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

A Natural A/B Test of Harassment

developers.kongregate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–158 of 158 posts

Re: A Natural A/B Test of Harassment

#151

Post by knowtheory »

ANTSANTS wrote: post #149
knowtheory wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Phil Fish forced himself off the internet by being a contemptible jackass So he totally deserved what was coming to him when GamerGate leaked his bank details and social security number to the public! Even if someone is an asshole that doesn't legitimize harming them. This is exactly what is wrong with Gamergate.

I didn't know about that, and I agree, no one deserves to be "doxed." By "forced off the internet," I thought the GP was referring to Phil Fish's regular practice of throwing temper tantrums and "cancelling Fez 2" or "leaving the industry" every other week. I think the vast majority of GamerGate supporters would agree with me about that; I check up on GG threads every day, and it's pretty clear that no one supports h…

Here's the thing. Even if GNAA is trolling everyone, GamerGate is a terrible excuse for letting them continue a reign of terror.

Even if there were corruption in game journalism, video game journalism is so meaninglessly inconsequential that it wouldn't countenance the death threats, doxxing and harassment that is being done under it's aegis.

Do you know anybody who makes purchasing decisions based on how high a score a game reviewer gives it? Do you? It just seems unfathomable to me in a world where we have Steam, Twitch, Project Greenlight, Humble Bundle & indie games galore that video game journalism matters enough that it should be destroyed.

It just seems like Gamergate is bullshit from top to bottom, and it's completely mystifying to me why anyone who loves games should want to identify with it.

Re: A Natural A/B Test of Harassment

#152

Post by ANTSANTS »

knowtheory wrote: post #151
ANTSANTS wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't know about that, and I agree, no one deserves to be "doxed." By "forced off the internet," I thought the GP was referring to Phil Fish's regular practice of throwing temper tantrums and "cancelling Fez 2" or "leaving the industry" every other week. I think the vast majority of GamerGate supporters would agree with me about that; I check up on GG threads every day, and it's pretty clear that no one supports h…

Here's the thing. Even if GNAA is trolling everyone, GamerGate is a terrible excuse for letting them continue a reign of terror. Even if there were corruption in game journalism, video game journalism is so meaninglessly inconsequential that it wouldn't countenance the death threats, doxxing and harassment that is being done under it's aegis. Do you know anybody who makes purchasing decisions based on how high a scor…

>Do you know anybody who makes purchasing decisions based on how high a score a game reviewer gives it?

Not personally, but the stories that the press chooses to report absolutely has an effect on purchasing decisions in the aggregate. I'm not cool with people like Zoe Quinn using their incestuous relationships with the press to get a leg up on other, more deserving indies. You know, people that make good games instead of harassing suicidally depressed people, intimidating photographers, attacking other feminist organizations for competing with her charity, getting "The Most Expensive Game Jam in History" canceled over personal drama, attempting to censor controversy with DMCA takedown notices, and just in general being a professional victim.

Corruption should not be tolerated anywhere, so I'm happy some people actually give a shit and are taking a stand for once instead of forgetting about controversies the next day as usual. I can see people here being upset that others are putting more effort into GamerGate than they do into much more deserving causes like fighting NSA surveillance, but you don't get to choose what people care about.

As for why others care, I guess it's part being tired of being one of the internet's punching bags, part being tired of Silicon Valley yuppies and trustafarians complaining about the "privilege" of a bunch of roughly lower-middle class youth, part seizing a chance to strike out at the loathsome "clickbait" media that everyone else on HN would be condemning in any other scenario, part not wanting to see video games become yet another medium neutered by the cultural marxist PC police, part spite, and part breaking out the popcorn as they watch the other side make complete asses of themselves on blogs and twitter. The last reason is my favorite, it's absolutely hilarious how vile and hypocritical some of these people are.

EDIT: As I've alluded to, I think GamerGate is the start of something akin to the Occupy movements for the left, or the Tea Party movement for the older right. They begin with a frenetic spark, and it can be hard to discern what "they're about," and sometimes people do bad things in their name, but you have to look past the surface to see there is a meaningful sentiment being expressed. Give them time to find their voice and remember that many positive movements had a rocky start.

Re: A Natural A/B Test of Harassment

#153

Post by meowface »

chillingeffect wrote: post #145
Pxtl wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd gotten the impression they and their supporters had started to self-identify with the term.

I believe the speed of communication, gratis internet, has exceeded the speed at which a population can agree on the meaning of terms.

Absolutely. You can find this for even some of the most basic terms nowadays, like "feminist" and "liberal". Some people have extremely different ideas of what those 2 words mean.

For example, I consider myself both liberal and a feminist, but I take serious umbrage with many of the "radical feminists" and very far left leaning voices that have emerged out of these debates. Those same people would simply be considered just plain old feminists or liberals by some others, though.

Re: A Natural A/B Test of Harassment

#154

Post by meowface »

DanBC wrote: post #133
meowface wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no reason to delete a post that presents a rational argument without use of insults or ad hominem attacks, regardless of if you think the viewpoint is "destroying [insert any topical political or current events issue here]".

There's plenty of reason to downvote trolls.

I did not see the posts that were deleted, but so far nothing I've seen in this thread seems like trolling.

Re: A Natural A/B Test of Harassment

#155

Post by Natsu »

dang wrote: post #115
Natsu wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

@yummyfajitas - it appears that all of your posts are dead right now. I'm not clear if you've been banned after many downvotes or what, but the last several posts are all dead now.

Yummyfajitas isn't banned. Some of his comments are being flagged by users.

I just noticed that I now see [flagkilled] instead of [dead] some places. Is that new? And if so, I'm guessing it was not applied retroactively?

Just curious, because it looks like you're trying to be more transparent and I applaud that.

Re: A Natural A/B Test of Harassment

#156

Post by dang »

Natsu wrote: post #155
dang wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yummyfajitas isn't banned. Some of his comments are being flagged by users.

I just noticed that I now see [flagkilled] instead of [dead] some places. Is that new? And if so, I'm guessing it was not applied retroactively? Just curious, because it looks like you're trying to be more transparent and I applaud that.

Yes, it's a week or so old and means that user flags killed a story or comment.

I don't understand your question about retroactiveness; can you explain?

Re: A Natural A/B Test of Harassment

#157

Post by Natsu »

dang wrote: post #156
Natsu wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just noticed that I now see [flagkilled] instead of [dead] some places. Is that new? And if so, I'm guessing it was not applied retroactively? Just curious, because it looks like you're trying to be more transparent and I applaud that.

Yes, it's a week or so old and means that user flags killed a story or comment. I don't understand your question about retroactiveness; can you explain?

Essentially I'm asking if it applies to all posts or only posts after the feature was added.

Re: A Natural A/B Test of Harassment

#158

Post by waterlesscloud »

dang wrote: post #156
Natsu wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just noticed that I now see [flagkilled] instead of [dead] some places. Is that new? And if so, I'm guessing it was not applied retroactively? Just curious, because it looks like you're trying to be more transparent and I applaud that.

Yes, it's a week or so old and means that user flags killed a story or comment. I don't understand your question about retroactiveness; can you explain?

Has there been a change to the number of downvotes needed to make a post "dead"? I've had showdead on forever, and it feels like I'm seeing many more posts that have been deaded by voting alone.
Post reply on HN