|
Denim Dude posted:I don't know man, I don't have archives but I did a google search for "effectronica gamergate" and http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3663824&userid=176390 How many pages do I have
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 12:33 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:If you say "I was going to call you a retard, but then I didn't 'cuz of rules", it does actually equate to calling me a retard, just in a really wimpy and pathetic way. No man. That's My way of telling you that you were right. You said I wouldn't get in trouble for just chat posting and I didn't believe you so I was going to call you the bad R word. Then I looked at the rules and didn't see that mentioned I posted that you were correct. Yeah I was going to call you a retard at first though my bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
So S4T has just switched to a hardcore anti-Gamergater and posted this video in an effort to get on the SPJ panel debate. How funny it will be if they let him on and he winds up taking up half the debate time representing the entire antiGG side. https://youtu.be/5bxI_03FShQ Gianthogweed fucked around with this message at 05:39 on Jul 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
One interesting thing that I've noticed is that people talk about how "trolls" who have no ideological association with the hashtag are the cause of 99.99% of the harassment, and that this is inevitable. And then these same people disclaim any ideological association with the hashtag. Curious indeed.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:One interesting thing that I've noticed is that people talk about how "trolls" who have no ideological association with the hashtag are the cause of 99.99% of the harassment, and that this is inevitable. And then these same people disclaim any ideological association with the hashtag. Curious indeed. They also tend to say that death threats are a normal and natural part of the internet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
Denim Dude posted:No man. That's My way of telling you that you were right. You said I wouldn't get in trouble for just chat posting and I didn't believe you so I was going to call you the bad R word. Then I looked at the rules and didn't see that mentioned I posted that you were correct. Yeah I was going to call you a retard at first though my bad. Okay. I'm sure in time you'll come to terms with the fact that this thread is here in this forum and learn to accept it as a part of life, and that you can still dance, sing, and laugh. I said you wouldn't get in trouble, it seems to me, for saying that some public figure's father was somebody, instead of just broadly hinting at it. I don't know what you mean by 'chat posting'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Okay, great. Some are, some aren't. Depends on which you point at (hello Discount Kane and Fake John Romero). Effectronica posted:Not what I'm asking. Why were you going back and forth on this instead of setting out a clear statement and sticking with it from the beginning? Because you want things to be the way they were in the past, and nothing to change? If you're talking about the Old Hellthread, I'm ambivalent. It was funny, sure but it was actually getting slower than this one unless Trezzor came in and started posting and then it would be crazy. If you aren't talking about old hellthread then I have no idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
a bay posted:How many pages do I have 4 pages. Thats a pretty good page to riling people up ratio. Nice one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 04:29
|
|
Dapper Dan posted:Some are, some aren't. Depends on which you point at (hello Discount Kane and Fake John Romero). Still not what I'm asking. I'm asking why you shifted between graphics being unimportant and important depending on what I was saying at the time. I used an unflattering rephrasing of a thing you said in the post I was responding to as an example of a "why" you could use.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I don't know what you mean by 'chat posting'. Shootin the breeze brother.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Still not what I'm asking. I'm asking why you shifted between graphics being unimportant and important depending on what I was saying at the time. I used an unflattering rephrasing of a thing you said in the post I was responding to as an example of a "why" you could use. Because I thought about it more and saying graphics were completely unimportant to the quality of the game was wrong? It wasn't anything malicious. Dapper Dan fucked around with this message at 04:37 on Jul 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
So while I'm caught up with the thread I have some questions for anti-GG supporters. First, does your side have any leaders? I've been told Anita, Brianna and Zoe are those, but there are some here who think they are not. I've also been told that leaders are what help make anti-GG stand out against pro-GG, who do not have leaders. Second, have any of your leaders (or anyone even remotely notable from the anti-GG side) publicly denounced the May 3rd bomb threat against the pro-GG meet up in Washington D.C.?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
Denim Dude posted:Shootin the breeze brother. Okay, yeah, that's not allowed in this thread and you'll get probated for it. Read the OP. Also it's super-boring. There does seem to be this repeated theme of people who were really happy when this was only being talked about in a slapfighty way being really pissed off that it got moved here. It's weird. Freakazoid_ posted:So while I'm caught up with the thread I have some questions for anti-GG supporters. Why would I need a leader to say that GG is incoherent and makes no sense?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:So while I'm caught up with the thread I have some questions for anti-GG supporters. You don't need a leader to oppose online harassment of non-journalists done in the name of ethics in games journalism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
Sinnlos posted:You don't need a leader to oppose online harassment of non-journalists done in the name of ethics in games journalism. Yep. There's not so much agg as people who are anti-gg.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
This thread has done a great job of solidifying my lack of interest about any of the concerns expressed by GamerGate supporters. You can certainly express disdain, concern, and advocate for better "ethics in games journalism" but 99% of what GamerGate does or focuses on isn't even related to that. If their members actually wanted to promote better ethical practices in journalism, they'd abandon the hashtag and twitter bullshit and actually do non-harassment related work to advocate for that sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:So while I'm caught up with the thread I have some questions for anti-GG supporters. There's really no such thing as anti-GG. I personally don't like Gamergate, and I don't need a leader to tell me why, I witnessed it personally.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
Unfunny Poster posted:This thread has done a great job of solidifying my lack of interest about any of the concerns expressed by GamerGate supporters. You can certainly express disdain, concern, and advocate for better "ethics in games journalism" but 99% of what GamerGate does or focuses on isn't even related to that. I have a lot to say about how much I don't care about Gamer gate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
I think what distinguishes GamerGate from Anti-GamerGate is that GamerGate was started by a co-ordinated harassment campaign on a woman for no real reason and evolved into even more harassment campaigns against even more women and Anti-GamerGate didn't. Among other things. I think if you were looking for a pretty definitive and concise explanation in how they differ you're probably not going to get a better answer than that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
The real problem with rev60 isn't the grotesque looking people in it. It's that the game is insanely tedious and boring to play and the dialogue is full of overdone cliches and lines that would make Ed Wood cringe. Not to mention the story is nigh incomprehensible. But there are multiple endings unlike bioware games so thumbs up!
Uncle Wemus fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Jul 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
If there is an "Anti-GamerGate", rather than an attempt to make this into a war between two "sides", then I still would feel they're irrelevant to the GG thread.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Okay, yeah, that's not allowed in this thread and you'll get probated for it. Read the OP. Also it's super-boring. Well poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
Unfunny Poster posted:This thread has done a great job of solidifying my lack of interest about any of the concerns expressed by GamerGate supporters. You can certainly express disdain, concern, and advocate for better "ethics in games journalism" but 99% of what GamerGate does or focuses on isn't even related to that. I've honestly never cared. Because in order to save something you have to give a poo poo about it in the first place. I have never, ever cared about gaming journalists except to laugh at them. The thing that GG should be focusing on is the obvious one: murder the ever-living poo poo out of Metacritic. Force publishers to take money out of review scores so if a reviewer at 'Polygon' got PTSD from playing 'Tropico 5' and gave it a 4, it won't matter. The journalists can say whatever stupid poo poo they want and some poor studio isn't going to be denied a bonus because it didn't make an 85 or whatever. That's the real thing that's stifling creativity, the focus of money and review scores so people will only take the safe option to get a good score instead of taking a risk. But that poo poo is hard and it requires organization and focus. So they shout about disclaimers, because everybody reads those and you can never, ever bury something inside a disclaimer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
Dapper Dan posted:I've honestly never cared. Because in order to save something you have to give a poo poo about it in the first place. I have never, ever cared about gaming journalists except to laugh at them. The thing that GG should be focusing on is the obvious one: murder the ever-living poo poo out of Metacritic. Force publishers to take money out of review scores so if a reviewer at 'Polygon' got PTSD from playing 'Tropico 5' and gave it a 4, it won't matter. The journalists can say whatever stupid poo poo they want and some poor studio isn't going to be denied a bonus because it didn't make an 85 or whatever. That's the real thing that's stifling creativity, the focus of money and review scores so people will only take the safe option to get a good score instead of taking a risk. But that poo poo is hard and it requires organization and focus. I really don't think the gaming public gives much of a poo poo about the critic scores on metacritic, but otherwise, sure. How do they do this murder? I don't think it's so much 'hard' as 'not really possible'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
Two ways I can think of immediately: Petition sites to stop submitting their reviews to Metacritic, or assuming this isn't possible (i.e. Metacritic does it of its own accord) then figure out a way for those sites to block their reviews from appearing on the site. If this fails, just petition sites to scrap numerical scores altogether.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I really don't think the gaming public gives much of a poo poo about the critic scores on metacritic, but otherwise, sure. How do they do this murder? I don't think it's so much 'hard' as Get review sites to abandon scores, stars and any rating altogether which makes it that much more of a pain in the rear end to aggregate a number. EDIT: And beaten!
