MadJackalope

I'll give it that some nice sharp satire is good. The Daily Show always brings out some pretty great bits. I don't think most of twitter users really climb to that level of wit or insightfulness. I did not say that, or argue that. That is not my position. I strongly disagree with that statement that MLK lost. Shit is real bad, but I think it's disingenuous to say that he didn't help make some progress. I also get annoyed when people say this kind of thing because it's often used as an excuse for apathy and not giving a shit or being involved in making things better. Cynicism is easy as fuck. Also I'm not saying that everything is equivalent. We're talking in huge generalizations here so it doesn't even make sense to make a statement like that because there's a vast number of possible statements involved. This is a case by case basis thing, so I'm only speaking to a principle not a specific comparison. Also people don't have to be saints to make things better. MLK had his own skeletons in the closet. Gandhi was into some reaaaaallly weird shit. Gandhi actually supported Hitler. Nelson Mandela got in trouble for... like bombing little kids. Humans do a lot of bad stuff, nobody's perfect. I think actually what she was doing was tone policing. I'm saying that tone shouldn't be people's primary focus. Which is the opposite of tone policing... But yeah people are allowed to have their reactions, that's completely fair. Look I said it was hacky, I know that. I'm not a dummy. But if I make a reference to Tolstoy or Dorothy Day it's simply not going to hit as well because it's less accessible and also less potent an image. I believe in direct action. I believe it must be carried out in a peaceful and love filled manner. Stirring the shit pot is not the end goal and is counter productive to the cause. Direct action causes unrest but it gets shit done. Ad Hominem screeds do not push the conversation forward. What's more important, progress, or one's self righteousness?

Oy vey, that is cringe inducing. Maybe I'm also way Oi that is cringe inducing. Maybe I'm just really old fashioned, and I really don't give a fuck what people do with their weddings but I'm not a fan of themed weddings. Then again, who the fuck cares what I think right? It's their wedding. As for me, I would like to get married on the moon. If that is not possible then on top of a mountain. It will be closer to the moon.

This feels a lot like my roommate and I. I graduated college, and moved back to the side of the country I grew up in, but still super far away from where I grew up and everyone I know. I convinced an old high school friend to move out with me so I could afford rent and not be alone. We joked that we should consider getting some kind of civil union thing going on. I actually do feel it's prepared me for more serious relationships. But we're often a little on edge. It doesn't help that we share a 1 bedroom, 1 bath. I really really hope we can get a 2br place soon because it's starting to drive me nuts. I'm introverted but also learned to force myself out into social situations and so I've sort of started making more friends but not really yet. My roommate doesn't really know anyone but me in town and I'm sometimes worried about him. I'm sort of considering grad school just so I can find some new friends, hahaha I'm actually thinking about getting a rift soon maybe, for "career" reasons (that's my excuse at least). Until then there's always Second Life!!! Also speaking of Second Life and weird social games, has anyone heard of Worlds? It's a weird experimental MMO from the 90s that's still going, if you can manage to get it to run on your computer. I think I will email the Thumbs about this.

First I want to say I've really enjoyed reading this conversation. There's a lot of great points being brought up. Yeah, I'd say so. I think if subjectivity is unavoidable then having as much information as possible is good. I'd say if we accept that subjectivity, then games journalism should even be more personal than it is. That's a good point. It's impossible to not be a consumer completely but I do think there is a difference in mindset. This is also probably a personal definition, but I look at things going like this. Creators -->Critics ---> Consumers. It's a spectrum of involvement and ideally I would like everyone to be Creators. Criticism is a form of creativity itself when done right, and consumerism blurs into criticism. Levels of engagement. And this is a personal ethical/aesthetic ideal, it's not really realistic, but I would encourage people to always engage in their medium more and more. That's not so much about the literal "did this person buy this thing" or "did this person get paid to write this thing" and more "did this person engage in the thing". I just want to say I like this post, and the connection between moral and practical questions. I think that's actually an argument for getting rid of the whole traditional "review" structure to begin with. I mean reviews still exist in things like music and movies, but as the Thumbs have said the model that games uses evolved out of the Consumer Electronics Product Review and that isn't really a good framework for discussing art. I think you bring up some extra factors that could effect people's writing and I think those things are probably things worth mentioning. If there's one thing that is underdisclosed in the industry it's probably people's console preferences. I mean at least in so far as how big an effect fanboyism and the "console wars" bullshit gets in the way of people's writing. Baby nintendo games are lame! I've got to say that I really don't trust journalists to compartmentalize themselves. I don't trust myself to! Also I don't generally read reviews so maybe I'm the wrong person to comment on that in way. I mostly go off trailers and what I hear in the air.

