SPJAirPlay GamerGate Debate

SPJAirPlay GamerGate Debate

I was invited to participate in the Society of Professional Journalists’ Airplay conference debate on the GamerGate controversy.

There were two panels, one in the morning, and the other in the afternoon. You can watch them on YouTube ( morning panel – transcript /  afternoon panel – transcript / post-bomb threat discussions 1, 2)

You can read the event programs (1, 2, 3, 4) to get an idea of what was planned for the discussion.

For the record:

I am neither pro- nor anti- GamerGate. As explained in this SPJAirplay update, I am, and always have been a neutral party because I tend not to take sides in issues related to gamers because I feel that doing so, goes against the very unified and eclectic culture that is gaming.


Another reason that I accepted when invited, was because since Michael Koretzky had invited prominent pro-GamerGate (Sommers, Yiannopoulos, Young, Bokhari, Ceb, Schow) personalities and professionals to attend, I wanted to be the man-in-the-middle insert who, as a gamer and game dev, could bring some insight from that perspective, while ensuring that the narrative remained focused on this specific discourse. As most of us had already read and discussed most of this online this past year, I felt that regurgitating the same things in what I believed would be a viral debate, given the nature of the beast, would be a disservice to everyone involved. This was more about education, than it was about pontification; more about the path forward, than what had come before. You know, that sort of thing.

Mike knew this going in. Which is why, though the debate was not scripted, he did setup some guidelines which focused on the premise for us all being there and why this open debate needed to happen.


What I felt would be of interest to most who had no clue what GamerGate is, was that, some media folks, having been caught in numerous ethics violations which started the GamerGate farce to begin with, had turned around and used events by some anti-social misfits operating under the hashtag, in order to promote the narrative that GG was a hate group designed to harass women in gaming. Which is like walking into a room full of people, finding a thief in there, then branding the entire room a den of thieves. Yes, it’s bullshit. And I’ve said this time and time again, since this whole thing started a year ago.

And so these are the primary reasons that I attended when invited.

And as I said in the morning panel, how this whole thing came to this, is akin to:

Now, the very short version is this: when this whole thing started out, two people were in a relationship. It went bad. And, one of the people in that relationship got mad, went online, and wrote all this stuff. It’s like, the cops… this is a very simple version… the cops come to your house, they get a call about a noise alert. They walk in and they find drugs. Now you’re talking about the drugs. Nobody cares about the noise. That’s what happened.

Unsurprisingly, I also wanted to ensure that this didn’t end up being an issue of taking sides, but rather one in which those who either a) had no clue what GamerGate was or b) who had the wrong impression (it’s not and never was a hate group) of it, could better understand it in the simplest of terms, without all the fluff (e.g. all the feminism, SJW issues etc are for another debate) and hyperbole. The message, I thought, needed to be simple. It needed to be straight-forward. It needed to be direct. Which is precisely why I made the closing argument (1, 2) that I did in the morning panel.


Despite the fact that I didn’t have any idea how this would go, or whether or not it would have any effect on the current GamerGate discourse, I was pleasantly surprised.

The morning panel was particularly enlightening and informative; and if you looked at my Twitter feed, or that of the several  learned and eloquent panelists (Christina Sommers, Milo Yiannopoulos, Cathy Young, Ren LaForme, Lynn Walsh, Allum Bokhari, Mark Ceb, Ashe Schow) in attendance, you will clearly see the reaction.

It wasn’t all fun and games though, because following a comment that I made about why gamers can’t be expected to conform to anyone’s doctrine, my Twitter feed lit up.

There’s a very good reason why they’re different. Gamers are unhinged. That’s the first thing. Totally unhinged….I always say to people… gaming is about drama. If you take out all the drama, all you have left is psychosis….Because these people are all unhinged and they can say and do what they want because they’re passionate about this stuff.

I had made the above statement, and that without drama in gaming, what’s left is psychosis (“a loss of contact with reality“). Some got it; but some didn’t because I think, in this day and age of social media, most have forgotten the basic foundation of the English language and that the Urban Dictionary is not what’s taught in schools and should be treated with the same caution that one would pretty much everything written on the Internet. So I had to take to Twitter to explain the context.

