Letter from the Editor discussion.

@studibro: Sorry for your pain, sir. And thank you for clarifying this important point.

Well, last time the GB community was being blamed for off site harassment with the hiring stuff, it was proven that the tweets of the two women who were harassed were being circulated in men's rights communities and stuff. That seemed to be where the harassment came from. I guess there's no way to prove either way, but I definitely haven't seen any death threats on this site.

I'm not saying the moderators never have to ban anyone, but it's definitely much better here than any other gaming site I've seen.

@euandewar: I don't agree. If users find it offensive, deeply offensive, then it should be barred from that sort of use. I live in a very socially liberal part for the U.S. My friends and I curse a lot. But we don't use that word because it's particularly offensive.

The moderators may use it themselves, but if it's against site rules and Rorie prohibits it, theY can't get around that.

This is a really excellent example of why it's important to have editorial diversity. Like it or not, the depiction of women in games is one of the biggest topics in games criticism at the moment and Giant Bomb are mostly excluded from the conversation because of their editorial makeup. This cuts both ways — not only do we not have a member of staff who can call out bad representation from a woman's perspective, but we also don't have someone who can prop up good examples.

@noxious said:

Hate speech is not free speech. Welcome to real life.

That's frustrating. I wish there was more I could do. I know among us moderators we strive to make GB as inclusive as possible as we are a pretty mixed bunch. It upsets me to read above but I'm more that happy to accept it as someone who can't be in that position. I can't even say how sorry I am about Samatha, such a shame.

Alright, someone really has to clue me in here: what word are you talking about? One-time pass to say it as a response to this to either of you.

I feel like I may disagree with most of what you say, but certainly welcome your presence in the community to present these topics. I am hoping that a part of this process identifying issues that you found disruptive in the past to female users on the board that we can work together to incorporate ideas for improvement to make it more inviting. I can't speak for all users, much like I feel that your larger blanket criticisms can't speak against everyone. I can understand the influences that would lead you to that interpretation of the community but strongly believe that if we can put aside situations in the past and begin working together we can remedy or improve many of your concerns. I don't believe we are in advantageous position to answer for "1000 things" in the past, I'm sure you would also want to see positive progress moving forward and less a drudging of old issues that may divert from actual improvement.

@spacekatgal: Hey, I am sorry hear you have been a victim of abuse and hatred. I am also sorry for any asshole who attacked you and called himself/herself to be a part of a Giant Bomb community. I am a proud user of this site and I do think it has one of the most awesome editorial teams and communities to be found on the internet. So it is sad to see people doing terrible things and say they are a part of GB. But, everything will have some bad aspects to it, right? But, as Jeff said in a post some time ago, any jerk who does horrible stuff and says they represent Giant Bomb are in no way representing what this site stands for. Anyway, I wish you the very best and hope we all come out of this better then we started.

I will wholeheartedly acknowledge that the community here is often too quick to defend the staff and the site in a knee-jerk like reaction, but should the possibility of people disagreeing with you really keep you from making your point? As long as the do it in a civil way of course. Unless it is that you believe you will be subjected to harassment, not just disagreement, as a result of explaining your stance. I'm honestly asking here in good faith how you feel about this.

She's not just a wonderful writer and amazingly talented - she's a great person. I cannot forgive GB for not standing up for her.

@excast said:

This is precisely what frustrates me to no end about this "conversation." There is very little prescriptive aspect to this debate, and much more shaming and accusing for what perceived problems are. I support diversity, I support women in gaming, I want gamergate to end, I want harassment to stop, I will stand by people who support real equality. Always. But all I see when I read these conversations are "You have an image problem." "If only we had different perspectives, it's a cultural thing." "Standing by and doing nothing isn't helping!" etc. None of these statements are specific or constructive. They're weaselly and vague. They ask for no direct solution.

A person's opinions should not be invalid on any issue simply because of who they are. I'm gay for instance; I think straight people have every right to hold and share opinions on what they think my rights as a human being should be, but if they're wrong I'll criticize them just like everyone else, and spell out precisely why. But I'm not trying to rob them of the ability to have an opinion, I'm sticking to critiquing ideas and trying to build a consensus around what can be done, rather than what the problems are. If the response to "what can we do actually do about it" is "change the culture" then these simply aren't particularly helpful answers. How people perceive a "culture" or the "image" of a community is completely in the eye of the beholder.

