@KcoQuidam fwiw I thought it was a fine post and didn't really hurt anything.
Garrr. I still have it in one tab... I'll repost it, my head and reaction capacity have reach the "i can't decide" point i think. If people wanna me delete it just say it. I write it in a "emotion of 'stop this it's enought' state" so if it hurt to much people i'll delete it.
-----
GamerGate is a word with no meaning. A lot of harassers and abusers use the term, but you always end up with the argument "everybody can use this word, this person/people aren't GamerGate". I don't say there no thing to say about this, just it's hopeless (in my humble opinion). And it's more or less (still in my humble opinion) just another way to divert the discussions. When people spend time arguing if "GamerGate is evil or not" or if "GamerGate is behind this thing" we stop talking about the thing itself most of the time.
I rather prefer talking about: social media platform, websites and threads where harrass campain start and organise itself (8chan for the most, sometime linked on KiA but also on twitter with mostly alway a new # each time), talking about the reactionary hainous part of the gaming community, a lot of very followed youtubers, etc.
Even if i use myself the term SJW as joke in my biography in most social media platform i can't say i never seen problem with self-proclamed sjw people, for the sake of social justice some group of people sometimes use very very problematic methods, including harassing, personal data revelation and digging your past searching for everything they can use to break you publicly (talking by experiment, as a trans person i have to face some very hainous self-proclamed "SJW" trans exclusionnal radical feminists who dig my social media account in search of message i have post before my comming out in the online commnity to prove i was not a "real" trans person).
Most of my problem with self-proclamed GamerGate people is the fact I see them ONLY arguing when it come to say "GamerGate is not evil" or from underage almost-nude or butt pose removal. I have never see a GamerGate self-proclamed person talking about how many websites share without any research the harass-buzz targeting Zoe Quinn (you can not like her, but the facts are the facts and if you care about ethics in journalism you DO have to address when websites are making badbuzz about a "supposed-sex-echange-against-a-good-review-even-if-that-review-never-exist"), no more talking when it come to talk about harass campaign, never see ever a GamerGate self-proclamed person talking about LGBT erasure in serie/gaming localisation (but i see a lot talking about censorship when the removing was about homophobic content).
I don't say they never do that. But very strangely when I talk about this issues there always a self-proclamed GamerGate person who come to say (in this order) 1) I am wrong 2) There no problem 3) there no harass campaign 4) The problem is [something else] 5) and after all GamerGate was not the source of the harass campaign.
I don't say they all do that, i say i have ALWAYS at least one people like this coming at me every single time i talk publicly on social problem in gaming, even if i dont mention the gamergate thing.
And at the same time i can't say there no problem with self-proclamed SJW people (even if i'm one / still thinking it's a cool label / still sound like an advanced paladin class), there a lot of TERFs, White-only-feminist, etc. But in the subject of gaming i have clearly less problem with this people, and at least they don't have a subreddit thing.
But I really think this whole "GG was evil/unevil" discuss lead nowhere, not because there nothing to say, but because all . the . time . this . discuss . come . it's . not . the . origin . subject. It's really sound like a "sorry but you have no proof this shapeless group composed by a lot of self-proclamed person for all lot of reason we don't care about and with no real lead is ALL behind what you discuss" sentence. Yes we can't and seriously we don't care.
Here, there a bashing campaign, launch by hainous gaming reactionous people, mostly because of the presence of one trans character, there subjets on multiples website where people ask to downvote SoD because of the only presence of this character, there youtube videos where people kill in the game the character after launching a "detection trap" on her, there a lot of people arguing it was not about the presence of the character but just because she was "just" a token even if she was link to multiple quest in the game (which is more than most of the background NPC), then there people searching for a target to harass, end up on an Amber Scott interview and sharing multiple false reading or accusation on her, etc, etc, etc. I . dont . fucking . care if it was "GamerGate" or any other nosense label behind all of this. There definitivly a problem, a huge one, and we must address it and NOT running in every direction saying "it was not me, it was not me". If you come and are more (and most of the time only) interrested by claiming your innocence than addressing the problem i definitivly dont wanna listen to you.
So now can we talk about what this forum is for ? BG:SoD and stop with this debat that lead nowhere, because it was made to lead nowhere ?
@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.
#1. That is an argument from authority and we have no way of knowing that your claims about being a scientist and getting an "A+" in advanced statistics are true. Unless, of course, you provide evidence. Sorry to tell you but claiming to be a scientist doesn't automatically give your argument more credibility. You know, for a scientist, you really don't seem to display an abundance of critical thought in your posts. No offense.
#2. You don't have to be a "scientist" to read statistics correctly.
#3. If you must know, I am 19 and a college student. However, that is not relevant to the discussion. You are essentially arguing that you are right because you claim to be a scientist, which is patently absurd of course.
Now that we have that out of the way, I will move on to the rest of your post.
"Not only do you not understand these statistics presented, none of your points present any evidence, much less prove I'm wrong."
I proved that your statistics and your own personal analysis of the statistics are both fundamentally flawed. You actually assisted me with that later in this post but I will get to that in a moment.
