So now saying someone is a bad person is the same thing as threatening to harm them personally? My oh my, better not ever say anything bad about anyone ever again, I don't want to go to prison for making overt threats to the health and safety of others.

/sarcasm

She's the one who took actions which any reasonable person knows is going to harm someone who was, assumedly, important to her. She's the one who used her influence to censor discussion and free exchange of ideas on the internet, she's the one who used her influence to shut down a goddamn charity meant to support the VERY SAME CAUSE that she supposedly supports, and then to funnel money to herself in the name of charity, none of which ever made it to any of the charities she supposedly donated it to.

Zoe Quinn may have been put in the spotlight by her boyfriend, but that doesn't change the fact that she engaged in the actions of her own free will, and that by doing so she exposed herself to scrutiny should her actions come to light.

The fact that she cheated several times is just an indicator of what sort of person she is, let us not forget that she's not just a cheater. The people she cheated with were in positions of influence to assist her. Those same people then closed ranks around her, and their own, corruption instead of admitting their faults.

The fact that she cheated is irrevocably tied to who she cheated with, and why, and what happened afterwords. You can't just diminish what she did to 'cheating', and thus a private matter, when it was more than that. It was taking part in and encouraging the corruption of the Games Journo industry.

It is that same corruption, and what followed after it's greater exposure, that we should be focusing on.

(done editing now, I promise.)

 

This. /filler

All of these are deplorable actions, but only 4 of the 5 are relevant to a public discussion. Can you guess which one isn't?

This is bullshit. Everybody engages in all sorts of actions that presumably they wouldn't want scrutinised by millions of people. From scratching their ass, to watching pornography, to cheating on their spouses. The fact that they engaged in these acts doesn't make them public domain.

Let me stop you there, bro. The fact that she cheated several times is only an indicator of the fact that she's a cheater. That's it. Being a cheater is not a predication of any other sort of behaviour.

Can you prove motive? At least some of the people she slept with had no relevance to the industry at all.

Yes, which is the wrong course of action. But you have to admit that originally this was an unsubstantiated rumour plugged by an embittered ex. Can you imagine the fallout if she'd been innocent and they'd crucified her?

To you in hindsight, certainly. Perhaps not to her at the time. Some people had no relevance to the industry at all and so are irrelevant. You can't cherry pick data.

Yes, but we're not. There are still people calling her a slut and telling us she deserves to be harassed.

 

The first is the least relevant if it's only thought of as cheating.

By engaging in those acts in a fashion which affects the public, it does. We'll have to agree to disagree, here. If she was just some random chick who couldn't keep her pants on, it would be different.

Yet another point we'll have to disagree on. Lets not get too deep into it.

Fair, and the people who weren't involved with the industry aren't really relevant to the conversation.

As for proving motive, we only have to look at her actions after the exposure of her infidelity with those who were of a position to assist her was exposed.

If she'd been innocent and they'd crucified her, I'd be on the side you're espousing when it comes to her cheating, that being 'it's a private matter'. That's the side I was on during the whole Clinton/Lewinsky fiasco.

1. Oh please. 2. Fair.

She deserves to be criticized for the actions she took which encouraged the corruption of the gaming industry, anything else is secondary at best.



I feel like I've said my piece on the ZQ part of the issue. I'm going to go ahead and retire from that part of the conversation except where absolutely unavoidable.

 

I'm sorry dude, but you either you can prove motive, or you can't. If you can't, well then the people she didn't sleep with are relevant to the conversation, because while you can suggest the hypothesis that she deliberately slept with certain people in order to advance her career (relevant), I can equally suggest the hypothesis that she slept with all the people because she just happens to like sex (not relevant).

 

I don't believe I'm about to say this but can we please have a mod lock this thread. This discussion has gone so far down the fucking hill that its already six feet underground, people just haven't realised it yet.

There was a discussion to be had here. It was about journalistic ethics and the role of the gaming media in this industry that a lot of us obviously care about.

It was not about the moral definition of infidelity, its relation to murder, the fucked up nature of betrayal or any of the other shit that's been spouted off here. If you want to have that discussion then make a new thread and deal with your issues there. I just read through about four pages of bullshit heaped on top of morality bullshit and the smell is starting to get to me.

