In most cases, ''moderation'' means deleting and banning proGG; like NeoGAF.

Or rather moderated at all... heck, even the newly captured nazi forum reddit is better moderated. But, heck, safe and sound in its shell, the precious pearl is the slave of the currents. So once in a while, you've got to step into the dirt and discuss with the few remaining people who would still explicitly use the name of the harrassment campaign for their movement (these kinds of people were, thankfully, practically cut in half after the Sarkeesian/Colbert segment, and are still in decline.* But rest assured, "they are winning", as the harrassment itself continues as if the last year hadn't taken place).

Again, "gamergate" is the name given to the movement by Adam Baldwin in direct connection to the Quinn harrassment campaign. That was the day BEFORE the press reacted to that cultural suicide. Adam Baldwin, with no idea whatsoever about video games (just like most major gamergate ideologues), was tweeting a link to the "Burgers and fries" video when his shrivelled brain came up with the term, thinking from the get go that women in tech routinely elicited positive coverage with sexual favors (and, of course, also thinking that this had happened there). That was the fantasy he bought into, and so many equally stupid people with him. In short... gamergate the label means hailing harrassment and badly hidden misogyny. If you fly the gamergate banner without understanding its founding principles, well, good for morale, but bad for common sense.

And that is not debatable. Gamergate is gamergate. Gathered together to hate, harrass and generally attack the budding video game culture, with the absurd idea of 'protecting' it.

Of course "moderation" in any sensible forum means to ban "pro-GG" i.e. pro harrassment comments and commenters.

As to the topic to be discussed, hey, how about e.g. the spectacular premiere of the "Sarkeesian Effect" movie (nine people attended)? Surely another big victory for gamergate!

something even many people in gg were skeptical off.

µRecently mount and blades composer came out in support of gg and the losing games makes you sexist study turned out to have omitted tons of data and was done with funding for bug studies, surely great victories for aGG

Vain I ask you produce just three examples of gamergate harassing someone. And what kind of delusion do you have to have to say someone would actually run a ''harassment'' campaign just for fun? Can you point out the other famous harassment campaigns from history? It might trigger you to read; but everyone in the world doesn't fall into your perfect progressive friend and nazi enemy molds. If social justice is indeed about acceptance and respect, why all the ideological discrimination?

And why is aGG sending death threats to a guy that dared include Vivian in his artwork?

Surely you're not implying people don't have the right to hunt down and kill artists they don't agree with right?

/s

Vain never makes any real sense...
Everything is called fantasy and conspiracy theory in his mind.
And everyone is guilty by association.

Basically a typical Social Justice nutjob. The same nutjob who claims the term SJW is a "slur" yet had "SJW" as a forum title. The same nutjob who threatens to report people for harassment, but then changes the post they are replying to to a Jewish attack. You hate Jews Vain? It sure looks like it to me. Basically, Vain is nothing but a lying and conniving propagandist.

Hell, he's even come out in this thread trying to justify why he thinks its right for him to downrep almost every post in this thread, because in his mind "its all conspiracy theory".

Don't mind the FACT that Nathan Greyson and Zoe Quinn did sleep together (admitted by both). Ignore the fact that Nathan Greyson DID write articles favoring Zoe, especially the one attempting to make a hero out of her over destroying the Game Jam. Yes, both CLAIM not to have slept together until the next weekend in Las Vegas after this article was released. But people like Vain just want to ignore the real issue, which is why are journalists writing articles about their friends? How someone can write a narrative about an event he didn't even attend and paint his long-time friend in such a positive light? Or just like Patricia Hernandez writing articles about her roommates games without any disclosure. And this is where it started....No mention of Phil Fish and his financial ties to IGF.

No, Vain, isn't about facts or truths. He's just another SJW shill who will even lie and intentionally character assassinate people in a very racist way, changing their posts in his replies to make them out to be anti-Jewish. Vain, you are a jerk and an asshole. You are an undisputed liar and frankly apparently a racist German. But somehow you try to play the holier than thou card. Seriously, piss off!

I'll take that analogy, it's too good to pass up.

Not too many of those killers were feeling much of a pang of guilt. They stopped not because they thought what they did was morally wrong. They weren't just spontaneously going for a different approach, particularly not immediately after they started with the killing.

They stopped because they were mostly finished with their work. And were really judged only decades after.

The original Native American killers aren't around any more. They've been dead for over a century.

The original "gamergaters" are still around, driving gamergate ideology and recruiting Angry Jacks. They've "just" been at it for a mere year!

