It's a few days old now. But there's a significant number of self-identifying gamers that believe there is a conspiracy in games journalism.
This article mentions it. Though it doesn't go into much detail. I think it captures some of the tragedy of the situation though.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/03/gamergate-corruption-games-anita-sarkeesian-zoe-quinn
Obviously, it's all over twitter right now. There's a lot more information out there.
A lot of these #GamerGate gamers are planning on avoiding indie game news sites. They say they're boycotting most of the websites that have had a positive impact on the visibility of our game.
So I thought this might be a relevant place to discuss this phenomenon. And discuss any response game developers should have. Though I know it's a prickly subject, and a lot of you are probably exhausted by it already.
And it may be about to blow over (though I was saying that a couple days ago, and now I doubt myself).
This article mentions it. Though it doesn't go into much detail. I think it captures some of the tragedy of the situation though.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/03/gamergate-corruption-games-anita-sarkeesian-zoe-quinn
Obviously, it's all over twitter right now. There's a lot more information out there.
A lot of these #GamerGate gamers are planning on avoiding indie game news sites. They say they're boycotting most of the websites that have had a positive impact on the visibility of our game.
So I thought this might be a relevant place to discuss this phenomenon. And discuss any response game developers should have. Though I know it's a prickly subject, and a lot of you are probably exhausted by it already.
And it may be about to blow over (though I was saying that a couple days ago, and now I doubt myself).
Comments
All of this is a poor excuse to rally boys to join what is basically a hate campaign aimed at women in the industry. The majority of the hate is flung directly at female writer/creators and less vigorously against allies of said female writers/creators. They do poor job of covering up this fact too. And I do speak of them as a unit.
You can see it in the language they choose. They feel threatened and think that people are trying to take away their games, or that "not true gamers" are trying to push them out of what they perceive to be a male-dominated space.
And the boys in this male pig-pile do not care about facts. They doxxed and harrassed Jenn Frank, who typically writes op-ed pieces and stories about life experiences. These types of articles are not meant to be "impartial" and if they had an inkling of interest in her writing, they would know this. They're not reviews, and are not tainted in any way by who-ever-the-fark she knows or supports on Patreon.
As an example, go read her piece "Allow Natural Death" on Unwinnable where she uses Super Hexagon to illustrate a point. She did the voice for Super Hexagon. "Line." "Triangle." "Square." "Again!" By the the freak-brigade's ill-conceived logic, that piece is corrupt and should not exist.
But it does not matter, because it's not what it's about. It's just directing hate at women without needing a good reason.
I used the word "boys" a lot here, because more and more this is all starting to feel familiar. This is the same kind of shit I grew up with. My neighbourhood was full of after-school fist fights and bullies. Whenever there was a target, there'd be a crowd. And I can guarantee you if you tried to extract a reason for their hate/bullying, they would try their best to justify it, but it'd be weak.
@BlackShipsFilltheSky Not sure why you are showing concern that these people might boycott sites where your game has exposure - do you really want these assholes as your customers? Why not make a statement that you do not support hate, and maybe ask folks to be better? Maybe some of them will turn back to sanity.
I do think that it'll help to show the mob that the people who create the media they consume are not supporters of this type of hate though.
Some of them genuinely believe they are furthering some kind of divine crusade against corruption like they're Nelson f-ing Mandela though. The mind boggles.
I would really like to hear from someone like @Hanli who works in SA to promote disadvantaged game devs/artists & women in our industry, about what I can do to protect and nurture my daughter (and other women) against these odds.
So I gather, we're not seen to be on their side already. So us not supporting their actions is probably ineffectual?
I'd like to somehow make them less angry about the things that are making them angry.
I don't think public condemnation has a history of achieving that. Unless I'm misunderstanding something about humans. Don't humans often grow more determined in the face of condemnation?
(Obviously the rape threats and the threats on people's families and the online harassment deserve condemnation. But that isn't how the GamerGate gamers self-identify. The vast majority of them aren't threatening people like that, and you can't talk to that majority if you lump them together with the worst members of the group)
I know Soz on Twitter said he was going to write an article offering some information about how journalists and developers actually work. I don't know if it'll be read by the right people. But I thought that might be a good move?
