When “GameGate” started up a few weeks ago, I thought about it for my podcast. Ultimately I never talked about it, but only partially because that’s a tough thing to really discuss with a 9-year-old. Ultimately, GamerGate started as a specific effort to troll the media, get some attention, and see if they could turn it into a phenomenon. From what I’ve seen, the people who started it don’t really care about any of their so-called points. It was entirely done just to see what would happen. And what happened is incredibly disgusting.
But through this, I’ve actually had thoughts similar to what David Whyld mentioned. Is everything I say or post going to be scrutinized under a microscope? Seeing it happen to others – and I don’t mean just here – it seemed possible. I mean, you say one thing, and now you’re on GameGate’s radar, and who knows what could happen? Say something else, and now you’re a misogynist, or at best, a clueless, deluded fool who doesn’t (and possibly can’t) understand things from a different perspective.
It seems that these discussions end up with somebody feeling as though they’ve been attacked.
For future reference, I’m in the clueless fool camp. But I don’t relish the thought of being raked over the proverbial coals for it. I may say something unintentionally offensive. I’m sure I have already, on numerous occasions. If that becomes the target of a campaign to convince me that I’m part of a bigger problem, and that I should be more sensitive and aware about the thing I said, I’d probably also just excuse myself from the conversation. For instance – and dredging up something that may be best forgotten – I loved Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons. I never picked up on any misogyny, and I’m not really interested in hearing about how blind I am for not.
I don’t think that parser-based IF will ever disappear. If “the market” is saturated with hyperlinked fiction, parsers just become a novelty, something different. There will always be people who will want something different (“You mean I can do more than choose one of three options? Cool.”). I noticed that I appreciate parser-based games more now that I’ve played Twine games and the like. Not that the latter are all bad, I just like the greater level of interactivity of the former. I think, or at least hope that, hyperlinked IF is attracting more people to IF in general, and some of these newcomers may even give the parser a try.
Here’s the thing. If you do that, and you unintentionally say something that makes someone else feel bad, and they tell you about it, give a graceful apology and try not to do that kind of thing again, having learned something new about your fellow human beings.
Do not:
Tell the person they were not offended.
Tell the person they shouldn’t speak.
Question the person’s intelligence or education about something that’s clearly important to them.
[Ahahaha I deleted this paragraph because I mentioned my own game specifically, but let’s just say that GamerGate was awful and demoralizing for myself and other female game creators.]
Merk and David Whyld, I appreciate this point a lot. I certainly don’t want anyone to feel like they have to tread extra carefully, and to aschultz’s point, I don’t think it’s a question of triggers, specifically.
I think the problem that I have with the parser vs. the world issue is threshold. I have a technical dayjob, and even my boyfriend asked why I chose to use Twine rather than hardcode my game in javascript, and the answer is because Twine is easier. But unlike some of the earlier comments’ implication, that doesn’t mean it makes a worse game. My focus was telling a solid story; I didn’t want to get stymied in coding issues or styling.
The problem is that threshold is often used to exclude minority members of a community. Saying, “Oh, your game wasn’t as hard to make as X’s game, so it must be worse”–that’s the kind of statement that got leveraged against Zoe Quinn during GamerGate and against countless other female-driven games. The problem isn’t the statement itself, but the history of exclusion, and in the case of GamerGate, abuse leveraged against women, transfolks, minorities, et al.
It’s like arguments about the Voter ID–Voter ID laws don’t single out minorities for persecution in text, but they do the same work in the sense that historically, these people have been kept from the polls, and codifying the exclusion only rubs salt in the wound.
Again, please don’t think that you have to tread softly around every discussion. Sometimes, a measured response on the rebound (like Nathan’s!) is what’s necessary. But just remember that there’s a history of exclusion, and using the tools of the trade to justify calling one mode of game (with a resplendently female creator base) worthy of only one star without even trying is tantamount to saying that the creators are beneath your attention.
This is slightly off-topic, but re: Twine’s ease of use, I’ve been zinged for using tools to make things easy, and I’ve been zinged for not knowing there were tools to make things easy, for instance by using (or not using) PERL packages. So, not necessarily in creating games, but this darned if you do/don’t is a powerful atmosphere of fear in any medium.
