FBI have caught these types of folk before. I wouldn't be surprised if they catch some of the bigger fish here.
It really doesn't appear to be the work of professionals.
I hope if that does happen we hear about it. I keep wondering if they ever managed to track down and convict these folks. Or the swatting stuff etc.
Need to hear a lot more about the people caught and punished. Get some scared straight talk going.
I thought the FBI really didn't do that type of thing, or was it the NSA
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
Whenever I hear the term misandry, I have an involuntary nose wrinkle reaction. Not because I don't think there are cases where men get the short end of the stick (see family courts in America), but those things pale in comparison to the level of harassment and institutional bullshit that women get. Yeah, we should fix those things, but there is this thing in life called perspective, and anyone using misandry non-ironically has none. It's the worst, most base kind of false equivalency.
also stuff like bias against men in family courts happens because of the patriarchy
it's not feminists doing that, it's people who think men and women should have clearly-defined gender roles
Agreed. Though I think it's more kyriarchy than patriarchy, your point remains correct.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Considering one of the other accounts like that lists themselves as a biological man trans woman (trans people don't identify like that shitlords) yeah I'm saying its a fake account
0
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
Gotta say, watching Zoe flip the table on this whole thing is fucking cathartic.
On a tangent after rereading the first post, what is the rush to have games defined as an art form? Certainly some games are artistic, but others pretty much aren't, because games, unlike pure receptive visual or audio entertainment, can survive without it. Gameplay is purely technical. It is genderless, raceless, and sexless.
Why do I think this is topical? Because gameplay, not story, not visuals, not soundtracks, not characters, is what's drawing women into games, just like men and women were drawn into arcades in the 80s and early 90s, finding common ground in cultureless colored balls that you had to shoot to hit other balls that would disappear if they were the same color. Mobile games, handheld games, simplistic cheap indie-like casual games are the biggest thing right now because women are moving into it. Minecraft, The Sims, figuratively and literally Lego in video game form - the success of all of these in the women demographic illustrates that if you want success in capturing the other 50% of the population, don't go AAA.
With the discrepancy in the employment of the game development institution today, the only thing you can count on that can appeal across the gender barrier is gameplay. Every other trapping is tainted by the bias of a predominantly masculine perspective, and it will remain so until somehow more women enter the fray, and to get them to enter you must first get them to play. So therefore, every artistic thing developed in games is tainted by a lopsided perspective. Everything but gameplay - that the current male developers can do as well as the future female ones.
If we just go back to basics, forget grand narratives and luxurious scenery for a while, then we can produce something that both genders can relate to. Every attempt to reach across the aisle without design input from an actual woman ends in failure, so give up trying to emulate what must be home grown in the vain hope of sucking actual, significant numbers away from past times that always have a more equal infrastructure in place. Hold off on the artistic movement until the other half of the auditorium is filled. Let the artists not get pudgy and lazy having only the fulfill the demands of 50% of the human race, and punt them back to the more established venues until you can give them a real challenge.
Games can be art, but it's too soon. It's too mired in addiction, social isolation, sexism, racism, unprofessionalism, plagiarism, illegality, unoriginality, amateurishness, selfishness, and a general lack of purpose to warrant the resources and talent it enjoys. We're feeding these artists to the wolves in an age where we really should be over not recognizing them until it's too late. Maybe in several years and hundreds of neutral, technical games, we'll be washed of the residue of the men's early adopter advantage, but until then maybe we should hold off on letting video games try to answer fundamental questions about the meaning and enjoyment of life.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Gotta say, watching Zoe flip the table on this whole thing is fucking cathartic.
While I agree it's amusing, being snarky to the internet never hurt anyone, right?
no, never
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
On a tangent after rereading the first post, what is the rush to have games defined as an art form?
I believe it goes back to the days where there seemed like serious potential for government censorship of games, like other aspects of this clusterfuck. For example, the tendency of hardcore game enthusiasts to band together and belittle critics seemed fine, even necessary, when they were doing it to Joe Lieberman, Jack Thompson, Fox News in the wake of the Mass Effect sex "scandal", etc. It just makes them look petty, thin-skinned, and kind of dumb when they do it to Anita Sarkeesian and indie devs trying to do different things nowadays.