Although I guess that's just one aspect of what is making GamerGate people angry. Though it seems the most easily refutable.
My mind is pretty boggled honestly. I'm not sure I'm keeping it all straight.
When asked to show evidence of corruption, they usually cite the Zoe Quinn thing that kicked it all off. But that's THE weakest example. She "had sex with journalists to get positive reviews"? For a game that's free!? Nathan Grayson never wrote a review of Depression Quest. He mentioned it in a post announcing a round of Greenlit games. Some will even point to that post as evidence of "corruption".
What I'm getting it at is that it's very difficult to reason with that sort of ignorance.
So anyway. If I were a master of propaganda, I guess I would try and aim for:
1. Calm
2. Getting the truth across
3. Separating the ones from the group that can perhaps be reasoned with.
And some of them must at some point realise that they are getting absurdly worked up over something frivolous. And being overly defensive and as a result hostile. It's just games, man. Games come in many flavours, played by many different types of people. There's nothing at all to get insecure about.
I think Soz's post maybe approaches that?
http://sosowski.tumblr.com/post/96628756767/the-lack-of-communication-and-the-bitterness-in-video
But I like Soz, so maybe I'm totally biased.
I just read it. Good piece. Now to get the horde to read it.
Jokes aside. I've vaguely been following the drama, and I really have nothing more to contribute than "it's sad that reasonable, good, level-headed views are less press-worthy" - that's to say that people with extreme views get all the attention for shouting and being indignant and extreme.
So sad :(
Anyway, I gotta say here that while some people may indeed be concerned about their gamer identities or journalistic integrity, how people are engaging with this is the real kicker. If someone comes at me on twitter with some false equivalence bullshit, they're part of the problem, especially if they're using some sock-puppet new account to spew crap at people. If people really do want to talk about ethics, great, do so in an ethical way.
@Tuism: It's not the extremist views that are getting attention, it's the extreme actions that people are taking that are having really bad effects on the lives of others. People are scared to go home, people have had their private lives raked through by mouthbreathing assholes searching for stuff to shame, a goddamn airliner was diverted because of a bomb threat to spite a Sony exec about this. This isn't reporting perspectives, this is people saying that behaving like this is not okay, no matter how far you stretch reality. The people co-ordinating these hate campaigns aren't communicating using the media, they're divorced from pretty much everything but the insular forums and corners of reddit that they inhabit online. This isn't a case of media hyping something up, it would be happening without coverage... The coverage is of the "Holy fucking shit, this is so not okay" variety.
I've had a lot of people IM me with good intentions in the past week, sharing a link and asking my opinion on the thoughts posed in said link. I've started to explain that I refuse to click on links with article titles like "promiscuous women ruining gaming" because it gives that site traffic - and your traffic is your vote for what the media will keep producing. (I then very happily will explain every aspect of the situation and how slut shaming is a part of rape culture and I've had a least one conversation which ended with the guy saying "hadn't thought of it that way"...and the rest have led to unfriending because I don't need that rubbish in my life)
Every time we visit and share the links we're upset about, we're encouraging more of that. The only way to affect the digital media is not through sleeping with them (cause apparently Zoe couldn't get a free positive review doing even that /sarcasm) but through being responsible about the traffic we're generating.
[Edit]
Okay, so addressing the question of what do we do here because (1) we know that when people are faced with evidence that goes against their beliefs, their beliefs become stronger, that (2) people who victim blame are (ironically) people who are motivated by a desire to see the world as a fair and just place where people get what they deserve, (3) we're in an us vs them situation and people tend to behave in ways that promote the "winning" of their "us" even to the detriment of others (ie: it's not about good of all people, just about winning in this situation) and (4) "logic is not effective in countering emotions—people will ignore or distort any challenge to their belief."
(You can read a whole bunch more details about the kind of distorted thinking here).
There's also the chance that this is brought about by this weird idea that there is a threat over resources - that the more women play games, the less "man-games" there will be. Maybe that's true. But I think the people here would generally be happier playing great games rather than playing games that are great if you are a heterosexual white male.
What can be done?
"The hope that prejudice can be reduced by education has proven naive. Change requires more."