Mario Kart is almost getting me to get a Wii U. Almost. First I need to catch up on the games I never got around to playing on Wii.

I have a bad feeling I'm going to sound like a hack, but yes I do think that is what we ought to be doing. I'm not 100% pacifist, and I understand why people are hurt and scared, but I also believe that we have to do the right thing. This is going to make me sound like a hack, but MLK was actively stalked and harassed by the motherfucking FBI and he didn't crack. Reformers and activists have gone before us who have experienced much greater hardships and they didn't lower themselves to tit-for-tat. I also understand there are legitimate arguments against strict non-violence, there are times where that sort of thing can be manipulated to preserve the status quo, but I think it's still a pretty good default policy. And yes, I understand that using the language of non-violent resistance may seem a little overblown when talking about people bickering on twitter, but the attitude of peace is still one I think is fundamental to both situations.

If you see my earlier post, I said that any kind of journalism is subjective because humans are by nature subjective beings, and there's no point in trying to pretend we're objective. I am against the Kotaku ban, and I think it doesn't really address the real issue, which is disclosure. I also agree this sort of stuff should apply to kickstarters and other things of that nature. Also patronage is a storied 2-way relationship but a significant part of it is definitely about the patron championing their patronized. It's complex, some of it is the patron championing their own ideals through the vessel of their patronized, some of it is about supporting a person they believe in, some of it is just about good PR and supporting causes that will give them brownie points (Like how the Koch Brothers and Bank of America donated a lionshare of the Boston Museum of Fine Art), some of it was just the economic system of the time.

As people have said the average movie goer does not call themselves a cinephile though, that's really just the most hardcore of the hardcore, and arguably a very specific subset of the really deep-in-it group. I think some of this is a function of games being a young and small industry. It's normal to go see a movie. Everyone watches movies. And not everyone reads books but everyone has to read books in school and stuff, so as a result it's not unusual to be a person who reads books or watches movies. But games aren't that way, though I think it's largely changed in the last 5 years with mobile gaming. Personally I dislike the self identification with one's consumption, because it seems to overly limiting. I hadn't thought of that actually. Yeah definitely not a good idea to just use this as a way of distancing ourselves from the problem. I think a lot of this argument from tone though. I know that sometimes people say things and it comes off patronizing or corny and they're just trying to communicate something, so I think it's better to try and focus on the content of the message rather than the tone. I think your interpretation of what he was saying was a little uncharitable. Also how can you not say Phil Fish is "perennially highly-strung"? I fucking respect the hell out of Phil, I personally empathize with his frustration, and I love his work, but the dude is going to bust a blood vessel someday and die. He's not a stable personality. That's some of why he's so good I'm sure but I don't think it's an inaccurate way to describe him. Also is the title of that Slate Article a reference to Rilke's "Letters to a Young Poet"? That would be interesting. Rilke is cool. It's understandable why people respond like that under pressure, but that doesn't mean it's the best way to go about things. Maybe I'm just too much of a pacifist or something but I believe that turning the other cheek, meeting violence with love is the best policy. It's understandable. People are hurting and fearful, and fear leads to hate but people can't give into that hate because it just makes shit worse. I was reading this article earlier this week by a former neo-nazi and he talked about his experience and why he changed, and it wasn't because people made a really good Baldy Zinger on twitter. So what's more important to you? Is it more important that things get better, that peace is made and people are changed, or is well-fed self righteous satisfaction more important? Dude does look like a Red Pill Magician though.

