pixietalksgamergate

PixieJenni talks GamerGate with both 'sides'

GamerGate’s Misconceptions Thus Far

Here’s a list of misconceptions I still see being held up as fact in the #GamerGate tag – you can fact-check them yourselves, please do email corrections/additions to pixiegamergate@gmail.com. Some of this is sourced from this post.


  • Spacekatgal did not call someone a “gross fucking aspie”. It was a fake account. See here and here and here
  • GamerGate DID NOT start after the “‘gamers’ are over” article wave. It began with Adam Baldwin’s tweet, which when looked at on central time is the 27th August – the articles are all the 28th. In addition, the articles came after harassment of Anita and Zoe (more here). Whilst people may have joined over those articles, they were NOT the cause.
  • Leigh Alexander does not run a PR agency, but a consultancy agency. She has also – as far as I can research – never written about a game she’s consulted for without disclosing it.
  • Nathan Grayson DID NOT review Depression Quest – he mentioned it in a list of 50 indie games on Rock, Paper, Shotgun and mentioned her in an article on Kotaku about Game Jam.
  • The GameJournoPros list didn’t co-ordinate the ‘gamers are over’ articles on list since many of the authors are NOT on it. In addition, not all the journalists being claimed to be part of this collusion can be found on it either.
  • The ‘Gamers are Dead’ article wave isn’t as clear-cut as it seems – analysis here.
  • Zoe Quinn DID donate to IFred – source
  • The Fine Young Capitalists ARE NOT a charity. The money raised on IndieGogo goes into making the game, and 74% of any profits go to charity.
  • Zoe Quinn DID NOT win an award for Depression Quest at IGF. It was not even a finalist. Papers, Please won. In addition, people keep linking this to IndieCade + Robin Arnott and Maya Kramer. IndieCade is separate and both Robin and Maya work on Night Games – which is this thing, not the awards.
  • Maya Kramer DID NOT collude with the IGF chairman to get The Stanley Parable an award. The award it won was the Audience Award – ie, voted by the public
  • Some people still claim Phil Fish hacked himself. Others claim the information from the hack proves something [more below]. If he hacked himself, this information would (presumably) not be out there. This is inconsistent.
  • The IGF 2012 awards WERE NOT weighted by the financial backers of Fez. There were hundreds of judges, which they were part of. They were not, however, part of the jury – which makes the ultimate decisions.
  • Rock, Paper, Shotgun DID NOT write a ‘gamers are dead’ article. They quoted one in a weekly round-up.
  • Jenn Frank DID NOT refuse to disclose in her Guardian article. She had it in her draft, the Guardian themselves removed it.
  • Anita Sarkeesian DID NOT lie about the police – instead, it was filed with the FBI, hence the records not appearing to exist.
  • [edited thanks to comment]. Anita DID receive threats. The context of the “no threats” comment is here – “USU police, in conjunction with several teams of state and federal law enforcement experts, determined that there was no threat to students, staff or the speaker, so no alert was issued.” – This does not mean the threat was false, only that it was not considered to be severe enough to cancel the talk – though clearly, it was considered serious enough that “University police were prepared and had a plan in place to provide extra security measures at the presentation.”
  • Darpa/DiGRA ARE NOT linked. This claim comes from the fact they advertised a job role available at UC Santa Cruz that was funded by Darpa.
  • Digra’s criticisms of peer review ARE NOT unusual. Full explanation here and a sample of some other (different) criticism from other sources.
  • Digra is NOT about predominately gender studies. Great graph here.
  • Adrienne Shaw’s paper DID NOT say all gamers were a certain type of person. It talks about the constructed gamer – as in, a model created and how people relate to that model. I recommend reading the full paper but here’s a quote:

