(my 2 cents to it) There seems to be a great number of issues with the game, when one reads through the reviews. I think many people here seem to only talk about about the fact that radical feminist propaganda has been forced into it, but there is a lot more that should be adressed:
-Bugs -Multiplayer -Character rewriting -Tokenism -Graphics -No diverse dialog options -mainstory has many plotholes and plenty more
I am not even questioning why the game has bad scores given the fact that many many people wanted a continuation of the original baldurs gate. Seeing that this game is so wastely diffrent, very buggy, feels very diffrent and no longer true to it's original ,especially in terms of character writing, the millions of fans that baldurs gate has aquiered over the last 17 years, will not take kindly to their beloved brand name being treated like that.
I guess many people expected excellency but got only something painfully mediocre. that there is an outrage of the masses is understandable.
You cannot walk in the steps of a giant, when you only have the size of Minsc hamster. Baldurs Gate is bigger than Beamdog. It created a legacy that is unreachable.
I guess almost everyone know how to get this info but just in case ^^ Here people can see a list of stuff that they are right now patching ... maybe later they can patch more stuff.. this list looks like just critical bugs (sort of).
Without claiming to be a part of any 'group,' I support equality in all forms (sex, gender, orientation, religion, race, etc.) AND I support ethical journalism in all fields, gaming included. I am respectful and denounce harassment whenever I see it. And yet, even I have received death threats both from people claiming to be feminists and others claiming to be GG. Why? Because ANYONE can adopt those PHILOSOPHIES and take on the title of that group, then act independently of what the group stands for. Neither philosophy supports harassment and yet there are guilty individuals on both sides. It's silly to suggest otherwise when there are mountains of evidence that there are model feminists and GGers AND horrible, violent, abusive feminists and GGers.
@Abdel_Adrian: The problem with that position, though, is that there tends to be correlation between people who supposedly have appropriated philosophies but don't actually speak for the group and the specific hatred and harassment that emerge in response. Most of the new members of this forum over the past two weeks who identified as GGers or pro-GGers were also the ones protesting Mizhena as well as singling out Amber Scott (without so much as a word of criticism for her male co-writer) and proudly demonstrating that they hadn't even played the game long enough to form any kind of actual opinion.
By your logic, where are the "true" GGers? KIA had a thread citing Nate Church's article, even though Church was actively lying about the sequence of events by implying that Amber's comments were a response to criticism, when she was in fact replying to someone who called her a SJW for the inclusion of lesbian character Hexxat (someone Amber didn't even create or write for).
Where was the cry for ethical journalism then? Where were the "real" GGers to call foul on distorting facts that were plainly available given that Steam, GOG and this forum time-stamp their posts? Where are the GGers who, rather than make crass assumptions about Amber's "SJW Agenda", bothered to try asking her directly?
Nowhere. They were nowhere, because they don't exist. This forum has seen nothing from GGers - "alleged" or "real" - that would constitute ethical behavior in journalism. What we've seen is the same old battle cry of "SJW Agenda!", "Politics!" and "MY GAMES!" that's been applied over and over again.
@shawne You're entitled to that position, but I disagree with you and I don't believe you really have sufficient evidence to assert those claims as factual.
@shawne You're entitled to that position, but I disagree with you and I don't believe you really have sufficient evidence to assert those claims as factual.
I say this without malice: if you're such a staunch believer in ethical journalism, and you are in this forum claiming that GG is being misrepresented, don't you think you have a responsibility to discern the facts? All the information is right here on this forum: times, dates, account handles, comments, replies. If you're arguing that the people being openly transphobic and dishonest here are not what GG really stand for, the onus is on you to prove it.
@shawne You're entitled to that position, but I disagree with you and I don't believe you really have sufficient evidence to assert those claims as factual.
I say this without malice: if you're such a staunch believer in ethical journalism, and you are in this forum claiming that GG is being misrepresented, don't you think you have a responsibility to discern the facts? All the information is right here on this forum: times, dates, account handles, comments, replies. If you're arguing that the people being openly transphobic and dishonest here are not what GG really stand for, the onus is on you to prove it.