"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. "
GamerGate did NOT start on Twitter. As BelleSorciere pointed out, it started on the FiveGuys chat. This was the birthplace of GamerGate as a movement. And it quickly spread to both YouTube and Twitter. Well, technically, I suppose I could say it actually started on the blog of Zoey Quinn's jilted ex-boyfriend, since that was the original source of it all. And sorry to tell you but it was on YouTube the same week it started on Twitter. That was when people like Mundane Matt and Sargon started fanning the flames with the first of their endless stream of GamerGate videos.
"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."
Actually, it is extremely important when you are claiming the study proves GamerGate doesn't harass people when it only covers a short period that was AFTER the worst of it was already over.... It really started in August but September was the peak month of the GamerGate ragefest and it started dying down a bit in late October. Go look at the dates for harassment and threats of the key figures like Sarkeesian, Wu, Quin, etc... All of them happened in that period when things were really out of control.
For Quinn, most of the harassment happened in August and September and reached the point where she had to leave her house due to the threats.
For Sarkeesian, most of it was in September and she recieved a bomb threat against the lecture she was planning at Utah State University.
For Wu, she recieved the death threats in October as well.
By November the majority of it had started to die down a bit, which is the time when this study had started and they still had a ton of harassment reports even then.
Also, the bulk of the GamerGate ragefest did NOT just happen on Twitter. There was just as much, if not more, on sites like YOuTube and within individual game communities. I was in several of them at the time when this craziness started. Look at what it has done to this forum and this is two years later. lol GamerGate is extremely toxic to any community they enter.
The next problem is that the methodology is flawed because it relies entirely on the autoblocker list. They only counted someone as being a member of GamerGate if they were listed on the gg autoblocker, which only included roughly 10,000 accounts. Let me repeat that.... It has a grand total of 10,000 accounts that it associates with GamerGate. So if people start up a Twitter account and start harassing someone without actually following a bunch of GamerGaters, they won't be listed on the autoblocker and won't be counted. So not only is it flawed for only counting a three week period AFTER GamerGate had already started to die down, it wasn't even based on the actual content of the posts, it was based on whether or not someone was listed on the autoblocker. Seriously? As a scientist, you seriously believe that proves GamerGate is innocent?
Saying that someone is not a member of GamerGate because they were not on the autoblock list of 10,000 accounts is simply not a logical argument. It doesn't actually prove they aren't affiliated with GamerGate, it just means they aren't on the small list of them. Nothing more, nothing less.
"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."
The vast majority are neutral? Where does it say that? They only studied harassment complaints that were filed. This wouldn't include sexist/racist comments that were not repeatedly directed towards anyone specific (i.e. harassment) so I don't see how you are drawing that conclusion either.
Do you want to prove that the majority of GamerGate never harassed anyone? OKay, this is how you do it.
Step #1. Study the actual tweets and youtube comments (on GG related videos obviously) from the period between August and November of that year and decide where it counts as harassment or hateful toward women/minorities based on the content of the posts.
Step #2. Decide if they are members of GamerGate or supporters by examining the person's history on the site and whether or not they are using the common GamerGate arguments rather than basing it on whether they are on a small block list.
The study needs to be comprehensive and not based on flawed methodology.
@abentwookie As for the WAM! study “This report was reviewed by five academic reviewers in a double-blind, revise-and-resubmit peer review process chaired by Zeynep Tufekci, Assistant Professor at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.” But yeah, let's trust a 19 yo college student more. And GG started with Adam Baldwin on Twitter. Arguing with you is a waste of time. You have your convictions and no amount of evidence will sway you. Enjoy your chat with Sargon, I'll be sure to have some popcorn ready to watch that hilarity.
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.
Hello everyone, welcome to Bad Arguments 101! I am Professor Wookie and today we will be discussing examples of how to draw a false conclusion based on bad logic. First you should claim you are going to prove that Group A never harassed Group B. Then you can sort through all of the harassment complaints (from a very shirt time period that was after the peak of the controversy) filed by Group B and only count the ones that belong to accounts posted on the GroupAAutoBlockerList, which will only include 10,000 of the actual accounts belonging to Group A. Now you can claim that Group A clearly didn't harass Group B because only a small number of the harassment complaints involved members of Group A from the autblocklist of 10,000 of its members even though Group A is much larger than 10,000. And of course you don't even need to include all of the incidents that weren't even reported by Group B. How awesome is that?
Wow. And you are a scientist? Okay. Your real name isn't Phil Mason is it?
I appreciate your decision to expand Mizhena and i personally think it is one of the major requirements of SoD.
Future petitions: - Captain Corwin, tweak the dialog slightly so it doesn't imply mansplaining her. - Refugees dialog, add another dialog option that isn't biased towards them - Restore Safana to her teasing nature
Only on the internet is "mansplaining" even a thing.
While Abdel Adrian has indeed proved that he went to college, and took a class in advanced statistics from a psychology department, I think that a word of caution is warranted here. Posting things of a personal nature is not safe on the internet. The last thing anyone wants to do when tempers have flared is to open yourself up to the kind of attack that people like Quinn and Sarkeesian went through. When people are angry enough they can do horrific things. The more proof that you post, the more you open yourself up to attack.
