Wolfire Games Forums

Endoperez wrote:
If some gamergaters act like that, and someone doesn't want to see that, ignoring all gamergaters is an option. Alienating the good ones is an acceptable loss, especially as even the good ones seem to focus more on people they disagree with than on journalism.

1: You missed my point entirely, my point was that using this tool to block the more aggressive and "bad" gamergaters but still want to be part of the discussion, the tool doesn't work.

Ignoring all GGers is as easy as bowing out of the discussion. Which makes the tool redundant.

2: No, most GOOD GGers care about journalism, disagreements stem from that.

A: What end result is wrong? The fact that people can ignore people they don't want to listen to, or something else?

The result of blocking all GGers regardless of intention. Since the only people who are using this are part of the discussion (Or else the tool is redundant as stated earlier) supposedly to block harassers, this can be easily used to auto and mass block criticism.

B: If muting all gamergaters at once is wrong, is it then good and right to listen to gamergaters? If so, is it just about being polite, or is it somehow a duty to listen to those who want to talk?

Muting ALL GGers would be wrong, but muting the bad ones would not. Everyone profits from such an action, people outside of GG included.

Of course, if you're not part of the discussion or don't care, blocking all GGers isn't bad at all, but odds are you would have no reason to block them because no one is talking to you, making the tool again, redundant.

MENTAL wellbeing. Being bullied, getting targeted isn't fun. It can in fact be horrible.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ng-up.html

You know how simple it is to dodge this "bullying"?

Not visit that website, block the people being aggressive toward you (Most GGers aren't supporting harassment either) and maybe delete that account if it's getting bad.

And I can't take any article calling GamerGate a "hate machine" when feminazis (and SJWs) that GG is against are far more hateful then the GOOD side of GG ever is.

Also, quote from the article:

broad summaries of hordes of angry video game consumers trying to take down what they see as a “corrupt conspiracy” of feminist, progressive voices in gaming

Oooooooo, that doesn't come off as entitled, artsy and fucking pretentious does it?

"Progressive"

Heh.

Edit:

Who are GamerGate? It’s one part entitled white guys claiming ownership over a subculture they feel is being invaded by outsiders. It’s one part entitled people who aren’t white guys who have, for one reason or another, made peace with being part of a white-guy-dominated culture and now enthusiastically join in trashing people who try to change it, for various complicated reasons.

That over generalization.

In short, you believe that gamergaters do not attack anyone who isn't part of the discussion, and that if you're part of the discussion, avoiding and/or ignoring criticism is wrong.
Anyone who wishes can just bow out of the discussion without fail, and Gamergaters, good or bad, do not target random unaffiliated people without a reason.

I disagree. I believe Gamergate has attacked several people who had nothing to do with ethics in games journalism, and haven't left those people alone even after they were requested to do so.

If that were true, blocking gamergaters would pre-emptively protect you from suffering as much if you were to suddenly become a target. You don't believe it happens, so you don't see the benefit. If you are right, there indeed is little no benefit to it.

However, there's another, harmful thing I disagree that is just wrong, no matter your premises.

Not visit that website, block the people being aggressive toward you (Most GGers aren't supporting harassment either) and maybe delete that account if it's getting bad.

If anything ever gets so bad that you have to delete your social media account to cope with it, THINGS HAVE GONE TOO FAR!

It's silencing people through fear and harassment, it's forcing people out of their social groups, in some cases out of their professional tools (social media can be that, too).

If someone has to consider deleting an account, things aren't "getting bad", but things went from horrifying to outright unacceptable.

And I can't take any article calling GamerGate a "hate machine" when feminazis (and SJWs) that GG is against are far more hateful then the GOOD side of GG ever is.

I'm gonna go look up for examples of Gamergaters going after people who are not game journalists, or game developers who could reasonably be said to be in collusion with journalists.

If I find any examples, feel free to provide a counterpoint of the hateful things the feminazis that oppose gamergate have done.

You're not going to get anywhere with him. He doesn't know how to see merit in opposing views and is just recycling the same garbage that every other redpill gamer gater throws out without much support.

Endoperez wrote:I'm gonna go look up for examples of Gamergaters going after people who are not game journalists, or game developers who could reasonably be said to be in collusion with journalists.

