Bombin' the A.M. With Scoops and the Wolf: 09/05/2014

@the_reflection: If all you really want is to hate on a specific website, like, aren't there better things to want in life?

#Gamerghazi would have been much a better name IMO

Shots. Fired.

I want to buy you a beer

Yessssssss.

Hi Patrick,

Thank you for doing this. My question is simple. How is someone supposed to legitimately criticize a writer or outlet? I feel scared to say anything on twitter or in comments without being labeled a troll and having my opinion push aside. I'm not talking about idiotic criticisms like SJW or moneyhat garbage. For instance, if I feel that an outlet or reviewer is inconsistent with the site's review rubric how am I supposed to voice my opinion without being labeled a "fanboy" or "troll" and have my opinion pushed aside or belittled? It feels like only the extreme crazies ever get any attention, while legitimate criticism is ignored or disparaged.

Thanks.

I found this to be worthy of a read. To fair-minded proponents of #GamerGate:

This stuff is to gaming what Obama's birth certificate and the "new world order" is to politics.

It's because it involved the personal life of someone who has already had her life ripped open. It's not worth their discussion.

The whole situation is a nightmare - it's basically just a bunch of scumbags out to ruin people. The fact that they are connected to gaming is probably irrelevant to them. The fact that any sort of "movement" is attached to is just something they are using to hide within to justify their actions.

That being said - I will criticize the way @patrickklepek and @alex have handled this. If you don't want to talk about it on the site - don't. Beating around the bush for 20 minutes makes for terrible listening/viewing. If you want to just leave it to your twitter and tumblr and consider it a personal issue then go for it. If you want to talk or write about it here - please bring it on. But half-stepping does a disservice to both the issue and your audience.

Some gamers want Zoe Quinn and Maya Kramer and Jenn Frank and Anita Sarkeesian and Phil Fish to stop making games, to stop writing about games and being critical of games. They treat those writer and devs as outsiders trying to take away their games, to ruin the industry. They see asking for diversity or making "not games" as an attack. Friends of mine have been harassed, threatened, and made to feel unsafe in public and private. Their home addresses have been given out to the masses, all with the end goal of forcing them out of the industry.

For simply having one of these people on my panel at PAX, my youtube account was flagged (since fixed) and numerous attempts have been made to access my email.

If gamers here feel like there IS corruption in games media and things need to change, I would humbly suggest using #gameethics to distance yourself from garbage people. Here's a fun link of some 4channers in IRC: https://storify.com/strictmachine/gameovergate These are the people who are behind Quinngate and Gamergate. Consider your company.

Final note: we lost Jenn Frank, and we're worse off now that we were a week ago.

@bonechompskiOk yes, this is what I meant by "etymology". I understand what issues are being discussed, but wasn't sure why the word "gate" was being used. But I get it now.

To me it honestly seems like GamerGate is seeking to remove all personality from games writing, which is really a bummer. Personality is why I love Giantbomb and the folks they have on their shows so much. If they were all trying to dance around and have "objective" opinions about things, nothing interesting would happen. Sites would just be Reviews and press releases.

Is there a problem with you guys hanging out, making friends and hanging out with game developers when a lot of your work directly is meant to influence readers purchasing decisions. I am not saying that you can't make friends with game developers, it often makes for great content. But then I hear glowing talk about their products, which sometimes can be justified, it just kinda makes me wonder. There has to be a certain bias when talking about products that good friends of yours create?

Does games journalism need more disclosure to inform your audience of the strong relationships a lot of media and game developers have?

Not speaking for Patrick here but as someone who has been a writer the best critiques are about specifics. Be specific and don't equate someone to belong to a group. At worst you'll be strawmanning and at best you'll make those people defensive. Even if they are being racist, don't call them a racist. The only response you'll get is "i'm not a racist."

Pick specific things from the article or series of articles and make a case for your argument, show hypocrisy with specific examples. Avoid broad generalizations and don't come off like you've been personally offended and don't insult.