I would agree that it has a stance. I don't like the term "take a side" because I find that to be too conflict oriented rather than discussion oriented but I essentially agree. I totally agree it's not a conspiracy and also not a thing that's just the games industry. I don't think it's intentional but I also think that doesn't mean we shouldn't pay attention to it and try to decrease it's influence. Most systemic prejudice isn't intentional. People don't wake up in the morning a pass laws that have far reaching and disproportionate effects on minorities because they're card carrying Klan members. Stuff like Redlining ain't sexy enough for the media to talk about but it's probably the single biggest driving force of racism in America, and it came about not through specific outward expressions of hatred but rather through the effects of human social dynamics. Outward forms of hatred are easy to fight. Racist skinheads are the least of our worries, because they're intentional and not going to attract any real substantial following. It's the pernicious effect of systemic problems that we should really be concerned with, precisely because that kind of stuff just goes under the radar most of the time and it's very difficult to stop. And as I've said time and time again I don't think it's a black and white issue. I think it's a human nature and there are pros and cons to it, but I do think the games industry could probably do with some reflection on the issue. There ought to be a greater fostering of openness in the industry, much in the same way that people have been trying to do with female game devs etc. I think what makes it difficult is that in general there is an insularity, even to indie circles that you don't see in most other industries. Film is a whole lot more open, you have people from all sorts of walks of life involved, while in games, even if you have a bright pink mohawk, you're probably still a geek. People self identify so strongly in games, people define themselves as "gamers". So fucking weird when you think about it, no other medium really does that, except in the really really deep snob circles. So yeah it's a human problem, but it's a particularly big problem in games. Actually that probably wouldn't be a bad idea right? Also, I understand why sequels are such a thing in games, but I still find that weird. I hope as generic engines get more powerful, we'll see less of that be a thing to begin with. Anyway I think money is part of an investment but Patreon is a lot more than that. You're a patron. That's a role that holds a huge amount of significance in the Art World. A patron isn't just a customer, they're a champion to a cause. I'd argue being a "consumer" is also a problem. This whole self-identification with the product is itself a problem. I would like journalists to be critics, not consumers. Games criticism is only sort of coming into being a thing, rather than just a way of selling Consumer Electronics, you know? This is stuff that other mediums figured out a long time ago. Ideally no money should change hands. You pay for something, you want it to be good. You're paid to say something is good, you'll say it's good. That's why most real film criticism happens in academia, because it removes profit motive. Anyway I think that's an ideal, not necessarily achievable, and so the most important thing is disclosure.

That's fair.

Did you read everything I wrote? Because my point wasn't that people can't patronize game devs. Read the entire argument. I apologize, that was in poor taste. I should have known better. I was reading an article today about how police culture is created in an insular fashion and it reminded me of that. Not a good thing to bring up. My point was that opaqueness and insularity are not good especially in media. I hope you all can forgive me. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that being a patron of someone means that you're invested in their success. And if you read the entire argument the point is NOT that journalists shouldn't be patrons. My point was that being biased is an inevitable part of the human condition, and therefore people should be open about it. Also I think Polygon and Kotaku have pretty much done enough policy wise at this point. If anything I think Kotaku went too far. I think it would be better for them to allow people to patronize people but just have to disclose it. I think this writer had a pretty fair take on things