I've seen links to GG posts about how they didn't want change, and didn't call for harassment, I haven't seen otherwise. You misrepresent 'groups' by implying they're homogeneous and not made up of autonomous individuals.
I've seen links to GG posts about how they didn't want change, and didn't call for harassment, I haven't seen otherwise. You misrepresent 'groups' by implying they're homogeneous and not made up of autonomous individuals.
Uh... isn't that what you're doing, claiming that "they" didn't want change and "they" didn't call for harassment? Aren't you therefore arguing that this homogenous group had nothing to do with either of those protests?
Again: facts. If there are GGers who didn't want Mizhena changed, or who criticized so-called journalists at Breitbart who actively distorted facts to support a false narrative? They didn't come here. They haven't made statements. I haven't seen a single GGer cite Amber Scott's infamous forum post while including the comments she was actually replying to (because as any good journalist will tell you, context is important).
So if you're right, and such individuals exist who are solely concerned with ethics in game journalism: where are they? Why are they silent?
It's silly to suggest otherwise when there are mountains of evidence that there are model feminists and GGers AND horrible, violent, abusive feminists and GGers.
The problem is that while there are some awful feminists I fail to see evidence that the numbers are anywhere near as high as with GamerGate. I believe this is a false equivalence.
@shawne You're entitled to that position, but I disagree with you and I don't believe you really have sufficient evidence to assert those claims as factual.
I say this without malice: if you're such a staunch believer in ethical journalism, and you are in this forum claiming that GG is being misrepresented, don't you think you have a responsibility to discern the facts? All the information is right here on this forum: times, dates, account handles, comments, replies. If you're arguing that the people being openly transphobic and dishonest here are not what GG really stand for, the onus is on you to prove it.
You are wrong. The one who makes claims has to provide suffisticated proof for those claims. In this case you are the one making claims. Why is it that on every single gamergate website or forum all they talk about is ethics in gaming? Claming that a movement which has at its core ideologiy ethical behaviour is actually some sort of conspiracy whoms real agenda is hating gay people is quite a bold claim. You say you have seen Gamergaters being homophobic here. You have to provide the proof that that happend and that these peole actually belong to the movement.
Just saying that everybody who is homophobic is a gamergater is simply misrepresenting a movement and labeling it with attributes you want it to have.
You as the the one making the claim, you have to provide the links to the "gamergaters" who are homophobic and you have to provide proof that they are gamergaters. Otherwise you are the unethical person here.
@shawne Are you purposely misunderstanding me? They're philosophies, call them groups all you want. I continue to say there are individuals on both sides in the wrong. And look at my comment on pg. 12, call me a GGer if you will because I support ethical journalism, and I clearly said I didn't support any form of censorship. You are clearly wrong.
There's also an official report done by a women's interest group that finds, with statistics, no wrong doing in high numbers, as you claim. I'll find that for you shortly.
The first link is all statistics, and clearly debunks your narrative. The pdf is an official study by Women, Action, and the Media, and found no hate campaign despite looking for one, believing it existed. But tell me again how it's a numbers issue when you've shown me no numbers.
@shawne Are you purposely misunderstanding me? They're philosophies, call them groups all you want. I continue to say there are individuals on both sides in the wrong. And look at my comment on pg. 12, call me a GGer if you will because I support ethical journalism, and I clearly said I didn't support any form of censorship. You are clearly wrong.
There's also an official report done by a women's interest group that finds, with statistics, no wrong doing in high numbers, as you claim. I'll find that for you shortly.
The first link is all statistics, and clearly debunks your narrative. The pdf is an official study by Women, Action, and the Media, and found no hate campaign despite looking for one, believing it existed. But tell me again how it's a numbers issue when you've shown me no numbers.
I knew this was going to be easy before I even clicked on a link. Just a hunch I had based on previous experience with debating GG supporters.