Now, of course if you make a claim based on your profession to prove your point (IE: "I'm a scientist" "I'm a soldier" "I'm a whatever") then you can indeed be questioned. And it can be very frustrating to feel questioned on something that you hold to be very dear to yourself. Such as if you are a scientist and someone questions your methodology or critical thinking.
While nothing has been posted yet that can track you, please be careful about that. If you feel the need to prove your credentials, do so through the quality of your posts. Have a discussion about how studies can be meaningful and what the methodology should be. A well argued response can be all the proof you need.
TL/DR: Posting things of a personal nature in a toxic internet environment isn't safe.
Yes, you are right of course. Its not flawed methodology to only count GGers who were on a very small list of them, rather than basing it on the content of the posts being examined. If you're not on the list, you are obviously not a GG supporter. Nope, its not possible. There are exactly 10,000 GamerGaters online. I really never knew that GG was such a tiny movement.
Let me help you a bit... If you want to say, "I don't believe most of GamerGate was involved in harassment and I believe this study supports my view" that would be acceptable, even though you would still be wrong. The problem is that you didn't say that. You presented your opinion as a factual statement by saying GamerGate wasn't involved and this proves it. When you examine the study objectively, you should be rational enough to realize that it doesn't actually PROVE it because it only covers a fraction (10,000) of the actual gamergate group AND only from one website.
Yes, you are right of course. Its not flawed methodology to only count GGers who were on a very small list of them, rather than basing it on the content of the posts being examined. If you're not on the list, you are obviously not a GG supporter. Nope, its not possible. There are exactly 10,000 GamerGaters online. I really never knew that GG was such a tiny movement.
It is even more flawed when you consider that it doesn't take into account that it is easy as hell to make alt accounts and such.
Oh shoot, I shouldn't link that, I was already accused of actually being him...
Ah yes that guy with the Anita Sarkeesian obsession... there is actually a good video about him (the retard count comes from a screenshot of a thunderf00t video that this video that I posted criticizes, this video that i posted itself does not condone calling other people retarded): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpgBkpb7xlU
He managed to make a ghostbusters video be about Anita Sarkeesian...
Yes, you are right of course. Its not flawed methodology to only count GGers who were on a very small list of them, rather than basing it on the content of the posts being examined. If you're not on the list, you are obviously not a GG supporter. Nope, its not possible. There are exactly 10,000 GamerGaters online. I really never knew that GG was such a tiny movement.
It is even more flawed when you consider that it doesn't take into account that it is easy as hell to make alt accounts and such.
While Abdel Adrian has indeed proved that he went to college, and took a class in advanced statistics from a psychology department, I think that a word of caution is warranted here. Posting things of a personal nature is not safe on the internet. The last thing anyone wants to do when tempers have flared is to open yourself up to the kind of attack that people like Quinn and Sarkeesian went through. When people are angry enough they can do horrific things. The more proof that you post, the more you open yourself up to attack.
Now, of course if you make a claim based on your profession to prove your point (IE: "I'm a scientist" "I'm a soldier" "I'm a whatever") then you can indeed be questioned. And it can be very frustrating to feel questioned on something that you hold to be very dear to yourself. Such as if you are a scientist and someone questions your methodology or critical thinking.
While nothing has been posted yet that can track you, please be careful about that. If you feel the need to prove your credentials, do so through the quality of your posts. Have a discussion about how studies can be meaningful and what the methodology should be. A well argued response can be all the proof you need.
TL/DR: Posting things of a personal nature in a toxic internet environment isn't safe.
Oh he has proven it? Okay, I retract my comment about that then. However, it still doesn't automatically mean he is correct about an issue regarding statistics as he seems to believe.
I do agree that it probably isn't a good idea to give out too much personal information but I personally don't think people should be discussing their profession or background to try to give credibility to their arguments in the first place. It is irrelevant to the actual accuracy of the person's argument.
Yes, you are right of course. Its not flawed methodology to only count GGers who were on a very small list of them, rather than basing it on the content of the posts being examined. If you're not on the list, you are obviously not a GG supporter. Nope, its not possible. There are exactly 10,000 GamerGaters online. I really never knew that GG was such a tiny movement.
It is even more flawed when you consider that it doesn't take into account that it is easy as hell to make alt accounts and such.
Yes, it is quite easy. I believe he knows this as well and I also believe he realized that the study was fundamentally flawed before he even linked to it. Just my opinion. If he is truly a scientist then he should have a better grasp on critical thought.
@abentwookie I could literally mail you my diploma and you wouldn't be convinced of anything, but that's not my concern. You're right that credentials don't matter, that doesn't change that you've misinterpreted the statistics while I haven't. If I can't make you realize that, that's fine. Keep telling me how I haven't proven anything while you continue to not prove anything.
Oh shoot, I shouldn't link that, I was already accused of actually being him...
Again, your logic is extremely bad. It is amazing that you somehow managed to get to "She accused me of being Phil Mason" from "Your name isn't Phil Mason is it? "
A question is not an accusation. An accusation is a declarative statement, such as "I think you are actually Phil Mason!"
Yes, you are right of course. Its not flawed methodology to only count GGers who were on a very small list of them, rather than basing it on the content of the posts being examined. If you're not on the list, you are obviously not a GG supporter. Nope, its not possible. There are exactly 10,000 GamerGaters online. I really never knew that GG was such a tiny movement.
