Profile

Cover photo
Marcel Beaudoin
1,040 followers
AboutPosts

Stream

 
 
There's some new push by a couple of idiots to promote a Tabletop version of the GG hashtag on Twitter and other places. 

DO NOT USE THIS HASHTAG. Do not legitimize these morons with their anti-feminist anti-social justice anti-equity bullshit. They are trying to ride the coattails of an already toxic and patently ridiculous crusade in video games to shine attention on things they don't like.

Also, if you're involved in trying to push this new thing out there, I don't think I can make it any more plain: no legitimate tabletop RPG publisher, designer, or developer is going to put up with this crap from you. You are a sad, sad little person.

PS: I have a degree in ethics, so don't even start with me.
53 comments on original post
2

Marcel Beaudoin

Shared publicly  - 
 
 
This Cracked article is funny, scathing, and spot on about #GamerGate

"It's always hilarious to hear SJW used as an insult. "Social justice warrior" is the basic plot of most '80s action shows and cartoons. Arriving in places and fighting against discrimination? The A-Team were social justice warriors. It's practically a synonym for Knight Rider. Insulting someone for respecting other people is like insulting them for masturbating -- the fact you don't do it has way more to do with why you're so upset all the time."

http://www.cracked.com/blog/7-ways-gamergate-debate-has-made-world-worse_p2/#ixzz3EN3naEZC
These people claiming to represent gamers is like a cannibal claiming to represent eaters.
6 comments on original post
5
K. P. Badertscher's profile photo
 
D'oh, you linked to the 2nd page! Fortunately I know how to click a "Back" link.

Marcel Beaudoin

Shared publicly  - 
 
 
So yesterday, I shared a couple of articles I got quoted in. I've been contacted by a number of other media sources, asking for quotes and whatever. 

In most of the things I've seen, the quotes have been all men. This is true, and it's disgusting. 

The fact is, I've asked some of these outlets to speak to women. I've even named ones I feel are cued in and sufficiently aware of the situation to say very important things. 

In most of these cases, the outlets have told me they have reached out, but the women they speak to are afraid of putting their names out there, because of the reprisals.

I don't blame them for a second. 

If you're a professional in gaming or games journalism, and you want your voice heard but are afraid of reprisal, I will take quotes, and I will do what I can to present your words to the media anonymously. I've been given a pulpit. I've been handed some weird air of authority in this. The least I can do is try to get marginalized voices heard. 
16 comments on original post
1

Marcel Beaudoin

Shared publicly  - 
 
There is much truth in what David is posting.
 
Hi. I make games. I write about games. I get paid to make games. I used to get paid to write about games. I walked away from paid writing about games, because it was a pretty shitty, corrupt, jaded process that really flew in the face of why I wanted to write about games. 

I've talked to a lot of pro- #GamerGate  people over the past few days. I've tried to hear out as many as I could. It was hard. I want to first address why that was hard, then I want to try to address some of the trends between the reasonable, cool people I spoke with. 

First off, it's very difficult to wade through the hate. The signal to noise ratio is not good. In fact, it's terrible. If you're reasonable, and you want to have a conversation, it's difficult to do that when the person is hearing ten death threats and thirty insults for every single reasonable message. That mars any perception of credibility for a group that's invested heavily in credibility and ethics. 

Now, I've heard a few people say, "Point out the threats and insults when they happen! We'll report those people! They don't speak for us!" I've seen numerous people pointing these threats and harassments out. A couple of very bad times, I saw some people jump in, report, and otherwise shut down the threats. But more often than not (by a wide margin) what I saw was apologism and excuses for the threats and harassment. I saw a lot of "but this time it's warranted!" style messages. That doesn't help anyone. That doesn't build dialogue. 

So, if you want to know why there are prominent journalists right now talking about how gamer culture is toxic, and how gamers as a label are dead, this is why. Because even if you're rational, passionate, and wanting good things, your voice is being drowned out by loud, hateful, toxic people. 

A couple of days ago, I posted an email from the San Francisco Police Department verifying a police report placed by Anita Sarkeesian. Why? Because a muckraker accused her of lying, and drummed up a BUNCH of hate. His message had over six hundred reshares. His thread had dozens of people talking about how she needs to be imprisoned, how she needs to be shot, and how she's... you get the picture. So, I fact-checked. And I posted the results of that fact-checking. Did I get six hundred people recanting their threats, insults, and accusations? No. I got a couple dozen people threatening me, and a fuckton of people insulting me for DARING to fact-check a journalist. When, mind you, the Gamergate movement is supposedly about holding journalists accountable. Do you know how many messages came up to the effect of, "Oh. I shouldn't have jumped the gun and accused her without the facts?" None. None at all. 

