Talk:Gamergate/Archive7

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <8>, <9>, <10>

Is it really such a good idea to have Ryulong editing this page?[edit]

Or are we all strong believers of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" here? But considering you guys are apparently in trouble for tax fraud I can't say I'm surprised.204.15.145.33 (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It's Inceptionlike to realise that this JAQ is itself evidence the answer is "yes" - David Gerard (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand literally not a word of what you just said. I am a Gloobergay, but I wanted to point out that nobody's going to believe your article if a known [insert your favorite bad thing about Ryulong here] is basically the head of it. Reminder his distaste for GamerGate stems mostly from money and spite and not genuine concern. 204.15.145.33 (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

We seem to be doing a much better job of being believable than GG has ever been able to manage (having the facts on your side generally helps a lot with that), so I hope you'll excuse us if we avoid taking your advice. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 20:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow, [insert excited greeting here]! That's the most [adjective] [verb] [noun] [noun] [noun] [pronoun] [noun] wombat! Narky Sawtooth

(Nyarnyar~) 20:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

"Money and spite" is an interesting way to put it considering one person gave me a very generous gift when I was already several months into being involved in Gamergate in the first place.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Throwing a fit over that was one of the dumbest things GG ever did. It was ex post facto with no reasonable means of prevention. What would you do, set up a system that blocks out people that have similar opinions to you? Narky Sawtooth

(Nyarnyar~) 21:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Anyone else love the fact that the majority of the BoN's this page attracts don't attempt to rebut its content and just badmouth Ryulong instead? It's almost as if halfassed character assassination is the only thing GG is capable of. Vulpius (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Be fair - they are also unparalleled masters of outraged whining. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 20:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The article reads like the diary of a madman. So to answer the OP question, absolutely. 50.171.35.251 (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi OP. Walker Walker Walker 08:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

“”Despite a growing number of female gamers (women now outnumber men as consumers of video games), video games are still predominately marketed to "masculine" tastes. That said, the shift in gamer demographics has led to an increase in games being marketed for women, the emergence of games featuring inclusive or feminist messages, and an increase in feminist criticism of the implicit and explicit sexism in gaming culture. The Catholics DESTROYED all that HISTORY and put it in Hay’s books, 10,000 years.

—Charles Manson bw/Rational feat. Wiki

It seeeems fitting, but...

“”The Great Molasses Flood, also known as the Boston Molasses Disaster or the Great Boston Molasses Flood, occurred on January 15, 1919, in the North End neighborhood of Boston, Massachusetts, in the United States. A large molasses storage tank burst, and a wave of molasses rushed through the streets at an estimated 35 mph (56 km/h), killing 21 and injuring 150. The event has entered local folklore, and for decades afterward residents claimed that on hot summer days the area still smelled of molasses. The Catholics DESTROYED all that HISTORY and put it in Hay’s books, 10,000 years.

—Charles Manson (and stuff pulled from Wikipedia)

Everything can read like the diary of a madman, [quote about us all being a little bit mad]. Narky Sawtooth

(Nyarnyar~) 08:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Lol, the Great Molasses Flood. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 08:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Yawn. We're not here to prove anything to the Gamergaters who are so inculcated that they're practically in a Scientology-style cult.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The zealot complains about zealotry. How ironic.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 11:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐

Ryulong may be a one-issue contributor, but I haven't picked up any notable ideologically-fanatical signs from him. Or are you implying being very anti-Gamergate automatically entails some sort of ideological fanaticalness? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong isn't as bad as you. You pretend to be this faux-centrist bullshit, when you're clearly not. I'll take a zealot who's honest about it over one who's not any day. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 12:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I get a strong Dubya-vibe from that ("Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.") and not the first time, I might add.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 13:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐

That doesn't make any sense. Ikanreed made a statement about sincerity, not allegiance. Narky Sawtooth

(Nyarnyar~) 13:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

No, you're just an idiot who doesn't get human interaction but thinks this is everyone else's fault - David Gerard (talk) 13:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

"Not getting human interaction" (now that is a dog whistle I can hear (or click here, if you go for the NSFW variant)), cause I don't agree with Ryu or and am not zealous enough for ikanreed, either? All aboard the Dubya-train!!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 13:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

He's saying you're being a dick. Translation complete. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 13:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I do know, that his defense of Ryulong doesn't go beyond that.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 13:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be defending yourself here by claiming that persistently being a dick is on the autistic spectrum, therefore you should be left to continue. It turns out this isn't the case - David Gerard (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't, I just caught you using a dog-whistle.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

As a Robo-American, you may not understand how flesh-humans do this stuff, but that doesn't give you licence to randomly berate them for not deigning to top up your oil. Also, this has been your sole tone of interaction with Ryulong for months now, strongly suggesting he's not the problem here - David Gerard (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't say I'm an expert on how to deal with rashly assumptive, exaggerative and provocative accusations, but I don't think responding in kind is the way forward. What's that phrase, again? Ah, right: Can't we all just get along? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The nasty tone of this discussion is a shining example of why RationalWiki has so few active editors. Maybe that's the way folks around here want it?--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Usually, the tone here is rather laid-back, except on some... hot-button issues and GG is one of them.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

This isn't about Gamergate. It's about how you've been repeatedly an asshole to me on these talk pages. What is the point?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

How about I come up with a mutually beneficial solution for both of you? Narky Sawtooth

(Nyarnyar~) 21:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The ad hom here is mean, pointless, and rampant. Stop. Nobody cares what you think about Aris, David, or vice versa. FuzzyCatPotato of the Defective Hailstones (talk/stalk) 14:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I felt the need to put these in.

Walker Walker Walker 20:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice how any discussion of Gamergate generates a one-sided controversy either way? Look at Wikipedia and its 500/30 protected talk page. Usually the ad hominem or the subject goes rampant. It's fucking ridiculous. I got banned because of that shit just for sticking my nose in. And for this thing about the "nasty tone of this discussion is a shining example of why RationalWiki has so few active editors," Rationalwiki has had few editors in the first place! If anything irrational beings like Gators are invading Rationalwiki. Dandtiks69 (talk) 23:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I did not say that Gamergate was the cause of RW having so few active editors but that this talk page is an example of why that is the case. Not hard to see that nastiness and way, way too much snark in member interactions is off-putting to new members.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 04:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Better earlier than epic and later. Walker Walker Walker 04:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to give unsigned members respect in this talk page, considering Gators invaded Wikipedia and caused the 500/30 bullshit rule. I think Ryulong is doing his job here. Dandtiks69 (talk) 06:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Obsessing over gamergate and puzzle and dragon is a full time job you know. 50.171.35.251 (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Am I harming anyone? Does what I do here affect you in any significant way that you came back after a month to make similar useless arguments?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

He's just jealous of you. He has to be someone he knew you of already to be making these [1] [2] [3]. Dandtiks69 (talk) 18:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink![edit]

That GamerGate page is such a joke. This wiki is supposed to be rational. This page is so irrational, and full of personal opinions like "should have been covered by the press instead".

