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.
Again, you go back to an argument from authority. I'll try this one more time and see if you dodge it yet again. Here are the problems with the methodology:
"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."
This time try to tell me why I'm wrong instead of just saying, "The methodology is fine" over and over and over....
Now to be fair, it wouldn't be as much of an issue if you weren't using it to try to claim your position as a fact by saying that it proves that most of GamerGate didn't harass people when it actually doesn't PROVE it. You can use it to try to support that idea but it can't prove it. The main problem is how you are trying to present the study.
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.
That is not an argument against what I am stating
Okay, doubt the fact that I watched it, I won't lose sleep. You posted a video which has a thumbnail that uses an old and no longer acceptable medical term in a derogatory way. I don't care if the video condemns that, it's the very first frame you see and your sharing of that which has been my complaint. I simply don't know what your argument with the study is then. I assure you the methodology was superb and you won't find any experts who say otherwise.
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.
You misunderstand 2 things: 1. your own conclusion and 2. the conclusion of that paper. When @abentwookie and I criticize methodology, it is not the conclusion of the paper, it is of yours.
Because the conclusion of that paper is not that the harassing accounts were not accounts from gamergaters. Just that most accounts were not linked to gamergate.
I will quite simply explain you the difference: When I commit a murder, but the police investigation does not link me to the murder, I nevertheless did commit the murder.
The conclusion of who commited harassment, relies on being able to identify people behind accounts in an environment where it is easy to make multiple alt accounts. And therefor the conclusion that gamergate isn't behind harassment is flawed
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.
Quoted for On Topic.
Hexxat would be a much larger task than the planned rework for Mizhena. We listen to feedback and we take action if we agree with the feedback and have the time/budget to accommodate. In the case of Hexxat, we didn't completely agree with the feedback and we didn't have development time to fix a full companion character.
You misunderstand 2 things: 1. your own conclusion and 2. the conclusion of that paper. When @abentwookie and I criticize methodology, it is not the conclusion of the paper, it is of yours.
At least someone gets it. lol I thought I was pretty clear in my posts so I couldn't understand if he just didn't comprehend what I was saying or he was purposely being intellectually dishonest. But anyway.....
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.
Again, you go back to an argument from authority. I'll try this one more time and see if you dodge it yet again. Here are the problems with the methodology:
"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."
This time try to tell me why I'm wrong instead of just saying, "The methodology is fine" over and over and over....
Now to be fair, it wouldn't be as much of an issue if you weren't using it to try to claim your position as a fact by saying that it proves that most of GamerGate didn't harass people when it actually doesn't PROVE it. You can use it to try to support that idea but it can't prove it. The main problem is how you are trying to present the study.
1. My authority on the matter is not my main point, but keep up with the straw-man arguments. 2. How do you know the scope of GG is larger than 10k? Evidence, please. Furthermore, you have to look at ALL of them? An n = 10,000 is freaking huge, you would know that if you knew methodology. Go look up some other studies and see how few people they use and complain they didn't use 7B people and see who takes you seriously. 3. I already said time frame was not a relevant complaint. I addressed that point by stating that any alternative is physically impossible. Studies must pick a time frame since they cannot update constantly nor be comprehensive. 4. It wasn't only from one website, just mainly from one website where the controversy was mainly contained at the time. This is both appropriate and acceptable. 5. I never tried to prove that GamerGate wasn't involved in the harassment, merely that there was no SIGNIFICANT hate campaign, which was exactly their findings. 6. "It just proves that only a small number were, from a small period of time, from a small sampling of only 10,000." Yes, thank you. Only .66% of all these 10,000 "harassers" during a "small period of time" were GG. You really think this proves nothing? 10,000 is plenty. The small time frame was all that was needed. The results show little relation to GG. What more do you want? I've addressed all of your points and I'm sure you're going to say otherwise. I assume you want a comprehensive study of every single Gamergater and every single thing they've ever said and will ever say across time - that's impossible. This snapshot in time of 10,000 people debunks your false narrative of a GG hate campaign.
Hexxat would be a much larger task than the planned rework for Mizhena. We listen to feedback and we take action if we agree with the feedback and have the time/budget to accommodate. In the case of Hexxat, we didn't completely agree with the feedback and we didn't have development time to fix a full companion character.
-Trent
The first is fair enough; the second begs the question of whether Beamdog has that time now.
Whatever the scale or specifics, something probably should be done - if only to demonstrate that the prospect of better writing isn't just something that gets prioritized when the blitzkrieg hits.
