SinisterRaven

@milkman: There is no blog section to this site. There is a blog section of the guardian. Big difference. Jenn's article was in the news section, not the blog section. It is not clearly marked as an opinion piece and if it was people would have less of an issue with it. Claiming people don't know anything without providing a strong reasoning for your own issues is a clear way to show you don't care about anyone else's opinion.

Anyway, been attacked enough here. Glad to see dissenting thoughts are so welcome here. People need to be more introspective when they claim to be against attacks

@nmarebfly: Yes I am. Seems MUCH more likely she never had one than them going out of their way to remove one. If they actually did then she is a casualty of the whole issue the movement is about: lack of transparency in journalism. If legal teams are intentionally making journalism less transparent then that is a clear indication that this sort of push is needed (the core movement, not the harassment and attacks)

I'm willing to admit that originally there was no disclaimer on the published article then later they added one claiming that there had been one that was removed. Those are the full facts

Yes, I'm sure their legal team went out of their way to remove a disclaimer about her relationship with the subject. Put that aside though. My main point was "She was attacked for being biased and using her position to further cloud the actual issue." I believe very firmly that her article did nothing to shed light on the issue but instead simply reinforced a highly one sided and misleading viewpoint on the topic. I have nothing personally against her and hope she does great in whatever she does next but that kind of slanted, obscuring writing is not reporting and I do not shed a tear for it leaving my hobbies. Similarly, the hateful and personal reactionary nature of the whole thing is terrible and useless. Note that I am making these comments here and not calling her house phone to say them because I think it warrants discussion, not attacks. I do not defend in any way the actions of those who caused her move

@milkman: This is quite clearly a blogpost and not an article meant to be taken word for word as fact. If Patrick had an actual article up in The Guardian under the 'news' and 'tech' sections then yes, he would need to make such references. As it is a list of links, half summaries, and tweets isn't an article anywhere

When did I ever say 'conflict of interest' or bully anyone? I don't use twitter and I didn't attack anyone. You realize you are being more of a bully by attacking me, putting words in my mouth, and calling me names than I ever have during this whole event right?

But it wasn't. I read the article when it was first posted. There was no disclaimer. So thus my statement was correct. Whether or not there was ever thought of disclaimer is rather irrelevant. Even if she was told it was unnecessary she should have had the good sense to leave it anyhow. Also could you source things instead of just copy pasting the bullet point

@nmarebfly: That is one story being told. I am aware

There really isn't a difference in this instance. The people who attacked her 'perceived' the bias that she wrote into the article

Victim blaming in the sense that I am blaming a victim. Sure. You say it like it is inherently negative. If you put bait on a hook, throw it in the water, and catch a fish are you going to blame the fish? It's simple logic. But that's an oversimplification. In this case I blame both Jenn because she already knew what response she would receive and I also blame the multitude of harassers for being scumbags

Gamergate boiled down

man releases personal info about a small time dev
info contains smoke of ethics breach
4chan gets riled up
professional victims stream in to capitalize on the situation with both real and false accusations
actual discussion is drowned out by internet hate machine
click-bait gaming blogsites throw gas on the flames with poorly researched derogatory articles
whole thing snowballs collecting bigger names along the way
large segment of the community now heavily distrustful of industry and the media is confused about who it's market is

Jenn Frank may be a great writer and an amazing person. I wouldn't know. I do know she wrote a biased article in a fairly well known publication with little to no reference of her relationship with the subject and knowingly antagonized a vengeful group. If she was attacked for being honest and thoughtful I would share in seeing her as a martyr, but she wasn't. She was attacked for being biased and using her position to further cloud the actual issue. I wish her good luck in whatever she chooses to do next

You absolutely can. Create a program that assigns all applicants a number then at the end of the process translates the number back into a name. It's actually the EASIEST part of that whole process