NeoGAF is down, gone forever?
I think the key notes to hit in a public response when you've been accused of abusive behavior are that you don't remember it that way and that you do in fact think that abuse is wrong and you value others' rights not to be abused.
This is exactly what David Cross did when he was accused of acting racist.
As a reminder, this was originally put out there as a private #MeToo story. Not published to tarnish or attack him directly.
How private? To how many people was he named with her version of events? Anywhere on a social platform is hardly private, outside of one to one messages. It may not be public but it's not private if x number of people are present. The accuser presented information and the necessary means to name and shame him to a number of people. She gave these people the means to use this against him if they so desired, which they have. It is a direct consequence.
Secondary note: Why didn't a rape victim just go to the police? Really? :\ Having read the initial accusation, I'm not even sure there was anything actionable there... but given we have an admitted sexual assaulter in the White House now, and years of evidence of "well she was asking for it"... saying, suck it up and deal with that shit storm rather than processing it with friends online is insensitive at best.
Rape? We're talking about sexual harassment. Not as serious but still totally worth reporting and feeling justified in doing so.
If you name someone you are opening them up to a barrage of hate. Yourself, too. Better to go through the proper channels, piece together evidence, or don't name them at all if you're not ready for the storm that comes with one word verses another, especially on social platforms.
RnRClown wrote:Guilty until proven innocent has seemingly taken hold in recent times.
Yeah, rape victims are plenty aware of this, it's basically standard defense lawyer tactic against rape/sexual assault charges 101 right now.
Oh you meant for him. Right.
No. I mean for both of them. They're both facing hardship from different mobs, thanks to social platforms, who are out to discredit and throw mud.
I don't appreciate the attempt to be made into a straw man so you can act tough for social justice brownie points. Grow up. You still got them, though, so you may as well feel chuffed.
They're both facing claims of lying. Both are being labelled as guilty depending on who you ask. It's wrong on both counts.
I didn't want to get into passing judgement on either of them. It's what I'm arguing against. It's not our place if we do not know one or both personally, if we were not previously in the know, if we are not the authorities, if we are not the legal system.
Nevertheless, to undercut any further nonsense. I do not disbelieve this woman. Her account sounds plausible. I can find reasonable doubt, but not that which would have me attempt to discredit her. I do frown upon the actions and the responses of the accused. There's much more reasonable doubt there. It's not for me to decide, though. I don't have all the pieces. I don't hold the necessary position. Playing pile on with the lives of others could end very, very badly, if we get it wrong.
-EDIT-
I will express this caveat though: I read RnR's post as an overall observation rather than as a specific defense of this GAF dude (who by all appearances is a douche and quite possibly a rapist).
Yes. (And yes.) Thanks!
And that is how the status quo has existed up to now.
Edit: I would second Certis's recommendation of the Waypoint podcast to completely fill yourself in the background of the case before you accuse anyone of being judgemental.
The internet can be a sad and disturbing place with hive minds jumping to conclusions, sure.
But most of the 'reasonable' judgement I have sen so far, has not been on the sexual harassment case, but the NeoGaf guys response. Even if he is innocent, he decided to respond like a jerk now. That is all we -people arguing on the internet - can judge him on.
Listened to the Waypoint podcast a moment ago. It is quite good. I personally focused a lot on the framing as mentally ill, because I find it particularly disturbing, but there is a lot of other aspects to the NeoGaf guys response that is just nasty.
If you name someone you are opening them up to a barrage of hate. Yourself, too. Better to go through the proper channels, piece together evidence, or don't name them at all if you're not ready for the storm that comes with one word verses another, especially on social platforms.
I get the impression that even the accuser regrets mentioning his name. As a #MeToo story it would have stood fine on its own without names. For better or worse that is not how it ended.
In general, yeah, the correct way would be to go to proper channels. But then the whole social media campaign has been about showing that the proper methods haven't exactly helped much.
RNR:
1. Read a news story before passing judgment. If you have to ask...
How private? To how many people was he named with her version of events?
...then you're way behind on the information curve to be talking about what she did and how it was unacceptable. You don't know but you're saying it wasn't right, or at least confident enough to do so... while not even knowing what the heck she did.
