kidkarolus

@fear_the_booboo: First, moral damage is no damage at all. My grandmother accuses me of "moral damage" because I am attracted to men and women. And to further, I never claimed she wasn't harassed, I claimed that any victim must be able to substantiate claims. Ms. Quinn has been harassed, she has yet to prove that GamerGate (a movement) is directly responsible for the harassment as opposed to say, the people (that is the individuals responsible for the harassment).

@cogsdev: Yep, the guy who was acquitted of all charges and the accuser forced to drop all charges. Not only was he acquitted, he was declared innocent. So yes, the guy grossly misrepresented by "harmelss" garem journalizm.

@ripelivejam: I don't rightly know, nor do I claim to speak for the movement (as I am not a part of it, just an interested viewer). But because I am pimping his excellent blog already, Mr. Wardell's Blog "LittleTinyFrog" has it summarized as follows:

The #GamerGate Points include:

• They think the gaming media is corrupt. Specifically, they think that gaming journalism is a clique that chooses what to cover and how to spin it based on their shared politics and relationships.
• They think the big publishers buy positive coverage outright and that the little indies sleep/schmooze their way to positive coverage.
• They are outraged at having their criticism misrepresented as misogyny
• They strongly object to having their movement characterized based on the misbehavior of a tiny group of trolls and jerks.
• They are angry that attempts to discuss the topic get blocked, censored, deleted, etc.
• They are outraged at what they see as collusion in the gaming media openly attacking gamers as a bunch of “nerds” “gamers are dead” “basement dwellers”, etc.
• They have evidence demonstrating double standards in how the gaming media treats different issues based on their politics
• They believe that the gaming media has become infested by “Social Justice Warriors” who are using their platforms to jam their politics down the throats of people who just want to read about video games.

The opponents of #gamergate points include:

• Any legitimate points the #gamergate movement might have had are far outweighed by the harassment and threats against outspoken women in the industry that is done in the name of #gamergate
• They (gaming media) are outraged at being called corrupt
• They (gaming media) are upset at the suggestion that the gaming media has some sort of organized conspiracy
• They (general) believe gamers are inherently insular and want to shout down any attempts at reforming it.
• They (general) believe gamers are entitled and thin-skinned, unable to show empathy or accept even mild criticism of their hobby.
• They (gaming media) are angry that their entire profession is being mischaracterized based on poor choices made by a few
• They (general) are very skeptical of new #gamergate claims because of the misrepresentations made during early claims
• They believe that the “sane” people who support #gamergate are being used/tricked by the vile, misogynist core that is at the heart of #gamergate

@fear_the_booboo: I am not blaming any victims. I am demanding the same thing the justice system demands: proof. Someone claims that you, Ms/Mr Booboo has created a great injustice and infringed on his/her rights. Does that make it so? Assume that I claim that by challenging me, you have damaged my mental state and I demand you retract your opinion, must you retract? In this case, the victim is the accuser and must therefore substantiate claims. This is not Civil Forfeiture; the accused is not guilty until proven innocent. With any victim, you must be cautious that the claim are valid and that the accused is not falsely accused. It is necessary to build a justice system and it is necessary for civil discourse.

@fear_the_booboo: then how do you explain this?

I think Mr. Wardell is very insightful here, he also offers this piece, which I think accurately captures the situation.

I find this whole thing fascinating. Several counter hastags have been made to end GamerGate and none have proven successful. The more I read the more sympathetic I am to the people under GamerGate.

"Whatever legitimate concerns some members of GamerGate had concerning the industry have been drowned by threats of violence."

Is that so? Because I have not heard any discussion about their legitimate complaints, here or elsewhere. I have heard a lot about how bad they are, but I know moderates like Boogie support the movement. I know that the "radical conservative" liberal Christina Sommers, aka Based Mom, has been threatened by anti-GamerGate members, but this is not reported. I know that many devs, including Brad Wardell, have been targeted in hit pieces published in major outlets and this was never addressed. For the love of God, Ben Kuchera came to this site to perform a character assassination on Erik Kain.

But none of that is news. None of that is worthy of coverage. Threats made under the hashtag GamerGate is news. Threats that are vastly outweighed by the number of tweets made by people with genuine concerns.

@patrickklepek, I would like you to consider that more people were tweeting in support of GamerGate during the launch of Destiny than people talking about Destiny. Destiny pulled in a sweet $325 Million in its first five days and is out shined by a 2 month old hashtag.

There is a Lakota saying "Force, no matter how concealed, begets resistance" and there is a perceptible application of force here against members of the movement. I sympathize with journalists (like yourself I assume) who would just like this to go away. But I implore you to listen and believe a Native American, Armenian bisexual when he tells you that opinion pieces, concealed as news, and released in an echo chamber do not breed understanding. It breeds hostility and contempt.

It has become very difficult to listen to "Bombin' in the AM" or read your pieces because they have no substantive content. They are hit pieces and yellow journalism, pure and simple. If you are comfortable being in a clique and ignoring any attempt at objectivity or bipartisanship (and I use that term deliberately, recognizing that the movement is political in nature) then so be it. But please do so on your own platform.