The idea that gamergate immediately redefined its goals after picking its label from Baldwin's crappy tweet, that is not exactly a credible assumption. Well, of course you could claim that one day after that tweet, the gamergaters turned on the press for reporting on their cultural suicide. But that would make gamergate a core destructive revenge fantasy... that's not helping your argument as well.

But don't worry, because I only maintain that nothing has changed in the movement since Balwin, quite the contrary: That's from an article dated July 31st, 2015, on the largest gamergate website to date. It's, essentially, Adam Baldwin's implicit claim, misogynist to the core, explicitly reiterated. Like it's a thing you can just write without getting laughed at. It's a bit difficult to claim that the (allegedly) largest site has somehow missed the actual point of gamergate, and has continued to miss it for an entire year.

Look at any of the major gamergate news outlets and you find the same rhetorics, the same arguments, the same absurd conspiracy theories and the same hitlists, and god almighty don't look in the comments, they don't even understand the articles, they just understand whom they're supposed to hate on.

There's nothing changing and the ideologues remain the very same, still recruiting Angry Jacks, just with a bit less success.

Well, all right, in light of recent events e.g. Sargon of Akkad has finally turned against Davis Aurini.

After almost one year of supporting the guy.

At this kind of pace, yes of course, gamergate WILL change ideological direction – with just about the same speed as the conquerors of the American continent. Granted! In a century, we will see more clearly on the matter of gamergate, certainly. These people will see what game culture has done to its most valuable members and most avid supporters. Right now, that doesn't help us, unfortunately.

Let's hope and pray that they won't dismiss games as worthless and dangerous because of gamergate (and because of the movements it is undoubtedly succeeded by – 'gamergate' may visibly die these days, however its raison d'être was there before and will continue after the label is abandonned).

The enemy trubbish avoided the attack!
Trubbish used reversal!
But it failed!

It's worth mentioning that GG hasn't demonstrated any more of a penchant for harassment than those who oppose it, and I've advise anyone on either side to scroll through the actual tweets using the hashtag instead of being told what it is and isn't by a third party. Needless to say, the analogy was intentionally hyperbolic to illustrate the most obvious problem with your argument, and like I said, it was purely snark (sorry again for that).

You're also ignoring the possibility that many who latched onto the tag knew nothing about Baldwin or any of his politics, and this often seems to be the case if the times I've personally had to explain to people where it actually originated are any indication. Add on top of that the tag's explosion in popularity coinciding with the gamers are dead articles and Hernandez's failures of disclosure being discovered and you have something that can be considered entirely separate because of the sheer number of people who were only involved in GG and not anything leading up to it. Surely even the briefest of glances at the hashtag's popularity over time will demonstrate this influx of people. Allegations of sockpuppetry can't explain away such a sharp spike, so even if the entire Quinnspiracy crowd jumped straight into GG, you're still generalizing about a large group of completely unrelated people. I don't understand how you (or even more bizarrely, those who've claimed to be against intolerance) can justify this.

While I'm correcting facts, it should be mentioned that your Colbert-halved-people claim is objectively false. There was a large spike in uses and support after that segment aired (which was October 29th). I hope you consider the possibility that the other information you have is similarly erroneous and feeding your confirmation bias every bit as much as those you're criticizing.

Indeed; I only found about about Baldwin AFTER deciding to be pro GG and found out his rather conservative views just now. Anyhow, who gave it a name doesn't matter as much as real breaches in ethics so I forgot to dig up dirt on someone because I knew they were conservative.

As a side thing; where do you guys fall on on political compass? I just retook the test after a communist friend of mine somehow landed in the authoritarian right and glad to see I've changed very little.

I'm at Economic Left / Right : -1.25
and Social Libertarian / Authoritarian : -6.56

Here's the test : https://www.politicalcompass.org/test
Don't have to post results if not decided / comfortable.

AKA: don't hurt me I'm centric!

Funny little test. I'm not surprised by my results at all:

http://static04.gog.com/upload/forum/2015/08/d87f69fc76248518c4cde23dceb11227d7ba7eda.jpg
http://static01.gog.com/upload/forum/2015/08/d503baef75b474032bdaf6dc8928c1212333a757.jpg

Your Political Compass

Economic Left/Right: -5.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.26

That test is an interesting experiment, but fundamentally broken in a lot of ways. While they claim that they're not biased, and every side says they're biased towards the other side, etc., even with the most authoritarian and right-wing responses I could come up with, I still barely came out ahead of Thatcher. Also, a lot of its questions (about art and astrology and morality and such) use correlation as causation to place you on the spectrum.
I'm pretty sure if Baldwin took the test, he'd come out somewhere on the lower left as well.