Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:It's pretty simple, really. (Score 1) 688

And you dodge the fact that Grayson is in the games Thank You dev files since Feb 2013

I didn't think it was relevant, as he's in a giant list of people that at least one of the many people involved in development presumably knows in the rather small (as far as people go) games industry. You're making quite a few assumptions here.

Of course, even if we accept the claim that they did know each other (which isn't unreasonable) it does not in any way support "the claims that she slept for favorable coverage".

You also keep diverting back to REVIEW when I keep saying FAVORABLE COVERAGE.

Which, is ridiculous. The best you can manage is a single mention in a list of standouts in a giant list of games by an obscure freelance writer three months before they had any sort of romantic relationship. It's just foolish.

the claims that she slept for favorable coverage

are completely false. There is absolutely no evidence to support this.

The other side twisted it for reviews so they could shoot it down fast, when, in fact, nobody has ever made that claim from the beginning.

In the post I replied to:

this whole "gamergate" thing is indeed about a developer fucking a reporter in order to get better reviews and that being unethical.

This is obviously false. It's just as false when you replace "review" with "favorable coverage".

It's pretty clear that Quinn didn't exchange sex for reviews (as none were given) or for "favorable coverage". After Grayson and Quinn became involved in a romantic relationship, Grayson wrote absolutely nothing about her or her game, and virtually nothing before hand (see above). It's false on it's face. Anyone can see that. I suspect that you know it's total nonsense. Why continue to promote an obvious lie? It completely undermines your credibility.

On GG itself: Why is this obviously false narrative the best example you have of corruption in games journalism? You have but one completely fictional example of the thing you're claiming the movement is intended to address. What can anyone conclude but that this oft-cited mission for GG is completely untrue and that they have a completely different agenda?

Comment Re:Only Reasonable = Block every dam ad (Score 1) 285

The day the content guys pay for *my* internet access that's when they can serve me ads.

A long time ago, there lived a company called NetZero. They loved the internet and wanted everyone to have free access. They devised a plan by which users could connect to the internet for free, provided they were willing to allow an ad banner at the bottom of their browser.

All was well. Advertisers were happy, NetZero was happy, and (for the most part) their users were happy. But there lived an evil wizard who hated ads in all forms. He didn't like that banner ad. It made him very angry. He wanted free internet, but didn't think anyone should have to put up with an ad banner in exchange. With a wave of his mouse and a tap on his keyboard he made that ad banner vanish.

As word spread about the evil wizard and his dastardly spells, advertisers got nervous. The couldn't justify paying for ads that users wouldn't see -- and NetZero needed those advertisers to keep their magical internet service free to anyone who wanted it.

Sadly, no hero came to rescue NetZero from the evil wizard. It wasn't long before they became like every other ISP. Soon afterward, they died a quite death and were soon forgotten.

Comment Re:It's pretty simple, really. (Score 1) 688

Well, then present some evidence. As you've seen, all the stuff floating around doesn't even begin to support the claims being made.

Given the lack of evidence, why to you continue to believe that obviously fictional narrative? What purpose does that serve? Aside from blind delusion, the only reason I can see is that you believe promoting that nonsense somehow supports an agenda unrelated to ethics in game journalism.

Comment Re:It's pretty simple, really. (Score 1) 688

The Streisand effect happens when someone attempts to hide something that was public, thereby calling attention to it.

In this case, we have an obviously false claim, supported by no evidence, that no one is trying to cover-up. The two are unrelated.

I suspect it's because the problem they claim exists does not, or that there is no evidence to support their belief. Repeating the obvious lie, in hope that people will believe it, has thus become their only option.

The question, then, is why continue to make false claims? What do you hope to accomplish? To call attention to a problem that doesn't seem to exist in hopes that it will become solved? How would you know? If the problem of ethics in games journalism was solved, there would be no evidence of ethical problems -- which is exactly the state we find ourselves in now.

Could it be that GG has a different agenda than the one they claim? Perhaps one more closely aligned with the rhetoric you hear from GG supporters?

