So I do have something I want to ask now.

I saw someone say that by doing the backtracking Kotaku is doing, saying they will no longer support anyone on Patreon, that they are saying that they only care about the games and not the people making them.

Isn't that exactly what this entire incident is saying we should do? Focus less on people and their interactions and more on the games, deciding whether games are good, sharing those opinions and whatnot?

I mean, interviews and interesting tidbits are nice and all but in the end, gaming is about the games. Not the people making them.

who the hell wants to hear about this? why is information about this everywhere? I can understand wanting to discuss the topic of games media and integrity in its journalistic practices and operations, but every place this thing is discussed there is also just a shit ton of information about quinn.

and I don't wanna read that crap I do not. I don't. I don't care. don't wanna know.

if it's true that these writers abused their influence, then that's a problem and we should know who did it. but as for all the other details I could care less and it's kind of annoying that I haven't seen any place where this has gotten talked about that laid out the facts with regards to the corruption side of things while trying to minimize details about what's her shitstorm.

also I would like to say that videogame journalism hasn't turned to anything. it was just as bad or worse in yesteryear as it is now. pretty much every outlet was in the pockets of publishers and few had enough of a commanding market share over there competition, if any, to avoid having to fear any backlash. back in the day, what was the worst a shitty new release would get? 5/10? 6/10? yeah, videogame media hasn't turned to anything. not defending it.

You rub shoulders enough with people of such persuasion and you'll find yourself thinking like them at times. That's just how our psyche adapts to our environment.

It's like a commercial that plays over and over and over. Maybe you don't agree with it and the rational part of your brain will fight it, but some parts imprints itself into your unconscious and affects the more primal parts of your mind like the way you feel.

For example, most of the Hollywood elite doesn't subscribe to that puritanical mindset consciously, but you can still see it in the way many American movies approach sexuality.

I think you're underestimating human defiance. At worst there are two kinds of people - ones who, when exposed to those around them saying "would of", will start saying it themselves, and the others who will (with ever increasing frustration) remind everyone that 'of' is not a verb. The former might live happier, healthier, less stressful lives, but the latter actually DESERVE them ;P.

This. As an example, the movies of the '70s and that free love culture would be huge examples.

Here's the problem with that line of thinking. There isn't some huge pervasive theocracy everywhere in this country. You also have to remember that big movie studios make their decisions based on one overlying tenet. Money. There's automatically less money in an R rated movie that talks about sexuality, because straight out the gate, that guarantees that no one under 17 or maybe 18 is going to see your movie. A big studio takes a look at PG movies, because their target audience is pretty much EVERYONE. Therefore, more kids will push more parents to take them to see that new Pixar or Dreamworks movie, and for each happy little rugrat, there's price of admission and candy, probably soda and popcorn.

If you wanted to say there's a problem with the ratings process, for sure! There's two church reps in the ratings board, which is a fucking farce. That said, it's a direct result of Bible Belt censorship attempts back during the morality crusades in the 50s. That said, it STILL didn't stop the porno chic era in the 70s, with movies like Deep Throat, Devil in Miss Jones, and many others, from not only being made, but being shown.

The Bible belt IS a real thing and put pressure on physical media all the time, but let's be frank. Hollywood =/= The Internet. Physical news and media =/= gaming/entertainment websites. It's a false dichotomy to say that it's either about the sex or we don't care otherwise. Obviously, a shitstorm of this magnitude has been brewing for awhile, otherwise this story would have blown over days ago.

I think individuals are not THAT strong. Put a high enough amount of long-term pear-pressure and I'd say most, perhaps every, person will cave to various degrees.

Some individuals are stronger than others, but there is a HUGE part of ourselves that isn't rational and that doesn't operate on a rational level.

Intuition, for example, which we are dependant on to generate ideas is a very irrational process.

Being rational most of the time takes an significant amount of will, no matter who you are.

Consistent rational thinking is not part of our nature, in part because it's not efficient a lot of the time. For example, if you're a caveman and see an unfamiliar animal approaching, you don't have the time (nor the infrastructure) to sit down and do a scientific study on it. You need to quickly decide, based on an intuitive impression, whether it's a threat and if it is, whether to fight or to run.

Neo-conservatives have understood that for some time and have become quite adept at appealing to the irrational part of our mind. For example, they have long understood that you can spread complete BS and be credible as long as you provide the proper cues that identifies you are someone that is trustworthy and who knows what he's talking about. And you know what? It works to a degree. I see some neo-con utter complete non-sense in a charismatic way and part of my brain goes "boy, this guy looks smart... look how assertive he is... the tone, posture, etc... he must know what he's talking about". And quite frankly, it frightens me to see someone utter complete BS in such a convincing manner, because I know how irrational we are.

