AirPlay’s rules are soft and slow.
So if everyone hates them, they’ll change. But who decides what “everyone” wants? Not me. I agree with this anonymous commenter: “Who died and made you GamerGate God?”
So on Tuesday, I’ll announce a small committee of GamerGate connoisseurs who will wrangle all the angst. That’ll be deliciously controversial unto itself, but at least the controversy will be smarter. It’s become obvious to me this week: What I know about GamerGate wouldn’t fill a phone call.
More on that committee in a moment. First…
AirPlay is part of an existing journalism conference called Forging the Future. (Yes, I help organize it. No, I didn’t name it.)
It’s really just a series of small, intense workshops that end with an awards ceremony. It’s co-sponsored by the Florida chapters of the Society of Professional Journalists and the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.
On Saturday, August 15, in Little Havana, one big room will be dedicated to AirPlay, which will be split into three distinct debates…
10-10:50 am: Give Me The Bullet
All sides talk in broad strokes for a novice audience. That means no acronyms or acrimony. The goal of the first hour isn’t to convince the crowd who’s right — it’s to convince them this is important.
11-noon: What’s That Again?
For those fascinated by the first hour, the panel drills down on crucial concepts. Time to delve into precise points and specific moments.
noon-1 pm: Lunch Break
If you registered for the conference, it’s free. If not, it’s only a few bucks for a bag lunch. (More on that in the money section.) You’re also welcome to bring your own lunch, order Domino’s, or starve.
1-3 pm: Let’s Get It On
Send the kids to bed and lock up the pets. Time for hardcore warfare. While all three debates will seek audience participation, it’s probably unstoppable here.
3 -5 pm: Talk Amongst Yourselves
While the video crew packs up at 3 pm, you can hang out. We have the room till 5 pm, so if everyone wants to keep talking/arguing/fighting — and record and share footage on their own — well, just don’t bleed on the furniture.
I’ll moderate the first two hours, since I figure I’m now the most knowledgeable ignorant person about GamerGate. The AirPlay committee, in concert with the GamerGate community, will decide who moderates the next two hours.
What happens from 3-5 pm? I think the crowd should decide.
The plan is, no one pays for anything…
For attendees
Forging the Future costs between $15 and $50 for journalists and journalism students. It’ll cost nothing for those who just want to attend AirPlay.
The only real difference? Registrants get a free boxed lunch and a silly conference badge on a lanyard. You’ll have to pay for lunch, and you’ll be lanyard-less.
For speakers
We’re raising money to defray or even cover their travel expenses. I have a small budget from SPJ I’m trying to make bigger, and we might crowdsource the rest. I’d hate for the best speakers to bow out because of a cash crunch.
I’m working with college and pro journalists to live-stream AirPlay with a multi-camera setup. They’ll use every trick to make AirPlay look high-production-value for very-little-money.
To exasperate trolls, the stream will be hosted in many places. If one gets hacked, we’ll tell you how find another. And another. And so on. If the trolls are going to win, they’ll have to work for it.
Within a week after AirPlay, all footage will be open-archived for public re-use. That means anyone can find it, download it, and chop it up for their own purposes.
I hate bureaucracy. Someone once said, “A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling to do the unnecessary.”
But in this case, a committee is necessary, and I’ve recruited some willing people who are preparing for a tough job…
Speak up about speakers
I’ve perused nearly all the comments, straw polls, and subreddits — and it seems clear a shortlist has emerged. Now the committee needs to publicly pick only a handful.
I expect the 3-5 committee members (some are still mulling over my loaded offer) to deliberate in the open, on the same forums where the speaker suggestions were first posted.
Spread the word
I know how to reach journalists, and the committee knows how to reach gamers. Since AirPlay is being planned in the open, we’ll seek opinions from both groups as we settle the details.
In my experience, if no one complains about something, they either approve or don’t care, so we’ll move on. But if a decision leads to gnashing of teeth and rending of garments, we’ll rethink it as a group.
