According to recent tweets made by EscapistMag co-founder, Alexander Macris, the site's GamerGate forums have been affected by DDoS attacks.
Site not loading or very slow to load, what do they aim to achieve here?
GamerGate fights back with logic, reasoning and people who actually do good journalism to prove the other side wrong While the SJW side have to be immature, send personal attacks, call people names and do DDoS attacks while having the cheek after to say that's what WE do to them, trying to spin it around so they are the victim How can anyone be on their side.
Being brought into the argument on their side. Not listening to or regarding anything said by the other side after that. The SJW side = woman persecuted for sleeping with five guys. Persecuted for her personal and social history by "gamers" known for their degenerate and anti-social behavior. Gamergate side = Woman's revealed personal history suggest exploitation of public identity and business career. Wide spread collusion which could negatively impact gaming industry, the hobby of many. Those consumers demand an investigation and action which ultimately could result with those directly involved not having jobs and/or a career in gaming. By all counts the collusion has been going on for a while. The five guys thing just became the worst and most exposed example of it. At this point with all else that's been revealed it doesn't have to be looked at, but now SJW seem to be using Quinn as excuse to cover up anything connected to her.
this is a good thing the more they try to censor discussion the longer people are going to talk about it asking why?
Something like this? Wouldn't be surprised they don't accuse #GG of doing it themselves as a false flag, since that's what they apparently do. Then again, if I understand it right, the Escapist is pro-SJW but left their forums open regardless. They, or someone within the site, could be doing it themselves. Things do seem that crazy.
Oh look it's Mr gross oversimplification! ;) People on both sides, have at times acted like complete jerks. You can't claim the gamerrgate side is some bastion of integrity and proper discourse, they've been shouting, harassing, and being dicks as much as anyone. Arguably more. The vast majority on both sides have been calm and collected. Then there are people going around and making it out to be a binary good/bad issue where one side is right and the other is wrong and/or lying on every metric. Wrooong. "I knew you'd be in this thread mixelon!" Well, duh. :D
Oh look it's the biggest SJW on here who wants to help ignore and cover up this whole thing so gamers in general can be walked all over on.
actually only one side is being extremely hostile and that is the anti gamer-gate people, just check out the beginning of #notyourshield and how they called them weaponized minorities because they could not comprehend that the people they champion to defend could have there own opinion. https://www.youtube.com/wat...
"The vast majority on both sides have been calm and collected." No. While the core #GG segment has both been calm and asked for the most trollish factions of gamers to do likewise, for the nothing such is worth, the SJW side started at extremes. Things specifically became worse on the #GG side, #GG itself originally and officially came into being, because sites like Reddit were deleted threads. Reviewers under-fire started "gamers no more" and compared them to terrorist. #GG is calling for gaming journalist to be held accountable for actions regarding involvement with the industry they cover. SJW are decrying gamers as an unworthy audience who will rape, murder and bomb people if given a chance. With every indirect indication that should be handled accordingly. At best treated like bad children if not outright nonredeemable criminals. One of these sides come off as being just crazy.
Godmars -I don't see that at all. And that shows misreading of the intentions and content of multiple authors. "SJW are decrying gamers as an unworthy audience who will rape, murder and bomb people if given a chance. [..] At best treated like bad children if not outright nonredeemable criminals. " That's hyperbole. You're doing exactly the same thing you're claiming they're doing. Black and white thinking - painting everything they're saying into a simplified picture. Even the "death of the gamer" articles didn't say all gamers were like that. They were talking about a vocal, *horrible* subgroup. At no point did games journalists throw all gamers under the bus. That wouldn't have made ANY sense, considering it's their livelihood. That's how some people read it. I agree they were inflammatory and not exactly sensible pieces to post. Haha. Consider all the gamers who read those pieces and thought. "I agree with much of this!" - does that stop them from being gamers? Does that make them self hating gamers? No. It doesn't. I don't agree with many of the points made in those *opinion pieces*. That doesn't absolve some gamers of their ass-hattery when the shoe fits. Hate and absolutism is thrown at anyone with opposing or critical views. "Gamers" don't get to paint themselves as the rational, peace-loving logical types they keep trying to. It'd frankly completely ridiculous. And if I'm one of the only people who's going to point that out here, so be it? I'm not fishing for agrees. Raining on the surreal utopian gamer parade? Maybe! We don't deserve one. The stupid shit is being flung both directions. WE don't get to be the victims either. Gamers as a whole are not being persecuted. Stuff like Foxtrots - "Oh look it's the biggest SJW on here who wants to help ignore and cover up this whole thing so gamers in general can be walked all over on."? Walked all over? Gamers? Oh BOO HOO. If this is the worst that's happened to our *poor repressed minority* then shit, we've got it REALLY good! While some gamers are accusing other people of being professional victims they probably shouldn't act like they have a doctorate in it themselves. Talking about victimhood (lol).. By posting like this (i.e. by not participating in the "gamers are the best, look at how we treat everything with the utmost respect compared to those eeeevil bad-guys" circle-jerk) here I've been labelled as a) a conspiring journalist. (whut) b) a feminist - as an insult (well, in so far as I'm very moderate) c) Someone calling for censorship. (nope, I love cheesecake and uber-gore). I'm totally ANTI-censorship - God Of War, Lollipop Chainsaw? Awesome!) d) Someone who wants to censor people's speech. (Nope, I'm DISAGREEING with it, not silencing it. I've tried to talk people down from pitch-fork waving rants, yes..) I've been told, by .. lovely.. "gamers" that I need to grow a pair, that I'm a SJW and (predictably) a "White Knight", told I'm doing it for points. From who? I don't know! At the end of the day it's funny. And then I run out of bubbles. Which is probably for the best as all discussion around here is completely circular. XD It's not becoming of a thoughtful, reasonable group of people though, is it? It's acting like a mob who want to (and try to) demonise anyone who disagrees even slightly. It's the sign of a very uncouth, very unwelcoming community - that's shouting from the rooftops that it's the exact opposite. Hypocritical nonsense. ... Dammit i did it again. WALL OF TEXT!