I basically agree with you. I also feel like I'm basically done with this Quinn stuff specifically because the things I find most disheartening about all this are really more in the realm of the personal. If she's not a nice person, she's not a nice person, and that's that. I do think there are some things that have been brought up by this issue that are worth discussing. Wasn't the inciting event a blog post, not 4chan posts? The FYC guys seem not totally on the level to me and I don't like them, but I also really hate it when people just wholesale discount another person's opinion by labeling it as something else. That's a genetic fallacy. Saying "you believe that because you're a misogynist" or "you believe that because you're a communist" or "you believe that because you're a kid" are all scummy things to say because they are labeling and belittling people by their labels rather than engaging them and their opinions. It's bad rhetoric, and it's not very fair. I mean I think this is really the fundamental issue. I went over this in my latest post to the journalistic integrity thread somewhat. I think that this Quinn stuff is really just another example of how media is changing and how we understand journalism and writing "ought to be". Old authoritative publications versus the free wheelin blogosphere. I don't see the point in looking down on LPers as "non creators" anymore than I feel that way about journalists. I don't personally like LP stuff, and I find the focus on consumerism a little creepy and fetishistic, but I also recognize that people can be creative not only in creating a new thing but also in their ability to comment and criticize a thing. I mean talking about video games on the internet, I'd much rather people actually make video games, but I also think that criticism and discussion has it's place. I have more experience in film industry stuff so maybe I'm speaking more from that perspective, but in my experience this is also a huge problem in the games industry and perhaps more so because it's a small industry. Tools are free and easy to find, but also there's such an overwhelming static that it takes a lot (IE a big marketing budget or good press coverage) for something to rise above it. This is a huge problem in film these days that's kind of coming to a head. You're either a gigantic mult-million dollar film, or a super super tiny film that gets lucky on Youtube. There's a really good, and free documentary talking about some of these problems in digital media called Press.Pause.Play, where people actively debate this issue back and forth. The doc is generally more optimistic on the issue but it does give a good scope of the issues that are being dealt with. There are less gatekeepers and the medium is more democratic but there's also the problem that individuals get lost in the fray and so the only people who can consistently break through all that noise are those who wield the power of multi-national corporations. In the 1980s 51 different companies owned 90% of all media in America. Now 6 do. On one hand things are getting more accessible, and on the other hand power is concentrating in fewer and fewer people's hands. And that's not an opinion either. That's an empirical statistic. Media conglomerates hold more sway than ever. And some of this is actually in part due to the lowered barriers to entry because with the people who are most able to take advantage of those innovations are also the people who already held power. (or alternatively one could theorize that the further concentration of power is the death throes of the Old Media Empire as it tries to wall itself up against the inevitable Indie Utopia, but I think we're just going to have to wait and see) There are legitimate quandries that have to be dealt with in digital media, (and I'd argue society at large) and "It's now what you know, it's who you know" really does have an effect. That's pretty fucked up. also I was speaking about him being quick to judge my internal motives. I think it's far too easy to just dismiss someone they disagree with as a troll, rather than actually engage with another human being on a difficult topic. Also just wanted to say I finished that Cliffy B post on Anita and that was pretty good. Actually sort of surprised he wrote that, but I don't know much about the guy and I find that I'm actually surprised by him more than not.