Read more about the committee — maybe they’ll come up with a clever name for themselves — on Tuesday. Till then, comment below with your wanton praise or withering criticism, and it’ll become part of the progress.
Can you confirm anyone whatsoever will show up to debate AGAINST Gamergate?
Because our detractors are apparently ignoring this entirely
Once one “side” is confirmed, I’ll pursue the other with the same intensity and fairness. That’ll be easier once all the details are settled — because those folks will know exactly what they’re getting into. If I were them, I wouldn’t confirm until then, either.
I know you read the comments, but something I think would be hopeful both to you and GG would be an AMA on Kotaku In Action, simply so you could clear things up to people nice and “easy” (if there is one thing we’ve learned, it’s that nothing is as easy as it seems).
Personally, my only question is surounding the committee and the shortlist you’ve mentioned. If you’re taking people from the strawpoll and/or taking that as a shortlist I’d say we might be on a wrong track. The poll was just something osmeone made without asking who wanted to be on it, or if the people on it even wanted to be on the list.. then suddently it was spread around and 15000 people had voted on it.
There is still discussion going on surounding who to put on a shortlist, and it will probably take a couple of days. I doubt many will have a problem with the format of the debate, I think the opostion will come regarding the committee, it’s role and who is in it.
But really. thank you for taking the time to reading up on this and giving us a chance to talk. Though I do fear that Mr Anonymous above me might have a point and you might have a problem getting anyone for us to debate.
I would like to ask, will the debate solely focus on ethics or will the debate encompass the controversy as a whole? From the anti-feminism to anti-corruption and crusade for ethics?
What will happen if nobody on the opposing side chooses to debate #Gamergate’s panel? The few that have chosen to do so in the past have been quite… deceptive in their arguments and portrayal of #Gamergate, and I suspect they will be most reluctant to face the music (especially if it’s live and they won’t have a say over the final cut)
Just an idea, could you leave 5-10 mins of time for both teams to question each other?
I think this will greatly help improve where both “sides,” have a conflict with each other or not.
Just an idea, could you leave 5-10 mins of time for both teams to ask questions to each other?
I think this will greatly help improve where both “sides,” have a conflict with each other or not.
(sorry for double post, last one didn’t make any sense).
You’re going to need to open up more information on this committee because if there’s one thing that GamerGate hates it’s lack of transparency. This part in particular:
“I’ve perused nearly all the comments, straw polls, and subreddits — and it seems clear a shortlist has emerged. Now the committee needs to publicly pick only a handful.”
Is alarming. First off, is the committee larger than the speakers? If so, that’s new. Regardless, all of them need to be known not on Tuesday but immediately. Waiting until Tuesday is not going to work on that: They are *representatives* to Airplay and its purposes, not leaders. They will never be treated as leaders or control the direction of things and that needs to be clear up front. Then there’s the matter of where you saw discussion. Did you ONLY check the comments, strawpolls, and subreddits? If so then you missed 8chan, with two separate boards having two separate discussions too. Different people pushed for different representatives depending on location and the arguments differed greatly.
1. Excellent idea about the “teams” questioning each other. Consider it done.
2. The first debate is all about journalism ethics. By the time we get to the last debate, who the hell knows where it ends up. I suggest letting nature take its course.
3. I expect the committee will publicly and open-mindedly debate speakers for another couple of weeks. We got till June 1 to confirm those speakers, and for them to confirm they’re coming.
4. I know there’ll be questions about the committee. I’ll answer them all on Tuesday. So pose more now and I’ll gather them up before then. But I’m fairly sure this won’t suck. If it does, I’ll just blow it up, say mea culpa, and try something different. If you got ideas for different, I’m all ears.
be perfectly honest, you will likely need to skew the debate in the journalists favour. I do think some like Stephen Tortilla could acquit himself fine. I have heard him speak. I think he is probably as good as you will fthe backfoot on their side. Most would demand a base or other censorship just to not embarrass themselves.