It is even more flawed when you consider that it doesn't take into account that it is easy as hell to make alt accounts and such.
Oh shoot, I shouldn't link that, I was already accused of actually being him...
Ah yes that guy... there is actually a good video about him:
First, you might as well admit you didn't even look at either study I posted.
On the contrary, I did look. The reality is that there is no reason to assume that someone harassing someone else would generally do so on a non-anonymous account. Hell I have seen this happening in another gaming community where people simply create a new twitter account to harass an antagonist.
Yes, you are right of course. Its not flawed methodology to only count GGers who were on a very small list of them, rather than basing it on the content of the posts being examined. If you're not on the list, you are obviously not a GG supporter. Nope, its not possible. There are exactly 10,000 GamerGaters online. I really never knew that GG was such a tiny movement.
It is even more flawed when you consider that it doesn't take into account that it is easy as hell to make alt accounts and such.
Oh shoot, I shouldn't link that, I was already accused of actually being him...
Ah yes that guy... there is actually a good video about him:
First, you might as well admit you didn't even look at either study I posted.
On the contrary, I did look. The reality is that there is no reason to assume that someone harassing someone else would generally do so on a non-anonymous account. Hell I have seen this happening in another gaming community where people simply create a new twitter account to harass an antagonist.
Second, I don't appreciate the derogatory use of that word or your perpetuation of its use by posting a video that promotes it.
How amusing because that retard count comes from thunderf00t his own video and the video I posted criticizes thunderf00t for it, not promotes it.
Amusing that I never said anything about supporting thunderf00t? No? I said I don't like that word or what YOU did with it. It has nothing to do with him. You chose to post it here.
He managed to make a ghostbusters video be about Anita Sarkeesian...
Hbomberguy is brilliant and his videos are always hilarious. I think my favorite videos about thunderf00t are when he gets completely destroyed by Matt Dillahunty and Aron Ra. lol However they aren't really funny like Hbomberguy's video unless you find it humorous to watch him get slaughtered in a debate.... Which I do.
You know what? I'm bored of this nonsense. Let's get the train back on the tracks.
So: Beamdog's official statement. I'm a little miffed, and not for the reason you might think.
After getting "feedback" (I guess that's what we're calling it now, whatever), @TrentOster announces that in the interests of proper representation, Mizhena is going to be improved in a future patch. And that's fine. Beamdog has the time, the tools and the talent to get that done. All well and good.
What I'd like to know is where this conciliatory approach was two years ago, when even the most loyal EE fans were hard-pressed to find much to like about Hexxat.
I just find it weirdly irritating that a hate campaign got results faster and more decisively than two years of decidedly lukewarm reactions to a main BG2:EE addition. Not entirely happy with the implications there.
Yes, you are right of course. Its not flawed methodology to only count GGers who were on a very small list of them, rather than basing it on the content of the posts being examined. If you're not on the list, you are obviously not a GG supporter. Nope, its not possible. There are exactly 10,000 GamerGaters online. I really never knew that GG was such a tiny movement.
It is even more flawed when you consider that it doesn't take into account that it is easy as hell to make alt accounts and such.
Oh shoot, I shouldn't link that, I was already accused of actually being him...
Ah yes that guy... there is actually a good video about him:
First, you might as well admit you didn't even look at either study I posted.
On the contrary, I did look. The reality is that there is no reason to assume that someone harassing someone else would generally do so on a non-anonymous account. Hell I have seen this happening in another gaming community where people simply create a new twitter account to harass an antagonist.
Second, I don't appreciate the derogatory use of that word or your perpetuation of its use by posting a video that promotes it.
How amusing because that retard count comes from thunderf00t his own video and the video I posted criticizes thunderf00t for it, not promotes it.
Amusing that I never said anything about supporting thunderf00t? No? I said I don't like that word or what YOU did with it. It has nothing to do with him. You chose to post it here.
Strange that you did not investigate what that video was actually about, because then you would have known that the video criticizes thunderf00t for using that retard counter instead of promoting it.
That is not very scientific, which is basically the problem with you citing those results. They are superficial and assume that harassment would take place on a main gamergate account, instead of an alt account. That is strange because as harassment is wrong, it assumes that people would publically do wrong. It would be like a bully, harassing a classmate in front of the teacher. And while there are rare cases where that happens, generally people do so from the shadows when they can get away with it.
"Really, it's all about ethics in heroic adventuring." said really staccato; you'd think it was put together with text-to-speech software. Which is odd because overall the new voice acting is quite good o.O
@abentwookie I could literally mail you my diploma and you wouldn't be convinced of anything, but that's not my concern. You're right that credentials don't matter, that doesn't change that you've misinterpreted the statistics while I haven't. If I can't make you realize that, that's fine. Keep telling me how I haven't proven anything while you continue to not prove anything.
I already accepted your claim about being a scientist when another forum member confirmed it. However it is irrelevant to the accuracy of your arguments so there was no point to bringing it up. Its an argument from authority, which is a logical fallacy.
