HeyGuys

“Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters. It’s a rush streaming from a carefully concocted mix of sexual arousal connected to the act of controlling and punishing representations of female sexuality.”

Carefully concocted implies very specific intention.

That mostly covered it but I'll re-post what I was saying because there were somethings missed, appreciate the response.

"The content of GameJournoPro's is relevant not that it is a platform for people to communicate. The content that has been exposed speaks for itself, and people will view it and come to their own conclusions there was undoubtedly unprofessional stances going on in that discussion i.e. the suggestion on banding together to support Quinn as journalists was a breach of the distance necessary between journalist and subject. If the only examples people have exposure to show objectionable attitudes is it any surprise that they draw conclusions about the list as a whole?

I once belonged to a similar list as a part of a job, I get it they're common, but if the content of that thread was exposed to the public they'd have seen people attempting to engage in what basically amounted to attempting illegal price fixing. These people who were attempting to do this didn't succeed but people would be rightly concerned just to see the effort."

What I'm trying to say is that GameJournoPro isn't a problem in-and-of itself but the exposed conversations exposed problems with gaming journalism but everyone seems to be deflecting from those. The problem isn't that some of the things suggested came to pass but that some people within gaming journalism do not understand the ethical boundaries of their jobs.

@alex: Again, Alex could you respond to what I said in regards to GameJournosPro? If there's a reason why you feel like you can't do it within this thread please send me a PM with your thoughts on the matter.

Otherwise it feels like you're intentionally ignoring honest questions in a thread where you've specifically said that you're trying to answer them.

Could you specifically state how you'd improve and what you did wrong in this case that requires improvement?

That is demonstrably wrong. There have already been documented changes to the ethics policies at multiple sites in the wake of these complaints. See Kotaku's stance on Patreon and personal disclosure, Polygon's statement on Patreon, and The Escapist's statements on many things.

@alex: Are you going to address what I said about GamesJournoPro or just keep saying that all of the criticism is of the gaming press conversing with one another?

Totally fair, trust has to be the basis of a media/consumer relationship if it's going to work, but I hope you can see from this that there are people that have legitimate concerns about complex personal relationships and how things could effect someone in their professional lives.

P.S. OMG I need to spell check my posts when I'm typing quickly.

The content of GameJournoPro's is relevant not that it is a platform for people to communicate. The content that has been exposed speaks for itself, and people will view it and come to their own conclusions there was undoubtedly unprofessional stances going on in that discussion i.e. the suggestion on banding together to support Quinn as journalists was a breach of the distance necessary between journalist and subject. If the only examples people have exposure to show objectionable attitudes is it any surprise that they draw conclusions about the list as a whole?

I once belonged to a similar list as a part of a job, I get it they're common, but if the content of that thread was exposed to the public they'd have seen people attempting to engage in what basically amounted to attempting illegal price fixing. These people who were attempting to do this didn't succeed but people would be rightly concerned just to see the effort.

Whoa that's ugly! Not a fan of Milo but Holy S. man.

I fail to see how this answers the poster's question.