@heyguys: I just wrote a lengthy response to GJP a couple of pages back, but if that response doesn't cover what you were asking, I'd kindly ask you to repeat it once more. I think I missed your follow-up question.
@mister_v: No, it's fine! Like, I'm not against you challenging me on what I put out into the world. I disagree that there was anything truly nasty about either of those jokes, but I also get why someone might feel that way. That said, they're representative of my own thinking, in some bizarre way, so I don't have a problem promoting them myself.
@kurokeima: The GameJournoPro mailing list was literally just a mailing list a bunch of writers used to talk about the news of the day and do basic networking with other industry professionals. If you believe it was anything else, you're listening to a pile of ridiculous lies.
I understand where your coming from, but some of the leaked correspondence made it look like some of those using were trying to push for a untied front from all those who used the list, which made me concerned when I first saw it, as it seemed like possible collusion.
I trust you and this website to be honest and not lie to me, which is why I gave you the benefit of the doubt over it. I hope you understand why looking at that without context, it might worry people thinking about ethical journalism.
Hi. I hope I'm not stepping on the toes of the staff here, but as someone who was on the GameJournoPros list I want to clarify something beyond Alex's to-the-point statement: Everybody on that list still had other people to report to. Nobody who you saw talking in the e-mail leaks was somebody that could dictate rules or content free of any oversight. For example, if I wanted to say, "Let's delete this entire thread of comments," I would still have to go through several bosses to get that done. Even Greg Tito, who is Editor-in-Chief of The Escapist, has to report to his publisher.
So even if certain members of the group were trying to "bully" other members (which wasn't true, in this case. Tito himself said on a GamerGate stream hosted by Erik Kain that he solicited the opinions of his peers), it wouldn't have been the deciding factor on any outlet. In reality, it was a group of peers looking at a situation we don't see every day (we cover video games, not relationship drama) and asking each other, "How do we cover this? What's right in this situation?"
Another, much more important point: "Press Clubs" exist all over the country/world (as well as nationally), and as far as a "journalistic integrity" angle goes they're not considered a problem in everyday journalism (I'm talking "real," mainstream journalism here). So I don't understand why you would be upset to see writers you respect on the list of people in such a club (as GJP was), but maybe there's something I'm missing. As I said, I was in the group, so maybe it's hard for me to look at it as an outsider would... But I first found out the group existed via Twitter, and it didn't surprise me nor did I ever see it as a problem, even as someone who just likes reading video game coverage.
What @sargus has said here is the bulk of what I would say. The group existed as a forum for people from various publications to discuss what was going on in the industry. It's the kind of thing that's common everywhere in media. My girlfriend is a photo editor and she belongs to a group of photo editors that discuss pretty much the same kinds of stuff we did.
The post that got everyone riled up, the one where some people were discussing the idea of making some kind of collective statement about denouncing what had taken place with Zoe, mostly consisted of a lot of writers sharing disparate opinions on what the best approach in this situation would even be, and in the end, no such statement was ever made. It was an idea floated that eventually died.
Everything that's taken place around that group is so full of misinformation it's beyond distressing. Half the emails in that group were people asking for freelancers to cover games/events for publications and people posting fucking pet photos, for god's sake. People in industries talk to one another. They network, they converse, because that's what human beings do. If we all treated other publications and their writers as off-limits, this industry would never grow. We'd all just be in a bunch of hermetically sealed bubbles with no perception of what anyone else in the business actually thinks about what we do. That's not only an unwelcome idea, I think it's kind of a dangerous one.
But yes, that statement was in regards to harassment, and it's OK. I'm not mad about you bringing it up or addressing my tone on twitter. I think that's a valid concern. I try to address things with proper tact, but I sometimes don't articulate things well.
@mister_v: I don't know. I found those bits humorous in regards to a situation where very little is worth laughing about. I've also lashed out and said some mean things on twitter from time to time, and I've deleted those tweets and explained why in most cases. I don't think the idea of poking fun at a movement I consider to be illegitimate is a terrible thing. But I also try to be choosy with the jokes I promote so as to not be aggressively insulting to people. I've probably fucked up on that a few times, but it is how I generally try to conduct myself.
@jerseyscum: We've all latched onto bad ideas at one time or another in our lives. Anyone who says otherwise probably just hasn't recognized the bad ideas they're still latched onto. Learn from it, and it won't have been a wasted experience.
I wish my impression of you had been this reasonable on twitter, all I could see before blocking staff tweets were a pattern of hate breeding more hate, contempt and anger in the most disrespectful manner. my expectations of staff responses are different because I feel that in a position of authority on the site and the fact they are mirrored on the homepage should demonstrate a level of respect even more so then expectations for the community. Behavior is frequently emulated from the top, if anger is the response we project we can't be surprised when it nests in the forums.
I wonder if that isn't just the inherent difficulty of expressing oneself well within 140 characters coming through. I don't know the context because I don't read Twitter, but I can easily imagine that in the right context, Alex saying "any of this" specifically meant death threats and harassment, not GG in general. And if that's what he meant, then... fair enough really. But in the space that a Twitter post affords, it's not easy to communicate a nuanced idea effectively.
Well, the other thing is that tweet was written in regards to the harassment of the women writers who criticized us over our hiring policies, which happened two months before GG started up.