I have to admit that I’ve feared using steps to make things easier–when I was younger, I figured that since I didn’t understand Assembly, I didn’t deserve to write a cool Apple game. This fear held me until I realized that, yes, people write packages to make things easier, because that’s progress. So I think I see where this is coming from–what a bully sees as a necessary convenience for themselves, they may call baby-stuff and cheating for someone else. And that’s just icky.
When people can be cut down if they make it easy for themselves, and put down if they don’t, this speaks to general power trips and bossing conversations, and I think everyone should be empowered enough to have ways to reject and defend themselves against this, to do what they want to do.
The point of pointing out misogyny isn’t to make people feel bad, but to say, “Hey, please don’t do that again. It really sucks for me.” We’re trying to help you out of your ignorance, so you don’t accidentally step on the same toes twice. We’d like an apology, and some assurance that things will improve. The worst answer you can give is, “I didn’t see the problem, and I don’t care about learning how to see the problem, [so you will just have to deal with the problem or leave].”
You can choose to ignore misogyny. People who are affected by it cannot. And a moderator should be interested in protecting affected populations. So, “clueless fools,”: Listen, Apologize, Learn, and Do Better in the Future. Maybe follow some female bloggers/twitters/whatever who talk about issues like #GamerGate so you can learn and be a better-informed ally from the start.
And for the record, any post here where women patiently, pleasantly, thoroughly explain these things is a courtesy to you. Those posts are saving you the time of looking it up, thinking about it for yourself, or having to deal with it enough on a daily basis to get it on a personal level. It’s way, way, way,way, way easier for women to just turn around say “Fuck it - I am not dealing with this exhausting shit in yet ANOTHER place,” and leave.
Absolutely. I imagine I would. But what I’m seeing (that hasn’t involved me) is more of an escalation of the original issue. For instance, the person offended turns around and offends the original person by coming out on the offensive. So rather than step back and try to figure out what was said that hit a nerve, the original person retaliates in kind. So everybody’s on the offensive, while thinking they’re simply defending themselves. It’s sometimes (often?) not a polite back-and-forth. It’s a knee-jerk reaction that gets things off on the wrong foot at the start.
So this is a very murky thing for me. Is it necessary that everybody should apologize for every opinion expressed poorly (or, in cases, simply having the unpopular opinion)? I get the damaging effects that these opinions can carry, and I don’t disagree that people can be in the wrong. And I can understand the rationale behind setting those people straight; clueless-ness is easily one of the big reasons why important social issues are still issues. To avoid this, it seems you either have to be a social issues genius, or simply not say anything at all. Because I’ve seen completely innocent-looking things get attacked by the people who picked up on a context the person didn’t realize or intend. It’s easy enough to say “Wow, I didn’t see it that way, I’m sorry.” But I can imagine it still stinging to feel like you just got slapped down over something that you never even meant to be negative.
I was going to write a long post, then realized that would ave been repeating myself, or others. But I think I’ve learned something, so I’m gonna write it down.
Abuse must be brought to everyone’s attention. We need to know to better behave.
Not everything in the world is related to your problem. So, if one is talking about a game format, maybe he’s just talking about game formats.
Said that we need to get to know social triggers, we also need to understand to threat politely those who have stepped on those triggers because they really could be on a good mind.
Fight is never the answer. If the Bushes went to Iraq trying and discuss things (aha! as if!) instead of bombing people into democracy, maybe today we would have had democracy, instead of people killing each other they don’t even know why anymore.
Sorry for offending you, people. I just wasn’t offending you and you overreacted. But I can see where you come from, and so I’m empathic. I will try and avoid offending you again. As far as you try and be less offended by good-hearted people like me.
If people from disenfranchised backgrounds appear sensitive, it is a good idea to seriously consider why. Then, if there are good reasons, it is a good idea to behave more considerately around them.