GiantBomb was best served as uninvolved. It was a haven from the nastiness and a pleasant place to converse with those that may not share my opinion. If you must report on the harassment, try to be even handed. Condemn the people responsible, not the movement with which they align. It is dangerous, as you should well know, to stereotype a group. It works counter to your own stated goal of eliminating harassment. People who cannot speak shout, and when they do so, it is often at the detriment of others and the conversation.

But here is where I get confused. Site traffic data and twitter data seem to suggest that this is a populist movement against journalists. It seems to me, outside looking in, that people are annoyed by the lack of disclosure. Articles like this, where Patrick presumes that GG is responsible for the threats, and articles where the is no disclosure about pre-existing bias is the problem. I don't care for these opinion pieces, but appreciate they exist. But they should exist without resorting to duplicity.

This "news article" by Patrick is a perfect example of that duplicity in that there is no actual news here; only gossip and hearsay. The only fact in the article is that Ms. Wu was threatened. We don't really know anything else. Misrepresentations hurt consumers and poor disclosure looks suspicious. Even if all the reporting is true, without proper disclosure, is it any wonder people are upset with outlets like Kotaku? And to further the narrative, sites (this one included) make/made the topic off-limits.

To me, the whole thing seems like a conflation of what has really occurred, coupled with very poor damage control. Indeed, this could and should have been over in a week; the fact that it has been so poorly handled by the media is shocking. Look at the JournoList Scandal for an example of effective damage control; a couple writers got sacked, some policies got changed and the whole matter disappeared.

@patrickklepek said:

While that is true, it does not change the fact that people seem to take exception with WHO and WHEN the sex happened. If the issue was simply infidelity, there would be no GamerGate. But she had relationships and financial ties with member of the press. That is also a fact. And that does not look good. So when people demand answers and accountability and are met with ten articles proclaiming the death of gamers, it is easy to see why the movement has gained traction. So by syllogism, you cannot be anti-GamerGate without acknowledging that there is corruption in gaming journalism that should be allowed to exist.

As I have said before, I am not a supporter of either side. I think a binary distinction between those for and against is silly. There can be a real dialogue about political bias and reporting ethics without shit-flinging. However, it seems both sides have decided on trench warfare. You are either for us or against us, and there is no middle ground. I can see why the GGers are mad, and Patrick should be able to see and acknowledge this too. Likewise, I can sympathize with honest journalists who see their friends and co-workers being attacked. But if you can report on Ms. Wu, you should also be able to report on the Doxxing of members of GamerGate; of the DDOS of the Fine Young Capitalists; of the threats against Mr. Yiannopoulos; etc.

I am not demanding perfection. I am asking for some equality, or at least an acknowledgement that you are biased in favor of one side and are writing an opinion piece and not a "news" story.

I take exception to this article being published here on Giant Bomb. Giant Bomb very early on adopted the policy of not talking about this; a policy which, save Alex Navarro's stupid comments, has served GB well. However, as someone who has been following both sides rather closely, this article is a bad deviation from form. I get that Patrick wants to report on this, but by saying "in the wake of GamerGate" he implies that GG is responsible.

Now, unless Patrick has some privileged information other than the assumption that this was a member of the movement, he must be willing to concede that ANYONE could have posted theses tweets including Ms. Wu herself. While I doubt that she did so, the possibility exists and cannot be dismissed out-of-hand.

Now, if Patrick is willing to entertain some criticism, this is part of the problem. That is, Patrick is part of the harassment problem he is so verbally against. Both people in support of, and people against GamerGate have been targeted for harassment and abuse. To imply that one side is more culpable than another is irresponsible. It would be fine to report that a developer has been threatened, it would be fine to suggest that it was GamerGate if the article also included examples of the opposite. However, this is not reporting.

To claim that this is the responsibility of GamerGate and to assert that the movement is without merit, based on the reporting of a person who has been accused of being compromised, without any indication of further investigation; that is nonsense. That is the anthesis of the quality of content I have come to expect from Giant Bomb. It stinks of the cronyism that Journalists have been accused of.

I am not going to defend GG, nor am I a supporter of the movement, vocal or otherwise. But this article is troubling. I dislike that Patrick is touching the poop, so to speak. And it makes it difficult to take his reporting seriously in the future.

@Nethlem: I would direct you to Pascal's Wager before making religious commentary. But besides that, how is banning all gun ownership an appropriate response to gun violence? Switzerland and Israel have some of the highest per capita gun ownership but the lowest rates of domestic gun violence. The problem is when people who have no business having a gun (say a mentally unstable individual) who obtains a gun illegally (say his mom's personal gun locker) and uses it to shoot other individuals. The aforementioned nations seem to suggest that greater gun ownership discourages violence with guns. But besides that, the United States has is terribly hypocritical when it comes to firearms. It is OK for the United States government (as per Mr. Obama's orders) to sell untraceable guns to drug cartels so said drugs can be used against border patrolmen, but a person within America who uses a gun against American citizens is unacceptable? I understand this was a tragedy, but a country that willfully breeds violence is going to suffer violence.