"Although the misogynistic underbelly of gaming culture has been known of for years, it was fully uncovered by Gamergate as it began in August 2014 when" : what's the relation with "Eron Gjoni posted a massive tirade". There is no direct relation those two parts. GamerGate did not even exist at that time. This is just a personal opinion without facts.

"which is inaccurate on all three counts" : this means GamerGate does not present itself like it is said.

"right-wingers, MRAs, neo-Nazis, and other reactionaries and neoreactionaries" : straw man fallacy, in which MRA is presented as a hate-movement, worst than neo-Nazis, which is another lie. Feminists use a lot of straw man fallacies against MRA.

"several people within Gamergate abandoned it entirely when they realized it" : false narrative without proof. (Oh I remember that fake "gamergater" video)

"The only other group that has supported Gamergate are a handful of disgraced game developers who are trying to use the easily swayed reactionary mob to take revenge on the writers that had critically panned their pisspoor creations." We just read five groups were supporting the GamerGate, but now only one? The whole sentence is personal opinion.

And I read some great arguments here. "He's just jealous of you." : ad hominem fallacy. So much for the "constructive dialog" on the front of this wiki : http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Constructive_dialogue

I fully agree : Ryūlóng should be banned. --Vouze (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

knock yourself out Walker Walker Walker 13:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

great argument. You prove my point. --Vouze (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You said dragon² should be banned. I pointed you to the proper venue for seeking said ban. What does that prove? Walker Walker Walker 13:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Well, edit: it proves I'm trying to be a helpful asshole for once. Walker Walker Walker 14:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

"GamerGate did not even exist at that time." - the same yahoos who would make up GG had already started the shitshow around Anita Sarkeesian, for example, proving that you're either powerfully ignorant of the subject or straight up dishonest. I'm leaning towards the latter. Remember the last time you posted at RW, with some mealy-mouthed JAQing off on the Sarkeesian article? Yeah. Also - MRAs are very definitely a hate movement. you either buy into their tripe, and have an interest in defending them, or you simply haven't been exposed to what they actually say and do, as opposed to what they claim they say and do. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 14:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You want to ban Ryulong? Go right the fuck ahead. Make your case in the Chicken Coop. I need some non-anti-Zionist entertainment. --Castaigne (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You have a point. Walker Walker Walker 14:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The good ol times, when GG was the major shitfest on RW...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

For real though, gators are far more amusing than any side of any Israel-Palestine-related debate. Walker Walker Walker 14:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

And there were coupla people permabanned over GG. How many people were permabanned over Israel/Palestine?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

None of y'all had the huevos to ban -Mona-?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

She hadn't really done anything to deserve it yet. Personally, I was going to gleefully wait for Greenwald & BigTimeJournos to expose me as a "Zionist". --Castaigne (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The same people involved in Gamergate are the ones who attacked Anita Sarkeesian (namely /pol/ and /v/).

Gamergate presents itself a certain way but that way is inaccurate to its actual behavior.

It's not a straw man fallacy when the MRM is considered a misogynistic hate movement and that hatred seems to be coeval with the neo-nazis.

There are plenty of people who have gone on record as no longer supporting Gamergate because they realized no one in it actually cared about ethics, but of course whenever this happens Gamergaters come out of the woodwork to gaslight that person.

That's not what that sentence says. It adds a group aside from the easily lumped together reactionaries. How was that so difficult to read?

And go ahead and coop me. See how that works out for you, guy with 4 edits 3 of which are to this page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

[really long title clipped][edit]

Original really long title: We already know this is what they think, but this is still further proof that they are blind to their actions and that they have it all backwards, therefore they are the ones that socially engineer their audiences

“”Gaming journalists began pumping out a new message: games were no longer about personal enjoyment or artistic expression. Now, games would be about social engineering.

—The bullshit Sarkeesian Effect Movie Website introduction of feces

Dandtiks69 (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh..... That's a stretch. They're defensive babies, but they're not necessarily hypocritical about that specific thing. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This heading it too goddamn long. It ain't a userpage, you know?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of pennies and long headings and userpages, what's LM up to these days? Walker Walker Walker 20:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Who's LM?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

OH WOULDNT THE STATHEIST WANT TO KNOW /s Narky Sawtooth

(Nyarnyar~) 00:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 08:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's start here. Other such took place all over. Walker Walker Walker 09:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Stories in general have always had some sort of didactic tone, although much weaker in videogames. The way these anti-SJW people are making it look is as though socially-themed games are actively trying to condition their audiences Brave New World style. So they are hypocritical shielding themselves this way. Oh, and the heading's awesome.Dandtiks69 (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

...the lack of an editorial "separation of Church and State,"[edit]

This is in the paragraph discussing real ethics in videogame journalism, but the sentence above doesn't make much sense to me. What is it metaphorically referencing? The whole paragraph I have trouble understanding, but it might make more sense to me if someone can explain this quote. Dandtiks69 (talk) 01:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Separation of church and state means an adequate separation of journalistic content and advertisements.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The for-profit video game press's income comes almost entirely from advertisements from the companies that produce the same games they cover and review. The video game press is also heavily dependent on game developers granting access to game previews/press events/etc. and providing free advance copies of games to review. As a vivid illustration of this (mentioned in this article), Jeff Gerstmann was fired from Gamespot for giving Kane & Lynch: Dead Men a negative review, after the developer threatened to pull its advertising. The point vis-a-vis Gamergate is that they loudly proclaim they're fighting for "ethics in game journalism" but spend all their time harassing women involved in video gaming and compiling lists of who donated $20 to some indie developer, rather than critiquing and investigating the game press's symbiotic relationship with the giant game development companies. --Ymir (talk) 08:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

"separation of church and state" is a usual phrase in journalism for separation of editorial and advertising - David Gerard (talk) 10:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The equivalent in business is 'Chinese wall', which is perhaps more appropriate in this case but more difficult to determine the meaning of from context. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 14:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Does it go obsolete upon discovering Dynamite? Walker Walker Walker 14:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, it certainly shits up the map with extra stuff obscuring what you need to see on the hexes. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 14:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

What the hell doesn't do that? Walker Walker Walker 14:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Moai? Maybe? Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 15:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Eh, okay. Walker Walker Walker 15:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I get that business term but isn't it unlawful in some way? Dandtiks69 (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Nope! You have a first-amendment right to lie directly, let alone have no firewall between advertising and editorial - David Gerard (talk) 09:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Big business's negative practices are often the loudest and the most corrupt.Dandtiks69 (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Fun:Bingo[edit]

Can we make one? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 17:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

So, naturally "it's about ethics in games journalism" is the free square. I contribute "critical commentary is censorship". ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

"Objective reviews", "Actually, we're liberal," "Faked their own harassment." Hipocrite (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Some sort of #NotYourShield space is needed because someone showed me a blog where I was name dropped and the author was a female robotics scientist who supported Gamergate. Also something about the charities. And by the way, we haven't covered it but Ian Cheong did a 180 and is now pro gator.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

"Thing 5.2," "Thing 5.3"...Dandtiks69 (talk)

Leadership?[edit]

Jennifer Allaway, a sociology student, had conducted a game development survey that Gamergaters found and swarmed to, bombarding her with misogynistic messages such as "suck my dick" and "go kill yourself." After the experience, Allaway argued that Gamergate met every criteria set out in a study that outlined the definition of a hate group, including leadership, recruitment, social-psychological techniques, and dehumanization.