We’re the IF community, remember? The one that prides itself on its tradition of robust and detailed criticism and believes, as part of our core identity, that we can and should grow from it? Yeah, criticism (of whatever kind) can hurt. Yeah, sometimes it’s unfounded. That’s inescapable, with criticism. That’s part of the package. Nothing was ever gained from getting outraged by it.
If criticism that is specifically about race or gender (or whatever) feels particularly uncomfortable, it is important to remember that actual racism and sexism are waaaaaaaay more uncomfortable. If you get accused of misogyny, the best reaction is not to get angry and defensive - because that is precisely what misogynists do, so apart from anything else it’s just really bad tactics. The best reaction is to focus on behaviour that demonstrates your good faith.
I don’t think this is a useful approach, David. That’s a ‘some of my best friends are black’ kind of argument. It’s an appeal to moral credential effect. Our track records are not at issue here. The issue is what we’re doing today and mean to do tomorrow.
Like I said, some people are way too sensitive - they may have reason for it, but a lot of the time no one knows it but them. If someone says your game is bad, it’s most likely they’re saying that because they felt the game was bad, not because you’re gay, or black, or a woman, or whatever. Right now, if I played a game by an author who I knew was one of those three, I’d be very reluctant to make any comments on the game, positive or negative, for fear that someone would misinterpret my comments the wrong way.
Is anybody opposed to having this topic re-locked, or possibly just moved to “off-topic” or elsewhere for the sake of keeping the IFComp board more focused? I actually find this whole thing pretty interesting and it seems like the kind of thing that should get discussed sometimes, but it seems like it’s kind of run its course now. A lot of points were made, among a lot of misunderstandings.
Yeah, we definitely need to move this thread to a more appropriate forum if we’re going to keep it open. The thread as it currently stands has very little to do with the IF Comp, even if it was created to talk about it.
I’ll leave it open, but in the Off Topic board. Off Topic isn’t just for non-IF stuff. It can also be for discussions that aren’t really focused on the specifics of other sub-boards.
I’ve re-read all the posts in here. I’m astounded at how far things (and people) have taken me from my original post and intent.
This is why (keep repeating this to yourself, Marco) I should never argue on the internet.
This is not what I need to say, tho. Re-reading, I saw I mixed David posts with others’. Sorry David. Yeah, it wasn’t you who suggested the 1-grading, nor who said he dislikes Twine. My sincere apologies. This I owed you.
I’m still here. I’ve decided to lurk invisibly, because I still love the games, and still play them. But for this one I’m bloody well coming back out of lurking for at least one post.
Funny thing, just days before the Brothers incident I wrote a PM to inurashii saying how brilliant I thought Cis Gaze was. Tell me now that I fit into the misogynous, twine- and trans-hating crowd.
I felt this particular discussion here was seriously overblown, and I kept feeling that until Emily Short’s great post where she explained a lot of things I wasn’t aware, and which I think other people weren’t aware of either. I felt that some people had so many issues that they were dumping them all in discussions where they had nothing at all to do with anything. Emily Short, again, explained what was going on outside this forum, and why it is understandable, in some level, that a CYOA-deprecating discussion turned into a “let’s point the finger at the mysoginous bastards”.
I don’t want to be martyrized either, but I’m bloody well not going down as mysoginist. I’m not bringing up Brothers again, but I can say that what I remember from it seems quite distinct from what some other people remember. On a conciliatory frame of mind, I can now assume that those other people were aware of GamersGate and all that shit, and I never heard anything about it until a long time later, and so I had no idea I was treading on toes that were already sensitive from a beating elsewhere.
Digging a hole for myself? No, that’s what people do when they don’t mean what they say. I still mean what I say, and all I ever said was, if a story is designed from the ground up to take certain groups into account, or to take care to portray some groups in a certain way, fine; if it doesn’t, if it is outside the scope of the story, then I don’t see why the story should suffer a label like “sexist”.
That’s all I bloody ever said. But it’s not what everyone else read, because they were reading the GamersGate shit into my words, of which I was completely unaware. The actual wording I used is gone, as you know, so I know we can’t go back and see, which suits me fine, because that’d be a game I really don’t want to play. Too much shit flying around, and all the time I was far too angry to, possibly, clarify what I really meant.
