Gwazi Magnum

Zoe Quinn.

Dipper said \I tell you this day, that the Gaming industry is going to crash again - We may be witnessing the first smouldering flames. It will be glorious.

Maybe with Triple A studios with some exceptions like Bethesdia.
But the Indie Market is growing and flourishing, they'd probably keep the gaming industry alive and well.

Zoe Quinn.

Gamer's increase social interactions online though is heavily aided by technological advancements. We have over time designed better and more efficient systems for online communication. Such kind of system upgrades aren't possible in face to face interactions. But yes, some of us do greatly engage socially online. But it does also largely depend on what your gaming.

For example, Xbox LIVE you'd find a lot of social people (Not necessarily friendly though mind you). People who join a lobby are all instantly connected through voice chat, able to communicate and socialize right off the bat. But something such as say DDO? WoW? Phantasy Star Online? League of Legends? You're normally restricted to text chat, something we need to take focus away from the game itself to take part in. So activity is a lot more small, often being filled by a minority of chatty folks and the rest simply making rage comments or making a LFG post.

You have to really go out of way to do something like join a Teamspeak Server to properly communicate with people, and most people don't. Once you get to the server, oh yea social levels are through the roof. But that's after you've already narrowed it down among all the gamers out there.

It should also be added that Games also have the perk of hiding your real Identity, people don't know who you are. You can be who you want, and it won't follow you over into the real world. So Introverts being more social online isn't even a clear indicator that they are generally really social people. It means there is less barriers, Extroverts would also be even more extroverted in such situations. Though that being said, an Extrovert might have that reversed if they feel they are in a very alien environment. Which since many Extroverts don't get that into video games, would suggest that is probably what happens a lot of the time.

*Has now just talked myself into a point I was not considering*. However, with that logic an argument can be made that Introvert's simply have that alien feeling in the real world, and Extroverts have it in the virtual world. That is an interesting thought, and something I will take into further reflection.

However, if that is indeed the case dividing Introvert's and Extroverts, I would still stand by my overall analysis in the earlier post. I would simply re-word it to be:

"Those are more social in the real world will stigmatize and look down on those who are more social in the virtual world. Thus helping to lead to the scapegoat hatred, and open mockery of gamers. Combined with the whole "New is scary" trend that humans have. And seeing how the vast majority of human history we have had to be outside, real life interacting creatures. The idea of virtual interaction is still a scary and alien concept to many".

Zoe Quinn.

Gaming even if it's becoming more accepted, is still the main hobby that keeps people from going outside. It's still the hobby where on average there are less IRL social interactions. Both of which btw are 100% fine, I do not mean to imply for a second that being a gamer is somehow wrong or unhealthy and needs to change. Hell a better way to word it may simply be "Gamer's are the most likely to be Introverts".

What do Extroverts constantly do in reaction to Introverts? Not connect or relate as well, people who feel a massive need to get outside, interact with human beings etc. Setting up Introvert's as something a bit alien, and once seen as something outside/different it becomes easier for Introverts to be looked down upon. This is easily seen in examples such as:

-In School's it's always the Extroverted Popular kids who more people like. That School Staff and Majority of Teachers treat favorably and look the other way for most often.

-Extrovert's always being deemed as the "Developmentally Healthy" individual/mindset, and the Introvert being painted as "Developmentally flawed or lacking".

And once society has degraded them in such a way, it becomes easy to make them the scapegoat. Make them the sub-group to be hated upon, controlling that hatred to fuel another,selfish agenda

It's this, in Combination with "New Things scare society" is what I believe has allowed the 'Gamers are Violent/Entitled/Sexist' claims to stay alive for so long. Hell most of the claims about violence, entitlement or being sexist can be more easily (and accurately) made in regards to something such as sports. But it never happens, cause that isn't a group of people that society has decided it can look down on, but rather something they openly accept and identify with.

League of Legends

Brovo said Most don't. They just follow the meta blindly. For instance: Veigar Soraka bot lane is viable. Not great in the current meta, but completely viable.

I figured as much considering how angry most people would get, but never actually be able to explain why. :P

League of Legends

Brovo said Okay Magnum. The reason the lanes are set up like that is because bot lane is near dragon. Dragon is the mid game objective, baron is the late game objective. You need a support with most marksmen in most matchups, ergo they go bot so that when the jungle pursues dragon he can quickly call on three out of four of his teammates for help to nab it quick. Meanwhile, this means top lane has to be capable of surviving alone for pretty much the entire early game save for the occasional jungler gank when dragon isn't an option. Ergo you want fighters up there, who can murder off minion waves quick but survive harassment from their lane opponent.

Ah, I see.

People I asked in the past should have just said that to start, rather than simply getting mad for not blindly obeying them. >.<
Considering this I'll probably start trying to follow the lane rules now.