I thought Gamergate had no leadership or recruitment like Anonymous, which is why it made it weak in the first place. Dandtiks69 (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Read the citation.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

RPGCodex source[edit]

This 1500+ page thread seems like a good compilation of stuff about gamergate, and for criticism for gamergate. RPGCodex is one of the few gaming websites to mostly be against gamergate. We can use it as a source for the fact that not all gamer websites are pro-gg, and we can use it for other informations too.Deofex (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

But most gaming websites are in fact not pro-GG.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

[morgan_freeman_hryk.jpg|300px|(pointing up) He's right, you know.] Narky Sawtooth

(Nyarnyar~) 19:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Careful, this can approach tokenism territory. Dandtiks69 (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Volokh Conspiracy[edit]

So, I know a number of times people on this website have posted Zoe Quinn's (possibly former) legal name, and the statement has been deleted on the grounds that it is "doxxing". I don't know if anyone here follows Volokh Conspiracy? Eugene Volokh, Professor of Law at UCLA, and arguably America's foremost expert on First Amendment Law, has posted on his blog - one of the top legal blogs on the Internet, and nowadays hosted by the Washington Post - the name in question. When someone's real name is posted by the Washington Post, is it doxxing to repeat it? GhamerGhazian (talk) 08:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

In a sane environment, nobody cares that it is or isn't "doxxing," but whatever. Walker Walker Walker 08:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

A new account called GamerGhazian (when the preferred term on the sub is 'Ghazelle') posting a leading question about whether personal details are now sufficiently public to justify repeating them here? Hmm... Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 08:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

It really should be GamerGhazino tho. Walker Walker Walker 08:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

http://weknowmemes.com/generator/uploads/generated/g1351818797666933765.jpg Oh right down south in the land of traitors, rattle snakes and alligators! Where cotton's king and men are chattles! Union boys will win the battles! (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe the demonym associated with Benghazi to be Benghazino, therefore I would expect... eh it's the Internet. Walker Walker Walker 09:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You're correcting according to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benghazi and if that's not reliable enough https://www.facebook.com/al.ghehad Hopefully you also realize GamerGhazi (identical to his username minus two letters) is a popular anti-Gamergate movement. Oh right down south in the land of traitors, rattle snakes and alligators! Where cotton's king and men are chattles! Union boys will win the battles! (talk) 09:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware. Walker Walker Walker 09:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

My choice of name should be considered as completely random and as having no meaning. The fact that it resembles somewhat the name of a particular subreddit is nothing more than flippancy on my part. GhamerGhazian (talk) 09:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thank you for that somewhat unexpected clarification. Walker Walker Walker 10:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I think Eugene Volokh's amicus curiae brief, arguing that Eron Gjoni is a victim of a violation of the First Amendment, is an important legal development in this saga, and should be mentioned in the article. Eugene Volokh is widely acknowledged as one of the leading scholars of the 1st Amendment, so Eron Gjoni is very lucky to have him fighting for him. I would add these facts myself but the article is locked. His blog post about his brief The brief itself [links removed] GhamerGhazian (talk) 09:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

An amicus brief (singular, one) is an important development? You realize they're the feel-good armchair activism of law, right? Walker Walker Walker 09:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

We're still not posting links about Quinn's name here, even if it is by a pre-eminent and libertarian lawyer. Also the legal battle between the two is dutifly covered elsewhere on the site.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

This is what I don't understand - why is it wrong to link to the Washington Post website? Because it publishes someone's real name? What's so special about that person's real name that it means links to the Washington Post have to be removed? I'm not talking about comments users have posted on it; I'm talking about a blog post by an eminent law professor who is employed (or whatever exactly the business arrangement is) by WaPo as a professional blogger. GhamerGhazian (talk) 10:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Simply put, nothing. But whacking about with someone else's credentials doesn't help. Walker Walker Walker 10:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Volokh's blog is simply "syndicated" by WaPo last I read up on him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not "syndicated" by WaPo. "Syndicated" would imply that WaPo was republishing something republished elsewhere, but they are not. Since moving to WaPo, his blog no longer publishes at its original address (volokh.com), which is kept only as an archive and redirect. All new posts from him and his co-bloggers go on WaPo's website only, and they are protected by WaPo's (rather lose) paywall. I am led to believe he has some sort of financial arrangement with WaPo, although he has not revealed the details of that. GhamerGhazian (talk) 10:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not correctly remembering what I had read a month ago. The point is thusly: the reason the link was removed because for the past year Zoe Quinn's privacy has been violated by hundreds of people because video games. Just because this prominent person with a blog that isn't a self-hosted wordpress abomination posts it doesn't make it any more relevant.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

As an eminent law professor, it is quite common (and entirely appropriate) for him to post amicus curiae briefs he submits on various cases which are notable for various reasons. And, since the lawsuit is filed in a (misspelling) of the name you insist no one mention, he is legally required to use that name repeatedly in the amicus curiae brief. What has he done wrong? I don't think he has done anything wrong. Whatever else some people have done or tried to do to Zoe Quinn (and no doubting, some people have done as such), I don't see how he can be fairly accused of "violating her privacy", or doing anything else inappropriate toward her. So, if there is nothing wrong or inappropriate with his posts, how can you seriously argue it is wrong or inappropriate to link to them? GhamerGhazian (talk) 10:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Because he (and he is not alone) seriously holds a worldview which involves a conception of privacy. It's contradictory from the onset. Walker Walker Walker 10:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite; what's so contradictary about privacy? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 10:55, 25 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

An account created to doxx, desperately keen to find an excuse to doxx, says is a previous doxxer (for which it would have been blocked), has posted two revs that needed revdelete already ... we don't actually need to wait on this one - David Gerard (talk) 10:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

(EC) Context. As you point out, he no choice in the legal brief because of technical accuracy. Outside of a stringent technical requirement, using that name is a complete arsehole move. WaPo or not makes no difference, same as if it was somewhere in the Daily Mail's voluminous opinion columns. You're not really doing a good job of convincing me you're not JAQing off, here. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 10:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Just because he is required to use what the court calls someone does not mean we should do the same. Did you seriously just create your account for the sole purpose of seeing what would happen if you linked to Volokh's blog?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Not like they're hard to make... Walker Walker Walker 10:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah but why put in the effort when he could just use a proxy IP?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Because anyone familiar with wiki culture would know users with accounts are afforded slightly more respect. Not everyone is completely unaware of social context, even among the gamergate crowd. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 13:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

True, although for videogame wikis like [4] and [5] that's unnecessary.

Just out of curiosity, what are some good proxy programs? Not like I've ever had to use it in this site... Dandtiks69 (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Very first sentence of this article[edit]

Gamergate is a reactionary backlash in the video game playing community as well as the "movement" (more like an angry mob) perpetuating the backlash.