To answer your question, she actually didn't name him publicly at all. It was a Friends Only post on Facebook. You can talk all you want about "well, that's not ENTIRELY private"... which is shit. She did that without naming anyone. A friend asked her who it was in reference to because she mentioned it was someone who had decent sway and power within the gaming industry. That friend took that information and went big with it.
Rape? We're talking about sexual harassment. Not as serious but still totally worth reporting and feeling justified in doing so.
And that doesn't change the fact that many women do not feel confident or secure enough in police, investigations, or going through trial with "she was asking for it" defenses to do so. It's a shit line that casts doubt on a potential victim for not having done what you "would have done" in her shoes while having no idea what those shoes are.
I don't appreciate the attempt to be made into a straw man so you can act tough for social justice brownie points. Grow up. You still got them, though, so you may as well feel chuffed.
*eyeroll*
Do you want me to rail on about your microagressions? Will I better fit your Social Justice Warrior meme image then?
Oh man, Demos cares about social justice, what a loser for pointing out how I was parroting MRA talking points that come up for every rape where the woman doesn't follow the exact ideal script for justice (because that always works, that's why a hacker who exposed high school rapists was sentenced to more jail time than the MULTIPLE rapists, after all).
I'd have been willing to say, hey fine, here's how half the stuff you said is preeeeeetty shitty, you may want to reword that, and taken Abu's view as one I hadn't considered and edited and apologized for the misunderstanding... but going on about social justice brownie points kind of destroys your credibility on that one.
I didn't want to get into passing judgement on either of them. It's what I'm arguing against. It's not our place if we do not know one or both personally, if we were not previously in the know, if we are not the authorities, if we are not the legal system.Nevertheless, to undercut any further nonsense. I do not disbelieve this woman. Her account sounds plausible. I can find reasonable doubt, but not that which would have me attempt to discredit her. I do frown upon the actions and the responses of the accused. There's much more reasonable doubt there. It's not for me to decide, though. I don't have all the pieces. I don't hold the necessary position. Playing pile on with the lives of others could end very, very badly, if we get it wrong.
*headdesk* No one here is speaking from a "we're sentencing this dude to prison" viewpoint. No one has suggested he be locked up without trial because we believe him. No one has suggested anything of the sort. If you want to accuse me of building strawmen... maaaaaaaaybe don't immediately build a strawman?
Meanwhile, while I didn't use NeoGAF all that much as most of its information got here the same day anyway, I won't be going back because his response is shit and makes me believe in the accusations more than the accusations would have. He basically pulls the entire shitty defense lawyer strategy of disparaging her while talking about evidence he has that he's not presenting and witnesses to an event he describes as between the two of them (so magical witnesses).
His statement was shit and on top of that has enough plot holes to drive a damn truck through. Even if they were both drunk and it was an honest mistake (a totally legit possibility), he goes right for mental illness, calls her disgusting, and yeaaaaaaaaaah... haven't heard that song and dance enough from men before.
To answer your question, she actually didn't name him publicly at all. It was a Friends Only post on Facebook. You can talk all you want about "well, that's not ENTIRELY private"... which is shit. She did that without naming anyone. A friend asked her who it was in reference to because she mentioned it was someone who had decent sway and power within the gaming industry. That friend took that information and went big with it.
How is "f*ck it, google Evilore" not naming anyone? Because that is what the lady posted in response to her original #MeToo post.
And can you point me to where you saw it was a friends only FB post? I've been reading several articles from different outlets and this is never mentioned.
I would second Certis's recommendation of the Waypoint podcast to completely fill yourself in the background of the case before you accuse anyone of being judgemental.
As it seems to be relevant - I listened to it prior to posting.
Read a news story before passing judgment. If you have to ask...
I've read a few. To check another box.
To answer your question, she actually didn't name him publicly at all. It was a Friends Only post on Facebook. You can talk all you want about "well, that's not ENTIRELY private"... which is shit. She did that without naming anyone. A friend asked her who it was in reference to because she mentioned it was someone who had decent sway and power within the gaming industry. That friend took that information and went big with it.