I already pointed out why the statistics are flawed and you have not addressed it at all. The study only included people who are on the list of only 10,000 members of a group that is quite a bit larger than that. And it only includes incident from a small period of time that was AFTER the peak of the controversy. And from only one website.
So taking all of this into consideration, you have to understand that it doesn't prove that GamerGate wasn't involved in the harassment. It just proves that only a small number were, from a small period of time, from a small sampling of only 10,000. For someone who has studied statistics, you have to understand the problem with that. lol
@abentwookie I could literally mail you my diploma and you wouldn't be convinced of anything, but that's not my concern. You're right that credentials don't matter, that doesn't change that you've misinterpreted the statistics while I haven't. If I can't make you realize that, that's fine. Keep telling me how I haven't proven anything while you continue to not prove anything.
I already accepted your claim about being a scientist when another forum member confirmed it. However it is irrelevant to the accuracy of your arguments so there was no point to bringing it up. Its an argument from authority, which is a logical fallacy.
I already pointed out why the statistics are flawed and you have not addressed it at all. The study only included people who are on the list of only 10,000 members of a group that is quite a bit larger than that. And it only includes incident from a small period of time that was AFTER the peak of the controversy. And from only one website.
So taking all of this into consideration, you have to understand that it doesn't prove that GamerGate wasn't involved in the harassment. It just proves that only a small number were, from a small period of time, from a small sampling of only 10,000. For someone who has studied statistics, you have to understand the problem with that. lol
I also rarely address people who claim the solar system is geocentric, even though Ptolemy was a pretty smart guy. You claim the methodology was flawed when it was quite rigorous and thoroughly peer reviewed. You claim they did something wrong/missed something when it's clearly mentioned in the study and YOU are the one who missed it. So I've done nothing but waste my time by addressing you. I simply don't care what you believe, the facts are in the WAM! study, and the conclusion of said study seems to have eluded you.
Yes, you are right of course. Its not flawed methodology to only count GGers who were on a very small list of them, rather than basing it on the content of the posts being examined. If you're not on the list, you are obviously not a GG supporter. Nope, its not possible. There are exactly 10,000 GamerGaters online. I really never knew that GG was such a tiny movement.
It is even more flawed when you consider that it doesn't take into account that it is easy as hell to make alt accounts and such.
Oh shoot, I shouldn't link that, I was already accused of actually being him...
Ah yes that guy... there is actually a good video about him:
First, you might as well admit you didn't even look at either study I posted.
On the contrary, I did look. The reality is that there is no reason to assume that someone harassing someone else would generally do so on a non-anonymous account. Hell I have seen this happening in another gaming community where people simply create a new twitter account to harass an antagonist.
Second, I don't appreciate the derogatory use of that word or your perpetuation of its use by posting a video that promotes it.
How amusing because that retard count comes from thunderf00t his own video and the video I posted criticizes thunderf00t for it, not promotes it.
Amusing that I never said anything about supporting thunderf00t? No? I said I don't like that word or what YOU did with it. It has nothing to do with him. You chose to post it here.
Strange that you did not investigate what that video was actually about, because then you would have known that the video criticizes thunderf00t for using that retard counter instead of promoting it.
That is not very scientific, which is basically the problem with you citing those results. They are superficial and assume that harassment would take place on a main gamergate account, instead of an alt account. That is strange because as harassment is wrong, it assumes that people would publically do wrong. It would be like a bully, harassing a classmate in front of the teacher. And while there are rare cases where that happens, generally people do so from the shadows when they can get away with it.
I criticized your posting of a video which has that word printed across the thumbnail that is the very first thing you see. I watched the video before you even posted it, that's irrelevant. My complaint was with you. The study also addressed those 'fake accounts,' you know, the 'egg' accounts that post garbage within minutes of being created. But you would know that if you even glanced at the study.
You know what? I'm bored of this nonsense. Let's get the train back on the tracks.
So: Beamdog's official statement. I'm a little miffed, and not for the reason you might think.
After getting "feedback" (I guess that's what we're calling it now, whatever), @TrentOster announces that in the interests of proper representation, Mizhena is going to be improved in a future patch. And that's fine. Beamdog has the time, the tools and the talent to get that done. All well and good.
What I'd like to know is where this conciliatory approach was two years ago, when even the most loyal EE fans were hard-pressed to find much to like about Hexxat.
I just find it weirdly irritating that a hate campaign got results faster and more decisively than two years of decidedly lukewarm reactions to a main BG2:EE addition. Not entirely happy with the implications there.
I also rarely address people who claim the solar system is geocentric, even though Ptolemy was a pretty smart guy. You claim the methodology was flawed when it was quite rigorous and thoroughly peer reviewed. You claim they did something wrong/missed something when it's clearly mentioned in the study and YOU are the one who missed it. So I've done nothing but waste my time by addressing you. I simply don't care what you believe, the facts are in the WAM! study, and the conclusion of said study seems to have eluded you.
So you're still not going to address the point I have made multiple times now? You're just going to continue repeating the "No, the methodology was fine I tell you!" mantra instead of addressing my actual issue with the methodology? Then you are going to end the discussion by essentially saying "I know i'm right and I don't care what you think" which is an escape hatch tactic that is pretty common in online debates. If you can't address people's arguments then you shouldn't engage in debates. I have addressed every single argument you have provided. I don't avoid them and just claim I am right.
I also rarely address people who claim the solar system is geocentric, even though Ptolemy was a pretty smart guy. You claim the methodology was flawed when it was quite rigorous and thoroughly peer reviewed. You claim they did something wrong/missed something when it's clearly mentioned in the study and YOU are the one who missed it. So I've done nothing but waste my time by addressing you. I simply don't care what you believe, the facts are in the WAM! study, and the conclusion of said study seems to have eluded you.
So you're still not going to address the point I have made multiple times now? You're just going to continue repeating the "No, the methodology was fine I tell you!" mantra instead of addressing my actual issue with the methodology? Then you are going to end the discussion by essentially saying "I know i'm right and I don't care what you think" which is an escape hatch tactic that is pretty common in online debates. If you can't address people's arguments then you shouldn't engage in debates. I have addressed every single argument you have provided. I don't avoid them and just claim I am right.
The methodology wasn't 'fine.' It was above par. You would know that if you were trained in critiquing methodology as I have been. Double-blind is the most rigorous kind of peer review and they even had more expert peer reviewers than most studies do, which I assure you makes it incredibly difficult to post something with 'flawed methodology.' But hey, FIVE experts on the subject (not just experts on anything) and myself have said the methodology is great, but a 19 yo college student doesn't think so. What's wrong with the methodology? They didn't count doxxing like you said? They clearly did, read the study. They didn't include brand new accounts? Uh..yes they did. All of your claims that the methodology was flawed are moot if you just read the studies.
Yes, you are right of course. Its not flawed methodology to only count GGers who were on a very small list of them, rather than basing it on the content of the posts being examined. If you're not on the list, you are obviously not a GG supporter. Nope, its not possible. There are exactly 10,000 GamerGaters online. I really never knew that GG was such a tiny movement.
It is even more flawed when you consider that it doesn't take into account that it is easy as hell to make alt accounts and such.
Oh shoot, I shouldn't link that, I was already accused of actually being him...
Ah yes that guy... there is actually a good video about him:
First, you might as well admit you didn't even look at either study I posted.
On the contrary, I did look. The reality is that there is no reason to assume that someone harassing someone else would generally do so on a non-anonymous account. Hell I have seen this happening in another gaming community where people simply create a new twitter account to harass an antagonist.
Second, I don't appreciate the derogatory use of that word or your perpetuation of its use by posting a video that promotes it.
How amusing because that retard count comes from thunderf00t his own video and the video I posted criticizes thunderf00t for it, not promotes it.
Amusing that I never said anything about supporting thunderf00t? No? I said I don't like that word or what YOU did with it. It has nothing to do with him. You chose to post it here.
Strange that you did not investigate what that video was actually about, because then you would have known that the video criticizes thunderf00t for using that retard counter instead of promoting it.
That is not very scientific, which is basically the problem with you citing those results. They are superficial and assume that harassment would take place on a main gamergate account, instead of an alt account. That is strange because as harassment is wrong, it assumes that people would publically do wrong. It would be like a bully, harassing a classmate in front of the teacher. And while there are rare cases where that happens, generally people do so from the shadows when they can get away with it.
I criticized your posting of a video which has that word printed across the thumbnail that is the very first thing you see. I watched the video before you even posted it, that's irrelevant. My complaint was with you.
Really, because if you actually watched the video, you would know that then this: "your perpetuation of its use by posting a video that promotes it." would be a lie...
The study also addressed those 'fake accounts,' you know, the 'egg' accounts that post garbage within minutes of being created. But you would know that if you even glanced at the study.
Comments
Garrr. I still have it in one tab... I'll repost it, my head and reaction capacity have reach the "i can't decide" point i think. If people wanna me delete it just say it. I write it in a "emotion of 'stop this it's enought' state" so if it hurt to much people i'll delete it.
-----
GamerGate is a word with no meaning. A lot of harassers and abusers use the term, but you always end up with the argument "everybody can use this word, this person/people aren't GamerGate". I don't say there no thing to say about this, just it's hopeless (in my humble opinion). And it's more or less (still in my humble opinion) just another way to divert the discussions. When people spend time arguing if "GamerGate is evil or not" or if "GamerGate is behind this thing" we stop talking about the thing itself most of the time.
I rather prefer talking about: social media platform, websites and threads where harrass campain start and organise itself (8chan for the most, sometime linked on KiA but also on twitter with mostly alway a new # each time), talking about the reactionary hainous part of the gaming community, a lot of very followed youtubers, etc.
Even if i use myself the term SJW as joke in my biography in most social media platform i can't say i never seen problem with self-proclamed sjw people, for the sake of social justice some group of people sometimes use very very problematic methods, including harassing, personal data revelation and digging your past searching for everything they can use to break you publicly (talking by experiment, as a trans person i have to face some very hainous self-proclamed "SJW" trans exclusionnal radical feminists who dig my social media account in search of message i have post before my comming out in the online commnity to prove i was not a "real" trans person).