Can't even work out what this is trying to say. Very first sentence. Although the rest of the lede is surprisingly good (but way too long). Tielec01 (talk) 07:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Fixed it. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 08:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense now. Tielec01 (talk) 08:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Much better opening sentence. But the lede.... nearly 600 words? Really? Then there is a Brief summary section. Surely that's what the lede should be?--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 08:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I've cut down the lede to a more managable size.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

"reactionary" ? What does that even mean ? This is a push of personal POV --Vouze (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hell no, it's not. Gamergate is almost entirely defined by its reactionary perspective. What it means, for your edification, is an extreme resistance to liberalism or progressiveness, often idolizing ideological conformity(ironically often from an extremely unpopular perspective) and the past. I'd have a hard time characterizing any element of gamergate's philosophy as anything but reactionary. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, there is no such thing as NPOV on RW. Since you are a new, ah, GG supporter here, you might want to check our SPOV policy before you start ranting about personal or non-neutral POV. --Castaigne (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You get bonus points for complaining to Wikia staff and/or any similarly irrelevant authority, though. Double extra if it's the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Walker Walker Walker 14:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

This shit again? Maybe the wording is wrong here but I've seen GG supporters as a completely reactionary group (I used to think they were neoconservatives but that's too narrow of a definition for GG), and we've discussed this already. But since there's a new Gator here we might as well give him sense. Dandtiks69 (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate Investigative Commission[edit]

So the All-Gamergate Emergency Commission for Combating Counter-Manbroism and SJWs has been formed. Their goal is, and I quote: "The goal of the Commission is two-fold. Firstly the Commission it will establish an objective archive of the history of GamerGate. Upon the establishment of a timeline, the Commission will answer the question of whether or not GamerGate actually is a "racist/sexist harassment campaign." Other questions may be investigated by the Commission as well."
I guess they've decided that since it's been a year they can pretend to do McCarthy hearings in front of Voat, KiA, and the Chans. Relevant links as follows:

I can already tell this is going to be a source of hilarity. --Castaigne (talk) 04:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I predict "It was third party trolls" and "#BurgersAndFries has nothing to do with Gamergate" to be topics of discussion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, they're going to try to get AGGers - I assume from Ghazi - on the "Commission" and replace them with "neutrals" if they refuse. Considering their idea of a neutral is the Ralph Retort, weev, or TotalBiscuit, I'm sure that will work well. --Castaigne (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

It's being run by a guy who was banned from the AgainstGamergate debate sub for trying to sic baph on a Gamergate stream he didn't agree with, only to get doxxed by baph in turn. His idea of neutral is laughable.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It is laughable: TotalBiscut and Milo Yiannoupolis are in the list. Dandtiks69 (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Only jumping in to say the article here on GG is part of why I joined. In fall of '14 my Twitter timeline became overwhelmed with something called "Gamergate," and it was utterly clear that this was a deeply polarizing and hot issue for many people. And me, I could not figure out WTF? Finally, I found this article and the mess became as clear as it is possible for it to be. At one point, some nuts on Reddit posted a thing claiming I am an "SJW." This is because I tweeted the phrase "trigger warning" in the clinical sense -- the way psychologists use it for people with PTSD. I had no idea what an "SJW even is. I sure do now.---Mona- (talk) 04:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

We're glad we could help you understand, Mona. If you still need any help understanding any pseudoscience, injustices, or crazy events, just come back here to RW or contact me or any productive user. Dandtiks69 (talk) 06:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Who was deleting my talk page comments?[edit]

Article rating[edit]

I think this article has matured to the point where it deserves a silver brain. Possibly even a gold one. It's exhaustively-sourced, comprehensive, and relatively well-structured. Good job, folks. -Shtrominer (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It's possibly a silver - aspects of it are still not sourced (eg. the claim that depression quest was well received by critics) and as you go further into the article the language becomes increasingly convoluted. Definitely true that the start of the article is much improved. Tielec01 (talk) 05:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

So this means all the snarky section titles get renamed to their sterile versions?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The previous section titles were cryptic and unhelpful. They did little to tell people perusing the TOC what kind of content to expect. And, on further reflection, the prose in this article could use further improvement. Many are sentences somewhat run-on, and the use of semicolons strikes me as excessive. But, overall, it's a good article, and certainly warrants a silver brain in my mind. -Shtrominer (talk) 06:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Many are sentences somewhat run-on - Muphry's Law in action? Tielec01 (talk) 06:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

"Muphry's law." ;) -Shtrominer (talk) 06:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Silver it. Tielec's objection is that the article exists - David Gerard (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

As someone who created this article and wrote large portions of it, I'll leave it to others to give it a silver brain if they deem it worthy. -Shtrominer (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Always happy to hear your insightful comments DG. How's the board going? Had a meeting yet? Tielec01 (talk) 12:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Votes for silver[edit]

FuzzyCatPotato of the Substandard Couch potatos (talk/stalk) 19:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
--Cosmikdebris (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Narky Sawtooth (Nyarnyar~) 23:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:08, 7 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
David Gerard (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Yup, much improved. Needs to be changed extensively to get to Gold though. Tielec01 (talk) 12:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
--Castaigne (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Should be gold, but good enough for me. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Votes against[edit]

TL;DR. This unwieldy monster of an article is about as interesting as the lover's-spat-mutated-into-net-wide-shitfest it discusses.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

I should not really vote at all as I am as about as likely to read this article as I am to find three-day eventing of sudden sporting interest. I am open to bribes though. Less visually offensive use of quotation marks in the article might even be enough.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate Glossary[edit]

So, over here I posed a question about "Full Macintosh" being added to the list and the reception made me realize I'm asking the wrong place. So, continuing that conversation, does Gamergate need a glossary article? Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 08:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Not really I think. The forced memes of Gamergate, including "Full McIntosh", are designed to sneak claims into discussion, and the claims have a page - David Gerard (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

To add on to David, a short jargon glossary would go fine on the claims page, so long as it was used in order to point out said sneaking. --Castaigne (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Aye, I've already discussed such a definitions section. All this Internet/Gamergate talk can cause confusion with those inexperienced. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Article length[edit]

Alright, what's making the article so long? Is it quality, depth, and/or redundancy? I wouldn't say it is quality considering this is getting it a silver rating, but I'm going mostly with redundancy. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Arisboch is just being himself.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Heulsuse...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

It's exhaustively and comprehensively documenting that there's no "there" there, how the entire purpose of this is to generate smoke and say "look! fire!" - David Gerard (talk) 10:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

This seems like something I'd find on Conservapedia[edit]

I've mostly just been a casual reader of Rationalwiki for a few years, but this is a definite change in quality and content than the rest of the articles--somehow, the Conservapedia entry on Gamergate is more 'rational' and less charged than this. A great deal of these arguments are based in emotions, and only really serve to be a pro-GG mouthpiece. I don't know much about GG, which is why I went here, but this article is so obviously biased that I'm surprised it is being considered for a silver medal.

