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

[DragonKnight]

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.

[Christopher]

***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).

[DragonKnight]

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.

[thorstein]

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.

[Christopher]

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

[brish]

"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?!

[-Foxtrot]

"#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.

[DragonKnight]

"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.

[-Foxtrot]

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.

[DragonKnight]

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.

[rainslacker]

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.

[Christopher]

***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.

[-Foxtrot]

"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."

[Christopher]

***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.

[Godmars290]

"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.

[-Foxtrot]

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

[Christopher]

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.

[KrisButtar]

With those guidelines, seems fair and reasonable to me.

[pixelsword]

Huh?

Is that still a thing?

:D

[Gazondaily]

Heh I know right?

http://i.imgur.com/d6MQfe7....

[WildArmed]

Well atleast we got that ciebreaker :D

[Gazondaily]

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

[LightDiego]

Good, it's an important issue to the industry that we can't ignore, thanks for reconsider it.

[Amuro]

now I don't feel butthurt from the other blog anymore. Thank you. ;)

[WilliamUsher]

Despite our differences, I think this is a reasonable approach.

I still agree with Godmars290 about the journalists, given how much control they have over the industry and news, but we'll have to wait and see.

Something more clearly defined for users outside of this blogpost -- maybe something in the guidelines section -- would still be preferable.

But this is a step up from the previous rule-set.

[DragonKnight]

Guidelines are something the site owners have to change. Christopher has no control over that at all.

[WilliamUsher]

Yeah, we've setup an e-mail campaign for that.

It seems like something the N4G admins would want to push for that as well to cut down on these kind of blowouts.

[-Foxtrot]

That may be but out of all of us here, with the position he's in on the site, he has a better chance of getting in contact with the people who can change them or at least get in contact with Cat quicker and she can.

[cl1983]

Cat isn't able to change the guidelines page either. That is something that only the owners of Hava Media can change,and it actually has something to due with the source coding. We really wish it was as simple as editing a single page, but sadly it isn't. This is why the Admins use blogs to communicate changes.

[rainslacker]

So...you won't bother asking the readers what they want then? I haven't seen this complaining you're saying is rampant in the responses to these articles, unless you're getting them through PM's or reports. I do see the same few people saying they don't like seeing those kinds of articles.

How about we get rid of articles like this too

http://n4g.com/news/1657427...

I mean, how is this journalist/bloggers buying habits gaming news? How about any article relating to why someone brought a particular system?

How about all the articles about people who think that certain compensations aren't enough for downtime or broken game releases? Their opinions aren't news, nor is their opinion really relevant. The only news there is the reporting on the actual compensation...the rest is for the comments section

I'm sure we could alleviate half the crappy content on N4G by getting rid of articles that are about the authors own opinions or about themselves in relation to gaming. How about it? It's not gaming news right?

What sucks for N4G by doing this though is that nothing would ever get any real heat, which means page clicks would go down, which means less revenue for the parent company.

What's even suckier for the readers in the above hypothetical is that ongoing conversation would completely end. Lets face it, N4G articles suffer from a severe case of ADD in that the threads don't last more than a day...if more than 12 hours most of the time. Long term meaningful discussion is just not a thing on N4G unless multiple articles on the same subject get released. Imagine how that would have changed the entire landscape of MS initial DRM policies if we only talked about it for a day, or when some new interview came out every week or so. All MS would have to do is shut up about the topic and all discussion on here would die, because there would be no news.

The problem with the conclusion you came to is that GG is about ethical journalism from the GAMING press. It's kind of hard to not talk about GG without talking about the problem and the people involved(read journalist) and what they're doing, and I don't see how the remedy you came to is any different than what you came to before when put in practice.

What you're basically saying is, "It's OK to talk about GG, so long as it doesn't actually talk about the thing that GG is about". Sounds like a win for the anti-GG side and the gaming press that has been trying to suppress GG since before it began.

Anyhow, I like that these policies are a better than what was on the last blog when you announced this, but the statement above is why its seriously flawed, and IMO these policies still don't cover all the problems brought up with the original blog.

I agree with getting rid of the crap opinion piece articles, but not the ones about journalistic impropriety, which some times do not directly involve a dev/pub or industry figure, but the gaming presses own ineptitude. OTOH, I am perfectly fine with getting rid of speculative articles which make accusations without any proof, particularly in the case of reviews being brought.