Cruentus and anyone else who is actually looking to find a solution to this can do the same and open another thread. Hopefully this one will be a bit more successful.

 

sorry, I know this has little to do with anything, but I keep coming back it it. Zoe did not engage in normally infideloius behavior. It was beyond fucked up (from the blog I read, obviously) and went on for years. From the blog I can only conclude that she is, in fact, an irredeemably terrible human being.

I find it pretty disturbing that people would refer to this as "cheating" or as a simple example of the ups and downs of romance.

This is the key element that it comes down to, and its not so much about corruption, but about the oddly close nature of web relationships. RPS, kotaku and Polygon are all staffed by the same people to a remarkable degree, through meatspace connections. I think its a remarkable lesson on how free the internets can be in the web 2.0 era, there are only 3 or 4 major forums these days. If the Head mod of reddit wants to avoid his freind from being discussed he can do so, and just call up the head mods of the other 2 other forums too.

I dont see much of a solution to it really, beyond such projects as Diaspora or a resurrection of more vbullitin forums.

 

You know who cheated on their spouse? John F. Kennedy.

You know who didn't? Hitler.

There, discussion over.

 

Years, didn't the relationship barely lasted months?

 

Just gonna repost this, since it's quite relevant to some of the recent back-and-forth.

 

Nice job not making it about Zoe everyone. Cookies all around.

It's not relevant that she's a cheater. And possibly an emotional abuser.

Whats relevant is that she has directly harmed a feminist charity, possibly is currently scamming people for money, got an award from a sexual partner that could have gone to a more deserving place, got a job from a sexual partner that could have gone to a more deserving person. And what is most relevant of all is that she was protected by the games media while doing so.

That's it. Done. GG no re.

 

I agree completely with everything meerkat just said.

Anybody who thinks this was Whiteknighting doesn't really even understand what that term means. I'm pretty sure that all of us recognize she's a terrible person. We just recognize that that doesn't matter.

 

Well, one of the problems with the thread is that nobody can seem to agree with what it is about.

 

I had hoped it would be about GG, but instead it turned into the Zoe Quinn power hour.

---------- Post automerged at 06:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:05 PM ----------

https://twitter.com/milky_candy/status/514351070827778048

Stay classy SJW...

http://imgur.com/qqp8uGC

And I'll just leave this here. Someone is threatening Emma Watson with nudes after she told the UN that modern day feminism has become too focused on hatred for men. Supposedly this is being done by 4chan. But since the old crowed vamoosed after Moot did his thing it was eyebrow raising, so somebody decided to take a look...

 

Biiiig surpise, that.

/sarcasm

 

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2014/09/07/journalistic-malpractice-and-corruption-video-games-edition-n1888310

http://freebeacon.com/blog/gamergate-film-criticism-sports-reporting-and-the-silent-majority/

These two articles are more emotionally detached from the situation so maybe it will help give some a perspective, I know it raised a few interesting thoughts for myself.

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/GamingAndPandas/status/514522378118778880

Another dude who was fired for doing his job right.

What GG wants is simple. Transparency from the journalists and maybe an apology. They would like to be able to trust what the journos write and not wonder if they're pushing an agenda or overrating a game that sucks because they have ties to the game they just didn't think was important enough to tell about.

The Journos on the other hand we have no clue. Besides calling us all misogynist, basement dwelling, neck bearded pigs who are gross and icky, and yes those last two were used, they've done nothing but put their fingers in their ears and go "lalalalalala! I can't hear you!"

Anything from their side of this is their crazy supporters spouting random racist and misogynist things on twitter and doxxing, or threatening doxxing.

 

What would you say if, instead, as a whole, they were just no longer referred to as 'journalists'.

If they embraced essentially being employed bloggers (which they basically are).

If they dropped the 'journalism' title and embraced (maybe to strong a word) their non-compliance with their standards, what do they actually lose? (Considering it's widely accepted they don't adhere to them anyway) And what leg would GG have to stand on?

Would that be considered a win?

 

Probably, but they call themselves Journalists because it lends them an air of legitimacy. There's been bad habits of them calling themselves bloggers when they fuck up, but journalists when they write something popular. They would have to give that up which is something I don't think they are willing to do. Course I can't know that cause they refuse to talk.