So. She gave up his identity to someone. That someone then put it out there. That's the point I was making. Communication across social media creates a history that can be shared! It's nothing like an actual private conversion that (unless recorded) can be waved away as hearsay, or a misunderstanding. Not when it's in writing.
Do you want me to rail on about your microagressions? Will I better fit your Social Justice Warrior meme image then?
If it makes you feel better. You can rail on via private message. I will read it. I may not reply.
It's not about an image. It's about one particular instance where you went off on one, filling in blanks to fit your views on the subject, and of me it seems.
Oh man, Demos cares about social justice, what a loser for pointing out how I was parroting MRA talking points that come up for every rape where the woman doesn't follow the exact ideal script for justice (because that always works, that's why a hacker who exposed high school rapists was sentenced to more jail time than the MULTIPLE rapists, after all).
You're still doing it. This is what I'm talking about concerning social platforms and those who feel the need to cast unnecessary doubt. More blanks filled with what suits your views on this matter, and on me. Others may become involved. It could become a broader social issue. It likely won't. But the point still stands.
MRA. Rape. Hackers. Jail time. Care to crowbar in anything further?
I'd have been willing to say, hey fine, here's how half the stuff you said is preeeeeetty shitty, you may want to reword that, and taken Abu's view as one I hadn't considered and edited and apologized for the misunderstanding... but going on about social justice brownie points kind of destroys your credibility on that one.
You had the opportunity and chose otherwise. Don't pretend that was ever on the cards. The first response is an honest response. It sucks, but it's honest.
*headdesk* No one here is speaking from a "we're sentencing this dude to prison" viewpoint. No one has suggested he be locked up without trial because we believe him. No one has suggested anything of the sort. If you want to accuse me of building strawmen... maaaaaaaaybe don't immediately build a strawman?
I never said anything of the sort concerning the accused. Those are your additions.
I talked about both parties having to deal with hostile negativity, as well as being labelled as dishonest. I talked about social judgements, in a broad scale, not directed at anyone, becoming more of a problematic issue. I even shared that I believe what the lady has had to say, and as such that I do not believe the accused.
I did make a statement about a strawman. I done so because that is what you tried to do. You tried it again. More so because I reflected a cheap shot back to you, and you don't like it. Guess what? Neither did I.
The point of my continuing? To keep what I said as what I said. I could have done it better. I'll be kicking myself over it in time. I did not think you deserved a sugar coated follow up considering I got one laden with thorns. I'm not looking for sympathy. I'm not looking for an apology. I could be wrong, but I think what you put forth is part of the broader problem. It is on topic for part of what sprang from neoGAF going dark and the community disbanding, unless this thread is tightened in scope.
Demosthenes wrote:To answer your question, she actually didn't name him publicly at all. It was a Friends Only post on Facebook. You can talk all you want about "well, that's not ENTIRELY private"... which is shit. She did that without naming anyone. A friend asked her who it was in reference to because she mentioned it was someone who had decent sway and power within the gaming industry. That friend took that information and went big with it.
How is "f*ck it, google Evilore" not naming anyone? Because that is what the lady posted in response to her original #MeToo post.
And can you point me to where you saw it was a friends only FB post? I've been reading several articles from different outlets and this is never mentioned.
My understanding from the first stories was she shared her story on FB and then DMed with someone who was worried about her with the suggestion to google Evilore. If I'm wrong on that, that's on me and I apologize.
I never said anything of the sort concerning the accused. Those are your additions.
The suggestion that no one should have judgment except the legal system? Ok, I may have massively misinterpreted that then. So your argument is that we should hear all of this and have no judgment whatsoever?
Demosthenes wrote:To answer your question, she actually didn't name him publicly at all. It was a Friends Only post on Facebook. You can talk all you want about "well, that's not ENTIRELY private"... which is shit. She did that without naming anyone. A friend asked her who it was in reference to because she mentioned it was someone who had decent sway and power within the gaming industry. That friend took that information and went big with it.
