No answers have been changed/merged for this one.
Some answers may not be included if they misunderstood the question – they may instead have moved to ‘bonus’ as a section. Will highlight if that is the case.
People are anon if they didn’t explictly say “call me x”. Email me again if you want to change that 🙂 Anon referencing consistent within this topic, but not with others.
1. Why did you personally get involved with the #GamerGate tag?
Anon22: “Because I believed that it was time gamers spoke out against the unfair way we have been marginalized in our own community by those who claim to champion social justice. We’ve been called nerds and neck-beards who are misogynists and bigots that lurk in our parents basements, all because we don’t like the one-sided narrative that gaming journalists have been pushing for the past few years. I wanted to help show that there’s more to us than that.”
Anon23: “I was tired of the bigotry, double standards and misinformation supplied by the most vocal opponents of #GamerGate. I was getting especially sick of those people accusing gamers as a whole of being “racist”, “misogynist”, “sexist”, “hyprocite” and throwing all kinds of threats and insults our way only because “X said they were harassed”. As a law student, the first thing I did when I learned that there was a scandal ongoing was to look for facts and evidence or clues. All I could see was that some terrible people did some arguably bad things, which led some people to do some reprehensible things (the harassment of X and Y) which I believe is partially not real from the way things have been going. It was very irritating to see people blindly accusing, blaming, harassing and insulting us for something we didn’t even do, because let’s face it, you can’t blame all gamers for stuff done by some isolated people who may not even be gamers themselves (the sarkeesian threats had no indication of being related to video games).”
Anon24: “I’ve been involved since zero hour. When it seemed every website was trying to censor what was going on, it just didn’t seem right. So I stuck with it to see what would transpire.”
Ashton Liu: “The overt amount of bullying by game journalists of not only the readership but people completely not involved (as highlighted in the post I made a week ago at http://rpgfanashton.tumblr.com), and claim that any self-defense on the part of the bullied was bigotry and racism/misogyny/homophobia.”
Anon25: “I got involved with #Gamergate due to sites such as Kotaku, Polygon, and RockPaperShotgun running a smear campaign over the entire “Gamer”. Yes, Ill agree that the fringe is not good, but going as far as saying that they’re the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levenant? That’s a bit too far.”
Anon26: “I already am.”
Anon27: “I’ve lurked (browsing with little to no posting/interaction) 4chan’s /v/ (Video Games) board for a number of years now. The issue of journalists being paid came to a head with Geoff Keighley’s infamous Halo 4 video. The whole mess became a board meme that became popular due to the ongoing unrest with the review industry; other events similar to this (the aforementioned Jeff Gerstmann firing; Sites like Rock Paper Shotgun, Kotaku, Polygon, ect running HUGE banners of Masseffect 3 on their sites as the reviews for said game came out) had been a point of contention for some time. Over the months/years sites like Kotaku became infamous for “clickbait” articles (Yellow Journalism) and taking a feminist slant for site profitability (allegedly). Others followed. In late 2013, /v/ made /v/: The Musical, a satirical project due to unrest with the industry utilizing Disney songs. (I’ll Make A Reviewer Out of You is particularly related to all this; seriously, watch it. It sums up the issues with journalism extremely well.) Enter Zoe Quinn. I’m sure you’re aware of the conditions surrounding her game and the alleged activities that may or may not have taken place. They’re actually not important. If it wasn’t Zoe, it would have been someone/thing else. Here you have what many perceive as the epitome of what’s wrong with the reviewer industry. Zoe’s alleged actions were a lit match thrown onto a powder keg of several year’s worth of frustration and anger with the industry. Things escalated fast. Anyone who regularly visited /v/ was caught up, myself included. My interaction with the whole mess has been limited to watching the chaos and discussing the matter with friends however.”
Anon28: “The hatred being dished out to all of gamers with a lack of ethical and objective view into stories such as the harassment of Anita Sarkeesian. Leads to people believing all of gaming is some sort of toxic group. We are not a toxic group. This to me is akin to calling all Germans Nazis, and making people afraid to visit Germany. It’s dishonest, disingenuous, only serves to create a negative stereotype, and hurts the people you speak of in that way.
Objectively speaking, random anonymous users attack Anita Sarkeesian on a regular basis, and have done so since she started her web series speaking out against tropes vs games. These attacks typically get wide stream media attention, by both major gaming websites, and news outlets. Some claim to do so because they hate her stance against games, but many of the more recent attacks that have gotten heavy attention have said nothing about games, and oddly these new, very serious threats happen to occur at the release of her new videos. If gamers were a constant source of hate and disgust, why do only the most threatening attacks happen shortly after the release of a new video? Wouldn’t it remain more consistent in level of threat? It makes sense as to why it happens with the release of a new video though, because that is when she would be getting the most attention. It does not make sense with the narrative painted of how gamers are a constantly toxic group however.
Also interestingly, with all the major publications that addressed Anita’s story, as well as Zoe Quinn, no one bothered checking with either persons local police department to see if any reports, or calls were made. This is especially troubling considering the allegations that tend to be made by both are that the police did not take them seriously. Is it objective to not go to the police about the accusations of not taking threats against these two women seriously Ethical, Objective journalism, would not take one side of the story, and in the process throw a huge group, specifically gamers, under the bus. They would attempt to research the validity of an orchestrated attack by gamers to threaten these two women. The only thing that appears truly orchestrated by gamers against these two women, are widespread critique of their work, and instead of defending the work of these two women after it being critiqued, gamers are instead labelled misogynistic sexist pigs. As is anyone else, regardless of the validity of the critique.
Again I ask, is this ethical? Is this objective to only ever side with one side of the spectrum, while demonizing the other, irrelevant of the validity of critique?”
Anon29: “When the ZQ issue broke I stayed away. I did not want to partake in it. I mean, I felt there may have been some merit to the claims, but in the end to me it was just drama. Internet drama sucks! But when D-Day happened (gamers are dead day) I was pretty upset. I haven’t visited sites like GamaSutra, Kotaku, Polygon, NeoGaf in ages mostly because they have turned into mini-cracked.com‘s. I see too many hit pieces and clickbait-ish articles that don’t inform and instead just incite emotion. The political narrative is just so tired and headache inducing. So I voted with my click and I decided to stay away months ago. Those d-day articles struck a nerve, they genuinely hurt me.”
Anon30: “I got interested cause I didn’t like the apparent nepotism that was revealed between developers/press. Also, being called a woman hater didn’t help winning me over to their side either.”
Anon31: “I got involved after seeing the blast of negative articles about gamers. I just assumed that I was a long voice who thought those articles were misdirected and mean, but I found a community of others online who agreed.”
@orichalcumroad: “I became involved with GamerGate when the articles dropped declaring “Gamers are Dead” which inspired me to research what they were talking about. I normally ignore bombastic article titles, because they are often intended to infuriate or insult rather than provide any real information, but the idea stuck with me. So, I waded into the Escapist Forum on the subject, and researched the topic myself, including reading the ex-bf’s blog post and responses to that, which led to the discussion of a prior controversy. The way that controversy was handled, and the way both sides were treated with an absolute imbalance in both attitude and judgment, raised my ire enough to draw me out of lurking.”
2. What do you think the major goal of #GamerGate is?
Anon22: “To help bring the gaming community back to its roots. Transparency and integrity in the gaming press will be a good start, but in the end what many supporters of #gamergate want is for games to once again be about having fun whether its by yourself or with friends. We want to go back where we can talk about games as a community without getting bogged down in social politics that just leaves the community angry and decided. We just want to have fun and we want a gaming culture that celebrates having fun.”
