The good and bad use of game forums by game publishers.

Oct 11, 2017 12:44:18 GMT @tzeenchianapostrophe said:

And yet, you never see anyone complaining about that that's not a supposed "gamer" themselves, and when you do, they are immediately painted as "gamergate" and "harasser".

... seriously???  Do you actually believe that...??? Im not saying this in a bad way but more of a curious/confused one... did you actually read that before posting it???

I am a "gamer", I play games. I disagree with how some people and the media demonize gamers (and games for that matter)... I could quite easily say that to anyone without being labelled as a harasser or as gamergate. Like, theres no way Id word that which would cause anyone to paint me as anything, its a complete impossibility. And I wont be the only one, millions and millions of people could say the same kind of things and wouldnt be thought of as gamergate or a harasser... so im generally like "Huh?"

I understand youre passionate about stuff like this, I know you think that people speaking their mind get called all kinds of things by people, but I think you might be taking it a bit too far... if you actually believe what you just said im kinda worried for you

Oct 12, 2017 21:03:30 GMT @tzeenchianapostrophe said:

Oct 12, 2017 20:35:17 GMT GeneralXIV said:

My point was that punishing, intimidating or harassing people that do things you dont like or disagree with arent the actions of people who support freedom of speech. I already know/agree with what you said, so sorry for the poor wording

As for the second thing... I am quite worried for you. As I said, I think you might be exaggerating things... Im not denying that there are people who give labels to people unnecessarily, but what you said for sure isnt true.

I know what you meant though, but I could still tell them the same thing without being labelled, as could basically anyone... there might be more of one side vs the other but thats because there are more people who see the bad in others rather than the good, idk why. Maybe they had a poor experience with some gamers in the past. But being painted as gamergate and a harasser for complaining about the way gamers are demonized just isnt reality, not without some pretty serious other things contributing to it first.

The issue seems to be one of definitions, "punishing, intimidating, or harassing" is somewhat vague.

"Punishing"? I'm not clear on what that means. Likewise, "harassment" is a term that's used very often these days, and can mean practically anything, including something as innocuous as sending a tweet that

disagrees with the one who's supposedly being "harassed".

Intimidating? Also a bit vague. If it's something like: "I know where you live and I'm going to kill you", I'd assume that this is actually a crime in many places, and therefore should be reported to the relevant authorities.

Otherwise, posting things which aren't at worst polite disagreement, isn't "intimidation", or at least not something that warrants abolishment of freedom of speech.

The knee-jerk reaction of many among the modern-progressive side of the political spectrum is to define anything that's not politically-correct as "harassment" etc.
In essence, the attempt is to define morality and then enforce it on everyone else.

And specifically in regards to the issue being discussed, mocking someone on the internet is obviously not the nice or polite thing to do (although, sometimes it's definitely the appropriate reaction),
but it also isn't something that should be grounds for complete censorship, etc.

It's one thing when a specific forum bans personal attacks, and quite another when giant corporations that have practically a monopoly on virtual public domain enforce censorship according to the subjective morality I mentioned earlier.

It's certainly not the same thing when people are using "harassment" as an automatic defense that enables them to completely disregard any criticism.

But being painted as gamergate and a harasser for complaining about the way gamers are demonized just isnt reality, not without some pretty serious other things contributing to it first.

I could provide actual examples, but this isn't the topic of this thread. Suffice to say that I disagree. 

I suppose the fact that you assume that if someone was demonized it's probably somewhat justified due to "some pretty serious other things contributing to it first", merely speaks to your bias on the subject, I mean,

we are not even talking on something specific right now, so why would you make that assumption? Because those that tend to write those articles can do no wrong?

Erm... if you want definitions, try Google??? Google is your friend Its also evil, but its your friend for definitions

Im not talking about what other people are doing with the words, just fyi... I dont really care what theyre doing with them. My words are my own

I think you might be mistaking me saying "people who do xyz arent interested in freedom of speech" for "people who do xyz arent interested in freedom of speech so censorship", or at least thats the impression im getting... im just saying the entire conversation becomes stupid and pointless, thats all. Like "developers and social media people want to take away freedom of speech! From people who use bullying tactics on social media to try and take away freedom of speech/creative expression from the developers!" its all just stupid imo. It makes the discussion pointless.

Ill admit I have a bias, I like to see the good in people  But im not the only one with a bias, you know??? Considering youve spent this thread using it as another outlet for your political opinions and complained about political things you dont like   And im more worried that your bias than mine... which might in itself be a bias... hm. BUT the point is, I think your views on things might be getting in the way a little. Im not claiming that all people who write articles can do no wrong, nothing even close. There will be bad game journalists, just like there will be always bad gamers. As a general rule though, I can disagree with people without being called names, and often do. I could say to a game journalist that there are lovely people in gaming, because ive met them. I could tell them how people ive met through gaming have changed my life in pretty serious ways, and that the media unfairly demonizes them without being painted as a part of gamergate, or a harasser. I could say those things without being painted as anything like that. So my next question would be "ok, so what are the people being called those things doing wrong??? Whats happening???"

It could, and can be a case of there being a bad game journalist. BUT people kind of usually possess like some way of logical thinking even though it can be strange at times. Theres NO WAY someone would go, "Hm, theyve told me some of their really nice experiences playing games and being part of a community and that there are some really lovely people you can meet through playing games... GAMERGATE!"

Theres just no logic there, no sense whatsoever. Theres no logical connection between the two. And its easy (too easy) to say "but they have no logic! Theyre all crazy people who have victim complexes!" but that isnt true either. People are the "good guys" of their own stories. Everything they do makes sense to THEM. So not only would I be looking at the game journalist and considering the fact that they could be just a stupid person, Id be looking at the person who is leaping to the defense of gamers too, and wondering how on earth they reached that conclusion about them. What was it they did??? How did they bridge the gap between being told some nice things about gamers to considering them to be the worst kind of gamer??? Did they ACTUALLY say that not all gamers are bad and that the media often demonizes them unfairly, or did they say something else??? Are they REALLY a random/innocent person who meant well???

All things that have to be considered before assigning blame. Both sides. *shrug*