"Ethics and Journalistic Integrity"

[MadJackalope]

The Escapist has published some new journalistic ethics guidelines and a weird editorial to go with them. I don't understand the convoluted car metaphors, and I don't think it's because of me. Also, they try to play gatekeeper for some ill-defined notion of what constitutes a gamer which is just really bizarre to see in, like, a real publication that's trying to garner respect?

 

 

Is this paragraph actually implying that misogyny and the mistreatment of women is an integral part of why they enjoy games and that removing it would change the product irreversibly, or am I misreading them?

Geeze that corvette analogy is annoying. Why can't we have corvettes and camrys? Also did you know that the 2013 camry has a better 0-60 time than those old "muscle cars" from the 60s? I saw that in an article comparing older and modern tech. I think that's pretty interesting. 

But yeah, I don't see why we can't have a plurality. I kind of worry that pluralism is dying in America. People have been talking about how the internet as the effect of creating echo chambers that reinforce cultural stratification. On one hand I think that self grouping is inevitable with humans, that's how culture is defined, but I value the ability to transcend multiple spheres of culture and I think that's decreasing. 

 

You know that the reason we are talking about the IGF right now is because the people who were in the raid-IRC that Quinn recorded campaigning against her made a video about it, right?

You say that you only care about the truth as if that's a noble cause. You are being used. This is the same tactic that people use when they provide anonymous tips to the police so they will send in a SWAT team to harass their target. The officers probably say to themselves "I don't care what the motives of the anonymous tipper was, I only care about whether or not there are drugs in the house." Motives are far more important than the truth.

Did you read my second point? I don't believe the video and it's completely irrelevant to what I'm talking about. This shitstorm has brought a lot of this stuff into the mainstream but these are complaints that have been discussed in the indie community for years. I wasn't listing complaints brought against the IGF by gamergate guys, I was listing complaints brought against the IGF by IGF judges, and people who have a long and respected role in the community. 

Secondly your SWAT analogy is teeerrrrrrbble. It's a completely circular argument because by saying "people sending SWAT to harass people" you're talking about tippers who call SWAT in on people who have not done anything wrong. Your wording assumes innocence. If you wanted to make your analogy actually work you'd say "Like people who call SWAT teams on people they find suspicious due to their worldviews, and who may or may not be innocent". That's at least more analogous to the situation here. 

I would hope that if I SWAT team guy was rushing into a house, he would only do so because he believe that there is a real reason for doing so. I would like people armed with lethal force to make their decisions based upon the best intel and evidence available.(though considering the way SWAT teams have been going the last 20 years, I don't think that's generally what's on their mind).  Analyzing people's motives when they give you information is useful, in determining the likelihood of their honesty, but  the information I brought up is predates this whole fiasco and is not relevant to it, except as it applies to this general discussion on "Ethics and Journalistic Integrity" as it applies to the indie scene. 

Motive is relevant in so far as it helps you vett sources (huh, ironic since the whole journalism thing has been about the necessity of disclosure so that we can vet sources according to their motives?) but if a Neo-Nazi tells you that humans evolved from apes, because he's trying to use that as a justification for the Holocaust, that doesn't mean you dismiss evolution (and that's actually how a lot of people dismiss evolution. They point to eugenics and say "see! these guys!") 

And once again, I'm not even arguing that position, because I don't believe the whole racketeering charges. The issues with the IGF are things that have been brought up for years, and while they may be getting press now they've been well established issues in the community.

 

I think, from a purely psychological standpoint, allowing people you know to be dodgy to do the framing for you is going to lead to you asking the wrong questions. If someone dodgy is bringing up questions, your very first response should be: why these questions? Out of all the questions they could have asked about this topic, why these ones?

 

The IGF has problems (it's got a bias towards easily graspable mechanics coupled with unusual art styles), but that's mostly because these days there are a lot more indie games than the IGF can reasonably judge, and there's a lot more indie games that have radically different goals than the IGF rewards. The solution here is to make more awards that reflect the more diverse scene.

