Because you're effectively herding a group of cats, and coming up with a new name with a new cause every time someone tries to slimeball and gaslight you is a good way to lose momentum.
But here's the thing, while the original allegation of her sleeping with Nathan for reviews is bullshit, that doesn't clean up the fact she entered a romantic relationship pretty much right after Nathan published his piece.[1]
On March 31, Nathan published the only Kotaku article he's written involving Zoe Quinn. It was about Game Jam, a failed reality show that Zoe and other developers were upset about being on. At the time, Nathan and Zoe were professional acquaintances. He quoted blog posts written by Zoe and others involved in the show. Shortly after that, in early April, Nathan and Zoe began a romantic relationship. He has not written about her since. Nathan never reviewed Zoe Quinn's game Depression Quest, let alone gave it a favorable review.
Nor does it excuse the fact that she was actually covered by Patricia Hernandez, a close friend of hers, a long while back without disclosure either. The update at the bottom happened after the fallout.[2]
The harassment that she received that prompted her game to be taken down from Steam Greenlight in Particia's article was also proven to be false.[3]
The only other source of a decent timeline is KnowYourMeme of all places.[3]
The escapist at the very least decided to apologize for reporting on her original harassment on Steam Greenlight without doublechecking[4]
"But to explain is not to excuse. Our editor-in-chief, Greg Tito, having reviewed the facts at hand, concluded we ourselves have been imperfect in maintaining journalistic standards. A particularly problematic article, the one which generated his review, was about the alleged harassment of an indie developer by a forum community which denied the allegations but was itself victimized as a result of them. The article failed to cite the harassment as alleged, failed to give the forum community an opportunity present its point of view, and did not verify the claims or secure other sources. Mr. Tito has personally updated the article and spoken to all our editors about the importance of adhering to standards that will prevent such bad incidents from happening again."
Even the most polite and level-headed Gamergate fans seem to spend far more energy defending the Gamergate name than they do attacking actual corruption. It makes you look like you care more about a snappy name than about getting your message heard; frankly, it makes you look like dupes for a small group of misogynistic trolls.
It's to be defended because the movement doesn't stand for misogyny, and changing the name is effectively admitting to something that it didn't do.
Hello my friend. I'm actually present in the logs. And we do talk quite a bit about how to spread awareness towards the corruption in video game journalism.
The logs aren't for the fainthearted because people say stupid things and spout memes, myself included. But everything is there.
Trying to say "look! it's in the logs!" then linking to thousands of lines of text is kind of silly.
The logs will also prove that the logs Zoe Quinn is spreading around are cherrypicked and edited. But that would require actually reading thousands of lines of text, which I'm sure neither you nor anyone willing to listen to the opposing viewpoint is willing to do.
The "secret club" is on rizon, in the #burgersandfries channel, and yes, we kept the old name. You're free to drop in and chat any time.
"You can't just claim one sick person's actions are the fault of some other group of people.
Actually I can. That group of people acts as an enabling environment, making the behaviour seem less extreme to those associated in that group.
Do you seriously not have any moral qualms about lying about millions of people and claiming they target and intimidate people?
I don't see these "millions of people" actively working to make sure the person making those threats is found and brought to justice.
I'll condemn that behaviour all day (behind the safety of my throwaway account)"
The actions of a few do not invalidate an entire group of people.
Take a step back, and realize that you are literally using the same exact argument as islamophobes.
And no, I'm not saying this behind the safety of a throwaway account because I'm not afraid of you, or random internet trolls willing to call me names.
As they say, you do not bite the hand that feeds you. I doubt Snowden was particularly happy about doing that interview, but considering his circumstances he didn't really have a choice.
This mentality tends to protrude in a lot of non-software related fields as well. There are many times for example where I question the layout of the instruments in my car or why my local grocery store stocks items the way it does. When you work with software/ui a lot, you tend to develop an internal organizational logic that's very different from normal users. This influence becomes quite noticeable when you have to respond to unfamiliar tasks.
Quite simple actually. These books contain big meaty subject matter. Not fucking glossed over topics like a ted talk or wiki entry.
The laws of thermodynamics cannot be condensed down into a 14 minute video.
The internet has cheapened both the access and depth of knowledge. There are a lot of internet commentators out there who barely grasp a briefly summarized topic yet assume an expert position.
but...being unable to control your body's reproductive rights does make you unequal. You're being discriminated against by having other beliefs forced upon you and your body, much like gays are discriminated against by having a different sexual orientation. Anti-abortion lobbying strips women of their reproductive rights and promotes inequality.
He donated money for a campaign that he believed in. You might believe that was discriminatory, he did not. Ultimately its up to the law to decide that. He gave money for a caused he believed in, even if that cause was wrong.
But contrary to what you're trying to link it to, that does not affect his professional life or the way he managed mozilla up until this point. There's simply no evidence of it. There's no logical fallacy. There's just no evidence that he's done anything discriminatory. No angry anonymous mozilla blog posts about brendan. No company leaks. nothing.