Here's Gamergate as a general moband Mike C.ernovich specifically targeting a person who is pro social justice and doesn't write or talk about games, or make them:

https://storify.com/x_glitch/when-the-g ... h-for-no-r

Examples of a swarm of random people appearing on his twitter and leaving him no space to do his thing, demanding he say what they want him to say and sometimes accusing him of random things. AKA harassment.
https://twitter.com/anildash/status/523714628241469440
https://twitter.com/anildash/status/523706799925755904
https://twitter.com/anildash/status/523705541366145024
https://twitter.com/anildash/status/524568510597697538


Here's Gamergate targeting a community manager of Mighty Nr 9, trying to get her fired, because she wasn't acting professionally on her personal twitter account. Her PERSONAL account. Which is not her job thing. It's something she said on the internet. That wasn't wrong and isn't a reason to attack anyone.

https://storify.com/a_man_in_black/game ... y-pingback

The original tweets that Gamergate thinks she should be fired over:
https://twitter.com/Nilk_tweets/status/ ... 5090124800

Examples:
https://twitter.com/mylittlepwnies3/sta ... 3353889792
https://twitter.com/N1nj45tyl3/status/5 ... 8170250240
https://twitter.com/LetsSailHatan/statu ... 2829515776
https://twitter.com/AnimeAvatar2501/sta ... 9131918336
https://twitter.com/FantasticFranco/sta ... 8043964416
https://twitter.com/LoganMac91/status/5 ... 5578550272

Here's also an analysis of some harassment data:
https://medium.com/@evanderkoogh/so-i-r ... bbc27f3ac4

1500 tweets, mostly negative, with 100 supportive ones. That's... harsh, to say the least.

And now something completely different:

Endoperez wrote:In short, you believe that gamergaters do not attack anyone who isn't part of the discussion, and that if you're part of the discussion, avoiding and/or ignoring criticism is wrong.
Anyone who wishes can just bow out of the discussion without fail, and Gamergaters, good or bad, do not target random unaffiliated people without a reason.

I disagree. I believe Gamergate has attacked several people who had nothing to do with ethics in games journalism, and haven't left those people alone even after they were requested to do so.

Most disagreements like such stem from such discussion, even then these people are in the vast minority.

After all, you said GG was a large movement, so many that it couldn't be blocked without such a tool, yet most people are nearly as aggressive as these GGers, you're over-generalizing.

If that were true, blocking gamergaters would pre-emptively protect you from suffering as much if you were to suddenly become a target. You don't believe it happens, so you don't see the benefit. If you are right, there indeed is little no benefit to it.

A better move would be to not suddenly become a target or avoid the discussion and watch it from the sidelines. It isn't that hard you know.

If anything ever gets so bad that you have to delete your social media account to cope with it, THINGS HAVE GONE TOO FAR!

Odds are someone who needs to "cope" with it in the first place has issues. But if it gets that bad then it's always an option.

Just like uninstalling your OS to get rid of a virus or malware, it's not ideal and it's really just a last resort nuclear option, but it works and is always available.

It's silencing people through fear and harassment, it's forcing people out of their social groups, in some cases out of their professional tools (social media can be that, too).

If someone has to consider deleting an account, things aren't "getting bad", but things went from horrifying to outright unacceptable.

Again, bowing out of the discussion and not being an unintentionally central part of the controversy and the movement is always an option, and rarely impossible.

You never had to get involved, you chose to get into this despite the implications.

I'm gonna go look up for examples of Gamergaters going after people who are not game journalists, or game developers who could reasonably be said to be in collusion with journalists.

I'd like to point out that these people (From either side) are in the minority, you don't see GGers yelling at any feminist ever because Anita exists, nor do you see every feminist against GG and doxxing people on the SJW's behalf.

Phoenixwarrior141 wrote: Again, bowing out of the discussion and not being an unintentionally central part of the controversy and the movement is always an option, and rarely impossible.

You never had to get involved, you chose to get into this despite the implications.

I'd like to point out that these people (From either side) are in the minority, you don't see GGers yelling at any feminist ever because Anita exists, nor do you see every feminist against GG and doxxing people on the SJW's behalf.

