into that coral. Many GamerGate supporters are worried about the meet-ups turning us into a group that can be infiltrated and easily smeared or put off track.
I would like to correct you Kortezky. Many (or at least I) are not annoyed by you, but how AirPlay is playing out.
It’s a confusing setup, one I am still trying to understand: is it a panel or a debate? Is #GamerGate going to have its grievances aired and broadcasted for all to hear, or will it be a sideshow?
You came into this not knowing much at all about #GamerGate or it’s supporters, we quickly showed you the issues we take with Game Journalists, we made it clear we are not monsters. For many, having the opportunity to have a platform for our disdain, our distaste, for the practices within Games Journalism and how it has treated both its consumers and Dev is a god send.
But then I start hearing you contact people like Mr.Allen, having aGGros debate us, and all I can do is scratch my head and ask you: why? Why bring these people into the fold? These individuals and their kin staunchly oppose #GamerGate on the false basis it is a harassment Campaign, that it hates women, that it uses minorities to legitimize itself.
Yet, all this is a lie, a painfully obvious one should you just look at its supporters and what they attempting to accomplish. This is my personal issue. As sources for the opposing #GamerGate viewpoint, ya go for it, but as legitimate opponents in a debate? No.
None of these individuals are relevant, none of them bring any talking point to the discussion that hasn’t already been beaten or destroyed. All evidence to disprove their theories is there, we shouldn’t have to spend anymore time attempting to attain a form of vindication for ourselves or for #GamerGate.
So the irked feeling is a result of not knowing what AirPlay is going to be, what it’s trying to accomplish. As of right now my perception is just a glorified inquisition, one I do not wish to participate in or send fellow supporters to be subjected to, especially when many (Like Sargon or Rouge) have to waste precious time and resources just to be bombarded with questions that have already been answered.
I just want my industry to have legitimate reporting, I want my journalists to keep tabs on those who make bad games/practice bad policy and point out those are exemplars. I want my industry to stop being sick and I am tired of these yahoos stepping in front of me simply to tell me I’m a filthy misogynist, I don’t get to play games. It’s a sentiment that I share with plenty supporters.
Well said
I agree with you entirely. If it is a debate and if it is what and in the spirit it is purported as being, should be good.
If this never came about, #gamergate would still be slaying dragons. Airplay MAY be good, bad or indifferent, but is not the be all and end all some imagine it to be.
If it sucks.I I will be disappointed but not devastated. If it is all win I will cheer and clap.
I think that it won’t change media narratives, nor social justice warrior’s bile. It may help us in a small way/s, but it is all relative. The things we do ourselves are probably more important and as much as SPJ is associated with journalism I do not think this debate (no matter how well we do) will make journalists come to inconvenient truth
The real value of Airplay is for the presentation of evidence we know will enter the news feed, if its then reported on great, if it isn’t the fact it is transparently being ignored by the press is equally damning.
Even if Airplay is a bust, it is still a valuable platform in that regard.
I guess constantly saying the word ”Gamergater” is part of your ongoing plot to be hated by both sides because there’s at least one guy telling you we don’t call ourselves that on every Airplay update.
#Gamergate is a # used by consumers to communicate the ever growing ethics violations by the gaming press. Unless there is press involved for consumers to speak with then I cannot see the point in this at all.
Agreed…..unless Mike wants to take them intellectually bankrupt position that is is about harassing females….in which case anything is possible, but why the Hell we should have to entertain this false premise is beyond me
We don’t.
Well, as for now nothing I read offended me, I’ve been in GamerGate since the beginning and truth be told, nothing you wrote compares to being called misogynist, pedo (actually called that by Kotaku), homophobe, hate speech advocate and everything else I’ve been called.
Its not even the names they gives us are the worst, its all the lies that people believe and while I have my reserve I really hope truth will be revealed one day.
BTW, yeah there are people who propose different tactics, sometimes not nice but those get shunned down rather quick on 8ch.
I know there been situations when shills attacked our critics as well as people who offered us support, they did it pretending they were GG for the whole duration of the show.
If you ever get really aggressive tweet, you might do a background check, just to see whether the person tweeting at you ever did anything to further GG case or just attacked everyone and everything.
Not sure why you interpretted Adam Baldwin’s tweet that way, but it seems a bit disingenuous. He didn’t say AirPlay was pointless, he said you’re having so much trouble finding AGG people who are willing to go to the debate because they have no real argument which, from reading the last half of this update, seems to be perfectly true.
Most would rather ignore you, then call you a Gamergater, discredit what you’re trying to do, etc. behind your back. Anything other than show their face to a debate that they’d get rekt in because it would disintegrate their already destroyed narrative. We know what you’re going through, because we went through it months ago when people had hope that there were rational people on the other side.
The ones who don’t ignore you are the ones who’ve been trolling for the last 9 months. AMiB, srhbutts, “journos”/bloggers lying in print, etc. Hell, just check out this tweet AMiB did today, trying to pass off a graph from Anita Sarkeesian’s Thesis as something a Pro-GamerGate made:
https://archive.is/aVhYH
Please, talk to them if you want, but don’t ever just Listen and Believe them, especially when people are literally providing evidence that they are trolls who are most likely being paid off to tweet 24/7 because they’re so far in debt they can’t even keep they’re pirating website afloat.
Seriously, take an Internet Trolls 101 class or something, and if that doesn’t exists it should and be mandatory class for all journos who cover things on the internet. Those of us who’ve been here for 20 years can spot them from a mile away already, but apparently journalists these days don’t know what the fuck they’re doing on the internet. Just look at the 2(at least) relatively recent cases of journos interviewing known trolls as if they were 100% serious(one even on a damn livestream). While hilarious to us, it shows just how out of touch most journos are when it comes to internet culture or, worse, how desperate they are for clicks.
You need to step away from the vocal non-journalists. They’re just going to get after you with smears and derail the conversation.
Get journalists involved. Reach out to Stephen Totilo, Nathan Grayson, Kyle Orland, Ben Kuchera, Leigh Alexander, John Walker, etc. In fact, you can find most of the best people to reach out to at deepfreeze.it. We want to chat with the journalists we’ve accused. We’ve no interest in talking to the psychotic vocal non-journalists at AirPlay.
Focus on the JOURNALISTS, Mr. Koretzky. You’re wasting your time talking to the crazed lunatics who are not journalists.
Thanks for the update though.
I %100 agree
Who wins in a PR battle? People who have a problem with the media, or the media itself?
Of course everyone thinks GamerGate is a hate group – that’s what the press has been telling everyone since August 2014. They need to make that label stick, because they need people to ignore GG. They need people to ignore GG, because they are scared of what they have to say.
It’s fantastic news that GG may finally have a voice in the mainstream. I’ve no doubt you will find it difficult to find people to represent the opposition, for many reasons, but I wish you luck in your search.
If anyone really believes GamerGate is a hate group, why don’t you take this opportunity to expose it on a big stage by representing the Antis at Airplay?
The reason you’re getting more hate from AGG than GG is exactly because you’re trying to be objective. And who can blame them? As Jay Allen said, most other journalists have had no trouble calling us a hate group, and worse. When the media is that strongly on your side, you won’t be liking any objective reporting.
The opposite is the case for us. There are a lot of anti-GG journalists whom we praise, simply for being fair and honest to us. Look at David Pakman and David Auerbach. These two were also excoriated for simply trying to be fair and objective. Basically, we are friendly to anyone who isn’t hostile to us.
But if you want some criticism, I’ll gladly give it to you. In your opening post, you claimed that “Gamergate” was spamming your organization’s Twitter hashtag with pornography and images of mutilated bodies. These folks were actually members of a group called the Ayyteam, internet trolls who are hostile to both sides. We only spammed your hashtag with information about ethics and stuff like that. That said, you also deserve praise for keeping an open mind, even though you thought we were spamming your hashtag with images of mutilated bodies. If a group widely considered a “hate group” did that to me, I’d immediately make up my mind.
I think the vast majority are actually keeping our mouth shut on the whole subject and staying out of it because we’re leery of nearly any and all journalism (and I use that term very loosely) on the subject of GamerGate at this point–but mainly because we understood the moment you began to engage with anti-GamerGate, you’d begin to see at least the very beginnings of the truth of the debacle at hand.
I, for one, haven’t been disappointed on either count to date.
Cheers.
“Gamergate” is not a movement, not a group, and I am not a “Gamergater”.
I’m a person, and my hobby is games, so I am a gamer by definitions.
I’d heavily appreciate if you stopped trying to form this “gamergater” and “movement” thing in every single article. It’s very disingenuous. Anyone calling themselves “gamergater” is here only for e-fame, nothing more, nothing less and should be promptly either ignored or questioned on their intentions and actions.
This is a debate, with two sides: gamergate and anti-gamergate. It’s kind of silly to expect anyone to address each person individually.
Mr.Koretzky since you talk Sarah and Jay so much why not ask them represent the other side of the Gamergate debate since they want to become famous for their actions against GamerGate they need to prove it at Airplay by debating the issue?
Jay Allen needs to denounce his harassment of Daniel Vávra and others.
Butts and Allen aren’t interested, obviously, they have the press to hide behind and lob grenades, why lose that privileged position and risk having to face sunlight being thrown on a false narrative?
That is the reason Cross won’t, she has status to protect, why take a risk and actually have to talk about the issue for Journalists, they are the ones that are supposed to uncritically parrot her, not put questions to her.
That is humiliating I presume, or harrasment,
So, the anti’s are still grinding the GamerGate is a hate mob. Sorry, but how more ignorant can you be? No matter how friendly we are and how much we contribute through donations, anti’s always find some lame excuse to libel us. Makes you wonder if they even live on this planet and in the same parallel universe timeline…
Cross isn’t that bad. Sincere, but really damn leftist. Has a “I’ve gotta score points for leftists/feminism” vibe. Frankly, lots of aGG does that.
However, Allen comes off as 100% undiluted insincere trolling made from selective reading.
I actually have a lot more respect for Jay Allen than I do for Katherine Cross. Regardless of any trolling he engages in, he seems to at least be a decent person. For example, he threatened to block anyone who claimed that the GG in DC bomb threat was a false flag.
While Katherine Cross was one of the pro-terrorist “Je ne suis Charlie”-crowd.
Notice how his twists his exact words are completely different things whenever convenient, dodges any implicating questions and how he deletes any provable mistakes he makes.
A good troll knows the long con. He does reasonable things, that’s because he wants gain your trust to reap the lulz later.
He believes in nothing. It’s ALL trolling.
We told you they wouldn’t want to engage, that neutrality would get you attacked, and that they would start spreading lies about you. You get why so many instinctively dismiss claims of harassment, and get mad when others take those claims seriously?
Don’t make the same assumptions, or dismiss all claims, but some healthy skepticism doesn’t hurt. We used to say “trust, but verify.” Most folks stopped trusting, and the rest stopped verifying, but I still think it’s a good rule.
I don’t know how to get any traction here. Have you tried contacting journalists themselves? Maybe try Kate Edwards too. Use this quote as a starting point: https://archive.is/lKNTx#selection-591.414-591.535
She blockbotted, so it’s clear that she’s the one who wanted no conversation, but it might be… leverage.
In defense of Jay, saying “willing to leverage a hate mob, 100%” isn’t the same as saying we’re all hateful, just saying that overwhelming folk with numbers is a shitty thing to do when a lot of the folks involved are shitty people. Honestly, a few times, I asked him what to do with info from digging before releasing it. Lot of GG folks would hate the shit out of me for that…
Yes, Kate Edwards has declared that gamergate doesn’t want to engage in conversation; xe should be there.
“If you would’ve told me when I began this odyssey that I’d contact someone seeking advice, be ignored, then publicly accused of harassment, I would’ve predicted a GamerGater did that to me.”
You’re walking down the same road as Mark Kern has and a number of other people as well. You could even say that this is the experience of all gamers in GG (minus the asking for advice, although this has also happened, just not for most). A guilty verdict without communication or trial. Vilification in an attempt to silence you. Not being heard. I hope you have the strength to weather the angry storm of people obsessed with shutting us up.
Even if I and many other gamers might disagree at times with you I’m certain most respect your attempts at opening a dialog. After all we’ve tried ourselves many times and most consider it a worthwhile effort. Sadly all have failed here precisely because they are always ignored. Stay fair and keep criticizing GG when you believe we are doing something wrong. We are far from perfect but we are not monsters and we are trying to do the right thing. Even if we react passionately to your commentary you might be surprised to see that at the end of such small conflicts GG comes out wiser, stronger, better.
Thank you for your work.
Hey Mr. Koretzky, thanks for everything you’re doing to make AirPlay happen. Judging by some of the responses you’re getting, it seems like you’ve got your work cut out for you; those of us who want to see reasoned debate from both sides really appreciate your efforts.
When I was reading this latest post, two lines in particular stuck out to me:
“And if that claim isn’t true, what else isn’t?”
“If you would’ve told me when I began this odyssey that I’d contact someone seeking advice, be ignored, then publicly accused of harassment, I would’ve predicted a GamerGater did that to me.”
