Being for ethical reform of gaming journalism and being against it are mutually exclusive.
It isn't something you can be on both sides for. You can disagree with actions (ie vocal minorities harassing women/anti-gg or vocal minorities calling pro-gg worse than CIA/ebola)
Game journalists should follow the same protocol as a non-gaming journalism site.
If they donate money to a kickstarter they SHOULD disclose their donation.
There ya go with sides. It's gotta be sides, there's gotta be a split down the middle of the fine people that are for us, and the scum that is against us. What if I'm for an examination on how money plays into review articles, but I couldn't give a stuff about whether or not some guy in his personal life donated $20 to an indie game and then wrote about it? What side am I on?
This is what I'm talking about, you're painting in black and white when in reality there's
50 stufftons of different shades of gray. People aren't binary creatures, they don't necessarily hold straight edge opinions that can neatly fit in an ideological box. So for that reason, there's no reason to try to shove them into a "side". There needs to be a discussion, like I said, on ideas. Ethics reform, gender roles, political motives in developing games, lets talk about it all. There's only one way to diffuse an internet feud, and that's ripping open the ideological boxes so that people can start playing loving video games again without having to choose a "side".
I think I'm getting your point here. I'm not generalizing people though, I'll always think of people as individuals. I'm merely using the terms "pro-gg" and "anti-gg" to refer to all people who have certain opinions on certain subjects, as I cannot hope to address every one of the tens of thousands of individuals as individuals.
Sarkeesian for example is much more guilty of this than I am, I think anyways. She literally generalizes any "pro-gger" as a misogynist that's just out to harass women and achieve male dominance. This is the kind of thing that makes many pro-ggers (and even some anti-ggers) not trust her, among other things.
But why are you addressing people at all? What point are you trying to make about game ethics reform when you say "they" or "that side", "those guys", "pro-gg", "anti-gg", etc? Also, Sarkeesian is one of the worst. Notice I said to ignore her. :)
There are some ideas that both sides have (You actually acknowledge there are sides! ;O) that need to be addressed. like that in some cases, women are not represented correctly in games. I agree that's a problem in some cases and I have no issues with that.
Oops, don't read the beginning of this post then. :)
Honestly, I'm formulating my ideas as I type, so things may contradict slightly as I go.
Really, there are sides, at the moment. There are three-ish, gamergaters, anti-gamergaters, and the majority of people caught in the cross fire of extremism and hate. But sides aren't tangible, they're just labels with meanings simply as you said earlier to make talking about people and their opinions easier, or in some cases they are meant to truly polarize. One of the most stark comparisons you can make is the Democratic and Republican party, groups with such a varying amount of opinions on so many issues that you wonder why they're still around, and partially its because they've successively polarized voters. It's an us vs. them mentality that is very hard to shake, especially when real-life stuff like the economy seems to depend on it so much. We, as I would think logical gamers, need to shake this stuff off right now, before we really do damage to the industry and hobby we all enjoy.
And the whole death threat against sarkeesian thing. However, that's the extreme minority of the pro- and anti-gg sides. The pro side has some extremists, just like most other groups, and the anti side has some extremists that want to make the pro side look bad. The sensible majority of both sides do not make death threats and generalizing the entire group based on that is a terrible thing to do. (Note that I'm not implying that you've done anything personally, just giving an example of what some people have thought and done)
But I'm not going to ignore the big figureheads however. They have opinions, and I want to hear them out and pick their opinions apart if necessary. I'm pretty sure I've mentioned that before.
Extremists always ruin everything...
And fine, go ahead. But please don't let people distract you from ideas. When people think of Gamergate, they may think ethics reform in games journalism, they make think misogyny in games, which both are fine, they're issues, and they matter. But the worst thing is is when someone becomes a "celebrity" with real influence purely because they're associated with choosing an extreme side of an argument and not really contributing to it at all. Sarkeesian hasn't really done stuff for her cause, she doesn't deserve the attention she's getting, but neither does KingofPol and InternetAristocrat for just roasting Sarkeesian and Quinn. It's a feud between "figureheads" and its not helpful whatsoever.
In my opinion, if they donated to the creator of the game, they should disclose that they donated. For the whole "Hanging out for a few hours" one, it really depends on what was said during that time. If for example they were just discussing random things that have nothing to do with their jobs, that's perfectly fine. But if the creator is say, asking for a better rating or a more positive article because that means he gets paid more, then that's the kind of thing that needs to be mentioned. It all depends on the circumstances.
There it is, a great word: circumstances. Circumstantial ethical reform. That's what we need. You can't blanket the gaming print media with ethical reform and call it a day, you have to discuss these things, cause people aren't binary. We don't switch between true and false when we are friends with people, there is no set boundary between I know you, and we're friends. Romantic relationships, sure, they're easier, but friends? Nah. Because of that gray area, sometimes we have to put trust in writers, earned trust, but simple faith-like trust all the same. There might not be a mechanism to catch every corrupt gaming journalist in the world, but one sure fire thing will do it, varying your sources, and relying on your own mind. It's amazing how many problems can be solved by thinking rather than acting.
Don't feel the need to respond to all that, got a little carried away. If you have the time though, go for it. :)