I can understand why they would want that.
On our side. Well….our choices are strong. Maybe our least competitive would be equivalent to Stephen Tortilla
gamergate ought not have last more than 6 weeks of its inception. The other side had vaster numbers, a media.Propaganda.machine at their best and call, big companies like IDGA and DIGRA to back them…and every other possible advantage. We on the other hand were smaller, less resources, on the backfoot and had pretty much no organisation and all media against them, spewing false narratives against them.
We were fighting too, with a fist behind our back knowing that especially with trolls finding lucrative opportunities to use our scandal to “drop in ” and tweet harassment at either side, we would have to endure targeted harassment without support and fight fair on many fronts that were often unfair
What kind of people hold the line in this kind of environment?
It isn’t entitled middle class hipster ideologues used to hugboxes and valuing feelings over Reason.
We will dominate this.
I only ask. Vet the other side. There are some that will stand up to questioning outside an echo chamber and outrage/victim culture echochambers. Tortillo, Orland maybe, Kuchera (yes I am serious, as horrid as he is, I believe he has the ticker) and maybe even Harper herself? ( yes she ironically created a censoring vehicle BUT she I think would stand tall).
You would do everyone a disservice with others. For a variety of reasons. Zoe is a manipulate liar shilling for victimbux, brianna is a Liar and insane, Anita is a bigot and liar, Chu is…. (out of all the Antis I find him he and Bobby Oliveria, that’s nastiest, slimiest, vindictive, righteous, SJWs against gamergate. I know, shock horror two men fill the two two worse of anti-gamergate positions) a terrible person, Kluwe…got BTFO by our Lady Mercedes…..the list goes on
Thank you for doing all of this. It’s much appreciated and hopefully will be very interesting for all involved.
Speaking of which it seems like the Gamergate side is close to choosing who they’d like to represent them but there’s been no word about the other side having any representation. I’d like to suggest Kotaku Editor In Chief Stephen Totilo. He seems like the perfect guy as his writers and his site are at the very epicenter of most of Gamergates complaints. Also he has a masters in journalism so his input is probably what the SPJ would like to hear.
Perhaps this is an issue of wording.
You first speak of “a small committee of GamerGate connoisseurs.” Is it fair to assume that this is the same list of people we’ve been arguing over?
If so then is that the same committee being discussed when you say:
“…a committee is necessary, and I’ve recruited some willing people…”
“I expect the 3-5 committee members (some are still mulling over my loaded offer)…”
Because if so then it sounds like you’re the one picking people, not us. YOU recruited them, they’re mulling YOUR offer. Is that correct?
Another potential wording issue comes from this:
“…and it seems clear a shortlist has emerged. Now the committee needs to publicly pick only a handful.”
Is that the same committee being described one sentence later when you talk about the 3-4 committee members? It doesn’t make sense how the committee needs to pick people from a shortlist when they themselves are the subject of that shortlist described in the very next sentence.
Since this all seems so bloody one sided I’ll throw a little bit of the oppositions views. AGG is not for corrupt journalism dispute what GG seems to love to imply. If the first topic is about games journalism it will go like
GG: We are against corrupt journalism.
AGG: As are we.
and that would be the end of it.
If you intent to moderate this please for the love of god educate yourself on both sides. Over all the debates we have had a tightly moderated debate and discussion is the only way to discuss gamergate since “letting it take its course” leads to petty tribalism and baseless accusations on both sides.
If you would like to actually be informed on what AGG means I can provide you a throw away email and I can try to explain it through that. It’s important to note that /r/GamerGhazi is not representative of AGG. Its a group of people who are against gamergate who have similar ideologues but those ideologies are not shared by the rest of AGG. It will be next to impossible to get a proper representation of AGG since the only unifying factor is that they are against Gamergate.