These are interesting, but I think if we combine them we can get something even more interesting:
“And if I’m being ignored then publicly accused of harassment, who else is?”
Maybe next time don’t:
– pass off criminal allegations against GG as “sure”
– demand GG decries harassment implicitly saying that we are in need to do so
– invite incendiary slanderers from AGG to debate about ethics instead of journos, knowing well that they are not journalists but merely twitter trolls who attack GG all day
What you’ve done so far is very suspicious and you’ve been unnecessarily incendiary to GG, and this post is no different: you’re trying again to pretend GG is making debate hard, and not you.
You pulled the dog tail then cry that the dog bit you back and shift the blame on it.
You have a long way to go proving that this isn’t a setup and that GG people coming to SPJ will be safe and not trapped into a bukkake of slander.
A bukkake of slander? That’s a new one, but incredibly poignant.
He wasn’t blanket-blaming. He heard the media narrative first, and his first exposure to the tag was AyyTeam flooding the SPJEthics tag with gore and porn. And just being real, there are some people involved that do nasty shit when someone’s name hits the tag. I don’t just mean /baph/ or AyyTeam either.
It’s a problem with digging. When digging, a lot of times, you end up with people’s personal information, because it’s pertinent to uncovering stuff. Most digging groups operate on Skype or IRC chats so that they don’t post that shit to the boards, and almost none of it ends up being used for shady shit, but pretending like it’s non-existent rather than just proportionally rare is silly.
Not saying that most attacks come from GG, just saying that some portion of legitly bad shit might come from GG people. Acknowledging that doesn’t mean I’m accusing you (or myself) of a damned thing.
And one last thing: “attacking both sides” is not neutrality. Pakman has tried to claim the same and nobody has been buying it, so cherrypicking bad comments and trying to sell the idea you’re the victim – despite you being the one who stirred up incendiary debate to begin with – is not going to work.
Mr. K, this isn’t to rub your nose in it, just to follow up on an earlier warning I gave about what would happen if you moved on with this, but, I told you so 😉
I said something along the lines of “don’t be surprised if you’re accused of enabling harassment and doxxing, or of providing legitimacy to a hate campaign”.
Katherine Cross has behaved wonderfully predictably. Notice how she feels perfectly comfortable publicly accusing you of “doxxing for political purposes”?
I have another prediction for you:
(1) now that she’s made this accusation in public (Twitter), she will receive a bunch of tweets asking her wtf she’s talking about, demanding proof. Some of the tweets might rude “fuck you” or a nasty “die feminist cunt”.
(2) even if the majority of the negative reaction isnt actually harassment (but calls for proof and context for her claims) she will self-annoint as a victim of GamerGate harassment because of this, and not acknowledge or even defend the slander of you she made.
To be clear: no one, even intellectually dishonest and dogmatic professors who make baseless accusations, deserves to be harassed or doxxed.
But, you also don’t deserve to be accused of doxxing.
Good luck, and god speed 😀
Figuring out which side is the one that doesn’t want a dialogue I see . Hope you don’t make the mistake of disagreeing with the wrong woman because you know then you are a misogynist harasser.
“But how am I using doxing for “political purposes”?”
Guild by association. There are a few malicious elements within GG that will go there and dox and harrass people.
Their logic is as follows. If some poeple use these tactics the rest of them must be in silent agreement and support, hence all of them are guilty of the deeds of a few.
Since GG is a hashtag, it is impossible to police. The people responsible get called out and reported, but there is little else GG as group can do about that. The anti-gg side has used this problem to consistently to slander GG as a whole.
Jay Allen aka A_man_in_black was not mimicking the worst anti-gamergate has to offer. He is one of the worst they have to offer. He’s a pseudo-intellectual troll who constantly takes things out of context to serve his own purposes and push the agenda he’s apart of. The same thing with Sarah Nyberg aka srhbutts. I trust you will give us a fair shot, Mr. Koretzky, but you need to understand that the other side will lie out of their asses to further their goals. That’s one reason we are in this mess because the media would rather lie about our movement and call us misogynists, racists, and every other buzzword in the dictionary rather than admit they had some ethical violations and try to fix it by becoming better “journalists”.
Man, I just wish there was a way for David Auerbach to be involved somehow. Guy is very smart and level headed.
Thanks for the update Mike. It’s interesting to watch all of this flesh out.
Trying to talk to Anti-GG? That’s how GamerGate supporters are born. Good luck.
I tried to explain to one that they’ve done nothing to help “end GamerGate,” and that they actually kind of made it blow way the fuck up. They called it victim blaming, even though I was explicitly talking about the ‘Gamers are over’ pieces, the Reddit comment graveyard, and the blockbot.
Fool wouldn’t even admit that they’ve done fuck-all to stop harassment.
Well said Koretzky…well said.
Koretzky, now that you’ve been accused of harassment for no reason, are you gonna spend the rest of your life denouncing harassment and apologizing?
Yeah, it’s like that.
I think the only time I tweeted nearby you was in defence of the guy who took you up on calling you an ass when you dared. But overall I think you’re doing a smashup job. GG figures could show up to airplay and get entirely destroyed in the public forum with our chance to speak. I would of course prefer they win. But I think the fact that you not only tried to stay neutral, you have remained like a rock in this. Like this article you have says, you know that both sides yelling at you is part of your job, and haven’t been swayed by it. If we are defeated soundly in Airplay I will have to step back and reconsider some of the points. If Anti-GG really wants to kill this movement they need to acknowledge there are thousands of people that were convinced to support Gamergate. If they pick themselves up and mount a convincing argument they could shake thousands from the movement. Airplay is huge for both sides.
Why would I, a Gamergate supporter, be offended by that last sentence? I expect people to come to Gamergate with a degree of skepticism and possibly a lot of misgivings. Part of that is because of all the smear pieces and propaganda the press has put out but the other part is normal human reaction. I don’t expect anyone to just come to Gamergate and say “I don’t know you people or what you’re about but I agree!” No, all I ask or expect from people is an open mind. The facts will speak for themselves.
To be fair, I’m pretty sure most people would be a bit peeved if you said they didn’t love their mothers.
That last sentence makes me looks forward to this debate more. Much of the media has been portraying ALL of GamerGate as horrible people. Surprise, someone actually looks into it and sees that’s not the case!
Neither side is perfect. I’m just glad someone is looking at things objectively.
Thanks for keeping up with this. I know that GG can have some thorns. I’m a die-hard, have been since August, and even I acknowledge that there has been a lot of unpleasantness from our side. But no group is composed entirely of saints.
Sorry that Katherine Cross and others have rebuked you in that way. But looking at her tweets, can you kind of guess what’s going on here? Anyone who ever suggests that GG isn’t a hate group is “An advocate,” no matter who, and no matter how much credibility that they may have. Does it matter that you’re a board member on the Society for Professional Journalists? Does it matter that your organization is over a hundred years old and drafted the very journalistic standards to which they should be hearing? No, it doesn’t matter a bit. Your decades of journalism experience is nothing to them. You might as well be an anonymous anime and/or egg avatar on Twitter for all the respect they’ll give you.
They do love crafting their media narratives.
http://imgur.com/ASdcP37
I think you will ultimately find it hard to get a person who’s willing to come to the table as far as healthy debate is concerned. Since Anti-Gamer Gate has a narrative that they wish for the public to believe about Gamer Gate, they’re not going to give Gamer Gate a chance to show itself for what it truly stands for. This is why you see the news media slam Gamer Gate non-stop. They want Gamer Gate to be guilty before innocent, and that’s why a debate would not benefit them in giving the narrative leverage. They don’t have facts to back their arguments, and when they do, it often hurts the narrative they wish to beat Gamer Gate over the head with.
I’m still wishing you’d talk about the ethics issues, both that the pro-GG side brings up and the anti-GG side denies exists, but it seems more like blogging about your impressions of engaging in the discussion. Fair enough, your blog.
I’m going to clue you in on something that will become even more apparent to you as time goes on. The reason you will have trouble engaging anti-GG people in the discussion is because it doesn’t allow them to control the narrative.
I invite you to review some of David Pakman’s interactions with anti-GG, both trying to get interviews and the interviews themselves. He tweeted someone on anti-GG asking for an interview and was accused of harassing them. If he brought up something they didn’t like during an interview, something he did to pro-GG people, he was accused of attacking them and the interview being a hack job. Arthur Chu went as far as to claim there was no “other side” (something many anti-GGers stick to, as you saw with amaninblack) to give a voice to.
And about ethics? You’ll see many take the fifth. Almost all of the journalists accused haven’t responded to the accusations of ethical violations (with the exception of Totillo and a few others). Radio silence. All they will do is claim they have been harassed, abused, etc., while denying they did any of the same.
It’s about controlling the narrative. This is why Katherine Cross’ outfit FeministFrequency disables comments on their videos (and got Colbert to disable comments on Anita’s appearance on his show). This is why any time someone brings up the question of ethics they call it a smoke-screen for a hate mob.
The problem is, they know that if ethics were examined, they would be in trouble. So they change the narrative to it being a hate mob and there is nothing to do with ethics, shoddy journalism, shoddy cultural criticism, etc. And they will do all they can to control the narrative and keep the discussion away from ethics.
The irony is, all of this could have been avoided. If the games journals took ethics seriously from the beginning instead of allowing their journalists (many of whom were the ones to be accused of ethics violations) conspire and publish “gamers are dead” campaigns, this would have been over in a month. Instead, they decided to bunker down with the “misogyny / harassment” narrative, and this narrative is what you will continue to see them desperately clinging to nine months later, even in the face of documented behavior that is dubious if not outright clearly unethical.
I for one want to talk about ethics. I suspect the vast majority of people pro-GamerGate want to talk about ethics. On the other side, you will be lucky to find anyone who wants to talk about that.
I’ve been watching this for 9months vast majority of Gamergate are good people some get a little lets say over excited at times. I can sympathize with their frayed nerves and postings of doubt in regards to this. Gamergate has had journalists in the past offer interviews or to do stories and when it comes out it’s a hit piece then when the person from Gamergate posts the actual conversation that they had to secretly record we find the journalists has left most of what they talked about out completely. (recording was suggested after this happened several times)
The last sentence doesn’t offend me I’ve already seen it happen far too many times.
Claire Shchuman if anyone remembers for example
http://s2b20blog.mukyou.com/hidden-face-hypocrisy-randi-harper/
This is a very well written article and I appreciate the work you’re doing, Michael.
However, I feel that it’s necessary to mention that I’ve supported GamerGate since the whole thing started back in August last year, and that last sentence isn’t offensive at all. In the past couple months, I’ve been referred to as a reprobate, accused of being part of what was apparently ‘confirmed’ as a hate group, told I’m incapable of doing anything productive and told to fuck off more times than I can count. All this for, at one point, saying that supporters of GamerGate have donated to charities before.
I’m one of tens, possibly hundreds, of thousands of other supporters this stuff has happened to for similarly petty reasons. It doesn’t upset me, though; I laugh it off. We all do; being compared to terrorists, the KKK, and neo-Nazis for nothing more than wanting an honest press will give you thick skin.
If you’d told me 9 months ago that people who claim to want more women in tech industries would revile me for having donated to charity to support women in tech industries, I wouldn’t have taken you seriously at all. But if there’s one thing GamerGate’s shown me, it’s that people can be very strange.
“If you would’ve told me when I began this odyssey that I’d contact someone seeking advice, be ignored, then publicly accused of harassment, I would’ve predicted a GamerGater did that to me. Of course, that sentence will surely offend both sides. ”
Not at all. This pattern has typified the experience of GamerGate members.
It was, for example, the “Streisand Effect” which gave GG its initial wings — seek advice about what’s going on [at a gaming-news website], be ignored [your post is deleted and/or account banned], and publicly accused of engaging in harassment [because engaging in the topic, itself, is alleged to be harassment].
Many, MANY people who were once GG-neutral, and who sought to get a dialogue going, have been attacked in exactly this way. It’s quite possible that the majority of GG supporters at this point were once neutrals who converted to pro-GG after coming under fire simply for questioning the “gamers are misogynistic dudebros” narrative.
Sometimes everyone is angry at you because you’re just plain wrong.
lol can’t wait till airplay, the facade that is the main stream narrative is slowly crumbling
I hate to (actually, I love to) say we told you so, but we told you so! You are not going to get anyone from aGG to engage with you rationally. Your best bet at finding an opposition for AirPlay is to look for people who would identify as neutral yet critical of GG’s main points. Of course, I’m not entirely sure you’ll find any of those such people either–at best you’d find neutrals who agree with the pro-ethics stance but are critical of tactics that some GGers have employed.
Good luck.
That sentence does not offend or surprise me. You formed that early opinion based on the lies you were told before pursuing this. I think you’re seeing through those lies now. We’re not a misogynistic hate mob like they’ve said. We’re just normal, diverse people. The varied responses you’ve shown in this post are a good example of that. The crazy accusations Cross is making are a perfect example of what we’ve been up against since August. They’ll lie about you like they lie about us.