Comment Re:Issue is more complicated (Score 1) 924

Equality does not mean walking into a group and telling them how they have to act to accommodate your irrational reactions to their culture.

Equality also isn't a kind of snack cracker. This is why I said that the parent didn't understand equality.

Equality means treating others as equals,

That's part of it, yes.

not attempting to make others communicate among themselves according to your pathetic sensibilities.

This, again, has nothing to do with equality. This is why I said that the parent didn't understand equality.

The second part is about behavior. This whole "discussion" is a lot like dealing with teenagers who don't understand why their expect to conform to particular norms. "Why can't we loiter here? What's the harm?" or "We're just ____. What's the big deal?" They simply can't understand that their behavior impacts others because they're still so self-centered. It's why we treat teens like children and not like adults.

See, we live in a society that does not accept the kind of behavior you're defending. You should expect to be scolded when you behave like an unruly teenager. That's how kids learn to live in a civilized society.

You only think people are trying to force you to behave because you feel a little shame when you get scolded.

Comment Re:It's pretty simple, really. (Score 1) 688

The suspicion of the claims that she slept for favorable coverage does NOT mean the Kotaku article.

On the RPS article, you should note the date is early January, three months before they had any sort of romantic relationship. Regardless, there's no reason to suspect that there was any sort of exchange or arrangement. Quinn's game is highlighted along with two others in the RPS article, naming them as standouts in a list of 50 other games. If there was any sort of exchange, it's not evident from the article.

Beyond that, it goes to show the cronyism that is present in the journalism field.

I'm not convinced. I'm surprised you are. Quinn's later relationship to Grayson doesn't seem to have had any impact on his coverage of Quinn's work either before or after their romantic involvement. He never even reviewed the game.

this whole "gamergate" thing is indeed about a developer fucking a reporter in order to get better reviews and that being unethical.

He never even reviewed the game. The evidence just doesn't support this claim.

To the softer claim: I have to question why the only example of cronyism in the industry that sparked this outrage was a tryst between an obscure indie developer and an even more obscure freelance journalist. Particularly when there's no reason to believe that their romantic involvement had any impact on the journalistic work either before or after their romantic encounter.

Quinn and Grayson are held up as the smoking gun, yet their story does not exemplify the problems GG claims to be deeply concerned about. You can hardly blame anyone for thinking that they have a different agenda, particularly with all the other rhetoric that surrounds the movement, and the lack of evidence

The point stands that they had an agreement, she violated it, and it revoked their agreed consent before the issue.

Again, there's no evidence here that she's a rapist by her own definition. Where has she offered up this alleged definition? Where's the evidence these other things took place? What's the point? How does that relate to the other claims?

Comment Re:Amazing news! (Score 4, Insightful) 165

That's the most foolish argument I've ever seen. "It's too late".

Apple and Google were "too late" to the smartphone market. Microsoft was "too late" to the game console and tablet markets. It hasn't stopped them from being incredibly successful.

Market leaders change all the time. Why do you think now is the first time in history where the market is settled and new players don't stand a chance of succeeding?

Comment Re:It's pretty simple, really. (Score 1) 688

Your claims get softer and softer the more facts we introduce: Here's the article you mention, give it a read.

  It's pretty clear than anyone covering that topic would have, by necessity, mentioned Quinn. There are a lot of names mentioned in that article because it's about a game jam reality tv show of which she was a participant. To not mention Quinn would have been an odd omission. As for any special treatment, look at how much coverage Quinn gets compared to everyone else, and if that's positive, negative or neutral in general and in relation to the many other people mentioned and quoted in the article. There's no reason to suspect she was granted any special treatment.

It's pretty obvious to everyone that she wasn't exchanging sex for press coverage. You can believe that if you want, it's not impossible, but there is absolutely no evidence to support it. How do you justify this belief?

As for the rape by her own definition:

Still absurd nonsense, lacking any grounding in fact.

Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky