I think blaming the aggressive and offensive minority within the gaming community can only get us so far. Yes, these people bring shame on the medium and it is terrible. Things are said that have no place in any form of group entertainment, though I truthfully doubt this will ever cease completely. Diminish, I hope so, but disappear, not a chance. Competition breeds aggression; we see this at sports games where violence, racism and intolerance still conspicuously occur. The perpetrators of these hate crimes are often identified and dealt with by the legal system, a consequence sorely missing from games and the internet on the whole.

The removal of repercussions, I feel, is the single biggest factor that allows these abhorrent practices to continue at such a level. If the anonymity were removed, even without consequences, I think we’d see a dramatic decrease in offensive chatter. Br0heim69 might reconsider calling Al3xVanc3 an ‘undesirable woman of the night who should perform fellatio on me now’ in the spur of the moment if he knew that everyone could see or hear it as; Leigh Harrison (lives in London, aged 23) called Stephanie Walker (lives in Birmingham, aged 29) an ‘undesirable woman of the night who should perform fellatio on me now’. Take that one step further and log, at a system level, everything typed and spoken by the player in a game. Have these records available when grievances are raised and use them as evidence against offenders. Lists of online handles are useless unless they are attached to something more tangible and meaningful; the people behind them. This would be more difficult to adapt outside of the closed, console realm but it would be a start.

This is only part of the problem, however. These people do tarnish the rest of the game playing community, though I think an equally large part of the issue is not with the people who play games but the people who don’t. They are, in many ways, often as dismissive as Mr. Sexism or Mrs. Racism are in Halo, if significantly less offensive. Some don’t understand games or the people who play them and often simply don’t want to. Games are becoming more widely accepted as a legitimate cultural endeavour but they are still considered a minority art form and dismissed by many. The problem with any minority is that if successful integration doesn’t occur ghettoisation will often take hold. Communities become even more insular as lines of communication break down with those around them. Customs and traditions become more important to the community in placing themselves within the wider world and cease to simply differentiate them as a group and instead begin to define them.

We see this behaviour in many of the most competitive genres of games. The concept of ‘paying one’s dues’ before you are truly accepted into a community created around an entertainment product is completely ridiculous, though this clearly occurs. We saw this mentality of ‘otherness’ earlier in the year with Aris Bakhtanians’ comments regarding the fighting game community. A figurehead of the scene for over a decade, he understandably offended many when he defended the use of questionable language and behaviour; “[the] racial stuff and sexist stuff... those are jokes and if you were really a member of the fighting game community, you would know that.” This aptly addresses the underlying psychology of a ghettoised community. Cultures and practices are held as defining traits that an outsider ‘simply wouldn’t understand’. They have come to symbolise what sets this community apart from those around it, regardless of their propriety within the wider community.

As these customs become more entrenched within a segregated community their importance intensifies. Bakhtanians later discussed, in his apology, his fear of the homogenisation of what he sees as fighting game traditions through the implementation of more ordered, controlled professional leagues. “[These] leagues ... have intent to censor the community to make it more accessible. I think the sink or swim mentality is something that defined our culture, and if that succeeds it removes something which has been important to help create some of the best fighting game players of our time.” Again, we see the active distancing of the marginalised and, interestingly, the affirmation that the customs not only hold up the community but now also shape the individual members therein.

This apology is no such thing; it is instead the self-imposed segregate attempting to rationalise his hateful conduct as legitimate cultural signifiers. His cherished fighting game community was never recognised by wider society and so closed its doors, doubling down on aspects of the culture in an attempt to justify its ‘otherness’. It is this that I was driving at earlier; cultural misunderstanding begets more cultural misunderstanding.

While games are still widely considered culturally inferior we will never be without social extremism. The overused stereotypes associated with people who enjoy games won’t go away as long as people like Bakhtanians are still around proving them to be accurate. He and his ilk are hopefully already experiencing their twilight years. Just as social, cultural and religious barriers can break down over generations, so too can those separating games from other widely enjoyed cultural commodities. The ghettoised communities, the self-styled ‘keepers of heritage’ don’t help this transition, though I think they will ultimately fall by the wayside. In them we can see how isolation leads to self-imposed isolation and hopefully recognise that this does not make us stronger as a common community built around a shared passion. We will be part of a minority culture for a little while longer, it is up to us what state our community is in when the rest of the world is ready come and find us.

@MMMman said:

Br0heim69 might reconsider calling Al3xVanc3 an ‘undesirable woman of the night who should perform fellatio on me now’ in the spur of the moment

Is he from the 19th century? What an incredibly odd insult, especially in the heat of the moment.