I know you’re not on our side. You don’t have a side. However, you’re willing to listen, and that’s so much more than most media will give us. I want our side to be heard. I want the truth to be known. It’s not all pretty, but I know we’re not the monsters they claim we are.
Here’s some more wisdom for you: “methinks the lady doth protest too much.”
What does it tell you that you’re having to put this much effort – 80% of your updates, so far – to insisting that of COURSE you’re unbiased, and of COURSE you’re not just pandering to #gamerGate by offering them a stab at legitimacy?
What does it tell you that even when this is the golden opportunity they’ve yearned for, and even though you’ve bent over backwards to accomodate and justify them, the threads about you on KiA and 8chan are still 50% calling you a Beta-male cucklord?
You DO understand that he’s constantly having to remind people he’s unbiased BECAUSE people like you claim he’s “pandering” to a group you personally feel isn’t “legitimate” to begin with?
YOU are the sort of person Koretzky is trying to get through to. He is pointing out that #GamerGate has been far more open to dialogue than YOU are, precisely because YOU insist there is no dialogue to be had.
If you honestly believe #GamerGate has no legitimacy to it, then you should have no issues with any such debate. It would be YOUR opportunity to address and debunk the movement’s claims — unless, of course, you feel that you really can’t.
Cross: “…make use of GG doxing for political purposes”
Koretzky: “…and I don’t even know what that means.”
My best guess is that it’s a twist on the feminist phrase “the personal is political”. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_personal_is_political
(Particularly under “multiple meanings” – online it seems to have even more meanings than listed there, to the point where it loses nuance and can mean exact equivalence. So with that, Cross’s statement could be read as “…make use of GG doxing for personal gain”)
Haha Cross is trying to make you feel like you owe her, so you’ll feel more tempted to agree with her atleast a few times, cause in a real debate she/her side will crumble and she knows that all to well, pretty much the same scenario and outcome happened to David Pakman,kinda.. (forgive spelling dutch dyslect)
I dont think anyone who has been supporting GamerGate for the past 9 months can actually be offended any more. We have been insulted with every evil under the sun. Its has gone so far as to be completely ridiculous at this point. You are right to remain truly neutral even if you find overwhelming evidence that GamerGate are not the irrational ones. There are thousands of supporters , so statistically there are going to be idiots in GamerGate that dont understand this.
If there actually is a debate, the aGG side has nothing to debate but the “hate campaign” narrative that they have been spewing from the very beginning. Thats how they have been side stepping the actual issues, and I dont see them changing that now after keeping it up for 9 months. Its all “critical theory” , 12 rules for radicals nonsense that SJW’s and radical feminists use on anyone that disagrees with them. They are not going to drop their narrative now. Its all they have. You have seen evidence of this yourself now, when Cross immediately started shaping a harassment narrative about you rather than respond. Its what they do, with false statistics, false allegations, smear campaigns etc. I am surprised that you have not been labeled as an “MRA” yet. Thats one of their go to tactics, label you as a member of a group they have successfully marginalized by libeling/slanding as creepy misogynist pedophiles for disagreeing with them in some way. Its only a matter of time.
I am hopeful that something productive will come of this, but like many others, doubtful. The other side is not reasonable. They are not using reason, nor looking for truth. Expecting them to argue in good faith is naive. They know what they are doing. They have been doing it for years now. GamerGate is just the first group of people that wont succumb to their nonsense, so now we are in uncharted territory. At the least it has encouraged others to stand up to these authoritarian scolds. I see that as only fostering more backlash against this PC, moralizing nonsense.
Posted on 8chan thread urging Gaters to stop “shitposting” SPJ:
“
Hey Koretzky.
I’m a staunch supporter of GG’s quest for ethics. While I think that some of the criticism you’ve gotten from some of the people who could be said to be “on my side” was out of hand, I can’t possibly apologize on their behalf. I’m sure any person who was angry enough to flip you out would be offended at my presumption to speak on their behalf. Their actions are theirs to own and disown. You, among many other people who talk to us without adopting a clearly anti-discussion stance are one of the people who have been very good at understanding that there is diversity of thought on both sides. I thank you for that.
I’ve been reading your posts and I’ll admit that while I got slightly worried that you’d be making AirPlay a discussion about who’s to be blamed the most for angry internet messages, my worry only peaked after listening to a very long podcast with some of its participants raging about it while others attempted in vain to keep people’s moods under control. Shortly after that, I took a break, rested a bit and concluded that even if you’d want to bring up that topic on the round table, you’ll still most likely want to make the discussion mostly about what kind of expectations and guidelines are reasonable for ethical behaviour in gaming journalism, as well as to what extent can gaming journalists, editors and publications be held accountable for their own ethical violations. After all, it would be a very silly thing to do to bring a potty-mouth finger pointing contest to an SPJ event like that.
The only main wishes that I have about AirPlay, is that the round table will be filled with the most qualified people for present the best arguments, points of view and counterpoints for any of the sides on this discussion. In addition, I hope you can ensure that the main discussion topics that each side wants to bring to the table get a fair share of time in the discussion. Finally, if you do feel like you’d be inappropriate for mediating the round table, please do staff the moderation with the people you’d believe to be the most qualified to handle it with impartiality and fairness.
Either way, I hope that your ride all the way to the event goes relatively hassle free. See you, space cowboy.
Posted on 8chan thread urging Gaters to stop “shitposting” SPJ:
“Always support neutrals who go to bat for you.”
…Someone doesn’t understand the meaning of the term “neutral.” And is being unintentionally honest in their assessment of you, Mike.
I’d say it’s you who doesn’t understand the meaning of the term.
Example: Nationalist Spain was neutral during World War II, despite being a Fascist nation which had been assisted against the Communist-backed Republican Spanish Army. This allowed Spain to act to the benefit of the Allies even without wanting to, for example in the case of interning pilots who bailed out over France but managed to escape south.
Churchill, in commenting on this situation, said: “He may be a bastard, but he’s OUR bastard.”
Thus demonstrating that even when someone is against you philosophically, a position of neutrality on their part may be interpreted as “going to bat for you”.
Well within the last 24 hours Jay Allen posted a part of Anita Sarkeesian’s master thesis that he deemed to be a problem, but claimed Gamergate created it in attempt to claim we view “weakness” as a feminine trait. It has since been deleted.
If you want to know what else isn’t true, start with any claim Jay Allen ever made or makes about GG.
Michael, it’s stunts like this which resulted in the backlash over your “red-meat” article suggesting A Man in Black would represent #GamerGate’s opposition (above and beyond the fact that he isn’t a journalist, and we’re not talking about ethics in Twitterings).
https://archive.is/aVhYH for the actual tweet, which was archived.
I can’t thank you enough for this. As a GG supporter, I’m looking forward to this a great deal. Please keep digging, and best of luck with pulling this off.
Though you’re neither the first, nor likely the last, I would like to give you the same phrase I’ve had the pleasure of extending to so many before.
“Hello, Mr. Koretzky – welcome to our world.”
You are, to my knowledge, no babe in the woods. If you’ve covered politics, I’m sure you’ve had experience with dishonest people engaging in dishonest acts to cover up their dishonest improprieties. For the second consecutive blog-comment, I have to ask: are you not yet getting a sense of deja-vu as you deal with those who present themselves as the moral arbiters? Are you not yet getting the sense that something might be amiss in the state of Denmark?
I realize you might not admit something to that effect, at least not openly. The aGG are like rare Pokémon, visible only for the briefest of moments; scurrying away before they can be corralled.
Surely you might be wondering, by now – why are they scurrying?
If these aGG types have nothing to hide, why are they hiding? If these aGG types are so convinced they’re morally justified and occupying the “right side of history,” as they’re prone to proclaim, why are they not jumping at the opportunity to prove this in public?
If GG types have so much to hide, why are they so eager to discuss things with you?
Allow me an anecdote.
Once upon a time, not all that long ago, in fact, I came across an interesting concept. A curious statement about ‘new game mechanics’ came across my twitter-feed, and it piqued my interest. I am, as one might imagine, interested in games and gaming; “new game mechanics” are exactly the sort of phrase that get my attention.
I immediately moved to engage with the person making these claims. I was not completely oblivious, of course, as I was firmly occupying what could be described as a “Pro-GG” stance and this tweet came from someone who I quickly realized was what could be described as, “Anti-GG.” I engaged in good faith, only curious about these ‘new game mechanics’ I had seen referenced; we’re all interested in games, in the end, correct? Surely two gamers, or ‘players’ – or whatever the hell we’re supposed to be called these days – can find the common ground to discuss new game mechanics? Right…?
The person discussing these new game mechanics was almost immediately hostile. There were very few tweets exchanged before I was blocked, and a cursory glance at the tweeter who had blocked me showed that my earnest questioning was being twisted into some kind of ‘harassing assault.’
I rolled my eyes and chuckled; yet another kook who felt obliged to re-define terms such as harassment to fit their current mood; yet another unreasonable human being who I had wasted my time trying to engage.
To my knowledge, this was my only exchange with the aforementioned Ms. Cross. This fascinating story occurred in late September or early October, before the ‘#GG is a death-threat / harassment campaign’ media blitz took off at full steam; a game developer and “gaming academic” blocked a fan of games for engaging in, what can only be described as, ‘wrong-think.’
(If you wish, I could provide you with full twitter logs of this exchange so that you may corroborate my harrowing tale.)
Now, this same Ms. Cross accuses you of ‘doxxing’ people. This is, theoretically, an academic. This is, theoretically, someone whose independent research will influence the intelligentsia of the gaming world. This is, theoretically, someone who’s supposed to be engaged in objective studies to present a true picture of the gaming culture to those who are not involved or not interested.
This is a person who has openly accused a journalist (you, Mr. Koretzky) of ‘doxxing’ people, without a shred of evidence to back up such a claim. Again, this is an “academic” engaged in “academic pursuits” involving the gaming sphere.
The idea of such openly and obviously dishonest people influencing the gaming world terrifies me, and it should terrify anyone else who’s been paying attention. In case you’ve missed it, we’re engaged in yet another baseless moral-panic. In the past it was comic-books or rap music, but it is now video games. The siren calls of “protecting the youth” from “harmful messages” are once again upon us, only this time, the gaming community has enough pull and cleverness to actively resist such abject nonsense.
I’m not surprised Ms. Cross attempted to shame you into stopping what you were doing. I’m surprised more haven’t attempted similar tactics.
At odd intervals over time, I’m sure you’ll be pinged with all sorts of odd accusations. I’ll say then what I’ve already said in this comment:
“Welcome to our world, Mr. Koretzky.”
i’d understand wanting to incite a bit of ire on both sides, but the whole mother thing; there’s poking a hornets nest, and then there’s trying to spray it with a hose.
but first the whole harassment thing. even a study done by the whale randy harper, shows that GG is accountable for .66% of harassment. We’ve been saying it since the start. this shitstorm is drawing goons, ayy-team, lizard squad, and a fuck ton of trolls.
also on the whole doxxing thing. they’re just scared you actually going to give GG a chance. they fair coverage more than anything.
Consider Jay Allens claims of GamerGate being hate and then realize that earlier today he posted an excerpt from Anita Sarkeesians masters thesis claiming it was made by someone supporting GamerGate.
Perfectly demonstrating his ignorance. Gamers oppose Anita on the basis of lies, misinformation, overt bigotry, etc… because we have done our research and come to that conclusion based on evidence. People like Allen support her simply because she espouses the proper politics. When he saw a GamerGate supporter post something Anita wrote he opposed it because he believed it came from GamerGate. He quickly deleted the tweet when the mistake was pointed out. Does he still oppose it even though the Almighty Anita wrote it? Who knows? What we do know is he won’t call her out on it like he tried to call GamerGate out on it even though who wrote it doesn’t change its content at all.
His interest is solely in the promotion of his politics regardless of evidence, facts or truth. That’s what makes his commentary more ‘outrageous’.
Good on you, man. I also would agree that GamerGate isn’t perfect, and I am a supporter. There are plenty of people in the “ranks” of GG who act just as idiotically as those they profess against. Just today I had someone block me simply for disagreeing with them…politely.
Interested to see what comes from all of this. Good luck.
Are you sure you got it right? The last statement simply tells what the narrative has been like. Nobody would object. I do love my mother though, you monster
Anti-gg don’t believe neutrality or nuance has a place in this conversation so it becomes very hard for an interested outsider to asses if any of their claims are even legitimate.
“Of course, that sentence will surely offend both sides.”
Eh. Some people will get offended by the air temperature or which pronoun you use. Screw them, even if they’re in GG – no, especially if they’re in GG. As an uninvolved but ardent supporter of GamerGate, it is my evidence-based belief that few in the movement will find this offensive. Those that would are probably already frothing about me calling it a movement.
Fuck those guys, too.
As a journalist with an interest in journalistic ethics, what advice do you have for gamergate, koretzky?
What could we understand and/or do better?
We (pro-GG) are used to being accused of harassment, misogyny etc. The moment people start with personal attacks in a debate, you know that they have nothing more to contribute. Note that this counts for either side!
The interesting thing is that some people seem to think it’s a good idea to fire the shots before the debate has even begun. I guess that a modified version of Scott D. Weitzenhoffer’s quote is appropriate here:
“Debating [sjw] on the topic of [ethics] is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.” (for the original quote, see http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pigeon_chess)
Thanks for trying to remain objective between the group I support and the assholes I hate.
Seriously, since asking nicely for a debate and getting accused of things by our opposing side is what most knew would happen. But so far your tenacity is truely heroic.
Good luck with the SJW menace.
“If you would’ve told me when I began this odyssey that I’d contact someone seeking advice, be ignored, then publicly accused of harassment, I would’ve predicted a GamerGater did that to me. Of course, that sentence will surely offend both sides. So I guess I’m doing my job”
Gamers have spent decades being accused of being satanists, mass-murderers-in-training, terrorists, and misogynists. I think it’ll take a bit more than that to get our hackles up.
But we kinda predicted the treatment you’d be getting from the anti-gamers. We’ve been dealing with this sort of thing the whole time. Every hand extended has been slapped away. Every olive branch has been set on fire. Next steps will likely include a hit piece in one of the rags, which will then be exported to wikipedia, since they have completely colonized that space. Then those reporters that are too lazy to actually look into it will simply pick up what wikipedia says are repeat it. And so the cycle continues…
On a lighter note, I couldn’t resist this:
“what I continue to hear about Airplay irks me”
My god man! You are a brave soul to hold it together under such vile irkening! Have you fled your home yet? Have you set up a patreon to keep yourself together?
I notice that koretsky took nearly every quote and twisted it, some just ever so slightly. A tweet to olivercampbell mentioning koretsky may have been directed to koretsky, idk, but saying he would have knocked someone out is different from offering a punch in the face, and koretsky said it that way twice. It’s not an offer in my book.
Adam Baldwin saying organizing a debate is *difficult* gets twisted to there’s no need for debate. There are many things that can be debated even though one or both sides have no rational argument. Few people would take on a debate at all when they feel their opponent’s argument is rational. You’re looking for all the holes in the reasoning you can find. In other words, Baldwin being right (or feeling right) is all the more reason for him to want the debate!
“If you would’ve told me when I began this odyssey that I’d contact someone seeking advice, be ignored, then publicly accused of harassment, I would’ve predicted a GamerGater did that to me. Of course, that sentence will surely offend both sides.”
Ha, you have no idea how we’ve been dragged through the mud. That is nothing; in fact we hear it often and it’s almost a badge of pride.
I admit I’m stumped as to why some major news outlet doesn’t do some small modicum of research to throw doubt on the many ‘fled-my-home’ claims and faked death threats, as they exposed Rolling Stone or Mattress Girl. Breitbart has covered our side but unfortunately being conservative automatically makes you wrong about everything, according to some.
To clarify the first point. That was one tweet of a chain that indeed was directed at Koretzky. I did intend it that I would punch him if he said that about me in my presence and went on to say it relating to how much I value my family. The reason Oliver was included was he had retweeted the article and I forgot to remove his name. His wording might have been a bit different but I think he quite clearly represented the general feeling lots of people other than myself said in varying degrees of eloquence. I am happy to admit I said and meant that because I believe in speaking my mind and standing by my principles, this might not be what some people want to hear but if so then really that’s just too bad, you could chalk it up to cultural differences I guess since I am Australian and we don’t take insults to family lightly.
Koretzky is a journalist though and as with all of them great at taking things people say and repurposing them to his desire. He happens to be damn good at this, like almost all journalists I don’t trust him as far as I could throw him but if he at least somewhat acts with continued neutrality and makes an effort to research and report both sides of the story I will continue to respect him.
Anyone who implies GG is “perfect” is either off their rocker or refers to something deeper.
GG is a consumer revolt, a leaderless movement with no screening process or admittance exams. In that regard, it is “perfect” because it allows everyone to air their grievances without prejudice or exclusion. But as is to be expected of a leaderless movement, anyone can say anything and everything in its name, and for any purpose – be it making the movement look bad, genuinely believing in what they’re saying, or just having a laugh.
Thus, the true worth of such a movement can only be gauged by what the majority says – gamergate is a large mass of people, all screaming. Sometimes, a few stragglers might scream different things from the sidelines, or they might try to instigate. If you try to gauge what such a movement is about, you automatically have to ignore the minority and focus on what the majority of the voices are saying.
The thing with “aGG” is that they have a tendency to be extremists themselves (such as feminists who unironically tweet #killallmen), so in their minds it’s not possible to be neutral. Either you’re 100% with them, or 100% against them. You showed a minute amount of grace towards pro-GG? Well you’re the devil now. You’re not the first and definitely not the last to be viewed as evil by “aGG”. It’s how they work. Hate first, think never.
You may not be pro-GG, but welcome to GamerGate. You may need an umbrella.
If I had any issue with this whole thing, it’s how you’re communicating it. Talking about how you want aGG to “feel safe” but not showing any care for GG even though they’re the ones who have actually received “credible threats”, according to the FBI. This is a discussion about ethics in journalism, is it not? Just talk about that with the aGG folks being invited for Airplay. And talk to actual gaming journalists, it seems everyone you’re talking to that is against GG are crazy unhinged trolls.
Keep at it, though we’re still twisting, infighting, and trying to make deepfreeze as objective as possible, we’re still amateurs. I hope to one day get accountability deeply ingrained into video game reporting culture and having outside objective forces shaping our efforts is something I welcome.
“If you would’ve told me when I began this odyssey that I’d contact someone seeking advice, be ignored, then publicly accused of harassment,”
Welcome to what we have been experiencing
Disagreement=harassment
criticizing =harassment
asking questions=harassment
Correcting someone=harassment
criticizing a woman= Must be a misogynist, why else would you question her methods?
All that while slandering as the worst scumbags in the internet and every single one of those “journalists” more like shitbloggers. if you ask me….hiding behind blockbots so they cant be contacted and if someone slips through thanks to not following the right GG people but being neutral “YOU ARE PRO GG, GG IS HARASSING ME” (Asking questions, correcting them is harassment”
I dont like this “listen and believe”…..”journalism” The latest fuckup with the Return of the kings “MRAS BOYCOTT MAD MAX” copy pasted non fact checked bs that NEVER HAPPENED. Plus the constant refusal to admit they are wrong, kinda proves that there are alot of lazy or propagandists in journalism that cause trouble and spread lies to protect themselves and get hits.
This is what GG wants to talk about, a way to make sure that the “news” that get published are fact checked and are just the facts leaving the audience to decide, rather blatant lies copy pasted around until they become the truth, its sad when that is done by lazy people who did no research but copy pasted, but it is even worse if they doing it on purpose to get mobs to fight for their politics.
Till this day, a movement that wanted ethics is known as the worst thing on the internet for daring question things, it is 9 months, people are tired and are angry but they are still here, they are drawing a line in the sand, until journalism improves they will not stop going after advertisers and hitting them where it hurts.
That is why we are here, not for trolls like a man in black with history of internet stupidity archived for everyone to see. Not to entertain delusional nutcases who got nothing better to do than waste everyones time and derail the duscussion in things that DIDNT HAPPEN nor they have any proof of any of the riddiculus nonsense which range from
1.GG are all white men who hate women.
2.women in GG do it so men like them (BUT I THOUGHT GG WAS MISOGYNISTIC)
3.Minorities from #notyourshield are sock puppets
4. GG is 300 people with sock puppets
5.GG is a hate movement (despite that 3 different researches prove quite the opposite)
6.GG is evil rightwingers (despite surveys prove the exact opposite)
7.sad puppies is a GG campaign, despite it has been going for 3 years before GG.
8. GG is harassing Anita Sarkeesian , since 2011, years before GG existed.
9.GG is doxxing people despite there isnt a single GG post containing dox and many people in GG have been doxxed or worse got fired or have their children threatened.
10.GG hates trans and gay people…..despite the fact there are trans and gay people in GG.
Am sorry what we were talking about? Oh thats right ETHICS, but we cant talk about ethics because they are slanderbots that derail the discussion with bullshit without any proof of those bullshit.
This is how i expect it to go down in SPJ, we got years of archives to present, they gonna shout us down with “HUR DUR MYSOGIKNEESSS” and other nonsensical bs.
You forgot GG causing the holocaust, with their time machines.
This is what happens when the flow of narrative is controlled almost wholly by one side; they’ve been drinking the wine and withholding the water. When someone like you comes along and turns on a spigot then we’re going to gorge ourselves on the water until we throw up.
Of course they don’t want, or need, to drink the same water, let alone drink from the same fountain provided by you or any other neutral party. Otherwise it would take legitimacy away from their righteous balcony, and spoil the taste of their wine.
The majority of this movement will take what fair coverage it can get, don’t worry about the people demanding Aqua Deco and don’t sweat the ones claiming you’re only here to poison the well. Most of GG is perfectly fine with a regular spigot.
David Pakman said something that stuck with me, “Every once in a while, we deal with the allegation that we’re giving a platform to those who should not have a platform”. AntiGG is furious that you aren’t blindly accepting their propaganda as truth. They expected people to fall in line and dismiss #GamerGate as a misogynist hate group because that’s the story they spun. Now the AntiGG’s are becoming increasingly desperate as their lies are exposed, their unethical practices are permanently documented via deepfreeze.it, their websites instigating new ethics policies and relegating narcissistic self-proclaimed “Megaphone” Leigh Alexander to the darkest corner of the internet or even terminating other people who slandered their audience and reader base like Bob Chipman. Open debate is anathema to the AntiGG crowd because it exposes their carefully constructed propaganda to questions, counter points, facts, and open criticism. AntiGG and the SJW’s influencing it, greatly prefer their modus operandi of issuing “proclamations” on Twitter and their respective websites. The SPJ Airplay event will provide an open and semi-formal setting where AntiGG’s statements will be publicly evaluated. Can you imagine how absurd they would look if during the debate, they repeated their past claims like “Gamers are dead”, “Gamers are all misogynist”, or “Gamers are all white males”? You blow on their house of cards with the lightest breeze of scrutiny and the whole thing comes tumbling down. I would like to say Thank You, Michael Koretzky, for giving us a platform. There will always be skeptics (and skepticism is healthy so long as it doesn’t devolve into rampant paranoia) but I believe your intentions with the SPJ Airplay event are sincere and objective. @The_Question__
Destroying narratives is not what they like or will be keen for.
“Gamergate supporters are 200-300 white teenage misogynistic boys living in their Mums basement ”
Then the meet-ups. 200-300 show up in DC alone.
There were plenty of women and people of colour. More diverse than any photo evidencing the Xoxofest conference last year. One city.
Then the bomb threat AGAINST them. Then their reaction to it.
The FTC making gaming journos sites change their ethics policies despite once announcing “ethics! It’s just gaming journalism”
Why would they come and risk more broken narratives
Keep going. Help those who speak rationally on both sides speak out and over the loonies.
Stuff that Allan and Katherine are saying is common for them as well as the more extreme GG. It’s because these people don’t like being critiqued or challenged on their perception of things.
Extreme Bloggers/Something Awful Goons/SJWs/aGGros think it is perfectly reasonable to act illegally or immorally if it is the “right target”. Very much firm believers in “no bad practices, only bad targets”. (Doxxing, harassing, etc. Google HellDump, a place Miss Quinn frequented at some point and look up Tumblr’s history of Doxxing & Harassment. Far larger and more interesting than 4chan’s or 8chan’s.)
On the other hand, Extreme GG see it fine to find stuff that extreme aGGros said years ago that could be inappropriate for it to be known that they said such things (EG: 3 years ago anita said Racial segregation was a good thing & also said in 2010 starting Tropes V women in videogames at a talk in a school that she wasn’t a gamer.)
Both sides do have problems with advocating violence towards the other. (aGGros more than GG considering I’ve seen threats to gas Gamers in Auschwitz, use their corpses as pinatas and also to kill any of their own children who decide to become Gamers.)
Finally, in the middle, poking both sides, are 3rd party trolls willing to cause chaos for good laughs.
Personally, I’ve not seen GG be hate mob-ish however i will accept that in some occasional cases it may seem so as well as with aGGros.
Koretzy, the thing about GamerGate is that it’s not two sides of an issue, it’s two sides wanting to talk about two different issues, what our movement wants to accomplish is better journalism and artistic freedom for developers with no fear of consequences. These are the two issues we want to talk about. Then there’s the other side who wants to talk about (online) harassment I believe harassment has been talked about for ages now. It’s time to move the conversation to journalism which is what the airplay debate is about. Can, we, please, get, some, journalism, talk, going?
I understand your point very much about the two sides both slinging shit at you, and I’m not angry with you, but you can’t apply the general rule to this exception.
Godspeed journalist.
Mr Koretzky I wish the best for airplay and may it be progress forward for everyone and for ethics in Journaslism. Its sorely needed always.
Pfft. You couldn’t offend me if you tried.
I’m 100% behind any debate between GG and the Other. As you said, most of us are supremely confident in ourselves. We’re not amazing people one and all. I’m a scumbag myself. But I’m not here arguing about how just and righteous I am. I’m just here to point out that our Gaming Press is unprofessional and dangerous to my hobby.
Of this I am certain. I’d sooner expect gravity to cease and throw me into space than for that assessment to turn out to be incorrect.
This is why GamerGate is more or less going to support this and you even if we don’t like you. One of the few things we can all agree on is the fact that Anti’s tend to get dunked in open debate. Each and every single one of us has had the same damn conversations with Antigamers.
“GamerGate is a hate group and it’s sent me literally hundreds of death threats ”
“Can you show us one?”
“No eww get out of my mentions gross globbergrape. BLOCKED.”
And then Butts posts a screencap calling us a rape apologist or something.
After 9 months of similar encounters, we’re all reasonably certain they just don’t have a leg to stand on. They don’t talk to us, they talk to their friends in the media. They talk to congressmen. They talk to the police and the FBI. Fucking Brianna Wu was tweeting at Obama to stop GamerGate.
But they will. Not. Talk. To. Us.
This is why nothing you do to try and offend me will ever work. Whatever you say, I’m going to continue enjoying this. Watching you trying desperately to be objective and getting confused by how we keep coming up roses. We have our bad apples. We have our good apples. I don’t give a flip about apples. I’m here for ethics. Because through ethics, I get what I want. An industry shielded against bias and ideology.
When people say “ethics is a smokecloud, GamerGate has ulterior motives”, what they’re really saying is that we have an endgoal, and we can achieve that by enforcing journalistic integrity. What happens to GamerGate after that? Dunno. Maybe we’ll all get back to our games. Maybe we’ll move on to new frontiers and fight ideology outside of our comfort zone. Maybe we’ll plant roots and start a watchdog group. Maybe well devolve into an ACTUAL hate group as all the sane people leave. Don’t know. Don’t care. We May 2015. Right here. Right now. This is what matters.
So don’t stop being objective. Don’t even consider it. You’re much more useful to us as a neutral arbiter than you would be as either friend or foe. Just keep doing what you’ve been doing. I can support that 100%.
Damn, well written!
Damn skippy.
This is all that needs to be said.
I really don’t know what to believe about it either. I’ve been here since the Zoepost dropped and 100% supported GG. I’ve been called some pretty heinous things for simply wanting more transparency. I was one of the many people screaming at IGN for Colin Moriarty calling gamers entitled because they didn’t like the ending to Mass Effect 3. All the while raking in millions from advertising over the game and giving the game a 10/10. I was there then, getting shit on by journalists who should be our last bastion of defense between consumer and publisher.
With this Airplay thing, I feel like it could go really bad, or it could go really well. You obviously want the best representation for your sides points, so there’s that, there’s people not trusting you. You gotta understand, for 10 months we’ve been given little to no fair shake in media, we’re all labelled as hatemongering right wing basement dwelling virginal shitlords. By the same people looking to protect their interests, to protect the fact they’re writing about their lovers and roommates(Patricia Hernandez). By the same people who pad IGDA judges with people that have financial ties to their game so they get free awards, making the whole awards a shit show of cliques.
So our skepticism simply stems from you being an actual journalist and not some glorified blogger masquerading as one. You could simply be doing it for the lulz to watch either side go at each other. We’ve been lied to, shit on, called out, torn apart, you can imagine our skepticism at any journalist wanting to legitimize us.
You’re making the same mistake most of us in gamergate did at the beginning and many still do: “touching the poop”.
These people you try to talk with are neither relevant to this, nor are they the other side of the story.
They are attention seeking ideologues and bullies, trying to get a free ride on anything they deem to be a useful vehicle to further their agenda.
They are the ones who instigated that whole mess, but they aren’t the “other side”, in the sense of people you should talk to.
You already linked to Deep Freeze. That’s where you find, not a hit list, but an overview of the *journalists* we as consumers consider irrelevant for the future of gaming.
I honestly have a hard time seeing two sides of this at all, just us and the votes in our wallets.
But hell bent as you are to dig through a perceived conflict of two equal sides, at least stop touching the poop and get in contact with the people we think betrayed our trust. If there really is another side to this, it’s them, not the silly SJW loudmouths nobody trusts to begin with.
Yeah but it doesn’t mean “The more people yell at me, the more right I am.” That appears to be the problem the media has.
David pack man had the same thing the AGGROS Shit on him for places on high for asking questions, then accused him of harassment
If my Dad understood #GamerGate he’d be unabashedly and glowingly proud of my support.
Hi there, Michael! As someone who is staunchly against gamergate, here are some insights as to why I’m disdainful of your proposed debate.
1) People don’t want to step over those who’ve been hurt by Gamergate to make nice with their abusers.
The first tweet in the Gamergate hashtag was made by Adam Baldwin, linking a video that expressed unsubstantiated slander about Zoe Quinn’s sex life. He’s also sent Randi Harper photos of dead animals. Someone sent Anita Sarkeesian a bomb threat. People were run out of their homes, or out of the industry. All the while, guys like Milo Yiannopoulis wrote that they were lying about it, that they faked police reports, that they deserved whatever they got.
And you want someone who is sympathetic and horrified by all of that to… what?
Stand at a podium across from the perpetrators, and make peace on behalf of their victims, without the CONSENT of those victims?
Just ignore the elephant in the room to swap niceties and rhetoric?
My sentiment is that it’s simply not fair to do this without getting the okay of those who have been most hurt. Have you done so?
2) You are asking for more than just participation in a debate.
You’re also asking that people submit themselves to be the next GG target. The newest face of the villainous SJW cabal. Public Enemy #1 on KIA and 8chan for an indeterminate length of time. Quinn’s had a river of shit flowing out of her phone and all her inboxes since August that still hasn’t stopped, and you’re saying “hey, come on anti-GGers, sign up to be next!”
And one might say “Well you can’t be sure that GG are the ones doing the harassment. Maybe it’s third-party trolls.” But it comes to the same thing. Whether someone’s being harassed directly by Gaters, or by the legions of mysterious third-party trolls that somehow always materialize to target the people GamerGate hates, it comes to the exact. Same. Thing.
I’m fairly comfortable fending off the rhetoric of Gaters (in my experience it’s thin and sloppy). But the harassment that inveitably comes with it? You shouldn’t be surprised that people want none of that. It’s a no-win scenario. Even decisively trouncing the opposition would serve to rile up the mob further.
Whether or not your intentions are good, it’s your ethical duty to minimize harm, and you have no protection to offer the people you’re inviting. They are understandably cautious, to say the least.
3) “Neutrals” have burned us before.
The whole deal with Mark Kern is still fresh in everyone’s minds. Fella comes along waayyyy late in the game, self-describes as neutral, asks “what’s this all about?” and then what do you know, consistently carries GG’s water from start to finish. People aren’t that keen on re-explaining a long, tiring (and already public) ordeal of many months to yet another johnny-come-lately. Less so if he looks like he may simply be feigning his ignorance with bad intent. This is why you are encountering skepticism and hostility.
4) Merely holding the debate as you’ve outlined it reinforces the false premise that Gamergate is even about ethics
Here’s a thing about me: I am in fact strongly in favour of ethics in game journalism. But Gamergate is not.
How can I make such a strong generalization with such confidence, you might ask? Observation of their tactics and priorities.
If they were fighting for ethics in journalism…
…they wouldn’t wouldn’t respond to alleged ethical breaches through unethical tactics like stalking, threats, and doxxing.
…”following the money” to root out corruption wouldn’t lead them to target tiny indies living at or below the poverty line.
…they’d be making a hell of a lot more noise about youtube payola, but I never seem to hear a peep about that.
…most of their targets wouldn’t be devs, academics, and other non-journalists.
…they wouldn’t be asking AAA publishers to blacklist journalists over unfavourable reviews.
With that last one I’m referring to GG’s backlash to Arthur Gies’ review of Bayonetta 2, which to me was a hilariously damning moment for the movement. GamerGate felt that it was inappropriate (“unobjective”, if you will) for Arthur to discuss the sexualized content in the game and factor it into his review score (I’m not sure how they reached that conclusion, since it seems to me that every part of the game experience is up for discussion in a review, but that was the sentiment). In response, a GG op was cobbled together to petition Nintendo to blacklist Polygon.
That’s right; Gamergate was demanding that a game publisher behave LESS ethically. They wanted Nintendo to step in and manipulate journalistic coverage that wasn’t positive enough.
That’s really the heart of it; Gamergate’s real motivation is anger that conversations about social issues- racism, sexism, representation– are occuring in gaming spaces more frequently than ever before. You don’t have to look far to find gaters musing about their desire to runn “SJWs” out of the hobby, and they’re perfectly content to sacrifice ethics to that end.
The ONLY way the claim “GamerGate is about ethics” possesses even a modicum of internal logic is if you believe:
-that it is an ethical breach for a game reviewer to talk about sexism
-that it is NOT an ethical breach for a publisher to pay for controlled positive coverage from Youtubers.
…because I see GG complaining a LOT more about the former than the latter.
Since GG is not really about ethics, to treat a debate between GG and “Anti-GG” as an ethics topic is to implicitly accept and validate a dishonest, bad-faith framing of the conversation. Sorry, but no.
I can only speak for myself here, but these are the reasons why I’m not giving your debate the time of day, and I suspect that most of those on the side of the fence you’re failing to court feel similarly.
The press needs to be part of the investigative procedure in terms of AAA corruption, for instance. Without their support, we can’t do shit because a lot of people will just roll over and accept the Pay2Win bullshit and horse armour.
We also can’t do shit about things we don’t know or aren’t privy to knwoledge of. Most of us don’t have contacts in the industry, can’t talk about bullshit working conditions, can’t talk about payola and publisher fuckery and how much EA has murdered franchise after franchise after dollars outside of the obvious, in that it’s happened. Anything more is witch-hunty and gets us written off like we have been.
When scores are collated from other sources and affect publisher bonuses, layoffs, etc. then yes, knocking down an otherwise technically impressive, fun game because you don’t like the message in it is going to be an issue. Which is an issue of the industry as a whole at this point, and treating it as a problem with SJWs is more treating the symptoms of a cancer rather than the cancer itself. Still an issue (in that it can detract from the message overall and is in general bad review practice to force your own moralities on someone else looking to spend money on something they are passionate about), and something I’d like to see less of because I don’t want to think about how much of a terrible fucking person I am because of liking such and such when I just want to be left alone.
Thanks for proving each and every allegation we’ve been making about #GamerGate’s opposition, M. Frankly, I’m a wee bit suspicious, since you’re maybe TOO perfect a set of the usual talking-points.
Regardless, it boils down to this: you are missing the entire point of the debate, by demanding (of the Society of Professional Journalists) that every claim you just made must be taken at Face Value.
Starting off with your claims of endangerment. Absent actual support for such claims, why should the SPJ — or anyone else — put any credence in them?
If “your side” really wants to forfeit the debate, go right ahead. We can hardly force you to show up.
None the less you have been invited to participate, GG wants this debate because it is about Ethics and it will present its case concerning ethics. If no one is willing to defend your many uncited assertions or refute the evidence GG will present then I for one welcome that debate in a neutral venue, all your hand wringing concerning GG and how it will make people target by participating invalidates the idea that journalist who should be that panel are according to you already hounded.
You are simply deflecting the issue, that the mainstay of debate from your side consists of baseless accusations, ad hominems and blocking. So go ahead and block Airplay from your mind, but it like GamerGate is not going to go away, just because you can lie without conscience, or are so ill informed (not a position I credit you with) as to believe what you say.
Lastly, here’s some ethical considerations that GamerGate is according to you not interested in. http://www.deepfreeze.it maybe you can read that while you choke on the ethical policies that keep appearing in the oh so blameless press, but of course that has nothing to do with GamerGate.
Sorry, Koretzky, she’s not referring to DeepFreeze.
She’s referring to when you posted links to Encyclopedia Dramatica.
You can’ t make everyone happy all the time. This is true for journalists and game developers. Our [people’s] viewpoints, a journalist’s story, and a developer’s game will offend someone, but if we followed this all for one mentality (which in all honesty I’ve done and it is because it is easier to paint everyone with a broad brush and be done with it than to acknowledge the numerous differences for every speaker in a group, be it journalists, gamers, harassers, feminists, critics, etc.) then every innocent person in the world would have some vile label just based on gender or race. We have seen this repeatedly every time something vile happens and is covered in the news.
Figured I would add a GG/aGG example. Have you noticed that if you share only a single view that is similar to GamerGate (ie, wanting ethics in game journalism) some aGG supporters suddenly labels you a “sexist, misogynistic, white cis male, rape apologist who is seeking to run women out of the game industry”. Vice versa, if you criticize GG and make it viewed that you agree with some point of aGG, some GG supporters label them aGG as well as “seeking to censor games, claim victimhood, and think gamers are dead”. Both sides have those who are equipped with knee-jerk responses that are pulled firmly out of their ass.