 

I've never really gotten into Brandon Boyer, to be honest. I get this weird wanker vibe from him that is totally prejudice and probably unfair.

I completely agree. People should be skeptical and take into account why these questions are being asked and these issues are being pushed. I'm trying to take that into account. I don't think a few our skepticism invalidates the debates that long predate this fiasco.

 

 

Honestly, I was unaware that anyone takes the IGF more seriously than a very loose recommendations system. Knowing the ridiculous workload of the judges, it seems obvious that the system could never be accurate or even complete.

It's a huuuuuge source of funding. I mean arguably it's why indie games finally came into the limelight in the last 5 years, because they stopped being freeware titles uploaded to IndieDB and started being much more substantial commercial ventures. 

Also, if the system isn't work it ought to be improved right? Also I honestly don't believe the workload is really as bad as people put it out to be. Yes, they are volunteers, and I'm not entirely sure how many games they're assigned to judge, but this post from 2010 lists says 15. Let's say they played each game for only 30 minutes, that would only be 30 hours worth of work, divided over a 6 week period. That's 5 hours a week. Compare this to the average SXSW volunteer who works like 60 hours, in a single week, also without pay. That's normal for these kinds of festivals and conventions. People do them because they want to. And I highly doubt they're assigned 30 games, though I can't find any actual numbers from my cursory search. 

 

 

I also had another thought. I think Blambo was right, we should focus on doing some constructive. I want to focus on common ground and build up from there. So how can the indie scene improve itself? 

I mean as far as IGF problems go I had already talked about the problem of there being an over reliance on too few fests. So I sort of feel like maybe people should start more? I don't think I have enough swing to really start a fest, but maybe that's something I should consider building towards. I have a professional friend who did a small hip-hop fest here in Austin, it's the first of it's kind. It seems like a lot of work, but maybe that would be a good example to to try and model off of. 

Also another idea. Maybe the problem is there just isn't enough categories? I mean there's a huge difference between playing a 30 hours adventure game, and playing a quick fast arcade game. Film festivals divide things up by genre, length, budget, etc. IGF kind of just sticks them all in a pile. Is it really fair to compare a game like Nidhogg to a game like Gone Home? Or an interactive fiction Twine game to a multiplayer game like Monaco? It's actually kind of odd that there isn't greater division between things. Maybe that's because games are still rapidly evolving and that certainly is an issue that needs to be taken into account. But some kind basic system would help I think. 

[syntheticgerbil]

I want a podcast called "Downloadable Contempt."

Please make!

[BusbyBerkeley]

Some jerk with a crappy, dead music blog has http://www.downloadablecontempt.com

 

Bummer.

[shammack]

downloadablecontempt.cool is still available

[BigJKO]

Holy shit, I think I'm done even so much as mildly prodding the GG tag or people who support it.

 

Earlier this morning I saw someone claiming a dev doxxed someone for being transgender. I asked for information about what happened, and it came to light over the course of the conversation that no dev did any doxxing, nor was the doxxing a matter of someone being trans (that was revealed as part of the doxxing I guess). All the while, I was saying doxxing wasn't cool. But I was questioning whether or not it was the dev that did it. There was no proof, only some proof that she ended up linking to something that contained the info (which she then deleted).

 

I got distracted by other shit going on like the Apple event, and before I knew it, other nuts came flying at me accusing me of being in support of doxxing, not even bothering to read the conversation. A few of them, thankfully the ones who made actual accusations using my name, retracted it all, apologized and deleted their tweets with those accusations. But there's still a contingent of internet rubbernecking chucklefucks who will just say that now.

 

The conversation was literally, "Hey, let's be sure of things and not jump to conclusions," and it was taken with such hostility. It blew my fucking mind.

 

God. I can only imagine what people who actually get daily, non-stop harassment feel. That was just an hour of pure bullshit. I'm so mad still.

