Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SXSW Cancels Gamer Panels After Threats

bits.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 86 posts

Re: SXSW Cancels Gamer Panels After Threats

#41

Post by msabalau »

douche wrote: post #17
striking wrote: post #6

#SavePoint on why their panel was cancelled: http://www.theopengamingsociety.org/savepoint-dear-community... LevelUp on why their panel was cancelled: https://twitter.com/randileeharper/status/658780409765994496

Which side is which here? I'm not really clued into the whole GamerGate thing... I have seen Randi Lee Harper say some very unpleasant things, and some even more unpleasant things said about her. I know nothing about the Open Gaming Society, but reading their website it seems like a relatively sane organization.

SavePoint was to featured "several prominent GamerGate figureheads". The sponsoring organization generally claims to take "a neutral stance" on GamerGate. (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/sxsw-cancels-gaming-panels-...)

Randi Lee Harper is noted for making tools to help victims of online harassment. Level Up panel description was "A panel from experts on online harassment in gaming and geek culture, how to combat it, how to design against it, and how to create online communities that are moving away from harassment."

The GamerGate crowd claim that they care about "ethics in game journalism" and that the abuse that feminist gamers experience doesn't have anything to do with them. So theoretically, there aren't opposing sides here.

Re: SXSW Cancels Gamer Panels After Threats

#42

Post by MBCook »

Zikes wrote: post #36

The Gamergate/Anti-Gamergate movement has to be a Sociology PhD Candidate's thesis topic. It's fascinating how utterly polarizing it is, I mean just look at the sort of comments we're seeing right here on HN, and we tend to be the levelheaded and civil ones! Both "sides" are victims of their own success. In spite of whatever potentially valid points they have, the moment someone figures out which "side" you are on yo…

> and we tend to be the levelheaded and civil ones!

I've seen a lot of things discussed on HN. I think that may be wishful thinking. Just because HN isn't full of straight out cussing and insults doesn't mean we're level headed or civil.

Re: SXSW Cancels Gamer Panels After Threats

#43

Post by MBCook »

flycaliguy wrote: post #38
daleharvey wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not a complicated situation, from the start its been clear that gamergate is solely a vehicle for organised harassment (primarily of women). There isnt any moral quandry or naunced position about it, its just harassment.

You may be right, but by making a polarized response to a comment claiming its a complicated issue with polarized sides... Its hard to take away much.

So there is an interesting question. In a polarized situation where there are two sides presenting themselves as victims of the other... how could show one side is ACTUALLY right and one is wrong (assuming reasonable evidence) without sounding partisan?

Wouldn't anything that bolstered one side and defamed the other look very partisan? Wouldn't stronger evidence look MORE partisan?

Would you have to slowly dish out the evidence over time to turn the tide without setting off people's 'partisan hack' sensors in any single discussion?

Could you evidence end up making things MORE partisan and doing the opposite of what you intend?

Re: SXSW Cancels Gamer Panels After Threats

#44

Post by fragsworth »

What's frustrating about this whole situation is how deceptive the "extremists" have been on both sides (GamerGate and Anti-GamerGate) by making false-flag attacks. You just can't tell who is faking what now, and it's making reasonable discussion between the two camps impossible, further polarizing everyone.

Re: SXSW Cancels Gamer Panels After Threats

#45

Post by nradov »

The whole Gamergate drama reminds me of the old saying: “The reason why campus politics are so dirty is that the stakes are so small.” I mean seriously what kind of loser takes video games seriously? Or even worse, who actually cares about video game reviews?

Re: SXSW Cancels Gamer Panels After Threats

#46

Post by Zikes »

nradov wrote: post #45

The whole Gamergate drama reminds me of the old saying: “The reason why campus politics are so dirty is that the stakes are so small.” I mean seriously what kind of loser takes video games seriously? Or even worse, who actually cares about video game reviews?

http://www.statista.com/statistics/278181/video-games-revenu...

Re: SXSW Cancels Gamer Panels After Threats

#47

Post by MBCook »

eertami wrote: post #33
MBCook wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They reportedly received threats and piles of attention over both panels, and they didn't want to deal with that. What, exactly, did they think would happen when they stepped into GG? > They allowed both panels to sign up in the name of neutrality and diversity of ideas. That's bullshit. When one group is infamous for dragging the other through the trash, issuing death threats, bomb threats, etc. there is no 'neutr…

>But I seriously doubt the anti-GG people sent death threats. No true scotsman

I said I seriously doubt.

No true Scotsman would be if someone clearly anti-GG was proven to send a death threat and I redefined them to not be anti-GG for some reason.

We haven't reached that point yet in my argument. I'd have to be proven wrong first.

Since the reason I'm anti-GG is the harassment and threats (don't agree with their ideas but I think they'd be ignorable without the problematic behavior), I wouldn't want to see someone on my side do the same. But they could.

Re: SXSW Cancels Gamer Panels After Threats

#49

Post by MBCook »

oomkiller wrote: post #15
striking wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's fair to either side of the discussion, or to SXSW. They reportedly received threats and piles of attention over both panels, and they didn't want to deal with that. They allowed both panels to sign up in the name of neutrality and diversity of ideas. And I guess people from both sides made sure neither could have nice things. (SXSW didn't blame anyone, but that's my guess.)

I get it, SXSW is a business, and they want to protect their profits. It makes plenty of sense. SXSW loves attention, they just chose to sit this one out because their analysis concluded that it would be better for their bottom line. They pride themselves as a forward-thinking event, even continuing this spiel in their announcement. It's now obvious to everyone that cares that it was all just marketing. Ultimately I…

So now the GGers are mad and will probably boycott them or yell at their sponsors.

And the anti-GG, anti-harassment people are mad at them for hosting the others and then cancelling the good side... so they'll boycott and yell at the sponsors.

So instead of having neither group at no monetary cost, they found a way to have neither group and take a hit to their reputation and possibly pocket books.

And of course they didn't take a moral stand either way (which both sides likely see as a stand with their enemy).

Way to go SXSW. Playing with fire has a reputation for a reason.

Re: SXSW Cancels Gamer Panels After Threats

#50

Post by SomeCallMeTim »

[deleted] wrote: post #23
douche wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which side is which here? I'm not really clued into the whole GamerGate thing... I have seen Randi Lee Harper say some very unpleasant things, and some even more unpleasant things said about her. I know nothing about the Open Gaming Society, but reading their website it seems like a relatively sane organization.

[deleted]

I've been following the #GamerGate trainwreck for a while. #SavePoint seems to maybe be about improving gamer culture? I don't know. I've not seen #SavePoint before today.

For those who don't know, #GamerGate claimed to be about "journalistic ethics" when they were actually just harassing a women (and later other women) who said negative things about how women were treated in games. [1]

The #SavePoint group seems to be very explicitly against harassment of any kind, and at least gives lip service to freedom of expression of both game developers and critics. I don't know if this is just a facade, like the one previously worn by #GamerGate, or if this is the real deal. The #GamerGate tag is hopelessly associated with misogyny and harassment, so the fact that they want to use a new hashtag is actually a minor point in their favor.

But other than "gaming ethics," I'm not really sure what they exist to promote. And I'm not even sure what they mean any more by "gaming ethics," considering the initial #gamergate accusations were proven completely and utterly false. (Including outrage at an article on GamaSutra [2] that pissed off a bunch of "gamers" who completely misunderstood it. [3])

[1] http://gawker.com/what-is-gamergate-and-why-an-explainer-for...

[2] http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/224400/Gamers_dont_have_t...

[3] https://medium.com/plaguearist-does-gamergate/im-doing-this-...

Post reply on HN