For those who have a hard time understanding the “unhinged” context, here’s help: “deprive of stability or fixity; throw into disorder”. My context was to point out that gamers can’t be cordoned off because gaming is about drama, and without it only the worse exists


Of course, while all of this was going on, anti-social trolls (those doing it with malice, and not in jest), were present in the spjairplay live stream. They were there doing all manner of shitposting (complete with Swastika) etc. Then several panelists (e.g. Ren LaForme who got a call from Russia during the event and showed me a Tweet with his personal details), got doxed. So spjAirplay had to disable the comments in the feed during the afternoon debate.

UPDATE: The original of this article previously indicated that Mark Ceb was doxed. This was corrected when I first wrote this blog, but for some reason the WP cache plugin that I use, appears to be acting up again.

The afternoon session, which I thought would be the most important and vital one, given the panelists involved, didn’t go quite as planned. In fact, all three panelists (Sommers, Yiannopoulos, Young), had prepared various pointed statements; most of which didn’t get read because Mike – though he had said this would be a non-scripted, open debate – was, in my opinion, a bit heavy-handed in his bid to keep the debate focused on specific points.

The problem I had with that is this GG thing is so huge, and encompasses so many aspects, that trying to pigeon-hole it into one specific format and/or direction, would have been a great disservice to everyone involved, even the on-lookers. It’s not like these panelists (For the record, I don’t bring prepared scripts to these things because it all tends to go side-ways anyway) were just run-of-the-mill individuals arguing online about some crap or the other. These were professionals who, regardless of fame or infamy, have been well versed in this since it blew up, and who have consistently and eloquently I thought, presented their commentary and opinions on this issue in a clear and consistent fashion.

So yeah, I was getting very annoyed. And that’s why I was interjecting during the second debate; much to the annoyance (he hid it well, but I can read people like a book), of our gracious host, Mike.

In the end, all three decided to agree to a format that I thought not only served to stifle everything they’d prepared, but also which ended up being a debate about common sense bullshit, that every decent journalist should already know. So I was very happy to learn this morning that Milo published his opinions on what he was trying to say at the debate. I am hoping that both Sommers and Young do the same, because from the bits that I gathered, these are the issues worthy of discussion; not all this other stuff.

UPDATE: Mike’s post-debate summary is now online; as well as writer Alasdair Fraser’s post-event write-up. Cathy also hers now online as well; and you can find Ashe’s here now too.


Though it came as no surprise, heading into the afternoon debate, around 1:16PM EST, we were notified of a bomb threat. We decided to continue because we already knew this sort of crap was coming anyway. They (whoever did this) did this before and as recently as this past May in DC.

Around 2:35pm EST, during the debate, a Miami-Dade police officer entered the auditorium and announced that the building needed to be evacuated. We later learned that several bomb threats had been called in to the Miami-Dade police station, as well as the local Miami Herald newspaper, with a “time certain” of 2:45pm for said bomb to go off.


People do stupid things like this because they want to spread fear, disrupt the debate, then try to make it look like the pro- or anti- GameGate gamers are the ones doing it. Thus far, nobody knows who has been doing this, and it’s no different from the practice of swatting that some anti-social misfits tend to do. But since this tends to happen at GamerGate related events, the association with that, continues to push the narrative that this group is nothing but a hate group, blah, blah, blah. Whatever.

So we had to evacuate the building immediately. First we were in the parking lot, then we got moved off the premises. Shortly after, we were moved an entire block away from the premises where, in over 96 degrees heat and humidity, we had to mill about. Some of us were wearing jackets and everything, since the auditorium is notorious for being very cold (it was and almost unbearably so for some people).


As soon as we were evacuated, I took to Periscope in order to let everyone know what was going on, and live as it was happening. Since our debate was cut short by 30 minutes, I also wanted to get the chance to talk to some of the attendees there, as I had planned to do following the end of the debate. Someone managed to splice my complete original Periscope stream into one continuous YouTube video, from the beginning to end (at the point that I left).

And in typical fashion, once the media (some were in attendance) started interviewing us panelists, the first question I got (I was in several interviews which is why I had given my phone to Ashe so she could continue the live stream) was “Did GamerGate do this?”. Which is the same sort of ignorant bullshit that turned this whole GG thing into the year long shit-storm that is currently is. I mean seriously, this is precisely how these things go. That’s the narrative being pushed because that’s the one that makes the news, which in turn generates revenue. And that, right there, is part and parcel of the whole “ethics” thing we’re all going on about.

