Top
N4G Admin & Community Manager .::. I read every PM, I just may not respond to every PM.

Christopher

NetworkManager
CRank: 11Score: 0

Mod Talk: More on GamerGate, Video Games, and N4G Submissions

The following are the rules as it concerns submissions of all types regarding GamerGate, SJW, Racism, Sexism, and similar social issues (all hereto referred to as Social Issue):

- Submissions of this type will be allowed on N4G if it is a submission directly involving a developer, publisher, or similar individuals who are not journalists.

- Submissions of the Social Issue type must be about how the Social Issue is or has impacted their job directly and is not just a personal opinion on Social Issues.

- Submissions of the Social Issue type about organizations or people associated with an organization who are focused on one or more of the Social Issues are not allowed, even if the individual is a developer or publisher. This is an extension of the rule that we do not report on news about sites or communities that are not official game, development, or publisher sites or communities.

- Opinion pieces about the quality and efficacy of gaming sites as it relates to how they review games or present recent content is still allowed as long as it is not about a Social Issue.

- When in doubt, always contact a moderator (ticket submissions are best since we all see them) to ask for clarification or a ruling on the submission in question.

===

How did we come to that decision?

I created a poll for the moderators to vote on as well as discuss titled "What type of GamerGate content should be allowed on N4G?". The poll had four options:

#1. All types of content about GamerGate

#2. Content that directly involves a developer, publisher, or similar individual who isn't a journalist

#3. Only content that is specifically about video games directly

#4. We shouldn't allow any of it.

The results from votes (and discussion) from 9 moderators were 7 for #2 and 2 for #3.

Discussions on the poll talked mostly about the gray areas that have plagued this topic for a while. There was discussion on how much to let through and the subtleties of being able to voice an opinion as it relates to the poor reporting by another site. But, everyone agreed that not all GamerGate content is right for N4G and that some of it definitely is. Overall, many were happy with the new goal of restricting certain GamerGate content as it had begun to not only drag the site in a direction that was away from video games, but that some found the heat gained from said submissions most often were due to responses relating to not wanting to see the content or questioning how it was gaming related.

Regarldess of this decision regarding submissions, users are welcome to discuss anything about GamerGate on the forums (link in the header from the home page).

We thank you for openly discussing your thoughts on this change. As usual, feel free to comment below or PM me if you wish to discuss this decision.

Thank you,
Christopher

UPDATED ON 12/21/2015
Archive of previous version: https://goo.gl/YQ3lM5

The story is too old to be commented.
DragonKnight860d ago

This sounds very reasonable to me. I know some people won't agree with that, probably think I'm backing down on whatever, but I don't really care. Many sites have had to take this kind of approach due to how volatile some discussion on Gamergate can become. I am a definite and clear supporter of Gamergate, that hasn't and won't change unless Gamergate's core goals change to something I don't agree with. That said, I personally don't want to hear that Gamergate is allegedly responsible for driving some random woman out of her home for the hundredth time, I don't want to see an article about some random Gamergate supporter facing the retaliation of anti-GG in the form of doxxing, swatting, etc... for the hundredth time either.

I know where I can get that kind of information. It's where the home of Gamergate is and where these kinds of discussions are most important, and that's not here.

I look at this not as censorship, but as what it actually is, moderation. So while some people will be upset that they won't be able to see an article about how someone like Milo Yiannopolous got a bomb sent to his place, they should remember that we also won't have to see Brianna Wu e-begging for more money because a man happened to walk by her house, on the opposite side of the street, at 3 am in the morning while she had to get up to go the the bathroom and happened to catch him in the periphery of her vision.

Plus, and correct me if I'm wrong about this, this decision merely affects the main site and submissions but we could still discuss the rest of the stuff in the general discussion area of the forums right? If so, then there you go.

I think this was handled diplomatically, transparently, and very fairly. It could have gone in the direction that people like Ben Kuchera would want and that is "BAN ALL TALK ABOUT GAMERGATE!!" It didn't so people should be happy about that.

Christopher860d ago

***Plus, and correct me if I'm wrong about this, this decision merely affects the main site and submissions but we could still discuss the rest of the stuff in the general discussion area of the forums right? If so, then there you go. ***

Yup. Forums are pretty open for discussion as long it's not offensive material (porn or the like).

DragonKnight860d ago

Well then, considering there are sites that flat out ban all GG discussion even in the forums, I'd have to say that you all came up with an incredibly fair solution to this issue.

thorstein860d ago (Edited 860d ago )

What of a submission that contain some gamergate opinion from a journalist in conjunction with other gaming related things?

