Lively's forum posts

#1 Edited by Lively (311 posts) -
@spraynardtatum said:

@leinad44 said:

Gamer Gate is a fucking train wreck. I can't take anyone who supports it seriously. Especially since it's based on a lie.

I support it. None of the awful harassment that comes with it. That is obviously horrible and no one should ever support harassing or disparaging others. But I agree that games journalism is ethically bankrupt and that games media should never even be considered journalism. Games journalism is marketing from where I'm sitting. As a consumer of video games and a frequenter of gaming websites...the entirety of the website covering games has become/probably always was advertising and I find that to be a bit shitty. And shady.

I don't think that games journalism is a shinning beacon by any means, but at the end of the day it is just an enthusiast press about what is, for the most part, a frivolous pass time. And I've noticed that GamerGate doesn't seem to care about ethics violations with AAA publishers and the press, instead focusing most of their attention on progressive and minority voices, which is why I think a lot of GG folks are either being deceptive or self-deceptive about what they really want.

#3 Posted by Lively (311 posts) -

@icarusfoundyou: Maybe a middle-ground step would be to make new accounts harder to make (like only 1 new account per IP address per 3 months, or something), so even if you're still anonymous, you can't make a thousand hateful sock-puppet accounts in one day. Twitter in particular might bennefit from this.

#4 Edited by Lively (311 posts) -

@tejini said:

GB got shit thrown their way when they dared to hire a man instead of a woman so I can understand why they would hesitate to throw their hats into the ring for either side.

I think you're probably misreading the sentiment from most of the GB staff if this is what you think.

#5 Posted by Lively (311 posts) -

@icarusfoundyou said:

@mikemcn said:

Anonymity lets too much stuff like this happen. Almost makes you want to force everyone to have an internet license.

This is such a terrible scary idea. I don't know if you are serious, I really hope you aren't. Never advocate for something that might lead to internet censorship.

I know they already do something like this in South Korea (mandatory real-identity internet usernames). I'm not sure how well it works there, but it sure seems like real-name Facebook commenting sites aren't really much better. Many of the sociopathic bullies aren't deterred, and the people with minority viewpoints (or afraid of employment repercussions) are made even more shy.

#6 Posted by Lively (311 posts) -

I do want to thank @rorie and the rest of the moderation team for keeping this space mostly on the side of civility and constructive discussion.

I agree with those who commend Giant Bomb for actually being a model for the inclusiveness that others talk about, and that daily articles shaming people isn't the right way forward.

I do think occasional articles like this one are useful, however, because as great as leading by example is, it also helps to have periodic reminders in no uncertain terms where they stand. When things get as bad as they have, silence can begin to look like tacit approval of the status quo.

Big kudos to Patrick especially for being the kind of person who feels passionately about this, yet still listens to the discussion and tries to keep a two-way communication open.

Keep at it duders, I know we're in good hands with you guys.

#7 Posted by Lively (311 posts) -

They already have a pretty effective agenda-setting echo chamber over at 4chan. They don't even need a proper website. If anything, these psychos are even more Machiavellian than Fox News and Breitbart. The real problem is that supporters of the movement -- such as it is -- are tolerated too much and mainstream games sites show too much deference to people with some seriously repugnant views about what it means to be a "gamer" and some absolutely insane delusions about what goes on behind the scenes in games media.

I think it's actually kind of the source of the problem that the some of their main organizers at the moment are shadowy shit-flingers on 4Chan (or 8Chan now?), and YouTube hate-mongers like "Internet Aristocrat" and "Thunderfoot". What they don't have is a leader who is fully out in the open, and has the influence to command their attention, and the maturity to steer the conversation towards more productive solutions to their complaints, instead of just instigating more shit.

They have a decision to make - are they a handful of earnest people unwittingly providing cover for a mountain of ugliness, or are they a few bad apples dragging down an otherwise legitimate consumer revolt? Time will tell.

#8 Posted by Lively (311 posts) -

I just don't see that happening. This whole thing started with doxxing and harassment, so it's hard to imagine a fruitful conversation blooming when the air was toxic from the beginning.

Basically, Gamergate needs to fuck all the way off before a dialog can happen.

I had the same initial response - but I really don't think that the group that allies with gamergate is going to "fuck off", or go away. Although I suspect some of them are disingenuous and complicit in harassment, there are at least some of them that feel legitimately marginalized by what they perceive as an insular, progressive-leaning journalist community, and aren't necessarily bad actors themselves.

At this point, we need to try harder to make sure that those who actually want dialogue get it, without painting with so broad a brush that they are driven even further into extremism. So much shit has gone down that this is hard to do, but I believe it is not impossible.

#9 Edited by Lively (311 posts) -

@theht said:

That's certainly one way to go about it, but the complaining won't stop from that. Sides will only grow more entrenched, isolated in their fuckery, their ideas reinforced by surrounding themselves with yes-men.

Consider the bullshit that FOX News puts out there, and what that sort of shit can do to someone who watches without knowing any better, or isn't equipped to question what they're seeing. Yeah, no thanks.

I mostly agree with that, but I really think that it might be necessary to give GG sympathizers a louder voice, on a more mainstream site that they feel represents them, because only then will they stop needing to act like insurgents to make their cause known. So far the one solitary person who has the ear of GG that I mostly respect is Total Biscuit, I think he's got enough of a level head to make them feel heard while also encouraging them to take their rhetoric down a notch.

Ideally, I hope it actually goes down more like the Movies / TV industry - you can have your flag-waving Michael Bay action-filled films in the summer, and your art-movies and Oscar bait in the fall, and both can find their audience without feeling the need to go at each other's throats. It really should be that way, because at the end of the day, movies and games are fun, but they're really not worth getting mad about.

#10 Posted by Lively (311 posts) -

I think the ultimate solution to this whole gamer-gate thing is for the political schism in the gamer community to be reflected in the actual games reporting outlets. Right now, it's like you have the entire FOX News audience with only NPR stations to listen to, and from that angle you can kind of see where the rage is coming from. Because they don't feel like they have a "voice", you see all this crazy vigilante shit.

Maybe if "The Escapist", and a few others start catering to them, as distasteful as I might find it, it might actually go a ways to diffuse the situation. Then they can stop complaining about Polygon / Rock Paper Shotgun and all because they will have other choices.