EDIT: Never accuse someone of bias or having an agenda. This is shortcut to undermining your argument and making sure no one takes you seriously. They're meaningless and lazy arguments.

What I'd say is that trying to do so in the midst of a harassment campaign is probably the wrong venue. Context is important here! You can have valid questions about games journalism, the policies of a website, the way a score was determined--that's all well and fine. But the public face of what's happening right now is harassment. It's not fair to lump people into categories they don't belong, but if you're asking questions, even legitimate ones, in the middle of a fire, you're going to get burned. Wait until the fire goes out.

Because after the Watergate scandal, everything has "gate" attached to the end of it.

@davidmerrick: look, I agree with everything Patrick said at the beginning of the show. The harrasment going on is ridiculous and totally disgusting. There is a talk that needs to be made about journalistic integrity in the game journalism, but now is not the time. Too many people are riled up or coming at this argument for a terrible angle.

But man, fuck Kotoku. Like, snack reviews? What the fuck is that?

Honestly I find myself in two minds on this, one half regards the whole thing as a gross invasion of privacy dressed up in a trojan horse hashtag to drive prominent female voices out of gaming, the other half is concerned that a lot of otherwise decent people have adopted this hashtag to discuss vague poorly defined ethics concerns without knowing it's evil cradling. The first group I wouldn't entertain as they blatantly do not care about ethics but and are instead attempting to quash any voice that challenge the staus quo. The other group though came to the conversation late and are shocked to be accused of the same rampant misogyny that the first group represent when their concerns are nothing to do with the harassment that the GG tag represents

An example for me is Boogie2988, he's been on GAF discussing his support for the tag but his ideas are a muddled mess of ethics concerns and a desire to keep 'politics' out of games. Last post he was moving to consider his position in light of the info revealed by Quinn about the obvious planning by the negative elements of 4chan /v/ to force women out of games writing by abusing GamerGate and NotYourShield.

While the ZQ doxxing was ugly trash that was rightly kept off the site did that just send gamers curious as to what it was all about into the arms of the MSPaint conspiracy brigade with their insane diagrams proving that people are friends with other people? At what point do sites like GB address something that was born from evil intent but has found a cloak of nobility? I don't have answers but I think not addressing this at this point has become almost a proof point in the feverish atmosphere these topics generate 'a ha it must be true they're all too afraid to address it'.

@atwa: their talk isn't always glowing, and they're incredibly transparent about all this stuff (at least on GB). And its not like there is only one site, there are multiple places you can go to read about games to get multiple opinions. That's the smart thing anyways.

I mean, we try to do that at Giant Bomb all the time. Not reviewing Bastion, for example. Being part of the games press is a very weird business, and one that we try to come at honestly by telling the reader what's up. There are lots of gray areas in this business, and we hope by letting the reader know about them, they'll trust our judgement or go to another site/writer that fits what they're looking for. That's fine.

As much as I do respect Patrick and Alex for the comments they have made, including in this thread, I have to agree: Giant Bomb as a whole has remained silent on the subject of this recent wave of harassment, and it's let some of the rotten opinions seen in this thread and others fester. While it's good that Alex has voiced a no-tolerance policy that needs to be written about front and centre on the site, not just in a Tumblr, Tweet or comment thread.

Can one or two of the staff please write something on this?

I would say your critique is totally fair, and I've struggled with how to respond to this.

@atwa: When there is a bias, Giant Bomb let's people know.

Follow the site enough, and you'll knowswho their former coworkers, long time friends, etc. are. When they covered the making of Bastion extensively, they didn't review it. Which is a shame, because it's one of my favorite games in a long time.

They have given low scores before, to games made by their friends. And maybe they talk about them more often, but they talk about all sorts of crazy shit often enough.

And the negative bias seems mostly for comedy, like Jeff shouting about games he doesn't enjoy.