You are ignoring the people who were not involved but became targets. The people who liked the idea of GG ignoring people, complained they weren't being left alone as promised, etc.
https://mobile.twitter.com/devilkitten/ ... 8470368256
https://mobile.twitter.com/TheQuinnspir ... 4111766529
https://mobile.twitter.com/Spacekatgal/ ... 1378056192

Of course they couldn't ignore without indulting.
https://mobile.twitter.com/BenBenMiri/s ... 0106270720

And at the same ime other gaters say they do it for the lols and that's why they don't ignore anyone...
https://mobile.twitter.com/RogueSenpai/ ... 2337606656


Anita is a feminist, not a corrupted game journalist... Why is she a target again?

I did not say Gg is a large movement. I said you considrr it a movement. I don't know how many are involved, probably some thousands, but I don't know what to make of ut.

Finally, the last resort option of leaving really sucks when it means leaving your job. Even if it works, everyone loses...

Endoperez wrote: You are ignoring the people who were not involved but became targets. The people who liked the idea of GG ignoring people, complained they weren't being left alone as promised, etc.
https://mobile.twitter.com/devilkitten/ ... 8470368256
https://mobile.twitter.com/TheQuinnspir ... 4111766529
https://mobile.twitter.com/Spacekatgal/ ... 1378056192

Of course they couldn't ignore without indulting.
https://mobile.twitter.com/BenBenMiri/s ... 0106270720

And at the same ime other gaters say they do it for the lols and that's why they don't ignore anyone...
https://mobile.twitter.com/RogueSenpai/ ... 2337606656

Those are called trolls, apparently they just happen to use GG's banner.

And besides, it seems those people are just sorting out the worst people and calling them representatives, which is fine. But as soon as gamers call SJWs representative of feminists, WE'RE the bad guys.

Anita is a feminist, not a corrupted game journalist... Why is she a target again?

Because she targets gamers. GG isn't exclusively about journalism you know, it's also about preserving the identity of gamer against these SJWs, that's why so many ACTUAL MISOGYNISTS use the organization as a scapegoat whenever they go on an ACTUAL hate spree against people.

I did not say Gg is a large movement. I said you considrr it a movement. I don't know how many are involved, probably some thousands, but I don't know what to make of ut.

Finally, the last resort option of leaving really sucks when it means leaving your job. Even if it works, everyone loses...

It's always an option, you can make another account or get a new job if you have to.

And, again, GG could consist of MILLIONS, is it impossible that these are just a very vocal minority that is often considered the face of GG, just like the bad feminists (But of course, misandry is far more profitable then misogyny, as we all know) are considered the face of feminism?

Phoenixwarrior141 wrote: Those are called trolls, apparently they just happen to use GG's banner.

They are real gamergaters.
You can't prove they aren't, or that Gandhi isn't, or that you are, or, say, C. Sommers is.

Oh and here's another example of a harassing Gamergater. I don't think I've posted this one yet.

[+] sexual harassment right there

And you know what? If thesewere trolls, they are so good at faking the autoblocker catches them!

And besides, it seems those people are just sorting out the worst people and calling them representatives, which is fine. But as soon as gamers call SJWs representative of feminists, WE'RE the bad guys.

Well, you called a person who asked a rhetorical question a feminazi. Until you provide proof, I'll assume someone was called a rapist because they said Gamergate should go away, and this was then used to say SJW support rapists.
Which, incidentally, would make Gamergate the bad guys.

Anita is a feminist, not a corrupted game journalist... Why is she a target again?

Because she targets gamers.

You target her because she targets people who targeted her because she talked about things gamers like.
If targeting her is justified by her actions, her actions are justified by the harassers' actions... Does that give her the right to attack gamers?

If it isn't right, why is it ok for Gamergate to attack her? Or fir YOU to attack her?

It's always an option, you can make another account or get a new job if you have to.

And, again, GG could consist of MILLIONS, is it impossible that these are just a very vocal minority that is often considered the face of GG, just like the bad feminists (But of course, misandry is far more profitable then misogyny, as we all know) are considered the face of feminism?

Again, you say it's an option... I say it's a horrible result of harassment and bullying.

GG has thousands on Twitter, at most. That makes what, ten to twenty thousand total, everywhere? The vocal minority could consists of 50 % of that.

Also, why do you keep claiming there's money in misandry? How is that money earned, who gets it, and how? I would assume misogyny is more profitable because that way companies get continue pay ingless for women.