The same goes for the games as art thing. It was championed in the '90s and 2000s as a way to counter arguments for censorship, but I don't think many people who made those arguments back then thought or cared about the long-term implications of games being art.
On a tangent after rereading the first post, what is the rush to have games defined as an art form?
I believe it goes back to the days where there seemed like serious potential for government censorship of games, like other aspects of this clusterfuck. For example, the tendency of hardcore game enthusiasts to band together and belittle critics seemed fine, even necessary, when they were doing it to Joe Lieberman, Jack Thompson, Fox News in the wake of the Mass Effect sex "scandal", etc. It just makes them look petty, thin-skinned, and kind of dumb when they do it to Anita Sarkeesian and indie devs trying to do different things nowadays.
The same goes for the games as art thing. It was championed in the '90s and 2000s as a way to counter arguments for censorship, but I don't think many people who made those arguments back then thought or cared about the long-term implications of games being art.
Alright then who still actually believes games can't wait a little while
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
You act as if every art form, in it's own way, isn't "mired in addiction, social isolation, sexism, racism, unprofessionalism, plagiarism, illegality, unoriginality, amateurishness, selfishness, and a general lack of purpose" (your words). Have you heard top 40 music today? I'm sure you have, yet we aren't debating whether music is an art form. I think you're entire argument is suspect and I'm far from convinced it has any bearing on the topic beings discussed here.
Sure, there are gobs and gobs of bad, low quality, me-to games. Just as there are gobs and gobs of bad, low-quality, me-to films, music, paintings, books, poems, sculptures, drawings, etc. It's funny you bring up Minecraft. If you don't see Minecraft as art and in and of itself validating games as an art form (regardless of any other examples), than I think you're looking through a far too restrictive prism.
While I agree it's amusing, being snarky to the internet never hurt anyone, right?
Er, what?
Like you think she'll get more abuse for successfully turning this whole thing on its head?
"This whole thing." is like a couple dozen people from /pol/ who always end up getting caught out for trying to play secret agent.
I'd be surprised if a single person in there even knew how to dox someone outside of googling their name. Even just reading the logs you can tell it's a clown car.
Though I do like the claim of "preemptive victim blaming."
You know, it's kind of like if you say something stupid, don't be surprised if someone calls you on it? I think multiple people in this thread have said exactly this. Similarly, if you think stirring shit further is a wise move simply because you think you have an upper hand, I dunno what to even say. If that seems like an intelligent move to you I can't judge. I think it's stupid, personally.
On a tangent after rereading the first post, what is the rush to have games defined as an art form? Certainly some games are artistic, but others pretty much aren't, because games, unlike pure receptive visual or audio entertainment, can survive without it. Gameplay is purely technical. It is genderless, raceless, and sexless.
Why do I think this is topical? Because gameplay, not story, not visuals, not soundtracks, not characters, is what's drawing women into games, just like men and women were drawn into arcades in the 80s and early 90s, finding common ground in cultureless colored balls that you had to shoot to hit other balls that would disappear if they were the same color. Mobile games, handheld games, simplistic cheap indie-like casual games are the biggest thing right now because women are moving into it. Minecraft, The Sims, figuratively and literally Lego in video game form - the success of all of these in the women demographic illustrates that if you want success in capturing the other 50% of the population, don't go AAA.
With the discrepancy in the employment of the game development institution today, the only thing you can count on that can appeal across the gender barrier is gameplay. Every other trapping is tainted by the bias of a predominantly masculine perspective, and it will remain so until somehow more women enter the fray, and to get them to enter you must first get them to play. So therefore, every artistic thing developed in games is tainted by a lopsided perspective. Everything but gameplay - that the current male developers can do as well as the future female ones.
If we just go back to basics, forget grand narratives and luxurious scenery for a while, then we can produce something that both genders can relate to. Every attempt to reach across the aisle without design input from an actual woman ends in failure, so give up trying to emulate what must be home grown in the vain hope of sucking actual, significant numbers away from past times that always have a more equal infrastructure in place. Hold off on the artistic movement until the other half of the auditorium is filled. Let the artists not get pudgy and lazy having only the fulfill the demands of 50% of the human race, and punt them back to the more established venues until you can give them a real challenge.