Talking at people and telling them their very being causes their opinions to be flawed is part of why this "conversation" hasn't been much of a "conversation" at all. The frustration is understandable, but you don't build consensus by scoffing at what a person says and refusing to directly engage. People here are willing to discuss and learn, and more than willing to do things to help solve these problems, but the solutions have to be a bit more specific and substantive than "change your image." As someone who follows politics I can't think of any problem that doesn't have direct, clear proposals in response, so why is this different?

Yes. Controversial topics definitely have a tendency to spread way beyond their origin points.

I mean, look at the Zoe Quinn business. This basically started as a jilted ex going out of his way to destroy someone in a fit of jealousy or whatever. And from that it bloomed into something way larger.

Dear dudes,

STOP DEFENDING GIANT BOMB WHEN BRIANNA CRITICIZES. STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP.

This is a huge part of our problem as a community. We love the guys. They're wonderful. We spend hours of our lives with them every week. So, we get extremely defensive when we feel they are mischaracterized. And I absolutely agree that they ARE mischaracterized a lot of the time.

However, we are not hurt when they are criticized. It is their job to defend themselves against people, not ours.

It might be OK to do a little bickering on Twitter with another person who is not suffering, but ABSOLUTELY NOT when that person has been on the receiving end of death threats from people like us.

Here's your job when Brianna criticizes:

1) Read what she has to say with an open mind and heart.

2) Offer her either silence, thanks, or encouragement.

3) Think more about what she had to say.

If her criticism is unfair but it doesn't hurt GB, it doesn't matter.

If her criticism is unfair and it hurts GB, no one has a bigger voice to defend GB than GB itself.

There is literally zero positive result from you getting defensive on GB's half, because you are not inside the circle of suffering.

Oh, and here's a super-crazy notion: Maybe we are all growing a little bit all the time and benefit from criticism!

I'm in the minority here on this but here goes.

This letter from the editor rings hollow. It rings hollow because i've read this same letter a dozen different time on a dozen different sites. It says nothing new, accomplishes nothing. Doubly so from a site where the staff, minus Patrick and Alex, have maintained complete silence on the issue until this week. It rings hollow coming from a staff where some members wouldn't last very long on these forums without some significant changes to their attitude and way of presenting arguments. A staff that frequently mocks people and dismiss opinions they do not share. The community here has been cultivated for years by this staff and I was not surprised to see some users on here go off the deep end against certain critics of the site. Few sites have a staff, Jeff in particular, that can exert this much influence on their community, for better or worse.

Contrary to what Jeff said, silence does equate complicity. Angrily shouting at assholes on Twitter does not count as breaking this silence either. And resuming this silence will not do either and I don't want to be overly pessimistic but I don't see this changing. You can't ask Giant Bomb to fix the industry's problems but you can ask them to fix their own and there is some fixing to be done.

In regard to ethics in gaming journalism. I never considered ethics to be the main issue. I have always been much more concerned with the quality of journalism we get, ethics notwithstanding. The homogeneity of opinions and the extremely low standards for reporting and reviewing. Nepotism is central to these issues. You favor friends, people that may not be entirely qualified, people with whom you are often getting along because they share the same world views, share the same cultural background and so on and you thus perpetuate this cycle of homogeneity in the gaming press. Frankly, I can't bring myself to care about breaches of ethics, or failures to disclose potential conflicts of interests when on a very basic level the quality of journalism we get is so lacking.

Not all of these issues apply to Giant Bomb per se but some certainly do.

This is what women in tech call, "Tone policing." It is as predictable as the sun rising in the sky when you attempt to discuss these issues with men.

I will thank you not to do it. I'm trying to be honest, clear and direct here. Please worry about the issues I'm raising, not my tone.

@noxious: Freedom of speech does not work like that nor apply here. It does not grant you the freedom to say whatever you want without consequence.

It's fairly common knowledge at this point that she openly identified as a misandrist, with an article written about just how much she hates males.

If a male game developer openly identified as a misogynist, and had written an article about just how much he hated females, would you still be saying the same thing about wishing people would stand up for them?

I really do mean this as a sincere question, I'm not trying to start an argument here. I'm just curious to whether you believe it would still be okay if that was the situation.

@LunarJetman:

I think there are really three problems involved here.

First -- women are absolutely deluged with abuse online (and this is above and beyond the general disaster that is online discussion), and the first thing that happens when mention it is they get accused of lying about it. For things to get better, that needs to stop.

Second -- and related -- these cases are completely impossible toprove. Even if you show up with a screencap, someone will say it's faked. Or that it's a sockpuppet. Or that the person just doesn't "represent" the community. It is an unbelievable request.

Third -- it doesn't matter. "Someone who is a Giant Bomb member is abusive online" is essentially a statistical certainty, so challenging it serves no point except some kind of group-affiliation defense.

It's important sometimes to just listen to people and not challenge. This is hard online, and it's particularly hard I think for gamers, given how competitive we tend to be. Nevertheless, it's important, and you learn a lot. I say this as a recovering devil's advocate type (and someone who fails at that goal frequently).

This was written really well, and I really appreciate your perspective, Jeff.

I wish this stuff would all blow over, because with my various mood disorders, I have an extremely difficult time coping with all of the negativity that has been flowing freely lately. There have been multiple times this week that I have actually vomited due to the stress of seeing how horrible things have become, and I'm not even the target of the abuse. I can't imagine how difficult it must be for the people who are actually being harassed and threatened.

I'm thankful that Giantbomb's staff and moderators have been so tactful and careful regarding this matter, as it makes it feel like a much safer place to be. Seriously guys, I appreciate it.

Look at the t-shirt example. I'm giving a concrete example, three people leap in to minimize my point, prove it's wrong - when it's barely related to the matter at hand. It's not quite harassment - it's just a derailment.

This is why i don't use twitter.

Free speech is inherently un-free when it only protects speech that agrees with you. However freedom of speech doesn't apply here so I'm not sure how it's relevant anyway.

I just don't understand Ms Wu, Patrick has stuck his neck out numerous times during Worth Reading, Bombin the AM, and answering folks on Tumblr, Questions videos and in PM's and has gotten roasted by users for it, he went out of his way and booked more Women for this recent E3 to get another perspective during those conversations. and now has users taking pot shots at him for by bringing up his Father's death and Mr Davis's Passing

If you want to say there's more he could do and could be faster on reporting on current news, i can at least understand where you are coming from, but i disagree with the notion that the site has generally ignored industry issues affecting industry women. as that reads as throwing a good bit of what Patrick did for the site under the bus.

@spacekatgal said:

I'm not sure that I see the direct line that you seem to want to draw between the composition of Giant Bomb's editorial staff and the deplorable fact of your harassment, even if we accept that it was committed solely by Giant Bomb users, which I think is difficult to prove.

Also, the composition of the GiantBomb staff has a lot to do with its history, which also makes it difficult to compare to other sites. All of the original members where those that stood with Jeff when he was fired from GameSpot (I'm counting Alex in that, BTW). It wasn't the result of some open hiring process that produced the roster of the original members, and whilst there are problems with that method due to it inevitably reinforcing the already mostly male composition of staff at GS at that time, I'm sure Jeff felt some moral obligation to hire those people that had quit their jobs in protest over his termination at GameSpot.

Since it's founding they've only hired two other people on to the editorial staff, namely Patrick and Dan. As far as issues around diversity go I think that Patrick has been very good, despite getting a large amount shit dumped on him for trying to include more diverse perspectives into the content on here. So given that they've only ever hired two additional editors since the site's beginning, and that one of those has gone out of his way to broaden the site's diversity, is GiantBomb really the terrible aberration in terms of including more diverse perspectives that you make it out to be? Jeff has spoken repeatedly of his efforts to get a freelance budget from CBS and put that into Patrick's hands, which you can bet would be used to bring female voices into the site more frequently. I realise that this may inevitably be seen by some people as "scraps from the table" but I still think that it would be beneficial if the site was able to contribute to supporting female writers and serve as a platform for incorporating a female editor on a more permanent basis.

During the run-up to Dan's hiring many of GB's users were rooting for various prospective female hires, so it's not as if the audience here is unwilling to welcome the addition of a female editor. But inevitably, because GB is a personality centred site, it comes down to the qualities of the specific individual, and I think the worst thing that could happen to a new hire is that there be a perception that they had only been hired because of external pressure on the subject of gender. If it happens more naturally by including someone already known to the GB readership, as happened with Patrick and was partly behind the groundswell of support for the hiring of Cara Ellison in the run-up to the announcement that Dan would be the new hire, then I think there would be overwhelming support from the GB audience for their inclusion.

For the avoidance of any doubt, I absolutely want a female editor to hired by GB in the immediate future and I was hoping that Alexa Ray Corriea might have been hired last time. So I'm only talking about the best way to get to that point, not disputing that it is needed.

Windjammers?

@groverat said:

Yes, cannot agree with this strongly enough. The staff are big boys, they can take of themselves. In fact, Patrick has mentioned repeatedly, including in this thread, that they welcome criticism.

Developers are continuing to make great games and people who are into games are continuing to play them. That, in the end, is what actually matters when it comes to the subject of video games. Everything else, whether it's lack of journalistic integrity, or people pushing their worthless political or moral views, or losers sending death threats or whatever, is secondary. The video game industry will continue unperturbed and in six months this ridiculous conflict (which will dissolve rather than resolve, because -- and this is fortunate -- there is quite frankly no possibility that either side will "win") will be forgotten.

This farce is ultimately neither interesting nor important and there is no good reason to waste one's time arguing with the clowns on either side (and it is a waste: if you think you will actually make a difference, you are every bit as deranged as whoever's sending syringes to journalists, or that self-confessed man-hater, or any of the other mentally unstable people involved in this spectacle -- take your pick) when one could be spending that time enjoying the excellent Alien: Isolation or one of the other cool games coming out right about now.

@conmulligan said:

The key thing here is that re: Bayonetta, diversity comes from diversity of thought rather than "there's a woman, I bet she has a woman opinion" which is incredibly offensive, to me. A lot of men, like Patrick, seem to immediately assume that characters like Bayonetta are sexist because they're sexual, because they have in their mind that women are this wounded, monolithic group of people that are constantly offended by things instead of being just as diverse in interests and attitudes as the rest of us.

I would love seeing more women being prominent figures in the press, but it wouldn't be particularly interesting if the hiring criteria was "Here's a person who thinks exactly like I do, but is female." This doesn't enrich conversations, it merely reinforces pre-existing thought.

This is a lie about Samantha I want to put to bed - and I won't discuss it further. She does not hate men. I talked to her about this on freaking Monday. I would thank you to not repeat this lie they've clubbed her with. I'd also suggest, she deserves more than a little compassion - given the horrible way she was treated by a mob of gamers.

They went through everything she'd ever written and they found something to use against her. A person is more complex than a paragraph.

If you respect me at all, I'm asking you to trust that my friend Samantha is a better person than that.

(At the risk of sounding holier-than-thou) I would argue that becausewe're human beings capable of empathy or at least understanding that we should be able to rise up from our genetic programming to become better human beings.

And to quote @patrickklepek out of context:

On a lighter note, I've sudden realized that I'm parroting MGS2's ending here.

Ok. I'm kind of shocked that I have to say this, but: this word is off-limits on this site. I haven't seen any moderators use it personally, so I can't speak to that. But its use on these forums or in chat or anywhere else is prohibited. End of discussion. If you see it, please flag the comment (except for Hailinel's, since I asked him to elucidate).

Why should anyone be immune to disagreement? Honestly how is that not incredibly patronizing?

I consider Patrick a friend. He's done lot of good, and I actually thanked him personally on PBS and on Twitter. I don't agree with all the choices his employer makes.

@annora: It's bloody terrible when people take statements of anger, academic in jokes, statements meant to provoke thought and spin them into condemnation of a person and a cause. Theres a pretty bloody huge difference between say a history of misogynistic expression through social media and someone getting exhasperated and saying one slightly disagreeable thing.

Never mind the fact that women are held to a different bullshit standard than men and have to combat accusations of hysteria anytime they express any zeal at all.

I was watching the West Wing yesterday, somewhere in season 2, when the President mentions that he gets a ton of death threats in the mail. Back when this show aired people probably thought: "Oh, the President is a powerful and controversial figure. Of course crazies are going to send death threats," but the internet made me think of it a bit differently. Those death threats are issued because they're anonymous and easy to send, and the person they're sending it to is not a person in their eyes. They're a symbol or "idea." It's very easy to hate an idea.

It's also very easy, at least on the internet, to trick people into putting a face on this idea. It's so easy that it's scary. That's what we've been seeing with GamerGate. People all over the place being associated with this idea that women are sleeping their way into power or ruining videogames with feminism. People want someone to "answer" for this, so they lash out at anything that even comes close to representing the other side.

It's all pretty sick. I wish there was something we could do. My fear is not only that the developers today are going to be discouraged, but that people who wish to be developers in the future might be discouraged to go into the field because of this. GamerGate has done nothing but damage the entirety of the gaming world. The typical gamer's image, games media, and the developers themselves have all suffered from this.

Something that sucks about that is there's probably a decent discussion to be had buried deep within this mess, but I'll be damned if I ever try to wade through it.

I'm bored of all this gamergate stuff. The whole thing is so pathetic and sad I just feel inclined to ignore it the second I see it mentioned. Games are a form of entertainment media, they aren't on the grand scale even remotely important. I swear people seemed to have got so caught up in their passion that they have forgotten that. It's amazingly saddening that the gaming community has proven itself to be about as immature as those in the mainstream media would have the general populous often believe. The very fact this whole gamergate scenario has not just become a 'thing' but a thing that is so damming to almost everyone involved in this industry is unbelievably depressing.

