Outsider Perspective: Gamergate and Constructive/Destruction Action

[Edited out discussion re: apologies/firings since it was random speculation.]

[I’ve made it clear a number of times I’m not a “Gamergate” supporter, I do agree with certain parts and I’m happy to go along with them, like charities. Having said that, I dislike the “likely outcomes” of the movement in its current shape. I also understand many in Gamergate disagree, fine. I’m typing this out because I felt like it, I’m not really mad over trying to “convert” people.]

I've already gone over my feelings about Gamergate here in this twitlonger, “If I could say one thing to the industry”:

TL;DR, dismissing Gamergate as “misogyny” is not advisable. I’ve argued a “broad strokes” approach has helped cause Gamergate, and nuance is more vital than ever in navigating this mess.

Here’s the thing, while I'm not exactly thrilled with how the industry has acted (I've evengone as far as to describe the conduct of a select few number of people as “repulsive”) I'm not exactly seeing the “pros” to Gamergate as a movement.

Does that mean Gamergate has done no good whatsoever? No. I’d argue donating to charities is pretty cool. I’d also say the Escapist did make a rather egregious blunder and it’s a good thing that was sorted and the denizens of that particular board got a deserved apology. [As a result of new policies by Escapist and their actions throughout this, I monetarily subscribed to them.]

Here are my propositions:

1. The industry have acted somewhat “sub-optimally” and certain toxic elements are present.

2. Ultimately Gamergate is currently “destructive” rather than “constructive”.

I've made it clear that I think the reporting on Gamegate has not been great. I've argued there are likely legitimate people within “Gamergate” who are not only being overlooked, but having motives ascribed to them which they simplt do not have.

TL;DR, I think it’s fine to question the motives of some of the boycotters, but grouping *all* boycotters as being *motivated by misogyny* or the like is not a good proposition. It’s not even demonstrable that all boycotters have done anything else in line with Gamergate. Again, nuance is vital right now. Lack nuance and you alienate people like TotalBiscuit.

If we accept my premise that Gamergate has been spurred on by broad-strokes, continuing in that vein is not a good idea. If reasonable people exist and were offended, I think it’s a good idea to reach out to those people.[Some saying “grow up and deal with it” is maybe not helping.]

The complaints have come along with a deluge of abusive messages to serious harassment and threatening behaviour. Does this absolve the media for all of my criticisms? Certainly not, I reject the premise that saying “harassment is bad” gives one license to be inflammatory and then add to it via twitter. But the fact remains it’s difficult to traverse, I remember positing the following on the Escapist:

“If harassment wasn't an issue, and that one particularly awful week had never happened, does anyone really think the developers would have tolerated the “Gamers are Dead” articles?”

[Update: Having said this, the Dell employee comparing gamergate to ISIS really feels like a straw to break the camel’s back. I've been considerate in the past about why I can understand apologies being difficult, but frankly some of the behaviour baffles me. Honestly, for some people, an apology is so long overdue I question if it would even seem sincere now. Regardless, I believe an apology being necessary is not a matter of debate. The Dell bigot is not connected to the journalists, but they have spread this utterly single-minded demonising narrative.]

Regardless, a key issue with Gamergate is that it currently isn't conducive to dialogue.

The Curious Case of Damion Schubert and “the Shill”

I've made the argument that the industry [specifically journalists] could be pro-active in providing solutions to these problems. Damion Schubert is a games designer who runs the entertaining blog Zen of Design. I would argue that he has been very pro-active in suggesting solutions. So far he has come up with two ideas [both of which I think are rather good, at least in terms of concept.]

1. A Gaming ombudsman. Someone whose job is to critically write about the coverage of publications. They don’t write about games, they write about the stories, often with reference to reader feedback. They can help provide a “check” to the gaming media. An example is in the NYT.

2. A consumer advocacy group that would supplement #Gamergate called GAMR. This group can easily disown troublesome actors, can actually properly investigate claims made regarding corruption and gives the gaming industry someone to properly talk with.

The key thing to note about both of these ideas pitched by Mr Schubert is that they’re constructive in nature. They add a new element to the gaming landscape that “fixes current bugs” as it were. For his trouble, it seems the one positive for him that he filled a lot of the “you’re a shill” bingo card.

I'm sick of certain people throwing out “misogyny” almost constantly, but the people yelling “shill” are just as annoying. Hell I'm even seeing Gamergaters getting tired of it.

As I've made clear, I'm not interested in defending the games media and subsequent reactions to Gamergate, I think a lot of it has been dubious, but I really do think guys like Schubert, Koster and Jaffe etc. are really getting the bad end of the stick here when they've been seriously engaging.

I recently had a conversation on twitter in which someone explained to me that Schubert wasn't trustworthy because he had “misrepresented” Gamergate. I'm not sure I agree.