I don't think I'd do very well at editing it, but I think the people who were editing it before should be removed from the situation, and 'neutral' editors on Rationalwiki moved in to rewrite it from the ground up. Raxal (talk) 10:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

If you don't know much about GG as you claim then how can you tell if this is biased? To touch on other points, "rational" doesn't mean "emotionless logic", "neutral" doesn't mean that there should be a balance fallacy (which is all there is with Gamergaters complaining about "bias"), and RationalWiki isn't written to be neutral anyway.

You, the obvious Gamergater, have come to this page to whine that it doesn't reflect what you want Gamergate to be described as, as with what is happening over at Conservapedia's page on the topic which cites the bastion of unethical journalism and heavy reactionary bias of Breitbart multiple times. It's factually inaccurate on multiple points which are covered in detail on this page as well as List of Gamergate claims. It also seems to not focus at all on ethics in video game journalism and instead spends a lot of time talking about Zoe Quinn and how much Gamergate focuses on a perceived "liberal (feminist) agenda".

But feel free to list parts of this article you believe are factually inaccurate so it can be clarified to show how wrong you and everyone else who is going to end up on the wrong side of history are.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I can claim such a thing because every other article on this site is radically different from this one, whereas the others at least introduce viewpoints or 'legitimate critcisms' (I don't really know how to link to other pages using this, but I would link to the Richard Dawkins one here, or the section in the Holocaust Denial page about 'Functionalism and Intentionalism.') this one just seems to make cartoonish strawmen of both sides. The bit about charities in the beginning of the article seems like something I'd see on Infowars.

I don't really know what Breitbart is, but I do know that the actual article itself is far more even handed--yet again comparing this article to others on the site, the ones here (Like in the Holocaust Denial page, or the Christian Science page.) It introduces what the actual thing is about somewhat neutrally and even handed, this one flat out states '...mercilessly attack independent video game developer Zoë Quinn at the behest of her ex-boyfriend Eron Gjoni'. Right at the beginning. I first came to this article because a friend mentioned Gamergate and I wanted to learn more about it from someone who wasn't a member of it, but it seems like I've just stumbled onto the opposite end. From what he told me the sentiment behind it existed for awhile already because of games like 'Gone Home' or somebody called 'The Doritos Pope', and the Zoe Quinn thing was just a springboard. I don't actually know if that is true or not, and I was hoping to learn more about that, but all I can really find is 'Gamergate evil, other side good.' (Speaking of which, what does 'the other side' call itself? I saw a link to a subreddit called 'Gamerghazi' at the bottom, but I don't know if that is the name for it or not.)

I don't actually know what is incorrect or not is the thing, I do know though that this seems really politically charged one way, and unlike on other articles where it feels like the 'reasonable' way, reading this just makes me feel like neither side is reasonable at all. I'd be very interested in starting a project that is neutrally charged about the topic to see what is 'true' or not, and if you knew anybody who could help me with that that would be great, I might even start my own wiki for it, it'd be fascinating to put the 'neutral' timeline of events right in between both sides accounts of them, and see what is different and what is the same, from what I understand so far is that both sides think the CSI episode was totally lame, I don't watch CSI, so I wouldn't know. Raxal (talk) 12:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

What viewpoints are missing? Ones that sing the praises of Gamergate? And again, neutrality is not the focus of RationalWiki so stop complaining about that. No one ever said this page had to be neutral. All it has to be is accurate to what the real world and what rational people see when it comes to Gamergate. There is no forcing of a balance fallacy that Gamergate supporters want so dearly. It calls out Gamergate for what it is rather than what its supporters say it is. It is not a consumer revolt against unethical journalism of video games. It is a reactionary mob that hates feminism and other liberal points of view. it has nothing to do with anyone derisively called "Doritos Pope" and it only vaguely has something to do with Gone Home because the people who support Gamergate believe it was unfairly praised because it has nothing resembling normal gameplay and it is a story about lesbian teenagers falling in love. There is no defined "other side" either. There are people who oppose Gamergate but they are not a unified front as Gamergate and you believe they are. It's a bunch of people either directly victimized by Gamergate supporters or those who don't believe their bullshit that are against it. And these people are not for corruption in video game journalism. They're against the reactionary nature of Gamergate because Gamergate has absolutely nothing to do with ethics considering their biggest names are the most biased and unethical journalists out there.

This and Wikipedia, now that here are stricter controls on who is being allowed to contribute to the page over there, are the most accurate websites that have covered this. However at RationalWiki (as I'm saying for a third time now so I get the point across) there is no "neutrality" policy to allow people like yourself to try to rules lawyer in anything resembling a completely fringe point of view on this topic, which is the point of view of Gamergaters themselves. Not that the page doesn't describe their views. It just goes into enough detail to say those views are completely and utterly wrong, just like pages on RationalWiki point out how anti-abortion (and anti-Planned Parenthood) is wrong, how anti-GMO views are wrong, how climate change denial is wrong, how creationism is wrong, how ancient astronaut theory is wrong, how Obama birthers are wrong, how Benghazi conspiracy theorists are wrong, and so on and so forth. This page is no different. Gamergate's many stances are either flat out conspiracy theories or flimsy excuses for their actions which were formed from conspiracy theories. So please, present some argument other than "not neutral" or say what part of the page is wrong.

Also there was no CSI episode. It was Law & Order: SVU.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I'd do very well at editing it, but I think the people who were editing it before should be removed from the situation, and 'neutral' editors on Rationalwiki moved in to rewrite it from the ground up.- Raxal

New here and making demands? I see.

To quote the Daleks, REQUEST DENIED!

There is no neutrality or NPOV here. The editors editing it are doing a fine job. There is no need to rewrite.

I can claim such a thing because every other article on this site is radically different from this one, whereas the others at least introduce viewpoints or 'legitimate critcisms'- Raxal

That is a lie. This article is no different from others on the site in format and terms. The only difference is length.

Criticisms are located on the list of Gamergate claims page. Learn to read. --Castaigne (talk) 14:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile...[edit]

The problem is the following: Ryulong is more or less the only editor of GG articles here and he's, as you saw, on his anti-GG crusade that got him booted from Wikipedia. Almost anyone else, including me, doesn't give enough of a shit about GG to actually edit these articles besides snark at Ryulong an the talkpages a lil.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 12:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I did not know about his background, but it's a shame to hear about the lack of editors, and that other thing as well, I've used the site a few times to help with homework assignments relating to Theology and Debate class, and I'm surprised to hear it doesn't have an active userbase.

Does Rationalwiki have any rules about using it as a source? I might just make that wiki when I have time, although I wouldn't make the best editor. Raxal (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

This wiki has a regular userbase, it's just that they mostly don't give a damn about GG, that's all. About citing RW, have a look at the license info at the bottom left corner.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 12:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Stop feeding these fucking idiots lies about me Arisboch. I was not banned from Wikipedia because of my edits about Gamergate. I was banned because of bullshit tone policing rules that they have there when it comes to engaging with complete fucking idiots participating in bad faith like you and Raxal here. Stop fucking talking for me and gaslighting me you insufferable prick.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia not only isn't your personal army, but also not your personal battleground (you have the GG-articles for RW for that and even here, you were de-sysopped for a while because of some stuff related to that, IIRC).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Arisboch, you should probably stop lying about Ryulong - David Gerard (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't using it as a fucking battleground. I was banned for tone policing and because I had developed a bad habit for Wikipedia's standards of trying to fix things on my own after having been burned at every attempt of cleaing up after messes and seeking administrative help for doing so because I get into fights with stubborn idiots over shit as stupid as including scholarships and endowments on articles on the NCAA leagues or over the use of a colon to separate a subtitle from a title. Pointing out obvious concern trolls and Gamergaters and not being kind and nice about it on Wikipedia is what put the final nail in the coffin for me there, at least until January. But I am not going to sit back and watch you spout off completely wrong and ingorant bullshit about my own life experiences so you can constantly play contrarian douchebag at my expense, Arisboch.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

QED *leans back*--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Nice welcome for the new editor. Two posts and he or she is called a "complete fucking idiot". --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

He had the insolence to question His Holeyness (this is not a spelling error) Dragondragon teh First, of course Dragondragon'd get his panties in a bunch because of that and start huffing and puffing.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not playing nice with someone obviously JAQing off.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "playing not nice" did get you booted off Wikipedia, according to your own admission above (when one is to condense your post above down to it's bare facts and ignore your whining).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Stop being a fucking tool. I was using the kid gloves until you had the gall to lie about me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

You call that "kid gloves"? But the net doesn't forget and if one would search a lil... What marvels could one find about you... --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ What I wrote before you posted your bullshit is what I call kid gloves. The only thing I called him was an "obvious Gamergater". But you can fuck right off.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

with complete fucking idiots participating in bad faith like you and Raxal- Ryulong Like I said, the net does not forget, especially, if one's memory aid is a few spins of the scrolling wheel away.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, that's after you showed up to post your bullshit about me. I specified that bit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

But why call him names because I posted so-called "bullshit"?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Because the kid gloves are off now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

So for you, "kid's gloves off" is ranting at everyone because of everything... Nothing new here, I might add.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Collateral damage.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

A keyboard is much more precise than even a drone. This ain't no excuse.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

This evolved from a statment buy a dude to ryu and arisboch arguing, great Bubba41102 ^{Anonymous user is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike an editor} 14:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Devolved, but that's how GG-discussion with Ryulong usually end here.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

It wouldn't have happened had you not been a complete asshole to me. This has nothing to do with discussion of this topic. It has to do with what you've said and what you have told the other guy about me. I am not going to sit back and let you talk shit nor am I going to play nice with someone posting in bad faith repeating the usual Gamergate talking points.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hm, you called him asshole, cause I said something or cause he said something about GG you don't agree with? You have to decide for one version of the story (there is one infamous quote in German about that kinda stuff, but it doesn't translate into English at all. Pity that).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Drop the brogressive STEMlord bullshit. And I've only called you an asshole.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea, what "brogressive" or "STEMlord" means and look at that

with complete fucking idiots participating in bad faith like you and Raxal- Ryulong

It's right up there...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the word "asshole" in there.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

"complete fucking idiots" OK, I got that wrong, big diff~~, sry~~.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

on his anti-GG crusade that got him booted from Wikipedia- Arisboch

You mean, after the GG brigading that got him booted. Let's be honest.

You call that "kid gloves"?- Arisboch

That is absolutely kid gloves. I would not have been quite so pleasant.

Also, you do argue in bad faith on Gamergate. Raxal is obviously a single-purpose account, also arguing in bad faith, as is shown by the neutrality rhetoric he uses and his immediate call for the current editors to be removed and replaced. This is not a lie. It is fact.

Christ, dude, if you don't like Ryulong so much and want to badmouth him all the time, why don't you just SWAT him like a proper Channer and be fucking done with it? --Castaigne (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Cause I ain't no channer and calling the cops on some clown on the net is complete over the top?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

If you have such despite for Ryulong, you should at least have the balls to be a man about it and take direct action, rather than this badmouthing bullshit. So, no, it wouldn't be over the top. It would be justified. Then you could go brag to Based Milo and Vox and Cernovich and Ralph and et all about it. Serious MANBRO points there, dude. --Castaigne (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

If you seriously can't tell an obvious gator at that distance, then you are yet again literally failing to understand everything about humans and really need to stop embarrassing yourself - David Gerard (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

To the new user[edit]

Propose a specific change to a specific section for at least one reason. Ignore all the Ryulong/DG/Arisboch/etc. drama. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 16:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like there isn't a section on the Witcher 3 drama that occurred a few months back, from what I understand, Americans started complaining about the treatment of 'PoC' people in the game, or rather the complete lack of them. The defense for it that I've seen is that the Witcher 3 was made by a Polish development team, and that it was a game based on a series of Polish novels about Polish mythology, and that PoC actually DO exist in the universe, and have an entire nation, among other things.

Another thing I noticed (Just in general) that due to the efforts of people like TotalBiscuit, pre-ordering and other shady tactics AAA developers use to exploit their customer base are being lambasted and considered bad far more than it used to be, to the point where 'You shouldn't preorder at all' has seemingly become the mainstream opinion. And I think that deserves a mention in the 'Actual Ethics in Video Game Journalism' section.

After researching a little bit more about some people like Anita Sarkeesian, and their 'reviews' of games, it could be mentioned also that she also has a tendency to present the 'facts' in specific ways to make things seem worse than they are (Things that immediately come to mind are the videos she made about Hitman and Fallout New Vegas.) While ignoring things that don't fit a certain narrative (With those specifically, Hitman is a game about killing people, just because you can kill woman wouldn't make it misogyny, and in Fallout New Vegas, there are prostitutes in the vegas section of the game--not only are a great many of them also male, but there are plenty of female NPC's that aren't that.) And it happened again during the Bethesda presentation at e3 (She went on twitter to complain about violent video games, like Doom, being violent, or the crafting system that will be in Fallout 4 being 'obsessed with killing people' when they spent a lot more time talking about how you could build houses and settlements.) It seems like it could be mentioned that some of the criticism sounds like something that happened way back in the 90's, basically.

Sorry for posting three ideas, I'm bad at organizing my thoughts or making major decisions, it's why I asked for someone else to come in and edit the article instead of me, While I disagree with the actual content of this article and how it is presented, I don't think turning it into a rambly mess would make it any better. Raxal (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Learn to indent.

I have seen a few Tumblr/Twitter people complain about POC in Witcher 3. I have not seen this being a criticism in mainstream media. A few Tumblr/Twitter people having a random bitch doesn't a section make.

The decline in preordering has nothing to do with rhetoric from TotalBiscuit or anyone else and has everything to do with crappy pre-order bonuses. Not GamerGate related.

Items about Anita Sarkeesian would be suitable on that page and the Tropes Against Women subheading. Also, her criticism is just that - standard cultural criticism. Her opinion is not invalid because you don't agree with it. You also don't even show the slightest understanding of the Bechdel-Wallace Test or any other standards Sarkeesian is using in engaging in criticism. I recommend engaging in some reading/taking some classes/educating yourself on cultural criticism from a variety of perspectives before making edits. --Castaigne (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The preordering part just may be part of "Actual Ethics in Videogame journalism." However, just like the "Chinese Wall," that may barely overlap Gamergate content. It would be more suitable for the Video Games page. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The "Witcher 3" drama was a reviewer pointing out how the game solely features white people and the excuse is that this fictional land is based on Polish folklore and Poland apparently didn't have non-white people. His arguments were also rooted in how another video game had recently rolled out an update that randomly applied skin tones to player avatars in a way that the player could not ever change it and it caused an uproar. This had nothing to do with Gamergate until Gamergate attacked him for his personal opinions.