[rainslacker]

If you read my response to the original blog I mentioned I felt I came across as confrontational, and I believe I do so here as well. I want to make it clear that I am not judging the mods as a whole or individually, and I don't follow mod decisions on fail/approves like some people do to say one or all of you are being hypocritical or abusing your position. I just feel strongly that this issue is important, and that it requires more thought than the mods have put into it. I believe that it does require more discussion or polling of the community you serve to see what their needs are before making a decision, and not being swayed by us vocal ones that comment often, which you alluded to is one reason you came to the decision you did.

I applaud that you want to make specific policies regarding this subject, and I will agree that it has become rather volatile and certainly has expanded from it's original concept, but that to me does not make any of the discussions any less relevant.

Harassment claims, for instance, while not really news in and of themselves, do paint a general overview of how GG is being handled by both sides depending on who's reporting the harassment. In some cases what's happening in those stories shows a much deeper socio-political issue which needs to be addressed so people understand what's happening, and preventing such stories only causes an echo-chamber effect which achieves nothing for positive discourse on the topic, and leads to opinions on the topic which are made without having all the facts available(even should a person decide to ignore those facts).

I love N4G despite some of it's flaws. I've enjoyed having discussions with the community, despite the trolls and sensational hit-mongering that has become today's news. I've enjoyed speculating on rumors. I've enjoyed being able to share my technical knowledge on games and my passion of games with other users even if they completely disagree with me, or don't like what I have to say.

N4G is a great site no matter what some others on the internet say, and if they don't like the site that's on them, not me or us. But things like this are what drive me away from sites because I like open coverage, and the only reason I came to N4G in the first place is because I wanted to be able to go to one place to get all my gaming news. N4G has provided me that over the last 7 or so years, but this particular topic is important to me for a multitude of reasons, and I don't want to see it removed or limited because a select few took it upon themselves to decide what was important to others.

[DragonKnight]

If we were going to get rid of any kind of article, list articles have to be #1 on that... list. They need to go something fierce in my opinion.

[rainslacker]

Overall I agree, but that wasn't really the point I was trying to make. Point is is that most of the content on here is opinion pieces more about the authors opinion than about gaming.

If GG articles are going to be held to a higher standard, then I think all articles should be held to a higher standard. Some consistency would be nice in this if the mods want to go forward with it, because it seems unfair to target GG articles but not all articles which do the same thing that the mods are using as their reason suppress GG articles. I could provide 10-15 different examples of different types of articles that do exactly what Christopher is saying is the reason why they won't allow GG articles, and if they were held to the same standard, then there wouldn't be that much news anymore because as I've said on many occasions, gaming news is actually pretty sparse.

However, I also feel that would cause traffic on the site to drop dramatically since lets face it, hit mongering is what drives clicks now-a-days. You and I both know that people love to be pissed off and argue with strangers, and the internet provides that opportunity in droves.

[Christopher]

***So...you won't bother asking the readers what they want then?****

Not necessary. Some users want a lot of things on this site, doesn't mean it makes it. The goal is to keep the site about video games. Not to let the users dictate what other type of news should be on here.

That may seem harsh, but that's the reality of it. If I make a site about My Little Ponies, I don't start allowing people to post things about Care Bears or Strawberry Shortcake.

***If GG articles are going to be held to a higher standard, then I think all articles should be held to a higher standard.***

They're not being held to a standard. We're not "rating" anything. What's being determined if it's video game news or not.

[rainslacker]

Fair enough, but you still haven't addressed the biggest concern I've mentioned in this decision. How can you now claim that GG is about gaming, but won't allow the actual thing that GG is about to be discussed. The journalists are the real heart of the discussion, and their actions are what's being discussed.

Journalist are very much a part of the gaming industry nowadays. it shouldn't be that way, but their actions have direct influence on the industry and the gamers themselves. More than that, the industry itself has given gaming media relevancy to be considered part of the industry by allowing them to live in an elitist world where they have influence over the customer base.

It is not possible to separate the journalist from the discussion of GG, as they are the entire reason the discussion exists.

I'm not personally against removing some of the GG discussion from here, particularly vitriolic harrassment claim articles which are actually about an entirely different topic, because you've pointed out examples which are really pointless to the discussion, and aren't news in general(gaming or otherwise) but the policies listed in the blog still give the mods too much latitude to fail articles which may be very relevant or important to the discussion. Godmars comment above addresses it above, so I won't repeat it here.