Their finding was that they could not trace a significant hate campaign back to Gamergate. Given that people could create fake accounts all day for the purposes of harassment, and that those accounts wouldn't be linked to gamergate, it is reaching to conclude that there was actually no hate campaign.
Their finding was that they could not trace a significant hate campaign back to Gamergate. Given that people could create fake accounts all day for the purposes of harassment, and that those accounts wouldn't be linked to gamergate, it is reaching to conclude that there was actually no hate campaign.
They looked at fake/alt accounts, many were included. The issue here is that the study does not need to be comprehensive, and if you fail to realize that a sample size of 10k is above and beyond what most studies do, then I cannot make you realize the methodology was perfect. http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_ideas/Soc_participants.shtml
Did you know that Hexxat wasn't the first Chultan NPC in a Forgotten Realms game? In "Storm of Zehir" (2008), an expansion pack to NWN2, the player encounters an Ubtoan druid named Umoja. While Umoja didn't have much in the way of plot or personality, he did have a deinonychus as his companion animal.
Vampire thieves should be awesome; druids with pet dinosaurs are awesome.
Sadly, while "Storm of Zehir" certainly had the most eclectic mix of possible companions - including an evil aasimar Shadow Thief, a svirfneblin wizard, a half-orc paladin and a half-drow warlock - none of them had anything resembling an actual story arc. Also, one companion was cut from the game (although most of his dialogue is still in the game's tlk file): Zarl the gnoll.
Vampire thieves should be awesome; druids with pet dinosaurs are awesome; a gnoll party member would have been awesome.
Their finding was that they could not trace a significant hate campaign back to Gamergate. Given that people could create fake accounts all day for the purposes of harassment, and that those accounts wouldn't be linked to gamergate, it is reaching to conclude that there was actually no hate campaign.
They looked at fake/alt accounts, many were included. The issue here is that the study does not need to be comprehensive, and if you fail to realize that a sample size of 10k is above and beyond what most studies do, then I cannot make you realize the methodology was perfect. http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_ideas/Soc_participants.shtml
Of course you say it was perfect, it supports your conclusions.
Don't bother responding to me, 'cause I'm not going to respond to you.
Their finding was that they could not trace a significant hate campaign back to Gamergate. Given that people could create fake accounts all day for the purposes of harassment, and that those accounts wouldn't be linked to gamergate, it is reaching to conclude that there was actually no hate campaign.
They looked at fake/alt accounts, many were included. The issue here is that the study does not need to be comprehensive, and if you fail to realize that a sample size of 10k is above and beyond what most studies do, then I cannot make you realize the methodology was perfect. http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_ideas/Soc_participants.shtml
Of course you say it was perfect, it supports your conclusions.
Don't bother responding to me, 'cause I'm not going to respond to you.
Hah, okay, mature. You can't come up with a legitimate complaint of the methodology. Goodbye.
Hexxat also does not carry the distinction of being the first undead party member in a Forgotten Realms game. "Mask of the Betrayer" offered not one, but two possibilities. Evil players indulging in the power of the Spirit-Eater could recruit One of Many, a gestalt undead entity that could switch between three dominant personalities representing a rogue, a barbarian and a warlock.
In addition, taking a specific course of action in the very first dungeon would allow the player to recruit Maric of Inupras upon reaching the home of the Slumbering Coven. Sadly, Maric - an Imaskari lich - only stays in the party for one area, after which he runs off and is never seen again.
Vampire thieves should be awesome; druids with pet dinosaurs are awesome; a gnoll party member would have been awesome; and a lich party member might have been awesome if he'd stuck around for more than a single room.
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.
Again, you go back to an argument from authority. I'll try this one more time and see if you dodge it yet again. Here are the problems with the methodology:
"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."
This time try to tell me why I'm wrong instead of just saying, "The methodology is fine" over and over and over....
Now to be fair, it wouldn't be as much of an issue if you weren't using it to try to claim your position as a fact by saying that it proves that most of GamerGate didn't harass people when it actually doesn't PROVE it. You can use it to try to support that idea but it can't prove it. The main problem is how you are trying to present the study.