Honestly, I think we need to overwhelm the media (through creating content and through targeting our traffic) to ensure that this kind of rubbish is not available to confirm anyone's beliefs. People exposed more and more to information - where it becomes the social and cultural norm - might be more accepting. You're still going to have your extremists (the KKK refuse to die, for example) but the fence sitters are getting confused by misinformation and don't have the time to research. We're actually only looking to affect those fence sitters.
Not saying what you're saying is wrong, I'm just outlining my experience of it, from someone who didn't dig that deep. I guess I'm pretty much the people @dammit is talking about - someone who didn't research.
I hear what you're saying, those are certainly dick things and terrible things that are being done to people.
The harassment was planned. The hacking was planned. The doxxing was planned. The smokescreens and positive PR spin campaigns were planned. The "ethics" angle was a ruse, the game journalism focus was a ruse... It was all revenge bullshit.
*drops mic*
*picks mic back up, hands it to Zoe. Stands and applauds for a solid hour*
Still. Good on calling out out 4Chan. And on exposing the criminal actions of the harassers there.
And fucking sweet that the FBI have been alerted. (I've been hearing elsewhere that the FBI want to pursue cyber harassment a lot more seriously, which is awesome).
I'm not sure if there's anything left to salvage from the situation. Though I'd like to I agree with Rami in his recent tweet where he said that maybe now (having identified some of the harassers) a proper conversation about the concerns that triggered the hashtag can be held.
No actual corruption discovered. No conflicts of interest that weren't voluntarily reported by the very journalists that people were going after. Instead what did they achieve? Give cover to a harassment campaign and make valuable voices quit their jobs. I gotta say, that's not a thing I would be proud to put my name to, even if I really thought that the "movement" was worthwhile at some point.
I think its not really the indies fault that we have a us vs them mentality. They came and deliberately attacked us. Thats not cool.
But if indies and game journalists communications come off as partisan/divisive, and further inflame things, then the result is the same: More harassment of women in our industry.
This whole incident is certainly (at least partly) a result of how badly the Depression Quest saga was handled.
The thing is its incredibly hard to just sit there and take all of this.
To tweet something is so easy and simple and empowering that most people don't stop to reconsider the ramifications.
Its all a bit juvenile if you ask me.
I'm not saying "people are only doing it for publicity". I'm saying the thing that gets talked about gets noticed.
And this also actually means having the conversation all the time. In any gathering where it's relevant. When someone is being sexist or racist (even as a joke) we need to stop them (or ourselves! I've caught myself saying the oddest things sometimes) and start the conversation. When games are being developed with inappropriate tropes, we have to say so. We can still like the rest of the game, but we need to say that we don't want this aspect any more.
And then, if you care enough, you start voting with your wallet/purse. What you buy is what will get made in future. What you don't, won't.
Same for clicking and sharing links (but I've covered this above already).
But I think we can be more careful about how we portray those that disagree with us. And how we portray their disagreement. Indies and game journalists have clearly angered and alienated a lot of people recently and the results have been horrific.
When we visibly take sides, it's much harder to get the other side to listen. And we need people to listen. I agree with @Dammit that we need to talk about these issues. We need to make ourselves understood.
I'm not saying be meek. More like, be aware of how the people you're speaking to see themselves, and see you, and try talk to them on terms that won't end up offending them.
I think it's important to be cognizant (spelled with a z??!) of this.
I very much doubt that has anything to do with how game developers and journalists communicate and everything to do with the unchallenged sexism of a minority of angry, entitled, sad people. There weren't even really sides to any of this, at least, not in terms that are in any way reasonable... I've interacted with many of the GamerGate stalwarts and so far none of them have shown any inclination towards NOT being trolls (at best) and not being hateful people.
And finally, if there really was any real concern for ethics, then people would engage on actual ethical reportage. Even if they didn't engage with Jenn Frank or Sophie Prell's writing, they should at least have engaged with Mike Rose's excellent investigations of how people in the game journalism sphere get paid for things. I'm afraid that I'm really not seeing much evidence of any actual desire to discuss ethical matters - whenever you try, they simply start accusing you of other things.