League of Legends

VKAllen said The current laning structure hasn't changed ever since Late Season 1. Laning is practically the structure in which the team is built around. I remember in Early Season 1 the normal laning phase consisted of a Marksman Mid, Fighter pair bot and Support/Marksman top.The reasoning I don't know, but it is the metagame that everybody expects people to play.

That's what's normally been the answer when I ask, and it's one of the reasons I don't play League often.
I don't like following _______ tactic, if what's reinforcing the tactic is a cultural thing, not something logically reasoned/explained.
But because I don't blindly follow a cultural thing, players will constantly bitch during the game making the game less enjoyable.

Lunaire said I guess it just has to do with the way the map is set up. Technically, you could try to bum rush mid as five - it might work against a less coordinated team. But towers in League are strong, so a few people could defend against your siege while your outer towers are left undefended, and that means inhibitors are in danger.There isn't any clear reason for the current lane meta, but there are a couple justifications for the way it is now: @Rare: League is much more fun with friends! There are a lot of details to playing that aren't intuitive, especially if you've never played a MOBA before. It's a way better experience to have others show you the ropes while you play.

Alright, but that sounds more like pairing different champions properly, not a matter of ______ class is better in ______ location.

League of Legends

I'll leave the giving advise to others, I'm only about a level 10 summoner so I'm very much still a noob myself.

Though there is one thing I still cannot get for the life of me. What in the world is the point of laning? Why does which line I run in matter depending on my build? They all seem the exact same.

Zoe Quinn.

And as it turns out Anita was faking it.
This just goes to support my earlier point on how dishonest she is.

As for Zoe, it is true that without this much attention she would not have gotten as much support as he has. But her support is in reaction to all the criticism she's getting, so I honestly think it balances out with all the people who are calling her out on her bullshit. And 4chan does tend to house a lot of the shittiest attitude's the Internet has to offer, this is true. But the evidence still points towards her and Phil Fish having faked the hacks, 4chan not being part of it at all.

And even if they were, that's not the entirety of 4chan. Shutting down the Charity that 4chan supported would have still been uncalled for.

Zoe Quinn.

The death threats Anita receives doesn't make her points any more valid. It simply means someone was pissed enough to send her a death threat.

And having looked at the death threat post myself, it looks a lot like typical Internet threats that people throw at each other all the time. And Anita either didn't understand that's simply how the Internet talks, or she's taking advantage of it go gain attention and sympathy. My money's on the latter, cause she's pissed off enough people there's no way this is the first death threat she got.

People like Thunderf00t and TheAmazingAtheists get such threats daily, and in terms of general popularity they tend to be smaller names in comparison and don't ruthlessly lie about something that millions of people care about. It's just seems impossible for this to be the first time Anita got one of these, so the fact she didn't panic and run to a friends house until now seems to indicate it's an act. Especially considering this is almost immediately after Phil Fish and Zoe Quinn attempted to stage a hack against them.

Am I defending the death threats? No.
But I acknowledge they are common place in Internet culture, and anyone who wants to be Internet famous needs to get used to that.

As for the articles/logical fallacy bit.

Miss-interpretation on my part then, sorry about that.
I got the impression you were saying that attention should be shifted off of Quinn onto the others.

Though honestly Zoe Quinn has evolved past being just a Journalism corruption issue. It itself has turned into an other feminism/war on women battle. And also turned into a battle that has resulted in staged hackings, and the shutting down of charities. I can't think of any other gaming journalist situation that has escalated into such a thing before.

Zoe Quinn.

Actually even though in the quote section I called it a rant I did respond to the majority of your points.

Hellis said Ok, Magnum, I have a few issues with how you continuesly try to present this as if Feminism is the problem here. Stop. Just stop. This has nothing to do with the political, female rights driven adaptation of ideologies that has achieved a shit ton of good. Statements like this; "Feminist Double Standards" "Feminism has been quick to move to Zoe Quinns defense, it's been adopted by them as a feminist issue."Are clearly nothing but sweeping generalization for the sake of a target to aim at. Feminism as a whole has not taken her stand. I see no sources of reputable, established feminsm organization raging in her defence, Making the second statement false and really, missleading as all hell. You are waving the "Femism is being oppresive" flag around in every post and the attack at apparent double standards seems to thrown in there to air your griviences with this strange enemy of yours. This isn't about feminism.

All of this is essentially working on the assumption that I was attacking feminism as a whole, which once I made it clear that wasn't what I was doing there was no need to go forward. Cause the assumption these arguments were made under were then proven false.

I would ask for clarification by what you meant by "Hell, you were making no distinction before this" it seems unstated cause that was the only post I made criticizing feminism in this topic.
Everything else was in other debate's where, if you are half what active in OT you should be well aware that my issues with feminism is third wave feminism, not all feminism.