Also I do not see of anyone who will publicly speak against GamerGate. Those who are public figures against GamerGate are against debates because it gives GG legitimacy. And those, like myself, who enjoy debating GG have to hide behind anonymity. I publicly spoke against GG in the early days and had my significant other contacted over GGers displeasure of me. I have absolutely no desire to open myself and my family up to that kind of harassment again.
The people raising the point that there isn’t any real “debate” to be had around the ethics issues are more or less correct. I’m not sure who, if anyone, is going to show up and defend a proposition that a push for more ethical hobbyist press is bad, or try to assert with a straight face that there aren’t serious ethics issues to be confronted in that segment of the press.
If anything, you are fortunate in that #gamergate has just laid out, in excruciating detail and a user-friendly format, the entirety of its ethics case, such as it is, on the website deepfreeze.it. I suggest that this might prove a helpful starting point to evaluating the merits of these claims and how one might reasonably have an informed discussion of them.
The deepfreeze site, to my mind, suggests that it’s critical to answer some baseline questions before having any deeper discussion. Namely, “what does one mean by ‘ethics in journalism?’” Of all the alleged ethics violations uncovered here, which actually tie back to a specific section of an applicable code? Which do not? Which are on the line? What lessons can be taken from any concrete findings and what avenues of fruitful inquiry might be appropriate in the future (e.g., pay for play practices between review outfits and AAA developers, something assuredly happening but never quite on the #GamerGate radar).
Unless you use the time to frame what the ethics debate truly is, this is going to devolve into the same, ongoing ridiculous complaints about journalists and bloggers inserting their leftist/feminist opinions into games reviews, and about some plot by “SJWs” to “colonize” and destroy games. This is either going to be a discussion about what ethics rules are, which rules apply, and what sorts of lines are being crossed — or it’s going to be Milo Yiannopoulos of Breitbart waging a snarky and delicious culture war against whiny fat girls with blue hair.
Respectfully, I suggest the former is the only way to introduce true rigor, and thus value, into this discussion, and potentially make this have a lasting and positive impact. It’s probably a conversation the “AGGs” would entertain. If, however, it is to be the latter, it’s just going to be another front in an ongoing scream war where ideologues try to score a “win” and thumb their noses at their perceived enemies on social media. Further, I can’t see anyone from the “opposition” rationally wading in to that discussion.
my guess is this debate will probably be Pro-Gamergate vs. Neutral Gamergate, as no true Antis wil risk exposing themselves in such a public and lengthy forum. All the anti’s who’ve spoken publicly and on film have been embarrassments (just look at the Klue v Mercedes debate on the david pakman show on youtube yesterday). I think in the end this will be productive because neutral GG actually has some good idea and they don’t resort to attacks and laughing off GG topics.
but you’re not likely to get any of the big name antis or frequent commenters on gamerghazi, they wont risk the near certainty that they’ll get demolished
Just to be clear, a committee on your end making the final picks of a shortlist of people who have stated they are willing to go sounds like the best way to do this, but I need to stress this point very clearly, that committee’s authority re: Gamergate does not exist. Their authority is derived from this being your venue, and your event, and I’m fine with that.
Only issues comes in that, well, we’ve had some situations where people wanted to establish a “committee” before re:GG, but our policy on having no leaders, no structure, and being entirely voluntary individuals making merit-based assessments as individuals of ideas, is critical, as it prevents 3 of the most effective/common SocJus tactics for defamation holding any water.
1: They can’t Ad Hominem a single person and with intellectual honesty take that person’s character assassination then apply it collectively to us as a whole.
2: They can’t demoralize or disband us by doxing/threaten/bully/mass libel via publication citing one another to remove 1 person from the cause whom acted as a lynchpin,
3: They can’t bribe or turn a single individual to lie and throw us under the bus while being a verifiable “authority figure” among us to sunder us and make us devour one another.
