See, as much as I love Occham, it's not at all necessary here. That post proves nothing even if it ISN'T shopped, and as far as I'm concerned it's irrelevant to ZQ.

Beyond that, you point out metacritic and mention 0/100 scores... but there's only one professional review on metacritic (50/100), and a user reviews on every other side. I'm SURE none of the scores could possibly be related to the gamer gate nonsense. This just reaffirms that ZQ is irrelevant to the discussion, especially when it should logically be about NG.

Oh that changes everything, it was mentioned with a few other games before the list! The molehill has suddenly become... wait, no, still a molehill.

Alright, done- her twitter account shows nothing at all that you mentioned. Drink coke, play again.

Ok- care to mention any of these examples? you say it's not with SQ, and then continue to do nothing but talk about ZQ. I've noticed that's a bit of a trend with "gaters".

Still talking about Quinn... and oh my, people were banned for reposting rumors and accusations against a person that weren't even based on reality? Don't bother lying to me or yourself- when this all started, it wasn't about a single mention before and during a list, it was over a supposed "review" that even her ex said didn't exist.

Funny how harassing businesses can affect them- except that they all seem to be doing juuuust fine. If anything, they're probably getting more hits thanks to GG continuing to harass folk. I'm actually a little conflicted about that, but it's supporting gawker, so it works I guess.

Still talking about Quinn... did you have a point to any of that aside from making me waste time on twitter?

Yes, these things are indeed sexist! Thank you for pointing them out. Except that it HAS been thought of and discussed- and Anita Sarkeesian does a much better analysis of it than I ever could. Improving the way both genders are treated in games would be a wonderful thing- but what I take issue with is when someone says "Oh hey there's some sexism against women in these games", there are inevitably people who say "BUT SEXISM EXISTS FOR MEN TOO!" ...Ok, yes, it does, but can we, just this once, let THIS conversation started about sexism against women be about, oh, I don't know, women? Does the major lack of female role-models in gaming compared to male role models mean so little?

And before you even start- yes, female role models exist- but for every female you provide I guaran-damn-tee you I can come up with 5 more males.

Riiiight. That point might be a bit stronger if that "publicity" was a review or endorsement, rather than saying "Oh hey, this FREE software exists, and look at all these other things in the same category!" If the strongest evidence GG has against ZQ in regards to journalism is "a journalist said the name of her game once in a list with a bunch of other games and months later she slept with him and he never spoke of her game again", there really is NO BASIS WHATSOEVER for harassing her and saying it's about "ethics in gaming journalism."

+1 for your link- quoting it for a little more visibility since it has more information than most places regarding the topic. Heck I'll even repost it here, for burning justice!

Geez, it's like being in an environment without atmosphere...

Ahhh, right, "censoring the topic." You're half-right on that point, but I'd say that a lot that was taken down in the early days of the "scandal" was for good reason. I'd argue that, were I a game developer who'd had an ex of mine post all the sordid details of my personal and private life to the internet, I'd want that info taken down too. Who she slept with in this case has no bearing at all on the coverage her game received, has no implications for the industry at large, and is completely irrelevant outside of "hey an Indie developer did a thing." So, while censoring something is a good way to Streisand Effect your way into the stratosphere, there was still legitimate reason for the removal of the material.

Where I disagree with you is on your second point. Perhaps you're right in saying no one went after other women because of the scandal. However, the events AROUND the scandal, such as women coming out in support for having this information taken down, have been harassed, doxxed, threatened with all sorts of awful things... all for daring to say that a woman's sex life is irrelevant to "gaming journalism." Granted, most of these women were already being harassed for daring to speak out against sexism in games, but it's certainly seemed like it's gotten worse to me. I'd also disagree that they "injected" themselves into the discussion- they attempted to participate in the talk, same as anyone else. The only real difference is that they actually have some visibility thanks to what they do in relation to games.

Absolutely right on both points. Though, while Embargoes aren't always unethical, they really don't speak well of the product in situations like this, heh.

So, by that logic, if a member of my test team is writing a list of software, and the software I wrote is rightfully included for being applicable, this is somehow corruption and I have a relationship with them? Are people in the industry no longer allowed to even be friends with eachother?

That may well be a concern- I mean, granted, your example is completely seperate from what actually happened both in severity and the reality of the situation, but aside from all the ways in which you're wrong, you're right!

So... have you considered the simple solution of getting a new tag, and denouncing the people who've been harassing/doxxing women? Then possibly you could stop making this about fighting "SJW"s and actually focus on game journalism.

Pray tell- what favors were these? Keep in mind, I won't be accepting any example that calls out an article that doesn't exist and never has.

Funny, the way the mod system can be used to silence a conversation just because someone disagree with their views. It's almost as if the people trying to silence feminist viewpoints are acting unethically in regards to games journalism and discussion.

HMM.

Well, here's the thing, though- I don't like Zoe Quinn at all. If that blog post was true in the least, I think she's an awful person, and that's bad.

However, that doesn't have a damn thing to do with "ethics in gaming journalism", or whatever drivel they're on about. Her sex life is irrelevant to the development work she's done, and the gaming industry as a whole. As you say, if the roles were reversed here and a man had done this to a woman, yes- it would be awful! However, do you think for one MOMENT that it would have gone on this long and been this big of a deal?

So, no, criticizing Zoe Quinn in and within itself is not misogyny. However, using her private life and personal relationships to go after other important women in the gaming industry just for the crime of not wanting gaming journalism to cover Zoe's sex life IS misogyny.

The articles linked apply to the article here on Slashdot just about as much as affirmative action does- and beyond that, several of those links were more than individual incidents but instead included data over time regarding systemic racism. In regards to the "poll question", I'd say yes, it's racist to ask to ask if "blacks are being too demanding of equal rights." The fact one must DEMAND equal rights at all because they are not being received is a huge problem on its own, and the phrasing there just reinforces a negative image that's pandering to a racist demographic.

All that being said, I don't really think affirmative action is a useful tool for what it's designed for- but when we're discussing an article talking about diversity in tech, attempting to derail it with "but... but 'reverse racism' unrelated to this topic!" isn't really all that helpful or useful.