Anon23: “Getting people in the gaming media, and their supporters, who have been relentlessly attacking us because of “misogyny” when the debate had clearly shifted to all the evidence of corruption and semblance of corruption existing in their milieu, to formally apologize and take responsibility. Also, even if they pretend there is no actual corruption even if facts make it look like there is some, they should just do away with that semblance. In my country, jurors for national exams have to recuse themselves when they have employed or may employ the examinee in the future, even if they are proven to be the most impartial people the world. This is because when you want to be taken seriously, appearance of virtue is as important as real virtue. Someone who looks corrupt can very easily become corrupt if left unchecked.”
Anon24: “Part ethical journalism, part seeing a return to non-politicized game coverage”
Ashton Liu: “An end to the politicization of game journalism, and the inevitable liaisons, nepotism, and poor behavior such politicization brings in its wake.”
Anon25: “The major goal of #GamerGate is Transparency and Ethics in Gaming Journalism. We want Reporting on gaming news and reviews without outside influence beyond the reviewer receiving the game’s review copy. For Ethics:
- We demand Accuracy in Reporting
- We demand independent fact checking
- We demand that corrections be posted when errors have been found.
- We demand that the entirety of the Harm Limitation Principal be followed, Specifically:
- Showing good taste, avoiding to pander to lurid curiocity.
- Finally, we want to see the end of sensationalism (click bait) in Games Journalism.”
Anon26: “Making it sound good? To liberate video games from bullshit that has no place in video games. Whether it’s bribery, cliquey shit, racketeering, or plain old agenda pushing clickbait articles with no relevance to our industry.”
Anon27: “Personally I would like to see sites dedicated to reviews display more journalistic integrity. How this is to be defined will vary from person to person, but that seems to be the general consensus.”
Anon28: “Ethics in Journalism and Objectivity. Objectivity does mean informing the audience of both sides, not just the side you personally side with. Ethics is not stereotyping millions of people, demonizing, and condemning them for the actions of a handful of people no matter how loud they are. We don’t call all men terrorists if two people who happen to be men bomb a place. Why are all gamers called misogynistic sexist pigs when these two women have their work critiqued, and or are threatened or harassed? Why is the whole blamed for a relatively small group of people?”
Anon29: Answered this and the following together.
Anon30: “To get rid of corruption in gaming-media. And beyond that stop SJWs destroy our hobby like they did with Atheism+ (and tried to do with the Comics/SciFi-fandoms, from what I’ve heard).”
Anon31: “I can’t speak for all of gamergate, but I would like for the national news media to stop preaching to us about how “misogynist” we are, then writing how we’re “dead” when we react to it. ”
@orichalcumroad: “The problem with a movement without a head, inspired largely by indignation and spurred by outrage, is that everyone seems indignant or outraged about slightly different things. I think the large portion of it that has populated the Escapist forums has been interested in Journalistic Ethics, but I can’t argue that there aren’t misogynist participants, and people who are working to drive out all SJW-sentiment, and “take back their hobby”. I don’t think this is the main idea, but it would be remiss of me to say that the elements didn’t exist.”
3. Is this your main goal, or do you have something else you’d like to see addressed too?
Anon22: “That’s pretty much what I’d like to see come out of #gamergate.”
Anon23: “I can’t think of anything else right now”
Anon24: “That’s it for me really. I stopped going to gaming sites largely because of the issues being presented. As a “cis white male” you can only be yelled at so long before you don’t want to listen. Not that the “other side” shouldn’t voice their opinions, just that it feels as if their opinions are absolute.”
Ashton Liu: “That is my main goal. I see politicization in a great many things in my life – I work in the medical field – and art is one thing that should never be politicized. Politicizing something limits it, and art is expression. Limiting expression is wrong, regardless of how uncomfortable it is. If there was an artistic or literary piece that calls for the genocide of all Chinese people, I will be very uncomfortable with it, I will object and critique it, as is my right, but I will not attempt to censor it – that is wrong, full stop.”
Anon25: “I think the only other thing I’d like would be an apology from the sources that decided to decry gamers.”
