And with this, the entire post was disregarded as a rape apologist.
He’s being sarcastic.
Not threatening, just painful. And can we break this off to another thread? I know there’s a tool to create another thread, but I didn’t think it would be necessary with the first post.
You want to bring down the thunder!? Well here it comes.
Of course, all it seems to argue is that the anti-GG editors who were engaged in misconduct are victims in this (and it ignores that NorthBySouthBaranof was not sanctions, is anti-GG, and is obscenely prolific in pushing his positions, having posted 2300 or so posts to the talk page, and hundreds of edits and reverts) while pro-GG editors aren’t because reasons.
Even if you assume that literally everyone editing pro-GG is a throwaway (some of which are oddly old and have lengthy editing histories to be throwaways for something so recent), ArbCom still has the power to issue IP-level penalties if needed.
I think my biggest complaint about how Wikipedia has handled the whole thing is how “reliable sources” work – put simply, if a controversy involves (among other things) a media outlet engaging in alleged misconduct, that media outlet should not be a reliable source for the article. In this case, I’d include Polygon, Kotaku, anything written by anyone on the GameJournoPros list, any site whose editor in chief or equivalent was on the Game Journo Pros list, and anyone under their respective parent companies. That is to say, any media source that benefits from making the discussion not about them.
It was indicated by the “/s”:
What’s the full translation of that line? It was too densely encoded for my organic mis-aligned Enigma machine.
So, you disagree, hence it’s wrong.
Why is this controversial?
Employing my handy SAP “drill-down” skills, it seems to be:
“And oh foxtrot foxtrot sierra slash sierra”
Which Herbal Dictionary says refers to:
“Foxtrot Foxtrot Sierra, or FFS, is a Tantric deity popular in English-language speaking regions. As a hermaphroditic, auto-copulating deity who creates and maintains the universe through a timeless act of self-regeneration. It’s origins are obscure, but examples of it’s use in popular culture evocation suggest that it may be cognate with other such deities as Baphomet and Ardhanarishvara.”
Crap on a cracker.
Maybe Cory, Xeni, Matt Haughey, Mark Bernstein, the guy from The Awl and others could band together and write an open letter to Jimmy Wales asking for reason (and reality) to prevail with an executive decision here.
Final Fantasy Sword.
“Those people said mean things about gamers!”
Listen, the last thing the game journalism industry needs is a bunch if journalists hanging out together and trying to be more professional about their industry. If that kind of crap keeps happening, who will the game companies be able to pay off for favorable reviews? Do we really want to live in a world where, unlike eBay feedback, games receive less than five stars?
Reviews are the least relevant area of game journalism. The interesting bits are all prior to that.
does he need to mansplain objective truth to you too?
if you look at shadrach’s posting history it seems to be an account that was created initially to sow bullshit in this thread-- How crowdfunding helps haters profit from harassment and has managed to avoid being given a big timeout. the account seems to be little more than a shill for anything misogynistic and as such should be ignored until a major tos violation occurs. in general it seems like these types can’t resist going beyond too far.
Indeed. I wonder if shadrach is a contributing editor on wikipedia? Seems like the type.
I haven’t followed up on this, but the original articles do seem a bit misleading. But there is some problem, it’s unclear.
Certainly people were punished in some form, for breaking rules. It appears to be mostly being involved in edit wars. And that’s s problem: if you’re dealing with several sock puppet accounts that keep adding crap (to be minimal, given the topics involved) multiple times per day, and you hereto fixing the changes… It looks like one person vs the world. Is that what happenef here?
I haven’t read this yet, bit it’s a 9 page (10 with references) PDF.
Also, the author of the linked-to article is rather interesting, he’s got hypertext history dating back to 1985 or something; not a johnny-come-lately.