So. She gave up his identity to someone. That someone then put it out there. That's the point I was making. Communication across social media creates a history that can be shared! It's nothing like an actual private conversion that (unless recorded) can be waved away as hearsay, or a misunderstanding. Not when it's in writing.
I'd say that a post on Facebook that's marked "Friends only" is closer to being "private" than what you'd allow.
If I post something on Facebook that's limited only to my friends, then I would expect my friends to keep it that way and not screengrab it to share across the internet. That's a dick move by someone. That person would no longer be my friend as that's a breach of trust.
From a legal perspective you are correct, writing on social media is not exactly like a private conversation, but the information contained in any post still needs to be corroborated and investigated before used in trial. Like a taped conversation, you still have to meet certain criteria before social media is considered admissible because stuff can be altered, etc.
For instance, if I'm writing a friends only post about a bout of depression I'm going through, I certainly don't expect anyone to screengrab it and share it to whomever. Yes, there's always that chance it'll happen, but not nearly as much as if it were a public post. Someone who is supposedly your friend has to breach your trust to share it outside of the friends only ring. From a moral perspective it's wrong.
While I too don't agree with Demo's stance of "She did that without naming anyone", I believe she mentioned "Google Evilore" because people could find out his identity, sure, but also because there's a treasure trove of shit on this guy. It wasn't meant to simply finger him, but to point her friends toward other evidence the guy is a POS.
RnRClown wrote:Demosthenes wrote:To answer your question, she actually didn't name him publicly at all. It was a Friends Only post on Facebook. You can talk all you want about "well, that's not ENTIRELY private"... which is shit. She did that without naming anyone. A friend asked her who it was in reference to because she mentioned it was someone who had decent sway and power within the gaming industry. That friend took that information and went big with it.
So. She gave up his identity to someone. That someone then put it out there. That's the point I was making. Communication across social media creates a history that can be shared! It's nothing like an actual private conversion that (unless recorded) can be waved away as hearsay, or a misunderstanding. Not when it's in writing.
I'd say that a post on Facebook that's marked "Friends only" is closer to being "private" than what you'd allow.
While I too don't agree with Demo's stance of "She did that without naming anyone", I believe she mentioned "Google Evilore" because people could find out his identity, sure, but also because there's a treasure trove of sh*t on this guy. It wasn't meant to simply finger him, but to point her friends toward other evidence the guy is a POS.
Again, since I didn't get an answer the first time I asked this, where is this 'friends only' detail coming from? Nowhere has this ever been mentioned, from the initial screencaps of the post that started this whole thing, to the numerous articles that have come out since.
And yes, the accuser flat out named Evilore on Facebook in response to the comments she received.
Oy, sorry, I have no idea. Looks like that detail/fake news sunk in my brain from Demos's post. Feel free to ignore basically everything I said about "friends only".
So your argument is that we should hear all of this and have no judgment whatsoever?
I think that's a perfectly legit response. Especially considering how worked up a lot of folks have gotten about what may or may not have happened between two strangers. I've posted on GAF for years and never cared about Evilore and I don't suddenly care now.
Demosthenes wrote:So your argument is that we should hear all of this and have no judgment whatsoever?
I think that's a perfectly legit response. Especially considering how worked up a lot of folks have gotten about what may or may not have happened between two strangers. I've posted on GAF for years and never cared about Evilore and I don't suddenly care now.
Having known enough folks with histories that include being assaulted, raped, stalked, and such... I'll admit, that's really not an option for me anymore. Seeing those behaviors on clear display or suggesting she should have done things differently because "why not go to the cops" and ignoring a large amount of evidence that that frequently doesn't work out for victims of sexual crimes... I dunno, maybe I should just sit out those discussions from now on.
Evilore's response COULD have been something to try to put his innocence out there, instead he spent it disparaging her the whole way. I dunno, I'm getting some "Evilore is not acting like an innocent man" vibes from just about everything he's put out there.
Maybe that's just me.
Oy, sorry, I have no idea. Looks like that detail/fake news sunk in my brain from Demos's post. Feel free to ignore basically everything I said about "friends only". ;)
Well, it’s kind of moot at this point, but I just hadn’t seen anything to back that claim up. The Waypoint podcast referred to it as a “private Facebook account”, but it’s not clear if they meant that the account itself is locked to only friends or if it’s the account of a private individual and not a professional or business account.