I’ll also say this, since someone decided it was a good idea to bring it up: I’ve always heard speak of opera singers as whales, as an almost affectionate but descriptive term, because they usually are pretty huge. Ever since I was a child. And I still hear those descriptions now that I speak with actual opera singers and I learn under them. They use those terms among themselves unashamedly, at least the ones I talk to. So before you bash me for dehumanizing, I dunno, start realising that perhaps after almost ten years learning the art and the craft, of struggling to reach perfection, of honing my ambition, of relentlessly crushing my mistakes (only to find they’re still there years later), of very many failures, of a few successes… perhaps I might know a little bit more about it than you, who scour what I write for dehumanizing content? Or instead of countering what I say with factoids, like “there’s no factual evidence that relates big voices to big bodies?” If you ever tried to learn opera, or lyric singing, you’d know it’s partially about a science and a very great deal about fantasy, because you’re manipulating muscles you can hardly feel, so “scientists” and “factual evidence” often just go out the window.
Bah. I don’t want to write this. I don’t want to post again. But I’m damned if I’m going down as what I’m not on account of a stupid thread.
Anyway, just look at THIS thread and all the shit that flew up. You clearly don’t need me for what you’re doing. It’s made me wonder if I was really the catalyst of Brothers; maybe I was just the wrong guy at the wrong time, and it would have happened anyway. I mean, look at the link James dug up just above this post.
Have fun, IF community. I’m still playing your games, and I’m still playing Twine games - in fact, I collect those as well. So come on, call me mysoginous again.
Peter Pears
PS - If the community is at all interested, I finally found a way to give something back. I’ve been doing crazy beta-testing on iOS Frotz (read: I’ve been playing tons of games) and reporting every little bug. iFrotz is seriously becoming a terp to be reckoned with, and I encouraged Craig Smith to announce it here sometime.
Peter, I don’t think you’re misogynist (and I didn’t say that). And I’m sure Jamespking thinks you’re misogynist either; I think he’s addressing theoretical people who might think you were misogynist. But “Peter is misogynist” is no part of what I was ever trying to say.
I actually had a post prepared at one point trying to explain that I didn’t think you were misogynist, but I wound up deleting it because I didn’t think it was helpful (I think Emily Short posted something much more articulate while I was previewing).
I’m glad you’re still playing and testing iFrotz. Thank you for that.
Peter – I’m glad to see you back, even for just a post. I was afraid you wouldn’t even look back. We haven’t talked much, but you always seemed immensely cool and moderate to me, as well as someone who put a lot of content into this community. If you ever put out any recordings, please PM me or give a shout out somewhere on here. I’ll be lurking for awhile, myself. (Still working on my own WIP.) I totally get the feeling of being held back, too, but I think that’s part of the totality of things. Good luck!
By the way – this is a video that might help. There are ways to end conflict – by going inward. youtube.com/watch?v=I54SH0IbpzQ
Peter took this to mean: (given that he is one)
I took this to mean: (if he even is one)
Another misunderstanding. Guys, words mean things. Words mean things beyond what you intend.
This was the most upsetting quote for me:
To me this says: You don’t belong here. Go away. It has shades of: You know what would be nice? If we separate them from us. You know, they’ll still have a competition, but it’ll be separate. Separate, but equal. But on the most fundamental level, it says: Those clicky-web-things aren’t Real IF.
And that’s really the entire crux of the argument - that Twine entries should not be in IF Comp because they are not Real IF. It’s Rock N’ Roll isn’t Real Music more than half a century later. Unfortunately, these opinions promoting exclusion are not going to change. People will apologize for being insensitive, or for misunderstanding, or for any number of things. But I don’t see the attachment to the My-Definition-Of-A-Game-Is-The-Only-Definition-Of-A-Game belief changing. So topics like this will keep cropping up.
At this point, you’re either going to accept Twine with open arms and vote on them fairly, or you’re going to cling to dated definitions and not vote on them (or give them all 1s). I know which side I’m on.