I've never heard "Don't pre-order" come up in any discussion and it doesn't seem to be related to Gamergate at all.

Well you've brought up Hitman which shows you are a Gamergater because no one other than them constantly harps on and on about that one apparent inaccuracy in her description of the game. That and her personal criticism of DOOM and Fallout 4 are unrelated to Gamergate. She's allowed to have opinions on things, and one of those is that graphic fantasy violence isn't something she enjoys in video games. This has nothing to do with Gamergate to an extent that it needs to be covered here.

A lot of the issues you raise are on other pages on RationalWiki like Timeline of Gamergate, List of Gamergate claims, and even Anita Sarkeesian and even Thunderf00t/Criticism of Tropes vs. Women. This page is as succinct as it can be on Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Most of the things Gamergate does are irrelevant here because of the argument by association. Sarkeesian's disgust with Doom 4's blood and guts and the de-evolved crafting system in Fallout 4 have almost nothing to do with Gamergate's hatred of women, just their targeting of this social critic. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Clean up[edit]

Their other primary activity is defending the mob's name by insisting on social media and all comments sections on articles that sometimes barely mention "Gamergate" that Gamergate is a "consumer revolt" against video game news websites over breaches of "ethics in video game journalism", a front concocted from allegations of infidelity Gjoni made against Quinn in the manifesto that started it all.

This must be cleaned up a bit without it losing its meaning. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 05:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Then do it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

B.S. Sarkeesian Effect Documentary[edit]

We need a point-by-point rebuttal for the documetary Sarkeesian Effect, just like for Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

Also, how can one watch the movie without paying for it? Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

We don't "need" a point-by-point rebuttal for something that nobody saw. Expelled: etc. was something a lot of people saw and fell for. Narky Sawtooth

(Nyarnyar~) 00:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

So how can I see this movie without giving these misogynists my money? Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 00:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Wait for a torrent like people on KiA.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

No matter how much one thinks that to be morally justified in this scenario, you will get malware that was coded by Lucifer running his nails along a spinning disk of fire. Narky Sawtooth

(Nyarnyar~) 07:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

And worse, you'll end up watching The Sarkeesian Effect - David Gerard (talk) 10:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I would be wearing protective eyegear for this. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I would wait for Futrelle to finish his review, honestly. There's not much to be said that he won't say. --Castaigne (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@betsyinferno live tweeted it yesterday.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks boring as fuck, maybe not worth the 700 megabytes the movie is going to occupy in my hard drive. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: a torrent now exists for the documentary. Pirating has never been so quick and simple.

Currently 50 people are hosting it. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Did someone upload that horseshit on Youtube or something already?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Vimeo. Where you can rent it for 48 hours for US$4 or own it for US$8.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd neva eva waste moneyy on that kinda horseshit.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC):::

You don't have to: just get the torrent. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Not worth the effort. Is there somewhere a streaming pirate copy I can pirate on my PC?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

For that you would have to wait a couple more hours (days, maybe) until someone puts it up on Youtube. All I did was torrent it, and that was free. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

How about putting it up on Mega.nz and posting a link here?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

If we were to do that here won't we get trouble?

I'll just tell you this: looking at this video is arduous. It's shameful. Pretty much everything that's in the Gamergate page talking negatively talking about it is in the video, plus graphical nuisances, cheap effects, unrefined narrative/interviews (making the video last 2.5 hours is the result of this), and inconsistent framerate. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Apparently something can be worse than Zeitgeist Petey Plane (talk) 15:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Kevin Logan is doing a parody reenactment of the whole thing, which David Futrelle thinks serves the purpose - David Gerard (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

First impressions on Sarkeesian Effect[edit]

Horsecrap.

Aside from the amazing flaws, MrRepzion's videos looked better than this; this "thousand dollar budget" video looks like a 1980s documentary. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

This article isn't even enough to cover the atrocities: it's only a slice of the shitcake of misogyny and tokenism. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Separate page for pro-GG[edit]

Should there at least be some mention of the doxxing attacks against prominent members of gamergate, especially by people who focus more on GamerGate's hypocrisy than their mistreatment of women?
I'd like a separate page for the pro-GG folks so that they don't complain to us about "censorship" or whatever, given that almost every other personality on YouTube has blocked their comments section. It also serves as a place to demonstrate to the rest of us their ignorance of patriarchy theory.

Withoutaname (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Also I don't know if this has been pointed out yet but given the larger role Milo, Cathy, CHS, et al have been given to GamerGate I don't think we can say with certainty that they are a "leaderless" movement anymore. Withoutaname (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

To answer question 1, there hasn't been anything like that. No one in Gamergate has been doxxed (certainly not to the extent or maliciousness") by people critical of Gamergate. Gamergaters only seem to dox each other, which is covered in detail here.

To answer question 2: no. They have plenty of their own spaces to say what they want. We are not required to give them a forum on this website for that.

And for your third comment, Gamergaters still hold on to being "leaderless". They don't follow the orders of Yiannopoulos, Young, or Sommers. We point these people out as figureheads though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Ryūlóng. The alleged doxings of pro-GGs appear to actually originate from pro-GGers, much like the bomb threats at pro-GG events originated on GG's home base of 8chan. One of the few circumstances where a false flag may be true.Petey Plane (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

A popular youtuber, boogie2988, whom I've had rather mild respect for despite him joining GamerGate (he turned "neutral" almost immediately afterwards) claimed to have been doxxed by the "anti-GG crowd" and as I've taken at face value people's claims of being harassed by GamerGate, I feel obligated to do the same about him. Of course, it is not nearly on the same level as GamerGate's harassment campaigns but I would not say it was nonexistent. Withoutaname (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

List of Gamergate claims#The /r/ShitRedditSays Doxxing of JonTron, Boogie2988, et al. Boogie was never doxxed by "anti-GG".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I'm more ambivalent now about the truth of the doxxing claims. I sort of wonder if it's possible to be a GamerGater and someone who supports Anita Sarkeesian.

