I never thought I'd write this but... Phoenixwarrior, thanks for being more reasonable about this than Korban3.
Phoenixwarrior141 wrote:A harmless tool intended for worthy content creators. She's either exploiting feminists for free cash or Depression Quest is only as good as it's publicity says if you believe in Christmas cheer.
I'm open to either as possibilities.
Granted she IS using Patreon to make money and thus keep a roof over her head (At least she didn't charge for Depression Quest) but she also whined on twitter about not being able to make rent (Whether or not this is true or not is up for debate, I'm sure you could find out somewhere) and getting support from her friend (That she most likely fucked) to get free donations.
Which even though it may be necessary, why not make a fucking game or get a job first? She did neither and is living on publicity (Thanks to depressed people [Or sympathizers] donating for her making such a "Beautiful game") from articles to get donations, and is censoring bad publicity, as best she can. If she didn't do this I probably would support her 100%.
She isn't exploiting feminists, her audience is wider than that. But yes, she gets hundreds of people to donate to her. However, isn't that what Patreon is all about? It's for the projects that can't get through Kickstarter, for being too vaguely worded, or for not actually selling anything, or for other reasons. If it's exploitation, is Patreon based on exploitation, and as such evil?
I don't think it's exploitation, just an uneven, unsafe trade.
To be honest, she seems like an impulsive, short-sighted person. She makes small, tiny games, so small that people don't want to pay for them. Then she gets excited and puts them up online so people can see them. Then she worries about rent. Patreon lets her get by.
However, that only makes her shortsighted, not a villain.
The grasshopper from that old story, and not a busy ant.
Does this apply to me too?
Hell she could've fucked five non-journalists or other game developers and I'd let that slide because there are men who have done far worse.
I'm not allowed to make sweet love to any of the journalists or game developers I meet, or have worked with, or have studied with?
You know, I rarely go to bars, but when I go I'm with game developers. If it's a big party, it's got journalists too. So basically you just told me I can't have sex with the people I meet when I go to a bar.
I do not approve of the people verbally assaulting a female Ubisoft employee, but I condemn Zoe Quinn for her actions.
Unfortunately I can't remember which case of verbal assault of a female game developer this was. :/
Anyway, okay. Condemning Zoe Quinn is fine.
No problem here. We disagree on what she has done, and how bad of a person she is, but condemning a person for what you believe he or she did is fine.
Harassing is worse
than condemning though, and I don't approve of that.
It isn't a zero-sum game.
She is also getting PLENTY of support:
Kicking the dog and then petting the cat doesn't make it okay. Kicking is bad even if there's lots and lots of petting afterwards. Now, if it was a vaccine - a pain for a reason, and no more than is necessary - it would be fine. But it's gone way beyond that.
Purposefully getting kicked again and again to get attention sounds like it might be a psychological problem. A reason for support, then, although a support of a specific sort.
Acting as if you had been mortally wounded although you just got a bruise? That's kinda dishonest, but the one who kicked was the more despicable one.
Aiming for the dog and accidentally scoring a goal? ... nevermind this is getting silly
she's just the most recent and arguably the most despicable in her actions not even related to the journalists. Including censorship.
This is true. But isn't it her duty not to TRY to get the journalists to betray their integrity?
And censor negative opinions. That's just wrong.
Is this censoring about the one Youtube video (Mike something?) that got DMCA'd? Haven't caught up on it yet
, sorry. There's lots of info, and since I didn't like the video guy, getting all the info takes quite a bit of reading. Anything else I should check up?
She didn't directly cause the damage, I know that much. But she was still a major force causing the mob in the first place, especially because the associate of hers posted the information in the first place.
And resulting in $10,000 makes you indirectly responsible. The fact she didn't stop her associate is bad enough.
If it's her duty to prevent the wrongdoing of others, isn't it our duty too?
Wouldn't that make it your duty to stop the people who harass her, if it's wrong? And the people who harass people like TotalBiscuit, too. And the people who have hacked servers or Skype accounts or Dropbox accounts. If anyone loses anything that was only in a single online storage space, and it was worth $10,000, does it make us indirectly responsible because we didn't stop them?
If it keeps happening, or has kept happening, and she hasn't reacted in any way after being given the time to think about it, then yes, it could be her fault.
If it's an occassional thing that happens only sporadically when she posts like that all the time? No, I don't think so. She has no reason to think any of her tweets will be responsible for anything bad.
SHE hasn't been doxxed as far as I know.
She claims she has been. I don't know if it's true or not, nor do I know how it could be proven.