Games can be art, but it's too soon. It's too mired in addiction, social isolation, sexism, racism, unprofessionalism, plagiarism, illegality, unoriginality, amateurishness, selfishness, and a general lack of purpose to warrant the resources and talent it enjoys. We're feeding these artists to the wolves in an age where we really should be over not recognizing them until it's too late. Maybe in several years and hundreds of neutral, technical games, we'll be washed of the residue of the men's early adopter advantage, but until then maybe we should hold off on letting video games try to answer fundamental questions about the meaning and enjoyment of life.
Games are an art form just as much as anything else. Writing can be art, or it can be a VCR instruction manual. Painting can be art, or it can just divide lanes on a highway. Also, I am willing to bet hojillions of dollars that you are wrong, and that gameplay is probably the least important element to drawing women to videogames. Mostly because a) there are a lot of women making video games with very little "gameplay" (see:Quest, Depression) and b)"gameplay" is a completely nebulous term that is mostly "how hard is it to achieve what I want within the given parameters of a given game", so it is only important inasmuch that the game is competently executed.
The idea that we should back away from an art form's potential is ridiculous, and kind of offensive, really. Coming to the conclusion that all art must look the same is absolutely ridiculous. Look at poetry: You have Shakespeare, Whitman, and Silverstein; all are poets, none of them remotely similar. And that's just English. We should not back away, but push forward, and make better art.
Art is a work the produces an emotional reaction (whether intended or not, depending on your school of thought and blah blah blah). Good art produces a deeper reaction, and/or a more widespread one, and remarkable art does both. For some definitions of good and remarkable (I do not want to have an art theory discussion)
Fencingsax on
+2
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
So she should just keep her mouth shut while people are trying to coordinate a smear campaign against her, because oh no, don't rock the boat?
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
I would hope the fact that she's revealed a lot of the "PSY OPS" bollocks should go a long way to defusing things, because it'll be that much harder to assert that they've got some moral qualms in this when pretty much every aspect of the original issue is debunked (possibly barring the mess with TFYC, but that's a relatively minor issue).
...and of course, as always, Kill Hitler.
0
Andy JoeWe claim the land for the highlord!The AdirondacksRegistered Userregular
On a tangent after rereading the first post, what is the rush to have games defined as an art form?
I believe it goes back to the days where there seemed like serious potential for government censorship of games, like other aspects of this clusterfuck. For example, the tendency of hardcore game enthusiasts to band together and belittle critics seemed fine, even necessary, when they were doing it to Joe Lieberman, Jack Thompson, Fox News in the wake of the Mass Effect sex "scandal", etc. It just makes them look petty, thin-skinned, and kind of dumb when they do it to Anita Sarkeesian and indie devs trying to do different things nowadays.
The same goes for the games as art thing. It was championed in the '90s and 2000s as a way to counter arguments for censorship, but I don't think many people who made those arguments back then thought or cared about the long-term implications of games being art.
Alright then who still actually believes games can't wait a little while
That kind of thing only ratchets in one direction. "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks."
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
Mostly because a) there are a lot of women making video games with very little "gameplay" (see:Quest, Depression)
Er...
Sample size?
That seems like faulty generalisation; I can't say I've seen any significant correlation between "female developer" and "non-game".
...and of course, as always, Kill Hitler.
0
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
I'm also kind of annoyed by the premise that games need to "wait their turn" to be art. Who gets to decide this arbitrary length of time that games have to wait to be art? Who gets to decided the arbitrary criteria? So when games have been around for say, 40 years, we get to be part of the art club? Do we look at other art forms and average out how long it took them to be accepted as art, and that's our median baseline? For that matter, who decided games had to wait at all?
Mostly because a) there are a lot of women making video games with very little "gameplay" (see:Quest, Depression)
Er...
Sample size?
That seems like faulty generalisation; I can't say I've seen any significant correlation between "female developer" and "non-game".
The argument was that women don't care about the non-gameplay stuff. My rebuttal is that if they don't care, why do they make games like that?