Anyway, GamerGate holds these figureheads up as representative embodiments of the ideals they hold. Would it be easier to point out the flaws in their worldview now that there are names and faces attached to some of them? Withoutaname (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

That's done already with regards to their world views and such. And you can't be a Gamergater and support Anita Sarkeesian. She's a feminist after all, and Gamergate's only concrete stance is anti-feminist (among other causes).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, GG has moved so far beyond (if they were even there to begin with) their "ethics in game journalism" claims, that that original ~~excuse~~ goal is now completely separate. GG is now a neoreactionary/right-wing, anti-feminist movement. While ethics in journalism of any type is a worthy cause, you won't find anything that constructively advocates for such a cause left in the GG movement.Petey Plane (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Amen. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

i an (extremely, extremely reluctantly) compelled to point out this, but only to clarify a slightly innacurate claim above. Agg -has- included a doxxer, but said doxxer was called out both by themselves and the community.66.87.78.142 (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Lifestyled didn't dox anyone. I saw the original posts. I saw the evidence he withheld. He did everything possible not to give this guy's dox but rather dug too deep when revealing someone who claimed to be in the gaming industry for 10 years was actually some college kid who had a one year internship. Also one person opposed to Gamergate doing something that's Gamergate's bread and butter doesn't somehow cancel out Gamergate's guilt. He says he fucked up and owned up to it. No one in Gamergate apologizes for what they do.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Notice that at no point did I say that, in any way, justified GG's behavior. I felt I kinda made it incredibly clear I'm not on GG's side with my post. I was responding to this claim:

"No one in Gamergate has been doxxed (certainly not to the extent or maliciousness") by people critical of Gamergate"

Which is, I'm sorry, false. It's completely possible to point out that GG is shitty without trying to claim that nothing negative has ever happened to them, and everyone who has ever disagreed with them is sinless. My main thrust is that, in combating GG's dishonesty, we don't engage in our own.72.12.220.26 (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

"Gabrielaknight"[edit]

rw user:Tarc is not wp user:Tarc[edit]

[6] despite claims on User:Tarc, it appears to be a gator having "fun". (Twitter @tarc0917 does appear to be the WP one.) - David Gerard (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

So why didn't you block him like I did?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe because we don't block people for millenia for off-RW activities, pinhead. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

If it's someone impersonating someone else then that kind of shows it's not someone we want around.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Then open a Coop case, which is standard procedure for instituting a lifetime ban. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Keen to lose your sysop powers again are you Ryulong? Tielec01 (talk) 07:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

If someone's signed up here to impersonate someone else to attack them, why wouldn't a block be useful? Why is this always an issue? Why the wheel warring? And why is it always you two when this happens?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The only times we have ever blocked somebody for impersonation is when they tried to impersonate somebody on RW itself. Otherwise, if we knew they were impersonating somebody outside of RW, we simply gave them a forced re-name. Gooniepunk (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

If you want it to stop being an issue, stop abusing your ability to block. Tielec01 (talk) 07:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

David not slapping out a long ban ought have been a decent clue as to what NOT to do.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 08:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

He wasn't even going to usurp the name. Paravant eventually did that. Why the constant unblocking though even when it's not several hundred millennia or several years? Why go through all this wheel warring just to say "Ryulong isn't doing things the way we like ever"?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Sheesh Ryulong, what are you trying to achieve by arguing like this? "it's not someone we want around" is not sufficient reason for banning people around here. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:39, 23 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Would "An account created with malicious and fraudulent intent is an account we don't want around" work better for you? - David Gerard (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Depends? Exactly how awful were the malicious/fraudulent things they did? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:57, 23 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Wikipedia user Tarc got banned from Wikipedia after tangling with gators. Someone (evidently a gator) created a Tarc account claiming to be wp user Tarc. It was not. There is no possible purpose for this impersonation other than malice. Do try to keep the fuck up - David Gerard (talk) 23:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Sheesh, I'm not omnipresent all over the interwebs. <Jamaican accent>Chillax, man.</Jamaican accent> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 05:38, 24 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Don't invoke my name as a justification for bad ideas. I'm all for an indefinite on the jokester, I was just busy at the time. Ryulong's action was entirely correct IMO - David Gerard (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

As you made the original post and took no action, please forgive me for thinking you were actually following RW policy. I shall try not to make that leap of faith again. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 12:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

There's no obligation to a particular action (as you seem to now be presuming), so the absence of it isn't useful data. You were wrong, deal with it - David Gerard (talk) 12:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You're a joke and an embarrassment to the wiki David. Tielec01 (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll contribute something other than talk page chat eventually - David Gerard (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

rw user tarc is now wp user tarc[edit]

FYI, I have recreated the account as my own, as confirmed by the twitter url (it wouldn't let me link it) on the web page. Thanks to the handful here that utilized common sense here as opposed to the other handful of...to borrow a term from one of them...pinheads. 21:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

per [7] - David Gerard (talk) 23:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Honeypot?[edit]

Long time reader, first time checking this talk page... uh. Is this real or like a honeypot? Some comments here show signs of genuine mental health issues. Is this page here so you can get them help? If it is I'll kick in a donation. If it isn't you guys are enabling. Exploiting mental illness for free content or fighting against whatever is not cool. 172.98.67.18 (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

what?--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 19:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

My understanding: The people who comment on this article are a bit off. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

He's gaslighting. Ignore him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that's lame. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I'm pretty sure this BoN is one of the assholes grave dancing about me. IP allocates too web hosting service that's banned on Wikipedia for the next two years and was used to do boring vandalism to get my goat.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Did he get your goat or do you still have it?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm starting an indiegogo to get Liam Neeson to get my goat back.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Snark[edit]

I wish there was more snark on this page. I actually read through the whole thing and I feel it's as dry as any page on Wikipedia. Withoutaname (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You laid on the snark so thick that it eliminated factual statements. There needs to be a balance and that's not done by replacing "Gamergate began because Eron Gjoni enlisted 4chan to be his personal army against Zoe Quinn" with "Gamergate's mad because the industry doesn't kowtow to cis het white boys anymore".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Note that this applies even though the second form is completely the case - David Gerard (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

BOYS?! I think you mean men, damnit! What kind of sissy blah blah blah blah blah blah wombat blah blah Narky Sawtooth

(Nyarnyar~) 21:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

/r/kotakuinaction/[edit]

o noez were being trold Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 22:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I wonder who Villiam could be.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

2 suggestions: Fall of Gamergate / Video about Anita Sarkeesian[edit]

I just read the entire article. I was sure I had read in the past year but it seems far more exhaustive and documented than what I remember. (Either that or I'm confusing it with elevatorgate.) I noticed I cannot make edits, and it's probably a good thing that this article is protected. Anyway, here are a few thoughts I had while reading up on this.

I'd recommend the fall of Gamergate be divided (or subdivided) in to the section. The first part is documenting the descent of GamerGate, but the second part (starting with "In the end") is really a retrospective on the entire issue, and perhaps should be labeled as such. As I was reading I was not expecting the point of the section to change so suddenly. (This is clearly a minor, cosmetic change.)
Can we embed YouTube videos? Because there is a fantastic video that summarizes everything that happened to Anita from posting her kickstarter to the end of the fundraising which might be eye opening for some people who weren't aware of the timeline of her harassment. It would help to add variety and break up the blocks of text. If not, perhaps I can get more images to help break up the wall of text on this page. (BTW: I'd recommend watching the entire series).

Great work. Thanks. ShawnTheHumanist (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit to add a third point: Also, should we list resources of being who have spoken out and some of their better articles from a gamer/nerd point of view. Examples:

ShawnTheHumanist (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

A lot of these suggestions for new content is covered on Timeline of Gamergate. However the retrospective bit can be easily incorporated.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)