Okay so this is carried over from the other thread. To answer your question about it being a class versus peeps being tight issue. The issue of class, race, or other power structures is that are all fundamentally founded on ingroup outgroup dynamics. "Peeps being tight" is just a micro example of a macro phenomena. Class issues, race issues, gender issues stem from the involuntary enforcement of ingroup outgroup dynamics. It's not just that they're related, it's that one is the foundation of the other. Social cliques are the basis of social classes. Also in the last couple of days it seems that Kotaku has become more transparent about stuff and I think that's good. Overall I think the issue here is that these groups haven't been transparent about where they're coming from. And that actually segues into something I was thinking about earlier today. So one of the more glaring examples of there being too tight a relationship has been the Patreon stuff. The fact that a journalist is a patron to something is OF COURSE a huge conflict of interest. If you back something you're invested in it's success.... But then again we see that modern political journalist also have causes they support. They still donate to poltical parties. And that reminds me of those early conversations bloggers were having way back in the early days of political blogs. What does it mean to be objective? This was the position I came to. Objectivity is impossible. Humans are not objective, we are subjective beings bound by the limitations of our individual perspectives. Therefore, rather than striving for and presenting ourselves as objective political givers of news truthiness, we should seek to be transparent in our biases so that viewers and readers can understand where we are coming from when they consume our opinions. Well at the same time I do think there is something to be said towards striving towards greater objectivity and the last decade of blogging has done a good deal to weaken my faith in that position but I think it's still probably the most pragmatic position and I think judging on your discussions on game reviews it's probably not too far off the mark. People shouldn't pretend to be objective when they aren't, BUT they should be honest about their own subjectivity. And that's the thing that Kotaku etc weren't doing. People were trying to shut down dissent, yelling down people (like that sexual assault victim I mentioned), hack attempts, refusing to come forward or be transparent (and a couple of tweets from the unofficial of the main editor of Kotaku was not really as transparent as they should have been). There's a distinct "behind closed doors" vibe that was going on, the same kind of ingroup defensiveness that prevented Darren Wilson's name being given for a week. This kind of attitude doesn't keep anyone safe it just feeds flame wars and the Streisand effect, and makes people stupider and angrier. I don't think journalists need to be "objective" but I would like them to be open and honest. So I guess the point I'm making here goes like this. Games industry is cliquey and really tight right now. There's a lot of ingroup outgroup dynamics (which are the foundation of classism, racism, sexism, etc) that I find gross. This isn't journalistic integrity, but it is related, because when you have groups that are too tight and invested in mutual success there is a lack of objectivity. Objectivity is not itself possible though so at least I'd like journalists to be honest and transparent about their biases and where they're coming from. There is no Word of God, Walter Cronkite is dead.

Looks like we've moved this stuff to another thread, so I'll reply over there I'm trying to be honest and sincere here. I would hope you would give me the benifit of the doubt and actually engage with me on something instead of impugning my motives. The anonymity of the internet makes it very easy for people to be jerks to each other, and it makes it very easy to dismiss other people as faceless stormtroopers rather than as individual beings. I personally feel pretty conflicted about all this and I wish people weren't so quick to judge.

I like the chunky rocks.

I think it's related, but not quite the same as FMV stuff. While I didn't get really into PC games when I was younger I did play Myst which also has a similar pre-rendered thing going on. I think one of the things that makes FMV pre-rendered interesting is you could do some really crazy stuff that's not possible on normal hardware. Same is true for pre-rendered still images, though anything that could be done on still could also be done FMV these days really. I remember that in order to even have rippling waves in Myst they had to pull graphical tricks on the pre-rendered images instead of actually animating and rendering as an FMV because even rendering it before hand would have been too taxing for the computers they were using at the time. I never actually played the Journeyman Project, but it seems interesting, in the same way that Myst sticks out in my mind as interesting. The lack of violence in Myst was particularly novel for it's time, and I think we're seeing a resurgence in 1st person adventure games with Gone Home and Silent Hill P.T. etc. I'm excited by that prospect. Myst was the only PC game my dad every bought. He was pretty old fashioned about violence in games, sort of a hippie type dude, and while I went on to play my fair share of run and guns, I do find that avenue interesting in game design.

I mean technically this whole Quinn thing isn't nepotism at all because nepotism is only family members. But it can be called, by the sociological definition of the word, favoritism.* Regardless of any sex stuff going on, the fact is games dev and journalist peeps are tight. I think it's more obvious in games because it's a small, young industry. I mean no one is really denying that there is an unhealthily close relationship between the two right? Hypothetically you take the whole Quinn thing off the table, and there's still a problem here, you know? The Quinn thing wouldn't even be the worst example of it, but the reason the shit hit the wall is 1) there are bigotted shitheads exist and 2) because the Streisand Effect. If Gjoni had gone through the proper channels, if Kotaku had addressed the issue officially, if people hadn't constantly escalated the rhetoric then things might have not blown so out of proportion. That's the thing, this is misogyny but it's not just misogyny it's also a lot of poor decisions and mob mentality. And if instead of being self righteous about it, people actually tried to foster discussion and openness, then maybe things wouldn't have gotten so toxic. That is asking a lot, but I would like to argue for a rhetoric of peace and non-violence even in the face of fascism and hatred. My point is that the Quinn thing might be an example of a real problem the industry that should be dealt with, and that the way to avoid all this drama shit is to deal with this stuff out in the open, in a mature fashion, that doesn't just give more ammo to the trolls. It may feel good to make snarky comments about fedora tipping virgins but it does nothing to actually move the conversation forward. If that's even possible at this point. *and I'd argue that favortism is not more specific than racial or class issues, I'd say it's actually fundamental to all those issues because fundamentally all those inequalities stem from "I like people in my tribe, and I do not like people who are not in my tribe"

I think that's ignoring a significant amount of privilege in the situation. People who grow up in rich, affluent cities have better access to work and the capital that makes industry possible. People who come from better off positions are better equipped to make sacrifices like unpaid internships (the majority of which are illegal these days). People who grow up in certain demographics (I.E. Whites) are better equipped to make connections because of the way our society has ingrained systemic bias. This is precisely the problem hitting the shit fan right now with the Warner Music Group lawsuit: http://www.newsweek.com/unpaid-internships-warner-music-group-warner-interns-lawsuits-257025 And yeah this happens in every job ever, in all industries, and certainly people don't get hired without qualification at all, except in a few minor cases. And yes there are also arguments for "company culture" etc. There is some grey area here. I understand why people hire based upon personal friendship or familiarity with the person and only an idiot would refuse to network but the entire thing is a double edged sword which also is responsible for the problems we face with systemic discrimination and the entire "ingroup" "outgroup" dynamic. I don't have an answer for it. I don't personally know how to deal with it but to ignore it as a problem is classist, and privilege denial. Like I said, I myself benefit from this kind of stuff. I know people who are I believe more talented me, waste away because of poverty, or racial discrimination, or other forms of hierarchical oppression. I don't know what the answer to the problem is but I want to do something better. Strongly agreed. The entire "gamer culture" thing and over identification with creators is exactly one of my gripes.

I like these first person adventure games. It's a cool evolution in adventure games. Like Gone Home, and now that Silent Hill P.T. thingy.

A couple of things. One, yeah, probably spending too much time worrying about stuff. Second, on a personal level, I am more disappointed when people I agree with do bad things than when people I disagree with do bad things. I admit that is not rational. Third, as I said the thing I'm finding troublesome here is not the alleged event itself, it's the way the industry is built upon hierarchies of power that promote injustice and inequality. That is privileges of gender, cliques, and class. Nepotism is at the fundamental root of privilege because it is the preference of "those Like Me" against the "Other". [-relevant wiki article-] It is "ingroup" "outgroup" dynamics. Yeah, I'm thinking you're right about the Nathan Grayson stuff, and I certainly don't think people should be speculating on those details. Agreed. They also lost a class action lawsuit in the 2000s for racial discrimination in their hiring practices.... so... yeah good PR move for Coke on the MLK thing. Don't slut shame, and don't virgin shame. That's a shitty thing to do.

Hey hey! Just saw this new game that got greenlit that uses pre-rendered graphics FMV, and it looks real spoopy Basically you're a security guard manning cameras in a Chuckie Cheese overnight, and you have limited power resources to juggle while trying to watch your back. Very smart use of limited resources and also it has that sweet pre-rendered look.