Saying that because he's CEO and in charge and doesn't have someone to hold him accountable so he can do whatever he wants...outlines your ignorance of company structure and...office politics. Sure, a CEO can call the shots, but Brendan had been in charge of many things at Mozilla for a long time and could've realistically gotten rid of people or shuffled them around whenever he wanted to. But he didn't.
Could he have been secretly scheming to get rid of "the company gays" at Mozilla for 15 years and only now finally realized his master plan that he was CEO? I honestly, seriously, doubt it.
The fact that you cannot, and will not separate personal life from business is what truly worries me. Many people are cooperative and productive despite having different beliefs and backgrounds. Sometimes they can offer insight from a different perspective and sometimes they can be a hindrance. This is a core prospect of working with a group of people, and it is a great advantage. Brendan has shown that he wasn't a hindrance the 15 years he was at Mozilla, and he's given back a lot to the open source community.
On an off note, and I am not implying that you are doing this at all, surrounding yourself by a group of people that hold the same mindset is bad. It creates an echo chamber and allows for really terrible ideas to flourish.
...but they haven't had a fear of discriminatory treatment since he's...a fucking founder of mozilla and worked at the company for 15 years and lead many projects.
If there was a fear of discriminatory treatment, we would've heard about it much sooner.
>Changing your views, and admitting you were wrong is the best thing you can do.
Dude, what?
What if he doesn't feel it was wrong? Furthermore, who the fuck cares what he believes and what he spends his money on in his own PRIVATE time? That's COMPLETELY outside of his job at the Mozilla foundation which he's been working at just fine for 15 fucking years.
yup. my nexus 4 battery was getting drained by something called mediaserver, and after a quick google search it was google now and google currents; which had absolutely ridiculous sync rates murdering my battery in a span of 2 hours. A thing to note is that when a significant portion of the CPU is being used on the nexus 4, the phone gets REALLY HOT. Untouchably hot. Leaving the phone in my pocket was actually burning my thigh.
The moment I realized that mtgox stood for fucking magic the gathering online exchange is when I became weary/started laughing at people who put their imaginary fun bux in there, Asian enterprise notwithstanding.
For those not in the knowhow, BioShock Infinite was in development for a very long time. Work began on the game in 2008 and the first public announcement of the project was made in 2010. One developer when interviewed at polygon was quoted as saying that they culled enough content to make five or six games. E3 footage of the game over the years (and hell, even tv commercials of the game,) have nothing in common with the final released product with the sole exception of Columbia as a setting and different character versions of Elizabeth and Booker.
So what would you call something that actually 'flops' by the English definition standard? A cataclysmic failure bound to ruin any and all associated with it?
But here's the thing, while the original allegation of her sleeping with Nathan for reviews is bullshit, that doesn't clean up the fact she entered a romantic relationship pretty much right after Nathan published his piece.[1]
On March 31, Nathan published the only Kotaku article he's written involving Zoe Quinn. It was about Game Jam, a failed reality show that Zoe and other developers were upset about being on. At the time, Nathan and Zoe were professional acquaintances. He quoted blog posts written by Zoe and others involved in the show. Shortly after that, in early April, Nathan and Zoe began a romantic relationship. He has not written about her since. Nathan never reviewed Zoe Quinn's game Depression Quest, let alone gave it a favorable review.
Nor does it excuse the fact that she was actually covered by Patricia Hernandez, a close friend of hers, a long while back without disclosure either. The update at the bottom happened after the fallout.[2]
The harassment that she received that prompted her game to be taken down from Steam Greenlight in Particia's article was also proven to be false.[3]
Unfortunately, since Wikipedia's WikiProject Feminism is brigading the article (which is now locked) http://puu.sh/bZri1/121afb137b.png
The only other source of a decent timeline is KnowYourMeme of all places.[3]
The escapist at the very least decided to apologize for reporting on her original harassment on Steam Greenlight without doublechecking[4]
"But to explain is not to excuse. Our editor-in-chief, Greg Tito, having reviewed the facts at hand, concluded we ourselves have been imperfect in maintaining journalistic standards. A particularly problematic article, the one which generated his review, was about the alleged harassment of an indie developer by a forum community which denied the allegations but was itself victimized as a result of them. The article failed to cite the harassment as alleged, failed to give the forum community an opportunity present its point of view, and did not verify the claims or secure other sources. Mr. Tito has personally updated the article and spoken to all our editors about the importance of adhering to standards that will prevent such bad incidents from happening again."
[1]http://kotaku.com/in-recent-days-ive-been-asked-several-time...
[2]http://kotaku.com/depression-quest-the-thoughtful-game-about...
[3]http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/quinnspiracy
[4]http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/ed...
Even the most polite and level-headed Gamergate fans seem to spend far more energy defending the Gamergate name than they do attacking actual corruption. It makes you look like you care more about a snappy name than about getting your message heard; frankly, it makes you look like dupes for a small group of misogynistic trolls.
It's to be defended because the movement doesn't stand for misogyny, and changing the name is effectively admitting to something that it didn't do.