You missed/ignored the bit where the core of the SJW side, friends of Zoe Quinn with positions in the industry, are directly responsible for the creation of #GG because they shut down forums. The discussions of what went on with the FTYC.
@mixelon Let me go through your comment and explain to you why it is utter crap.Please try to pay attention. 1."The vast majority on both sides have been calm and collected." Where are the anti #gamergate articles actually talking about game journalist ethics and morals? How many anti #gamergate articles solely talk about the harassment of women? Please tell me. This goes beyond people on twitter throwing insults at each other, its the people that can CONTROL THE NARRATIVE that really started it.The vast majority if not all of them have been hostile to anyone questioning ethics from the beginning because they didn't see an issue with the lack of ethics and only thought we were trying to harass that person. Its been said by most pro #gamergate people over and over and over again that her sex life is completely irrelevant since literally the beginning, yet they still shrug it off as trying to harass that person. 2." Even the "death of the gamer" articles didn't say all gamers were like that. They were talking about a vocal, *horrible* subgroup. At no point did games journalists throw all gamers under the bus" Please show me the disclaimer in these articles that state which "subgroup" they are trying to shame. http://www.polygon.com/2014... http://www.gamasutra.com/vi... http://www.gamasutra.com/vi... http://kotaku.com/we-might-... Because its pretty clear to me in first paragraph they all pretty much say the entire game culture.. 3."Consider all the gamers who read those pieces and thought. "I agree with much of this!" - does that stop them from being gamers? Does that make them self hating gamers? No. It doesn't." The people that agree with that crap are people that already believed in that crap obviously, lets not use "what ifs" as an credible argument.Because you have no clue if gamers actually agree with whats being said let alone what they think after agreeing with it. You could've ended your wall of text right there because the rest is just an reiteration of what you've already said. Like godmars said, the #gamergate came as a response to the CRAP being flung by the other side.You trying make it seem like both sides take equal blame for the crap being flung is a weak argument.As if censoring and twisting the narrative can even be compared random people on twitter crap talking.
I didn't ignore it, I just didn't think of it at the time. But, now you mention it.. Blaming them for conspiring to "shut down criticism" is, again, an oversimplification. The "censorship" of discussion threads is a pretty weird, but boards are privately owned and run on their own rules. It doesn't matter if you have a good point if you go about it in a horrible way. Trying to stop pitchfork wielding mobs is not an inherently wrong move. If that was brewing about you, and you saw them "coming to get you" - but you had a way, within the rules of the platform hosting those discussions, to stop it.. You'd just let it lie? These weren't just threads full of insults. If it seemed like it meant literally or figuratively protecting myself and potentially even my family and friends, I'd certainly go out of my way to muddy the channels of the perceived threat. Push someone into a corner, whatever their points of view, regardless of how right or wrong either of you are, and you'll get this sort of response. The trick then would to be talk about things without acting like a bunch of psychopaths, then nothing would get shut down. (!) It's not rocket science, but it seems to be beyond a large percentage of internet posters. As soon as people cross the line, even here - into concerted harassment and plotting. It'll get deleted and or blocked here too. Rightly. From my POV It's not "us vs them". At all. It's a case of "Listen to each other's problems, and try not to treat them like they're idiots. (until they prove themselves as such, which people often do lavishly) And if you disagree? Explain why, and how, conducting yourself in a respectful manner." When you attack people - no shit they're vicious and sometimes dismissive back. But just because they may have done it first (intentionally or not) does not excuse perpetuating the same behaviour. There is no end-game for people who want all out war against the gaming media or "feminists" or any of the other GG boogiemen. It makes no sense. By their criteria they can never win. These people and their viewpoints aren't going to go away. They didn't appear in a vacuum, they're forged from their own experiences. And this sort of constant conflict is creating *more* of "them". More and more bloggers, and journalists, and women, and girls, and slightly more casual gamers than you, and developers are reading the shouty gamers and thinking "Wow, these aggressive, often derogatory, dismissive gamers suck.. Something needs to be done about this. I will make a game/article/book/newspaper article/entire community to combat or comment on this sort of issue!" . Own worst enemy much? "but it's not about that" I hear someone at the back say.. "Its about the corrupt media misrepre" let me stop you there, imaginary doofus. It's about *whatever the reader perceives it to be about* you don't get to dictate what someone else's issues are. If we want "gamer" to be considered positively from both within and outside? We need to act accordingly. Don't brush other people's perspectives under a rug and make them out to be either stupid OR enemies. Don't put words in their mouths, demonise them, character assassinate, or misrepresent either what they're saying, or what they stand for. Don't look for conspiracy theories when things can more easily be explained logically without them. Don't be dumb, basically. Then gamers will get all the respect in the freaking world. Or as much as anyone else does, anyway.