1. My authority on the matter is not my main point, but keep up with the straw-man arguments. 2. How do you know the scope of GG is larger than 10k? Evidence, please. Furthermore, you have to look at ALL of them? An n = 10,000 is freaking huge, you would know that if you knew methodology. Go look up some other studies and see how few people they use and complain they didn't use 7B people and see who takes you seriously. 3. I already said time frame was not a relevant complaint. I addressed that point by stating that any alternative is physically impossible. Studies must pick a time frame since they cannot update constantly nor be comprehensive. 4. It wasn't only from one website, just mainly from one website where the controversy was mainly contained at the time. This is both appropriate and acceptable. 5. I never tried to prove that GamerGate wasn't involved in the harassment, merely that there was no SIGNIFICANT hate campaign, which was exactly their findings. 6. "It just proves that only a small number were, from a small period of time, from a small sampling of only 10,000." Yes, thank you. Only .66% of all these 10,000 "harassers" during a "small period of time" were GG. You really think this proves nothing? 10,000 is plenty. The small time frame was all that was needed. The results show little relation to GG. What more do you want? I've addressed all of your points and I'm sure you're going to say otherwise. I assume you want a comprehensive study of every single Gamergater and every single thing they've ever said and will ever say across time - that's impossible. This snapshot in time of 10,000 people debunks your false narrative of a GG hate campaign.
#1. Then why do you continue mentioning it over and over? How many times do you think you need to say you are a scientist who studied statistics? I already said its not relevant to the accuracy of your argument so I don't care.
#2. Well, plenty of ways. We can start with the main sub-reddit for GamerGate, which has over 60,000 subscribers. Let me guess, most of them aren't actually GG supporters, they just accidentally subbed to the GamerGate reddit?
That is just from a single place on ONE site. There are several other popular subreddits for GGers, along with many other websites, like YouTube. Mundane Matt is probably the most popular YouTuber among GGers, who helped his channel grow substantially. He has over 100,000 subs, the majority of which came after GamerGate started. And no, 10,000 is not a large number considering the scale we're discussing here.
Remember, your claim is that it proves that the majority of gamer gate never engaged in hate or harassment, even though 10,000 isn't even a quarter of the total number of gamergaters. Your argument doesn't stand up to basic logic.
#3. Oh yes, it IS important when the time frame exists AFTER the controversy was starting to die down. What you have to do is go back and examine the tweets from September and October (two months is not impossible) instead of after the fact.
#4. Yes, it was only from Twitter.
#5. No, that wasn't their finding. Their finding was that there wasn't a significant hate campaign involving a small portion of the total GamerGate group. And their finding also doesn't take into consideration the incidents that were not reported. Lets apply this to another issue. Do you think the total number of sexual assaults are only the ones that are reported? It also doesn't include hate that didn't actually involve harassing individuals, such as Gaters spewing racist and sexist comments in general.
#6. No, only .66% of the harassers were included on the blocklist. That doesn't mean the others weren't with GamerGate, it just means they weren't listed on that site. I don't understand why you are having such difficulty comprehending this... Do you realize how easy it is to start up new account to harass someone on twitter? And no, the time frame took place after the fact so it does matter.
Their finding was that they could not trace a significant hate campaign back to Gamergate. Given that people could create fake accounts all day for the purposes of harassment, and that those accounts wouldn't be linked to gamergate, it is reaching to conclude that there was actually no hate campaign.
They looked at fake/alt accounts, many were included. The issue here is that the study does not need to be comprehensive, and if you fail to realize that a sample size of 10k is above and beyond what most studies do, then I cannot make you realize the methodology was perfect. http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_ideas/Soc_participants.shtml
Yes, it DOES need to be comprehensive when you are specifically using it to say "THIS PROVES THAT THERE WAS NO CAMPAIGN OF HATE FROM GAMERGATE." You are presenting it as an absolute fact and the study does not actually prove it to be a fact due to the limitations. The problem, as multiple people have now pointed out, is how you are presenting it.
Ah, I think I know how to help you understand, even though this hypothetical situation will flip it around. Lets say I accuse anti-feminists of wanting to legalize rape on private property. Then I try to support this statement by showing that RooshV (an anti-feminist YouTuber) promoted this idea in a video and many of his supporters agreed with him in the comments. A few other YouTubers and Bloggers with a large number of fans also agreed. Does this logically prove that most anti-feminists want to legalize rape on property, even though these channels and blogs are just a fraction of the total number of anti-feminists?
