Gamergate is a controversial movement on the internet to bring ethics to gaming journalism that has gained attention in the media because of allegations of harassment made by female developers.
Also before you go and take some crap off the internet and call it a 'hate movement', just remember that Kotaku recently in a court case under oath admitted that it was a movement about journalistic integrity.

Due to the nature of the issue, I've linked news articles from reputable sources that are not involved with the 'GamesJournoPros' list and that have backed up their article with facts. That means no Wikipedia because the authors are biased as fuck (Ryulong) and nothing from Kotaku, Gawker and Polygon.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/04/gamergate-a-closer-look-at-the-controversy-sweeping-video-games/

If you're going to discuss, link neutral articles please. I feel like the article above is fair.

Whelp forgot to link other articles:

http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/25/gamergate-an-issue-with-2-sides/
http://www.usgamer.net/articles/lets-talk-about-gamergate-and-journalism

Huh. I've always heard of Gamergate, had no idea what it was though. Thanks for this. 9Gag made it sound like it's the worse movement ever created, so I was never sure if it was something good or bad. They were making complaints about censorship ruining games, I think.

http://dollars-bbs.org/games/res/1411154566.html

If I may... I wouldn't call that original article very neutral. IT makes accusations and uses terms like "radical feminist."

http://youtu.be/mLNZFWR0Q8M

This is perhaps the most neutral take on the matter I have seen, and really does go to great lengths to talk about ethics and it's role in journalism, going as far to ask a professor and lawyer with a specialty in ethics in journalism.

My personal take on #GamerGate is this. I have always, ALWAYS been for ethics in game journalism. I was on the front lines when Jeff Gertsmann got fired. At it's core, I agree with the #GamerGate issue.

What I hate is that #GamerGate is it's decentralized nature. There is no one person or thing that can say what #GamerGate is. #GamerGate likes to say "do your research" and if you do that, you get two answers. On one side, you see #GamerGate is a group of gamers concerned with ethics in gaming journalism on one side, and a group of gamers that are concerned with "SJWs" and "White Knights" on the other. And frankly ethics in game journalism and the merits and flaws of progressivism in gaming are kind of two different things. If you want more equal representation, or if you believe we already have enough equal representation in gaming, that's an opinion, and an opinion you cannot be persecuted for. It has little to do with ethics.

My problem here, is that since #GamerGate has no centralized power or authority, it has become an umbrella for people who are doing bad things that don't even necessarily synch up with #GamerGate's beliefs. The doxxing, rape threats, death threats, and identity theft are real, heck it's happened to me, and YES they have been attached to #GamerGate.

But here is the problem. ANYONE can use the term #GamerGate. As I said before, no centralized power. As a result, these people doing truly horrible things are essentially hiding underneath #GamerGate. They say they are part of #GamerGate and they say that things like running Anita Sarkeesian out of gaming or taking all politics out of gaming is what #GamerGate stands for. They hurt people in the name of #GamerGate.

But then when #GamerGate is criticized for the behavior of these individuals, we always get the response "that's not what #GamerGate stands for, those are just trolls." Then they go on to defend #GamerGate which in turns defends and empowers the people using the #GamerGate umbrella to do bad things.

But with no centralized power, who says that's now what #GamerGate is about? Without a person, a leader, an authority, a reference to say "this is what the movement is about" then when the trolls say "this is what #GamerGate is about" it's basically equally as valid as a sane and reasonable person saying "this is what #GamerGate is about." No one has the ability to tell them otherwise, because there is no authority to back up either claim.

As a result, we are in a sticky and kind of unfortunate situation. There are a group of gamers with real and valid concerns about ethics, and a group of gamers that are doing horrible things to other people, and they are benefiting from each other in a way they shouldn't. Because the people who are looking to do harm to others they disagree with use #GamerGate as an umbrella, any time criticism is laid upon them #GamerGate comes to their rescue, because #GamerGate is what is being criticized. Similarly, the sane people in #GamerGate benefit from the aura of fear that more violent #GamerGate members create, even if they don't want to, which makes people with contrary opinions keep their mouth shut, and ends the discussion in an authoritarian way. This, of course, causes a huge backlash, and soon there are claims of conspiracy, where there are none, and misogyny, where there is none.

To the outside observer, #GamerGate looks violent and sexist. #GamerGate tells people to do their research but that's the thing. Research is something you do after a first impression, and the first impression you get if you go on twitter shows a lot of people telling Anita Sarkeesian to die. For people who agree with Sarkeesian, like myself, its only natural that they feel like #GamerGate is a hate group.

But I've done my research and the conclusion I have come to is that the problem with #GamerGate isn't in ideology, it's in management. Although #GamerGate members like to pretend that potentially violent, sexist, and misogynist members of the #GamerGate movement don't exist, they do, and they are doing their damnedest to hijack it for their own means, and I would say they have succeeded.

There are real problems with ethics in game journalism, I have a laundry list of grievances I could give you. I just don't like that such outrage has been levied on Zoe Quinn when she didn't even get a review for her relationship, when in my opinion, the firing of Jeff Gertsmann, the GamePro Capcom ad scandal, the fact that most journalism outlets don't pay their writers, or give them benefits, and the fact that publishers routinely put pressure on outlets to change their review scores, DWARF this tiny scandal about a developer and her once boyfriend.

And I hate that that appears to be what we care about...

I also hate how Felicia Day got Doxxed after she simply wrote an article about how scared she was feeling. That was heartless. Perhaps the most dangerous thing to come out of this whole debacle is a movement of people who see the vulnerability of people affected by the violent debate, and exploit it for their own amusement.

Also... I'd like to note Yolo that your post presupposes that GamesJournosPros is some sort of cospiracy. It's really just a connection network in order to allow journalists to share sources. That sort of thing exists in all forms of journalism. Like, I write for a local newspaper and all the publications in the area have a BBS they use to share their leads so everyone can get coverage.

There are a lot of sites that are like that. http://www.gamespress.com/ for example requires you to be a game journalist to enter and discuss things on their forums, and it's all about showing leads.

There is a pretty big leap of logic assuming that just cause something is not in the public sphere that something illicit is going on. Heck, the Dollars aren't in the public sphere and we aren't doing anything all that illicit.

>>5 I'd agree with everything here. Even though it really shouldn't be true, it is. There's no spokesperson for this movement the same way there have been clear spokespeople for other stuff like this. Anyone can say anything they want and the good stuff isn't validated in any way.

Yeah, this is exactly what I would have posted if I had any reasonable writing skills, lol.

The problem with a movement with no leader is that it's perfectly invulnerable. You can't ever criticize it because it can always fall back on the statement "that's not what we are really about." That's because there's no one to say what they are really about. I can say #GamerGate is about gamers who really like building iron gates and since there is no leader there is no one to tell me I am wrong. If someone were to criticise my iron gates, I or anyone else could easily say "thats not what it's about" and suddenly the conversation breaks down.

Everything in this world has an authority to back up its claims. Even the kilogram has a single crystal silicon sphere to tell us what a kilogram is. #GamerGate by its very nature cannot be criticized because it is not defined and people are using this lack of definition to their own advantage.

Holy shit is this confusing. I'm afraid to look this up...

But this >>9 has so much truth.

Except that it's a poorly structured movement run by misogynistic people who don't want actual journalistic integrity, but rather want people not to touch their fun.

It's easy to write it off that way. But this is actually the reason why we never come to an understanding. I myself consider myself anti-#GamerGate... but that sounds like a black and white situation again. Let's put it this way. I consider myself not a part of them.

A big problem with #GamerGate is that they refuse to acknowledge that there are misogynistic hateful violent people in their midst. However, a big problem with everyone else is that they refuse to acknowledge that there are also #GamerGate members that AREN'T misogynistic.

You see, there's actually no "discussion" in most #GamerGate discussions because we aren't speaking as people. We are speaking as ideals. We have classified a group of people as the "other," the "enemy." It's not about coming to understand someone else's point of view anymore. It's about "winning." To everyone in #GamerGate, the "other" is the SJW conspiracy looking to take gaming away from "real gamers" by complaining about something that isn't an issue. To anti-#GamerGate, it's the violent hateful misogynistic cult that #GamerGate and their irrational hatred of anyone who isn't straight, white, and male.

DOES ANYONE REALIZE HOW FUCKING CRAZY BOTH OF THOSE POINTS OF VIEW SOUND!?!?

The first step to actually ending this dark time in gaming history is for both sides to come to understand each other. #GamerGate has to understand that they aren't spotless and that people using their movement have hurt a LOT of people in REALLY horrible ways, ways that are misogynistic and quite frightening. While anti-#GamerGate people need to recognize that there are actual problems with game journalism that have also hurt people in dangerous ways, even if they aren't necessarily the nonsense with The Quinnspiracy and Anita Sarkeesian. Cause... I mean jeez Anita is just a critic and Quinn is just an indie game dev.

Of course, the big roadblock here is what was mentioned before. It's hard to sit down and have a civil conversation, when there is a chance that by doing so you'll have your identity stolen, or somehow be made a pariah.

There was an inspiring story from a MAGfest #GamerGate panel, where a woman said she was attempting to have a civil discussion with #GamerGate members, and as a result she was put on a website as someone who had doxxed and harrassed someone, when she did nothing of the sort. When people resort to tactics like that, it ceases to become about ideology and instead becomes about winning at any cost, and there is no civil conversation that can be had with people who are willing to go to extremes simply to be right.

These are dark times...

The whole gamers gate issue, Both sides, it might be better if it didn't exist

>>13 Exactly. It's just a fuck fest at this point.

*jacking off motion*

At this point no one is happy. #GamerGate has gotten Kotaku and The Escapist to change their policies, but at the expense of alienating half the gaming community. Many game developers and celebrities have left or now feel uncomfortable. Felicia Day doesn't do as many events because of it. People have most their jobs for even having an opinion either way. Game projects have been canceled. Conventions have been delayed or shut down due to lack of security. And no one is happy. You bring up #GamerGate at a convention and no one, for or against, wants to talk about it. Everyone wants to remain in the world where all gamers are cool and like each other.

Heck even now a new gaming convention is struggling to get off the ground as the city they are in is requiring nearly three times the security of previous years and they specifically cited #GamerGate as the cause.

So while #GamerGate may have enacted a small bit of change they did so at the expense of the happiness of thousands. They burned down the house to kill a spider.

Yeah. I don't think anyone can say anyone is happier after #GamerGate. Gaming is just kind of a worse place now.:(

Gamergate was probably one of the worst things to happen since the crash

I was pretty mad about this whole situation back when it was starting up, but the simple fact is, it really is only a small event, it may seem large, but gaming as a whole hasn't changed, only the small culture involved in this little movement, and in the end, I'm gonna play what I want, with the people I want, and no one's gonna care. At least that's what I think.

>>20 (y)

^ above the shitpost (literally) you go

^^^^

^ above the shitpost (literally) you go