Endoperez wrote:
They are real gamergaters.
You can't prove they aren't, or that Gandhi isn't, or that you are, or, say, C. Sommers is.

Point still stands. Just because they're real GGers doesn't make them not trolls. The same goes for Anonymous, where people do shit for the lols but under their banner

Oh and here's another example of a harassing Gamergater. I don't think I've posted this one yet.

[+] sexual harassment right there

And? The internet is a horrible place and always has been. People like this are practically everywhere.

And you know what? If thesewere trolls, they are so good at faking the autoblocker catches them!

The auto-blocker doesn't block GGers exclusively.

Well, you called a person who asked a rhetorical question a feminazi. Until you provide proof, I'll assume someone was called a rapist because they said Gamergate should go away, and this was then used to say SJW support rapists.
Which, incidentally, would make Gamergate the bad guys.

Dunno where you're going with that.

You target her because she targets people who targeted her because she talked about things gamers like.
If targeting her is justified by her actions, her actions are justified by the harassers' actions... Does that give her the right to attack gamers?

If it isn't right, why is it ok for Gamergate to attack her? Or fir YOU to attack her?

It's okay for her to attack gamers so long as we can retaliate.

Again, you say it's an option... I say it's a horrible result of harassment and bullying.

Or people being more precious then they care to admit.

GG has thousands on Twitter, at most. That makes what, ten to twenty thousand total, everywhere? The vocal minority could consists of 50 % of that.

Or less.

Also, why do you keep claiming there's money in misandry? How is that money earned, who gets it, and how? I would assume misogyny is more profitable because that way companies get continue pay ingless for women.

Because with misandry you have Tumblr's support, Feminist support and can pretend that harassment and domestic violence and sexism doesn't happen to men. A lot of shitty feminist videos (And Extra Credits) proves this.

Paying women less isn't misogyny, it's bias. Same with having sex with a woman and paying her more, or having sex with a man and paying him more (Which might spawn Christianity+ DEAR GOD)

Also, the Minimum devs ( A small indie studio who made a popular MOBA) were coaxed into making a FEMALE model but no MALE model has been advertised, only the current unisex model.

What's that about then?

Phoenixwarrior141 wrote:Also, the Minimum devs ( A small indie studio who made a popular MOBA) were coaxed into making a FEMALE model but no MALE model has been advertised, only the current unisex model.

What's that about then?

I'm guessing the unisex models are basically looking like male models, as it usually is?
I mean, how the hell is a unisex humanoid supposed to look like anyway? The concept itself is completely nonsensical.

Also, just from browsing the first page of the discussion board on Steam, the game seems to have been initially advertised as featuring female characters.
EDIT: Found an interesting post and a dev's response to it:

Originally posted by Jenvas1306:
they are gendered. just boobs or no boobs isnt the only thing that makes a model look male or female. the sturdy build and clearly larger upperbody part of the playermodels make them look quite male. just another game that sets male as the default and female as the variation. all it needs is a more slender build and you got something that look more feminine, just look at atlas and p-body from portal 2.
I usually play with my boyfriend and having the option to play as female gets just more important for me that way. playing a dude is just weird.
if it wasnt just 5€ I would have looked closer and I wish I did before buying, because I do not want to support that playing as female is a feature that gets scrapped so easily.

Originally posted by [email protected]:
Thank you for this reply. I do want to emphasize that we didn't consider it scrapping a feature, we really did decide that our block folks were "genderless." But I absolutely understand what you mean when you say that, regardless of what we might want our models to represent, they do have some traditionally masculine characteristics.

To expand on this further, if our base models were less clearly masculine would you like the idea of genderless block people, or would you still prefer we had two different gendered models?

The whole conversation that they got out of it was actually really, really, really nice. Everything the devs said basically revolved around collecting feedback and then making the decision to ultimately re-introduce the female models, because the fans voiced their opinion and said that they would like them back.

So this makes me wonder - as with the previous times this has come up with you - why you need to paint it in such a bad light. What is so bad about offering character models to female gamers that they can more easily identify with?

Why in the fucking fuck do you need to identify with a block character that doesn't progress, will only be seen by other players for a few seconds and never in the history of ever ACTUALLY FUCKING MATTER?