@patrickklepek @jeff @vinny @alex @brad what do you suggest then for a person such as myself who is against harassment and death threats (obviously) but feel that many of the ideas behind GG are correct? Please don't respond with not drinking the koolaid, I think there are legitimate problems and that GG has the best chance in years of addressing them. If not GG, how? and when?
I think this is a great question. It might be THE question. Choosing not to consume media you think is corrupt is usually immediate instinct. This industry has changed so much, I have a lot of questions about what it is now and our definitions. Who are the journalists/critics? Who is the audience? Who are the devs? Where are the lines? Are we still talking about GameSpot/IGN and Activision/EA? Are we talking Indie Dev versus YouTube personality? Can you be a dev/critic/fan at the same time? There might be a need or want for an impartial consumer advocacy group. I do believe under GG more harm is coming to this hobby/industry than anything it could possibly answer.
I also think the groups both sides are looking to come to the table don't exist. One side wants the left-wing-journalistic-cabal to sit down. Another side wants the frothing-but-reasonable-death-threat-writer to answer for his crimes. It's like trying to get a Unicorn to debate a Dragon.
But then again we have to ask where do we "the general gaming public" fit into all of this nuttyness? Like politics, our voices will most likely go unnoticed by the different sides. So do we get a seat at the table with the Unicorns, Dragons, Griffons and Manticores?