(I know we talked about this in PM but I think it would benefit the community at large to know what should be reported and what should not in regards to this.) And that decision shouldn't be heard from me first.

Christopher860d ago

@thorstein: Those would have to be examined on a case-by-case basis.

brish857d ago

"As it stands, GamerGate submissions will be allowed in N4G if it is news regarding content that directly involves a developer, publisher, or similar individual who isn't a journalist."

The whole point of gamergate is ethics in game journalism. So no submissions about the actual issue of gamergate is allowed?! Umm, seriously?!

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 857d ago
-Foxtrot860d ago (Edited 860d ago )

"#2. Content that directly involves a developer, publisher, or similar individual who isn't a journalist

#3. Only content that is specifically about video games directly "

"The results from votes (and discussion) from 9 moderators were 7 for #2 and 2 for #3."

So does that mean my articles are allowed up now? Milo, Zoe, Kotakus Nathan Grayson all directly involved in GG.

As for the blog I'm not sure what to think still, it's nice you've finally came to your senses but the problem is with what has happened in the past how can WE trust your judgement, and I mean each one of you guys individually, not just you.

Lets be honest, this should of been thought out more from the start because now, if you look around on various sites N4G's reputation has been tainted a lot and some of you guys have been ripped apart, the worst part is the mods who haven't been involved in the censoring (and it bloody is) of these GG articles have been grouped together so now people think the same thing for "all mods" and that's really not fair on them is it.

If you weren't so determined to get rid of the articles and thought it through with the community first then we could of skipped this whole mess altogether. Wouldn't of it been better to do a poll with the community first, I mean this is apparently a "community driven site" yet we had no say on these articles. It just came out of nowhere "Right they are gone, they aren't allowed anymore, move on and stop posting them".

So thanks to your hasty judgement it's resulted in N4Gs reputation being hurt pretty badly and even to you guys in general with people thinking you are "all" bias despite some mods not even being involved in the decision.

Deciding on what is allowed through and what's not is probably going to cause problems because Mod A might fail an article while Mod B thinks it should be allowed, you know different opinions and all that.

Won't that cause a lot of "We will discuss it and get back to you" comments on these failed articles resulting in more work for you guys to do and longer times before our articles get submitted. This will just cause heated debates and arguments

I just think it should all be allowed as long as people don't spam article after article on the subject...we know who is guilty of that, we've all seen it. Least then it's not clogging up the site. I support GamerGate a lot, you know this, people know this but I don't submit article after article on it, just the ones I think are relevant.

That's my take on it anyway.

DragonKnight860d ago

"Lets be honest, this should of been thought out more from the start because now, if you look around on various sites N4G's reputation has been tainted a lot.."

Not trying to take away from your points or anything, but I've seen N4G being slammed for a long time, especially on NeoGaf and from some youtubers, well before anything Gamergate related so I don't really think that any slamming going on now is really any different than what has happened. NeoGaf is frickin' hilarious though considering that place is a cesspool. It's like the gaming equivalent of 4Chan with weird registration rules that really don't amount to anything if a mod ends up not liking you. I mean, Boogie2988 was banned from that place. Boogie, who is the nicest guy ever, was banned from that place. And that place rags on N4G all the time.

-Foxtrot860d ago

It was bad but dear lord some of the things said recently because of all this, not just from one place aswell but many...it was like a witch hunt.

When a sites reputation is not the best the last thing you want is something which will make it worse.

DragonKnight860d ago

I just wish that that kind of bashing would be levied at NeoGaf constantly. It used to be. I remember developers trashing that place constantly. But you never hear about it now.

But I mean, look at the AJSA forums. That place was on the receiving end of some FIERCE GG hate, then Angry Joe reopened the discussion, one of his Admin's made some hangout videos with Queeny Martha and Sargon of Akkad, and it seems the AJSA furor has blown over.

rainslacker860d ago

I feel other sites(or their users specifically) often think every other site is pretty crap either way. It's just another form of elitism that they are the best because they are in some sort of special club which only they know about.

It doesn't really matter what they think overall, so long as the users of a particular site are happy with the content. Any statement about the users of another site is just a broad generalization, and isn't really worthy of consideration. I've seen bad things said about NeoGaf, Reddit, Kotaku forums, you name it. But from most of them which I have visited, they seem all about the same.

The real benefit of N4G is that I don't have to go to lots of different sites to get the news. It always ends up here, and nowadays it usually ends up here within minutes instead of later(or the next) day like it was 5+ years ago.

As far as what Fox is saying, I only went to one site about this banning of GG on N4G, and I can say that the responses were not really pleasant. One of the N4G mods there explaining the decision did not fare well, but nothing was said there that wasn't said by the users here as well....although I will say at times they weren't always as civil, which I feel the responses in the original blog were overall rather constructive.

