The same thing the rest of us do when we are threatened by dickless 13 year olds behind the anonymity of the Internet. Ignore it, or if you want a slim chance of maybe them getting in trouble for it, forward it to the authorities and go about your life.

You know how many cases there are of someone on the Internet getting mad because they disagreed with someone, and then finding them and killing them? I don't even know. I can only think of a couple, ever. The two I'm thinking of were in Korea and China respectively, and in both cases the people were already personally acquainted. It just happened to be an Internet disagreement that set them off.

Sorry, but this fantasy people have of some angry nerd finding them and killing them for liking what they don't like is just not something that people need to be worried about. That's just a fact. There is no data to support that there are real risks of this happening. What few "internet creepo kills someone" stories there are, it's usually some psychopath luring someone to his house, or some stalker obsessing over someone for years. It's like living in fear of getting hit by a meteor.

Elf Shot The Food wrote on Oct 18, 2014, 19:11:
I'm sure it's a nice editorial, but I won't read it. At least not on Polygon's site.

Squirmer wrote on Oct 18, 2014, 18:39:

NKD wrote on Oct 18, 2014, 15:38:

For many of our staff, myself included, GamerGate presented enough of a perceived danger that we were scared for ourselves and our families. (Notable fact I remind myself of often: There are 14 children among the Polygon staff, including two under the age of 1).

That's right guys. If you have concerns about how game journalists go about their business, you're literally a child murderer. Even newborns.

GGers accuse the other side of being professional victims, but then you go and say a thing like that.

sdgundamx wrote on Oct 18, 2014, 12:01:

Prez wrote on Oct 18, 2014, 03:06:

Where I see the problem occurring is if a website claims that it is a site for gaming and then has a bunch of pictures of scantily clad women. That's implicitly sending the message that gaming is only for hetero boys and the site is going to ignore the female/homosexual gamers.

So a website needs to claim that it's for hetero men for this to be okay? Somehow I think you and your ilk would still bitch about it. Hell, I would think that would be inherently obvious if they are showing pictures of hot scantily dressed women. (EDIT: Of course one could argue it is also geared towards lesbian gamers...) The way I see it, if you have a problem with sites like Action Trip which proudly posts a new "babe of the day" (today's is awesome too) then in the name of consistency you should have a problem with Vogue, Self, Glamour, and other rags for women because they ignore the hetero/homosexual male. Most websites cater to all types of gamers so what the hell is wrong with having a few that focus on a select group?

***Really long response***

harlock wrote on Oct 18, 2014, 17:45:
dont bother posting any dissenting opionions on polygon btw

their moderators are nazis

The Half Elf wrote on Oct 18, 2014, 18:01:

Prez wrote on Oct 18, 2014, 17:00:
Thanks for all the replies!

Prez if you check out Star Trek Online, let me know via steam and I'll send you a invite to a Fleet I co-founded. We are Lifers and have a really good solid (yet smaller fleet) with maxxed out guild starbase and very knowledgeable people who will happy help ya with anything you need.

As usual taking no responsibility for not providing even coverage or any examination of the supposed problems, just an assumption of guilt posed at an entire audience.

One thing from the editorial really stood out thought. It was the idea that gaming media is going to fracture (much as broadcast media did) into different channels for different people. So for example, people who want a conservative spin on their gaming news will go to one site and those who want a progressive spin will go to another.

Beamer wrote on Oct 18, 2014, 03:24:
Prez, I'd also like to formally say, I apologize for when I was a dick to you in the past. I can't say you never deserved it, because I don't remember why, but I can say you probably didn't. I was probably just being entirely a dick. We don't see eye to eye on everything, but you clearly put thought into things and I have a ton of respect for it.

Where I see the problem occurring is if a website claims that it is a site for gaming and then has a bunch of pictures of scantily clad women. That's implicitly sending the message that gaming is only for hetero boys and the site is going to ignore the female/homosexual gamers.

But, again, things come down to trends. Someone telling one racist joke isn't necessarily a racist. Someone telling many racist jokes almost definitely is.

WOMAN LEARNS HER BLACK LAB IS ALLERGIC TO HUMANS

...one that has a lovely "GIRLS!" section and runs regular articles on hot female teachers sleeping with students.

Not surprisingly, they're considered one of the few "pro-GG" sites.

Beamer wrote on Oct 17, 2014, 16:37:
As I keep pointing out, game sites have been quiet since the "gamers are dead" articles and that was about 8 weeks ago.

Can you link me?

Beamer wrote on Oct 17, 2014, 12:24:

Who is saying "oh my god the urgency, we need to do this now?"

Beamer wrote on Oct 17, 2014, 12:24:
or even "you people are awful?"