@quikblink: I know you asked Patrick, but I think the most important thing when expressing criticism is to be polite and have your points mapped out before hand. A lot of times, people online fly off the cuff and put things into words that are not ideal or use inflammatory language that they think will draw attention, but it's negative attention that they're going to receive in the long run. I think the main thing I have tried to cultivate in myself with my dealings online is the idea that I should take my time, think carefully about what I am going to say, and then say it and stand behind it without being offended if someone disagrees. On top of that, I also have found it helpful to admit when I am wrong, if I am wrong. My opinions on different matters have changed over time, and there is no shame in admitting that.

I think most people will read a well thought out piece of criticism and support it, or at least respectfully disagree. If you are worried about the small percent of people who will react poorly even to carefully thought out posts? Well I have no good answer to that besides stick to what you believe and to have faith in your abilities to say what you believe. It's hard in a climate like this is, but I think we can all agree that we want people speaking up eloquently, not hiding away. I hid away for a long time, it doesn't help anything in the end.

Even if we don't agree, I will appreciate your writing if you take time and care with advocating your points.

Because telling people to go kill themselves and threatening doxxing is totally cool...seriously wtf kind of response is that...

The value would be support for those attacked. Not just Zoe and Anita, but Samantha Allen, Mattie Brice, and Jenn Frank - all three of whom announced leaving game journalism because of the attacks. Not just for them, but for the people who love games.

If you've not seen it, Matt Lees has an excellent video explaining why talk about this is needed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD0_DfvutM4

Last, thank you Patrick for all you do not just on these issues but also for your coverage of more non-mainstream and indie games and reporting in general. I was skeptical when you first joined the staff questioning "who is this kid?" and you've proven a 1000x's over exactly why you're here.

I agree that the situation blowing up has made not covering it more complicated, and though I'm not ashamed to have maintained my stance thus far, I do concede it may be time to change it.

THIS is a key point here. There is so much false equivalency coming from the gamergate side of things that it's impossible to take them seriously. From one of them I attempted to talk to on Twitter the other day, I got the impression that they feel an article decrying the "gamer" identity is as poisonous as harassing women.

I hope I don't need to explain why that's horrible logic. At this point, the motives behind gamergate and notyourshield have more or less been proven to be, in a word, dishonest. 4chan, a site that can realistically be called a hate group, concocted both, even donning virtual blackface to support the latter. The portion of people tweeting under those hashtags who have reasonable concerns are choosing to support a movement with deep roots in misogyny, regardless of their personal feelings towards women.

It says a lot to me that "gamers" who feel insulted are choosing to go after women who spoke ill of their identities instead of Jeff Gerstmann, who has been talking mess about the word "gamer" for years.

@patrickklepek: Will people stop complaining once games come out again? I feel like half the reason this issue is as big as it is is because nothing's out. It's a distraction when people need one.

Also, do people seem way more sensitive now than say 2008? I've been listening to old Bombcast's and the duders tone is totally different than it is now. Lots of semi blatant sexism, a lot of references to 'girlfriend games', etc.

@patrickklepek: How do you feel about some journalists talking respectfully about those who claim to have "legitimate concerns" - thus lending credit to the harassers (not intentionally of course) - when judging by the stuff that came to light this morning, even that part of this whole thing is fabricated? (e.g. it appears that some of the people with "legitimate concerns" may have actually been puppet Twitter accounts made by the harassers to look real)

I mean, at best, some real people thought there were ethical concerns being brought to light, but there's no way those people were paying attention to just how or why they were brought to light. If they knew the details, I would hope they wouldn't have even considered getting involved.

(And a sidenote for those who think that "the truth is always somewhere in the middle," or "both sides have behaved poorly," the words "ethics," "integrity," and "nepotism" each appear less than 100 times in the harassers' not-so-secret-anymore IRC chat. "Zoe" appears over 2000 times, "Anita" shows up 575 times, "rape" gets over 600 mentions, and various sexist slurs appear a few hundred times each. Now tell me what this whole thing was really about.)

I'm just going to duck in here real quick and say that the Vox article on the subject is fantastic. If anyone wants as thorough and well thought out as you can get breakdown of the events and the underlying issues I can't recommend it enough.