That is essentially what you are doing here, except you are saying it proves GGer wasn't involved in a hate campaign. You can't use a small number of a much larger group to prove that the group as a whole is innocent or guilty of something. Especially when you are claiming it as an absolute fact. This is the main problem with single studies in general and why they should be taken with a grain of salt unless you can gather many comprehensive studies (with decent sample sizes) that have the same result. Then you may have an argument. I almost never use single studies to support my arguments precisely for this reason. They are too easy to pick apart unless they are very extensive studies.
Okay, that's it for me right now. I have things I need to do.
Did you know that of the four new characters in BG2:EE, Hexxat actually isn't the odd one out? Of the four, three questlines feature canonical D&D villains: Larloch (Hexxat), Szass Tam (Neera) and Alorgoth (Rasaad). Surprisingly, the only party member who doesn't encounter a canonical character is Dorn, presumably because Dorn would laugh and cut down the canonical character anyway.
Vampire thieves should be awesome; druids with pet dinosaurs are awesome; a gnoll party member would have been awesome; a lich party member might have been awesome if he'd stuck around for more than a single room; unbeatable fights are rarely awesome.
From Dan Dennett's "Intuition Pumps and other Tools for Thinking"
How to compose a successful critical commentary:
Rapoport's Rules:
1) You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.
2) You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3) You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
4) Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
Their finding was that they could not trace a significant hate campaign back to Gamergate. Given that people could create fake accounts all day for the purposes of harassment, and that those accounts wouldn't be linked to gamergate, it is reaching to conclude that there was actually no hate campaign.
They looked at fake/alt accounts, many were included. The issue here is that the study does not need to be comprehensive, and if you fail to realize that a sample size of 10k is above and beyond what most studies do, then I cannot make you realize the methodology was perfect. http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_ideas/Soc_participants.shtml
Yes, it DOES need to be comprehensive when you are specifically using it to say "THIS PROVES THAT THERE WAS NO CAMPAIGN OF HATE FROM GAMERGATE." You are presenting it as an absolute fact and the study does not actually prove it to be a fact due to the limitations. The problem, as multiple people have now pointed out, is how you are presenting it.
I think that if you don't want to have a heart attack at like 20, you should perhaps calm down.
If the modding community ever went digging for Unfinished Business in the Enhanced Edition, they'd find one hell of a gold mine: dummied-out text (still present in the game's tlk files) reveals that if you romanced Hexxat, you would've eventually been able to convince her to turn you into a vampire. Every single party member has scripted reactions - as you can imagine, some take the news better than others. According to the devs, this was never implemented because it would effectively make the player immortal (turning to mist rather than dying in combat).
Vampire thieves should be awesome; druids with pet dinosaurs are awesome; a gnoll party member would have been awesome; a lich party member might have been awesome if he'd stuck around for more than a single room; unbeatable fights are rarely awesome; vampire player characters both are/are not awesome, depending on implementation.
If the modding community ever went digging for Unfinished Business in the Enhanced Edition, they'd find one hell of a gold mine: dummied-out text (still present in the game's tlk files) reveals that if you romanced Hexxat, you would've eventually been able to convince her to turn you into a vampire. Every single party member has scripted reactions - as you can imagine, some take the news better than others. According to the devs, this was never implemented because it would effectively make the player immortal (turning to mist rather than dying in combat).
Maybe a Vampire Bhaalspawn would still die a true death when misting, due to a loss of divine essence or something. Or at least lose their divinity and chance at ascension, like Sarevok.
Their finding was that they could not trace a significant hate campaign back to Gamergate. Given that people could create fake accounts all day for the purposes of harassment, and that those accounts wouldn't be linked to gamergate, it is reaching to conclude that there was actually no hate campaign.
They looked at fake/alt accounts, many were included. The issue here is that the study does not need to be comprehensive, and if you fail to realize that a sample size of 10k is above and beyond what most studies do, then I cannot make you realize the methodology was perfect. http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_ideas/Soc_participants.shtml
Yes, it DOES need to be comprehensive when you are specifically using it to say "THIS PROVES THAT THERE WAS NO CAMPAIGN OF HATE FROM GAMERGATE." You are presenting it as an absolute fact and the study does not actually prove it to be a fact due to the limitations. The problem, as multiple people have now pointed out, is how you are presenting it.
I think that if you don't want to have a heart attack at like 20, you should perhaps calm down.
Well it would of course help if Abdel was a tad more honest in his presentation of the conclusions and would not ignore that not finding a link with known gamergate accounts from a block list is something different than harassing accounts not being gamergaters ;-)
Their finding was that they could not trace a significant hate campaign back to Gamergate. Given that people could create fake accounts all day for the purposes of harassment, and that those accounts wouldn't be linked to gamergate, it is reaching to conclude that there was actually no hate campaign.