 

I stopped poking the depths of #GG when, after confronting someone about the ridiculous notion that gaming websites somehow conspired to all write about "Death of the Gamer" at the same time, I got labelled a racist along with Twig. Five more people jumped onto the conversation from that point on, without any context, and started discussing how we "probably don't think black people use twitter. lol"

 

[SecretAsianMan]

I stopped poking the depths of #GG when, after confronting someone about the ridiculous notion that gaming websites somehow conspired to all write about "Death of the Gamer" at the same time, I got labelled a racist along with Twig. Five more people jumped onto the conversation from that point on, without any context, and started discussing how we "probably don't think black people use twitter. lol"

 

 

I think I saw that conversation (the dude was a "judge" or something right?) and it was complete nonsense.  If I remember correctly, he was the one who preemptively played the "you're a racist" card based on a comment from Twig that had absolutely nothing to do with race at all.  I don't blame you for stopping.  At a certain point, trying to argue logic with insane people is in itself insane.

[Nachimir]

Nobody pronounces Leigh "lei". Like, nobody at all.

 

To be fair, not only does no one seem to pronounce it like that, she does answer when it's pronounced "Lee".

 

Holy shit, I think I'm done even so much as mildly prodding the GG tag or people who support it.

 

Earlier this morning I saw someone claiming a dev doxxed someone for being transgender. I asked for information about what happened, and it came to light over the course of the conversation that no dev did any doxxing, nor was the doxxing a matter of someone being trans (that was revealed as part of the doxxing I guess)

 

They seem to be more a bunch of wingnuts by the day. Jenni Goodchild (of Nineworlds) has been doing an amazing job of patiently engaging over the past few days.

 

The IGF has problems (it's got a bias towards easily graspable mechanics coupled with unusual art styles), but that's mostly because these days there are a lot more indie games than the IGF can reasonably judge

 

This is a problem that affects all festivals and curation processes at the moment, I think. It certainly does affect my work, and I've seen that exact bias in my own selections (especially as they're selected to thrive on a showfloor).

 

I think A MAZE are the only people I've seen really buck this and show a really challenging set of games, but they've developed the kind of mostly-but-not-entirely-developer audience required for that kind of lineup to go well.

[Henroid]

Dan Marshall linked this via Twitter.

https://storify.com/MorganRamsay/how-often-do-video-game-journalists-write-about-fe

 

It's basically a guy who has cataloged video game journalist articles over many years, from 40 different sources (the only big source not included being Destructoid because of some weirdness). He went through it all with some search parameters to ask the question, "Is feminism taking over video games journalism?" The answer may surprise you:

 

99.55% of the output of professional video-game journalists has nothing to do with feminism, sexism, or misogyny

[Twig]

I stopped poking the depths of #GG when, after confronting someone about the ridiculous notion that gaming websites somehow conspired to all write about "Death of the Gamer" at the same time, I got labelled a racist along with Twig. Five more people jumped onto the conversation from that point on, without any context, and started discussing how we "probably don't think black people use twitter. lol"

 

Haha I had forgotten about that. ):

 

Man even though I knew, logically, with my brain, that those people were explicitly trying to get a rise out of us, it really bothered me for a while that day to be accused of racism based on nothing. As others have said, I can't even imagine being the target of daily personal insults and threats as too many women in gaming are. It just sort of confirms my theory that if I'd been Phil Fish, I don't think I'd have been able to handle things much better. If I'd been Jenn Frank or Mattie Brice, I probably would've bailed out, too, but much less quietly. This shit is the worst.

[Problem Machine]

Yeah, seriously, anyone who wasn't convinced that Zoe and Anita were amazing beforehand should be by now, just by the fact that they manage to keep on working in the face of this shit. I don't think many people could do that.