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Why would I need a leader to say that GG is incoherent and makes no sense? Because I was under the impression anti-GG had leaders early on, but now several of you are saying there aren't and that's kind of odd. Did something change since then? It was once a point that anti-GG could be taken seriously because of those leaders, and pro-GG could never be taken seriously because they are leaderless.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
Dapper Dan posted:Get review sites to abandon scores, stars and any rating altogether which makes it that much more of a pain in the rear end to aggregate a number. Yes, I'm am asking 'how'. People want review scores. They like having them to disagree with. Freakazoid_ posted:Because I was under the impression anti-GG had leaders early on, but now several of you are saying there aren't and that's kind of odd. Did something change since then? It was once a point that anti-GG could be taken seriously because of those leaders, and pro-GG could never be taken seriously because they are leaderless. I have no idea what you're talking about, I'm sorry. I think GG is idiotic. I didn't come to this conclusion because of what anyone else said, but because of what GG has said and what they've stated their goals are and what they've done.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:Because I was under the impression anti-GG had leaders, but now several of you are saying there aren't and that's kind of odd. Did something change since then? It was once a point that anti-GG could be taken seriously because of those leaders, and pro-GG could never be taken seriously because they are leaderless. You seem to misunderstand. GamerGate can't be taken seriously because in lieu of coherence, achievable goals, or any sort of policy that might seem to contribute to the cause they've facetiously claimed to represent, they instead have a frothing mass of rage that is entirely focused on what it perceives to be the leaders of the opposite side, that is to say women with opinions (or just women in general)
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
Its not so much "Leaders", as we all want to see the Gaming Industry change. Once upon a time, we all banded against GamerGate, but now we've mostly moved on to talking diversity in media.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Yes, I'm am asking 'how'. People want review scores. They like having them to disagree with. I don't think anybody cares and MetaCritic would probably switch over to a Rotten Tomatoes style system. Which is still better than what it is now when it is trying to make sense of all the numbers and metrics a site uses. And some sites are already switching to no numbers on their reviews.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:You seem to misunderstand. GamerGate can't be taken seriously because in lieu of coherence, achievable goals, or any sort of policy that might seem to contribute to the cause they've facetiously claimed to represent, they instead have a frothing mass of rage that is entirely focused on what it perceives to be the leaders of the opposite side, that is to say women with opinions (or just women in general) So then how does anyone on the anti-GG side expect to counter their movement? Are they going to for the same leaderless approach as pro-GG tries to do?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
Dapper Dan posted:I don't think anybody cares and MetaCritic would probably switch over to a Rotten Tomatoes style system. Which is still better than what it is now when it is trying to make sense of all the numbers and metrics a site uses. And some sites are already switching to no numbers on their reviews. Okay, again I'm asking 'How'? Like, how would they make them do this? In the past, some sites have gone no-scores, and eventually put up scores. I think that probably there will be some places doing no-scores, and have been, but in general there will be plenty of places doing scores, unless you can describe some mechanism whereby that change could be forced, which doesn't seem likely to me. Freakazoid_ posted:So then how does anyone on the anti-GG side expect to counter their movement? Are they going to for the same leaderless approach as pro-GG tries to do? The movement doesn't really need to be countered, since it has no achievable goals, no coherence, and is mostly just people upset that the world is changing. They'll kick up a fuss and whine about poo poo for awhile, but nothing has to be done to actually 'counter' them, their movement doesn't have a hope of doing anything long-term.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:Because I was under the impression anti-GG had leaders early on, but now several of you are saying there aren't and that's kind of odd. Did something change since then? It was once a point that anti-GG could be taken seriously because of those leaders, and pro-GG could never be taken seriously because they are leaderless. Most of the "leaders" were just the people who got the most death threats on twitter and didn't deactivate, but instead stuck around long enough to get interviewed by actual journalists about harassment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 05:22
|
|
|
Video games with sexy babes with big hooters: good or bad?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
a bay posted:Video games with sexy babes with big hooters: good or bad? i thought they were bad because of the objectification of women, but then notable-person Liana K got mad at those pesky sex-negative feminists for conspiring to make people think that big boobs are not sexy (because that would decrease her youtube ad revenue???) and now i'm really confused!!!
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
a bay posted:Video games with sexy babes with big hooters: good or bad? Metal Gear Solid V isn't out yet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:i thought they were bad because of the objectification of women, but then notable-person Liana K got mad at those pesky sex-negative feminists for conspiring to make people think that big boobs are not sexy (because that would decrease her youtube ad revenue???) and now i'm really confused!!! Can someone explain to me what her deal is? I feel like I missed something because suddenly one day she's flipping poo poo at people attacking gamergate yet condemning harassment after having zero involvement in the whole matter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
Dapper Dan posted:Get review sites to abandon scores, stars and any rating altogether which makes it that much more of a pain in the rear end to aggregate a number.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 12:33 |
|
|
Slanderer posted:i thought they were bad because of the objectification of women, but then notable-person Liana K got mad at those pesky sex-negative feminists for conspiring to make people think that big boobs are not sexy (because that would decrease her youtube ad revenue???) and now i'm really confused!!! Maybe gamergate is just a giant conspiracy to bring back Ed the Sock.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 05:47
|
|
