Probably ya, at the moment he's backing up the vid he's got and trying to find someplace to bail to, then he plans on calling the police.

---------- Post automerged at 06:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:30 PM ----------

Another shout out to Matt Taylor! There is an Indiegogo to give Matt an astronomical watch and, if enough money is raised, provide a meal for the entire team, and maybe give each team member a bottle of custom label whiskey. If you want to contribute then go here...

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/matt-taylor-rosetta-project-scientist

 

This makes me uncomfortable. He has a job and gets paid for it. If he'd lost his job over this, I'd get it (did he?).

Failing that, he just needs to harden up. Just like anyone who is seriously bothered by trolls and horrible people.

 

I can see that, and if you don't agree with it you don't have to, but enough people seem to want to show support in this way that it's going to happen. so for good or ill it looks like Matt gets a new watch.

---------- Post automerged 11-17-2014 at 06:33 PM ---------- Previous post was 11-16-2014 at 07:33 PM ----------

So, someone linked this to me...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHyvRHrYYBA

As always, take from it what you will.

---------- Post automerged at 09:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:33 PM ----------

This is the most epic game of all time. We need to shut down the industry cause clearly we're never going to do better then this...

http://thebestgamers.net/art.html

 

So this is the latest update from that Indiegogo campaign. Hug, can I assume this would make you feel better about it?
-------------------------------------------
Update (20/11/2014)

Since Dr.Taylor does not wish to be singled out and have the subject be further inflamed, he does not wish to receive the watch.

This being said, he said he and his family felt flattered by the amount of support he has received.

I am still discussing to see if I can't simply just organize some sort of dinner/party for the entire team instead,

The remaining money should go to the UNAWE, a STEM charity Dr.Taylor chose http://www.unawe.org/

It's purpose is to educate children about space sciences. Dr. Taylor believes that this is a very important cause.

The money you donated will help introduce children into STEM fields, most likely educating new space scientists.

You have done more for introducing girls to STEM fields than bitter radicals.

Thank you all for your support.

This is not an ESA statement.
-----------------------------------------------
This makes how many charities that GG has donated to now? I'm starting to see a pattern.

---------- Post automerged 11-21-2014 at 12:57 AM ---------- Previous post was 11-20-2014 at 10:44 PM ----------

Hey guys! You know what would be awesome?!

http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2014/11/gamergate-interest-groups-want-to-take-online-harassment-to-senate/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zsmy-wjvwQ

Because fuck being reasonable adults and trying to solve this without becoming 1984.

 

Good to hear about the donations.

 

I only glanced at the first link, but I guess I don't see the problem with the law going after people who make threats on the Internet. I mean, it's not like you can threaten to kill someone in the middle of the street and expect to not get into trouble.

 

For those of you that are pro-GG, what would you consider journalistic ethics to be? Not just in regards to video game journalism, but journalism in general. I don't think this has actually come up yet, and I'm curious as to the answer.

 

I would like that if the writer has a stake in the subject he/she is writing about to disclose that, and while I'm not completely against them judging a situation, or game, by their beliefs I expect objectivity as well. I should not feel like I'm being preached to from on high when all I want to know is if the game is has good mechanics and a good story.

 

Ethical journalists should disclose their sources (when possible), disclose any conflicts of interest (i.e. I got the review copy for free, developer is my best bud, my uncle owns the company I'm writing about), mention biases (i.e. I hate RPGs, I think smoking is a disgusting habit) as they relate to the article, and attempt to maintain objectivity unless writing an opinion piece.

 

Okay. You guys do realize that what you are talking about are reviews and not journalism, right? Journalism is about the news, current events and the like, and requires an objective outlook to give a fair and balanced* take on it. Reviews are different, they are purely subjective and based on the writers experiences with the collision of whatever the reviewer is reviewing and their own morals and politics.

If this is about journalism, then why the focus on reviews and editorials (wholly opinion pieces) and not news stories? And if it's about ethics in journalism or reviews, then why the obsession with "Social Justice Warriors", which dominate a large part of the discussion?

I keep coming in and out of this and finding the whole thing to have blown up to some other proportion. Strange leaps have been made from one topic to another, with no apparent connection. I want to find that connection, at least without having to delve into the horrors of r/kotakuinaction or watching a video by one of these two idiots.

*I can't believe a Fox news tagline is actually appropriate for once.

 

(disclaimer: I think most people on both sides of the debate can't count to 21 without losing the pants.)

The reason they aren't talking about ~actual journalism~ is that the concept barely exists as pertains to games. Most sites just slavishly repeat press releases, make Top Ten X lists, and occasionally engage is faux-intellectual thinkpiece bullshit.

Also, realistically, if it weren't for game reviews to inform prospective consumers no one would ever read any of these sites. So they're actually quite relevant to the discussion. When people read a review, they tend to be a lot more interested in whether the mechanics work than a commentary on the female lead's cup size or the male lead's ethnicity.