Dee91 - Please try to pay attention? You think I haven't read enough about this, from both "sides".. At length? It's funny.. Because I have! And came to somewhat different conclusions. That polygon article? Never ONCE said All gamers. Didn't even say "gamers" - if you think "an awful week to care about games" and reporting on a load of horrible stuff a load of people did is in any way blaming all gamers? Well. I don't know what to say, but I read that and felt nothing of the sort. Leigh Alexander's piece was angry as hell and she was commenting on a lot of crap. At least she went out of it's way to include quotation marks around 'gamers'. She also used those same marks on all the things she was being sarcastic about, like gamer 'wars'. She is going after the self identified bad gamer trolls. She also, in that same article says "Right, let’s say it’s a vocal minority that’s not representative of most people. [...] Don’t blame an entire industry for a few bad apples." - She CLEARLY knows it's not everyone. She's not an idiot. She's just tired of the bullshit, regardless of whether we agree or not. .. Personally I find that piece silly and (obviously risked being) inflammatory, but it's not a hate piece aimed at every gamer. Far from it. That Gamasutra piece? "lets retire the word gamer" is talking about one writers perception of the term gamer and how it's considered by the wider world, and why he'd like to distance himself from it. That's no problem. How is that a problem? I don't agree with that either, but it's HIS CALL. That isn't him saying "all gamers are bad" or attacking gamers. At all. He has a different perspective to me. I say fight the trolls and idiots and take back gamer for good folks. But I'm possibly an idealist. I can see how someone would think "you know what, it's too far gone.." .. So? You can't claim that there's no negative stigma attached to the term. There is. But it's no biggie to many of us in our social circles, or we just don't care. Luke Plunkett's article? There's a VERY clear bold disclaimer. "Note they're not talking about everyone who plays games, or who self-identifies as a "gamer", as being the worst. It's being used in these cases as short-hand, a catch-all term for the type of reactionary holdouts that feel so threatened by gaming's widening horizons. If you call yourself a "gamer" and are a cool person, keep on being a cool person." - Also, him commiserating at the amount of shit happening lately. So, there's my moderate critique on how offensive those articles should be to the average gamer. Not very! And they're just opinions. Opinion pieces from people who have to put up with the worst "gamer" shit dripping on them constantly, so a little bit of understanding goes a long way. Empathy! Try it sometime! So, maybe gamers need to a) Get thicker skins and b) Learn to read while considering things like context. Oh, and I didn't say anything about full, equal blame. I'm saying both sides have sucky elements. Regardless of the order of events, dismissing one side and saying everything was initiated by them is another oversimplification. We're not privy to their decision making processes (outside of that totally NOT scandalous series of conversations some gaming media folk had together.. Jesus) - so lets not fill all the gaps in our understanding with machiavellian plots that just make us look ridiculous.
They weren't censoring threads full of insults.Most people in those threads or comments sections were talking about the connections between that person and the industry, and the integrity of said industry.This is what was is censored.Not that persons privacy because her privacy was not being discussed.Which I can account for considering I was reading a few of them before they closed and got deleted, and others have been screen shot prior to being closed or users being banned, showed absolutely nothing breaking any rules of privacy or threats.Its pretty clear you have no idea what you are talking about at this point. "From my POV It's not "us vs them". At all. It's a case of "Listen to each other's problems, and try not to treat them like they're idiots. (until they prove themselves as such, which people often do lavishly) And if you disagree? Explain why, and how, conducting yourself in a respectful manner." " Are you s#itting me?We have listened to their issues, when we countered we got called misogynist and sexist, and cis scum and what ever other crap these internet feminism come up with.. Dude you are seriously completely out of touch with whats going on I can't even reply to the rest of the stuff you just typed.. Please stop commenting on this issue until you get a full understanding of it. "I didn't ignore it, I just didn't think of it at the time. " You didn't even know about it,just like how you don't what #gamergate is about despite the fact its been stated a countless amount of times.Maybe you should stop skimming over and actually read..