Here's where the information came from:
Malka further criticized Leupp for reportedly taking down her Facebook post, after the allegations began circulating, as evidence she was making the story up or exaggerating certain details of the encounter. Leupp told me that's not the case; instead, the post was made private so people would stop screen grabbing it and sharing it around online, as her profile also included other posts detailing other sexual misconduct she'd experienced.
It's funny, NeoGAF used to be, many many years ago, basically a synonym for any shitty online community. I never visited there, but it seems like around when Gamergate hit is when their reputation started to rise out of the gutter, because they finally decided stringent moderation was needed. That was my view as a complete outsider, does that jive with what actually happened?
Here's where the information came from:
Patrick Klepek wrote:Malka further criticized Leupp for reportedly taking down her Facebook post, after the allegations began circulating, as evidence she was making the story up or exaggerating certain details of the encounter. Leupp told me that's not the case; instead, the post was made private so people would stop screen grabbing it and sharing it around online, as her profile also included other posts detailing other sexual misconduct she'd experienced.
"Was made private" is not what Demos was claiming. By that time it was already leaked, so making it private did nothing.
That's my outside view, too, Q.
Vector wrote:Here's where the information came from:
Patrick Klepek wrote:Malka further criticized Leupp for reportedly taking down her Facebook post, after the allegations began circulating, as evidence she was making the story up or exaggerating certain details of the encounter. Leupp told me that's not the case; instead, the post was made private so people would stop screen grabbing it and sharing it around online, as her profile also included other posts detailing other sexual misconduct she'd experienced.
"Was made private" is not what Demos was claiming. By that time it was already leaked, so making it private did nothing.
To clarify, friends only on Facebook is something I would generally consider private. She didn't go onto NeoGAF's forums, Facebook pages, etc.. and just drop this bombshell. She was talking about her own experiences with assault without naming him until people were worried for her, at which point someone inside that circle of trust decided to take a story of potential sexual assault and share it with the world because... of course they did.
Here's where the information came from:
Patrick Klepek wrote:Malka further criticized Leupp for reportedly taking down her Facebook post, after the allegations began circulating, as evidence she was making the story up or exaggerating certain details of the encounter. Leupp told me that's not the case; instead, the post was made private so people would stop screen grabbing it and sharing it around online, as her profile also included other posts detailing other sexual misconduct she'd experienced.
So it was made private AFTER the hoopla started and she had named Evilore. There’s nothing to suggest it was a friends only post.
I certainly respect her decision to do so, but in this day and age, once something is already screencapped, that’s a bell you can’t unring.
To clarify, friends only on Facebook is something I would generally consider private. She didn't go onto NeoGAF's forums, Facebook pages, etc.. and just drop this bombshell. She was talking about her own experiences with assault without naming him until people were worried for her, at which point someone inside that circle of trust decided to take a story of potential sexual assault and share it with the world because... of course they did.
Again, there’s nothing in here that suggests it was a friends only post, and none of the other outlets or threads on Neogaf that broke this story suggest that either. Not sure why you’re still clinging to this.
So, sexual harassment is like a 5 on the 'bad-person-meter', but putting the name of the harasser in a public space is like a 6? I'd say it's probably a 2, with a lie about sexual harassment at a 5. We need to assign some numbers to the horrible things people do so we can properly determine how much we should hate people. I'll start with a quick attempt:
Woman who was wronged names names, whether on purpose or not, and that act becomes the issue seems like a real weird tangent to take over the thread for the day.
She could have rented a billboard and would still be the wronged party. Especially considering the response from the other party is to scream "mental illness! it never happened and I'm restricting the area on my forum we can talk about stuff like this." I cannot think of a more stereotypical response to this, it approaches parody.
No criminal charges were ever going to be filed here. There is nothing to gain in not having an opinion. No gain and yet, by not having an opinion in a case this obvious, you support to structure that makes a response like his so stereotypical.