The entire reason our revolt has lasted as long and been as successful as it has while constantly being slammed by the media is this policy. Without it, we would have fallen victim to one or all of these tactics back in september, and that nepotistic clique trying to control the flow of information would have regained their ivory tower.
So, because some of us might screw up how they read what your committee does/is for, well, now you know why they might spill their spaghetti all over your comments and start doomsaying like idiots.
I am confused as to the nature of this committee. Are they the people you have chosen to represent GamerGate based on our polls and comments and such, or are they the people who will be CHOOSING the people to represent GamerGate? Does the committee already exist, or are you speaking about people who you will select on Tuesday?
What topics are you going to be covering? Knowing this would really help with the selection process. GG is really complex and some people have a better grasp on certain details than others. Almost no one has the full picture: it is just too much information and not enough time. The debate should be about nailing down facts and not histrionic grandstanding based on lies.
Mr. Koretzky
Please understand that we are currently in the process of narrowing down potential representatives. I think it would be best if you allowed us to choose our representatives as a collective, rather than having them chosen by a third party. We need time to narrow down who we want to represent us. I am personally hoping we’ll have it all finalized by next weekend.
Please visit this thread for further clarification: http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3546kj/updated_spj_candidates_list_debate_time/
Thank you
I forgot to mention that the initial straw polls you saw were rushed, and not indicative of GamerGate’s desired representation list. We are currently working as best we can to get the process moving, but these things take time.
Again, I implore you to look at the thread I linked above and wait for us to collectively choose.
Thanks.
I want to address some of the previous commenters suggesting that the debate would be about whether the gaming press should be ethical or not and that the debate is a non-starter because of course both sides will agree. That isn’t quite the topic. GamerGate asserts that the gaming press is broadly unethical and points to several specific cases of ethical failings by high-profile journalists and publications. Anti-GamerGate journalists–including those accused of ethical failings and their editorial colleagues–have denied that most of the specific examples cited by GamerGate are unethical.
The point of contention is over what is and isn’t ethical journalism. Those speaking on behalf of GamerGate will likely cite examples of ethical failings and explain why they are a major problem. Anti-GamerGate speakers will need to have some kind of comeback to that. Can’t wait to see what that is.
I see nothing objectionable about this setup. But I’ve never been one for legitimate debate so eh, what do I know?
I’m hoping for some decent competition from the other team. But I’m worried whether or not you can even find anyone. In the eight months I’ve been a part of GamerGate, I’ve discovered it’s exceedingly rare for one of our opponents to open themselves up for a proper discussion.
Might have put a stop to our mad rampage across the intertubes if they had.
Looking forward to this.
I do agree, the discussion needs to be about ethics and nothing else. Otherwise it derails into the typical aGG lies about harassment that they can’t prove and at that point no one gains anything from the exchange because it’s gonna be mudslinging from both sides (with the mud being thrown from the pro-GG side having truth behind it, but it’s still a useless discussion to have).
I’m excited to see progress. I want to repeat a suggestion made earlier:
1. Visit DeepFreeze.it
2. Come to reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction with a list of questions (a reverse AMA, of sorts) and also do an AMA in a separate thread. I think either of those threads would be fruitful.
Please know that we are in the process of narrowing down the field of candidates who can attend/would accept
http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3546kj/updated_spj_candidates_list_debate_time/
TO Anon dev
no, it will be
GG: we are against corrupt journalism
AGG: NO YOU ARE NOT, YOU MISOGYNISTIC SCUM!!! YOU ARE DESTROYING THE INDUSTRY!!!
Definitely review deepfreeze.it as a starting point. That is the totality of the GamerGate ethics case made as forcefully and as clearly as it ever has been.
Then form conclusions about how many of the violations enumerated there are actually discernible violations of any applicable code. Some probably are, some are probably on the line, and some probably actually aren’t ethical issues at all.
Lastly, consider the ethical implications of a purported ethics watchdog list run by anonymous persons that contains a list of “approved” sites and “boycotted” sites. Is this a good model for policing ethics in enthusiast press or not? What improvements could or should be made?
Does the list include only journalists? Does it have any non journalists? Are there any active gamer/GamerGate journalists absent from the list and, if so, why?
Lot of grist for a good discussion. I think it could be very edifying for amateur ethicists and a good opportunity for them to gain a better understanding of how professional ethics codes work, and how they are best enforced.
In fact, deepfreeze is such a good encapsulation of the GamerGate case that it may make a “debate” unnecessary. This would solve the dilemma of how to get people from the “other side” to participate, and would surely avoid a lot of the sideshow histrionics.
In a sense, this could be a perfect time and forum for GamerGate to lay out its ethics case and approach to ethics enforcement to the joirnalist community.
@Anonymous See this is why no one takes you seriously and why the greater part of the SPJ wants absolutely nothing to do with you. I point out some issues that might arise with the debate and post a different perspective. You resort to petty whining and stereotyping. I am anti-GG do you see me screaming about misogyny? Take a step back and try to see which one of us is looking tribalistic and irrational.
@Anon Dev
Wait, you’re THAT dev? The other night, you said that basically every dev knew every other dev, and you didn’t even know a name that’d worked at the same company as you. Doesn’t that seem a bit weird to you?
Maybe I guessed wrong about who’s who, and it’s absolutely in your best interests not to verify a damned thing by reacting in any way regardless, but you should REALLY reconsider your stance on the insular nature of your profession. I get that it’s a big company, and you can’t know everyone, but that’s kind of my point.
While you’re here, though, could you comment on something? http://8ch.net/gamergatehq/res/127144.html
Is it true that devs don’t even have rights over content produced independently in their own homes on their off hours, or is this someone trying to get folks off track on a wild goose chase?
If it is true, do you resent games journalists a bit for being spineless when it comes to reporting on issues that may be adversarial to publishers, or is that sort of spinelessness fine with (or beneficial to) you at this point in your career?
Just curious.
Yes that’s me. I was asked if I knew a QA person at Bioware. I do not work at nor have I ever been employed at Bioware. QA usually has an insane turn over rate and were not who I was referring to when I said “everyone knows everyone”. I did apologize for using absolutes though.
What exactly do you mean by insular nature of my profession?
that is a policy for a few studios yes. It is archaic and on the decline now. The poster says that every game studio contract has that policy with is obviously false. My current employer does not and the only studio off the top of my head that I can think of that has that policy still is Ubisoft and possibly EA. (surprise surprise right?).
Well I don’t see it as spineless. Gamasutra talks about the inner workings for the games industry all the time because its a site for devs. All the other journalist sites are about games for gamers. The inner workings of the industry is not something that “Games Journalism” covers unless otherwise stated, like Gamasutra.
I will not fault someone for not doing something they are not expected to do.
Also the main OP talks about terrible CEOs Mark Kern is on that list, not because he stole money but because hes objectively a horrible person to anyone who works for him. You could offer me 7 figures and I would not work for him. If GG wants support from developers dropping Kern would be a good start.
@Anon Dev
Alright, for real, you shouldn’t have said that. Unlike most GG shitheads, I know that harassment (of a sort) ends up thrown at folks who speak negatively of GG. The idiots that WILL want to fuck you over for opposing #GG might actually know who they did/didn’t bother to shit-talk to your wife. That genuinely IS a small group of people, and it’d be great if JournoTerrorist guy deleted that comment for your sake (and possibly this one, for mine, since those ass holes don’t like moralfaGGots like me fucking with their lulz).
As a #NYS person who knows a bunch of other #NYS people, I also know damned well that the same kind of shit heads towards many, many people who used their real faces to dispute the narrative. Several friends of mine have either lost their jobs, or been forced into awkward conversations where they end up having to discuss things they didn’t want their employers to know (gamer, homosexual, furry, etc.) with their employer once all their online shit was linked by some ass hole who thought they were fighting misogynistic terrorists. I genuinely, unconditionally can sympathize.
Do you have any specifics on Kern? Being 100% real, I have absolutely observed aGGros spouting things that are unambiguously false, and I’m annoyingly likely to dismiss shit you say unless you quit being so damned vague. It’s a problem, but not an insurmountable one.
Don’t post that shit here. Post it on 8chan. Brennan won’t give GG board people a damned thing, and won’t post shit on Twitter unless its threatening his site (like the CloudFlare stuff). Mods only see a hash of your IP. 8chan lets you post from tor anyways, so if you don’t trust Brennan, you can still post anonymously. Most proxies are IP banned for pedo shit, but last I checked, a lot of tor nodes still work. Folks will mostly accuse you of being a shill, but there are some faGGots like me who WILL look into shit rather than unconditionally accept or reject it based on who we already like.
And JournoTerrost, plz delete this shit when you can? Some folks don’t know it, but we have to work in spite of trolls, not in absence of them, so yeah, being kinda careful is good.
@Anon dev
Anonymous was not being hysterical or irrational. The SPJ representative was intially afraid of addressing GG and was shocked by the response that we gave him. Why was he afraid? Because of the slanderous campaign launched against us by the gaming press, the MSM, online trolls and other public figures. You have people on NPR saying that GG is composed of white, male racists and misogynists who are reacting to the possibility of a Hillary Clinton presidency. Who may I ask is being irrational and hysterical?
@William Did you not see his first post where he linked tweets that had the GG hashtag with gore/porn/all kinds of terrible shit when GG decided to swarm the hashtag? Look at what I said then look at what he said. Which one of us approached the issue in a clam logical manner? And which one of us resorted to caps lock and stereotyping?
@Zero132132 I do recognize that the worst of the people that come from gamergate are a small small minority and do not represent the movement has a whole. But it still happened to me and it was enabled by gamergate. I was painted as a target by GG and someone acted on it.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/1tuf3c/this_is_why_mark_kern_was_removed_as_ceo_by_red_5 this is the most damning publicly available piece against Kern. The Glassdoor for Red 5 pretty much repeats everything he is saying and I’ve received personal testimony against him from former Blizzard and Red 5 employees. I have no interest in 8 chan. If you want to run with it go ahead
Thanks for doing this. Gamergate touches a lot of issues which I think need to be discussed more openly. In particular, we need to discuss how we should weigh the interests of individiuals or small groups against certain foundational or vital ideals. I think the response to the recent attack on cartoonists shows how deeply divided current society is on this issue. The current silence around GamerGate is a symptom of a much larger issue.
@Anon Dev
Those are trolls. There are a minority of trolls that are proGG (who there was a recent big falling out with), there are trolls in antiGG and there are trolls who are in in for the chaos (these do not care what harm they cause).
When GG recently took over the #CalgaryExpo hashtag in response to what happened to Alison Tieman, one of these trolls tricked a 14 year old into tweeted abusive language to CalgaryExpo using the #GamerGate hashtag. A lot crazy stuff has happened which has been a learning experience for everyone involved, especially for those who never knew about this particular side of internet culture. Then there is the crushing disappointment in the mainstream press to do an unbiased job, and even more so the shocker that liberal left is blindly embracing extreme views that would limit artistic freedom.
You also have to remember the allegations misogyny, racism, homophobia, transphobia, pedophilia, KKK, ISIS, terrorist, shitlords, piss-babies are the typical verbal diarrhea that has been used to by those that have been vocally antiGG. For 8-9 months. In prestigious publications and programs outside of the gaming press. Why would they change their tune now?
You’re gunna want @Sargon_of_Akkad and @Nero on the panel. They would be best in a panel setting by far.
@Anon Dev
Firstly, if Mark Kern is the Devil, he’s certainly concealed it expertly by being polite, upbeat, and forward-thinking on (of all places) Twitter. He has given me no cause to think ill of him based on my experience.
Secondly, before I’d seen much of anything by Mr. Kern, I’d already seen the “Red 5” piece you reference. In point of fact, the vitriol of its author and their tendency to leap to broad conclusions throughout caused me to discount most if not all of what they had to say. Starting off with the admission that it was “an incoherent rant” doesn’t stop it from being, in fact, an incoherent rant.
Thirdly, GamerGate has been subjected from Day One to similar sorts of unhinged allegations about this person or that person, always coupled with demands to “distance” itself from that person. The person in question has always been someone whose efforts are moving GamerGate forward.
Mark Kern is no exception. Please cease and desist repeating this tired old tactic; we are far too jaded at this point to give such demands any serious consideration.
These conversations always seem to devolve into partisan mudslinging and recitations of old grudges.
Which is why urge the SPJ and participants to focus like a laser on deepfreeze.
@Anon Dev Given that most people do not come here to look for a job and most of us have no intention to move wherever Mark Kern works just to get a job with him, his capabilities as a CEO or boss are completely irrelevant. None of us is seeking to employ him neither.
Linked reddit post complains about five things: thoughtlessness, financial irresponsibility, out of touch with employees, hit and run management style and verbaly abusive when angry. Only the last one makes him potentially “bad person” and all of them are irrelevant to anything we are discussing here.
Moreover, Mark Kern stated that he is interested exclusively in topics of censorship and creative freedom. He explicitly stated he does not consider himself to be in #gamergate. That makes his personal or professional failures even more irrelevant to the discussion of journalistic ethics and gamergate.
“I disagree with this person now, but I will not argue nor explain why – instead I will just try to convince you he is horrible person or failed in completely unrelated tasks” is not an argument. It is admission that one does not have an argument.
These conversations always seem to devolve into partisan mudslinging and recitations of old grudges.
Which is why the SPJ and participants to focus like a laser on deepfreeze. Everything they need to know about GamerGate is right there to analyze.
(Sorry for the double post.)
Thank you for giving us a hearing Mr. Koretsky. I wonder if you’ve seen this interview with Prof. Greg Lisby –
I am not a lawyer, nor a journalist, but if Dr. Lisby speaks the truth then the press covering the $largest entertainment industry is certainly not ethical.
Mr. Koretzky, others probably already said this but in any case, I think it’s very important to have game developers attend the panel as well, they have experience with how games media operate, the unethical conduct and the corruption behind-the-scenes.
If possible, I ask you to not limit them to the 3-5 ProGG people you asked us to choose; what I mean is something like: the 5 ProGG plus X game developers.
Personally, I’d suggest Brad Wardell(@draginol) and Jennifer Dawe(@GMShivers), both have interesting experiences to tell so I urge you to contact them when you have the time, I’m sure there are other game developers willing to talk about this and I recommend asking William Usher(@WilliamUsherGB) and/or Oliver Campbell(@oliverbcampbell) for suggestions.
Thanks again
I ask you consider Mark Ceb aka ActionPts for one of the speakers.
Mark has done a lot of research on Game Journalism and games in general even before GamerGate.
He would be an expert on past ethical breaches.
https://www.youtube.com/user/ActionPts
We need someone to explain how the internet works. Most of the problem is that honest journalists don’t even understand/know what is a troll.
Someone must explain concepts and consequences of hugboxes, circlejerking, “Don’t feed the Trolls”, Lulz, Lolcows, “doing for free”, Streisand Effect, “There is no Girls on the Internet/Tits or gtfo”, Attention Whores, Not your Personal Army, etc.
It is important for journalists to learn how to identify the noise that comes with all Internet Dramas from the actual discussion, which is one of the main reasons #gamergate persists.