I’ll agree that certain things Mr Schubert has said re: Gamergate would contradict my own views, but it’s not by virtue of wilful misinterpretation. In fact, the point of view is pretty straight-forward and logically consistent. [Note, not saying the following is his interpretation, but I think it’s a general view held by many.]

1. Not everyone in Gamergate is a misogynist, hell probably even the vast majority of people there aren’t.

2. Despite proposition 1, Gamergate has a noticeable anti-feminist, anti “SJW” streak to it which can’t simply be ignored. Even *if* they weren't a “real part of GG” they’re still a part of GG: the clusterfuck. And many of those types *do* identify as being a part of Gamergate. (Operation Digging DIGRA.)

3. Action done by individuals attributable to Gamergate (AS police allegations) are demonstrably harmful.

4. “No true Scotsman” makes it near impossible to figure out how to engage with this.

I've always hated that damn Scotsman. I think many people overuse it. If someone says “I'm feminist” and then declares “I want to murder all men and establish the matriarchy”, they pretty obviously aren't feminist by the definition. [I'm not saying feminism gets a “free pass” for toxicity in its movement’s name, just like the MRM doesn't, but the point is we have a definition, universally understood, that we can apply.]

We don’t really have that with Gamergate. Gamergaters allege that no one can “speak for the movement”, which therefore also means they fall into the quandary of not having a kind of kompetenz-kompetenz (the competence to decide competence). They can’t declare who is, or who isn't, a part of the movement. This means that if people who have a virulent anti “SJW” streak to them, jump into the tag and start making movements in that direction, Gamergate, at least in part, becomes that.

Even excluding criminal behaviours, it still has this side to it. Now, does that mean I think the people who, for example, felt offended by the articles should simply be ignored? No, I think that’s a bad viewpoint to have, but it raises a very pressing dilemma:

If person A feels there is an ideological hold on gaming critique (left wing leaning “heavy on social justice” type stuff) and they want to put an end to this by *eliminating all political critique of gaming*, are they a part of Gamergate? (Seems pretty obvious to me such people exist in GG.)

If person B feels there is an ideological hold on gaming critique (left wing leaning “heavy on social justice” type stuff) and they want to put an end to this by *increasing the amount of political critique to encompass and include many different viewpoints* and so identifies as “pro-GG”, are they a part of Gamergate? (I’ve seen “disagreement without demonisation”, I’d say that qualifies.)

These viewpoints are diametrically opposed to one another. They cannot be reconciled. Let’s say Gamergate resolves in a bunch of journalists being sacked or something, will these people politely iron out their differences? Or would another war erupt?

For a lot of people looking in from the outside, Gamergate, if successful, only has an outcome which ultimately results in voices being excluded and many will viciously fight such an outcome. If however, Gamergate’s point was that they wanted to help create a platform whereby more people could feel a “part of the conversation”, the devs would likely *love* that.

Raph Koster’s done a great job of explaining that many devs *want* games to be seen as art. They therefore regard cultural critique as essential to their legitimacy. Devs also regard all forms of feedback, even “wrong” feedback as very useful, since it helps them find out how their customers feel and therefore how to make better games for their customers. (They aren't idiots, they can decipher reasonable feedback from ones that don’t have as much merit.)

So if Gamergate was pitched to a dev as an effort to bring in more voices and viewpoints into gaming, I'm fairly certain devs would love the concept, and would want to help in whatever way they could. Why? Because this would be a constructive solution.

I do think at present there’s a strong sense of “ideological agreement” in most of the gaming press, at least in the writing. I think a lot of people may feel alienated by this. Archon touched on it in the “Secret IRC logs of the GAMR cabal”. I argue if people were simply saying “we feel excluded and we’d like to have a greater voice” this conversation would be positive.

Now I think sometimes that conversation has been timidly brought up and some have had a tendency to dismiss it as “white men whining” which is very unfortunate, but it’s lacked a real thrust behind it until now. A lot of Gamergate seems to have been a mass collective awakening in which many people discover they all feel the same and they aren’t certain what to do.

The problem is that this constructive conversation isn't happening, right now we have destructive dialogue. Even if Gamergate succeeds in firing “exclusionary” journalists, it simply expels a “symptom”, not the “disease”, and there’ll be a very serious, potentially permanent, divide. You haven’t brought in your viewpoints and have just kicked others’ out. (Crabs in a barrel.)

So yes, Gamergate may be “winning” in terms of making things happen, but I think it has the potential to be a lot more good and to do it more effectively. (Note: several “bad” websites are actually doing fine/are unaffected.)

[Update, a second advertiser has apparently dropped from Gamasutra.]

This is why people think Gamergate needs an organisation/leadership. A lot of people don’t know what Gamergate wants, because so many people want different things, some of which even contradict one another. This is where an organisation comes in handy, to set an agenda and create a Scotsman that can be hoisted proudly.

PS: If you simply want “objective game reviews” the only answer is literally to subscribe to such a site like Regret Zero, Gamespot or IGN, or, if none exist that fit your bill, make your own.