That was something repeated often enough among this community I felt the clarification no longer needed repeating. But apparent you either forgot, or were never aware of my stance so I went back and clarified. So no, it's not a attempt to slate a thing over. It's having made a wrong assumption that you possessed a piece of knowledge in regards to my stance on the issue.

Hellis said A person like her may use the "Misogony" card but I have yet to see it taken up by any serius sources. And, if we are gonna go into the subject further; I work closely with people in the gaming industry, both indy and bigger names. I have many outspoken, feminist friends who happen to be gamers, or in the gaming industry. Quite a few of them here in sweden, you'd be surprised. None of them are even remotely taking Zoeys side. They think she is dragging what they stand for in the mud. And let's get down to the problem at hand.

1. This is personal friendships, doesn't exactly hold much weight in debate.
2. Since I had already clarified above I only meant Third Wave feminists and you're described friends do not fit the Third Wave feminist criteria, simple logic should dictate I was not referring to people such as your friends. So saying "My feminist friends aren't like that!" was irrelevant, because they were not the kinds of feminists being criticized.

Hellis said To qoute Bravo, whom I agree with on the subject;"Games Journalism is a ship full of rats."Indeed it is, and you have no idea the amount of cheese the industry throw them to keep them from eating up the puppy that is overprices crap games. I was part of a small time editorial thing that did game reviews. Our chief editor, who ran the entire thing got us working with a more established site. You know what happens to us in the matter of days? Let me tell you; Despite us being small, shit all important nerds we still are deemed worthy of wasting money on. Our review copies were sent along with giftbackets, invitations and all sorts of neat stuff. They are fairly upfront with their bribing, let me tell you. Here, have a game, and all this shit to. But should we write to many bad reviews for a companys games, what happen? No more giftbaskets, buy the games ourselves! Not to mention us a brand is less desirable.Gaming journalism is click bait. Its sensationalism at it's 'finest'. Of course, some sites like TheDailyBeast and other will take the side of Zoey whatever her name is; Why? Becouse it racks up views, it is currently internet fucking famous. Most importantly, it's grabbing attention of everyone involved. That there is called ad revenue. It's what they live on. Wanna speak about the corruption of the game journalism industy, look at ONGAMERS, who were banned from reddit for upvoting their own stuff to the frontpage. A site who are essentialy, sensationalism garbage all around and who play obvius favourites in E-Sports. For a fledgling industry, they have adopted the failings of the old news industry giants very quickly.

And this was all one big Logical Fallacy known as the fallacy of relative prviation. Yes this kind of bribery is common in journalism, that doesn't mean Zoe Quinn is suddenly granted protection.

So, just because I didn't format your quote's into different sections did not mean I had not addressed/replied to your arguments?
Please actually pay attention to what I said next time, not how many quote boxes with your name in it that popped up.

Hellis said -Anita-

The issue with Anita is that she has proven herself countless times to be dishonest, lying and unable to do her research.

For some examples, recorded footage of her admitting she actually is not a gamer and doesn't like video games despite the fact that both during and after her kickstarter she has claimed to have been a gamer growing up.

The next few examples I point to individual clips like that, there all parts of larger videos. Here's one by Thunderf00t but it might have been some of this others that address a couple of these points.

1. Lying about the intention/motivation of Video games.
Such as her claim Hitman gave Gamers a derived pleasure of killing helpless women and desecrating their corpse. When it truth the game actually penalizes you for killing innocents.

2. Claiming that WatchDog's encourages the Sexual exposure/revealing of women
And when doing this she shows clips from the very mission you are meant to be freeing girls from Sex slavery. I'm pretty sure saving women from such a thing means you value their freedom and independence, not that women are objects to be exploited.

3. Many cases of taking very specific clips of gameplay footage from Lets Players (without permission) and showed them in a set up to imply/set up sexism.

4. The very fact she needed over 100k, for videos she rarely releases. And as even the most basic fact checking of the games she covers exposes a lot of cut corners, shitty research and/or outright lying about the games in question.

Essentially what I'm getting at is Anita is completely dishonest, she has her own agenda and has proven herself time and time again that she can't be trusted.
If a sincere feminist, humanist, Gender egalitarian etc. came out saying there was sexism in games and brought arguments supporting it... That'd be another thing, but they need to back it up with legitimate reasons and proof.
Hell, one show Extra Credit's does this constantly, highlighting examples of say racism, sexism, homophobia etc. In games. But have they ever gotten slack for it? No.

The reason is Gamers are not a easily offended bunch like you claim they are. It's just that if someone comes in and claims something we enjoy is sexist/wrong, and doesn't actually have arguments to back it up (and worse yet, caught lying in order to make games seem sexist) we're going to react badly. Cause she is blatantly attacking and painting a bad image of our medium simply to further her own agenda. But when say Extra Credits does it? Actually explaining it, having facts and good reasoning to back it up? We listen, we agree with them and then actually try pushing for changes in the gaming community because of it.