I actually feel like it's a lot like the Chelsea Manning issue with WikiLeaks. Chelsea didn't release her information in the safest way, she just kind of let it all out, all at the same time, with no discrimination. It's awful what has happened to her, a complete injustice, and I think she shouldn't have been jailed and I think she was trying to do the right thing, but I also see why some people who support transparency in government would also think that the way she handled it was bad. If you look at what Edward Snowden did, he learned from her mistakes. He's withheld a large amount of the information, and carefully sorted it, and he distributed it through a respectable journalistic source, and made sure he had all his stuff together before he did it. But I think one reason he could do that is because he had the hindsight of what happened to Manning. So while I don't think Manning is a bad person, I do think there are ways their execution sucked. And I don't know much about the Gjoni guy, his twitter has been hacked and he appears to be a native Spanish speaker, so it's all really murky. But when I actually checked out his original ZoePost website I was surprised by the content because there wasn't the vitriol and ex-bashing I would have expected, though I admit I only skimmed it. He actually specifically says on there that he does not want it to hurt the efforts of feminism in games or Social Justice stuff. Maybe he's lying. For sure his way of doing things was dumb, and ineffective. I don't mean to be throwing accusations around, I'm really just trying to process stuff and discuss it with people. The Wizardchan stuff feels wrong to me. From what I can tell there was very little initial backlash, just two anon posters on some obscure board posting about it, and there were screenshots of other users actually telling them to shut up. And looking at new stories there were Wizardchan users saying that they just wanted to be left alone and that they didn't care about the issue. I've seen some people suggest it was the scum over at ChrisChanWiki who set it up just so they could watch people tear each other to shreds, which I think actually makes sense to some degree. It reminds me a lot of that "racist twitter backlash" against the multi-cultural Coke ad a couple of months back. Everyone I know was sharing it, and it was always in the context of "Fucking racists keep bashing this ad on twitter!" But when I actually checked the #boycottCoke hashtag, it was just a bunch of people talking about how shitty the racists were, and no actual people seriously talking about boycotting Coke. And all the news articles I found kept showing the exact same 5 or so racists tweets, all from some stupid racist in the middle of nowhere who had like 12 followers. Yeah 5 racists tweets is too many but every story was framing it as some kind of massive backlash when I don't know anyone had made a deal about it, until the posts got made. And what was the effect of this "backlash". A Coke advertisment went super viral. Which I find hugely disturbing. Obviously we can't prove stuff, but every PR and Marketing department is trying to find the best ways to get people to share ads, and by framing it as a social justice issue, it feels like they successfully hijacked people's ideals to sell carbonated sugar water. As if Coke actually gives a shit about social justice right? Like seriously they're one of the biggest sponsors for FIFA, the organization that was basically bribed to put the World Cup in Qatar, a modern slave state where migrant works are held against their will and forced to live and work in desperate unsafe conditions. The same company that has been responsible for the violent repression of unions in Colombia. Actually I think what I'm trying to do is frame this issue as not being binary. I think most people are trying to make it an "Us Good Guys versus Them Bad Guys" but I think it's much more difficult than that. I also agree that simply taking this position does not mean creating a false equivalence. I don't know how it's possible to improve the conversation though. I guess I'm hoping to have a good conversation here because I like the Idle Thumbs peeps, and in general things are definitely doing better here, but even then I don't know what we're doing. I guess I'm just seeking a way to express my thoughts, hopefully in a non-hostile environment, and also see that it is possible to have a conversation without personal attacks or wild assumptions being made. That's a purely emotional response though and I don't know if that really furthers the conversation though. What does it mean to further this conversation anyway? At it's root it's a personal issue. It's not something any of us can really discuss meaningful because none of us actually know anything worth knowing. Actually the inciting event isn't so much what worries me. I mean I don't really think that the issue is "journalistic integrity" per se. Rather what really concerns me is that this kind of drama is such a big blow up in the first place. The fact is the games industry is filled with high school cliquey bullshit and I don't like that. And nepotism is such a huge issue with the games industry, and that's something that I feel really weird about. I mean I finally got a job, and I got in part because I knew someone on the team. I've applied to a lot of jobs and not heard back because of that lack of personal connection. On one hand I understand why that's a thing. It's not even a thing exclusive to the games industry, it's all over, all kinds of industries, but games, especially indie games, is such a small industry that it's a much smaller club and it plays a really big role. That's actually something Zoe Quinn talked about in one of the chat logs. She talked about how the games industry isn't a meritocracy, and how things are really shitty and she kind of hoped that she could change things, but that she doesn't want it to end up changing her. There's a line she said about "once you get more than 2 people involved there is always this shitty power dynamics going on". That's the thing that makes me feel concerned about the games industry as a whole, is how personal relationship, power, and hierarchy is such an unfair influence on things. This stuff is rampant in the industry and it's Doritos and Press Releases as Articles, and miles and miles of advertising and marketing marketing marketing. I don't believe in Doritos. I believe in justice though and so this Quinn stuff feels a bit like betrayal. I mean not personal betrayal, obviously, who gives a fuck about some random dude on the internet, but I mean it's disheartening to confront the possibility that any attempt at changing the system will result in the system changing you. That is perhaps a touch fatalistic there. I don't know the people involved, I don't have the ability to ascertain greater truth, and I don't have the ability to do anything about this. I hope things get better, and in so far as this issue is exemplary of the problems in the games industry I will try to make things better. Still feel weird about the nepotism thing in so far as I'm guilty but I'll try and do my best to do the right thing, and love the people around me, and be fair and open. I guess I just urge everyone to try and treat one another like decent human beings as well as we can.