So understand why a lot of us say, "This group of people is toxic." It's because a large majority of what we're experiencing is people doing very toxic things. There are some reasonable voices. But from where we stand, they're a stark minority. The movement is about accountability and ethics in journalism, yet the ONLY reaction I got from fact-checking a journalist was hate, denial, threats, and insults. From where I stand, calling Gamergate toxic and hateful isn't a far stretch at all, because it appears to be doing toxic and hateful things.

Yes, there's some positive. Yay, charities. But that's drowned out. And ironically, when we hear about a charity or otherwise positive thing, it's universally used as a method of attack. For example, there was a period where the Gamergate folks had it in their head that Zoe Quinn was lying about charitable donations. They'd trot out, "We aren't lying con artists! We really donate to charities!" Essentially, weaponizing charity. Then, I also heard a lot of people bragging when Zoe's donations were verified officially by the charities, because a group of (allegedly) thousands of people were able to donate more than a single independent game designer. Like seriously, very petty shit. 

So, corruption in journalism. Can I let you in on a secret? 

We want to have that conversation. We all do, with maybe a couple of exceptions. This is a conversation we've tried to have, and wanted to have for years. 

But why aren't we just sitting down and talking it over and smiling and playing games and shutting up about the feminisms? Basically, it's because we're having two completely different conversations. One's an insider conversation, informed about the industry. The other is an outsider conversation, based on half-truths, misunderstandings, and what we see as skewed priorities. 

On our side, a lot of journalists hate the nepotism, and most importantly, they hate the relationship the industry has with journalism. Because a while back ago, "games journalism" was essentially coopted as a marketing arm for certain AAA publishers. At that point, AAA publishers became gatekeepers for success in games journalism. It's awful, because we want to be talking critically. We want to be looking at games in different lights. We want to approach these works of art as works of art, and not just as the next success or flop. But that can't happen on any large scale, because of that corruption, because of the commercialism of it all. 

The way a lot of the Gamergate stuff looks to us really looks like some strange bizarro world where the games industry works completely different than it really does.

The biggest targets of Gamergate have been people who are frankly powerless in the games industry. People like Zoe Quinn and Phil Fish, they are not gatekeepers. They are not able to enact any real, significant influence on the industry. Most independent game jams, awards, and exhibitions are small groups of people, trying to make names for themselves in their little ponds. That's how independent artists work in pretty much every creative field. They can't compete with the game industry, so they're trying to carve out their own little micro industry, where they do their own things and have a captive audience. 

The people being targeted the most are small names, on the fringe of the industry. Even if these people all pat each other on the proverbial backs and promote each other into the ground with the corruption of a thousand watergates, their games will NEVER be as successful as even moderately popular indie games like Castle Crashers. We're talking about games that won't pay a single basic salary if successful. To these games, success doesn't look a lot different than failure. 

"SJWs" aren't affecting widescale change in video games. There's some minor change here and there. But most of it is shit that, if you weren't aware was changed, you wouldn't know was any different. If they get what they want, and that's a big if, the end result will be a few more games featuring a little more diversity, and maybe less rape and objectification. This will never, ever approach social justice change in major titles like Call of Duty. The SJWs know that. The Call of Duty developers are making Call of Duty. Nobody expects them to make something else. There's room for Call of Duty. Nobody is trying to take it away. Fuck, the ideal is ultimately MORE GAMES. This is a good thing. Experimental games move the industry forward, and make your core games better. Those games get to be the testing ground where we try out new ideas in a less risk adverse environment. 

Anita Sarkeesian? So far, a writer for an already very diverse game was influenced to cop to a trope in his games, and say he won't be using it again. Fundamentally, the game is still a manshooter game. Just, one story element will be swapped out for something else in the future, instead of recycling the same old thing. That's pretty much as far as her influence has gone. 

Here's why: She's not trying to enact and force change. She's pointing out trends, the way an art critic does. Some people might look to what she's saying, and ask for more exceptions from that trend. Some developers might see those trends in their work, and shift away. But she's never once said that games featuring sexist tropes should not be made. She even makes explicitly clear in every one of her videos that playing games with sexist tropes is okay, it's not wrong to have fun with those games. But, certain trends do influence attitudes, according to numerous scientific studies. She doesn't say these games will make you sexist. That would be stupid, since she, and numerous SJW types, have played these games. If she was saying that, and she's not, she would have to follow up her videos with, "I played this game. It made me sexist." 

Do you know what else this focus on Anita's doing? It's making your games worse. And I'm not saying, "Oh, if you leave Anita alone, she'll make games better". No. But right now, AAA game executives see people like Anita calling for diversity in games, and they're seeing people like Gamergate attacking them vehemently. They see SO much hate. They see 650 people retweeting the guy claiming she lied about a police report. This tells them that the market doesn't want diversity. This tells them to double down on boring, scruffy 30-something male protagonist with a dark past, blah, blah. When we look at games like Watch Dogs, and we think they could have done better if they were a little more ambitious, understand that people shitting on "SJWs" causes that risk averse, milquetoast game design. 