I think he was putting the insult in less offensive terms video game king. Your apparently from the moon or whatever your thing is but it's pretty clear what he meant. It wouldn't bother me if they eliminated anonymity from the Internet. Probably would be for the better really.

@Video_Game_King said:

@MMMman said:

Br0heim69 might reconsider calling Al3xVanc3 an ‘undesirable woman of the night who should perform fellatio on me now’ in the spur of the moment

Is he from the 19th century? What an incredibly odd insult, especially in the heat of the moment.

My monocle popped out.

@laserbolts said:

I think he was putting the insult in less offensive terms video game king.

THIS FORUM SHOULD NOT DECLARE EQUAL THOSE GAMERS WHICH GOD MADE UNEQUAL

Anyone else getting kinda freaked out at the idea of self aware individuals actually asking for their privacy to be invaded in the most fucking Orwellian of practices?

Nobody? Nobody at all?

As a self aware individual, nope. Please explain how having chat logs more public is Orwellian? They already exist as it is. If anything making a bigger public use of their existence is LESS Orwellian since there is no secretive behind the scenes nonsense.

@A_Talking_Donkey: You see nothing wrong with some faceless entity logging and reading everything you ever say or type to anyone? That doesn't scream "1984" at you?

@Oldirtybearon said:

Anyone else getting kinda freaked out at the idea of self aware individuals actually asking for their privacy to be invaded in the most fucking Orwellian of practices?

Nobody? Nobody at all?

Look at any past instance of a company trying to retroactively implement any "Real Id" stuff on their users and you'll observe a massive shitstorm. Anonymity is a huge double edged sword, it allows free speech mostly without consequence or prejudice. Whether anonymity is good or bad tends to depend on what is being said. Wonderful stuff happens on the internet due to the understanding that what is being said could not be linked to any individual but also this allows some real dark shit to be said or done without accountability.

The question becomes: Would you willingly eliminate some of the best parts of the internet in order to wipe out a little of the worst? Would you willingly expose your personal information in a public environment in order to make others accountable for what they say?

@RenegadeDoppelganger said:

@Oldirtybearon said:

Anyone else getting kinda freaked out at the idea of self aware individuals actually asking for their privacy to be invaded in the most fucking Orwellian of practices?

Nobody? Nobody at all?

Look at any past instance of a company trying to retroactively implement any "Real Id" stuff on their users and you'll observe a massive shitstorm. Anonymity is a huge double edged sword. It allows free speech mostly without consequence or predjudice, whether anonymity is good or bad tends to depend on what is being said.

I remember when Blizzard tried it, but what worries me is that impressionable young people would rather have the comfort and convenience of a security blanket like Big Brother than have to deal with people being dicks on occasion. I find it pretty terrifying that millennials don't actually give a shit about their rights or their privacy.

@Oldirtybearon: This isn't to say I agree with that concept, but there is a drastic difference between saying something in a public forum vs. private correspondence. Walking down the street yelling at people is not afforded the same discretion as a phone call to your spouse

@Oldirtybearon: I think people do care, it's just they are not the mainstream people, which kind of defines the problem because the non mainstream viewpoints are the ones that get censored of course.

@MildMolasses: I understand that, but the OP isn't talking about just public speech, he's actively referring to you typing or saying anything while using the service. Now I get that term is vague, but it's obvious the OP is referring to things like Xbox Live and message boards, and both of those services include private correspondence features. Am I supposed to just trust that the wardens hired to keep watch will only look at public discussions?

This kind of thinking is depressing and terrifying. Why would you, or I, or the OP want to give another person that authority over our speech? Yes anonymity can give people the slack they need to cut loose and be massive dicks for no reason, but that doesn't negate the positive benefits to privacy and anonymity. Not by a long shot.

@Oldirtybearon said:

@RenegadeDoppelganger said:

@Oldirtybearon said:

Anyone else getting kinda freaked out at the idea of self aware individuals actually asking for their privacy to be invaded in the most fucking Orwellian of practices?

Nobody? Nobody at all?

Look at any past instance of a company trying to retroactively implement any "Real Id" stuff on their users and you'll observe a massive shitstorm. Anonymity is a huge double edged sword. It allows free speech mostly without consequence or predjudice, whether anonymity is good or bad tends to depend on what is being said.

I remember when Blizzard tried it, but what worries me is that impressionable young people would rather have the comfort and convenience of a security blanket like Big Brother than have to deal with people being dicks on occasion. I find it pretty terrifying that millennials don't actually give a shit about their rights or their privacy.