[sclpls]

Yeah I have to admit I've given up on the idea of engagement. I saw that storify thing featuring Brett Douville. You might read it and feel a little bit better about humanity. Then you go ahead and click on the link to his twitter interlocutor to see what he's been up to since that was posted, and you decide everything can go fuck off.

[coaxmetal]

So the New Yorker ran a piece on Depression Quest (http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/zoe-quinns-depression-quest) and now even its journalistic integrity is being called into question. This is my favorite: https://twitter.com/christopher1977/status/509541266838024192

 

e: and in case anyone was wondering, The New Yorker does, in fact, have a fact checking department.

[Synnah]

So the New Yorker ran a piece on Depression Quest (http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/zoe-quinns-depression-quest) and now even its journalistic integrity is being called into question. This is my favorite: https://twitter.com/christopher1977/status/509541266838024192

 

e: and in case anyone was wondering, The New Yorker does, in fact, have a fact checking department.

 

That is unbelievable. He's just fucking with people, right? It takes about 80 tweets before he concedes that maybe the New Yorker does in fact have 'fact-checking mechanism' (But refuses to acknowledge that it has a department, in spite of all the articles that refer to it as just that), and then he basically just says, "Well anyway they're wrong". Honestly the only people winning in that argument were those who did the same right back at him:

 

TORMNBLY PIACKLES ‏@Tormny_Pickeals  4h

@christopher1977 @a_girl_irl @keithcalder lmao at this guy putting scare quotes around "fact-checking department" like its a made up term

 

Bossy Chris ‏@christopher1977  4h

@Tormny_Pickeals What do you put scare quotes around? Your apostrophes? @a_girl_irl @keithcalder

 

TORMNBLY PIACKLES ‏@Tormny_Pickeals  3h

@christopher1977 @a_girl_irl @keithcalder you're* apostrophes

 

It's insane.

[tegan]

reality has a feminist bias

[neonrev]

I love how the whole thing is based around "One should not automatically trust a publication just because it's got a big name." and then him stridently ignoring the entire idea that fact checking is a thing that exists and makes those publications more trustworthy. It's a big publication, it disagrees with me, therefore it must be a conspiracy to RUIN EVERYTHING.

I think America's whole cultural love of "individual out against the System and it's Oppression" and some people's blindness to the fact that they are in fact part of the system and not part of the oppressed creates an impossible to argue with group. Trolls who view themselves as some sort of John Wayne figure.

[SecretAsianMan]

I enjoyed the response to his repeated attempts to try and invoke logical fallacies.

 

Knowing the names of a bunch of logical fallacies doesn't mean your argument actually has merit. Or that you're using those terms correctly.

 

One of the most infuriating parts of this whole thing to me (besides, you know, all of it) is the constant attempts by people to make their claims seem more legitimate by trying to invoke some kind of fallacy.  I have nothing but respect for actual logic, but simply stating "strawman" is not an argument.

[Justin Leego]

Whereas they are in fact more in line with the discursive approach extolled by Biff Tannen.

Forgive me for being permanently behind on things, but this is now about controlling and shutting down conversations, moving aggressively and with great hostility against vocal opponents in order to cause discouragement, and attempting to render key words and phrases meaningless so as to stifle critical thought, is it not?

It's sad to see users of 4chan so willingly employ the insidious, cruel and inhumane tactics of a Scientology movement it once so vehemently opposed.

[Malfsyde]

I enjoyed the response to his repeated attempts to try and invoke logical fallacies.

 

 

One of the most infuriating parts of this whole thing to me (besides, you know, all of it) is the constant attempts by people to make their claims seem more legitimate by trying to invoke some kind of fallacy.  I have nothing but respect for actual logic, but simply stating "strawman" is not an argument.

 

Hilariously these sorts of people always commit the argument from fallacy, the error of disregarding a conclusion as false simple because it contains a fallacy. 

[Hermie]

I think this behavior is something Adam Baldwin taught them. When I joined Twitter years ago I briefly followed him because I liked Firefly and Chuck, but then I quickly went "oh my god no". Part of his thing was linking to a big list of fallacies whenever someone argued against him.