Now tell me which one sounds worse. (note: you forgot “terrorist” and “worse than ISIS” in the aGG description of pro-GG)
And honestly I haven’t seen any pro-GG react like that to people who aren’t actually being shitty people.
The aspect of one being worse than the other is purely subjective as I view neither worse though I know they are bad. So what, they called me, as a gamer, a “terrorist” and “worst than ISIS”, but why be offended if it isn’t true? I’ve been called vile things by people in the past just because I am interested in making video games and am passionate about it, but getting mad at claims that I know aren’t true just gives them more ground to make up more about you. Trolling 101, if they see a rise from you they keep doing it, but if they see they aren’t bothering you they move on. Labels can be mean, but they are hollow labels to me.
Well, As a Jew I don’t like being called “KKK”
You really need to say who are going to represent the “aGG” side. You already put the name of GG speakers out there. People who HAVE been previously harassed, I would like to note, 2 of which were sent a bomb threat that the FBI considered credible during a GG meetup in DC (among other threats and such). These people have a lot more to worry about than aGG journalists that never received harassment.
You gotta treat the participants equally man, it’s shitty to give either side preferential treatment.
The “I’m doing my job” part doesn’t feel quite right. Consider the following hypothetical statement:
> “If you would’ve told me when I traveled to New York that I’d be beaten and mugged, I would’ve predicted a X did that to me.”
Would it be fair to take X’s outrage as proof that this hypothetical author is “doing their job”? Of course not. Congrats on changing your opinion based on evidence if you so did, but don’t celebrate that people take offense at your prejudice.
As a GamerGater, that sentence didn’t offend me at all as I am quite aware how the words of our “infamy” precedes the actual complication of the whole affair.
I was told they were evil by PC Gamer before I got involved, but they were completely ambiguous and lacked details on what exactly was going on so I dug deeper and boy, am I glad I did.
Post what you want, just back up your claims with objective evidence. 😉
No it doesn’t really offend me so much as it’s a “I told you bro… I told you about them anti-GG”.
If you don’t tow the line then you’re against them, with us, and everything we do they perceive as evil is your evil deed as well.
Especially if it adds any sort of legitimacy in their eyes to our actual efforts of an ethics conversation and debate and not their “GG is 100% harassment and that’s it” narrative.
Glad to see the effort is there but these people have been relentless for 9 months so I’m still skeptical to see if this even goes down. Mostly I question if you’ll even be able to get anti-GG that are interested or willing to speak about ethical concerns, let alone anyone with any real pull or clout within the video-game journalism scene.
Most anti-GG are mouthpieces set upon us 8 or 9 months ago from the first media blitz that simply never let go of the spin and decided to improve upon said spin with their own flavors as the months have gone by.
Keep it up, although you are doing something wrong though, I don’t have any reaction to any of your criticisms. Hell, I had my own in regards to the campaign that broke the business/editorial wall. That, in itself, was unethical, desperate actions against injustice is still bad, even if it’s the only resort. I am guilty of writing some emails and snail mails to advertisers, highlighting the questionable conducts of certain journalists, and this is only after being smeared for months.
I STILL find it ironic that we get accused of being a hateful, right wing movement, when the majority of us are left leaning, with a heavy streak of libertarian in our veins, which makes us left with right libertarians pushing for the same thing.
Here’s hoping you don’t get doxxed, called a misogynists and a basement dwelling neckbeard by the time this hits (and it won’t be GG calling you those things), stay safe and good luck.
P.S. You might have to throw some random accusation at us to inflame us, cause being fair will just make us like you more (well, most of us anyways) 😛
“Of course, that sentence will surely offend both sides. So I guess I’m doing my job.”
On the contrary, I liked that sentence. I took it as further affirmation what we’ve known all along: the media has been smearing #GamerGate and accusing it of being the worst things since the beginning. Yet all one needs to do is actually speak with us and find out how deceptive and false the claims are, and furthermore how those claims are more applicable to those who oppose this consumer revolt…yes those same ones the media is drumming up sympathy and victim narratives for.
I’ve been called some horrible things since this started, simply for asking some accountability and objectivity in video game journalism.
My own daughter was called a whore by an internet stranger who stands in opposition to GamerGate, simply by virtue of being the daughter of a dastardly ‘GGer.’
I was featured in a Jay Allen tweet once for standing my ground after receiving threats over the internet and called an ‘Internet Tough Guy.’
The funny thing? The only thing that bothered me about it was their inability to accept that we’re not about harassment or abuse. Criticism, scrutiny sure. Abuse, no.
This isn’t to say the element doesn’t exist. It clearly does. But the vast majority of that element is mostly unidentifiable. We can’t know whether they legitimately support GG or not.
But beyond all that, nothing I’ve heard from Koretzky offends me, angers me, or otherwise pisses me off.
Keep plugging away. I support Airplay 100%.
Good luck. As a 56 year old father of five games (4 of them female) who works for a software firm who supports Gamergate and am flummoxed by the anti-GG crowd to engage maturely, I don’t envy your tank to do this in a way that leaves you unscathed.
Yikes. Sorry for that last reply. Corrected: Good luck. As a 56 year old father of five gamers (4 of them female) who works for a software firm and who supports Gamergate and who is flummoxed by the anti-GG crowd’s failure to engage maturely, I don’t envy your task to do this in a way that leaves you unscathed.
I don’t know if I like you or if you annoy me, but I can’t help but sympathize with you.
Seconding the others, I’m not offended, and I’m pretty pro-#GamerGate to a good point that I frequently take steps back to make sure I’m not letting my own biases cloud my mentality too much.
All we wanted at first was just journalists to look into how ungodly awfully corrupt some of the others were being, from money laundering each other’s games, and all but blackmail/extorting the Indie scene to get attention, to flat out willing to recklessly defame anyone who got in their way. At least you’re looking and giving us a fair chance.
That’s more than we’ve gotten from anyone else so far.
Can we stop talking about if Gamergate is main villain of the internet and start talking about ethics instead? Isn’t that your job?
I certainly see where you’re coming from and yeah that is a bit of a predicament, but know that I’m here for you bae if you ever need a GGer to hurl abuse at you <3
I personally hold the belief that ignorance is the cause of strife between people. It certainly is a lot easier to vilify and attack a person that you do not know and thus can not see as a person. And if all you know about them are falsehoods, you will not be able to make the correct decisions as to how to deal with them.
I view the field of journalism as a profession of seeking and disseminating the truth. At least that is how it should be. So I respect journalists that go out of their way to find the truth behind a story or an event. Because in today’s world of fast internet and 24 hour news broadcasts, the pressure to get a story out fast, often precludes the ability to properly investigate a story. Too often I have read stories by journalists in Kiev about events in Donetsk that happened that day. They are over 360 miles distant from that story, so how can they honestly properly report on it?
Anyway back to the point. It is clear here that you are taking the time, your own time in fact, to find the truth behind this story that is GamerGate. And I respect that greatly. Because I think that if you can find that truth, then the ignorance can be dispelled and most of the vitriol and hate will go with it. Not all of it of course, since some people refuse to believe the truth. But they are not whom the truth is for. It’s people whom are open to it, to realize that they were wrong and change for the better because of it.
So see this message as encouragement to continue what you are doing. Not just in regards to GamerGate but your work as a journalist in general. Because as can be witnessed with conflicts like that in Ukraine, misinformation will be used to create death and destruction. And truth is the only weapon to stop it.
I think that you are, perhaps, over emphasizing the amount of negativity in #GamerGate. The vast majority of my experience has been positive, even though I am one of the minority conservative and Christian members. Aside from my personal experiences, which is more hearsay than proof,I admit, my argument would be more along the lines of people are far more likely to call customer service to complain than to praise. Again,I admit this is anecdote and analogy rather than proof, but this is my opinion. (Disclosure: I rarely visit Reddit due to a high note to signal ratio and, frankly, the site’s organization confuses me. I cannot comment on what goes on there.)
I rather enjoyed this article, BTW.
* noise to signal, not note. Erg.
The last statement shouldn’t anger us, it’s just disappointing. It seems a bit silly to get background on something from the media involved when the media involved not behaving as media should is the something.
“[…] both make use of GG doxing info […]”, “doxing info” being a noun here
Without looking further into the matter, my interpretation is that Cross is referring to Deep Freeze linking to third-party reporting (in the wider sense) that contains or links to unnecessary personal information, which is not terribly unlikely to be the case. It could be that she’s using an extended definition of “doxing” though. She has me blocked on Twitter so I think it’s in her interest if I don’t ask for clarification.
What she’s complaining about regarding you specifically is probably that you don’t immediately discount and/or denounce the whole website due to that.
(My personal view is that Deep Freeze does need some fixing and should use the most concise sources available for verification, but that it itself isn’t responsible for the content of those resources. I haven’t seen anything on Deep Freeze that would fall under *my* definition of doxxing, which is anything regarding the release of contact- and/or irrelevant private information.
Personally I would consider it not proceeding with due diligence to ignore it due to moral consideration if the data is already available and one wasn’t planning to republish anything sensitive, but I’m definitely one of the “hard science” faction where that is not an issue at all for the most part. I recognize that humanities (and journalism, if it can’t be counted towards that group) are are a minefield of privacy concerns, relatively speaking.)
Cross is interesting to me in that it does seem she’s never being outright verifiably factually dishonest, but rather spinning the truth as far as possible to suit her intended message. Her writing is also, while definitely targeted at unusually literate people, relatively sensible in form and actually quite impressive in how much information she manages to cram into short bits of the English language.
However I suspect that sometimes, and especially in the cited tweet, she is intentionally obtuse in order to smear or incite hate against people, while stretching already vague definitions.
What I also have a problem with is that, relating to GG, she usually resorts to shaming, personal attacks, and other fallacies like irrelevant arguments to “make” her point. I assume this is because if she were both honest (in the “not lying” sense, not “saying the truth about one’s intentions”) and thorough she would have to concede certain points she’d rather not for personal reasons. To me it looks like it would be an exemplary case of academic dishonesty by omission, if she actually published her usual pieces on the topic as a paper. I can’t imagine she isn’t fully aware of this judging by how dismissive she is of any dialogue either.
I’m really glad that there are no more laws enforcing honest reporting than there are here (in Germany. I think the US have slightly too little in that regard especially in news reporting.) but wow there are some abusers of that freedom.
Well, at least I’m fairly certain it’s a noun or equivalent, not “GG doxing info” as sub sentence. The latter use would be highly unusual, but so is spelling it as “doxing” with a single ‘x’ as far as I’m concerned.
If she wasn’t relating to Deep Freeze it would be possible she means the occurrence of this action (which apart from one instance of pulling very blatant hypocrisy into the limelight seems to originate mostly from “/elsewhere/”), but regarding Deep Freeze itself it would be an outright lie so I consider it unlikely.
I’m sorry about all the negative comments you may have received from fellow Pro-GG people. Nothing about what you’ve posted in these airplay updates has offended me even in the slightest.
I was very surprised when Oliver lashed out at you out of nowhere; I could see where he was coming from after I heard his reasons, but I feel like most of this has been an overreaction. I think perspective is important for some Pro-GG people to understand that you’ve been completely neutral this whole time.
To us, the harassment angle is a distraction; to antis, it’s what they think gamergate is about so of course they want to talk about it and it’s all they would want to talk about at airplay; your discussion of the harassment in your airplay updates is proof your neutral status.
To us, Sarah Nyberg is a troll; to antis, she is good source of information: providing evidence (If you could call it that) of gamergate harassing individuals; you reaching out to Sarah Nyberg is again a sign of neutrality.
You talked about how gamergate’s concerns are valid in your first few posts so it’s only fair you also give them the time of day. You’ve also consistently denied that most of gamergate are harassers, which completely goes against Anti-GG’s allegations; yet people still think you are leaning Anti-GG? I can’t relate to that.
I can however relate to the frustration people feel when you entertain the harassment narrative knowing what we know, (Spoilers: It will be a complete waste of time and effort) and I hope that’s what most of the negative comments stem from.
So I think people just need to calm down and let you do whatever you can to get these people to show up at Airplay, that’s what this entire debacle is about after all. And if you have to pander to them to achieve that, I say go for it. As long as we can get the right people (Both Pro and Anti-GG) to this event to have a fair moderated debate, you won’t hear any complaints from me.
My personal opinion of how the debate should be structured:
The introductory panel is fine, it will give both sides unchallenged opportunity to explain their agendas. It’s also works as a nice warm up before the actual debates begin.
As for the actual debates; I think there should be two separate debates, which are identical in all aspects except the topic discussed. One for Ethics and One for Harassment.
If we only have one of these, then one side will be forced to talk about things they aren’t interested in. Both sides want to go on the offensive here, not spend the whole debate defending themselves.
On the other hand, if we don’t have a set topic then both sides will try to change the topic to put themselves in a more offensive position; I can see that getting messy rather quickly.
I think gamergate has enough evidence and rational arguments to combat both the topics; this is the reason I want both topics to separated, so gamergate can focus on building momentum on a particular topic; rather than have Anti-GG try to derail the discussion whenever they’ll be on the defensive.
I understand that many Pro-GG people are dead set on making the debate all about ethics but that gives Anti-GG no opportunity to talk about harassment i.e. probably their entire reason for showing up in the first place (If they show up).
At least that is how I understand the situation; if someone has any issues with this assessment, please let me know. Keep doing what you’ve been doing Koretzky and please make this Airplay event happen. This mess has been going on for too long.
I have no real involvement in this at all but my experience has been almost identical to your own. One side is batshit crazy, the other is just quite passionate and occasionally aggressive.
Good luck in trying to have any effect whatsoever in exposing the con artists and idealogues who’ve hijacked the media.
TBH, I think “both sides hate me, I’m doing something right” is not the best standard.
Sure, it’s true some of the time, but sometimes it’s utterly wrong.
There are times when “nuance” and “balance” become “willful ignorance” and “desperation to take no side”
I’m glad you have a nuanced opinion but be honest with yourself, your nuanced opinion has been “the side I am told I should hate has been much nicer, and the side I repeatedly ask for advice from treat be badly” is not REALLY “neutral”
That’s like if your Dad had started a game playing favourites, and been surprised when the side he favours became abusive, while the side he’s unfair to is a mixed bag.
When we see genuine neutrality at play, it’s people like TB that have basically no choice but to throw in with the underdog, because “there is no neutral” for the anti crowd.
You suggest that “both sides” will be unhappy that you got abuse from antiGG but assumed it would have been from proGG.
One side is angry because you are calling them out for bad behaviour.
The other is angry because you admit a bias.
Throwing your hands up and declaring that how it should be is bad form.
Still support your efforts, and you do seem to acknowledge this stuff, but most “neutrals” (antiGG but don’t want to “be part of a group”) do not.
Two very simple questions for anyone interested in this playing out as a “debate”, questions that you need to answer honestly:
What are the upsides of participation in this debate for anyone “anti-” GamerGate? And what are the downsides?
Now the upside of this for GamerGate is obvious: merely walking in the room gives their movement a tangible thing to point to when they claim legitimacy as a movement concerned about ethics. This is why they are falling all over themselves for this to happen. It’s why they are on their best behavior.
But for the antis, seriously, what is the upside? I can’t think of a single positive to come out of participating in this for someone who dislikes GamerGate or finds it dishonest.
And critically, the downsides to any anti participant are clear. Any GamerGater will have to admit, if they are willing to be honest, that any anti participant will be subject to digging and slurs on the chans and elsewhere. You can disagree with how serious a negative this is, but is clear enough that it is a tangible negative, put up against no actually identifiable, tangible positive to be gained.
Plus, I think most people who think GamerGate is largely full of crap recognize that there is a certain facial hilarity to sending Milo Yiannopoulos and Christina Sommers and Brad Wardell to a panel to talk about how having and espousing strong ideological opinions in reviews and works of criticism is “unethical.” Most of us find the anonymously run, biased, overinclusive DeepFreeze site facially ludicrous to the extent that it requires no real detailed substantive response.
So, given (1) the very real chance that GamerGate shows to a regional SPJ meeting trying to smear lipstick on a deeply flawed pig and falls on its face without any actual opposition; (2) the lack of any upside in trying to help them implode by participating; and (3) the known downside of sticking one’s head up in this shitstorm, I ask again:
What would anyone anti-GamerGate get out of participating in this?
There is no one on this earth that would put up something as involved as Deep Freeze as a red herring. Paranoid much?
Don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t say it was a red herring. I said it was flawed: anonymously run, over inclusive of its enemies, under inclusive of its friends, selective, biased, and ultimately amateurish.
I’m willing to concede that somewhere between 40-75% of the entries on it state at least arguably valid ethical concerns. But that means it’s anywhere between 25% and 60% bullshit. Not a good look for an ethics watchdog.
I’m also willing to concede that many if not most Gamergaters are sincere in their concerns about ethics. But the problem with amateur enforcement of ethics by 8channers in their spare time is that it’s … amateurish.
Dude, not all of us are wacko extremists. Both sides have legit arguments but the loudest ones are the ones smearing the other side. I’m guilty of joining in the fray at times but mostly I post whatever anymore
All we want is for games press to be ethical and stop shitting on us.
There’s a contingent within GG that is on this ‘holy crusade’ against SJWs like they’re around every corner and looking in our windows while we sleep. Granted they are a problem in games press but forcing games press to be ethical will make them shape up or leave the industry due to no support from other pros in it.
Try to be patient with us, man. We got 9 months of this constant smearing of gamers and relating us to every horrible person on the internet and we’re all a might ‘touchy’ after all this stuff.
honestly, your last statement doesn’t offend me, it seems perfectly reasonable considering the circumstances. the media smear campaign against the entire gamergate consumer revolt has been staggering. i wont lie and tell you we are all the best and greatest, little angels just wanting ethics, never doing wrong. the fact of the matter is ANY group, no matter how small or large, will have a few bad apples, a few assholes, its not always because of the groups goals, or its talking points, but because humans are assholes sometimes. there are assholes for, and against gamergate, I’ve just seen a lot more on the against side in my experience. frankly if you had shoved me into this at this point, and told me “find out whats going on” and i had no idea, id come back and say “morons harassing, just ignore them”, but that would be my knee jerk response. if gamergate really was the hate mob they say it is, then ignoring it would be the best option. leave the trolls alone, and they starve, unable to garner the outrage and attention they crave, and they get bored and go away. I don’t have full and unending trust in you, or agree with you wholeheartedly, but I will say one thing, and I mean this quite sincerely. thank you. for the past several months its been nothing but attacks, denials, and claims that we are just a bunch of hate filled bigoted sexist *insert your own buzzwords here* group. but you, despite warnings, took the time to actually figure out what the hell was going on, putting yourself at what you perceived was a risk of doxing, threats, and harassment. so again, thank you, for being able to look past that, to try and understand what was really going on, I only wish more would do the same, and gave us a fair shake.
I think I’m seeing some evolution in the goals and format of Airplay. It started out as intending to debate the merits of the allegations made against games journalists by GamerGate. Now it seems it’s shifted to be a debate about whether Gamergate’s allegations are genuine or a smokescreen for harassment.
I don’t think this means Airplay is an “ambush” by Koretsky, because this change is needed to get anyone opposed to Gamergate to participate. There is no incentive for the other side to participate in a debate about ethics. The journalists themselves are committed to “defending” themselves by using notorious female developers as meatshields instead of answering the charges. The rest of AGG’s position is that GG’s arguments need not be addressed because we allegedly don’t even believe them. What incentive do they have to change their position and engage in debate on the merits? (The most I can think of is maybe, games journalists are not taken seriously by the rest of the profession and it bothers them. If this is true, maybe someone will want to increase the respectability of their niche by promoting and maintaining professional ethics standards. But this is wishful thinking.) Unfortunately, shifting the goalposts to allow this discussion is probably necessary if you want anyone from AGG to show up at the table.
Of course, that’s just what my reason tells me. It would be nice to know how much, if any, progress Koretsky has actually made, but all we can know is what he tells us or opens up for public viewing. Which at this point is very little, and what we have points to non-participation. And unfortunately, even with these changes, I’m not sure it’s going to be enough to get them to participate, as one of their core positions is that GG is not to be “validated” by being given a platform for advocacy. Please, AGG, prove me wrong!
I’m not happy about the shift in discussion because it’s a partial derailment. It’s stupid that in a “for-real” debate, our opponents are going to try to attack our motives and character instead of addressing our arguments on the merits. It’s going to make the debate seem bush-league and will reduce the benefit of the debate-not only for GG, but for the SPJ and neutral audience.
But please keep in mind, this is only a PARTIAL derailment. Over the past 9 months in the media, our side of the story has been left on the cutting room floor. But at Airplay, even if the other side is derailing, we still get to present our side, without interruption, and in our own words. We have to lay out our case in a format that SPJ can identify with, meaning: 1. Alleged conduct of journalist, 2. SPJ Code of Ethics rule, 3. Apply ethics rule to the alleged conduct, 4. Conclusion (repeat for as many instances of corruption as we have time for). When AGG cannot answer and instead just talks about how we don’t really care about ethics, intelligent people going to notice the conspicuous non-answer. The professionals of SPJ know ad hominems and strawmen when they see them. Plus, as professional journalists, the reason most of them will be attending is because interested in issues that affect their profession. If the other side is going to derail a topic about journalistic ethics and talk about people being jerks on the internet instead, the professional audience isn’t going to be as interested in what they have to say.
So I guess what I’m saying is, yes, we have a right to be upset about the goalposts shifting, especially after the history of what has gone on over the last 9 months. But even so, this is still a golden opportunity for us, even if we have to endure some more BS along the way. Stay the course.
You absolutely should do exactly what you say: lay out your alleged cases of wrongdoing, point out why you believe they are ethical violations, and discuss. You simply don’t need an anti for that process.
It’s my belief that once you do that, you’ll start to get some knowledgeable feedback about:
– What is probably moderate or minor wrongdoing (certain undisclosed financial or personal relationships, the handling of the Wardell sex discrimination suit coverage)
– What is probably an unfortunate though not conclusive appearance of impropriety (active participation in GJP), and
– What is total horseshit (mere membership in GJP, writing negative pieces about gamers, talking about issues of gender and race in reviews).
A reasonable audience can conclude how serious a case you have, and whether it justifies all the fury, when some substantial percentage of the total body of your case is revealed to be completely meritless, and some other, larger percent revealed to be minor.
Perhaps you could also use some time to do some honest soul-searching and self criticism, and grapple sincerely with issues like:
– Why does DeepFreeze only include GG ideological enemies?
– Why is its owner anonymous, instead of transparent and accountable, and is this advisable?
– Why is GamerGate so furious about indie bloggers being friends with indie developers, but can’t muster the energy to do digging into YouTubers who took cash for positive coverage, especially when some have already been named elsewhere?
All of this can be done without any “antis” derailing, without any heat or distractions. But no one wants that. Why?
Your ethics case is just not that big of a deal. You’ve got no serious issues of payola or plagiarism or anything particularly sensational or shocking. It’s OK, but it’s not super impressive, not super interesting, and certainly not worth 9 months of rage. It’s a tempest in a teapot.
All I ask for is a fair & unbiased platform for GamerGate supporters to state our case and be judged on the strength of our arguments.
Any additional positive results would just be a bonus..
Please talk to some game journalists. Thank you and good night.
Honestly I’m more offended that you would think GG would be offended by that statement. We’ve known for a long time now that just about all of our major opponents have a penchant for projection and that they’re usually the only ones guilty of the very things they accuse us of. More than anything your statement would get a response of “I know, right?”
Here is my two cents. GamerGate had to go to twitter because obvious locations to speak about gamer troubles on journalists were suddenly heavily censored, banned or deleted. Considered very odd because there has never been such a mass force of prevention of information ever done in the history of video games. Sure some topics were more strict than others, but that was based on each websites choice. But when nearly all well known sites forbid discussion, it becomes very suspicious. Thus with only a few locations to speak out, twitter was included.
But as we all know, twitter is not the best place to discuss a topic.
I havn’t been involved in any depth besides basic support, but I’m a GG supporter.
To me, many of the facts are very clear, and readily provable.
Some random people who identify under a label “gamer” were unhappy with shady practices going on in the gaming industry. The internet being what it is, and info being available as it is, they set about proving what the accusations of what they didn’t like, and voiced their disapproval.
Those they accused responded with broad shaming tactics, running several articles nealy simultaneously saying that the “gaming culture” was inherently hateful and sexist, and basically dead and pointless.
Naturally, after being so insulted, people lashed out. With the internet connecting everyone, they did so in a collective voice.
Any group of passionate people has it’s toxic elements, and also it’s extremists and trolls. Under the relative anonymity of the internet, many feel no fear or shame in saying over the top things, including threats. Some out of sheer anger, some just because they can.
Obviously, threats were made by some who support “gamergate”, but then those threats were used to paint the entire movement as nothing but a one of misogynistic hate. Any reasonable discussion of what started it was IMMEDIATELY countered with “but they made death and rape threats!” They. As in everyone. How can you side with these people?
Naturally, anyone with half a brain sees through such broad shaming tactics, especially when you can easily view the other side and see they have also made death and rape threats as well (#GG supporter was mailed a dead mouse impaled on a razor blade. Another mailed a knife and a message “Please kill yourself”. Dudes were getting doxxed and sent tangible threats, not just lines on twitter.) But of course, those either get further shouted down as “not as bad as GG” or simply rationalized away with the same damn argument GG uses. “Well obviously we can’t control every toxic element of our supporters.” Well, duh. That’s what we said.
To this day, if you ask many people what gamergate is, they only know it as a group that was started with the express purpose to harass and threaten women in gaming. Some say that because they’re spreading the lie, others say that because that’s all they’ve heard of it because so many are shouting that. It takes a very small amount of fact checking to know that’s obviously not “what it started as” let alone what it’s currently about, but most people simply don’t care that much, aren’t involved with it, and so only know what little info they’ve stumbled across.
Props on the attempt at impartiality. Even if you were to do a total about-face and come out 100% against #GamerGate I’d still respect you because I feel like you’d have legitimate reasons for as much. Keep up the good work. Airplay sounds like it’s going to be a fantastic event.
Wormsby,
The Israelis debated the PLO in the middle of the 1st Intifada. Think about that.
https://youtu.be/z32GEB0Uo14
Yes. And GamerGate is far, far sillier than that. Far sillier. It’s so silly, in fact, that GamerGaters compare it in all earnestness to the intifada.
Anyway, the potential upside for both parties in your example are clear and easily identifiable.
So answer my question: what possible, tangible upside does this offer an anti?
This is a question that needs to be answered. I’m not being cute, or disingenuous. This is basic foundational stuff. YlIf you want someone to come in and “debate” people so zealous they compare their video game ethics cause to the intifada, you need to answer that question.
(1) I’m going to reiterate that your level, reasonable and thoughtful opposition is very much appreciated, and I’m sure I speak for many when I say I wish more GG critics were willing to engage in this manner.
(2) I am not comparing the seriousness of the issues under discussion under the #GamerGate hashtag to those of the 1988 intafada in any way shape or form. I am saying that public debate took place in that far more troubling threat environment.
(3) You’re continually making some kind of argument-from-misplaced-passion. I understand that you do not think the issues related to the current controversy justify the reaction coming from the anti-corruption side. That’s your right, but that does not support the accusation that those supporting #GamerGate are fanatics, ideologues, or being disingenuously pursuing ethical reform.
I appreciate your reply. And I admit I was being flippant when I said you were comparing the two. Rhetorical jab, and not particularly honest on my part.
Koretsky,
Please consider involving this person in putting together the opposing panel.
To your question about the payoff to our critics if they participate: this isn’t about payoff, this is about the possibility that thousands of people are being torn apart in the media without right of reply. Consider the possibility, however remote it might be in your eyes, that you’re wrong about #GamerGate. If that were the case, you’d be inadvertently supporting a smear campaign against innocent people. Airing both sides of a controversy in public is the ONLY antidote against this sort of tragic outcome.
Doesn’t there being “no up-side” for the anti-GG side simply reinforce the GG argument that anti-GG is a “listen and believe group?”
They have nothing to gain because as I read once, “Proof denies faith.” If they feel they have nothing to prove doesn’t that suggest they are not about facts, that they are not about what is? Doesn’t it suggest they are about reinforcing the beliefs of the faithful?
I don’t know what it says or doesn’t say.
Again, I’m not trying to be cute. It’s just basic stuff. If you want to convince someone to do something, you generally need to be able to communicate the value proposition to that person. What is it here?
Again, it’s clear what the negatives will be. I’m just not seeing the positives for an anti.
I’m proud of you, son.
I had Quinnae_Moon do that to me on twitter. It is her style. First she tests you to see if you agree with her (rather extreme opinions), then she ignores you, while talking ABOUT you to her followers without @ mentioning you, then eventually she blocks you.
Such a great person.
I was raised in California by strong women and I have great respect for strong women. I’m not a GamerGate “supporter,” I’m just a gamer and I just want this whole mess to end and I want the self-proclaimed “journalists” (bloggers in disguise) to stop trying to cram their version of social justice down our throats, especially those of us who don’t need to hear it. Trying to guilt-trip people who have nothing to feel guilty about just makes them angry, and I think that’s the heart of the issue with GamerGate. The majority of gamers already believed in gender equality and now these people show up saying that they aren’t “equal enough”. Game developers also were already well on the path to gender equality. In fact, the best depictions of females in video games were developed in the ABSENCE of these social justice warriors’ efforts (Cortana, Chell, Samus, Kerrigan, Lilith, Moxxi (yes, Moxxi is a feminist character), Jill Valentine, FemShep, the list goes on…). Fortunately, now that gaming is more accepted in mainstream society (the trailer for Halo 5 played in movie theaters with the actual movie trailers when I went to see Age of Ultron) we don’t need “gaming journalists” (bloggers). Mainstream journalism, with their certifications and ethics boards, can (and hopefully will) take it from here. Maybe then, after the gaming journalists lose their traffic, this war will end.
This is one of the main problems of GamerGate… our opponents are too often cliche’s or cartoons. This lets GamerGate go off the rails on occasion because there aren’t many credible voices of criticism of our movement from outside it. The example of Katherine Cross is near perfect – they don’t engage us directly, but smear us elsewhere. We try to engage them and get blocked on Twitter, or have our posts on forums and comment sections like this get deleted. It doesn’t matter how polite, well researched or respectful our criticisms are, they simply get ignored at best, or ignored and publicly belittled at worst. So instead of being able to actually take criticism head on, we’re forced to bounce it around our own echo chambers.
Which is a very long winded way of saying I don’t want you to support GamerGate. I want you to be at best neutral towards GamerGate. I wouldn’t even mind if you decided to outright oppose GamerGate. Just engage us – talk to us. Be fair to us and about us – you’ve seen that some of us are outright assholes. There are a bunch of us who look like outright assholes but once you actually talk back to them, they’ll be so shocked at this change of pace that they’ll actually engage you in civil, respectful discussion.
That’s really what we want, and what we need. If you’re willing to do that, the vast majority of GamerGate will meet you half way with a virtual beer, even if we disagree with you. We’ve been doing that with each other for decades; we fight like mad with one another over the stupidest of things (DC vs Marvel! PC vs Console! XBox vs PS! Nintendo vs Sega! Wii vs the World! Etc.) and it can get VERY heated. But at the end of the day we all know that we’ve got our love of Games in common, so when the “game” is done, it’s done, it’s in the past. Good Game, everyone, same time tomorrow?
re-did this comment a couple times and I have decided to ask. How do you think the whole airplay debate (thing) is coming along? also will it be streamed? (or is it still way too early in the process of putting this thing together to tell?)
I have to ask, if the anti-GG aren’t willing to participate… what then? What is your gameplan in that event? How do you think it will play out? And to what purpose do the aGGros have for not engaging, other than to prevent debate and ensure the counter narrative doesn’t get out?
“Of course, that sentence will surely offend both sides.”
You couldn’t be more wrong on that front. You basically just implied that you would have assumed the worst of GamerGate before, but that you now wouldn’t because your own experience belies the nonsense being trotted out by the anti- side. We told you this would happen. We told you this from day one. You didn’t listen. We expect that reaction. No one listens at first. Those who stick around eventually COME around. You stuck around. Guess what? Your experience now disagrees with what the aGGros told you. Surprise surprise, GamerGate was right all along — again. You’re hardly the first person to go through this conversion process. Ask around.
You can’t offend me with an admission of “I used to think a certain way”, and I’d be willing to bet that a large portion of my fellow gamers is with me on that. Stop actively trying to offend. Start realizing that all we have ever stood for is intellectual honesty. Those who are intellectually honest are our friends, even if we disagree on some things.
At no point should you have talked to Jay Allen. He is a propagandist, a liar and a bully.
That’s exactly what Jay Allen holds about us. That we shouldn’t even be entertained. While I agree with the character statements, if it’s so obvious, he will out himself in any rational discussion.
Well, this is simply a treat.
“…they wouldn’t wouldn’t respond to alleged ethical breaches through unethical tactics like stalking, threats, and doxxing.”
What stalking? What threats? What doxxing? The issue we come up to is who is ‘they’? Because it’s sure as hell not the majority. It’s sure as hell not anybody that we listen to. Can you show us some of this stalking or these threats and doxes?
“…”following the money” to root out corruption wouldn’t lead them to target tiny indies living at or below the poverty line.”
Which indies? The only ones you could even conceivably claim have been ‘targeted’ by us are the ones you love to trot out as vagina shields (which doesn’t really so much make them targeted but rather puts them in the way of legitimate discussion): Wu and Quinn. Except Wu was banking almost $160k/year at one point on Patreon alone not even pretending to do work (https://archive.is/XQ4Cp) and Quinn was banking about $50k/year on Patreon alone while pretending that she does work in exchange (https://archive.is/J3Cwc). I don’t know what you think the poverty line is, but you’re wrong about at least one thing.
“…they’d be making a hell of a lot more noise about youtube payola, but I never seem to hear a peep about that.”
I love this disingenuous argument. Hey, do you suppose that youtubers call themselves journalists? Oh, oh… no, they don’t. It doesn’t mean that there isn’t a problem there, but it does mean that they didn’t ask for all that comes with the title while turning around and violating everything it means to be a journalist.
“…most of their targets wouldn’t be devs, academics, and other non-journalists.”
Again with this “targets” thing. You seem to have a very liberal notion of what “target” means. I’m not aware of any devs that have been targeted. In fact, every time boycotts have been suggested since early on, they’ve been shouted down.
Academics are a real treat. https://archive.is/h9xKh
It’s almost like there’s no impropriety or problem to see here. There is a problem on both the academic side and on the journalist side. Most of the academics that we’ve discussed and talked to are only being discussed and talked to because they’re getting in the way of this discussion about ethics.
“GamerGate felt that it was inappropriate (“unobjective”, if you will) for Arthur to discuss the sexualized content in the game and factor it into his review score (I’m not sure how they reached that conclusion, since it seems to me that every part of the game experience is up for discussion in a review, but that was the sentiment). In response, a GG op was cobbled together to petition Nintendo to blacklist Polygon.”
Anthropomorphizing of the hashtag aside, nobody is asking for “completely objective reviews,” it’s a straw man your side concocted to make us seem ridiculous. I realize this isn’t the meat of your point, but it’s important context to have.
We hold up a Christian gaming site that does biased reviews extremely well. They give the game a regular score based on its merit – are the controls fluent, is the story well-written, does the game accomplish what it set out to do, how does it compare to others of its genre, etc. – and then they give the game a separate Christianity score.
If the author wants to write opinions about the game’s sexual content, that’s fine. Nobody is contesting their right to do that. If the author wants to modify the score of the game based on their personal sexual tastes and distastes, that’s another matter entirely. That’s telling people what to think. That isn’t telling them the information they need to make an informed decision. This is not being a consumer advocate. This is being a preacher. This is not objectivity. If they think it’s important to their audience, they should have a separate score for people that have similar opinions on sexuality.
Regardless, I’m interested in this petition. Do you happen to have links? I’d like to see it. The closest thing I could find was our good friend Schubert with no links to the actual petition that he claims exists. http://www.zenofdesign.com/polygons-bayonetta-2-review-is-fine/
If it is as you say, it was definitely stupid. I’ve been following since the beginning and do not recall any operations to this effect, but that doesn’t mean my memory is perfect or perhaps it didn’t interest me so I didn’t pay any attention. But one example does not make a trend and this point alone means nothing.
It’s less offensive than being compared to Klansmen, for sure.
Gotta call you out on your slightly incorrect description of Baldwin’s tweet there Koretzky. He’s not saying his side is so right that there’s no need to even discuss it. He’s clearly eager to have it discussed, he’s repeatedly called for it. He’s saying that from his experience so far, the other side has deliberately tried to avoid ever having a level playing field. Which is part of the reason you’re having so much trouble with the anti side.
We have principal and ethical people on GG side.
@CHSommers a persona non grata. Is she a Nazi? Is she against women rights?
Even @Totalbiscuit is taking a risk.
Why do you think 99% people on GG side are anonymous?
People are afraid to be fired just because I believe in:
1. Pro Ethics – don’t write & give the awards to the people you are sleeping with. Or just disclose the relationship. Aren’t you proud of your friends?
2. Against Censorship – Art and communication must not be censored.
Which is unsurprisingly happening because anti-GG relationships are suck.
So what you do? You sensor the best because you have to promote the worst!
Norris touts persisted NikeXXX formidable work opportu http://www.gocatti.com/?p=1489#comment-871 nities volumesSaskatchewan azines job minister is usually plugging extended solid career numbers with the NikeXXX calendar month connected wi http://christiehartman.com/your-online-dating-photo-how-attractive-should-it-be/#comment-618998 th September.Steal Norris, minister regarding superior Training, Work along with Migrants, has been content by wa
Unlike some natural steroid drugs that hit the market, this is based on proven science.
They may be still awaiting the comes from
the B sample.
But using performance-enhancing drugs – aka, doping – isn’t without risks.
1). Banned in sport since 1992, its occurrence is usually analyzed
for in doping control with the aid of liquid chromatography/(tandem)-mass spectrometry.
If you want to be 210 lbs then you have to eat that way all the time.
For these studies, 4 μmol/L concentrations of norepinephrine, isoproterenol, or clenbuterol were used.
I am from High Point. This spring iam going to be 45. I am self employed as a Brewer. One day i would want to do Collecting. My dad name is Stuart and he is a Art Director. My momy is a Treasurer. I have a house in Naples. My age is 26. I want to become a Rabbi. I am a fan of How to Cast Miniatures. My daddy name is Steve and he is a Architect. My momy is a Coast guard.