Jump to content

djpretzel

Administrators
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    7,066

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    102

 Content Type 

Posts posted by djpretzel

    Tropes vs. Women / #GamerGate Conspiracies

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    There might be a miscommunication here... Kotaku said there was no impropriety on the part of the journalist who wrote about Quinn. Their post about tightening standards were for two other cases / writers, one of whom was writing about a friend's project, another who was using Patreon to support the subject of an article. There was 0 issue with the writer whom Quinn had a relationship with.

    Okay, but... it's probably a bad idea, right? They did make general comments about being more transparent and bullshit-free... take any other art form, or medium that seeks to be taken seriously as an art form, and ask whether it would be weird for an artist to sleep with a critic, whether that critic writes anything relevant or not... I don't know, really. As I said before, it STILL seems tenuous to me... but it also still bugs me, at the same time.

    As for all the rest, I think you made some excellent points, and I can see where "reaction in kind" could be interpreted as you did. It was poor word choice on my part; "in kind" was only meant to convey "in a similarly over-generalizing, antagonizing, etc. fashion" and not the specific means.

    One point that bears mentioning... Zoe's attackers are in many cases cowards hiding behind anonymity or random forum-goers with little regard for their reputation outside the like-minded venues they frequent. Their vitriol is more aggressive and their threats and actions more objectionable, no argument. Something that kind of bugs me, though, is that on the other side of the fence, you've got folks who are well-known, have professional reputations to consider, are (as you point out) actual game developers themselves, and are absolutely going batshit against people like TB, in public, or making sweeping generalizations about anyone & everyone that disagrees with them, Zoe, or Anita. While you're absolutely right that there's no equivalence in the levels of harassment, there's also very little equivalence in the reputation, notoriety, and bullhorn-power of the two opposing groups. The group that has little-to-nothing to lose is (unsurprisingly) behaving far worse, but the group that should be more concerned with image - both their own and of the industry they represent - isn't really knocking it out of the park...

    Tropes vs. Women / #GamerGate Conspiracies

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    It's like outspoken liberal activist Janeane Garofalo said, "It's comedy, deal with it."

    Then again, when's the last time you saw her in anything?

    That's just mean.

    And I just now spotted that Cynical Brit is actually one of our sponsors...

    Of course, that's the sole reason why I'm defending him here - been paid off nice & good. He made a ReMix, too, and I'm going to post it directly without even listening to it :)!!

    Tropes vs. Women / #GamerGate Conspiracies

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    I think it holds up in this specific case, given the facts that we know. If her sexual history resulted in any positive press for her game, then it might be relevant (albeit the public is still not 'entitled' to know this, we're talking about video game blogs and not matters of national security). But the point that I'm going to keep coming back to is that it DIDN'T result in anything.

    Yes but that's not how ethics work. As I mentioned, not sure if you read it (???), but ethics are quite often about avoiding even the impression of impropriety. If you agree that Kotaku's post about clarifying ethical responsibilities of journalists was, in your OWN words, "all good stuff" then don't you ALSO agree that the public discussion of questionable ethics regarding this topic was justified in the first place? And NOT just a private matter for which "it's none of your business" was 100% acceptable? Also, I thought your point was that it was purely speculation that it resulted in anything, not that it DIDN'T result in anything, which are two different concepts? When did you leap from it being pure speculation to it being factually incorrect?

    How can you have it both ways? How can you feel that Kotaku's post clarifying/explaining ethical policies was positive & beneficial while at the same time insisting that the conversation that sparked it did not deserve public scrutiny to begin with? It's a somewhat paradoxical position, imo... I'd love an explanation, or perhaps I've actually changed your mind?

    If you're making the argument that the ends didn't justify the means - that the topic in the abstract, or with names/specifics removed, would have potentially warranted discussion, but not at the expense of Zoe's privacy & airing what was basically dirty laundry, well, I'm right there with you. That's squarely on the ex-boyfriend though, right?

    "Basically adding that they're taking the matter of integrity seriously and making strides to ensure ethical journalism on their end. etc etc. All good stuff."
    See what I mean?
    I'll only reiterate that there's a big difference between people being argumentative and belligerent with your opinions on Twitter, and people posting private information, pictures, home addresses and phone numbers of family members, hacking Skype accounts, etc. Let's not have a false equivalency here.

    Did I claim equivalency? Where did I say that? Quote me where I said that those things were equivalent. They are not. I did not say that they were. I did not say those things were equivalent. Nowhere did I say those things are equivalent. I did not mention, imply, or otherwise state that those things are equivalent. No aspect of my writing indicated a belief that those things are equivalent. Saying:

    "Let's not have a false equivalency here."
    ...is exactly the type of (frankly) bullshit mischaracterization I'm talking about!! Two wrongs don't make a right, but in this case, answering ten wrongs with three wrongs ALSO doesn't make a right. It doesn't matter that the misogynist douche-wads employing methods of harassment and abuse are worse - that's not a blank check to vilify, label, antagonize, generalize, or stoop to even HALF of their level. Is it?

    Who's fighting the good fight, here? From my vantage point, it seems like the answer is no one...

    No matter how disgusting SOME percentage of your opponents are, once you cede the high ground in a polarizing debate like this, you're just arguing the benefits of "pretty terrible" against "considerably worse"... Now, I don't personally know any of the "considerably worse" crowd who would actually stoop to the lows being HIGHLY publicized, but the "pretty terrible" folk are the ones I otherwise consider the forces of progress & creativity. I'm FAR more concerned with THEM "getting it right"...aren't you?

    Given that, on ANY topic involving feminism & games, we are almost GUARANTEED to see worms emanating from the woodwork who pull shit like this, don't you realize this means you'll ALWAYS be saying, for ANY debate on pretty much ANYTHING, "Well, WE'RE not the ones posting nude photos and making physical threats, so WE must be RIGHT!!"?? Isn't that a massive hole in accountability and ANY potential for discourse?? Isn't that a logical/rhetorical blank check - as long as these bozos keep showing up & pulling their shit, we're irrefutable & infallible?

    Tropes vs. Women / #GamerGate Conspiracies

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    TB's original post made a few points.

    1. He doesn't support using DMCA to suppress criticism. However, whether or not Quinn did this is entirely speculation, which he also said.

    I'm just wondering on this:

    Does this also fall under "Not any of your business" umbrella of protection? Were these faked?

    2. He said that he takes issue with nepotism in games journalism and that he would be disappointed IF the allegations were true. However again, he said that you can't really know whether they are or not.

    These are both fair points. All of this is based on speculation. There is only one journalist writing for Kotaku who was confirmed to have been in a relationship with Quinn at some point. He wrote one piece mentioning her game - not reviewing it - before their relationship started.

    Well, we know she DID sleep with the Kotaku dude, right? I mean, he indicated so, himself. What we don't know - the speculation part - is whether it did her or her game any good. It doesn't seem like it, since as you mention he didn't review it and only mentioned it briefly. She's also (alleged) to have slept with a previous employer. Again, one can only speculate. Ethics, however, are often about eliminating even the suggestion of impropriety by removing speculation from the equation. That's on journos and employers, too, of course.

    What I want to know, Andy, is where was "It's all just speculation" when you were talking about Ferguson? Because I agree, there IS a lot of speculation here, but it's a similar instance where there are a lot of indicators that point in a given direction, that are hard to ignore... but it's also hard to be sure. I feel like Ferguson was (and still is) a similar thing - I don't want to derail too awful much, but I appreciate your refrain from leaping to judgments and your skepticism surrounding sources of information in THIS instance, I just don't know where they were when we were discussing THAT topic. Seems highly inconsistent? Or, rather, seems consistent with skepticism and speculation only being worthwhile depending on your ideological stance on the topic...

    Sure, but people aren't really defending that behavior. They're saying it's not a public matter, which it isn't. I think the shitstorm - as it were - is more because of the so-called censorship of the matter. And I think THAT is a very difficult issue, as you and I well know as moderators of a public forum.

    It's clearly a public matter. Whether it should be or not is up for debate; whether it IS seems rather tangibly obvious. I think people ARE almost implicitly defending that behavior by employing a mob mentality that is casting any aspersions on Zoe whatsoever as being misogynistic groupthink. No matter how ugly the ugliest of trolls gets, I don't think responding to them or criticizing them should morph into attacking ANYONE who might find certain aspects of this incident disturbing or believe, however mistakenly, that it warrants public debate. You're saying the censorship is "so-called" but I'm wondering why the qualifier was needed? Because it's alleged, or because you don't view it as legit censorship? Using DMCA to get rid of stuff that's clearly fair use, because YOU don't like what it's saying, is to me clearly censorship. As to the question of it being alleged, there appears to be proof. Also, many of those defending Zoe are doing so in the form of attacking people:

    http://gamesnosh.com/the-ugly-side-of-justice-total-biscuit-denounced-over-zoe-quinn-scandal-comments/

    Just look at the shit TB got for making the relatively benign points that he did.

    https://twitter.com/devincf/status/503986333334114304

    This guy appears to be a complete idiot. First he said he hated anti-quinn people more than ISIS, then he attempted to backpedal and referred to it as a joke. Which... these guys are actively beheading people.... maybe not good joke material?

    I do believe that if a male game developer were accused of these things:

    • It wouldn't be as notable because you wouldn't have legions of trollish women coming out of the woodwork to make this their poster child example of what's wrong with gaming. This immature reaction is what explodified the whole thing.
    • HOWEVER, the flip side is that I DO think the guy would be criticized, marginalized, etc. and that "it's none of your business" would not be accepted as a valid defense/point

    More on the "none of your business" line... does it hold up? I can see making a compelling argument that it's the way things SHOULD be, but I don't see much evidence that it's the way things ARE. I don't see it being used as an effective defense by anyone accused of anything that SHOULD be personal, and I feel like when someone makes a public accusation that involves five other people (one of whom has confirmed), numerous pieces of evidence, etc., the cat's out of the bag. If you believe this is still a viable, respectable response, I'd only suggest that you remember taking the high road here and think about whether you have in the past, or will in the future. "It's none of your business" doesn't hold water for most people, when it comes down to it, and I'd personally argue that once people start putting their professional reputations on the line to defend you, and you let them, it's all the more problematic.

    http://ogeeku.com/2014/08/31/war-over-zoe-quinn-nowinners/

    This article seems to have it right.... no winners. It was a loser of a battle, but because of the antagonists involved (MRA-types and genuine troll/misogynists), the reaction in kind has been QUITE ridiculous and childish and disturbing in its own right.

    Tropes vs. Women / #GamerGate Conspiracies

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    1. A female game developer creates a game.

    2. Her vengeful ex-boyfriend publicly alleges that she cheated on him with a number of game journalists.

    3. The internet being what it is, a witch hunt begins where lizard-brain trolls start posting her private information, harassing her & her family, sharing nude pictures of her, etc.

    4. The justification for the above is that she 'slept her way to the top' in order to get coverage for her game.

    5. On websites like Reddit, in the first few days after it became public, moderators censor discussion of the controversy as threads routinely degenerate into people posting nude pictures of her, sharing her private info, etc.

    6. The controversy creates two 'sides'. Most game journalists and developers are on the developer's side, showing support in light of her severe harassment. Various randos on message boards on the other hand take this as a crusade against the perils of corruption in game journalism.

    A couple points

    • Nothing her ex has alleged has been directly refuted/contradicted, has it? I was under the impression she basically agreed to all those things, did not refute the evidence he presented as being false/doctored? Just to be clear, airing personal dirty laundry = not cool, at all. Doesn't make it false, though.
    • "Most game journalists and developers are on the developer's side" vs. "various randos" - this sounds an awful lot like a combination of bandwagon & appeal to authority fallacies. Does being a game journalist make you right, and being a "various rando" make you wrong?
    • Is TotalBiscuit a rando? JonTron? The former made his thoughts known, the latter at the least has indicated that the issue is far from clear and that bullying/mob mentality is taking effect just as much, if not moreso, in her defense.

    "Misogyny" really DOES start to lose its teeth as a label when it's used willy-nilly... all I'm seeing are a bunch of posts from people who want to spin the whole story to support their own individual worldview. Assuming the information is true, I don't know too many people who would approve of someone cheating on their partner five times, having unprotected sex, and not informing them. That's not behavior to champion, or defend. Most of what I'm seeing here is a "my enemies' enemies are my friends" mentality, which has never seemed particularly admirable to me, personally...

    I certainly agree that this isn't primarily about the ethics and corruption of game journalism... to me, it's another sad case of the schism that's created wherein you're either "against" or "for" something, and little room for nuance or alternative exists. The cultural significance and polarizing nature of the events seem to have transcended their need to be considered :)

    Starting Euphonium Player

    in Music Composition & Production

    Posted

    I played Euphonium in high school band - true story. Low brass represent.

    Switching between clefs was less challenging because (shame) I never really played by note names, mentally, but rather valve combinations - I associated specific notes (visually) with specific valve combos, so to me it wasn't about playing a B or C or whatever, it was about playing open valve, or 1&3, or 2&3, or 1&2 :)

    Terrible habit, do not emulate :) Excellent instrument though - for low brass, you get a lot of melodic material, hence the habit of parts being scored in either clef.

    My advice? Look for MIDIs instead of sheet music, and learn to transpose - there's not a lot of stuff out there written specifically for euph/baritone, but if you get a little proficient at editing a MIDI file, transposing it, and printing new notation, with the notation editor of your choice, you'll be opening a lot of doors in the process.

×
×
  • Create New...