[Gormongous]

I think this behavior is something Adam Baldwin taught them. When I joined Twitter years ago I briefly followed him because I liked Firefly and Chuck, but then I quickly went "oh my god no". Part of his thing was linking to a big list of fallacies whenever someone argued against him.

 

I don't think it's something that's necessarily taught among most of them. I think instead that there's a certain type of person who wants conversation to be more mechanistic, with some kind of system for resolving disagreements, and a conceptual model wherein the first side to say something that could be interpreted as a fallacy is wrong or at least bears the burden of proof fills that role perfectly.

[SuperBiasedMan]

I think that's an optimistic view, I think it's more likely that people want the easiest possible way to discredit an argument they disagree with. A list of fallacies is a handy way to skim through, find something that matches and slap it on. Fallacies are so broad and numerous that it's hard to not touch or appear to touch any of them.

[Gormongous]

I think that's an optimistic view, I think it's more likely that people want the easiest possible way to discredit an argument they disagree with. A list of fallacies is a handy way to skim through, find something that matches and slap it on. Fallacies are so broad and numerous that it's hard to not touch or appear to touch any of them.

 

Yeah, I'm sure there's always a malicious side to it, but I most often see people like that using fallacies that have just been pointed out to them in previous conversations. I feel like, for many of them, it's a matter of thinking, "Oh, so that's another rule for me to follow, another way to win!" You know, as if learning how to identify (or at least to plausibly accuse someone of making) every fallacy ever will make for an airtight argument that always holds the moral high ground.

[James]

I think America's whole cultural love of "individual out against the System and it's Oppression" and some people's blindness to the fact that they are in fact part of the system and not part of the oppressed creates an impossible to argue with group. Trolls who view themselves as some sort of John Wayne figure.

I do find myself relating more and more things to the US' deification of the individual (which is a generalization, of course). I mean, I'm all for individual choice and freedom, but I think if you place it above all other values it can lead to strange things.

  

Hilariously these sorts of people always commit the argument from fallacy, the error of disregarding a conclusion as false simple because it contains a fallacy.

While I do think the constant claims of logical fallacy are in this case lazy and little more than a distraction, I'm not sure how distinct "disregarding a conclusion" would appear from challenging someone to restate their argument without fallacies (particularly on Twitter), which I think is valid. People should hopefully be able to restructure their arguments without the fallacies if the conclusion is true. I will concede that doing so could be awkward in a busy Twitter conversation, though.

 

That all makes it sound like I'm arguing for that Bossy Chris guy. I'm not. He's a cretin. He demands such rigour from his opponents, but is incredibly loose and inconsistent with his own demands once they're met. I just can't decide how much of it is idiocy and how much of it is deliberate time- and energy-wasting.

[Hermie]

I suppose that's true, Gorm. It might also trigger their confirmation bias of "Hey, we're only being rational and logical here, while 'they' are manipulative and trying to put forward their agenda."

[Malfsyde]

I do find myself relating more and more things to the US' deification of the individual (which is a generalization, of course). I mean, I'm all for individual choice and freedom, but I think if you place it above all other values it can lead to strange things.
  While I do think the constant claims of logical fallacy are in this case lazy and little more than a distraction, I'm not sure how distinct "disregarding a conclusion" would appear from challenging someone to restate their argument without fallacies (particularly on Twitter), which I think is valid. People should hopefully be able to restructure their arguments without the fallacies if the conclusion is true. I will concede that doing so could be awkward in a busy Twitter conversation, though.
 
That all makes it sound like I'm arguing for that Bossy Chris guy. I'm not. He's a cretin. He demands such rigour from his opponents, but is incredibly loose and inconsistent with his own demands once they're met. I just can't decide how much of it is idiocy and how much of it is deliberate time- and energy-wasting.

 

Fair point.