Most of my problem with self-proclamed GamerGate people is the fact I see them ONLY arguing when it come to say "GamerGate is not evil" or from underage almost-nude or butt pose removal. I have never see a GamerGate self-proclamed person talking about how many websites share without any research the harass-buzz targeting Zoe Quinn (you can not like her, but the facts are the facts and if you care about ethics in journalism you DO have to address when websites are making badbuzz about a "supposed-sex-echange-against-a-good-review-even-if-that-review-never-exist"), no more talking when it come to talk about harass campaign, never see ever a GamerGate self-proclamed person talking about LGBT erasure in serie/gaming localisation (but i see a lot talking about censorship when the removing was about homophobic content).
I don't say they never do that. But very strangely when I talk about this issues there always a self-proclamed GamerGate person who come to say (in this order) 1) I am wrong 2) There no problem 3) there no harass campaign 4) The problem is [something else] 5) and after all GamerGate was not the source of the harass campaign.
I don't say they all do that, i say i have ALWAYS at least one people like this coming at me every single time i talk publicly on social problem in gaming, even if i dont mention the gamergate thing.
And at the same time i can't say there no problem with self-proclamed SJW people (even if i'm one / still thinking it's a cool label / still sound like an advanced paladin class), there a lot of TERFs, White-only-feminist, etc. But in the subject of gaming i have clearly less problem with this people, and at least they don't have a subreddit thing.
But I really think this whole "GG was evil/unevil" discuss lead nowhere, not because there nothing to say, but because all . the . time . this . discuss . come . it's . not . the . origin . subject. It's really sound like a "sorry but you have no proof this shapeless group composed by a lot of self-proclamed person for all lot of reason we don't care about and with no real lead is ALL behind what you discuss" sentence. Yes we can't and seriously we don't care.
Here, there a bashing campaign, launch by hainous gaming reactionous people, mostly because of the presence of one trans character, there subjets on multiples website where people ask to downvote SoD because of the only presence of this character, there youtube videos where people kill in the game the character after launching a "detection trap" on her, there a lot of people arguing it was not about the presence of the character but just because she was "just" a token even if she was link to multiple quest in the game (which is more than most of the background NPC), then there people searching for a target to harass, end up on an Amber Scott interview and sharing multiple false reading or accusation on her, etc, etc, etc. I . dont . fucking . care if it was "GamerGate" or any other nosense label behind all of this. There definitivly a problem, a huge one, and we must address it and NOT running in every direction saying "it was not me, it was not me". If you come and are more (and most of the time only) interrested by claiming your innocence than addressing the problem i definitivly dont wanna listen to you.
So now can we talk about what this forum is for ? BG:SoD and stop with this debat that lead nowhere, because it was made to lead nowhere ?
#1. That is an argument from authority and we have no way of knowing that your claims about being a scientist and getting an "A+" in advanced statistics are true. Unless, of course, you provide evidence. Sorry to tell you but claiming to be a scientist doesn't automatically give your argument more credibility. You know, for a scientist, you really don't seem to display an abundance of critical thought in your posts. No offense.
#2. You don't have to be a "scientist" to read statistics correctly.
#3. If you must know, I am 19 and a college student. However, that is not relevant to the discussion. You are essentially arguing that you are right because you claim to be a scientist, which is patently absurd of course.
Now that we have that out of the way, I will move on to the rest of your post.
"Not only do you not understand these statistics presented, none of your points present any evidence, much less prove I'm wrong."
I proved that your statistics and your own personal analysis of the statistics are both fundamentally flawed. You actually assisted me with that later in this post but I will get to that in a moment. GamerGate did NOT start on Twitter. As BelleSorciere pointed out, it started on the FiveGuys chat. This was the birthplace of GamerGate as a movement. And it quickly spread to both YouTube and Twitter. Well, technically, I suppose I could say it actually started on the blog of Zoey Quinn's jilted ex-boyfriend, since that was the original source of it all. And sorry to tell you but it was on YouTube the same week it started on Twitter. That was when people like Mundane Matt and Sargon started fanning the flames with the first of their endless stream of GamerGate videos. Actually, it is extremely important when you are claiming the study proves GamerGate doesn't harass people when it only covers a short period that was AFTER the worst of it was already over.... It really started in August but September was the peak month of the GamerGate ragefest and it started dying down a bit in late October. Go look at the dates for harassment and threats of the key figures like Sarkeesian, Wu, Quin, etc... All of them happened in that period when things were really out of control.
For Quinn, most of the harassment happened in August and September and reached the point where she had to leave her house due to the threats.
For Sarkeesian, most of it was in September and she recieved a bomb threat against the lecture she was planning at Utah State University.
For Wu, she recieved the death threats in October as well.
By November the majority of it had started to die down a bit, which is the time when this study had started and they still had a ton of harassment reports even then.
Also, the bulk of the GamerGate ragefest did NOT just happen on Twitter. There was just as much, if not more, on sites like YOuTube and within individual game communities. I was in several of them at the time when this craziness started. Look at what it has done to this forum and this is two years later. lol GamerGate is extremely toxic to any community they enter.
