Rockdalf's forum posts

Avatar image for rockdalf
#1 Posted by Rockdalf (1328 posts) -

@truthtellah: I've not seen that, I'd be interested in proof however. /r/kotakuinaction has been squeeky clean when it comes to harassment and doxxing, though I do agree they address the GamerGate movement rather militantly, which is why I only read from afar. From what I've seen of 8chan, they have specific rules and procedures in place to report people dropping personal information. I don't frequent 8chan, but from all the sources I've seen related to this particular doxxing attempt, when that information was posted by the user, it was immediately reported and dismissed by the rest of the users. That's hardly compliance. If you can show me documentation otherwise, I'll reconsider my opinion, but so far, all I see are conveniently painted broad strokes.

If someone dropped knowledge here that they were going to shoot up a specific school, do you feel it'd be particularly fair if when said attack actually happens the media focuses on "duders" as the face of the attack?

Avatar image for rockdalf
#2 Posted by Rockdalf (1328 posts) -


It was Milo. Although, I don't think they knew who sent the syringe or why. Attributing it to the core Anti-GG isn't any better than heaping blame on GamerGate for harassment though.

Avatar image for rockdalf
#3 Posted by Rockdalf (1328 posts) -

How is #GamerGate even related to this? One asshole decides to threaten a woman on twitter and it's suddenly the face for tens of thousands representing GamerGate? There isn't some secret cabal of white, male nerds wringing their hands about who they're going to threaten next and what information they've uncovered. There are individual assholes who will use any excuse and opportunity to attack women on the internet. The only links to GamerGate are being forged by the ones who want to dismiss the actual forefront of the discussion they're trying to have.

Avatar image for rockdalf
#4 Posted by Rockdalf (1328 posts) -

@heyguys: I think that's closer to how I feel. I have no problem with them being sexy characters, I just feel scummy when I feel like I'm being pandered to.

On the other hand, I have zero problems with how the Witcher handles their romance sections, because I really don't feel like it's doing that. It feels more like they're telling Geralt's story, and a lot of that is sexing up every barmaid and villager on the way.

Avatar image for rockdalf
#5 Posted by Rockdalf (1328 posts) -

@pcorb said:

@cagliostro88: It definitely seems to me that they lack the confidence necessary to let their creations stand on their own merits. I don't need to constantly be shown a video game woman's t&a to be kept interested in her as a character, and every time I am I'm reminded of how little developers appear to think of their work and/or their audience.

I'm right there with you. I felt like I was being pandered to the whole game, especially in the romance sections.

"Dude this chicks a total babe, look how hot she is, and you clicked the right dialogue option to get her to sleep with you! Fuck yeah, high five!"

It's honestly what's put me off playing Mass Effect 3 even though I've had it on the Origin Store for free since that whole Sim City fiasco.

Avatar image for rockdalf
#6 Edited by Rockdalf (1328 posts) -

@slag: Man that's a hell of a lot of text. I disagree that the entire community has to grind to a halt and focus all their attention on women in gaming. It's simplistic and honestly a little demeaning. I don't fight on twitter for women's rights (hell I don't post on twitter at all), because I don't feel it's my fight. I can't unite behind Anita because I find a lot of flaws in her arguments and I think you'll agree it's literally impossible to get behind this movement if you don't lock heel with Anita. I agree with her goals, I think there is a problem in the industry, I just don't feel she represents it fairly or correctly. Unfortunately, there is no avenue in the media Anita uses to voice your disagreements or grievances. Worst of all, if you try to do so, you'll most likely be met with harassment yourself, which coming from people who support a victim of such harassment is pretty despicable.

The biggest problem I have with what you said is:

There can be no "genuine 2-way discussion" as you put it in your original post while that kind of harassment is ongoing and basic decency is not respected. It just isn't even safe for some people to even participate due to their gender.

That's just weak, because a 2-way discussion is the ONLY way any progress will be made. Gamers aren't going to fall in line with Anita because they're told by some woman they'd never met before that they need to believe what she's about to say without reproach. We aren't going to trust the Games Media validating her position in the community, when we really haven't trusted the games media for a long time and honestly they've represented the other side of the industry so much more than they have the consumer for a long time.

If we sacrifice the ability to have discourse, simply because of the actions of the worst of the community, we will never have change. The harassers, they are the ones who don't want discourse, they don't want this discussion to receive attention, so by saying we should all drop our banners and follow behind Anita and Zoe or become the enemy, you're playing right into their hands. We will never, as a community, unite wholly behind someone who is beyond reproach. And if what you're saying is true, Anita's arguments are beyond reproach for as long as she's being harassed, she will ALWAYS be beyond reproach.

While we don't have the means or the power to completely stop these attacks, we can be stand together as a community that clearly disapproves of them which will help curtail them. We need to make it emphatically clear that these people who do these things are not welcome in the gaming community. But that only works if we make this a priority and are willing to be as concerned about others as we are about ourselves.

I stand with Anita and Zoe against harassment, I stand against them on some of their ideals.

Avatar image for rockdalf
#7 Posted by Rockdalf (1328 posts) -

@teaoverlord: Ironically I'd rather not get into it right now. Like a lot of people have already pointed out in this thread, Games companies and games journalists have had a very layered close relationship throughout the past. The Jeff Gerstman controversy that led to the creation of this site is a perfect example. Recently, a google group mail latter between prominent journalists has leaked and it's contained some pretty damning statements. A full discussion I think warrants another thread or perhaps PMs later, I'm about to log off.

Avatar image for rockdalf
#8 Posted by Rockdalf (1328 posts) -

@nexas said:

@rockdalf: I can't address the movement's ideals because it doesn't have any. GamerGate is a mishmash of wildly different ideals and goals, hence my Occupy comparison. Some people are worried about "journalistic ethics". Others believe that their identity as "gamers" is under attack. Finally, there are the sexist who started this whole thing, and have been the only faction of GamerGate that has actually accomplished any part of their goals: silencing vocal women in industry. This doesn't even take into account how vague the "ethics" discussion has been.

You say that I should address you and your concerns, but I would like you to look at this from the perspective of the victims and their supporters. As I have previously stated, the GamerGate movement was started by misogynist. Because of a very tenuous relationship between Zoe Quinn and journalist, the movement has become couched in the language of "journalist ethics." Quinn and numerous other woman have been harassed under this guise of "journalist ethics." Then comes the people like you, who genuinely have some issues with the state of games journalism saying you don't condone what has happened, but you would really like to talk about ethics in games journalism. Think about how this looks. You are essentially saying to these people "I'm sorry this happened, but I didn't do it. Lets talk about my problems now." All this is being said while flying the banner of the harassers. This comes off as both insensitive and selfish. You really can't expect to have genuine conversation about ethics in games journalism right now. The wounds are way too raw right now.

Yeah, I am saying that. I'm sorry Jenn Frank was harassed out of a job, I'm sorry Zoe Quinn was doxxed and harrassed and I'm sorry Anita has recieved death threats and felt unsafe in her own home. Also, I did none of that, I've never sported a #GamerGate tag, but I understand the grievances of the legitimate complaints the movement has. I feel these complaints are being dismissed, there is an organized effort to quell discussion about the matter and I would like to discuss it.

From my perspective, why should we allow the discussion of journalistic ethics be quelled by the hateful attacks of a few? Should Anita give up her campaign because someone who follows her movement doxx and harasses someone wishing to talk about journalistic ethics?

Avatar image for rockdalf
#9 Posted by Rockdalf (1328 posts) -

I think there is a basic conversation to have about the relationship between gaming press and gaming developers/publishers. For me I think it's the big publishers who regularly send the press on trips, to parties, and pay for their food and drinks are much more of a concern. This relationship is already well known and openly talked about but yet I continually see indie developers targeted. It isn't right for indie developers to try to exert any kind of influence on the press but when you allow big publishers/developers to do it, the indie developers should too.

That's where my disconnect comes from. You can't say indie and press should be separate and can't communicate or coordinate when the big developers do it all the time.

And in my opinion it's all apart of the business. You shouldn't have 100% in any one person or website. They have to prove themselves to you to earn your clicks.

Also a lot of people need to remember two things. 1. This is an opinion, not journalist, based business. Reviewers are paid to share their opinions. 2. It's video games. It may be your favorite hobby, you may have been playing since age 3, and you may really love it all. But it's still just a video game. It isn't worth feeling so negative over.

I feel like that's one thing this site does right. I don't come here to see review scores I may or may not disagree with. I come here for the personalities of the staff and the content they put out. It's the same reason I watch certain youtube personalities or twitch. Games press has mostly served the role as middleman between consumer and developer, but because of the internet, that's really no longer an issue. With companies like Nintendo Direct marketing their products directly to consumers, Valve and EA creating entire platforms dedicating to distributing and advertising content, we see less and less necessity for the mail man. Gaming press is going to have to figure out a new role, I think.

Avatar image for rockdalf
#10 Edited by Rockdalf (1328 posts) -

@chrissedoff said:

Boy it sure is interesting how the OP's position seemed to just morph from, "Hey, both sides have good points let's just be chill and not argue about it" to consistently making critiques of one side of the debate and arguing in favor of the legitimacy of the side that's almost solely targeted at opinionated women and is lousy with hackers, trolls and misogynists. It almost makes you wonder if calling for civility from a supposedly neutral position is really just a Trojan horse that is deployed to create a false equivalency between the two sides of this debate!

I've never claimed to be neutral, I said I had my opinions. I also claimed I believe both sides have things they are right about and they're not really at odds with each other. Maybe I don't want to associate myself with GamerGate, because I would automatically be lumped in and discredited by the worst of their movement, even though I believe in some of the issues they have. If you find anything I've said that conflicts itself, be sure to point it out and I'll address it accordingly. The only false equivalence I can see is accusing me of defending the targeting of opinionated women.

@conmulligan said:

@rockdalf said:

The problem I have is the specific example being singled out as a textbook example of systemic oppression, when it's cherry picked and poorly presented outside of context. If you were to show someone who knew nothing about that game, they would rightfully assume the game was about being awarded points for killing strippers.

Nobody is singling it out as a textbook example; the only reason we're talking about Hitman specifically is because that's the game everyone who objects to Anita's assertions uses to try and poke holes in her argument. I've already said that Hitman wasn't a particularly great example.

Maybe textbook example was a bad choice of words. Rather I meant, it doesn't fit in the video at all. A sandbox game where you can kill women as well as men isn't misogyny anymore than it is misandry. Regardless, I'll agree it's a beaten horse.