The humorous side to all of this (if there is such a thing) is how much this whole affair doesn't matter. I'm not saying those who received death threats and had to move out of their homes doesn't matter, because obviously it does. But more how this whole agenda being pushed by those making the threats doesn't matter and never did. Seriously the world doesn't care, it's got far bigger issues to worry about than the legitimacy or the implied lack thereof of the gaming industry and those who develop and commentate on it.

Giant Bomb is a website, about Video Games or did we all forget that over the last 6 years.

Now excuse me while I go back to ignoring this whole debacle, I'm going to continue playing games for entertainment and worrying about what really matters in the world. Food on a plate, my health and those I care about and all that jazz. You know the 'real' stuff.

#STOPGamerGate

Hi @spacekatgal

I would've preferred to just remain reading things and seeing how much has changed since I first entered the workforce, but I'm afraid I don't see how any of GB's staff has "pushed away women". I haven't seen anything but respect from the GB staff in the videos / reviews they provide and honestly can't see how you could say that.

I also cannot understand how you seem to then loop in the larger GB community as a proxy for the GB staff itself. To me, that's a straw man argument because your initial assumptions aren't being upheld. I've never once heard the GB staff say anything that could even remotely be attached to supporting the sort of abuse we've seen of our fellow human beings.

Please understand that I value your opinion, and one that is different from mine, because it gives a certain other perspective, but I do have to point out that your issues are out of the GB staff's control.

Regards,

Kelly

I don't think that sitting back, nodding dumbly, and claiming to agree with things I don't agree with is much of a solution to whatever problem you see here. I'm really and truly sorry for the horrible things that some people are going through. Though maybe their outrage would be better directed towards the people making the comments instead of routinely trying to push a narrative where others who have absolutely nothing to do with it are somehow seen as endorsing the harassment.

Criticism is a two way street. You can respect what someone is going through while still disagreeing with the things the positions they publicly take.

Long time listener, first time poster.

On harassment, there is something about the Internet mob mentality that come rushing at you when you posit a different opinion, it's quite distressing. I'm not quite sure how we can make this better when it's so easy to create a twitter account and threaten someone. I'm pretty that started before gamergate however, remember the Microsoft Deal with it fiasco?

This said, we have to find a way to out the psychopaths of the Internet and protect people that are under an Internet cabal. It must be an horrible situation to be in. I'm obviously quite in favour of getting more people of any religion, gender, ethnicity and whatnot in the industry. It's amazing to think that you can now play a dirty shooter then gone home or divinity. It is a fantastic time to be a gamer and I would love to be able to play more varied protagonists and experiences. It's all cool.

Now I do feel that the deletion of threads en masse that happened for weeks all over the Internet in conjunction with all the gamers are dead articles and the outing of the gamejournopro list really added fuel to the fire. I do think there has been a growing feeling that big gaming websites are promotional tools at the mercy of publishers if it is the case or not and a lot of people have jumped on the movement because they think it's a chance to organise. The Gertsmann incident happened years ago yet the feeling is still there.

Things that could be mentioned in passing: when journalists are being offered tablets at a preview event or deals between game companies and youtubers or what restrictions are put on a review when posted. All this is basic information that could be divulged for the sake of transparency. It seems preview events showing very specifically controlled slices of a game are only in the interest of the publisher and not that much of the reader; it generates so much hype and people feel cheated when they play the game. At this point it's not a gamer vs game journalism because previews are promotional tools and it all ties in to metacritic bonuses and which reviewer companies choose to send the game to. Maybe the way the review industry actually works could be a bit more transparent? I'm not quite sure why this seems a bad thing, nor I don't think it is about total collusion, it would just be informative and help consumer make an informed decision. You guys have always been exemplary and I do think this is the case for most sites. I do hope that discussing about this issue will simply alleviate some of the complaints, and provide less ground for crazy activists to send death threats over the most ridiculous things.

It's an incredibly sad situation because at the end of the day we all love this medium and I want to keep enjoying a free and informative press and play sometimes mindless, sometimes thought provocative experiences.

Keep up the great work all.

@rorie: Thank you for making that clear. I'm sorry you had to do that.

Maybe taking the context of your response into consideration?

Let me tell the woman that left her house for fear of her life on how she should feel.

Let some shit slide, your opinion doesn't have to be interjected into every conversation.

You expressed my thoughts on this issue better than I probably could. I agree wholeheartedly.