Point taken, sales have also something to do with it.

And yet, I find it also illustrates this weird contrast in the U.S.

In the area where I live, we are essentially a bunch lapsed Catholics (or children and grand-children of lapsed Catholics) and there is a strong Atheistic (or Agnostic with Atheistic tendencies) counter-current running as a reaction to how the church was.

I see a similar thing in what you are describing where you go the theocracy on one side and porn on the other. I think either side over-focuses on sex (obviously, in different ways).

I still think there is an influence and cross-pollination between both groups as they don't exist in a vacuum.

Also, I don't think Americans wouldn't care about anything otherwise, it's just that they'll make a bigger fuss about it if there's sex in it.

Well, to be honest, there's a middle ground that's starting to emerge here, too, man. It's the rise of libertarianism, that states: we don't care what you do, as long as you aren't harming others, and the market itself will sort itself around if there's a demand on what you offer, and minimal to zero government interference on private citizens' rights to privacy, representation and accountable authority figures.

There's less and less people who want to be neocons or neoliberals, and more and more people starting to get disenfranchised with EVERYTHING here. I think the people that care about this kind of thing are most likely those people. From an anecdotal standpoint, I know, because I'm one of them. I tend to be more socially liberal and financially conservative in my regards to what people do, but I absolutely think that if you're in a position of authority, or public power, you should 100% be accountable for your actions or inactions, as the case may be.

There HAS been one major victory for us this week, though. Kotaku has freshly implemented a policy stating that any writer on staff can no longer pay developers via Patreon, which is one more step towards actual recusion from their subject matters.

Well Zoe isn't quite blameless. Even if you were to ignore the blog from the ex. She had used her influence (however it was gotten) to harass members of a forum to gain celebrity bump going so far as to make up facts (The Wizchan debacle) http://imgur.com/a/4VOcx. Now what basically happened is big industry names rushed to her aid without looking at the facts and harassed the forum members and their followers also gave them what for (and I believe it wasn't just limited to mere harassment, some got hacked I'm sure).

The second (and much more concerning) issue involved "The Fine Young Capitalist" contest. If you don't know, it's a contest that was formed to help promote women designing and creating concepts for games. Basically the ladies would contribute their design and idea to the game and TFYC would provide the artist and programmers and production. They would provide the chosen contestant 8% profits of the game and at any time the lady can take the work on their own to get the game produced from a big company. Zoe thought this was taking advantage of women. it's discussed here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d6Q3VpqXyk. Basically the end result was similar to wizchan where she used her influence to try and pressure the contest creator to amend or terminate the contest. Even going so far as doxxing the contest creator. The contest was disrupted momentarily but fortunately survived.

Now the second part to the second issue is that Zoe used the bump for calling out a "sexist" contest to take down competition and media presence that might take thunder from her own patron which if your so inclined to investigate where the payments are headed, you'll find they go straight to her paypal account, with no obligation on her behalf to provide you any documentation with what she is doing with your money.

Finally why is this important? Well to recap we have a human being who almost demolished a contest designed to help women game ideas gain more prominence in the industry as well as hurt/harm people who have done her no wrong for personal gain (albeit indirectly through "influence" channels. The influence itself is inferred to by the ex bf's post). She put herself above the games and above the feminist movement she purports to believe in for personal gain. For those reasons she does not deserve any more support from gamers nor feminists/egalitarians.

Now that's not to say the industry can't benefit from more women game designers. I think we need more and also the game industry could benefit from exploring other aspects of gender when it comes to story and game design. A group is doing just that and I think deserve support from the gaming community. http://www.thefineyoungcapitalists.com/Voting

I'm surprised this topic died this quickly.

Basically, new "evidence" has come out that links Zoe with a certain Maya who is friends with the owner of the Independent Games Festival:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgW5NRUfs44

Short version of it: Maya and Zoe are suspected of being romantically linked, Maya is romantically linked to the owner of IGF, and IGF in the past has always given out prize money for best indie games and the winners were always friends of Maya. There's a bunch more stuff in there though and at the very least you'll be surprised to see how much room there is for corruption.

Even though none of these allegations can be proven, you have to look at it all and draw the lines yourself. Is it right for indie devs to be directly in close contact with people in a jury who pick a winner? Is it right to sleep with journalists to get fame and publicity? Or to stop them from speaking out against you?