Further, the transgression he was accused of, walking into the bathroom naked to solicit sex, while super scummy, this woman forgave him and tried to show him how he was wrong in his actions. But that doesn't mean she didn't have the experience and doesn't get to talk about it anymore.
And let's keep in mind this woman hasn't been able to go to work for a week because of harassment she's getting.
Understand that the ability to even claim impartiality is a privilege some folks do not get. Expressing your opinion of support is literally the least you can do to protect the vulnerable or underprivileged.
Yeah, sorry, I made the point earlier about derailing taking away from the situation at hand and then promptly derailed. /facepalm
It's funny, NeoGAF used to be, many many years ago, basically a synonym for any shitty online community. I never visited there, but it seems like around when Gamergate hit is when their reputation started to rise out of the gutter, because they finally decided stringent moderation was needed. That was my view as a complete outsider, does that jive with what actually happened?
Not really, but that’s OK.
I’m keeping an eye on ResetEra to see when registration is open to the public. I like what they’re saying about moderation, but I their FAQ they have a section specifically about how people should post about game devs.
There’s nothing objectionable about it as such, but It’s kind of nudging the discussioN so it respects the feelings of staff and commercial realities of development. Don’t call devs lazy, since they work hard on games. Even if the game didn’t turn out how you want.
I understand that, but as a consumer, that’s not necessarily my job. People can work very hard and still produce terrible products. How much sympathy should I have for the overworked chef whose food gives me the runs?
I can’t think of a forum where a particular class of company or corporation has terms defined for how it should be treated and discussed.
Edit - detail
Quintin_Stone wrote:It's funny, NeoGAF used to be, many many years ago, basically a synonym for any shitty online community. I never visited there, but it seems like around when Gamergate hit is when their reputation started to rise out of the gutter, because they finally decided stringent moderation was needed. That was my view as a complete outsider, does that jive with what actually happened?
Not really, but that’s OK.
Is it more accurate to say people, in general, have become more socially aware? GWJ is also much different than it was 10 years ago. Partly because of gay, trans and minority members of the community have explained how certain jokes, memes, whatever hurt them.
I feel like I’ve changed politically and socially in 10 years. And not for the reasons conservatives might cite.
I’m keeping an eye on ResetEra to see when registration is open to the public. I like what they’re saying about moderation, but I their FAQ they have a section specifically about how people should post about game devs.
There’s nothing objectionable about it as such, but It’s kind of nudging the discussioN so it respects the feelings of staff and commercial realities of development. Don’t call devs lazy, since they work hard on games. Even if the game didn’t turn out how you want.
I understand that, but as a consumer, that’s not necessarily my job. People can work very hard and still produce terrible products. How much sympathy should I have for the overworked chef whose food gives me the runs?
I can’t think of a forum where a particular class of company or corporation has terms defined for how it should be treated and discussed.
Edit - detail
This does seem to be the name that is cropping up as a successor. I'm continually shocked by people on Gaf who claim it's all going back to normal. Uh huh, sure.
nel e nel wrote:Quintin_Stone wrote:It's funny, NeoGAF used to be, many many years ago, basically a synonym for any shitty online community. I never visited there, but it seems like around when Gamergate hit is when their reputation started to rise out of the gutter, because they finally decided stringent moderation was needed. That was my view as a complete outsider, does that jive with what actually happened?
Not really, but that’s OK.
Is it more accurate to say people, in general, have become more socially aware? GWJ is also much different than it was 10 years ago. Partly because of gay, trans and minority members of the community have explained how certain jokes, memes, whatever hurt them.
I feel like I’ve changed politically and socially in 10 years. And not for the reasons conservatives might cite.
*nods*
How long did the "I'll be in my bunk" thread go on for?
Speaking of, that reminds me to poke Certis about my tag. No longer really appropriate.
One reason why my project to post the list of famous threads and in-jokes from GWJ is currently stalled is because there's a number of threads I don't really want to dig up again. There's good stuff back there, but the same threads often also have random sexist jokes (or transphobic, or homophobic, or...)
(The other reason is I don't have time in general right now to sort out the good ones...)
Pages