As to your last sentence there, you still haven't explained to me how all those opinion pieces about why an author chose a particular thing is any different to your claim that one of your GG article related reasons is that they are just random internet people who made a choice. It's really no different on a basic level, and no matter how you spin it, they are both about games.

I could sit here and discect every reason you made in the blog to point out how such content is allowed on this site on a daily basis and no one bats an eye, but it would be pointless because in the end, you are holding GG articles to a different standard. The standard in your eyes is that they are not gaming news, so I'm just asking that if you're going to hold onto this policy, then at least hold all articles that aren't gaming news to the same standard.

I in no way was asking you to rate the quality of any article, just the merits of what you guys consider news. In this regard, you've singled out GG, while completely ignored the loads of content people have been complaining about for years isn't news yet still gets approved.

One last thing. Saying that it's not neccesarry to ask the users what they think. That's highly arrogant of you. The mods took it upon themselves to decide that this isn't a gaming related topic. Many disagree with you. There are some that agree with you. There are some that don't care. You can't claim that this stuff is related to gaming without letting it all in. You can moderate the stuff that isn't about GG, thus not about gaming, thus keeping out the general crap about journalist which probably isn't that big a deal, without blocking actual GG content, regardless if it deals with someone in the industry.

Maybe I'm missing something, but the mods did not make the policies regarding what this site would be about. They only follow the policies involved. In this case, the mods are the one's determining if this is gaming news despite the many users saying that it is gaming news. I don't think you guys are being pressured by outside sources in any way or anything, but seriously, it's ridiculous that you guys would take a topic like this upon yourselves and decide what is relevant news and what isn't for such a volatile topic.

[Christopher]

***How can you now claim that GG is about gaming, but won't allow the actual thing that GG is about to be discussed.***

GG isn't "about gaming" in all things. N4G is "about gaming" in all things. GG is about many things, primarily ethics in journalism. N4G is not about ethics in journalism, it's about video game news.

Essentially, there's a Venn Diagram of sorts here in which N4G overlaps with GG and similar topics. It is not a 100% type of thing. The goal of our policy is to do our best to include what people feel is in that overlap while preventing the site from going into areas that aren't about video games.

***It is not possible to separate the journalist from the discussion of GG, as they are the entire reason the discussion exists.***

But N4G is not news about video game journalists or about ethics in journalism. Furthermore, most discussions on this are not about that so much about ongoing responses to what others have been caught doing.

***you still haven't explained to me how all those opinion pieces about why an author chose a particular thing***

Because it's about video games.

***I could sit here and discect every reason you made in the blog to point out how such content is allowed on this site on a daily basis***

If you continue to believe that ethics in journalism = video game news, sure.

With that logic, we'd allow a lot more content on the site. IGN makes and update? Belongs on N4G. Gaming site promotes something? Belongs on N4G. Why? Because "journalism news" is about gaming since they report on gaming.

As I said elsewhere, what you are trying to say is that those who report on politics are politicians. That's not how it works. They report on the news. They are not the news in general.

When the news involves the industry, it's video game news. Otherwise, it's a topic of ethics that applies to every form of media out there.

[rainslacker]

But GG is about GAMING journalism. Gaming being the key word here. GG isn't about ethics in journalism at large. That is a topic that can be broached elsewhere, but isn't on any large scale outside of comment sections.

I don't believe that ethics in journalism in and of itself is about video games, but I 100% believe that the actions of some journalist that report on the gaming news is about video games, or at least about the industry as it influences how we, the gamers, view the industry.

And no, I am not saying that those that report on something are that something. But the people reporting on something certainly have influence over either the reader or in some cases the industry. If you don't think this is true, just look at Adam Sessler's rant on the "Bros before Ho's" trophy for GOW:A. It had a direct effect on the final name of the trophy as the developer went back and changed it. That to me is influence, thus making journalist part of the industry whether you want to admit it or not. There are publishers and devs now who overly concern themselves with the topics of GG or female representation, which hinders the creative process. Ironically, the one's that it most influences are the anti-GG proponents like Quinn or Fish. But it affects other studios as well, or at least time is taken to discuss it.