Right now, the gaming press is only reporting on the side of gamers harassing her. They don't say WHY people are harassing her or the journalists in question i.e. because people feel that it has become a big joke and it's not right to "buy" people with sexual favours nor to cry foul over so called allegations of harassment so you'd get coverage in media from gullible "reporters" who love to be white knights in shining armour without checking out the truth ...
Good god, Zoe is the absolute WORST example of female game designers. If feminists stopped raging, they'd realize that Zoe is actually the opposite of what will get women more accepted in the games industry. She uses sex as a weapon, manipulates people, uses the media as a weapon and is basically everything guys hate in a girl and they're defending her? This is not about sexism by gamers - this is sexism against MEN by the press and feminists. Because men are automatically wrong for daring to speak out against an indie dev who has very questionable and dubious things.

And yeah I don't care about gender of the devs as long as the game is good and the devs are honest.

Agreed. I'm not so much a libertarian because I feel my own ethics demand it so much as other peoples' views and actions around me do. 'Live and let live' becomes a life philosophy as much as a political one. Having said that...

This Zoe/Gamergate issue brings up some serious topics on each side that are worth discussing and addressing, yet it is this pervasive form of screaming match that has escalated to censoring, threats, and general hatefulness that this SJW crowd is supposedly fighting against. Those preaching TOLERANCE! the loudest are becoming the least tolerant of all. Those gamers who are on the fence or on the other side are offering a variety of questions, counterpoints, logical debate, and humor to invest the SJWs into a reasonable discussion, and are being met with yelling, crying, and finger pointing by all the white knights of gaming journalism. It's sad to see such zealous behavior coming from what is supposedly such a progressive and open minded group.

It's depressing to see people, no matter what view they take, assume such an easy form of 'I want to join your group too so I will now parrot your talking points' syndrome. It's hard to take a stand on something you believe in when so many others are hostile to you and seem incapable of hearing what it is you're saying. And I know that for damn sure after being in talk radio for a few years.

But I'll let this smart young fellow add some more points... his argument is coherent, calm, and logical. These days you gotta take that wherever you can find it.

Making The Case For Dissent And Argument
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_oIIeWoeTE

Is it normal for "today's" generation to post all that shit about their ex on public blogs? It's disgusting.

Has anyone kicked that SOB hard in the balls yet for blogging personal shit like that? Or punched him in the nose? Would not surprise me if he was also a "glasshole" - seems like the type.

I guess I'm just old. But you DO NOT put all that shit out in public when you break with someone. If that's the "norm" these days - then the norm sucks - and so does anyone that abides it.

JMO

Well this is one of the things one has to be careful. I think some people are hiding behind feminism and then use it to rally people to benefit themselves. They don't really believe in equality. They'll take the help that claiming the label brings, but what have they done for the cause? Call a group of people names? Funded Patreons for their buddies? These people are out to cover their own sorry asses because their hands got caught in the cookie jar (inappropriate work relationships). In a way they don't truly believe in equal rights. If they did, one side wouldn't use sex to gain an advantage, and the other side wouldn't use sex as currency (To do either of these softly implies the persons or in this case Zoe's idea wasn't good at all and would have gone no where without a favor)

Just my 2 cents:
- morals in the gaming industry? What? People in the business of making money (i.e. everyone) are quick to throw aside any aspirations of morals if it makes them a buck. Taking up certain morals can be explained in the same way. Cynical, but probably true for certain people
- people using their influence (sexual, political, financial, ...) to subvert media, etc. Again, business as usual
- the feminism card being thrown by people in order to manipulate feelings. Well, nobody tried that before (sarcasm)

Conclusion: gaming as an industry has grown up and became just as mainstream as any other media and therefore subject to the same silliness as movies, politics, ...

However, in my opinion it is never acceptable to
- throw around death and rape threats
- impose on the privacy of others

Is there a misrepresentation of women in games and in industry positions: absolutely, same as it is in for example movie industry and politics.
Is this fair and just? No, of course not.
Are there people using feminism to further their own agendas therefore giving feminism a bad name? Sure, business as usual

Whoa the BBC just reported that the online partition
"came in response to death threats made against the feminist reviewer Anita Sarkeesian"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29028236

LOL
Still its probably for the best - if Zoe Quinn has become a controversial figure for being just as much a dick online herself then it takes away from the 'Don't be a dick online' message - which is still an important message to get our there - deny that it is please!
Ta!