Why should the next generation care about privacy? They've grown up with the majority of their life online - every party they go to, every vacation, every restaurant they like is recorded and put on display for everyone to see on Facebook or Twitter or Tumblr or whatever.

I really think the conception of privacy is going to undergo pretty big changes in the next few decades.

@Oldirtybearon said:

@A_Talking_Donkey: You see nothing wrong with some faceless entity logging and reading everything you ever say or type to anyone? That doesn't scream "1984" at you?

It does depending on context. The thing is when you sign up to use some internet service you're signing up for some service that a company provides. Said company has the right to monitor how their product is used. It would be disturbing if either I made a program and someone else was watching it or if when I signed up to use a service the company agreed to not "spy" on me. More importantly though, those are usually not the case so knowing that they're currently watching everything I do with their service, it'd seem less bad if they acted on the information in a meaningful way to create a more positive experience.

You seem to have to use that vid an awful lot @Video_Game_King :P

@RazielCuts:

Only because I have to.

@A_Talking_Donkey said:

@Oldirtybearon said:

@A_Talking_Donkey: You see nothing wrong with some faceless entity logging and reading everything you ever say or type to anyone? That doesn't scream "1984" at you?

It does depending on context. The thing is when you sign up to use some internet service you're signing up for some service that a company provides. Said company has the right to monitor how their product is used. It would be disturbing if either I made a program and someone else was watching it or if when I signed up to use a service the company agreed to not "spy" on me. More importantly though, those are usually not the case so knowing that they're currently watching everything I do with their service, it'd seem less bad if they acted on the information in a meaningful way to create a more positive experience.

I understand what you're saying, but the problem for me arises when those tools are put into the hands of actual people. Do you remember the hubbub a few years back when photos leaked from the new "x-ray" screens at TSA terminals? The ones that were supposed to be confidential and private? The ones that still wound up on the Internet because someone decided to be an asshole?

That's the real problem here. You're creating this invasive tools and then giving them to people. I'd rather deal with SuperMacho420 calling me a faggot for missing a headshot than to deal with that potential nightmare.

@Oldirtybearon said:

@MildMolasses: I understand that, but the OP isn't talking about just public speech, he's actively referring to you typing or saying anything while using the service. Now I get that term is vague, but it's obvious the OP is referring to things like Xbox Live and message boards, and both of those services include private correspondence features. Am I supposed to just trust that the wardens hired to keep watch will only look at public discussions?

This kind of thinking is depressing and terrifying. Why would you, or I, or the OP want to give another person that authority over our speech? Yes anonymity can give people the slack they need to cut loose and be massive dicks for no reason, but that doesn't negate the positive benefits to privacy and anonymity. Not by a long shot.

Obviously there is no easy answer to this. And as others have pointed out XboxLive is a service, so any user is beholden to the rules MS sets out.

I guess I'm looking at it from a harassment angle. Obviously interactions from friends are going to be treated differently by the participants than an incoming message from a stranger. But what if, as a method of filtering, before I could send a private message to someone that has not identified me as a friend, a prompt pops up and says "This message will be delivered under your real name" That would sure as hell make me think twice about sending harassing messages to people if I can't hide behind a username any more, and at the same time ensures that the only people who know my name are people that I've allowed to see it.

@Oldirtybearon said:

@MildMolasses: Now I get that term is vague, but it's obvious the OP is referring to things like Xbox Live and message boards, and both of those services include private correspondence features.

I am not, obviously referring to the private correspondence features of these services, apologies if the was not made clear enough. I would never suggest a wire tap on someones phone or a record made of their text messages. I feel that large parts of public video game spaces are abused because of the anonymity individuals are lucky enough to receive at the moment. This is not a right it is simply how the internet has been cultivated. And I do remember life before it. I can't go out in public and make a slew of derogatory remarks without them catching up with me in some way or another. I think the same should count for games. We shouldn't be in a position to just switch part of our lives off when we choose, the things we say and do, I think, need to follow us both online and off, be one and the same, then, things will calm down.

“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” ― Benjamin Franklin

@Oldirtybearon Anyone else getting kinda freaked out at the idea of self aware individuals actually asking for their privacy to be invaded in the most fucking Orwellian of practices? Nobody? Nobody at all? Yes, me!

@MMMman said:

@Oldirtybearon said:

@MildMolasses: Now I get that term is vague, but it's obvious the OP is referring to things like Xbox Live and message boards, and both of those services include private correspondence features.