-

I'd say the obsession with the term Social Justice Warrior is partly the Internet liking to use words and phrases it doesn't particularly understand (see: feminism), and partly general distaste for the sort of mincing cunt who just wants to have a wank about how socially aware they are.

Oh, and partly people just flat-out being offended that social/political crap is cluttering their escapism and freaking out on the people they see as being responsible for social and political crap cluttering their escapism.

-

To digress, I'm mostly annoyed at this crowd for this reason: Slapping a vagina and a set of tits on every other main character does not indicate diversity of ideas. Playing as a female blank slate, voiced by a female Nolan North instead of a male blank slate voiced by Nolan North is not promoting diversity in jack shit.

I really and truly don't know how the whole idea of promoting diversity of views and experiences in gaming devolved to "slap a vag on it".

Just saying. It's fucking depressing.

 

SJWs are relevant here because they're subverting the discussion about games. It's like reviewing Terminator and then critiquing the choice of Arnold Schwarzenegger for the lead role 'cause he's too white, or "has too perfect a body and causes the average man anxiety about his own body", or that Sarah Connor isn't Asian or Black. And then giving it a poor score because of that. Reviews should be subjective. But please keep your political and social biases at home while reviewing. Games are about gaming. I understand critiquing a game for its impolitic nature, but to always focus on it all the time, and using that to push a feminist agenda is beyond subjectivity, I'm sorry.

Focussing on reviews is important. Imagine if you found out that the reason your newspaper is so pro-Republican in its op-eds is because it's been receiving donations from the Koch brothers. But it's never admitted it till now. And instead of apologising and correcting its behaviour, it becomes belligerent and goes "so what?" Opinion pieces are also covered by ethical behavioural standards. You can't enforce separate rules on them.

 

There is no true objective on the social area. Like there is no apolitical Law, positivism is dead. If a game is about a man whoring and using women, sure you can throw the political commentary there, but you don't take a game like Mario World and uses it as an example of the lack of female protagonists. What you could do is grab all Top 10 sellers and use them as group to demonstrate that, without entering on the merits of individual games.

 

How are they subverting the discussion? Give me a real example.

Reviews are based on opinion, and opinion is based on biases and beliefs - who you are as a person - and how they clash or mesh with the biases and beliefs of whomever created what you are reviewing.

And again, give me a real example.

The last two cash-for-comment scandals that came up regarding devs were actually regarding youtubers like Totalbiscut (who, to his credit, didn't play ball as far as I'm aware) because they're easier targets.

As far as I can tell, the majority of the reason people assume that reviewers are being paid off is because their opinions disagree with the opinions of the people making the accusation.

Point. But there is a difference between actual ethics and what you don't want to see in a game review. One has industry standards, the other is based on your subjectivity.

You also have a choice to hit that little red 'x' button and close the tab. If you don't want to see something, then don't.

Thanks for bringing up another point I was confused on. Why did GG suddenly branch out to attacking Anita Sarkeesian, who has literally nothing to do with GG's stated goals?

 

Why do people still insist that this is just about ethics in journalism? I think it's pretty clear that it's expanded beyond that.

 

Yes, it's expanded to include a belated attempt to join in on NaNo, including a tip that should be right up DLP's street:

First off: an objective standpoint? Can you even say that? I've only ever seen it used in subjective context - an economic standpoint, a military standpoint, my standpoint, yada. There's a whiff of a contradictio in terminis to it.

Secondly, and anyone with more knowledge of narrative structures might want to correct me, but I thought that the first person is inherently subjective as fuck and third person often is as well. Unless the plan is to include anti-GG writers as well*, the entire narrative is slanted towards one side, which seems to run counter to the whole point of allowing the reader to take a step back and look at the situation from a objective/neutral perspective.

*Fat fucking chance - I'm expecting perhaps a few token questions to be asked to allow the 'we asked, they declined comment' line to be used.

 

Because it was the driving subject for so long that it paints a picture of the substance of this shinding as a whole. It's the same with Zoe Quinn and why what happened in regards to her remains relevant. You can try to talk about GG without bringing either up, but doing so removes all of the context for what is going on now.

 

So you believe Rome 2 could be described as a good game? Or even a functional one?

 

Search for Gone Home.

Depression Quest comes to mind. Literally started the movement. I think the reviews of BioShock Infinite also got similar responses of bias.

You're right. However, the "Death of Gamers" articles and the various twitter fights have seemed to point to more than just differences of opinions. There does seem to be more contempt there. It was openly expressed there.

I also should say that this is the only forum I argue about GG in. I'm not involved with it except to be slightly sympathetic. I have gamer friends, but I don't fall in the hardcore gamer category either, so you might want to get opinions from, say, Cruentus.