    “Whether or not individuals identify as gamers is done in the context of certain social constructions of gamer…Certainly “gamers” in the popular imagination are presented as particularly gendered and raced bodies who engage in certain types of play and for a pathologized amount of time…The narrow construction of gamer as an identity has been heavily critiqued for some time…What I am arguing for here, however, is that rather than try to disprove these assertions and articulate a new definition of gamer identity, I will demonstrate how players understand their relationship to video games as a medium through this construction of “gamer.” In particular I look at the way interviewees do or do not perform the consumption of games in relation to what they think of as gamer subcultural capital”

 

Advertisements

23 responses to “GamerGate’s Misconceptions Thus Far

  1. grim.gate says:

    “USU police, in conjunction with several teams of state and federal law enforcement experts, determined that there was no threat to students, staff or the speaker, so no alert was issued.”

    for emphasis

    *not threat to students, staff, or the speaker”

    source: http://www.usu.edu/ust/index.cfm?article=54179

    Liked by 1 person

  2. grim.gate says:

    sigh *no threat to students, staff, or the speaker*

    Liked by 1 person

    • This, however, is being taken to mean ‘the threat did not exist/was a false flag’ which is incorrect.

      Like

      • grim.gate says:

        I think that is up for the authorities to comment either way. not gamers, internet sleuths, or activists. I’ll take their word for it and no one else.

        Like

      • Agreed – and their word wasn’t “the threat didn’t happen” it was that they didn’t deem it serious enough to change plans (though you’ll note the university did add in some extra security measures!)

        Like

      • Grim.gate, you are conflating two different meanings of threat. One meaning is “a stated intention to do harm” – if the university allowed AS to speak, there would be a shooting. The other meaning is “risk of consequence” – the university decided that the stated intention to do harm was not enough to cause concern that actual harm would occur. The authorities do not deny that a threat was made, only that it did not pose a risk in light of the precautions they intended to take. AS did not have to agree with the police conclusion.

        Like

  3. J Stark says:

    What about the misconceptions of people opposed to #gamergate?

    Like

  4. dLMN8R says:

    I’m the author of that post, thank you for source it and cleaning it up a lot 🙂

    Like

  5. It’s strange seeing a list of this length. Every time I look at the hashtag I wonder how many people are just in this for the “fun” of it. Because I consistently see little going on about ethics, and the things they do talk about meet a list like this. It doesn’t help that most people under the hashtag tend to focus on who speaks against them, or of things that they feel offended by. I rarely see any actual talk about ethics, but mostly just “he said, she said” ping-ponging of screenshots. Forgive the rambling, just sort of stream of consciousness writing here.

    Like

  6. junques says:

    Nice roundup! One quick suggestion: maybe link to the GamerGate-specific post on Mortensen’s site rather than her blog in general? [note: link appears under “Digra’s criticisms of peer review ARE NOT unusual” and the specific post is http://torillsin.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/frequently-asked-questions-from.html%5D

    Like

  7. […] write about games, after being repeatedly harassed over a lack of disclosure (which, incidentally, was bullshit). Mattie Brice and other writers did the same. Moreover, a general climate of fear has descended on […]

    Like

  8. […] cases, the response of the movement is to flood critics with accusations and vitriol. None of their purported “scandals” have panned out, […]

    Like

  9. fb says:

    Whilst people may have joined over those articles, they were NOT the cause.

    Really, you think that the invention of a hashtag by a single person is more accurately seen as a movement’s “cause”, than the event (a mere day later) which resulted in thousands of people to actually start using the hashtag and turning it into said movement?

    Let me try an analogy:

    Long-standing political/territorial disputes and distrust between major European powers pre-1914
    = Long-standing distrust between gamers and the games media, with many games journalists harboring contempt against gamers for being “unenlightened nerds” and spending their money on “culturally problematic” titles, and many gamers suspecting widespread corruption (not just the financial kind) and lack of accountability in the games media.

    Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria
    = “quinnspiracy”, the minor brawl (mostly on 4chan) following the zoepost, culminating in online harassment by one or more (but in any case very few) individuals against Zoe.