There are multiple problems with your statistics and I will address each of them below.
#1. Both only count incidents on twitter while ignoring the rest of social media such as, oh... I don't know... YOUTUBE. Feel free to go to any GG channels and look at the comments section. You will see the hatred being spewed. Better yet, go to feminist channels that spoke out about GG and look at the comments in those videos. Its not pretty. And i'm not talking about a few of them, I'm talking the majority of comments. You can also see the hate on game forums and gaming news sites. Would you like a list of popular channels from both sides so you can see for yourself?
#2. You clearly didn't read the report very carefully. These incidents were just from a THREE WEEK period. Notice the sentence, " In three weeks, WAM! reviewers assessed 811 incoming reports of harassment" The key words are "incoming" and "three week". That is 811 reports in just three weeks and those are only the ones that were actually reported, which brings me to my next point.
#3. A lot of people don't bother reporting abusive messages and choose to just block them.
#4. You may want to scroll down to the bottom of the report and read this key bit of information: "The problem of evidence. The challenges of proving harassment are often framed as challenges of context and interpretation. Experiences from the WAM! project emphasize that the mode or format of evidence also has serious consequences. Twitter currently requires URLS and rejects screenshots as evidence; consequently, Twitter's review process doesn't address 'tweet and delete' harassment, which often involves doxxing. While twitter updated its reporting system in FEBRUARY 2015 (Note: long after this report was done), to accept reports of doxxing, there have been public changes with regard to the evidence it accepts for harassment reports." So yes, many harassment reports would not even be accepted according to the rules.
#5. You said "There's also an official report done by a women's interest group that finds, with statistics, no wrong doing in high numbers" to make it sound like the group actually claimed they found no wrong-doing. This isn't just a dishonest misrepresentation, its a flat out lie. I see nothing in the report making that claim and I just Googled it to find absolutely nothing again. The report is pretty clear that there IS a problem when you have over 800 reports in just 3 weeks, especially considering that many reports won't even be accepted because of their rules.
Please learn to read reports correctly if you are going to cite them in arguments.
Way to go @abentwookie you're fighting the good fight few of us have the energy for. I'm very much a block/delete kind of person re: abuse and harassment I receive online, no small part of it in the past being from people claiming allegiance with GG. I don't go any further with it because there's just no point, but it doesn't stop my experiences from being real and "factual" as some people in this thread keep insisting upon. Documentation isn't a pre-requisitive of lived experience of abuse, and in fact many people prefer to have as little documentation of having lived through it as possible and that's perfectly understandable.
You are wrong. The one who makes claims has to provide suffisticated proof for those claims. In this case you are the one making claims.
Uh, no. Again: facts.
1) There are posts on this forum by people who've registered in the last two weeks that are explicitly racist and/or transphobic, and who have self-identified either as GamerGaters or "pro-GG". The majority of these have singled out and targeted Amber Scott.
2) @Abdel_Adrian is claiming that these individuals are in fact not GGers, and do not represent the "philosophy" in question.
3) To which I say, to both of you: prove it. You are the ones claiming misrepresentation. It's not my job to substantiate your position.
Way to go @abentwookie you're fighting the good fight few of us have the energy for. I'm very much a block/delete kind of person re: abuse and harassment I receive online, no small part of it in the past being from people claiming allegiance with GG. I don't go any further with it because there's just no point, but it doesn't stop my experiences from being real and "factual" as some people in this thread keep insisting upon. Documentation isn't a pre-requisitive of lived experience of abuse, and in fact many people prefer to have as little documentation of having lived through it as possible and that's perfectly understandable.
Yeah, the time I was targeted I just blocked and deleted. Friends of mine have done everything from block-delete to engaging to writing articles about what happened.
I wonder if Abdel_Adrien has heard of the FiveGuys chat channel, and all of the organizing and planning behind gamergate at its start that went on there.