Anon26: “I’m a bit harsh myself, I’d like to see anyone involved in any flat out illegal or unethical bullshit fired and never hired again within the industry. Mainly because I can’t tolerate the bullshit anymore, it’s gone on for far too many years. Also for the journalists who do get to remain to realise their worth, and learn their place, instead of trying to put themselves on pedestals and proclaiming they’re the mouth of god and anyone who disagrees is incorrect and needs to be silenced or shut down.”
Anon27: “As previously stated, I am merely watching the mess, but I would greatly appreciate if this whole thing caused a decline in buzzfeed-esk articles generated for no other reason than to generate clicks. I want your opinion on a game, your personal opinion on the game. Nothing more, nothing less.”
Anon28: “There will always be other things other people want addressed. The main goal of the Gamergate movement seems to want Objective views and integrity in the things called games journalism. Only ever addressing one side of an argument is not objective or ethical.”
Anon29: “Gamergate has many varying ideas and views and I do not think that we can come out and make a single statement or request. It reminds me a lot of the Occupy movement in that there really wasn’t one centralized idea. (Forgive me now for drawing the parallel to Occupy, I know we aren’t as important but it’s my attempt at an analogy.) It’s sad that Occupy was criticized for the one thing it took pride in which was that they had many messages and ideas all held together by a rallying cry for transparency within our financial and government institutions. That is Gamergate right now, we want transparency, we want honesty and we are tired of agenda.”
Anon30: “I wish that SJWs would keep away and that we’d get more of actual equallity. I want my daughters to feel that it is ok to play/develop games and not get harrassed (atleast not simply because they are girls).”
Anon31: No answer given.
@orichalcumroad: “My main goal with my involvement is to be treated with respect by the people who claim to sell us “news”. Either the enacting and enforcement of ethical codes for Games Journalists, or for them to stop calling themselves that. What I want, honestly, isn’t a destruction of the Patreon model or the end of freelance journalists. It’s simple:
- Recuse yourself if you are financially or personally tied to the subject of your article, or people involved in the production of your subject.
- Disclose connections if you can’t (or won’t) Recuse yourself, and do not conceal connections when they are raised.
- Verify the information you print as “news” or include that claims are alleged, or unverified. This includes contacting all sides of a dispute.
I don’t think these basic things are asking too much. The trouble here is the clear attempt to conceal this information, which leads to mistrust and, on the scale it seems to be resisted, paranoia. When a piece is written, and the writer is financially supporting the subject (through Patreon), and the subject’s PR rep is supporting the writer (through Patreon), then it looks less like journalism and more like favors. If this were disclosed at the beginning, fine, but better to give the information to another journalist to cover the story, who doesn’t have your conflicts.
Journalists have been decrying that GamerGate people do not understand “Journalistic Conflicts of Interest” or that “All Journalism is Corrupt”, but these aren’t adequate responses. The appearance of impropriety sews distrust. To deflect, cajole, and badger people to justify it only lets that distrust breed, and an audience that doesn’t trust it’s journalists isn’t going to keep coming back.
This can all be solved by going back to calling themselves “bloggers” and their “news sites” to something like “Blog Clouds”.”
4. How do you feel about the negative things that have happened attached to this tag? Do you think they take away from it, or that they’re separate?
Anon22: “I don’t like the trolling and the harassment. That business with the CP being sent to Anita Sarkeesian was an embarrassment along with all the other acts of harassment that others have attached to #gamergate like so many parasites. Does it hurt the moment? A little. But at this point, it should be apparent that the supporters of #gamergate have become aware of those trying to taint their message and are taking measures to call out the trolls.”
Anon23: “I’ll say it as much as I need to: for having lurked on /v/ for a bit and seen it with my own eyes, there are a lot of opponents of #GamerGate simply coming to 4chan/IRC/using the hashtag to pretend they are with us and threaten, insult, harass or tell us to do bad things to the people we disagree with. Every time I see such people they are either ignored or told to get the fuck out, and they often end up banned very fast on 4chan.
The problem is that we are using discussing this whole scandal in public places where people can remain pretty much Anonymous if they want to, so it is very unfair to blame every single bad thing on us specifically when it is almost impossible to determine wether whoever said/did something is actually part of our community. Most of that stuff is actually done by what we call “shills”.
I don’t deny that some people who actually clearly identify with us may do bad things though. We don’t have any control over them as much as they don’t have any control over us. Moreover, it is very easy for the #GamerGate opponents to pretend we’re all in cahoots because there is a quote from some person who we don’t even actually know clearly calling for hateful things to be done. But on the other hand, they have official figures: journalists, bloggers, developers… insulting people who sympathize with us, harassing us, doxxing us, insulting and threatening us. And guess what, they don’t even get called out on it by their own side, while we, on the other hand, always try to denounce people claiming to be on our side and clearly doing something reprehensible. (And then they have the nerves to pretend we are the ones not keeping our side in check and that they never attack us.)”
Anon24: “After the mass spamming of anti-gamer articles, it seems to me at least that these publications have shown their true feelings on the matter of whether they work for us.”
Ashton Liu: “I think they are separate but can still take away from it slightly. If you consider feminism (bear with me here), there are lots of feminists who have done terrible things, and yet, there are still feminists after proof of such demonstrably terrible people in their movement is made clear. Without discussing how viable feminism is as a movement today, these people believe that the benefits of feminism outweigh the negative implications, and that’s fine. Some will even call out members of their own movement on problematic behavior, and that’s great! I think that gamergate does all this and ultimately it is much more good than bad.”
Anon25: “To be honest, in the most appropriate of terms, it right pisses me off because it detracts from the message we’re trying to send. We’re NOT ok with doxxing, personal attacks or elsewise. We’re calling for discussion, and yet when we try to discuss, there are both sides essentially replying with “Shutup! Im Right”, or “You’re just a cisgen male! Your opinion doesn’t matter”.”
Anon26: “They’re completely separate. There’s not a group in this world who hasn’t had people do shit in their name, whether it’s intentional because they find it fun, false flagging, people who are genuinely angry but cannot find a way to properly express themselves, or whatever else. And I should also stress, the fact that the opposition in this supposed war are people who close comment sections, delete people, ban people, cherry pick responses to reply to and ignore every single well thought out, rational, civil person in the comments calling you out on your shit or asking for sources and evidence, or post dumb shit like ‘say something nice or don’t say anything at all, I will be moderating the comments’, or outright attack, insult and put down the consumers who a) built the industry and b) keep it going, is 100% going to contribute to how much hate you get. If you actively silence discussion and dissent because you don’t want to hear it or it’s opposite to your personal dumbass agenda/opinions, you are entirely encouraging the behaviour that you end up getting because you’ve shut down all their other options. Doesn’t make it right, but that’s a fact.”
Anon27: “Any and all harassment from either side of the debate is deplorable. Both sides have gotten ugly several times now, but this is the way of things online.”
Anon28: “The same could be said of the “Other side” comparing all gamers to terrorist, and telling us we are not their audience, and that we are dead to them. We have been called racists, homophobic, misogynistic monsters on daily basis, from multiple journalistic outlets. Does this take away from their stance that there is sexism and misogynistic things in gaming?
This is what happens when only one side of the story is ever told. You paint people with a brush. The difference between the Gamergate movement, and those that oppose it. Is that they attack the whole. Generally speaking gamers will only ever attack individual sites, or people’s views when the views happen to be viewed as corrupt. An example would be that gamers have eased up on the escapist, but decry Bob Chipman for his overt hatred against gamers. People dislike Otaku from Gamergate, but don’t attack Fox News for example for being anti gamer.
The entirety of the other side on the other hand, tend to lump all gamers together instead of addressing gamers individually. Gamers on the other hand tend to address individually as opposed to lumping everyone on the other side together.”
Anon29: “I think they are unfortunate and I will actively speak out against them. Some people will tell us that because there were negative incidents (alleged) that our movement is tainted. They ask us to migrate to another tag without considering that those who troll and partake in all-around asshatery will just migrate with us. The actions of those people do not represent us, just as ISIS does not represent the typical Muslim.”
Anon30: “There will always be trolls and assholes. If you are going to argue about something, attack the ideas not the person holding them.
Doxxing and threats are always wrong, no matter who does it.”
Anon31: “I think they take away from it, but I also think they’re way overemphasized. The majority of people I’ve encountered via the gamergate tag have been honest and thoughtful people. Opponents often times like to paint the opposition as unreasonable and harassing in order to shut down any real debate. Most of the gamergate community have been good about self-policing, since we’re under a microscope for anything that might be seen as misogyny.”
@orichalcumroad: “Much of the negative things “attached to this tag” have been attached by others. People aren’t, as far as I’ve seen (and I’m not an avid twitter user, so I admit my breadth of encounter is slight) harassing people using the GamerGate tag. They are harassing people, and since GamerGate is going on, it is being declared to be linked intrinsically. I’m largely offended, in part, at the declaration that GamerGate is just a bunch of cishet white neckbeard virgin terrorists, but #notyourshield was created to combat part of that. However, I’m also insulted, deeply, that the idea of being white, heterosexual, or cis-gendered should be insults to begin with, being a white, heterosexual, male. As if my money means less to game developers, or my ad revenue to the sites seeding the net with these articles.
The problem that’s happening, with attaching negative things to something like GamerGate, is it makes the journalists look afraid and lashing out, when I think the problem is that most of them aren’t trying to engage the people in GamerGate. The reason that the Escapist is getting a lot of traffic from this, and a lot of respect from GamerGate users, is because Greg Tito came into the thread and talked to us about our concerns, and addressed us as people. When the claims of 4Chan being the Doctor Doom behind our “evil movement of terrorists”, he actually interviewed the principles on both sides and presented an article that provided the information without declaring one side the winner, or judgment on any of the subjects, like a journalist.”
5. Are there any things #GamerGate seems to be addressing that you disagree with?
Anon22: “None that I can think of at the moment”
Anon23: “Some people are trying to claim #GamerGate is trying to out women or feminists from games, it is perfectly false as we have feminists, women, and people from all kinds of cultures adhering to our protest. I hope these shills or misguided people stop trying to put wrong labels on our hashtag.”
Anon24: “While I agree the “misogynistic games” narrative needs to be toned down a bit, I don’t believe it needs to be removed or ignored. A lot of good discussions have come out of concerns that are raised. To their point though, I think a few of them feel this collaboration and corruption coincided with the rise of this narrative in gaming journalism.”
Ashton Liu: “None in so far as to the specifics. However, the demands could be a bit more clear and less heavy handed on what is demanded.”
Anon26: “Not really, not that I’ve seen.”
Anon27: “Not as far as I am aware.”
Anon28: “Have you ever had an argument with a close family member, sibling, or friend about anything political or social? Did you respond to them by saying they are dead to you? Or did you have polite discourse? Or even heated discourse? Would you tell that persons children that they are vile and wicked? Is such a stance ethical, or even morally sound?”
Anon29: “I think there are some that will and are using this to push an anti-SJW mentality. But just like the SJW’s(extremists) that do not represent those that are socially aware and are pushing for equality (feminists/egalitarians), these people do not represent GG.”
Anon30: “Apart from the trolls. Trying to get people fired and get companies to remove ads from the sites that are involved. Basically the same answer as above, attack ideas not people. If you don’t agree with a site, simply stay away from it.”
Anon31: “I could care less about who Zoe Quinn slept with. Her infidelity means nothing to me. That whole story has been kind of a red herring throughout this whole debate. Yes, I think a journalist sleeping with a source is a bad idea, but that’s not the source’s fault.”
@orichalcumroad: “As to things GamerGate seems to be addressing as the weeks roll on, is the increase in the discussion of SJW and Feminism in games journalism. A lot of people think it doesn’t matter, that if put to ethics, things will balance out. There are some, however, who feel that they’ve been pushed down by a “feminist agenda” in games journalism the last few years. They are easily bated into becoming vitriolic in the forum thread by someone who knows how to push their buttons, so entire pages become people arguing about prominent feminists in games, but in the end, things die back down to being about ethics.
For me, I think journalists should have opinions and politics, because they’re people. A feminist journalist can cover more female developers if she wants, or a republican journalist can cover republican developers. That’s fine. What I want is for them to do it in a fair and balanced manner, and to Recuse or Disclose if they are personally or financially connected to the person. Write an op-ed piece about the great games being made by female devs. Don’t tell me all gamers are male trash because there aren’t an equal number of female devs. You find evidence that a male dev has kept a female from developing a game? That’s a news story, and throw down on it. Just don’t use it to “prove” that “all men” want women out of games. I don’t women out of games any more than I want Native Americans out of games. I just want my “news” to be news, and my op-ed to be op-ed, and for the writers of those articles to understand the difference.”
6. Are there any things #GamerGate is ignoring that you want it to talk about?
Anon22: “None that I can think of at the moment”
Anon23: “Nothing comes to mind right now.”
Anon24: “It’s pretty much been a shotgun blast of causes that are being “fought” for so I think all concerns are being met.”
Ashton Liu: “The treatment of depressed people and the sexually harassed by those involved was the main reason I was involved, and not many people seem to be talking about that – although this seems more to be due to the fact that the victims would prefer to be left alone rather than be dragged into a media circus again, and I respect their wishes.”
Anon25: “Nothing that I can think of. If there is, I’ll be sure to email you with an update to this question.”
Anon26: “Not really. I mean there are more issues with gaming, but we’re not riding a hydra here, if you tried to fix and solve every single thing at once you’d be spread too thin and nothing would get done. The agenda pushing, the censorship or attempted censorship of someone else’s creative product, the lying, the clique shit, these are the most important things as of now I think.”
Anon27: “Not as far as I am aware.”
Anon28: “Gamergate believes that a more objective point of view, IE reporting both sides, and a higher ethical code, IE Quit calling all gamers evil, and quit demanding we try to stop harassment before it starts, any reasonable human being realizes that such a request is utterly impossible to meet, and no other real world situation has that demand. Objectivity and Ethics is a start. Gamers are aware of the corruption in other parts of the Industry, but the main point of fighting this, is to take care of one thing at a time.”
Anon29: “I would love to see some real investigation to everything people are claiming. The doxxing, the DDoS attacks, the death threats, all of it. I want to see proof that these things legitimately happened. I feel that if we saw the truth in all of this and not just the ‘he said/she said’ then perhaps it would change a lot of perspective on both sides of this line.”
Anon30: “Apart from the trolls. Trying to get people fired and get companies to remove ads from the sites that are involved. Basically the same answer as above, attack ideas not people. If you don’t agree with a site, simply stay away from it.”
Anon31: “I think gamergate needs to look at the nature of embargoes for review games as well as exclusive review events. Publishers are giving journalists way too many restrictions on what content they can and can’t publish about an upcoming game. Journalists themselves need to stand up to these ridiculous embargo dates and fight for the consumer.”
@orichalcumroad: “Not so much what I think they should talk about, and what I wish they’d stop talking about. People keep using the term “war” and trying to scribe “manifestos” of “our demands”. It isn’t any of those things. It’s a wake-up call, that’s all. We knew there were deals going on, but we ignored it because it’s human nature. Now, however, we’ve seen them, and there effects, and keep finding more every few days. Is everyone absolutely real? No, but the longer the journalists argue against talking about them the more suspicious they become.
This isn’t something that has an end. The tag will eventually stop, but there are those of us who will keep watching, and keep making the connections between journalists and devs. The best thing is for the publications to police their journalists, and for editorial staffs to enforce codes of conduct and ethics.”