Gamergate Stardock and Star Control

This is the place to talk about all things Star Control.

Moderator: ZFP Peacekeepers

User avatar
Bleeding Star
Ilwrath spawn
Posts: 359
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 9:04 pm
Location: Transiting

Re: Gamergate Stardock and Star Control

Post by Bleeding Star » Tue Jan 20, 2015 7:40 pm

Eth wrote:Does Brad Wardell's Gamergate support negatively impact my feelings about the next Star Control? Slightly.

Do I think that the terroristic tactics used by the anonymous channers to basically ruin the lives of various female game devs hurt their moronic "cause" in the eyes of nearly all sane and right-thinking people? Yes.

Do I believe that said "cause" is a muddled and unrealistic mess? Yes.

Do I think that Wardell was the victim of a smear campaign? Probably.

Did Paul Reiche and Fred Ford work on this new Star Control? No, so I don't even care about it. It's basically Star Control 3 in my book.
High five. Sorry to see you step down as a moderator, though.

I gotta say, it seems suspicious, what with Saria starting this topic and then buggering off, just waiting for things to explode. I think she's probably a mole from the feminist conspiracy. Or possibly the UQM forums.

Or Eth's wife.

User avatar
Angelfish
Slylandro gasbags
Posts: 1632
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 11:10 pm

Re: Gamergate Stardock and Star Control

Post by Angelfish » Tue Jan 20, 2015 7:44 pm

If Eth's wife gets as much attention as he gives the forums...

User avatar
Kwayne
Hunam adventurer
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 2:36 pm
Location: Budapest, Hungary
Contact:

Re: Gamergate Stardock and Star Control

Post by Kwayne » Tue Jan 20, 2015 8:33 pm

I'm a bit disappointed. Months pass without any discussion, and when the possibility of having one comes, it's something we're too sensitive little flowers to handle. Grown men afraid of discussing something involving gamers, journalism and feminists.

Seems that way to me, at least.

User avatar
Shiver
Arilou wiseguy
Posts: 208
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 6:03 am

Re: Gamergate Stardock and Star Control

Post by Shiver » Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:21 am

Kwayne wrote:I'm a bit disappointed. Months pass without any discussion, and when the possibility of having one comes, it's something we're too sensitive little flowers to handle. Grown men afraid of discussing something involving gamers, journalism and feminists.

Seems that way to me, at least.
Gamergate is fucking stupid and doesn't deserve the attention.

Bleeding Star wrote:I gotta say, it seems suspicious, what with Saria starting this topic and then buggering off, just waiting for things to explode. I think she's probably a mole from the feminist conspiracy. Or possibly the UQM forums.
I PM'd her asking about the lawsuit Brad Wardell was involved in and she won't respond. The silence is fishy, but I don't follow her posting activities enough to ascribe a motive.
Last edited by Shiver on Wed Jan 17, 2018 7:50 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Eth
Shining Being of Pure Light and Blissful Love
Posts: 1042
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:39 am
Location: USA

Re: Gamergate Stardock and Star Control

Post by Eth » Wed Jan 21, 2015 7:07 am

Nuclear wrote:
Eth wrote:To be fair, you have to admit that you're a complete moron.
In hindsight, maybe it was best that you deleted it, to be frank. I was trying to discredit Kotaku with that post, but it wasn't Gamergate related; I was going through a phase at the time of questioning the tactics of all news media, due to being in a university philosophy class lol. I was unaware I was being a shit disturber though, I apologize Eth.

That big long post I wrote was going to be the ONLY major post I ever did about Gamergate. I may be a moron, but not a complete moron ;)-smf . This one topic has already destroyed hundreds of gamer communities already. I somewhat hesitantly recommend that this thread be locked {just a suggestion, I don't mean to backseat moderate}. I feel that a Gamergate discussion of any kind will just inevitably harm the board while generating no tangible discourse.

I'd rather not see you step down from moderatorship like Luki has, but I suppose that's solely up to you.
I apologize too. I shouldn't be hurling insults at people I don't know.

What I should have said was,

"I agree that people shouldn't bully each other. Brad Wardell shouldn't be bullied because someone accused him of something. Anita Sarkheesian shouldn't be bullied because she makes videos that question the status quo of video game content. (Aside, her videos are actually quite interesting and thought provoking. This one on the "damsel in distress" trope was neat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6p5AZp7r_Q) And Zoe Quinn shouldn't be bullied for, uh, having sex with another consenting adult?

"The idea of reforming 'gaming journalism' is unrealistic to me. We're not talking about hard-hitting journalists, shining the light of truth into the seedy underbelly of government and corporate malfeasance here. 'Gaming journalists' are largely either enthusiasts who do it because they love games, or are sponsored by companies with a financial incentive to publicize games. This is true of any niche hobby 'journalists.' It's true of video game journalists, it's true of dog breeding journalists, and it's true of bonsai journalists. Serious journalists aren't going to get involved in niche hobby writing, because niche hobbies aren't very important. As video games approach the level of Hollywood films in popularity, we can expect video game journalism to reach the 'heights of excellence' we see in Entertainment Weekly and TMZ. This generation's Woodward and Bernstein aren't going to write for Entertainment Weekly, and they're not going to write for The Escapist, either.

"The Gamergate 'movement,' such as it is, is really a loose coalition of various groups, including naive people concerned with ethics in 'journalism,' people who are afraid that feminists are going to force people to stop making the kind of games they like, people who don't want women or other minorities (I speak of minorities in the games industry) to have a voice, and anonymous channers who believe that anyone who promoted him- or herself on the internet has invited any and all attention, including doxxing, death threats, character assassination, harassment of family members and coworkers, etc.

"It's very hard for me to take seriously a group's claims that it just wants to improve the world, when those are the sorts of tactics it stoops to.

"It's very hard to have a reasonable discussion about the subject, when Zoe Quinn is apparently camping out in the bottom of an elevator shaft somewhere because people keep making very detailed and explicit threats against her. Threats which make it very clear that they have been to her neighborhood and cased her house. She's afraid for her life and for her family members' lives."

That's what I should have said.

I'm not interested in a debate or anything, I just wanted to lay it out there, why I got so mad.

I work in the games industry. Mostly tabletop, but some video game work. I believe that gaming as a whole (not "core gaming," or whatever Brad Wardell was talking about) is better if consumers have choices about what types of games they want to play, and that game studios are better when there are a variety of backgrounds and viewpoints there. And dammit, if games are Art, then people are going to critically analyze them. And some of us might disagree with those analyses, and that's okay.

[/soapbox]

User avatar
Bleeding Star
Ilwrath spawn
Posts: 359
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 9:04 pm
Location: Transiting

Re: Gamergate Stardock and Star Control

Post by Bleeding Star » Wed Jan 21, 2015 9:12 pm

That's what I also would have said, if I wasn't so damn lazy.

Do a few internet feminists overreach with their theories? Sure.
Does Zoe Quinn sound like an unpleasant person? I probably wouldn't want to date her, but who cares?
Does any of this justify the massive screaming tantrum thrown by Gamergaters? Fuck no.

Is the main problem with videogames journalism the attempt to include more minorities? No, it's the fact that video game reviewers are beholden to the game companies, receive gifts and bribes from them, and that AAA releases almost universally get glowing reviews, no matter how shit they might be. Doritos and Dew are the fucking problem, not feminists. Get angry about that, break the links between the industry and the reviewers, and then maybe you can have a cry about how mean the feminists are to poor "gamers"

I play games, but I'd never call myself a gamer, because it is a teeny tiny insignificant part of who I am and what I do. If you do identify yourself as a "gamer" - if the primary defining feature of your existence is the fact that you play games - then you really do need to get a fucking life.

User avatar
Nuclear
Yehat Revolutionist
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:28 am
Location: Citadel Station

Re: Gamergate Stardock and Star Control

Post by Nuclear » Wed Jan 21, 2015 10:06 pm

Bleeding Star wrote: if the primary defining feature of your existence is the fact that you play games - then you really do need to get a fucking life.
However, if you fancy yourself a "Star Control fan", then you are the super-A number 1 bomb diggity coolest cat around ;D-smf
Hackers never die. They just terminate and stay resident.

User avatar
Bleeding Star
Ilwrath spawn
Posts: 359
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 9:04 pm
Location: Transiting

Re: Gamergate Stardock and Star Control

Post by Bleeding Star » Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:02 pm

Well, that goes without saying!

User avatar
Shiver
Arilou wiseguy
Posts: 208
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 6:03 am

Re: Gamergate Stardock and Star Control

Post by Shiver » Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:45 am

Bleeding Star wrote:I play games, but I'd never call myself a gamer, because it is a teeny tiny insignificant part of who I am and what I do. If you do identify yourself as a "gamer" - if the primary defining feature of your existence is the fact that you play games - then you really do need to get a fucking life.
Too harsh. If someone's a movie buff, that's their favorite thing in life, generally everyone's okay with that and you never hear anyone say hateful shit like this (sorry Bleeding Star) about them. They don't need a background in acting, sound editing, lighting or what have you to be seen as credible, either; being a fan is enough. I rarely identify as a gamer in real life--whether that's "this is who I am" or "this is one of my favorite hobbies"--mostly because of the social penalties which you have demonstrated.

User avatar
Bleeding Star
Ilwrath spawn
Posts: 359
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 9:04 pm
Location: Transiting

Re: Gamergate Stardock and Star Control

Post by Bleeding Star » Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:59 am

I'd be similarly suspicious of someone who identified as "movie buff" as a primary identifier, or "reader", or "TV-watcher". They're things you do, not things you should be proud of, or form an identity around. It just makes one seem very boring or one-faceted. That might be more of a personal semantic hangup though.

Post Reply