Please just stop. We have enough to worry about without having to micromanage yet another petty argument. If you have an issue with someone then flag their post or send the mods a PM, the link to do this can be found on the right hand side.

All I know is that this situation is extremely depressing and I have no idea if it will get any better or what to do to help. I feel ashamed to like games due to the harassers from the community and like Alex I have all this anger and sadness but I don't know what to do with it. I can only imagine how the harassed feel and they are probably way stronger then I could ever be in that situation. Fuck everything.

Also, you shouldnt confuse "Game journalism ethics" with " I just dont want game sites talking all the time about Social issues/women/minorities". They are free to write about what they want and, as long as there is no conflict of interest, it is not an "ethics" problem. But hey, you are free to not visit those sites!

1. I think that rudely minimalizes the trauma people like Zoe, Anita, Jenn et al have been through. It's not a distraction to them.

2. Six years is a lot of time for people to experience other perspectives, reevaluate their attitudes, and grow. I think the staff is above that now.

@mintyice: In one of Patrick's first appearances on the 1up show he talked about how hot the girl from 24 was for like, awhile. People have gotten a lot more politically correct, not necessarily bad though.

I find staying positive, focusing on the positive people within the industry, and enjoying what they do really helps. I've been playing games with some of my friends and just ignoring all this for awhile while watching GB videos for instance.

Been following this mess since day zero. People aren't mad there woman making games, they just don't like what Zoe Quinn did. Argue about whether or not that information ever should have been made public, but it has been and it's OK for people to have opinions about it.

Is it fine? This sentiment kind of bothers me, and it's been brought up before. The idea that either I can trust completely or take my business elsewhere... is that really the choice you want to present? Can I not have a concern about hazy/blurred lines with industry folks affecting coverage, or authorial tone, or something similar without having to give up the ghost and seek out a new community?

Maybe that's not what you mean with that statement, but it always read to me as 'Like it or leave it, because nothing that concerns you will make us change'. It's decidedly not fine, it's kind of aggressive and insular.

(I feel the need to point out that I am a community member because I love this site and the people in it. Also, gamergate has been the worst; it has been giving me anxiety for weeks, and I'm just on the sidelines... /disclosure).

The Bastion example has come up a lot in all of this, but really that is as far as it goes when it comes to Giantbomb. You have plenty of other friends that hang out and that are featured on the site on a regular basis that don't get that clear journalistic disclosure that Bastion did.

I kinda feel like trust issues arise when I listen to you guys these days, since I have seen how close you are with some of the people creating the games. Its not a criticism to you guys alone but I just feel it harder and harder to genuinely pay attention to games press, which is wrong and I wish it wasn't so.

I respect the Bastion thing a whole lot, but when will you front with such apparent disclosure again, if ever?

I would say the fact that it's September and games are a bit try has contributed, yeah.

As for changes in attitudes at Giant Bomb, I'd say that's definitely true for all of us in the last few years.

True, and I actually don't have any critiques at the moment. It just feels like the reaction towards these gamergate fools is the same reaction (Public shaming, name calling, blocking, etc) towards readers when people have legit concerns (not on GB you and Jeff are great at listening and having a dialog). The outrage is genuine and appropriate in this case, but I have not commented on items in the past for a fear public ridicule. This just brought the thought up in my head again, and I like to look at the long run. Thanks again.

This week has really made me think twice of even following this industry. Seriously how the hell is harassing anyone from any side a good way from trying to get your point across. How the hell is deleting comments or disabling threads from any website going to help your cause. It only makes people curious of what the hell is happening. Also, it didn't help much when various articles, claiming that the term gamer is dead, got published within a 48 hour time span. Seriously who thought that was a good idea?

You know what fuck it. im done. I think im just gonna let subscription to this website expire and just not go to any other gaming website.

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.

This has been my view on this for some time now. If people don't wan to see these articles, don't actively seek them out. Capitalism will surely take care of the rest. And if they survive, well, the majority has spoken.