0
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
I mean, even that statement "women don't care about non-gameplay stuff" is a pretty silly generalization. There are women who care a lot about gameplay, and there are women who couldn't care less. Just like there are men who care a lot about gameplay, and men who couldn't care less.
The argument was that women don't care about the non-gameplay stuff. My rebuttal is that if they don't care, why do they make games like that?
Yeah but I'm not too sure there's evidence a lot of women developers make games without "gameplay" elements, is there?
I mean Zoe Quinn and Christine Love are the two I would know off the top of my head that make small games either by themselves, or with small teams. But there are plenty of women who do stuff like music, voice acting, writing, art, and basically all the stuff that isn't "gameplay" in studios that range to AAA. Would they do it if they weren't interested in it? My point is more that the idea that we should concentrate on gameplay to the exclusion of everything else is ridiculous(especially if the point was that "women don't dig that stuff"), not that women don't dig the gameplay. (I mean, Brenda Romero is absolutely interested in gameplay and so on, so that would be a stupid point to make)
Fencingsax on
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
Can we maybe not make the assumption that "Women make games like this and Men make games like that", because it's kinda sexist in and of itself.
Both women and men make games that focus on play. Both women and men make games focused on narrative. Both women and men make games focused on experimentation.
The more experimental games aren't coming from a place of having more women in games, it's coming from a place of having smaller developers willing to take experimental risks.
Posts
I thought the FBI really didn't do that type of thing, or was it the NSA
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Agreed. Though I think it's more kyriarchy than patriarchy, your point remains correct.
Zoe's been having fun.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Fantastic
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Of course, the #GamerGate people aren't happy about it.
I don't get the relevance of his religion.
well
they said it was completely unrelated
Yup, part of the chat logs that Quinn has shared is where the jerks talk about making sockpuppet accounts to spout that kind of stuff.
Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Why do I think this is topical? Because gameplay, not story, not visuals, not soundtracks, not characters, is what's drawing women into games, just like men and women were drawn into arcades in the 80s and early 90s, finding common ground in cultureless colored balls that you had to shoot to hit other balls that would disappear if they were the same color. Mobile games, handheld games, simplistic cheap indie-like casual games are the biggest thing right now because women are moving into it. Minecraft, The Sims, figuratively and literally Lego in video game form - the success of all of these in the women demographic illustrates that if you want success in capturing the other 50% of the population, don't go AAA.
With the discrepancy in the employment of the game development institution today, the only thing you can count on that can appeal across the gender barrier is gameplay. Every other trapping is tainted by the bias of a predominantly masculine perspective, and it will remain so until somehow more women enter the fray, and to get them to enter you must first get them to play. So therefore, every artistic thing developed in games is tainted by a lopsided perspective. Everything but gameplay - that the current male developers can do as well as the future female ones.
If we just go back to basics, forget grand narratives and luxurious scenery for a while, then we can produce something that both genders can relate to. Every attempt to reach across the aisle without design input from an actual woman ends in failure, so give up trying to emulate what must be home grown in the vain hope of sucking actual, significant numbers away from past times that always have a more equal infrastructure in place. Hold off on the artistic movement until the other half of the auditorium is filled. Let the artists not get pudgy and lazy having only the fulfill the demands of 50% of the human race, and punt them back to the more established venues until you can give them a real challenge.
Games can be art, but it's too soon. It's too mired in addiction, social isolation, sexism, racism, unprofessionalism, plagiarism, illegality, unoriginality, amateurishness, selfishness, and a general lack of purpose to warrant the resources and talent it enjoys. We're feeding these artists to the wolves in an age where we really should be over not recognizing them until it's too late. Maybe in several years and hundreds of neutral, technical games, we'll be washed of the residue of the men's early adopter advantage, but until then maybe we should hold off on letting video games try to answer fundamental questions about the meaning and enjoyment of life.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
While I agree it's amusing, being snarky to the internet never hurt anyone, right?
no, never
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
So preemptive victim blaming?
Like you think she'll get more abuse for successfully turning this whole thing on its head?