    Austria-Hungary declares war against Serbia and its allies, and starts an invasion
    = The barrage of “Gamers are dead” articles, plus coordinated censorship of opposing opinions on almost all online forums controlled by major games media sites, and even some third-party sites (like reddit/4chan) where said game journalists managed to pressure admins via personal connections.

    That’s imo when “gamergate” started as a movement (on twitter, and involving thousands of gamers!), not as a logical extension of “quinnspiracy” (4chan, few people).

    And here we are, with gamergate’s detractors running around, if you allow me to continue the above analogy, calling the Allied powers “a hate movement supporting Archduke assassinations”, and accusing people who take a stance in the conflict in favor of the Allies, that their only possible motivation for doing so must be that they want to drive Archdukes out of the continent.

    Liked by 1 person

    • lavalampgoo says:

      Interesting point that I haven’t thought about before, but: Do you think that WWI and the events that came about after the assassination were good? I mean, if you’re comparing GG with WWI you’re saying that its a slow painfully unregulated war of attrition that killed millions and decimated Europe. Do you see GG ending differently? (Obviously the death and destruction being analogies for something more internet-y)

      Like

  10. Stuff says:

    A few things:

    “Nathan Grayson DID NOT review Depression Quest – he mentioned it in a list of 50 indie games on Rock, Paper, Shotgun and mentioned her in an article on Kotaku about Game Jam.”

    Nathan did however show obvious favoritism to Depression Quest by making the main image of the article a screenshot from the game, naming the article after it and then providing a link to Depression Quest in the initial paragraph. On top of this the list of games doesn’t show up in the shortened article on the RPG homepage meaning that anyone scrolling through RPS would only learn of Depression Quest’s existence and none of the others.

    “The GameJournoPros list didn’t co-ordinate the ‘gamers are over’ articles on list since many of the authors are NOT on it. In addition, not all the journalists being claimed to be part of this collusion can be found on it either.”

    To be honest this makes things even more damning as it implies there is other collusion besides GameJournoPros, I just find it hard to imagine that those articles were all made on the same day by coincidence.

    “The Fine Young Capitalists ARE NOT a charity. The money raised on IndieGogo goes into making the game, and 74% of any profits go to charity.”

    The charity part is helping someone get into the industry which is what the money goes towards, also a lot of charities often use the money made through donations to expand in hopes of then making more money for their cause. Claiming they aren’t a charity feels more like semantics than a fact.

    “Some people still claim Phil Fish hacked himself. Others claim the information from the hack proves something [more below]. If he hacked himself, this information would (presumably) not be out there. This is inconsistent.”

    Either case is damnable regardless, it is possible that he had leaked incriminating evidence unintentionally.

    “Rock, Paper, Shotgun DID NOT write a ‘gamers are dead’ article. They quoted one in a weekly round-up.”

    Two actually, and showed support for them along with the words “Gamers are over and that’s a good thing”, I am aware that RPS tried to deny this belief in a later article but that honestly comes across as contradictory.

    “Anita Sarkeesian DID NOT lie about the police – instead, it was filed with the FBI, hence the records not appearing to exist.”

    She did however make a bunch of claims about her experience with the police which accused them of not following their policy on dealing with harassment victims. The fact that it was filed with the FBI, even via the police, makes these accounts seem unlikely to have happened.

    Like

  11. Marcel M says:

    Jenni, I’m neutral because I don’t think any of this matters, but I saw this posted on facebook and I just wanted to say, you’re incredibly ridiculous. This isn’t about you. The stupid fight that is #GamerGate literally has nothing to do with you. Stop trying to get attention with these posts, you’re literally hurting all of the anti-gamergate side with this shit.

    Like

  12. Gamergate Doesn't Represent Gamers says:

    Thank you for posting this. Very handy list for debunking Gaters’ oft-parroted talking points.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: