Whiteycar's forum posts

  • 18 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by Whiteycar (33 posts) -

@heyguys said:

@whiteycar said:

@heyguys said:

@groverat said:

Dear dudes,

STOP DEFENDING GIANT BOMB WHEN BRIANNA CRITICIZES. STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP.

This is a huge part of our problem as a community. We love the guys. They're wonderful. We spend hours of our lives with them every week. So, we get extremely defensive when we feel they are mischaracterized. And I absolutely agree that they ARE mischaracterized a lot of the time.

However, we are not hurt when they are criticized. It is their job to defend themselves against people, not ours.

It might be OK to do a little bickering on Twitter with another person who is not suffering, but ABSOLUTELY NOT when that person has been on the receiving end of death threats from people like us.

Here's your job when Brianna criticizes:

1) Read what she has to say with an open mind and heart.

2) Offer her either silence, thanks, or encouragement.

3) Think more about what she had to say.

If her criticism is unfair but it doesn't hurt GB, it doesn't matter.

If her criticism is unfair and it hurts GB, no one has a bigger voice to defend GB than GB itself.

There is literally zero positive result from you getting defensive on GB's half, because you are not inside the circle of suffering.

Oh, and here's a super-crazy notion: Maybe we are all growing a little bit all the time and benefit from criticism!

Why should anyone be immune to disagreement? Honestly how is that not incredibly patronizing?

Maybe taking the context of your response into consideration?

Let me tell the woman that left her house for fear of her life on how she should feel.

Let some shit slide, your opinion doesn't have to be interjected into every conversation.

The only way to have a discussion is to listen, and then respond. If people are listening then they have every reason to respond with their own take on what someone has said.

Also not sure where you're getting the idea that I'm doing this, "Let me tell the woman that left her house for fear of her life on how she should feel." I wouldn't tell someone how to feel about such things it wouldn't make sense to.

Less of a criticism of you specifically but the other users responding, some appear to be thinking there is a debate moderator sitting at the side awarding points and not taking the context of the conversation into question.

#2 Posted by Whiteycar (33 posts) -

@heyguys said:

@groverat said:

Dear dudes,

STOP DEFENDING GIANT BOMB WHEN BRIANNA CRITICIZES. STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP.

This is a huge part of our problem as a community. We love the guys. They're wonderful. We spend hours of our lives with them every week. So, we get extremely defensive when we feel they are mischaracterized. And I absolutely agree that they ARE mischaracterized a lot of the time.

However, we are not hurt when they are criticized. It is their job to defend themselves against people, not ours.

It might be OK to do a little bickering on Twitter with another person who is not suffering, but ABSOLUTELY NOT when that person has been on the receiving end of death threats from people like us.

Here's your job when Brianna criticizes:

1) Read what she has to say with an open mind and heart.

2) Offer her either silence, thanks, or encouragement.

3) Think more about what she had to say.

If her criticism is unfair but it doesn't hurt GB, it doesn't matter.

If her criticism is unfair and it hurts GB, no one has a bigger voice to defend GB than GB itself.

There is literally zero positive result from you getting defensive on GB's half, because you are not inside the circle of suffering.

Oh, and here's a super-crazy notion: Maybe we are all growing a little bit all the time and benefit from criticism!

Why should anyone be immune to disagreement? Honestly how is that not incredibly patronizing?

Maybe taking the context of your response into consideration?

Let me tell the woman that left her house for fear of her life on how she should feel.

Let some shit slide, your opinion doesn't have to be interjected into every conversation.

#3 Posted by Whiteycar (33 posts) -

@whiteycar said:

@spacekatgal I dont know the best way to put this so I'll just say it.

In your opinion, how much of the gaming industry's diversity issue is due to it just being kind of a bad place to work (2 examples being "crunch time" and layoffs) compared to other alternatives?

That's a hard question to answer. I think it affect it 0 percent on the low end of the career spectrum (pre-kids). And I think it is the single biggest issue facing women on the upper end. (post-kids) There's no excuse for the lack of networking men in the industry choose to do with women.

You wanna know how gamedev networking goes? At a bar, at 9 at night, with 90 percent dudes. You get hit on, you feel unsafe, and often your voice can't be heard over the loud music. Everything about this industry was made for men by men.

Thank you for responding.

Given that there is no magic wand to fix this overnight, is the solution in the interim self segregation?

Unsure if any women in gaming networking circles exist but it does seem like the best way to name and shame the worst of these companies. Ultimately the ones that are more open and have a better environment will reap the rewards. Or is your issue more with trying to break into the industry rather than networking once you are already in?

#4 Edited by Whiteycar (33 posts) -

@spacekatgal I dont know the best way to put this so I'll just say it.

In your opinion, how much of the gaming industry's diversity issue is due to it just being kind of a bad place to work (2 examples being "crunch time" and layoffs) compared to other alternatives?

#5 Posted by Whiteycar (33 posts) -

Before you read this, know that I was 100 percent on Zoe's side about a week ago, but then I did a little more research. Also know that I'd prefer not to be lumped in with the rest of Gamergate, although I do share one of their many motives - namely, the desire for some solid answers regarding the scandal surrounding Zoe Quinn.

Please provide any evidence you have to dispute this claim I've made. I also encourage you to look at my sources and decide for yourselves if I took any quotes out of context. I am completely open and accepting of any counterarguments that hold water - after all, I've already completely changed my mind once about this thing. And I would absolutely love to read a response to this written by @patrickklepek or any other staff members. Thank you.

Why would anyone waste their time when you've clearly made up your mind?

#6 Posted by Whiteycar (33 posts) -

@juno500 said:

If GG was actually about ethics in journalism, maybe they should have gotten the support of an actual expert on ethics in journalism. Because based on their desire to see Polygon blacklisted by Nintendo in response to the Bayo 2 review, I doubt they know what ethics are.

Or Journalism, the review is a critique not news.

#7 Edited by Whiteycar (33 posts) -

@brodehouse said:

@guppy507 said:

Let's think about the most extreme case of journalistic corruption (that I can think of): say Jeff had cracked under pressure back in 2007 with the Kayne and Lynch review and had given it an 8 instead of 6. Who would that have even hurt?

EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO BOUGHT KANE AND LYNCH

They said hurt not inconvenience

#8 Posted by Whiteycar (33 posts) -

@brad said:

@heyguys said:

@brad said:

@neon25 said:

@neon25 said:

While it's nicely written, I'm very disappointed how you still label GamerGate as a hate movement. It's just like saying all Muslims are jihadists. Just because they are a few shitty people in a group doesn't mean all people are shitty. I think you should definitely take a note of that, especially as a lot of people in this "hate movement" are your primary demographic, whether you like it or not.

Still, it was nice to finally get an official statement.

To add to that, it's really sad that Giant Bomb did nothing, while sites like the Escapist actually reevaluated their ethics standards and now if there's any chance that some personal connection might have influenced something in the review, it's simply mentioned in bold font in the header. It's that easy.

We've been proactively calling out any potential conflicts of interest since the day this site launched, as evidenced at the bottom of this review from more than six years ago:

http://www.giantbomb.com/reviews/rock-band-2-review/1900-56/

I promise you it's something we've always attempted to be extremely aware of. The idea that we "did nothing" seems kind of silly in this respect.

What about providing a platform or coverage, not just reviews? The media are the king makers of the smallest out there and the worry about "indies" I think comes from the fact that all games journalists are aware when they're at a press diner, when they get nice hotel rooms, when they get early access they know that's supposed to affect them and they are intentionally distancing those relationships from their jobs when it comes to AAA. However, people do not have their guard up when they are dealing with friends, even when those friends might not be actively pushing a self-interested dilemma those relationships can no-the-less influence how they are covered. Publicity is the equivalent of money as much as reviews are but publications do not have that same kind of vigilance regarding it. This makes having close relationships to the press an possible career booster while others without that privilege work without getting similar exposure.

You make a good point, and there's an even bigger conversation to have that includes discoverability on lucrative storefronts like Steam. I'll just say we try to be mindful of our friendships with people who make games, and for better or worse, our solution has been to try to make the audience aware of those relationships and let them make up their own mind. Hopefully that's working.

For my own part, I do my best to separate my acquaintance with a person from my feelings on the game they may have worked on. I can't in good conscience promote a game I don't sincerely think is cool, which is why I never, ever want to work in video game PR. All I can ask is that you trust me on that.

Once again the point has been made that critics of other media have the exact same issues, Roger Ebert, which is pretty much everyones golden standard of criticism had friends in the movie industry. Reviewed his friends movies, and there were no issues.

Games are not unique in this case.

#9 Posted by Whiteycar (33 posts) -

@patrickklepek @mostxtremebrian This seem like it would cause way too much Us vs Them and jockeying to be actually useful.

@patrickklepek:

Has anyone thought about having a a actual debate? Something at pax or somewhere else maybe. Twitter and forum posts don't seem to be the best way to do this, plus it would have everyone on the same page, not hiding behind a Twitter handle. I think it could be really interesting, though it might be too close to an actual political debate at that point.

#10 Edited by Whiteycar (33 posts) -

So here's a question to you pro gamer gate people.

Even if games journalism was the hot bed of corruption you think it is, so what?

Whats the worst thing that can happen?

You'll buy a bad game and learn that the site cant be trusted.

It takes care of itself, sure its nice to have some standards but acting as its on the same level as civil rights marches are doing a disservice to your point.

  • 18 results
  • 1
  • 2