The next problem is that the methodology is flawed because it relies entirely on the autoblocker list. They only counted someone as being a member of GamerGate if they were listed on the gg autoblocker, which only included roughly 10,000 accounts. Let me repeat that.... It has a grand total of 10,000 accounts that it associates with GamerGate. So if people start up a Twitter account and start harassing someone without actually following a bunch of GamerGaters, they won't be listed on the autoblocker and won't be counted. So not only is it flawed for only counting a three week period AFTER GamerGate had already started to die down, it wasn't even based on the actual content of the posts, it was based on whether or not someone was listed on the autoblocker. Seriously? As a scientist, you seriously believe that proves GamerGate is innocent?
Saying that someone is not a member of GamerGate because they were not on the autoblock list of 10,000 accounts is simply not a logical argument. It doesn't actually prove they aren't affiliated with GamerGate, it just means they aren't on the small list of them. Nothing more, nothing less. The vast majority are neutral? Where does it say that? They only studied harassment complaints that were filed. This wouldn't include sexist/racist comments that were not repeatedly directed towards anyone specific (i.e. harassment) so I don't see how you are drawing that conclusion either.
Do you want to prove that the majority of GamerGate never harassed anyone? OKay, this is how you do it.
Step #1. Study the actual tweets and youtube comments (on GG related videos obviously) from the period between August and November of that year and decide where it counts as harassment or hateful toward women/minorities based on the content of the posts.
Step #2. Decide if they are members of GamerGate or supporters by examining the person's history on the site and whether or not they are using the common GamerGate arguments rather than basing it on whether they are on a small block list.
The study needs to be comprehensive and not based on flawed methodology.
As for the WAM! study “This report was reviewed by five academic reviewers in a double-blind, revise-and-resubmit peer review process chaired by Zeynep Tufekci, Assistant Professor at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.” But yeah, let's trust a 19 yo college student more.
And GG started with Adam Baldwin on Twitter. Arguing with you is a waste of time. You have your convictions and no amount of evidence will sway you. Enjoy your chat with Sargon, I'll be sure to have some popcorn ready to watch that hilarity.
Wow. And you are a scientist? Okay. Your real name isn't Phil Mason is it?
Stay in school, please.
/facepalm
Also what was the Minsc line exactly?
Now, of course if you make a claim based on your profession to prove your point (IE: "I'm a scientist" "I'm a soldier" "I'm a whatever") then you can indeed be questioned. And it can be very frustrating to feel questioned on something that you hold to be very dear to yourself. Such as if you are a scientist and someone questions your methodology or critical thinking.
While nothing has been posted yet that can track you, please be careful about that. If you feel the need to prove your credentials, do so through the quality of your posts. Have a discussion about how studies can be meaningful and what the methodology should be. A well argued response can be all the proof you need.
TL/DR: Posting things of a personal nature in a toxic internet environment isn't safe.
Let me help you a bit... If you want to say, "I don't believe most of GamerGate was involved in harassment and I believe this study supports my view" that would be acceptable, even though you would still be wrong. The problem is that you didn't say that. You presented your opinion as a factual statement by saying GamerGate wasn't involved and this proves it. When you examine the study objectively, you should be rational enough to realize that it doesn't actually PROVE it because it only covers a fraction (10,000) of the actual gamergate group AND only from one website.
Oh shoot, I shouldn't link that, I was already accused of actually being him...
He managed to make a ghostbusters video be about Anita Sarkeesian...
Second, I don't appreciate the derogatory use of that word or your perpetuation of its use by posting a video that promotes it.
I do agree that it probably isn't a good idea to give out too much personal information but I personally don't think people should be discussing their profession or background to try to give credibility to their arguments in the first place. It is irrelevant to the actual accuracy of the person's argument.
A question is not an accusation. An accusation is a declarative statement, such as "I think you are actually Phil Mason!"
It was also a joke. lol
So: Beamdog's official statement. I'm a little miffed, and not for the reason you might think.
After getting "feedback" (I guess that's what we're calling it now, whatever), @TrentOster announces that in the interests of proper representation, Mizhena is going to be improved in a future patch. And that's fine. Beamdog has the time, the tools and the talent to get that done. All well and good.
What I'd like to know is where this conciliatory approach was two years ago, when even the most loyal EE fans were hard-pressed to find much to like about Hexxat.
I just find it weirdly irritating that a hate campaign got results faster and more decisively than two years of decidedly lukewarm reactions to a main BG2:EE addition. Not entirely happy with the implications there.
That is not very scientific, which is basically the problem with you citing those results. They are superficial and assume that harassment would take place on a main gamergate account, instead of an alt account. That is strange because as harassment is wrong, it assumes that people would publically do wrong. It would be like a bully, harassing a classmate in front of the teacher. And while there are rare cases where that happens, generally people do so from the shadows when they can get away with it.
I already pointed out why the statistics are flawed and you have not addressed it at all. The study only included people who are on the list of only 10,000 members of a group that is quite a bit larger than that. And it only includes incident from a small period of time that was AFTER the peak of the controversy. And from only one website.
So taking all of this into consideration, you have to understand that it doesn't prove that GamerGate wasn't involved in the harassment. It just proves that only a small number were, from a small period of time, from a small sampling of only 10,000. For someone who has studied statistics, you have to understand the problem with that. lol
The study also addressed those 'fake accounts,' you know, the 'egg' accounts that post garbage within minutes of being created. But you would know that if you even glanced at the study.