Sarcasm is a stupid way to make a point and he should know better but that's not representative of his posts. If it was, contrarian wouldn't be anyone's choice of word.

What do you mean by "directly control the conversation"?

This - "And, its worth pointing out, that list of devs interviewed was culled from 4chan and includes a guy that wrote an article defending rape and a fit that was in chat rooms encouraging ways to get Zoe Quinn to commit suicide.

But it's about ethics!"

To me - that stright away inflames the tone of the conversation and does not involve or disscuse the points people where talking about. Followed up by 4 of the first 20 post.

Quboid, dont get me wrong, I agree that Beamer can bring some good points to topic and is right (like we all are some of the time).

I have no problem with him persay, just think that on this topic, he is quick to jump in and then we get an agument rather than a discusion.

What do you mean by "directly control the conversation"?

I say he's usually right because he argues an objective point with reasoned logic and cites sources proving his point, typically against people who think game publishers are like Bond villains - people so biased, they see anything other than absolutely condemnation of publishers as a sign of bias.

He'd be doing us all a discredit if he half-assed complicated issues with short answers, or if he abandoned a discussion because he didn't quickly change his mind.

Quboid wrote on Oct 12, 2014, 12:33:
I really don't think he is. He calls out things that he thinks are wrong and then backs up his assertions. What's wrong with that? Should people not respond when counter-challenged? I certainly don't want this board to be people wallowing in ignorance and that does happen quite often. It helps that, in objective matters at least, he tends to be right.

He tries to drown out people with the volume and size of responses and tries to directly control the conversation every time. It's fine once in awhile, we all get something we're opinionated about but with him its all the time. I don't think its so much that hes 'right' as it is people get tired of receiving 3 large novels back for every post and simply give up.

nin wrote on Oct 12, 2014, 12:09:

Quboid wrote on Oct 12, 2014, 09:07:
nin, I thought you were smarter. Beamer doesn't pick the opposite, Beamer points out when people get lost in their own circle-jerk and 95% of the people who moan at him fail to understand his point.

Beamer's point ("goal" actually) is for everyone to talk to Beamer. He is a classic example of a contrarian, begging for your attention.

I really don't think he is. He calls out things that he thinks are wrong and then backs up his assertions. What's wrong with that? Should people not respond when counter-challenged? I certainly don't want this board to be people wallowing in ignorance and that does happen quite often. It helps that, in objective matters at least, he tends to be right.

I've seen people being incredibly contrarian to him, is this why? Do people assume he's being contrarian and therefore automatically disagree with him without seeing the irony?

Quboid wrote on Oct 12, 2014, 09:07:
nin, I thought you were smarter. Beamer doesn't pick the opposite, Beamer points out when people get lost in their own circle-jerk and 95% of the people who moan at him fail to understand his point.

Beamer's point ("goal" actually) is for everyone to talk to Beamer. He is a classic example of a contrarian, begging for your attention.

William Usher wrote on Oct 11, 2014, 15:00:

Beamer wrote on Oct 11, 2014, 14:40:
And, its worth pointing out, that list of devs interviewed was culled from 4chan and includes a guy that wrote an article defending rape and a fit that was in chat rooms encouraging ways to get Zoe Quinn to commit suicide.

But it's about ethics!

Why are you always bringing her up?

Are you kidding me?!

This whole bullshit was called Quinnspiracy. Now mentioning her is deflecting from the subject?

NKD, parts of every side of every debate ever has done this. It is human nature and it is wrong to suggest that these developers are the first to do this or they do this more than anyone else. It is impossible for these developers to have a debate with any of us because some fool will start throwing labels like "SJW" around and the whole debate is ruined.

nin, I thought you were smarter. Beamer doesn't pick the opposite, Beamer points out when people get lost in their own circle-jerk and 95% of the people who moan at him fail to understand his point.

Two groups of overly sensitive crusaders, and gaming's low point.

This comment was edited on Oct 12, 2014, 10:45.

Yeahyeah Yeah wrote on Oct 11, 2014, 21:09:
By the way, today we have author John Scalzi writing the following tweets...And yes, GamerGate was founded to harass women..

It shows the lack of intelligence that John Scalzi has, more than anything else. Or he's figured out his reading audience is composed of SJWs.

NKD wrote on Oct 11, 2014, 21:14:

Yeahyeah Yeah wrote on Oct 11, 2014, 21:09:
By the way, today we have author John Scalzi writing the following tweets:

Haha. In other words, we can never ever have a debate about anything. There's always some asshole element to any decent sized movement. If the presence of that element invalidates the whole thing, then people might as well never say anything about anything.