Because, yes, while some of the people who identify with the GamerGate honestly seem to feel that "people are calling them names", that doesn't change the fact that they're wrong. Especially when people who write articles "doing the name-calling" are constantly going out of their way to both identify with the people they're describing (because they're those people too), and when they're also taking pains to say they're not accusing individuals (except those who hack/harass/dox) of terrible behavior.
If someone is dead set on being angry no matter what you say or how you try to convey your message, then trying to place the emphasis on the people actually trying to communicate to "change their messages" is meaningless. It's basically tone-policing at that point. All that achieves is to tell the aggrieved the things they want to hear and further entrench them in their entitlement.
As I've pointed out before, we do not have the capacity to change the minds of those who have made the staunch decisions (and attacked someone else - because once you've attacked someone else for an issue, then you'll hold onto your beliefs about you being right in this issue in a way that's near impossible to shake) but rather we have the capacity to influence those who have been sort of caught in the middle. The fence sitters, the people with little time nor information. And you can only influence those if you show a strong stance on your side. If you look like a fence sitter, then you're less likely to influence a fence sitter.
@dislekcia I can'y really agree with what you just wrote. I think your idea of how people operate is a bit different to mine. I'm looking at the same evidence and drawing very different conclusions. So we might have to agree to disagree?
For whatever it's worth. I'm operating from the assumption that the indies and the gamers and the game journalists are a system that is producing undesirable results. I think how Depression Quest was handled contributed significantly to the viciousness of GamerGate. And there definitely were perceived insults thrown at gamers during GamerGate. I'd be very surprised if they forgive and forget.
But I'm really not trying to single you out and condemn your personal actions if it comes across that way. I didn't enter the fray myself. And like @Dammit mentioned, being perceived to defend those of our own is important. No-one wants to let those who are being attacked also feel alone. And I agree.
I have been lumping indies and game journalists together, and I've been critical of them (and generalizing in this way is lazy of course). But I'm not trying to say they're doing something ethically/morally wrong, I'm trying to say that their actions don't appear to me to be having the desired result. So what, if anything, can we change?
To me, it looks like these results might be escalating in their horror. I hope I'm misreading this, the level of fallout is well beyond unacceptable already.
So the status quo really worries me. What, if anything, can we change?
@BlackShipsFilltheSky: There are a lot of things that you're taking as gospel from GamerGate that I don't agree with, which is probably where the disconnect in how I advocate treating this is coming from.
1. I do not accept that GamerGate as a movement speaks for a majority of gamers. I can understand that some self-identifying gamers do feel that GamerGate speaks for them, but the numbers simply don't match up to anything like even a percentage of actual game-playing humans... The small numbers seem loud because they're good at internet, they're also the prime candidates for thinking that they do represent a majority.
2. The people that rally to GamerGate are not exposed to indie games (as is evident from their laughably incorrect presumptions about the IGF, indie game development and game journalism in general). These are people who are exposed far more to mainstream games, so saying that indie developers have been "talking to these people wrong" is a non-sequitur: They haven't been talking at all, up till now.
3. Indie developers and freelance journalists are the softest targets to aim for. Not only are they the ones with the least legal protection (in terms of available resources), they're also some of the most concerned with representation and thus the most diverse group. That means it's easy to find women to target (and it is largely women that have BEEN targeted by GamerGate in their "investigations" - this IGF thing is a direct result of them looking for more information to attack @legobutts with). This is always the pattern for bullies: Target the weak, the ones least able to fight back. I'm sorry, but the informational burden is not with the people that are being accused of corruption here - it's with the people laying the accusations.
4. Which brings me to: These arguments and points that GamerGate is making are not rational. Have you tried to engage with anyone using the hashtag? Have you read what passes for reasoning in their writings? I've yet to find one "gamer" in this mess that is actually legitimately aggrieved, I worry that a lot of the "don't lash out, don't say this whole thing is bad" stuff is playing directly into the hands of the group of people that are trying to manipulate this situation for their own entertainment. Every interaction I've had with GamerGate accounts has been them defending some point of honour about the "movement" in some way, about the only path for communication to be through that particular hashtag. That's not discussion, that's not debate, that's... Well, that's trolling.