I believe it goes back to the days where there seemed like serious potential for government censorship of games, like other aspects of this clusterfuck. For example, the tendency of hardcore game enthusiasts to band together and belittle critics seemed fine, even necessary, when they were doing it to Joe Lieberman, Jack Thompson, Fox News in the wake of the Mass Effect sex "scandal", etc. It just makes them look petty, thin-skinned, and kind of dumb when they do it to Anita Sarkeesian and indie devs trying to do different things nowadays.
The same goes for the games as art thing. It was championed in the '90s and 2000s as a way to counter arguments for censorship, but I don't think many people who made those arguments back then thought or cared about the long-term implications of games being art.
Woop-de-fucking-do
Alright then who still actually believes games can't wait a little while
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Sure, there are gobs and gobs of bad, low quality, me-to games. Just as there are gobs and gobs of bad, low-quality, me-to films, music, paintings, books, poems, sculptures, drawings, etc. It's funny you bring up Minecraft. If you don't see Minecraft as art and in and of itself validating games as an art form (regardless of any other examples), than I think you're looking through a far too restrictive prism.
"This whole thing." is like a couple dozen people from /pol/ who always end up getting caught out for trying to play secret agent.
I'd be surprised if a single person in there even knew how to dox someone outside of googling their name. Even just reading the logs you can tell it's a clown car.
Though I do like the claim of "preemptive victim blaming."
You know, it's kind of like if you say something stupid, don't be surprised if someone calls you on it? I think multiple people in this thread have said exactly this. Similarly, if you think stirring shit further is a wise move simply because you think you have an upper hand, I dunno what to even say. If that seems like an intelligent move to you I can't judge. I think it's stupid, personally.
Arguments with someone who buys ink by the barrel etc etc.
Games are an art form just as much as anything else. Writing can be art, or it can be a VCR instruction manual. Painting can be art, or it can just divide lanes on a highway. Also, I am willing to bet hojillions of dollars that you are wrong, and that gameplay is probably the least important element to drawing women to videogames. Mostly because a) there are a lot of women making video games with very little "gameplay" (see:Quest, Depression) and b)"gameplay" is a completely nebulous term that is mostly "how hard is it to achieve what I want within the given parameters of a given game", so it is only important inasmuch that the game is competently executed.
The idea that we should back away from an art form's potential is ridiculous, and kind of offensive, really. Coming to the conclusion that all art must look the same is absolutely ridiculous. Look at poetry: You have Shakespeare, Whitman, and Silverstein; all are poets, none of them remotely similar. And that's just English. We should not back away, but push forward, and make better art.
Art is a work the produces an emotional reaction (whether intended or not, depending on your school of thought and blah blah blah). Good art produces a deeper reaction, and/or a more widespread one, and remarkable art does both. For some definitions of good and remarkable (I do not want to have an art theory discussion)
That kind of thing only ratchets in one direction. "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks."
Sample size?
That seems like faulty generalisation; I can't say I've seen any significant correlation between "female developer" and "non-game".
The argument was that women don't care about the non-gameplay stuff. My rebuttal is that if they don't care, why do they make games like that?
It's almost like people have harassed and hounded her so badly, she has absolutely nothing to lose by attempting to provoke them further.
I mean Zoe Quinn and Christine Love are the two I would know off the top of my head that make small games either by themselves, or with small teams. But there are plenty of women who do stuff like music, voice acting, writing, art, and basically all the stuff that isn't "gameplay" in studios that range to AAA. Would they do it if they weren't interested in it? My point is more that the idea that we should concentrate on gameplay to the exclusion of everything else is ridiculous(especially if the point was that "women don't dig that stuff"), not that women don't dig the gameplay. (I mean, Brenda Romero is absolutely interested in gameplay and so on, so that would be a stupid point to make)
When I see this kind of argument I always think of Brea.
She's like watching a dream. A dream of how skilled I'd like to be, but never will.
Women care about games
Brea is arguably the most talented DMC4 player there has ever been.
Both women and men make games that focus on play. Both women and men make games focused on narrative. Both women and men make games focused on experimentation.
The more experimental games aren't coming from a place of having more women in games, it's coming from a place of having smaller developers willing to take experimental risks.