Way to go @abentwookie you're fighting the good fight few of us have the energy for. I'm very much a block/delete kind of person re: abuse and harassment I receive online, no small part of it in the past being from people claiming allegiance with GG. I don't go any further with it because there's just no point, but it doesn't stop my experiences from being real and "factual" as some people in this thread keep insisting upon. Documentation isn't a pre-requisitive of lived experience of abuse, and in fact many people prefer to have as little documentation of having lived through it as possible and that's perfectly understandable.
Well, I am passionate about the subject matter. I also have loved debating since I was 13 and plan to do it professionally as kind of a side-career so I get involved in discussions like this as often as possible to hone my skill. lol I actually have a debate coming up with Sargon of Akad on YouTube in two months and I am sure the GamerGate issue will be part of the discussion.
I imagine that debating the youtuber Sargon of Akad would be about the same as debating a brick wall, I don't know why you'd put yourself through that. He has said some truly heinous, disgusting things about women he doesn't like that made me want to meet him in public for wordless debate between his face and a tire iron, you're a better person than I am if you think you could tolerate him engaging in his special toxic brand of projection of his issues in your direction for longer than a minute.
Way to go @abentwookie you're fighting the good fight few of us have the energy for. I'm very much a block/delete kind of person re: abuse and harassment I receive online, no small part of it in the past being from people claiming allegiance with GG. I don't go any further with it because there's just no point, but it doesn't stop my experiences from being real and "factual" as some people in this thread keep insisting upon. Documentation isn't a pre-requisitive of lived experience of abuse, and in fact many people prefer to have as little documentation of having lived through it as possible and that's perfectly understandable.
Yeah, the time I was targeted I just blocked and deleted. Friends of mine have done everything from block-delete to engaging to writing articles about what happened.
I wonder if Abdel_Adrien has heard of the FiveGuys chat channel, and all of the organizing and planning behind gamergate at its start that went on there.
Clearly you were never harassed if it wasn't reported to twitter and they did not ban the person. Yep, sounds like rock-solid logic to me.
I imagine that debating the youtuber Sargon of Akad would be about the same as debating a brick wall, I don't know why you'd put yourself through that. He has said some truly heinous, disgusting things about women he doesn't like that made me want to meet him in public for wordless debate between his face and a tire iron, you're a better person than I am if you think you could tolerate him engaging in his special toxic brand of projection of his issues in your direction for longer than a minute.
Well, someone has to do it. I think its better to confront people like him and dismantle his poorly-reasoned arguments in front of everyone. If we let it go unchecked, then this can lead to it spreading to even more people. I realize I am not going to change Sargon's opinions but its not for his benefit, its for the people watching the debate. And If I sway even a few people who may have been on the fence, then its worth it. I have already debated people even worse than Sargon so its nothing new to me. lol My last really extensive debate was with Lana Voreskova, who is a speaker for hate groups like AVFM and has said things even worse than most of the nonsense spewed by Sargon. We debated the role of women in Ancient Rome and I pretty much demolished her with facts (with citations) while she failed to support any of her wild assertions. I'm hoping Sargon will at least present a decent challenge but I have my doubts after watching many of his videos.
@abentwookie Are you serious? You obviously did not read thoroughly, much less understand the studies. I was literally told in this thread that because I am a scientist, my standards are too high for this discussion. As if logic and objectivity are bad things. You know what all scientists must be competent in? Advanced Statistics. I received an A+ in that course back in college, what are your credentials on judging statistics? I'm genuinely curious, because your profile picture appears to be that of a minor.
