President_Barackbar's forum posts

#1 Edited by President_Barackbar (3467 posts) -

@president_barackbar: Serious question: If I gave you 10 bucks a month on patreon, what incentive would I have to rate your game favorably or give it coverage? The only one I can see is you start making enough money that you don't have to subsist through donations. Since no one is forcing me to support you, supporting you in order to eventually not support you isnt a good motivation

Well, if you are giving someone funding through Patreon you are essentially supporting their career and ability to make games, in a much more general way than Kickstarter. Giving someone Patreon funds is similar to an investment except you make no money. I don't like games media supporting indie dev Patreons without disclosure because there is a potential for someone to give a developer they like more access and favorable coverage because they are invested in seeing them succeed. Of course, games media already uses their influence to promote games they want to see do well, but the whole thing just gets weird to me when you start introducing money into the equation.

#2 Posted by President_Barackbar (3467 posts) -

@jeff: Thanks for the response Jeff! Being a reasonable person, its sometimes hard to remember that there are so many unreasonable people out there who are going to try their hardest to sabotage whatever you end up doing. And you are totally right, its not worth catering to those kinds of people. The one thing though that I didn't like in the wake of some people asking disclosure questions was people who took the piss out of the very idea and started doing joke "disclosures" of having drank water at an event, or stuff like your sandwich example, because I thought it was an attack against the practice of disclosing at all. But having read your response, it seems like it was more an attack on the people who are gonna bean count your every move to death in order to find some reason to be able to shout on a message board about how you are corrupt.

#3 Posted by President_Barackbar (3467 posts) -

@jeff: I just want to know why some games writers seem to find the idea of disclosure so unacceptable. One of the reasons I really trust this site is because you have taken the stance that disclosure is the best way to handle things that might look shady. But then we get people like Leigh Alexander who argue that its 100% fine to give undisclosed amounts of money to indie developers on Patreon. You said that you don't think there is a problem with Patreon contributions if there is disclosure, but it seems like when this idea is mentioned to some of these other people, they throw their arms up and get incredulous because how dare you think they are corrupt! Which is sad, because the real idea behind disclosure is preventing that kind of thing in the first place. I don't think a lot of people seem to understand that even the appearance of corruption is something you want to avoid, even if you are 100% on the up and up.

#4 Posted by President_Barackbar (3467 posts) -
@turambar said:

I'm a high school teacher. I'll let you think of something yourself.

Boy do I know all about that one. There are SO MANY layers of awful we have to deal with. Admin, other teachers, kids, parents, etc. Sometimes those things are fine and even great, but when they are a pain, they are a PAIN.

#5 Posted by President_Barackbar (3467 posts) -

Like Brad mentioned on the latest Bombcast, the editors of GB don't consider themselves game journalists, so the idea of them getting involved in the conflict seems rather pointless. We all know that all reasonable and rational people are against death threats and harassment, so whenever anyone comes out against something like this, it always seems silly because both sides have already decided that the other isn't worth listening to.

#6 Posted by President_Barackbar (3467 posts) -

@truthtellah: I'm not exactly sure if you read what I wrote, because I don't believe I ever said anything to the effect of "we need to stop talking about it." In fact, I don't feel like most of what you wrote has much to do with what I said at all. My argument at its core is that I believe that people who play games and the games press really need to come together and decide what the conversation is. Are we discussing how we can get more representation in games, or are we discussing how games are mostly sexist and perpetuate sexist ideals? I'm interested in the first one, not so much in the second because the question is loaded, and as a man anything I say is most likely going to be shouted down as contributing to sexism in games. I don't also deny that it is important, unfortunately, to tell a small extreme portion of the internet that their presence (and death threats) are unwelcome in the discussion.

#7 Posted by President_Barackbar (3467 posts) -

Also, if anyone is sincerely wondering why more people seem to be talking about this stuff these days, it's cool to just ask.