Anyway, later on, as the heat descended on us without mercy (yeah, I know, I just wrote that line. I will pray to the Gods of all things literary, for forgiveness), Mike and crew arranged to have water bottles brought for everyone.

Shortly thereafter, all the homes on the street from the venue, were also evacuated. Some folks coming home, also couldn’t enter the street. The end result is that we ended up with a group of people who now started asking questions about what was going on. And so now they too know about GamerGate and that this bomb threat on their street, was related to it.

But that wasn’t the end of it, several hours later, Mike decided that we would continue the debate outside, and to take questions from the crowd that stuck around. So we setup camp on the premises of an empty building (YouTube video) at the end of the street, and continued.

Around 4:50pm, after being out in the sweltering heat for several hours, Miami-Dade police finally cleared the building and we were let back in to get our stuff and cars. Mike subsequently did a quick wrap-up which I also caught on Periscope.


So that’s pretty much how it all went down.You can read some of the event coverage on GamePolitics (1, 2) and other (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 , 9, 10) sites.

Most of us met later that night in downtown Miami at an undisclosed location for a meetup where the usual tomfoolery continued in full swing. We had a blast. I met lots of wonderful and interesting people; most of whom I’d only “met” online but never in person.

I am hoping that a similar event takes place in the near future.

quotographs used in this blog courtesy of @oliverbcampbell

ps: You should probably read these excellent articles: Challenge accepted: Interviewing an internet #hashtag and Why GamerGate is going to win.




40 thoughts on “SPJAirPlay GamerGate Debate

  1. It has nothing to do with how long you wrote, I was expressing my feeling on the issue at large, this is nothing but a drama blow up in ridiculous scale by some dip shits of gaming community.

  2. LOL! What is it you think you’re saying here? The resignation lynch mob PC police are a major contributing cause of this backlash. Under what confused definition is demanding someone’s fired over ideological differences amid consorted smear efforts and family harassment not an “offensive move”? Bomb threats? Did you miss that part of SPJAirPlay?

    GG is in many ways a reaction to these disgusting scorched-earth tactics of silencing opposition by any means necessary which, since you obviously haven’t been paying attention, many activist groups have been using since the 50’s. Just ask Erin Pizzey, founder of the first battered women’s shelters in Brittain.

    You’re “sure,” but you couldn’t be more wrong, simple as that. Your insistence that they’re capable of physical violence is more telling about your own biases than it is about the group itself. Sounds a lot like you’re trying to paint the same kind of “toxic masculinity” picture of these people that they’re railing against, many of whom are male or female victims of rape or domestic violence themselves.

    Swing and miss, fear monger. You didn’t just hit air, you swung full around and nailed yourself in the back of the head.

  3. -This is how I (as in I can’t talk for everyone) understand GamerGate. REALLY Long (Sorry), but I tried to be as simple as possible.
    -Also tried to answer the question of the afternoon discussion if you want to, skip there [4)].

    1) The Start of the Consumer Revolt
    We have this relationship that causes huge commotion with gamers. Why is this? Well we had a developer of a game having a relationship with a reviewer who was reviewing her games. Not surprisingly the reviewer gave good reviews of the game giving no disclosure of this relationship. Someone was getting favourable coverage of their game with a strong possibility that it was for the relationship, not for the game’s actual quality. Most people who tried the game found the game horrible which caused more suspicion and a feeling that gamers were being lied to for some other’s needs (biased/unfair reviews for selfish reasons were already being criticized by gamers before this as you want to be able to trust well-informed opinions when it comes to reviews). This is also a slap in the face to people who work hard to make great games when others simply try to exploit the system to sell their game. “Feminism” wasn’t really apart of this, but accusations were already being made that there was some form of sexism just because the developer was a woman. While this wasn’t the first violation in terms of ethical journalism of games, it was what started the strong backlash and the recognition of this backlash in the form of GamerGate.