The problem is that gamergate was started by the "asshole element." The very first time the term was used was in a link to the quinnspiracy five guys video.

harlock wrote on Oct 11, 2014, 23:12:
would you expect to be able to discuss geometry with a chimp? its the same thing trying to discuss logic with beamer.. hes incapable of it - no point in trying

but it is fun to make him dance around like a funny little monkey... so yeh

So, this is on Netflix. Any good?

would you expect to be able to discuss geometry with a chimp? its the same thing trying to discuss logic with beamer.. hes incapable of it - no point in trying

but it is fun to make him dance around like a funny little monkey... so yeh

Yeahyeah Yeah wrote on Oct 11, 2014, 21:09:
By the way, today we have author John Scalzi writing the following tweets:

Haha. In other words, we can never ever have a debate about anything. There's always some asshole element to any decent sized movement. If the presence of that element invalidates the whole thing, then people might as well never say anything about anything.

NKD wrote on Oct 11, 2014, 20:12:

Perhaps this will help you understand why people are so pissed that they are COMPLETELY UNABLE to even have a conversation on the topic they want. You just won't let it go. Every time some asshole on the Internet does something, you hold them up as the official representative of everyone who has concerns about games journalism. You're being used to further a smokescreen, and you don't even care because it gives you an opportunity to rant on one of your favorite topics.

Relevant. Also relevant

Kosumo wrote on Oct 11, 2014, 20:55:
Maybe if Beamer could hold his tounge and not ingage, we could see where the conversation would go before someone runs in to attack it.

But like someone above pointed out, He loves to rush in and state some shit to get people to engage with him.

You know Beamer, you could just sit back and read what others and saying instead of jumping in and derverting it to how you see it.

Seriously this but it won't happen.

By the way, today we have author John Scalzi writing the following tweets:

Jesus. Brianna Wu is someone I consider a friend. Fuck everyone who thinks GamerGate is anything other than haters shitting on women.

Typical semi-notable person who does no research on the topic and just jumps in with an opinion. I'm not at all surprised to see that from Scalzi either, hes gotten into it with others due to knee jerk reactions.

By the way, today we have author John Scalzi writing the following tweets:

Jesus. Brianna Wu is someone I consider a friend. Fuck everyone who thinks GamerGate is anything other than haters shitting on women.

And yes, GamerGate was founded to harass women. We've all seen the IRC logs. Part of the plan: recruit others to be their useful idiots.

Face it, dudes: "GamerGate" is a toxic thing. You can't say you support WITHOUT explicitly standing with those who hate and harass women.

And if you refuse to stop being a useful idiot for those who harass and hate women, we'll know that too. And remember.

This sort of thing will become part of what GG discusses. I suppose Beamer's reply will be, if they talk about this and defend themselves, it's yet more evidence GG has absolutely nothing to do with ethics, because Scalzi is not a journalist, and I don't know, accusing anyone and everyone who supports GG of being a woman-hating person who supports harassing women... that has nothing to do with ethics.

When did I ever say that?

When did you try to take the actions of some fringe shits and label the larger group, or GG itself, based on that? Is that your question?

And I can't help but notice - you answered my question with a question. So I ask it again: If I can find one member of the anti-gamergate group that did something shitty, can I therefore say all anti-gamergate people are equally guilty of that same thing, and they can be collectively ignored?

What I have repeatedly said is that there's no way #GG is about "ethics."

No, I think 'ethics' covers it. Again, consistency will be fun here: if someone only harps about perceived inequality against women, or men, or gays, or religious people, can I therefore conclude that they don't 'really' care about equality at all, because they only focus on one group rather than all?

And if it was solely ethics, why are so many people on #gamergate also so heavily against any kind of requests for change? Why is Anita Sarkeesian, not a journalist, so repeatedly harped upon?

Anita Sarkeesian is not a journalist? That's splitting the hairs too finely to be of much interest. And what's this 'any kind of request for change' charge, being directed at people who largely are 'requesting change'?

It just happens to be change you may dislike.

If it's ethics, why is the focus so predominantly on indies, when the journalist issues are coming predominantly from AAA publishers?

First, I disagree with what you regard as 'predominately' being important. Second, I imagine part of that is because there's no vicious pushback from "AAA publishers" when they're criticized.

