I asked two - they both disagreed with *your* physicist. My anecdotes trumps yours (double the data points). Most sane people realise that victim-shaming because of your choice in clothing is not a good thing and makes you a stupid and bad person!. Ref: see Slut Walk.

You state that like it's some kind of fact. You have any study to cite?

Possibly one of the funniest things I've ever heard - it never gets old :-)

Okay - how about a tweet where she boasts about harassing others? Nevermind her for now, what about the rest of the GG folk that were doxxed - here's a start.

I'm sorry. The game just isn't any good as a game. This game wasn't greenlighted on steam on its first attempt. On it's second attempt ZQ then took to twitter after the doxing to ask other SJW (I was surprised to find out that that was actually a thing) folk to help get it through steam to show those virgins at wizardchan who harassed her (there's a tweet from her about that too). At that point the game, in its second attempt at greenlight on steam, was in its eighth day with almost non-existent support. After her tweet urging people to support it because of the harassment, it went through.

Sad to say, but that game would never have stood a chance on it's own merits (there's a popular ZQ tweet complaining about meritocracy in gaming :-)), it needed the publicity of "misogyny in gaming" (a thing which we have yet to see). It took the combined effort of a politically-aligned group of people to actually get it on steam. After that, users downloaded it and lambasted it to hell and back. Hence, the media blackout.

Logically? Logically it should be about the media blackout which caused this whole thing to cascade. Hell, FCOL, wizardchan don't even have a gaming subgroup! The only reason this took off like it did was due to the en masse banning of people and threads who said that the "game" sucked. This sentiment was expressed before any reported harassment took place, btw. The reported harassment occurred only after it was evident that the game sucked.

Well, yes, the blackout can't exist while *you* are talking about it. Anyway, I very rarely do other peoples homework for them as they never change their mind anyway, but here you go - before it was recalled/cancelled/etc from twitter. This, and other links, have already been posted in slashdot comments so I expect you've already seen evidence but dismissed it with "photoshopped!", notwithstanding Occams Razor.

FWIW, that above footnote points out that, while DQ got rave reviewers from all of NG's friends, from actual players who never met the man or his mistress, it got tanked and almost universally panned. Who cares about the dev - the game is broadly acknowledged as a 0/100.

Her game wasn't mentioned "in the list" - it was singled out for specific positive publicity before the list even started.

There was no "months later", it was a few weeks later IIRC. I suppose that changes it from "trading sex for publicity" to "trading publicity for sex". Whatever. Still not good.

The strongest evidence against her is not any of this, but this is always what the anti-GG folk trot out. You expect no response to this?

She, personally, doxxed many of the prominent indie reviewers who disagreed with the blackout (the main thing). Once again, you can look up her twitter account.

The problem is not even with ZQ, mostly, she's simply the straw that broke the camels back. The game reviewers have no problem with material gain in exchange for favourable reviews. Look at depression quest, for example. It's got one of the lowest user scores ever on metacritic[1] (deservedly - I've seen better results from 8 year olds using the same software that ZQ used - she isn't a techie at all and knows no programming language as far as anyone can tell) but was hyped up for special mention by NG.

By all user reviews, this game is a piece of brown smelly stuff. Yet the journalist who singled it out for special mention in a positive light just happened to receive sexual favours from her not much later? Many gamers are neither naive nor stupid. When they pointed this out the media blackout occurred. Let me reiterate: The threads and users that were banned en masse were not those that sent death threats, but those that pointed out a shitty game got a positive spin by a journalist who a mere few weeks later slept with the game "dev"

So far, that media blackout isn't working - gawker alone lost around 10 or so advertising contracts, including BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Adobe and other prominent businesses. The Streisand effect, FTW :-) The important thing in all of this is to continue ensuring that the media blackout (and collusion to blackout/blackball) doesn't work. So far, so good :-)

[1] Depression quest might just set a new record for worst game ever, at the rate it is going. Games which didn't even start without bugs got higher scores on metacritic (Big rigs:over the road - listed as one of the worst games of all times got a score roughly five times higher than depression question, in spite of all the publicity that DQ got).

Well, I classify anyone who sabotages charities and then boasts about it as a despicable person, regardless of gender. Most people do. Just because this particular person says the right words and has the right politics does not make it right, regardless of who she slept with for material gain.

Your moral compass may be a little off if you think that charity sabotage is okay if you have the correct political affiliation.

She's done a lot more than domestic abuse. Look up what she did to the FYC; no "alleging" - she freely admits to what she did. Sabotaging charities, in most peoples books, makes you a despicable person regardless of whether one is a male or a female. This particular female is peculiarly toxic. Calling her out on it doesn't make one a misogynist.

Actually, calling out particular females and their actions as despicable doesn't mean that one hates all females. Only the misguided anti-GG argument say's that attacking a select few females means that you hate all females. That is certainly irrational.

"potentially"? You keep making the argument that their relationship only started after she was positively mentioned by the journalist (which isn't true, if you'd only bother to read the credits of her "game"), so it could not have been "trading sex for publicity" as they never had sex until after she received the publicity. That still leaves open "trading publicity for sex", which is not much of an improvement ethics-wise.

(See how that works)

In any case, a couple of points that you probably did not know:

More gamergate folk than anti-GG folk have been threatened (syringe in the post, etc).

The person sending threats to AS was found and identified by gamergate, but apparently AS refuses to take action (make of that what you will).

Unfortunately you are on the indefensible side here - Zoe Quin is a classic textbook domestic abuser. She is a horrible person, a "game dev" with not e single technical skill who somehow managed to convince millions that she was a techie. She lies, is deceitful, hurts other people for fun and is thus a really terrible, terrible person.

None of the above is misogynist in any way - if she were a he it would all still apply - yet we are getting told that it is wrong to point out all these things about her because attacking her for her deceit is the same as attacking all women.

I see this repeated a lot - where do you get your information? The rant from her ex-boyfriend (quite a long rant - she admits to cheating on him with five other guys) specifically states that he did not think that she traded sex for reviews. Why does everyone keep saying that he said that?

Sorry, no. Their relationship existed prior to that as he is mentioned in the games credits ... he was listed as a beta tester. You've been told now; now are you still going to go around saying "The relationship only started after"? Cause if you do, that will be total, bald-faced lies - the very thing you are accusing other people of doing.

You asked for evidence, you got given it. You can't very well complain that the volume isn't sufficient: you didn't specify a threshold that would satisfy you.

It's become obvious, when reading comments in the weekly "men are bad women are good" /. articles, that there have been polite and measured response to all of the anti-GG posts (like the above, for example). Mountains of evidence of collusion and media blackout have been presented. Advertisers (the people who actually have a stake in this) have pulled out en masse from gawker.

So, lets be honest - no matter what evidence is presented it won't meet your threshold. You, and others like you, have already made up your minds that GG is all about misogyny in gaming, nevermind the #notyourshield efforts.