Really? What part of your response answered the question "Did #gg have anything to say about it?"

The part where I answered the question as an individual part of GG, obviously. You ignored it, but it happened. You've participated in this thread enough to know that there's a lot of different opinions within GG, so the opinions of individual members is the best you're going to get on specific topics.

You've also definitely been around long enough to know that Trump has as much to do with this thread/topic as Syria has to do with the Shadowrun release thread, so surely even you can see why I felt the need to be dismissive.

But that wasn't my question. I didn't ask whether you as an individual part of #gg had anything to say about it. I do know that there are some "different opinions" within #gg, my question was whether any of those "different opinions" had anything to say about the Breitbart/Trump thing. You didn't answer that at all. Thanks for your contribution though, I totally appreciate the effort.

I thought #gg was about journalistic ethics, my question was (in response to another poster's comment) whether #gg had said anything about an alleged lack of journalistic ethics. Whilst I agree that it is not completely on topic as it does not relate to ethics in video game journalism, I don't agree that it is as irrelevant as discussing Syria in the Shadowrun release thread. I'd say its more like discussing the Shadowrun board game in the Shadowrun video game release thread. [Shadowrun = journalistic ethics, board game = politics, video game = video game]. But then again, I haven't kept up with the #gg thing so maybe its not about journalistic ethics anymore.

Also, out of interest, has #gg said anything about Syria?

What is there to even say on the topic of Trump besides some guy writing a book designed to show corruption in Republican politics asked 4 Breitbart staffers if they think Trump paid the big guys up top. And their responses generally fell around "I've heard a rumor". We have a biased author writing an article for a sensationalist rag (Buzzfeed) and you are asking people concerned with journalistic ethics in the reporting of gaming issues what they think of this political mess.

What you are really trying to do is attack Gamergate by claiming some sort of hypocrisy by us not "condemning" Breitbart. But people are far smarter than you to fall into your dumb trap. Classic aGG change the topic table-turning crap when they can't discuss their way out of a paper bag...

Ha. Just asked if anyone in #gg had anything to say about it. A simple "no" would have been fine. A "no, and I'm not sure the allegations are backed up with any evidence" would be even better. Personally, I had concerns about the lack of evidence as well (but at least I have consistently held concerns about lack of evidence on #gg related topics and non #gg related topics, unlike some others).

Perhaps re-read your response and 227s. They speak quite loudly. If you thought "it was a trap" (and it wasn't intended to be), I'm not sure you did a particularly good job of not falling for it. It's possible you're as smart as you think..

There's no response necessary as this has nothing to do with GG. GG also didn't comment on that explosion in China and any number of other things that aren't relevant to the cause. I'm not really sure why you would expect anything different. And I'm sure we also didn't bother to comment on any number of sexual harassment cases where there wasn't even a computer involved.

Gaming journalism is a particularly problematic area and has been for some time now. Diluting things by commenting on other areas makes very little sense.

BTW, Nice strawman.
Editorials exist to deal with the times when the paper wants to take a stand. They get their own section of the paper specifically because they aren't trying to be objective. That's not to say they're trying to be biased, it's just that they aren't as concerned about being neutral because it is the opinion of the editorial board rather than needing to go through the process of finding people to make cases.

You can claim what you wish, but I did address the issue earlier by linking the actual article and pointing out that the vast array of articles all linked back to a single biased report. Funny how you chose not to discuss what has already been said...

You are fooling very few people with your not so subtle ploys. The fact you keep coming back to this thread with any lame excuse in your vain attempts to tag-team with Vain any any issue you can to attempt to make GG look bad, says a lot about you as a person. I'll leave it at that...I'm sure I'm not the only one who sees what you are doing...

"Nothing" might be too strong. One of the movement's most visible representatives is employed by Breitbart, so it's at least a little concerning if his publication is involved in a high-profile payola scheme.

It would have as much to do with Gamergate as if a noted aGG were caught with child pornography. What would it change. But seriously, troll some more. It's very clear you have no real intention to "discuss" any of these issues. You are just here to generally be an ass. You know damn well that Ben Kuchera didn't support ZQ's Patreon for the discount games, and you know damn well there are rules concerning journalistic ethics which have been grossly stretched by many of these journalists.

It's clear by my exclusively posting ethical arguments that I'm not interested in discussing ethics? I begin to see why I'm having trouble following your logic.
I just want to understand the ethical rules you're talking about here in a more rigorous way. If that seems like an insidious attack, well, I don't know what to tell you.

Why do you keep dodging the fact Kuchera clearly didn't donate to ZQ's Patreon for the games she wasn't producing? People have responded to you and you seem to ignore the majority of the responses.

Most rational people can see the difference. Patreon is donating to an individual because you supposedly admire their work and want to assist them in doing more. Most Patreons are pretty clearly a potential conflict of interest.

I "could imagine" a Patreon which served more like a Kickstarter, where donating "so much" earns you an upcoming game, but I don't have an examples of such and seem to recall Patreon specifically taking some actions so that they are "not a storefront".

But hey, lets talk about non-monetary "favors". The case of Anna Anthropy. This is a developer who exclusively makes very imitative free games. Not a real commercial developer of any real sort, just a freeware producer who makes low-quality games. Yet, remarkably, she has games reviewed/discussed not once, but four times! But that isn't the whole story either. Four times by the same game journalist! Now note, there isn't money involved, its free to play. But there is more! This game journalist used to be her roommate. This game journalist even after they quit being apartment mates would still go out to the bar together (there is Twitter proof). So explain to me why this little known, relatively unimportant developer getting 4 different games mentioned when there are so many indie developers getting no mention at all? Is it fair that her former roommate is using her influence to talk about her games (likely in lieu of a more deserving developer)?

So, you claim you wish to talk about ethics? What is your opinion of this situation?

I really want to give you the benefit of the doubt because we've had some good conversations in here, but you're contributing nothing at the moment but off-topic fluff and passive-aggressiveness. Maybe take a few days off and come back when you're willing to engage people in good faith. In the meantime, I'd recommend reading the past few pages that have been almost exclusively ethics conversations and discussions about the SPJ Airplay event.

Eh, I think their participation in the thread is a good thing. Sure, they may be playing some hardcore devil's advocate, but I think that kind of thing helps us by forcing us to examine the reasons behind the rules, how the rules apply in a world with things like Patreon and Kickstarter, and where one rule stops and another begins. Besides, history and ethics codes are on our side, and it's always fun to hulk smash a hypothetical by linking something authoritative.

EDIT: Heh, I see you brought out the Anna Anthropy. Looking forward to seeing how the topic pans out.

And I get that, but we have editorials bleeding into the news fairly regularly (hence the Fox reference, which is perhaps one of the greatest examples of this in action). Take Polygon, for example; they have separate "news" and "opinion" sections, and yet individual opinion still finds its way into articles posted under "news." I think it might be worth a discussion about where the lines should be drawn, and whether those who dive into the editorial side of things should be allowed to participate in the news side of things. I mean, would you trust Keith Olbermann or Bill O'Reilly to be capable of remaining unbiased and report fairly given their histories as partisan hacks? I think there needs to be more separation there, and not just in games journalism.

I can see the case that one should specify when one is writing about a friend. If I remember correctly, such a note has been added to the articles in question, which is the right call. In practice, though, I don't care, because Anna Anthropy has earned every mention she gets.
It wasn't (isn't) just her friends writing about her, because her games are in fact excellent. Have you ever played Mighty Jill Off? It's a really brilliantly crafted arcade platformer, whether you buy into her games-as-BDSM aesthetic or not. Her subsequent games are simultaneously 100% mechanics-focused and hugely personal, like "Queers in Love at the End of the World," which is maybe my favorite take on the text-based game for all 10 seconds it lasts. Also she runs an archive of games ephemera, which as a preservation buff I really appreciate.
So this isn't a case of some nobody getting a favor from her connected friend. It's someone legitimately interesting and important being written about by a person who knows her. If she hadn't been covered for the sake of some notion of professional propriety, readers would have been worse off for not being exposed to her. Who would have benefited? Since the games media exists to point gamers at interesting things, I'd say the system worked fine there.
I mean, sure, but complaining about thread derails in the middle of a conversation on the thread's subject is a bit of a facepalm.

Sorry, I didn't get any notification that you replied to my comment and I couldn't find anything when I looked back then. I find sometimes they get lost when multiple people reply. Can you link me to your post?

I was curious and I asked Vain a question. Anyone could have answered the question (and I some people did) but I also got some really interesting responses (such as your last one) which whilst not answers, spoke volumes in my view.
I don't understand why some people push back so hard on this. This is an issue about ethics in journalism and that's what #gg claim to care about (albeit only a specific area of journalism). Iff #gg was about child pornography in the games industry and there was an issue raised outside of the game industry about child pornography in another industry, I would wonder whether #gg would have said anything about it and asked the question.