5. Because all the information needed to talk about this stuff is already out there. In many cases, the people that GamerGate is drawing their arrows and tables about have written LOADS of stuff about ethics in the game industry and media. There is hordes of information about the IGF and how it's set up out there, there's even the yearly "IGF is corrupt" threads on TIGsource in which people running the IGF explain everything, listen calmly (to a bunch of fucked up accusations) and institute rule changes and new policies when valid concerns are raised. This is a classic example of the most in-touch, well-meaining, changeable and open organisations and groups of people ever (the IGF and the greater indie "scene", if that wasn't obvious from context) being targeted for silencing.
6. Silencing is what this is about. What are the desires of GamerGate as a movement? What are the outcomes it has achieved? What is the point of accusing the IGF and claiming corruption all over the place? I'm having a hard time finding anything other than "getting people to shut up". And that's obviously not what we should be doing. Not at all. I empathise with your desire to NOT shut up and find ways to change how things are said instead, but I'm not seeing any evidence that this is effective at all (given how many ways things have been said in the past and how selective the interpretations of things are that are held up as "evil").
So, no, we don't agree because we clearly don't see GamerGate as the same thing. If I thought it was what you seem to think it's about: Gamers feeling victimised by developers and media they engage with frequently, then yeah, I'd be approaching them differently. In fact, I'd probably be approaching them very similarly to how I relate with the gamers that are frequently victimised by developers and media they engage with frequently: As a feminist.
Please, give me evidence that GamerGate really isn't a hate campaign that's managed to dupe some internet-native gamers into providing it with legitimacy. @Aequitas was telling me about an otherwise well-meaning youtuber that seems to have been pulled into this that's sincere about how it feels to be targeted as a gamer - except he's mis-representing the arguments made by people calling for "The death of gaming" in exactly the ways that GamerGate does, so he hasn't got accurate information to work with. This is not a tactic of a fair and open movement... Least of all not one concerned with actual ethics.
P.S. The discussions around #GameEthics have already been more useful and raised more ethical concerns in 3 days than all of GamerGate did since it started. The big difference? #GameEthics isn't about shutting people up, it's about getting people talking.
I agree 100% with how you've defined the GamerGate movement. We're obviously talking past each other.
How are indies and journalists responsible for producing undesirable results? This is probably the part I understand the least from what you've written here so far.
Would you say that the gamers who are upset are acting independently from indies and journalists?
Or maybe, that indies and game journalists aren't participating in the negative feedback loop. That the negative feedback loop would happen regardless of what they do (or that the negative feedback loop would escalate faster without their input) ?
(I use the term "negative feedback loop" in the sense that I think you used it when you were talking about Phil Fish and how the negative response to him escalated)
And yes, I'd say that indies and journalists weren't participating in the feedback loop that spun into all of this bullshit - that's simply based on how little actual information GamerGate took from what indies and journalists wrote about it. If you cherry pick 1 or 2 inflammatory "facts", you can make anything seem negative. GamerGate never actually engaged with anyone, it just shouted about things it loudly proclaimed to have "discovered" while it was "blowing things wide open". Just look at where the "facts" that are supposedly so ethically corrupt come from and how few there actually are. This is not supported reasoning with evidence, this is hearsay spun into reasons to hate.
Have you read that IGF thing? It's basically saying that indies are terrible for doing things that the vast majority of humanity finds completely normal (and probably a bit too liberal, remember that a big part of GamerGate is hatred of "Social Justice Warriors" for being too concerned with things like equality), I don't know how (or why) we should change making friends with people that also make games to suit an angry minority. And even if we did, they could still pull past relationships out of the internet and hold those up as reasons to condemn (which has been their modus operandi so far), so I'm not sure what that would achieve anyway, beyond killing my ability to make a living.
Indies and journalists were part of trying to defuse it though, talking about it, analysing it, even responding to actual arguments and concerns dug out from under piles and piles of regressive crap and harassment. I'd say that the widespread condemnation of terrible behavior, followed by a willingness to engage on meaningful topics (which was rarely followed up on), was a great way to handle this shitstorm. As soon as you take the hate campaign out of it, the wind goes right out of GamerGate. Why else is #GameEthics not as large? Why aren't there complaints about DoritoGate? Why do the trolls peter out when you actually engage them in rational discussion and ask them to explain their perspectives instead of rise to their baiting?