Not only do you not understand these statistics presented, none of your points present any evidence, much less prove I'm wrong. Gamergate started on twitter and has largely been a twitter campaign. Of course it has since spread to other media including Youtube, I never said otherwise. WAM! also looks at other media, hence their name, but they focused on twitter because that is where the bulk of this is taking place. I'm sorry you fail to understand that. The time frame of the studies are not the most important thing, you literally cannot perform a study that is comprehensive of all time frames because it can never update fast enough. All researchers must make choices like this. Two separate studies with different time frames show the same results though, so again, time frame isn't important. I read the studies very thoroughly, in their entirety, and you're wrong about their conclusions. They do say harassment takes place. At equal or lesser rates than all other forms of harassment from other causes. As for your fourth point....yeah? And? Of course they said that, it's true. It's irrelevant. Any good study, and this one is very good, must cover in their discussion what they could not address in their study. They were transparent and that was great, but if you read the whole study you would see that in no way does that acknowledgement somehow reverse their findings that there is no significant findings of hate. They included doxxing in the study because they are independent of twitter, you must have missed that. Their ultimate ruling was that a fraction of GG related activity was hateful and that the vast majority was neutral. And 5, they found harassment. Some. So little, in fact, to debunk your false narrative that it's about the quantity of harassment. You did not read/understand either study very well.
And I apologize for the double post, but since no one wants to critically read and understand the statistics, I want to reiterate that WAM! literally said GG is not a harassment campaign, based on these findings.
@Abdel_Adrian Good luck with this. I doubt anything you bring up will seem sufficient. Also I've been reading this forum a lot over the course of this debate and don't really recall a large number of transphobes declaring their affiliation with GG. Or really a large number of transphobes period. It seems to convenient for @Shawne to say so and then put the onus on Abdel here to find out otherwise.
Gamer Gaters are the victims. They are associated with death threats, misogyny, terrorism and rapists. These extreme SJW are ruining lives and not held accountable.
@Abdel_Adrian Good luck with this. I doubt anything you bring up will seem sufficient. Also I've been reading this forum a lot over the course of this debate and don't really recall a large number of transphobes declaring their affiliation with GG. Or really a large number of transphobes period. It seems to convenient for you to say so and then put the onus on Abdel here to find out otherwise.
Thank you. And yeah, I've been following since day one and haven't seen what people are claiming to see, yet can produce no evidence of. I'm getting a little tired of the pointless argument, but it's something about the ignorance and bias here that makes me want to educate.
Come on, folks. Is it really necessary to get into a pissing match trying to determine whether the folks that prompted this response were real GamerGaters, fake GamerGaters, not-GamerGaters-at-all, "True Fans", or what have you?
That's not going to change what's happened, which is pretty self-explanatory, and isn't going to change what'll happen next -- which is, I'm quite certain, the SoD team focusing on fixing as many issues as they can. I'm sure the team would appreciate reports of any issues you come across, whether they be subjective or otherwise, and so long as those reports are done in a sensible and polite manner I'm sure they'll be considered accordingly.
Come on, folks. Is it really necessary to get into a pissing match trying to determine whether the folks that prompted this response were real GamerGaters, fake GamerGaters, not-GamerGaters-at-all, "True Fans", or what have you?
That's not going to change what's happened, which is pretty self-explanatory, and isn't going to change what'll happen next -- which is, I'm quite certain, the SoD team focusing on fixing as many issues as they can. I'm sure the team would appreciate reports of any issues you come across, whether they be subjective or otherwise, and so long as those reports are done in a sensible and polite manner I'm sure they'll be considered accordingly.
I mean no disrespect, but I don't think that's what this is about. Certainly not to me. We're all fans of Baldur's Gate here. You're correct that the pissing match is completely unnecessary though. While it may be lofty, my goal is simply one of promoting unity. I want ethics to be a respectable idea without being colored by people's perceptions of GG as much as I want equality to be a respectable idea without some people's negative perceptions of feminists. But I would love to talk about BG even more...
(I start writing this very to long and very to not polite (because this whole debate is really messy and lead nowhere imho) message before David_Gaider post. It's better to listen to him than me clearly)
Comments
There seems to be a great number of issues with the game, when one reads through the reviews.
I think many people here seem to only talk about about the fact that radical feminist propaganda has been forced into it, but there is a lot more that should be adressed:
-Bugs
-Multiplayer
-Character rewriting
-Tokenism
-Graphics
-No diverse dialog options
-mainstory has many plotholes
and plenty more
I am not even questioning why the game has bad scores given the fact that many many people wanted a continuation of the original baldurs gate.
Seeing that this game is so wastely diffrent, very buggy, feels very diffrent and no longer true to it's original ,especially in terms of character writing, the millions of fans that baldurs gate has aquiered over the last 17 years, will not take kindly to their beloved brand name being treated like that.
I guess many people expected excellency but got only something painfully mediocre.
that there is an outrage of the masses is understandable.
You cannot walk in the steps of a giant, when you only have the size of Minsc hamster.
Baldurs Gate is bigger than Beamdog.
It created a legacy that is unreachable.
Here people can see a list of stuff that they are right now patching ... maybe later they can patch more stuff.. this list looks like just critical bugs (sort of).
redmine.beamdog.com/projects/external-bugs/roadmap
By your logic, where are the "true" GGers? KIA had a thread citing Nate Church's article, even though Church was actively lying about the sequence of events by implying that Amber's comments were a response to criticism, when she was in fact replying to someone who called her a SJW for the inclusion of lesbian character Hexxat (someone Amber didn't even create or write for).
Where was the cry for ethical journalism then? Where were the "real" GGers to call foul on distorting facts that were plainly available given that Steam, GOG and this forum time-stamp their posts? Where are the GGers who, rather than make crass assumptions about Amber's "SJW Agenda", bothered to try asking her directly?
Nowhere. They were nowhere, because they don't exist. This forum has seen nothing from GGers - "alleged" or "real" - that would constitute ethical behavior in journalism. What we've seen is the same old battle cry of "SJW Agenda!", "Politics!" and "MY GAMES!" that's been applied over and over again.
You misrepresent 'groups' by implying they're homogeneous and not made up of autonomous individuals.
Again: facts. If there are GGers who didn't want Mizhena changed, or who criticized so-called journalists at Breitbart who actively distorted facts to support a false narrative? They didn't come here. They haven't made statements. I haven't seen a single GGer cite Amber Scott's infamous forum post while including the comments she was actually replying to (because as any good journalist will tell you, context is important).
So if you're right, and such individuals exist who are solely concerned with ethics in game journalism: where are they? Why are they silent?
The one who makes claims has to provide suffisticated proof for those claims.
In this case you are the one making claims.
Why is it that on every single gamergate website or forum all they talk about is ethics in gaming?
Claming that a movement which has at its core ideologiy ethical behaviour is actually some sort of conspiracy whoms real agenda is hating gay people is quite a bold claim.
You say you have seen Gamergaters being homophobic here. You have to provide the proof that that happend and that these peole actually belong to the movement.
Just saying that everybody who is homophobic is a gamergater is simply misrepresenting a movement and labeling it with attributes you want it to have.
You as the the one making the claim, you have to provide the links to the "gamergaters" who are homophobic and you have to provide proof that they are gamergaters.
Otherwise you are the unethical person here.
And look at my comment on pg. 12, call me a GGer if you will because I support ethical journalism, and I clearly said I didn't support any form of censorship. You are clearly wrong.
@abentwookie That's completely rhetoric, I can actually find you statistics that prove GG isn't a female-hating harassment campaign, but you would never believe that.
https://medium.com/@cainejw/an-actual-statistical-analysis-of-gamergate-dfd809858f68#.8d0ox7rbb
There's also an official report done by a women's interest group that finds, with statistics, no wrong doing in high numbers, as you claim. I'll find that for you shortly.
Edit: You want proof and statistics. Here they are.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1505/1505.03359.pdf
The first link is all statistics, and clearly debunks your narrative. The pdf is an official study by Women, Action, and the Media, and found no hate campaign despite looking for one, believing it existed. But tell me again how it's a numbers issue when you've shown me no numbers.
There are multiple problems with your statistics and I will address each of them below.
#1. Both only count incidents on twitter while ignoring the rest of social media such as, oh... I don't know... YOUTUBE.
#2. You clearly didn't read the report very carefully. These incidents were just from a THREE WEEK period. Notice the sentence, " In three weeks, WAM! reviewers assessed 811 incoming reports of harassment" The key words are "incoming" and "three week".
#3. A lot of people don't bother reporting abusive messages and choose to just block them.
#4. You may want to scroll down to the bottom of the report and read this key bit of information: "The problem of evidence. The challenges of proving harassment are often framed as challenges of context and interpretation. Experiences from the WAM! project emphasize that the mode or format of evidence also has serious consequences. Twitter currently requires URLS and rejects screenshots as evidence; consequently, Twitter's review process doesn't address 'tweet and delete' harassment, which often involves doxxing. While twitter updated its reporting system in FEBRUARY 2015 (Note: long after this report was done), to accept reports of doxxing, there have been public changes with regard to the evidence it accepts for harassment reports." So yes, many harassment reports would not even be accepted according to the rules.
#5. You said "There's also an official report done by a women's interest group that finds, with statistics, no wrong doing in high numbers" to make it sound like the group actually claimed they found no wrong-doing. This isn't just a dishonest misrepresentation, its a flat out lie. I see nothing in the report making that claim and I just Googled it to find absolutely nothing again. The report is pretty clear that there IS a problem when you have over 800 reports in just 3 weeks, especially considering that many reports won't even be accepted because of their rules.
Please learn to read reports correctly if you are going to cite them in arguments.
1) There are posts on this forum by people who've registered in the last two weeks that are explicitly racist and/or transphobic, and who have self-identified either as GamerGaters or "pro-GG". The majority of these have singled out and targeted Amber Scott.
2) @Abdel_Adrian is claiming that these individuals are in fact not GGers, and do not represent the "philosophy" in question.
3) To which I say, to both of you: prove it. You are the ones claiming misrepresentation. It's not my job to substantiate your position.
I wonder if Abdel_Adrien has heard of the FiveGuys chat channel, and all of the organizing and planning behind gamergate at its start that went on there.
Not only do you not understand these statistics presented, none of your points present any evidence, much less prove I'm wrong.
Gamergate started on twitter and has largely been a twitter campaign. Of course it has since spread to other media including Youtube, I never said otherwise. WAM! also looks at other media, hence their name, but they focused on twitter because that is where the bulk of this is taking place. I'm sorry you fail to understand that.
The time frame of the studies are not the most important thing, you literally cannot perform a study that is comprehensive of all time frames because it can never update fast enough. All researchers must make choices like this. Two separate studies with different time frames show the same results though, so again, time frame isn't important.
I read the studies very thoroughly, in their entirety, and you're wrong about their conclusions. They do say harassment takes place. At equal or lesser rates than all other forms of harassment from other causes.
As for your fourth point....yeah? And? Of course they said that, it's true. It's irrelevant. Any good study, and this one is very good, must cover in their discussion what they could not address in their study. They were transparent and that was great, but if you read the whole study you would see that in no way does that acknowledgement somehow reverse their findings that there is no significant findings of hate. They included doxxing in the study because they are independent of twitter, you must have missed that. Their ultimate ruling was that a fraction of GG related activity was hateful and that the vast majority was neutral.
And 5, they found harassment. Some. So little, in fact, to debunk your false narrative that it's about the quantity of harassment. You did not read/understand either study very well.
That's not going to change what's happened, which is pretty self-explanatory, and isn't going to change what'll happen next -- which is, I'm quite certain, the SoD team focusing on fixing as many issues as they can. I'm sure the team would appreciate reports of any issues you come across, whether they be subjective or otherwise, and so long as those reports are done in a sensible and polite manner I'm sure they'll be considered accordingly.
While it may be lofty, my goal is simply one of promoting unity. I want ethics to be a respectable idea without being colored by people's perceptions of GG as much as I want equality to be a respectable idea without some people's negative perceptions of feminists. But I would love to talk about BG even more...