I would like to know how this subject would have fared had it been made an actual news article for the front page of N4G. I don't think a majority of the N4G userbase reads or respond to the blogs like they would in the articles.

Perhaps the mods could get this blog on the front page somehow? I'm sure that would lead to more critique. Surely someone could write an unopinionated report about this decision and submit it for the general users to read so the mods can see how the community at large feels about it.

Christopher860d ago (Edited 860d ago )

***So does that mean my articles are allowed up now? Milo, Zoe, Kotakus Nathan Grayson all directly involved in GG. ***

Not the ones recently, otherwise I would have approved them. None of those dealt specifically with a developer or publisher.

***So thanks to your hasty judgement it's resulted in N4Gs reputation being hurt pretty badly***

I don't think so. It's fine for you to have that opinion. But, N4G has been harangued for the content it's let through for ages now. This is no different and never will everyone be happy.

***I just think it should all be allowed as long as people don't spam article after article on the subject...we know who is guilty of that, we've all seen it.***

Stop making this about individuals. It hurts any argument you may have when you can't focus on just the topic rather than individuals you disagree with here on N4G.

-Foxtrot860d ago (Edited 860d ago )

"Not the ones recently, otherwise I would have approved them. None of those dealt specifically with a developer or publisher"

Guess things haven't changed that much then. Like I said as long as it's not spamming a load of articles then it's not going to be that bad

"I don't think so. It's fine for you to have that opinion. But, N4G has been harangued for the content it's let through for ages now. This is no different and never will everyone be happy"

As I've said above it's not really my opinion, I mean you saw yourself how many people attacked you on Williams article as you replied to them, that's one of many forms of sites.

"Stop making this about individuals. It hurts any argument you may have when you can't focus on just the topic rather than individuals you disagree here on N4G"

How does one small comment out of everything I've wrote makes it all about one person. I never mentioned anyone's user name. Did I?

You don't really to get so touchy Chris, you offered us to comment on your blog with our opinions so I did

"We thank you for openly discussing your thoughts on this change. As usual, feel free to comment below or PM me if you wish to discuss this decision."

Christopher860d ago (Edited 860d ago )

***I mean you saw yourself how many people attacked you on Williams article as you replied to them, that's one of many forms of sites. ***

Not that many, to be honest. A handful. I appreciate some of their comments. Most were fairly negative for the sake of being negative and not desiring to debate anything.

***How does one small comment out of everything I've wrote makes it all about one person. I never mentioned anyone's user name. Did I? ***

I didn't say make it "all about" an individual. I said stop making it about individuals. And that was specific to the portion I quoted and not your whole comment. The topic at hand isn't about who posts what. It's about what is allowed to be posted. When you drag people into in that way, it really hurts your argument on the topic at hand.

I did offer you to comment on my blog. That didn't mean I wouldn't comment back or that I would just agree with everything you say.

Godmars290860d ago

"Content that directly involves a developer, publisher, or similar individual who isn't a journalist."

Bit concerned with the last part, given that its the actions of journalist which is the core of the issue. Reviews previews and general praise on a game, that's all journalists. Going back the to the recent issue with PC Gamer, though there was no direct evidence that Ubisoft stories suffered due influence, that was still more about the reporter involved than Ubisoft. Was a story which was seemingly rejected out of hand because of its GG connection. Then there's also the compromised 40k Australian EA accounts. That was as much about the site which should have released that story as the pro-GG who did release it as the story itself.

Really have no choice but to wait and see, but frankly, the main reason this is going on is the failure of a similar statement and commitment made a few days ago which pretty much failed within a day.

-Foxtrot860d ago

I don't think we need to worry because that PC Gamer article was allowed through so articles featuring journalists would be able to pass through

I mean it makes sense don't you think, like you said these journalists are the core issue

Christopher860d ago (Edited 860d ago )

Only because it involved an interaction with a developer (well, manager at a game company).

Journalist focused submissions still aren't allowed. They are, as has been stated, not in the industry of making video games. They report on the industry.

Also note that critiques of reviews and the like are still allowed. Just not topics focused on GamerGate related topics and the usual he said, she said type of submissions.

KrisButtar860d ago

With those guidelines, seems fair and reasonable to me.

pixelsword860d ago (Edited 860d ago )

Huh?

Is that still a thing?

:D

WildArmed859d ago

Well atleast we got that ciebreaker :D

Septic859d ago (Edited 859d ago )

Hehe oooh yeah. Love that thing so much. Better than worrying about all this serious stuff.

Show all comments (46)
The story is too old to be commented.