This says everything I've tried to say here, except better and with history.
GamerGate isn't a problem indies made. It's a problem that indies have to deal with because we, more than AAA, are where the new voices are coming from. I feel it's a lot more important to point out how not okay trying to stifle those voices is, rather than trying to coddle bruised egos on people who're so quick to attack rather than explore.
And if you can't see that then we clearly disagree about some of the mechanisms of how PR works (and I don't think there's the scope here to convince either of us of the other's perception of how the world works)
In chatting to Rami, he's of the opinion that GamerGate was a public relations fuckup on the part of indies and indie games press.
(He obviously didn't say "I've read Danny's posts and I think he's wrong about this particular aspect". I'm just mentioning it in case it gives some more context, even though his comment wasn't in the context of this thread. And of course I'm not saying Rami agrees with all my points, but his opinion does seem in opposition to the idea that indies and journalists weren't affecting the situation negatively)
What are you saying that indies (specifically) should have done differently? I certainly don't agree that indies caused gamer gate, but I am curious as to what you'd have people do instead.
But that was so contentious that I had to stop there and explain myself (bafflingly) several times over.
I don't trust that you'd really listen to me. I think any critique I offer is going to be taken personally. So I'd rather avoid this conversation now.
Okay.
Can I suggest that perhaps this week's meetup is not about talks or about showing prototypes but perhaps having us all in one room together discussing one of the biggest drama's in the indie dev scene lately? I somehow think that will be of huge value - even if we still walk away with differing opinions and thoughts.
My personal feeling is that even having a discussion about it gives credence to the people claiming that the whole kerfuffle is about "journalistic integrity" when most sensible folks who have been following along know full well it's not.
I guess there's the "how do we PR good" angle, but I'd rather be a Phil Fish than be good at PR.
EDIT: We don't attend MGSA meetups, so maybe just ignore me. :P
I'm assuming "Phil Fish" here means speaking the truth even if it pisses people off?
If that's the case, I'd like to ask: Would you rather be a "Phil Fish" if there were other people being harassed that good PR on your part might have protected?
I'm certainly not saying your specific PR actions hurt people. But during all of this there was misguided PR that definitely made the situation worse and as a result hurt people in real life.
I know you were saying "Phil Fish" vs good PR for emphasis, and that doesn't mean you think the two are mutually exclusive. All that I'm trying to get across is that I think bad PR during GamerGate had severe consequences, and not necessarily for the same people that were committing the bad PR.
(In case I'm misunderstanding your use of "PR") "Good PR" to me means communicating your message in a way that doesn't result in more anger being directed at yourself and those that you represent (at least in this context).
During this thing I was seeing quite a few attempts at responding in a reasonable manner. But one cannot reason with unreasonable people. These things tend to just be read by the choir, or in some cases end up as more ammunition for the horde, because they just read it as "you're wrong" and respond accordingly. *
If their entire platform is based on blind hate and in some cases a very deeply rooted prejudice, how the heck do you remove that? It's not something that can just be gabbed away by some wannabe word-mages. In fact, it's probably something you can't fix unless you can go back and fix the way people have been raised. In which case maybe we should just move on and maybe focus on the next generation - contributing to the culture they consume in positive ways. *cue violin*
And it's facking everywhere. I was watching an Unreal Engine coding tutorial video presented by a woman. One of the first comments was someone saying something along the lines of "Is she really a developer? I thought only guys did that." This might just be a comment one can laugh at, but it does show how people are brought up.
* yes, I guess I too need to provide specific examples
EDIT: This appeared yesterday. I found the editor's opening and closing notes quite amusing. http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-i-learned-as-internets-most-hated-person/
People SOUND unreasonable when stuff like this is being flung around, and people who sound unreasonable tend not to get mind-cycles in a hopefully reasonable discussion. Like 4channers.
My impression is that @Blackshipsfillthesky started wanting to talk about "how can we all collectively do better than the gamergate mess that's been flying around".