They looked at fake/alt accounts, many were included. The issue here is that the study does not need to be comprehensive, and if you fail to realize that a sample size of 10k is above and beyond what most studies do, then I cannot make you realize the methodology was perfect. http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_ideas/Soc_participants.shtml
Yes, it DOES need to be comprehensive when you are specifically using it to say "THIS PROVES THAT THERE WAS NO CAMPAIGN OF HATE FROM GAMERGATE." You are presenting it as an absolute fact and the study does not actually prove it to be a fact due to the limitations. The problem, as multiple people have now pointed out, is how you are presenting it.
I think that if you don't want to have a heart attack at like 20, you should perhaps calm down.
Well it would of course help if Abdel was a tad more honest in his presentation of the conclusions and would not ignore that not finding a link with known gamergate accounts from a block list is something different than harassing accounts not being gamergaters ;-)
And this just goes to show how you are not helping things either. Just fan the flames some more why don't you? Get this thread shutdown.
Their finding was that they could not trace a significant hate campaign back to Gamergate. Given that people could create fake accounts all day for the purposes of harassment, and that those accounts wouldn't be linked to gamergate, it is reaching to conclude that there was actually no hate campaign.
They looked at fake/alt accounts, many were included. The issue here is that the study does not need to be comprehensive, and if you fail to realize that a sample size of 10k is above and beyond what most studies do, then I cannot make you realize the methodology was perfect. http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_ideas/Soc_participants.shtml
Yes, it DOES need to be comprehensive when you are specifically using it to say "THIS PROVES THAT THERE WAS NO CAMPAIGN OF HATE FROM GAMERGATE." You are presenting it as an absolute fact and the study does not actually prove it to be a fact due to the limitations. The problem, as multiple people have now pointed out, is how you are presenting it.
I think that if you don't want to have a heart attack at like 20, you should perhaps calm down.
Hmm? I assure you I am quite calm. If you are referring to the sentence I posted in caps that was purely for emphasis. lol I doubt its even possible to rattle me in a debate anymore, considering how many I have been involved in already. I'm pretty much numb to provocation at this point.
Comments
"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."
This time try to tell me why I'm wrong instead of just saying, "The methodology is fine" over and over and over....
Now to be fair, it wouldn't be as much of an issue if you weren't using it to try to claim your position as a fact by saying that it proves that most of GamerGate didn't harass people when it actually doesn't PROVE it. You can use it to try to support that idea but it can't prove it. The main problem is how you are trying to present the study.
I simply don't know what your argument with the study is then. I assure you the methodology was superb and you won't find any experts who say otherwise.
Do you agree that 10,000 is only a fraction of the total number of GameGaters?
Because the conclusion of that paper is not that the harassing accounts were not accounts from gamergaters. Just that most accounts were not linked to gamergate.
I will quite simply explain you the difference: When I commit a murder, but the police investigation does not link me to the murder, I nevertheless did commit the murder.
The conclusion of who commited harassment, relies on being able to identify people behind accounts in an environment where it is easy to make multiple alt accounts. And therefor the conclusion that gamergate isn't behind harassment is flawed
-Trent
2. How do you know the scope of GG is larger than 10k? Evidence, please. Furthermore, you have to look at ALL of them? An n = 10,000 is freaking huge, you would know that if you knew methodology. Go look up some other studies and see how few people they use and complain they didn't use 7B people and see who takes you seriously.
3. I already said time frame was not a relevant complaint. I addressed that point by stating that any alternative is physically impossible. Studies must pick a time frame since they cannot update constantly nor be comprehensive.
4. It wasn't only from one website, just mainly from one website where the controversy was mainly contained at the time. This is both appropriate and acceptable.
5. I never tried to prove that GamerGate wasn't involved in the harassment, merely that there was no SIGNIFICANT hate campaign, which was exactly their findings.
6. "It just proves that only a small number were, from a small period of time, from a small sampling of only 10,000." Yes, thank you. Only .66% of all these 10,000 "harassers" during a "small period of time" were GG. You really think this proves nothing? 10,000 is plenty. The small time frame was all that was needed. The results show little relation to GG. What more do you want? I've addressed all of your points and I'm sure you're going to say otherwise. I assume you want a comprehensive study of every single Gamergater and every single thing they've ever said and will ever say across time - that's impossible. This snapshot in time of 10,000 people debunks your false narrative of a GG hate campaign.
Whatever the scale or specifics, something probably should be done - if only to demonstrate that the prospect of better writing isn't just something that gets prioritized when the blitzkrieg hits.
But hey, that's just my $0.02.
I don't think this was a hate campaign. Just a classic case of bigots all over the place getting hysterical.
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_ideas/Soc_participants.shtml
Vampire thieves should be awesome; druids with pet dinosaurs are awesome.
Vampire thieves should be awesome; druids with pet dinosaurs are awesome; a gnoll party member would have been awesome.
Don't bother responding to me, 'cause I'm not going to respond to you.
In addition, taking a specific course of action in the very first dungeon would allow the player to recruit Maric of Inupras upon reaching the home of the Slumbering Coven. Sadly, Maric - an Imaskari lich - only stays in the party for one area, after which he runs off and is never seen again.
Vampire thieves should be awesome; druids with pet dinosaurs are awesome; a gnoll party member would have been awesome; and a lich party member might have been awesome if he'd stuck around for more than a single room.
#2. Well, plenty of ways. We can start with the main sub-reddit for GamerGate, which has over 60,000 subscribers. Let me guess, most of them aren't actually GG supporters, they just accidentally subbed to the GamerGate reddit?
https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/
http://redditlist.com/search?adultfilter=2&searchterm=KotakuInAction
That is just from a single place on ONE site. There are several other popular subreddits for GGers, along with many other websites, like YouTube. Mundane Matt is probably the most popular YouTuber among GGers, who helped his channel grow substantially. He has over 100,000 subs, the majority of which came after GamerGate started. And no, 10,000 is not a large number considering the scale we're discussing here.
Remember, your claim is that it proves that the majority of gamer gate never engaged in hate or harassment, even though 10,000 isn't even a quarter of the total number of gamergaters. Your argument doesn't stand up to basic logic.
#3. Oh yes, it IS important when the time frame exists AFTER the controversy was starting to die down. What you have to do is go back and examine the tweets from September and October (two months is not impossible) instead of after the fact.
#4. Yes, it was only from Twitter.
#5. No, that wasn't their finding. Their finding was that there wasn't a significant hate campaign involving a small portion of the total GamerGate group. And their finding also doesn't take into consideration the incidents that were not reported. Lets apply this to another issue. Do you think the total number of sexual assaults are only the ones that are reported? It also doesn't include hate that didn't actually involve harassing individuals, such as Gaters spewing racist and sexist comments in general.
#6. No, only .66% of the harassers were included on the blocklist. That doesn't mean the others weren't with GamerGate, it just means they weren't listed on that site. I don't understand why you are having such difficulty comprehending this... Do you realize how easy it is to start up new account to harass someone on twitter? And no, the time frame took place after the fact so it does matter.
Ah, I think I know how to help you understand, even though this hypothetical situation will flip it around. Lets say I accuse anti-feminists of wanting to legalize rape on private property. Then I try to support this statement by showing that RooshV (an anti-feminist YouTuber) promoted this idea in a video and many of his supporters agreed with him in the comments. A few other YouTubers and Bloggers with a large number of fans also agreed. Does this logically prove that most anti-feminists want to legalize rape on property, even though these channels and blogs are just a fraction of the total number of anti-feminists?
That is essentially what you are doing here, except you are saying it proves GGer wasn't involved in a hate campaign. You can't use a small number of a much larger group to prove that the group as a whole is innocent or guilty of something. Especially when you are claiming it as an absolute fact. This is the main problem with single studies in general and why they should be taken with a grain of salt unless you can gather many comprehensive studies (with decent sample sizes) that have the same result. Then you may have an argument. I almost never use single studies to support my arguments precisely for this reason. They are too easy to pick apart unless they are very extensive studies.
Okay, that's it for me right now. I have things I need to do.
Vampire thieves should be awesome; druids with pet dinosaurs are awesome; a gnoll party member would have been awesome; a lich party member might have been awesome if he'd stuck around for more than a single room; unbeatable fights are rarely awesome.
How to compose a successful critical commentary:
Rapoport's Rules:
1) You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.
2) You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3) You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
4) Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
Vampire thieves should be awesome; druids with pet dinosaurs are awesome; a gnoll party member would have been awesome; a lich party member might have been awesome if he'd stuck around for more than a single room; unbeatable fights are rarely awesome; vampire player characters both are/are not awesome, depending on implementation.