EA received the Golden Shit (or whatever) reward two years in a row. Their response was to complain a bit in a passive aggressive way and pledge to do better. Indies are criticized, and GamerGate is recorded as an anti-women hate group, with people writing articles about how gamers are over and no one likes them and (so on, and so on).

What a shock. The hypersensitive, bitter, nasty people attract more interest.

There are deeper issues out there, but that gets ignored in all this, somehow.

Ain't it funny how the "deeper issues" that we all should REALLY be talking about always have nothing to do with the people someone likes and wants to defend?

Maybe if Beamer could hold his tounge and not ingage, we could see where the conversation would go before someone runs in to attack it.

But like someone above pointed out, He loves to rush in and state some shit to get people to engage with him.

You know Beamer, you could just sit back and read what others and saying instead of jumping in and derverting it to how you see it.

Beamer wrote on Oct 11, 2014, 19:21:
ything is to be "collectively ignored?"

What I have repeatedly said is that there's no way #GG is about "ethics."

Because you and your kind wont let it be about ethics. Its YOU that keeps trying to make it be about something else and then everyone is forced to refute your stupidity, and the conversation is derailed. Which is exactly what you want. You don't want to have a conversation about journalistic ethics in gaming. That conversation isn't something you care about, as you've proven time and time again. So you'll just throw shit at the wall in every thread just to see what sticks so that you can harp on your pet topic again, and again, and again. And game journalism sites enable you in this endeavor because it's in their best interest to misdirect the conversation as well.

Here, let me give you the simplest possible breakdown of whats going on.

Gamers: Hey, journalists, I'm worried about this secret insider mailing list crap, and cruising dangerously close to sex-for-coverage stuff. Don't you think it's affecting your integrity? Isn't this kind of stuff an abuse of the power you have to make or break indie developers?

Journalists: Uhhh... well... you see....

Some Random Troll: Hurr women suck stupid sluts! *doxxes some random female game developer/journalist*

Journalists: HEY LOOK OVER THERE ITS A MISOGYNIST!!!!!! *points to Gamers and then runs to hide behind a box*

Gamers: Wait that wasn't us, that was th....

SJWs: GET EM!!!! *pitchforks*

Gamers: Fucking god dammit.

Perhaps this will help you understand why people are so pissed that they are COMPLETELY UNABLE to even have a conversation on the topic they want. You just won't let it go. Every time some asshole on the Internet does something, you hold them up as the official representative of everyone who has concerns about games journalism. You're being used to further a smokescreen, and you don't even care because it gives you an opportunity to rant on one of your favorite topics.

Yeahyeah Yeah wrote on Oct 11, 2014, 19:14:

But your don't find it relevant that one interviewer wanted to make her kill herself?

If I can find one member of the anti-gamergate group that did something shitty, can I therefore say all anti-gamergate people are equally guilty of that same thing, and they can be collectively ignored?

No but I wouldn't want to see that person interviewed as part of a discussion about journalism ethics.

Yeahyeah Yeah wrote on Oct 11, 2014, 19:14:

But your don't find it relevant that one interviewer wanted to make her kill herself?

If I can find one member of the anti-gamergate group that did something shitty, can I therefore say all anti-gamergate people are equally guilty of that same thing, and they can be collectively ignored?

Consistency will shoot you in the foot. Sadly, I suspect your preferred method of dealing with this is 'Just be totally inconsistent.'

And, frankly, she's brought up often in those interviews. Gg started with harassing her.

Nah. GG started with pointing out unethical practices that involved her, along with hypocrisy in journalist behavior. It's as true to say 'GG started with harassing Zoe Quinn' as it is to say 'Beamer harasses people who disagree with him on Bluesnews'.

When did I ever say that?
What I said is that this group of developers is suspect.
When did I ever say anything is to be "collectively ignored?"

What I have repeatedly said is that there's no way #GG is about "ethics."
And, on this board, the discussion has so rarely been "ethics." And if it was solely ethics, why are so many people on #gamergate also so heavily against any kind of requests for change? Why is Anita Sarkeesian, not a journalist, so repeatedly harped upon?
If it's ethics, why is the focus so predominantly on indies, when the journalist issues are coming predominantly from AAA publishers? And why would the anger not be at the people that won't allow coverage except by their rules?

Ask Blue how many of his articles come from PR departments. How many blasts he gets per day. And ask him how he chooses which to cover. Do personal relationships come into play?
Considering he's the only person in the world covering Cliffski, I'd say "obviously." And there's nothing wrong with that. There are deeper issues out there, but that gets ignored in all this, somehow.