They gained this influence because the publishers gave it to them in their desire to get positive coverage. Marketing and PR departments give perks and kiss up to the bigger sites and journalist because they know that people can be influenced. Over time, this caused journalist to believe they were more important than they were, and it's now come to a head as some journalists have actively gone on to collude what coverage they would cover, thus resulting in GamerGate. All of this because publishers looked at the short term gains, and it's eventually going to come back to bite them in the a**. Because of this, GG is 100% gaming related news.

The fact that the wide reaching issue of ethics in the media is also a problem isn't relevant overall to whether or not this is gaming news, because again, GG is about the GAMING media ethics, and the gaming media is composed of journalists, so it's not possible to separate them from the discussion.

Unfortunately, from the one policy above that I take issue with, that stories about journalists aren't allowed, your new policy on GG articles still gives the mods too much latitude to fail an article which may be very relevant to the discussion at hand.

[rainslacker]

I'm sorry if you can't see it, but the discussion going on now, both on the GG and SJW side are having a pretty big influence on the gaming industry. I wish I could give you reasons why with direct examples, but for the time being I'm bound by NDA's. Most developers don't talk about this stuff in great detail because it's not worth having the spotlight placed on them, but many do feel that it's very important, and some of the topics surrounding GG do make their way into pre-production meetings nowadays.

"When the news involves the industry, it's video game news. Otherwise, it's a topic of ethics that applies to every form of media out there."

I agree with this, but the problem is is that the issue at large can not be looked at with such a narrow focus as it applies to gaming. If the topic is related to gaming, it is related to gaming, even if a particular issue within that topic isn't about gaming. You say yourself, "It is not a 100% type of thing", and you're right, but that doesn't mean that some of the stuff not of a type of thing don't make up part of the thing...and that's the part I take issue with.

Anyways, in the original blog you mentioned that things like Cosplay or a movie would be allowed because it is of interest to the reader. I would submit that the topics of GG are also of interest to the gamer as well. It may be ambiguous at times, but that's no reason to keep out valid discussion.

Otherwise I agree with keeping out the fluff, but the problem is really defining the fluff in such a way that prevents the mods from arbitrarily failing articles that may be relevant.

[Christopher]

***Otherwise I agree with keeping out the fluff, but the problem is really defining the fluff in such a way that prevents the mods from arbitrarily failing articles that may be relevant.***

That's the goal here and I think we've reached the best solution that prevents abuse by posting a ton of content that is more social drama and political influence than to the heart of what people want.

As mentioned multiple times by me, people aren't going to agree with this because either it's not enough or it's too much. It's why we talked more about the issue and made a clarification on the policy here.

Even after doing that, people on both sides are unhappy (people still think it doesn't belong on N4G, some people think more needs to be here). In the end, it's finding what's right for N4G, not for specific groups of people. Because that's never going to work.

[Godmars290]

"SJW side are having a pretty big influence on the gaming industry."

Actually, going to say no. Both yes and no.

No: though there's a lot of noise going on with SJW vs GG, with GG losing on that front because mainstream media is both friendly with SJW and only interested in the sensationalist/scaremongering harassment angle, it hasn't directly effected the gaming industry. Its more all exploitative actions like - whatsherface - Wu and Quinn making thousands off Patreon for playing victims.

Yes: well before GG was a thing, DIGDA apparently set the foundation which lead up to the incident which created GG. Have been influencing the industry towards non-fun mindsets and created messes like Ninja Gaiden 3.

[Gazondaily]

Yo Chris,

Forget this gamergate nonsense. When is the new system that was supposed to replace bubbles coming out? I need to make contingency plans against the haters (99% of N4G).

Holla

#westside

[Christopher]

@Septic: Wish I knew, honestly.

[SilentNegotiator]

Relevant Gamergate articles are allowed on N4G again?

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

Can we please re-approve the original GG Kotaku article? It seems ridiculous for one of the most important stories of the entire discussion to be "failed". I think it would serve as an important gesture: http://n4g.com/news/1569416...

"as long as it is not about other anti- or pro-GamerGate elements (online harassment, talks about collusion with developers that are opinion-based or are already reported, sexism, feminism, etc.)"

Who do I hug?

[Christopher]

Too old.

Handling GamerGate and how quickly it has evolved over time and how the people have reacted to it is definitely a learning lesson for me and N4G.

[DefenderOfDoom2]

I love playing video games , reading about video games and watching Youtube videos about video games . All the negativism about video games on the Internet , can not take my passion for video games from me .