I mean, it's definitely not some big conspiracy or just dumb writers getting on a high horse all of a sudden. It's real people who enjoy games just like you and care about these kinds of things. Our different perspectives and feelings have a place in gaming, because we play games, too.

I can understand some confusion or even frustration at changes not being to your liking, as the way things were may feel more comfortable for you, but I personally quite appreciate gaming feeling more and more like a place we can consider and talk about these things. We're living in a great time in gaming, and I genuinely believe games and the community around them will be even better in the future thanks to many efforts being made today. :)

I think its more that people like myself don't feel that the "conversation" is much of one. One of the reasons I generally despise atheism discussions on the internet (like the infamous subreddit /r/atheism) is that they feel like gigantic echo chambers. Very few people on the aforementioned subreddit seem interested in doing things like discussing the merits of belief vs. atheism and how they can coexist in society, but more about having discussions about how any person of belief is a deluded idiot who doesn't have a rational thought in their head. The sexism and gaming debate feels largely the same, its not about discussing representation of women in games or in the industry and examining what the root causes are (like gaming being characterized initially as something only sad lonely virgin males did or women generally not being encouraged to go into STEM fields) but rather about how games are sexist because they are made for and by gross misogynists who want to keep women out of their boy's club because vaginas are icky or some such nonsense. It seems to me like a far more reasonable course of action is to go after the root causes of why women aren't represented, which is because there aren't a lot of women in games, which has to do with the perceptions of STEM fields. As the old saying goes, you catch a lot more flies with honey rather than vinegar, and it seems like all we get from games press is vinegar about how hateful and sexist gamers and game makers are.

#8 Posted by President_Barackbar (3467 posts) -

@kevin_cogneto: That's valid, I'm just trying to take a silver lining approach to this whole thing. I personally can't stop the harassment and negativity that goes on, and I'd much rather have something positive to take away from a horrid occurrence.

#9 Posted by President_Barackbar (3467 posts) -

@defaultprophet: My point was that two weeks of time wouldn't have stopped them from coming to the same conclusion.

@kevin_cogneto: You are right that this basically has nothing to do with the way Giant Bomb runs things, but I think its healthy that this industry as a whole grapples with criticism. I think that its positive that some sites have listened to the LEGITIMATE criticism that has come out of this thing and decided some changes needed to be made.

#10 Posted by President_Barackbar (3467 posts) -

@president_barackbar said:
@patrickklepek said:

I do not think you can, say, change site policies in the middle of this, and pretend it isn't on some level a capitulation to the harassment. It's all intertwined. The policy could have changed a few weeks later, and it wouldn't have the same ugly stigma attached to it.

Wouldn't it though? Its not really that hard to draw conclusions regardless of the timing. I mean, I don't really think it makes a difference WHEN the change happens because people could always tie it back to this specific event. That's why I'm not in favor of the argument that changing policies now legitimizes the abuse, because those abusers who want to see it as a capitulation to their side could always come to that conclusion. I mean, Bill O'Riley said on Fox News that he saw Romney's defeat in 2012 as a signal that "lazy America" and those who wanted a full welfare state had won, despite political scientists pointing to a myriad of other, larger factors that significantly contributed to his defeat. People will always spin things in a way that suits them.

Yeah, I mean you can't reason with conspiracy-minded people. You could literally post a huge manifesto that lays out all of Giant Bomb's ethics policies, disclosure policies and review policies, complete with a list of every single interaction with every single developer you've ever had. You could go to every effort to be as transparent as possible, and and people will still say that the disclosures that you made were fraudulent. Or worse, start calling for firings for every perceived deviation from the stated policy.

Personally, I say fuck them. There's absolutely no cause to doubt the integrity of any of the Giant Bomb staff. You don't need to dignify their nonsense.

That's actually not what I was getting at. I was more saying that I think its a fallacy to assume that Kotaku and Polygon making changes to their disclosure policies right now indicates a capitulation to abuse as opposed to waiting until some weeks after, because those who want to see it as a "win" for abusers are always going to see it that way regardless of how much time has passed.