I am not, obviously referring to the private correspondence features of these services, apologies if the was not made clear enough. I would never suggest a wire tap on someones phone or a record made of their text messages. I feel that large parts of public video game spaces are abused because of the anonymity individuals are lucky enough to receive at the moment. This is not a right it is simply how the internet has been cultivated. And I do remember life before it. I can't go out in public and make a slew of derogatory remarks without them catching up with me in some way or another. I think the same should count for games. We shouldn't be in a position to just switch part of our lives off when we choose, the things we say and do, I think, need to follow us both online and off, be one and the same, then, things will calm down.

The problem with that, though, is then you would lose a large part of what makes the Internet amazing to begin with - anonymity allows people to truly say what they think without repercussions. Whether that's bigoted speech or heartfelt political commentary, it's an outlet for people to be themselves without judgment. Some people take that and turn into massive assholes, but there's no denying the positive benefit that is available to everyone with an Internet connection. If we lose that anonymity and indeed everything you say is something that sticks to you (which is a concept I disagree with entirely, by the way), then the only net benefit you'll see is people clamming up and refusing to be open with each other. In essence, the virtual world will be as barren and devoid of genuine discourse as in the real one. If it means putting up with an asshole trolling to keep that alive, then so be it. It's more than worth the cost.

@MildMolasses said:

I guess I'm looking at it from a harassment angle. Obviously interactions from friends are going to be treated differently by the participants than an incoming message from a stranger. But what if, as a method of filtering, before I could send a private message to someone that has not identified me as a friend, a prompt pops up and says "This message will be delivered under your real name" That would sure as hell make me think twice about sending harassing messages to people if I can't hide behind a username any more, and at the same time ensures that the only people who know my name are people that I've allowed to see it.

That's indeed a compromise, but I'm not sure it's something I'd ever really agree with. I don't think there's a compromise I'd be willing to accept.

I would volunteer to join a special section of Xbox Live, where you use your real name. And it's separate from the rest of Xbox Live. That would be a beautiful dream.

In terms of broader internet anonymity, I'm not overwhelmingly concerned. My user name is my name, so you know where I stand. Handles are feeling dumber and dumber as I grow older and I really don't have anything to hide as a person, so I don't bother with anonymity. I try to be honest both online and offline. What I say on the internet I'll say to your face.

At the same time, there isn't a lot you can gleam from my postings on the internet. People know I'm into film and games but that's about it, even with my real name in there. People online don't know what me or my life is like on a day-to-day basis, so I don't feel like I'm exposing myself too much or too publicly like some people might be doing.

I don't know what I read but that "Se"Xbox picture is hilarious!

@crcruz3 said:

“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” ― Benjamin Franklin

But in this case the reverse is happening, people are demanding more freedom and are willing to surrender security to get it. People are willing to surrender information about themselves, but what they want is that option. The biggest shitstorms over the last few years about privacy haven't been about people surrendering information, they've been about people being forced to surrender information or not being made aware they're giving away that information (Facebook being the classic example). In the case outlined by the OP, people would be forced to no longer be anonymous, and it would massively unpopular.

As long as porn sites remain anonymous I see no problem with it. And you are fooling yourself if you honestly think you are anonymous online just because you post with a username instead of your real name. If "Big Brother" really wanted to spy on you there's no amount of xX's or 1337 speak you can throw into a username to stop them from spying on you or what you do online. All they have to do is call up your ISP and they are more than happy to give all the information in the world to them.

@MMMman: Please refrain from referring to Aris, his words and his actions as representative of the entire community, or if this is not what you intended, please make more of an effort to not paint the entire Fighting Game Community with the same "ghettoised" brush. Aris and his supporters are merely a vocal minority of the FGC, as with every community, who's viewpoint wasn't wholly supported before Cross Assault and isn't wholly supported now. The FGC and eSports organisations like MLG and IPL have made great strides in the past year to bring fighting games to their events with the support of many.

Thanks,

The guy who's spent the last 8 months writing blogs on Giant Bomb about the FGC to counteract exact articles and blogs like this that, unintentionally or not, spread extreme generalisations as fact.

@FLStyle: I think you misunderstand the purpose behind my use of his words. Aris was, for those couple of days in February at least, expressing his ghettoised view of the fighting game community. He said that the discrimination and aggression were inherent traits and that to lose them would strip it of its most powerful social signifiers; the things that make it unique and unlike other communities. He continued to propagate these views, in a slightly less abrasive way, throughout his apology and it is this conviction, at least at the time, in what he sees as integral to the community that I find so fascinating. He is actively marginalising the fighting game community through his insistence that its socially unacceptable traits are what makes it ‘great’, that his community can only exist if these tenants are upheld. These are, of course, his own views. He, and likewise I, never profess that he speaking for the community as a whole, simply expressing his own views on it. He thinks these traits are important, not anyone else. I only used him as an example to highlight my views on self-perpetuating misunderstandings between mainstream and video game culture and their communities.

I find it disheartening that you’ve spent the best part of a year attempting to make people see that the words of one man do not represent an entire community, though the work is commendable. Maybe I was naive in thinking that people would not take my words as a grand, sweeping generalisation. That was certainly not my intention.

@laserbolts said:

I think he was putting the insult in less offensive terms video game king. Your apparently from the moon or whatever your thing is but it's pretty clear what he meant. It wouldn't bother me if they eliminated anonymity from the Internet. Probably would be for the better really.

Korea already implements this. All forums/blogs/social networking/shopping sites here require you register using your national ID number. They also have pretty strict laws against slander: if something you say can be shown to have directly harmed the person you're talking about, they can take you to court. It doesn't cause too many problems here because Korean society is not a very litigious one. (In the sue-happy western world, I can't imagine the carnage this could cause.)

In spite of this, it has done little to tone down the seemingly innate immaturity of those online. Korean "netizens" are notorious for banding together behind the most ridiculous things. Remember "Rain" winning Time's most influential man of the year via Internet poll a couple years back? More recently, some young woman whose photo was taken not picking up her dog's poop on the subway's life was completely ruined by vindictive netizens. Yeah, dumb move, but did she really deserve to become known country-wide as "Poop-Girl"? Gangnam Style owes a great deal to their rabidity for its sudden popularity. Celebrities have killed themselves over vicious Internet rumors.

Anonymity is not to blame here, just plain ol' human stupidity.

@Oldirtybearon said:

Nobody? Nobody at all?

Yeah. This guy.

Maybe you could get away with this kind of monitoring in a walled garden like XBL but that's one hell of a slippery slope for the rest of us on the Internet.

@MMMman said:

@FLStyle: I think you misunderstand the purpose behind my use of his words. Aris was, for those couple of days in February at least, expressing his ghettoised view of the fighting game community. He said that the discrimination and aggression were inherent traits and that to lose them would strip it of its most powerful social signifiers; the things that make it unique and unlike other communities. He continued to propagate these views, in a slightly less abrasive way, throughout his apology and it is this conviction, at least at the time, in what he sees as integral to the community that I find so fascinating. He is actively marginalising the fighting game community through his insistence that its socially unacceptable traits are what makes it ‘great’, that his community can only exist if these tenants are upheld. These are, of course, his own views. He, and likewise I, never profess that he speaking for the community as a whole, simply expressing his own views on it. He thinks these traits are important, not anyone else. I only used him as an example to highlight my views on self-perpetuating misunderstandings between mainstream and video game culture and their communities.

I find it disheartening that you’ve spent the best part of a year attempting to make people see that the words of one man do not represent an entire community, though the work is commendable. Maybe I was naive in thinking that people would not take my words as a grand, sweeping generalisation. That was certainly not my intention.

Understood.

I should've mentioned in my original post that I enjoyed reading your blog, it was well done and made a lot of sense. Unfortunately there are many people on the internet, a number of which who are on Giant Bomb, who are always ready to jump onto the anti-FGC bandwagon since the Cross Assault incident. They won't watch or read anything of the best of the FGC like Daigo Umehara and Justin Wong but they're always ready to talk about the worst of the FGC and use Aris as their jumping off point. It doesn't help when a certain Giant Bomb News Editor says he'll write a follow up to his FGC-damning articles (in his otherwise noble attempts of calling out sexism when and where it arises) featuring email interviews with prominent FGC members, and then doesn't bother writing it up after exchanging emails with said members, leaving those who think the community is just a bunch of sexist, racist, homophobic thugs, continuing to think the community is just a bunch of sexist, racist, homophobic thugs. Cc. @patrickklepek

By putting out the word of news, happenings and events of the community, I hope that people who wouldn't have before, can look at the community from a neutral position.

God Bless Aris for keeping the FGC in the ghetto, right where I like it. Fuck all hypocritical game journos who have no problem tweeting what they ate for lunch but couldn't be bothered to write two words about the FGC if it wore skinny jeans and an ironic beanie. They'll jump all over a sensational headline but won't ever talk about the positivity of the community. Gotta get them clicks.

My Facebook friend posted:

Sorry, but it's actually NOT funny when you post a status joking to be in a homosexual relationship. The way I live my life is nothing to joke about.

COD is pretty ghetto.

@A_Talking_Donkey: You see nothing wrong with some faceless entity logging and reading everything you ever say or type to anyone? That doesn't scream "1984" at you?