@mixelon: There is something seriously wrong with your thought processes. The whole point of the "Gamer is dead" articles was to draw distinct "Them vs Us" lines. If you're with SJWs you wont use the term to identify yourself, if you do use the term you're a misogynist terrorist and your time in the industry is over. As an audience you will no longer be catered to and don't deserve the respect of the gaming media. Not that any was had in the first place. And it doesn't matter how many times you're told that gamers have been shown no respect by the SJW side, that only attempts to silence and negatively brand them have been made by those once considered to be their voice as well as their ears, you keep saying nothing. And saying it with too many words. I get it. You're trying to be a SJW in gamer clothing, saying that everyone is to blame - but you fail. At no point in your rambling, incoherent responses were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this comment section is dumber for having read yours. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. Figured I'd use my last bubble with a bang...
"That polygon article? Never ONCE said All gamers. Didn't even say "gamers"" Are you serious? THE ENTIRE ARTICLE IS ABOUT GAMERS.The context of the article is gamers are bad. "She also, in that same article says "Right, let’s say it’s a vocal minority that’s not representative of most people. [...] Don’t blame an entire industry for a few bad apples." - She CLEARLY knows it's not everyone." Skimming over instead of actually reading or is your reading comprehension lacking? I think a bit of both considering she went on in the next paragraph saying that those trolls "do represent your community. That’s what your community is known for, whether you like it or not."... I didn't even mean to put that other gamesutra link there,I meant to put one of these http://www.leaderpost.com/S... http://arstechnica.com/gami... http://www.thedailybeast.co... I think, they are all interchangeable...but still, the article in question, the author wanting to distance himself from gamers, is essentially him saying gamers,the stigma surrounding a gamer is bad..The reason he feel that way or even the simple fact that he fells that was is completely irrelevant to anything.The point is, he is referring to gamers as whole.. as does every last one of those articles I have posted.I seriously think you have reading comprehension issues if its that hard for you to understand things in context. "Luke Plunkett's article? There's a VERY clear bold disclaimer." Haha that there (along with your entire response) is clear indication that you have not been following this from the beginning.Both Kotaku and Polygon ( yes the polygon article has a disclaimer too). Made those disclaimers way, after the article was posted.. after the gamers reading the article got offended.That my friend is called back tracking.The article shouldn't have been made in the first place. Its incredibly ironic that you say godmars is trying to simplify the censorship, considering you are trying to simplify all of those articles clearly pushing an agenda as "opinion" pieces.If you're really having trouble see the agenda being pushed.Please answer my first 2 questions.Hopefully you can come to the conclusion, but if not, I see you have no bubbles, so you are free to PM me. " Regardless of the order of events, dismissing one side and saying everything was initiated by them is another oversimplification." Its not a simplification if its true.The moment that person was exposed and those connections came into question, they should have been answered.But instead they got ignored, and censored raising more questions. "outside of that totally NOT scandalous series of conversations some gaming media folk had together.. Jesus" Right, them using that private google group email list to dictate what major publications can and can't publish isn't scandalous at all..And them clearly dismissing journalistic ethics as a concern is clearly still just a conspiracy.. man you are really.. really out of touch. @godmars "There is something seriously wrong with your thought processes." I think this is the result of a person, walking into the middle of a "war" thinking they have the solutions with no clear understanding of whats going on.
.. I'm not for covering up anything. I'm not for censoring anything. You complain about other people trying to control the narrative then you - try to control the narrative by completely misrepresenting everything. This is a problem on our side of the gamerrgate issue. If I'm the biggest SJW here, that's pretty pathetic? Considering I've hardly ever said anything pertaining to social issues other than "sexism is a real thing" and other, hardly extreme stuff. lol.
Why is it that everything from gamerheadlines.com seems to be coming off a crashed site?
What do you mean?
Whenever - as in every time - I've tried to go to the site, including manually entering gamerheadlines.com, I get an error page. The page wont connect whether I use Firefox or Chrome.
Huh, that's odd. I think there may be some maintenance going on the past day or so. As for the other times, I'm not sure.
Stupid f****ing sh*theads.
The problem with this whole thing is that there are trolls who will argue with anyone using rhetoric from both sides just for a laugh. It makes discussion between genuine parties on either side very difficult. DDoS attacks, death threats and doxxing are all things that no one can actually prove came from gamers or SJW'S, trolls make the internet hard and not in a fun aroused kind of way.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.