That does unfortunately seem to be the world we live in. Everyone is against the system until they become a part of it. I strongly hope that I can keep my ideals as time goes on. I worry that it is just human nature. But yeah seriously this Ferguson stuff is pretty fucked up.

I feel really conflicted about all this ZQ stuff. Perhaps because of the way I first found out about it. I rarely check my twitter but when I did I saw that Phil Fish was back on. So I checked his page and there was a post of him lambasting someone. I checked it out and it was apparently someone who said that they had been sexually harrassed. By Zoe Quinn. Everyone dogpiled on him and told him he was human scum and a terrible person. This was before all the ZQ stuff really hit the fan, about 6 days ago. I actually had to check a cached page of the guy because he deleted his tweet after everyone gave him so much shit. He seems like a decent guy. He seems to be pretty involved in promoting greater involvement with female game devs in the industry too. Everyone shit on him real hard and he apologized. I feel like people are taking sides because they see all this stuff as "Us Versus Them". Black and white, binary. Tribal warfare. Hate. But I don't think that's how things are. There's a lot of shit heads out there saying bad misogynistic things. There are also people who are actively suppressing information and refusing to deal with this stuff because they think that if they admit any chink in the armor it will somehow disprove feminism or give ground to the trolls. I believe in feminism, and I consider myself a feminist. I don't think that just because one person hypothetically does something wrong, and also calls themselves a feminist that somehow disproves feminism, or somehow disproves that the game industry has issues with gender that need to be worked on. I don't know if ZQ sexually harassed that guy, or if all this journalistic ethics stuff is actually true. Things are really foggy right now. But whatever the truth is, I don't think it changes the importance of encouraging greater engagement in the games community and discouraging misogyny and hate of all kinds. Here's kind of a weird personal thing. The day before I read about the ZQ sexual harassment stuff, I went to a classic video game's convention. I don't really go to conventions very often but a guy I know invited me. I left feeling really weird. Because on one hand I saw a lot of cool stuff. There was a table set up for Atari demakes, and a section with a bunch of old Apple computers running old games. There was also a company there that had booth babes which made me cringe. And there was lots of pandering to the kind of consumerist "gamer culture" BS that I personally can't stand. There was this mix of manchild things, and neato cool things. And I feel like that about this too. On one hand I strongly believe in the ideals of feminism and especially want to see that acted out in the games industry, and yet I'm sick to my stomach when I see people dogpile on someone who just admitted, and seemingly with some shame and reservation, to being sexually harassed. I'm also sick to my stomach the more I learn about the Wizardchan fiasco from last year that Quinn was involved in, that seemed to be used as a tool to further a personal career. That's all pretty foggy too. Why are people like this? Maybe I'm just asking a stupid question here but why do people have to be so shitty to each other? Where the fuck is some human decency? Like I said, I don't know what's going on, but I don't like how everyone is acting. The games industry is too cliquey. People are acting like they're still in high school.

Ooooh check this out. This looks really neato from an adventure game perspective: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/139513174/contradiction