    So GamerGate is just doing their thing to try and call out bad journalism and also seemingly doing good things like donating to charities. While games journalists are fighting back (Gamers are dead articles, examples in SPJ Airplay in the morning…), GamerGate is still able to get it into the heads of some of these gaming journalists that they really should improve their ethical codes (biggest one being the use of disclosure seemingly). GamerGate was a success and was causing a change until…

    2) Gaming is Sexist (“feminism” and SJWs do matter to GamerGate)
    Then comes Anita Sarkeesian. Hey cool, she wants to talk about woman in gaming and how gaming can hold certain tropes that can go against the woman who want to play games; this done in a series of YouTube videos which had funding. This could have actually helped in maybe increasing the general value of woman in games and woman who play games. The problem, she is very biased and has constant factual errors and contradictions. She wants to force down her thoughts as rules for game developers. Hmm, unfairly making up evidence that games are “sexist”, that’s unethical. GamerGate and even gamers in general who figured it out wanted to give counter arguments that her viewpoint were very misleading and flawed. Others simply took in what she said and simply BELIEVED gamers are “Misogynists” as she wanted. Her blind followers simply followed her footsteps and took in those feminist catchwords. And this is where “feminism” gets connected with GamerGate. She is the one that “started” this by calling gaming sexist. Now if you were making a great game it was criticized anyways for not being politically correct, because a male was the focus; basically if it didn’t follow with her feminist ideologies.
    She was essentially imposing ideas that would disfavour games using lies. This obviously angered people who played games. She made such horrible mistakes that she became a laughing-stock, but some continued to hold faith on her ideas.

    3) Going to the General Media and going Full Circle
    Anita was becoming popular. She was doing ted talks and was even on the Colbert Report. She was becoming (sadly) the face of gamers for non-gamers as she talked less about games and more about gamers and what she thought of them (which was seemingly more interesting to non-gamers). Coming with popularity comes what the Internet calls trolls. Controversial ideas + Popularity + Reacting to hate = the perfect person to mess with as a troll. So as suspected, she was getting strong hate about her and strongly offensive jokes (including “threats”) by these so-called trolls. You also still had the people who made legitimate and coherent points to deny her ideologies. Perfect, she can now prove how horrible gamers are by mixing these two very different forms of criticisms (trolling being the unreasonable one) and acting as if they came from one source. Even more perfect, she was a woman and even a feminist so gamers must hate woman and gaming must be controlled by men. The “harassment” was so bad that she couldn’t do things. Oh no, woman can’t do X because of hatred/threats from Y. The perfect headline for the general media, people would eat it up. Sadly the Y in this case was decidedly gamers (gamers including the people who make games). Also popping up were some other woman, SJW developers (including that one developer that started this all). They were also getting hate, mostly for their similar attitudes, being that they played as victims and using it as a way to bring attention to their games and make money. Would you look at that, developers getting attention and it having nothing to do with the quality of the games they worked or were working on. This is what started it all, except now the general media ate up what the “victims” were saying. All these people used gamers and conveniently the GamerGate movements as the “harassment campaign”. Using GamerGate was easier than saying gamers as GamerGate in itself is a label.

    4)GamerGate Loses Trust in Journalists
    First they were attacked by their own personal media (what the morning panel discussed) and now (through SJWs and “feminism”), they were being attacked by general media (what the second group wanted to discuss). What is so confusing is why the general media simply trusted this one side that was considering itself harassed and attacked. All they had to say was they were being attacked and show a simple example of some random troll who was using the GamerGate hashtag. Why not go to Gamergate and see what they say rather than simply trusting this allegation? I really don’t know why the general media just stuck with this narrative,…

    …but I’ve got my ideas as to the reason:
    a) Simplicity –> Lack of understanding
    Talking about someone being harassed and threatened by a group on the Internet is easier to take in than trying to figure out what the heck GamerGate was (SPJ Airplay made this clear). They saw the “harassed”, saw the harassment and simply thought that it made sense not taking into account how pretty much everyone gets threats and hate and any possible reasonable motives.
    You’re being told there is this hate cult. Why the heck would you talk to them. You wouldn’t go to the KKK to see their opinion on how they are seen. They are crazies and obviously wouldn’t be rational. Obviously though, this is the Internet and people act bigger and say crazier things (the trolls who want attention mostly). To be safe though, let’s trust the “harassed” and go off of that.
    c) SJWs?
    This sound like a weird point, but let me explain. When I learned about GamerGate I later learned about SJWs and SJW feminists. I learned that these people can some how easily stir up controversy and have been having a real world effect at ruining people’s life. They are like individual Gwakers which is why Gwaker is synonyms with them. Gwaker ruins lives and so do these people. Sadly, through Anita Sarkeesian’s “feminism”, gaming and GamerGate got connected with them and it was essentially destroyed by them. I don’t know why, but these people some how are really good at getting into the broad media (even though they are leaderless), maybe because they’ve got some crazy stories which perfectly capture viewers and make very eye-catching and almost click-bait like news. I’m not sure though.

    After reading an older comment I wrote about GamerGate in confusion I mostly don’t agree with it anymore, but i still agree that by treating threats that anti-GamerGaters got as real (just to be safe, which makes sense), they essentially became real threats and so the media covered these threats as if there were sort of actual planned threats. Threats against GamerGate, well GamerGate didn’t want to talk about that as that’s not what it’s about.

    So what can be done to better take on leaderless groups. Right, but why the heck was another leaderless group with a whole mix of ideologies able to get into the general media. This is why they kept wanting to talk about the past. Apparently journalist don’t care with these people, but for the GamerGate people it somehow takes too long to find the most prominent members

    Fine, somehow (maybe) the Anti-GamerGate had more prominent leaders. I mentioned Sarkeesian as one that non-gamers could easily connect to as a gateway to gamers. She was popular and so she became the face of gamers which she characterized as (insert random bad thing her). This is at least how it seemed to me.

    Maybe because with one leaderless group they were claiming of being attacked (which can also be found on the GamerGate side). In comparison, GamerGate was actually trying to explain a more complex idea that can easily be more differently interpreted by different people within the group. SO, the leaderless non-group (as it was an anti group thing) explained simply they were being attacked by a group because it was mean. Such a simple idea could not be mixed up between people. DONE. GamerGate wanted to actually explain this idea and had to do so with the general media already against them. I just made multiple paragraphs here explaining my view (so it might not even be agreed upon), and yes it does take time.

    As I also said before, did these journalist even feel talking to GamerGate was needed. GamerGate was seen as a hate cult, only composed of hate *(I wouldn’t even be surprised if a journalist would confuse a hateful Anti-GamerGate person’s message as an example of GamerGate hate just because there is hate and the tag is being used)* Maybe the past that was trying to be discussed caused GamerGate’s demise.

    Maybe it was because GamerGate had a label (so a general hashtag movement problem as a hashtag is a label). For a journalist to check out GamerGate they would check the tags feed on twitter and see a whole mess of things including hate (from both sides). There wasn’t any popular Anti-GamerGate hashtag thing so how would they check the opposing sides identity and if they even have one.

    Maybe the journalists never cared. One leaderless group talked about harassment and threats against woman. The other group wanted to talk about game journalism. As you can see, games journalism almost seem not important to the media vs harassment. If the harassment narrative never existed, would the general media even care? I’m not sure even though I think it’s important as it still is about journalism and listening to consumers (video games being a large market in entertainment).

    I think the second GamerGate group in SPJ Airplay pretty much answered the question. It will take a certain amount of time to figure out a “leaderless” group depending on if you look at the right or the wrong people. You will have to immerse yourself within the group and figure it out. Obviously the most followed people within the group would be best (but not perfect) to go to for information. It is a leaderless group which means there is no organized objective with all members. There are also different platforms being used which all have their own accents and attitudes. This might change the perspective of what is done, what has been done, what has to or even if anything needs to be done and if anything can even be done to reach the groups general goal. One thing though is that the most followed will most likely still follow the same ideology as another highly followed person of the same group, just maybe with a different mind-set of goal set and goals achieved. Finally you should find prominent members of the opposing group (so getting both sides). Prominent GamerGaters have criticized certain Anti-Gamers and vice versa. Get these people in a debate and get both sides. This is real life, if the people are mature they won’t act like anonymous people on the Internet. If they do, than they will make a joke out of themselves. Polls can possibly be done in many different social media types and that might help find a general idea of a leaderless movement if there is a pattern. I can see the opposing side trying to hijack a possible poll if they know about it.

    It’s hard to concretely answer as two different leaderless group got very different results with the general media which in its own right needs to be figured out (which is why I think the feminist stuff wanted to be explained)

    6) To Sum Up and My General Experience
    I first found the first feminist frequency video made and found it fairly interesting. I was on Anita’s side as the proposition was neat. I found hate against her as stupid (and i still think the hatred and threatening towards her is stupid, like it is towards anyone). After seeing her lack of allowing comments, her actions in Twitter and people (without any need of funding) easily using simple research and common sense to show how one-sided she was, my view obviously changed. Then at some point I hear about GamerGate and I’m not sure what it is. I do remember seeing the gamers are dead articles and being fairly confused. By asking this question of why I was being called “dead” for being a gamer it was inevitable I’d find out about what the games journalists have done and easily fell on the GamerGate side of things. From there on I was further confirmed of the SJW “feminist” ideology because they got so interconnected with GamerGate. It’s sad that GamerGate was just trying to help game journalists and keep it at that, yet it got into the general public with the message that these white, male GamerGate people hated females just because video games (like with the violence accusations).

  4. I intended as a joke, sorry for not state clearly, gamer are not at the level of PETA. The problem in gamergate is both side are responsible for the drama, the SJW side is immune to rationality, they may stand for something right but only if it makes them feel good, you cannot convince the SJW, you can only manipulate their feeling, and saying they are wrong on the issue makes them feel bad. The result is they become tools of manipulators. Gaters on the other hand clam they stand for reason, and its true that most gaters are more capable of rationality than SJW crowd, however gaters are also the ones capable of offensive move. One thing Im sure is that SJW side however ridiculous, are not the kind of people that is capable of physical assault, at least cannot carry it out effectively, the majority of them. Gaters are the kind of people capable to play rough, both side maybe nerds on their computer, but ideologically, gater has the offence potential. Of course those willing to go extreme are minority, it is unclear are they hot head on the issue or some other group taking advantage of the situation.

  5. LOL!! Though I get the point you’re making, comparing gamers to PETA is truly hilarious. But to be fair, yes, there are some who have terrorized people (especially women) while using GamerGate as a banner; but I don’t think we’re looking a PETA levels disruption yet.

  6. This gamergate thing is the most ridiculous crud happened in gaming (hopefully only limited to gaming). When things go wrong and it will, it will spark the biggest sport riot in history. And unlike sport riot, the source of conflict will never be forgotten, remember sport riot is based on simply win and loss. Gamergate is an ideological crusade, the two sides do not argue on anything, they want eachother dead. Give the current trend of up scale in violent tendency and scope of influence, one day it will give rise to a new domestic terrorist organization. Look at PETA.

  7. This Gamergate business is a time bomb that is tickling. After several years, we see two side get more extreme on other own ideology, the tension is building up. It was once a laughable 1st world problem, now it is a cause of terror. We are heading into a catastrophic conclusion, there will be a real bomb incident sooner or later. The rage growing around this topic is no longer a joke, after so many death threats and attempt at psychical harm, after so much money and high profile social and political movement, this is now a factor of civil insatiability, it only takes one real bomb to explode and we will have a mini civil war. I can imagine massive gang battle across street with burning cars and tear gas. And the aftermath will fundamentally change game and internet as we knew it.

  8. It wasn’t too much to ask that an explanation take place for those people who don’t already know one of the driving factors behind the consumer revolt. You might find it boring but the journalists there certainly should have been made aware of the information.

  9. Indeed. To be honest, I don’t think gaming will ever been regarded in the same light as other creative cultures like books, movies etc. I think it has a lot to do wit history and the whole social aspects of it.

  10. yes sir, No doubt it’s been going on forever. You have been a very outspoken critic for a long time and I thank you for that.

    I’m a 31 year old male that grew up on gaming and the current state of it depresses me. It’s hard to talk about now because it seems like if you aren’t part of the “In crowd” They don’t want you anymore. Journalists, IGDA head, and others all hav ea certain ideological agenda that they want to advance and so the counter to that forms and it’s torn us apart more than ever. There’s so much hate, as you clearly know being a target several times over the years, that I feel everyone focuses on the bad and forgets about what all good comes from gaming.

    It’s weird because in the 80’s and 90′ society hated gamers as the nerds, dweebs, and outcast, and here in 2015 now we’re the misogynists, sexists, racists, and outcast.

    Will there ever be a time where gamers won’t be shunned?

  11. Indeed. I have already started lobbying the IGDA to host a similar session. We’ll see how it goes.

  12. LOL!! Yeah, I helped crowd-fund it. I was going to wear it during the panel, but felt that it would have sent the wrong message. So I saved it for night. 🙂

  13. Thanks for the commentary.

    But yeah, though I am, somewhat “infamous”, most of the stuff that’s out there about me, is the usual hyperbole, laced with bullshit. I’ve had a long and illustrious career because, above all else, I know who I am and don’t aspire to be PC in order to tow the line.

    I have always been the industry outsider (I have never – ever – worked for any company in this industry) and while most of my views and/or methods may be frowned upon, I always take pride in the fact that, as I was raised right, I always strive to do better, to be better and to be fair.

    To answer your question. I injected myself into this discussion because as a gamer and gamedev, having dealt with all manner of crap from both gamers and gaming media in my long career, I felt that I was in a better position to understand all sides of this debate, while being able to remain impartial and objective. Which is why though some were a bit skeptical about my attendance, most have come out and apologized for ever doubting that I would continue to be that person.

    When you accept that fact that you’re a work-in-progress, the path to growth is lit with opportunities. You just have to follow it.

  14. LOL!! Don’t you start. If I wanted to say “deranged”, I’d say just that. Then stay off the Internet for a few weeks or so. 🙂

    Fact is, as someone who has had to deal with gamer ire over the years, I know – for a fact – that, like everything with humans, there are good and bad gamers, as their are good and bad gamers.

  15. Indeed. But here’s the thing, this crap has been going on for decades. It was the Status Quo and there were never an “uprising” to call attention to it. So it was just business as usual. Heck, if you Google my online presence, you will see numerous articles about my battles with the media over the decades.

  16. That is a fair point to make, but I think that you’re looking at from the context of a certain point in time during this discourse. My reference goes back to the very beginning.

  17. Yeah, sometimes some things work well, and other times, not so much. But the thing is I don’t try to treat people like incompetent idiots. So when I made the remark, I was safe in the thought that most would “get it”. But since some didn’t quite grasp it, not because they’re idiots, I felt the need to clarify the context. It took nothing away from me, as I felt it was the right thing to do. And as I said in the panel, it doesn’t take much for people to *want* to do the right thing, regardless of the ramifications of same.

  18. My point is that this debate was not about what came before. If that were the case, I doubt that I would have attended because I’d rather be on the beach watching the live stream, sipping a cold drink, rather than sitting on a panel listening to same stuff I’m already aware of.

  19. My analogy was just fine, since it clearly stated that “they did find drugs”. But your rather lengthy analogy works fine too 🙂

  20. “Now, the very short version is this: when this whole thing started out, two people were in a relationship. It went bad. And, one of the people in that relationship got mad, went online, and wrote all this stuff. It’s like, the cops… this is a very simple version… the cops come to your house, they get a call about a noise alert. They walk in and they find drugs. Now you’re talking about the drugs. Nobody cares about the noise. That’s what happened.“

    The thing is, in your analogy, what happened was that the cops didn’t actually find any drugs. None. Zero. Nada. Zilcho. But it’d look stupid for the cops to have busted into that house and not find anything, so they make an arrest, haul someone off to jail and falsify some paperwork to make it all happen. Eventually, it comes out that the whole drug bust was a fake, but by then all of the neighbors are convinced that the arrested person is a drug dealer. And treats them accordingly. Meanwhile, said neighborhood has also started up a vigilante group that’s supposed to go after hard-core drug dealers, but instead spends its time harassing medical marijuana users.

  21. I’m appreciate what you have said here but I completely disagree with this silly idea that people don’t need to know what came before this and the ideology that drove it from day one. What GamerGate has been pushing back against this entire time.

  22. Derek as someone who had no idea who you were or your positions on anything prior to this event I must admit I was pleasantly surprised by how eloquent you were and how well thought out your opinions were. With that said I definitely see why your comment about gamers being “unhinged” sparked the aggression it did regardless of the fact that you weren’t trying to be derogatory just trying to explain the complex nature of the gaming community. It is a community about experiencing scenarios outside of the real world among other reasons so I definitely see the justification for your terminology but given the high energy environment and how typical attacks on the character of GG supporters are I think a better choice of words could have been found.

    Thanks for taking part and doing a good job on the panel, I hope I’ll get to see you attend similar events in the future. Article was great btw.

  23. info-dumps will be needed less when some less biased media start to catch up to the reality of the situations. GG does tend to be rather verbose.

  24. Breitbart has Milo and Christinas statements, not seen anything by Cathy yet (and she felt like the most frequently cut-off panellist).

    End result, a respectful discussion, some key points made, and the GG movement finally had a chance to speak in a public space without being shouted down by activists (last 30 mins notwithstanding).
    The more this gets discussed openly the sooner this crapfest can settle down and we can all get back to focusing on playing, making and talking about games. You never know, the “other side” may even grab a chair and talk rationally across a table instead of venting in 144 characters or less.

    A shame they could not get to the statements during the afternoon discussion, keeping it all in one info-string helps the beautifully ignorant get a starting point into this mess.
    waded through all but the outside crappy audio panel so far, some good discussion but I agree that the slightly militant approach to not discussing the poor previous reporting was not a great way of showing other outlets how to move forward.
    A few solid sound-bites and statements came from the SPJ folks regarding clear guidelines but it seems all they can do is some peer review and public naming for poor works committed, a tall order for an agency so widely spread (multi-media). Sounds like they deepfreeze.it had the right idea for publication information maybe someone needs to legitimise/review the set-up and start an official version.

  25. “having been caught in numerous ethics violations which started the GamerGate farce to begin with, had turned around and used events by some anti-social misfits operating under the hashtag”

    This is backwards. The anti-social movement started it and the ethics people jumped on. Have you read the #Burgersandfries IRC logs. This is evident that “ethics” was a fall back posititon

  26. Thank you for the write up Mr. Smart. I’ve been convinced this whole time that if people would set aside the “SJW” bullshit and actually drill down to the grievances that GamerGate has raised about terrible journalist and market practices revolving around gaming that we could have already started working on solutions and moved on. Unfortunately the whole issue has been hampered by the fact that the two sides are fighting different battles. One is about games, one is about Progressivism. If it stays that way I see gamergate never ending. Again though Thank you for Stepping INto the mix and writing your thoughts about it. Good Luck in the future Mr. Smart.

  27. Agreed. Had I given more thought, I would have chosen a different choice of words, given the premise and the hot button subject that already was.

  28. Gamers are deranged :^)

    I wonder how much shit you’ve had to deal with to come to that conclusion.

    Thanks for taking the time to discuss these issues, though.

    Go go #gamergate.

  29. Hello!

    I’m writing this comment for 2 reasons:

    1) Your statement that closed the morning panel? Brilliant. Was missing just one thing: mic drop. Thank you!

    2) While i never knew much about You, some “news” leaked through the cracks so i knew about the Battlecrusier and follow-ups. But, from the media coverage i also got the image of an arrogant and not that smart man. For past few weeks i’ve been reading some of the things you wrote or said over the years, and came to an conclusion that the image i got from the media was very untrue. While i don’t neccesarily agree with you on everything, most of the points you make are well thought and (from my poerspective) correct. Please continue doing what you are doing!
    From this stemms a question: do you try to help the discussion between GG and media because you feel like you were in a spot simmilar to were GG is/was?

  30. That t-shit… First place I saw it was on Nathan Grayson in a Kotaku staff photo.

  31. I was greatly disappointed that this was disrupted. We need more discussions like this. It was civil, and there was some good debate. It felt relaxed.

    Here’s hoping for some more discussions in the future

  32. Unfortunately, they had run into the perennial problem of Gamergate supporters coming up rather short of being succinct, in that the answers ran way too long.

    I think it’s important background information to explain what GG supporters feel are the reasons for why the games media became so corrupted, and why journalists felt justified in throwing professional ethics into the trash bin. However, the important distinction to be made is that had the games media remained fair and ethical, then I think this whole mess would not have exploded as it did.

  33. I would have to say that I think your choice of descriptor: “unhinged” was a rather poor word choice to try and voice your thoughts on gamer psychology. Colloquially, I just think that it evokes completely different ideas than the ones I think that you were trying to explain, and that’s where most of the confusion seemed to come from.

    That aside, I believe I understand the underlying sentiment there, and based on that I would tend to agree with your assessment. There’s a certain doggedness and tenacity present among gamer enthusiasts that is obviously, I would think, related to the kinds of activities that those gamers enjoy and take part in.

  34. Yes, they are – which is why I would have liked for Christina, Milo and Cathy to finish their prepared statements, even though this debate wasn’t about any of that.

  35. “(e.g. all the feminism, SJW issues etc are for another debate)”

    The thing is that those issues are intimately connected to gamergate, because those ideologies power one side of the participants as well as many of the journalists who cover it.

  36. Similar, but like… without the bomb threats, right? For another event? Because I thought that kind of soured the evening for me.

Comments are closed.