You can have discussions about Anita's points. But understand that she's making critique. A lot of it is subjective. A lot of it relies on specific definitions that she gives. For example, it's popular to attack her use of Hitman as an example of Women as Background Decoration. However, the only way it's not a valid example is if you're not actually using her definition. Essentially, you're throwing out her thesis and applying a different thesis to her examples. That's not fair, and it's not academically sound.

But have these discussions! Just focus on the art, the trends, and the culture. Don't focus on the person. Because if your goal is debunking her, you've already lost. Right now, people are throwing so much shit at her, hoping it sticks. Seriously. A journalist literally investigated whether or not she actually made a police report when people were threatening her life, and another prominent blogger demanded police report numbers from her. Neither of these people are entitled to that information. They're trying so hard to catch her up in a lie, that they're losing sight of what they're doing, and how silly and unethical it looks. Why does Anita have to be discredited, if her points are not valid? If her arguments are wrong, discuss them. 

Right now, publishers are buying reviews. Right now, publishers are giving large amounts of money and other perks to journalists in order to skew the public perception and influence, both positively and negatively, game sales. Right now, Metacritic is being used to determine whether or not designers get to keep their jobs. Right now, AAA executives are cutting women and LGBT characters out of games in development, because of "the core demographic". These are huge problems. These are problems we want to talk about. These are problems we want to fix. 

We aren't going to smile and nod while hundreds of people dogpile a couple of people's sex lives. We're not going to cheer you on while muckrakers are hounding people for answers to stupid, invasive questions they shouldn't be asking. We want a better industry. But we feel that what we're seeing, or at least the bulk of what we're seeing is making a worse industry. 
56 comments on original post
1

Marcel Beaudoin

Shared publicly  - 
 
Sharing for extra visibility. Comments closed, please comment on the original.
 
A little shell script help?
Here's my current situation:
I have a large number of files with unrecognised characters in the file or directory name. The are all locale specific characters like Ã, or Cyrillic, or Japanese characters.  When trying to copy or upload them they fail to transfer or move.

I did a few hours of searching and finally turned up this on AskUbuntu over at StackExchange: http://goo.gl/79OByB

One of the answers is a shell script that sounds like it will help me solve it, but I get an error when I try to execute it. I do not know shell scripting and it is, once again far too late at night almost 5am and I am exhausted.

Could one of you kind folk tell me what's wrong with it? 

==ERROR========================
.fnames: line 31: syntax error near unexpected token `<'
.fnames: line 31: `done 3< <(LC_ALL=C find . -depth -name "*[![:print:][:space:]]*" -print0)'

== SCRIPT=========================
#!/bin/bash

# list of encodings to try. (max 10)
enc=( latin1 windows-1252 )
....
It goes on from there but G+ uses some of it as formatting.  It is the first answer at the AskUbuntu list above. Sorry bout that.


#TedsUbuntuDebacle  
26 comments on original post
1

Marcel Beaudoin

Shared publicly  - 
 
Holy sweet jeebus.

Also, add all the TWs.
2
 
So, just watched SummerSlam. Have to say that the undercard was great, and the main event matches were decidedly underwhelming.
Ambrose vs Rollins stole the show, by far. A couple of months ago, I said that Reigns and Rollins had the best upside after the Shield broke up. I will have to change that now to Rollins and Ambrose. The feud those two have going is doing wonders for each other, and they are doing an awesome job of not only getting over themselves, but getting the other person over. They are doing a good job at mid-card status, cementing their abilities and figuring out how to properly work PPV matches.
I am pissed that they brought Kane in for the ending, but if it gets Kane away from interfering constantly in this feud, I am OK with it. I like that Rollins won at the end with the briefcase. It is doing a good job of cementing him as an old school heel. Now, if they just had him win a couple of matches pulling the tights, or feet on the ropes, it would be awesome. I also hope that they don't switch these two into feuding with others right away. They need to get a solid ending to this feud. Ideally in a Hell in a Cell match. With Ambrose having done a lot of extreme matches (CZW, etc) I think he would shine in that style of match.
Rusev vs Swagger was also good. Rusev did an awesome job, throughout the entire match, of selling the Patriot Lock that was applied at the beginning of the match. Swagger did not do as good a job of selling the Accolade that got applied halfway through. In then end, it was s decent match that did a good job of showing both Swagger's and Rusev's skills, and we finally saw Rusev demonstrating his ability to sell for someone else. He does a really good job, and this match did a great thing for both. Rusev also didn't win in a fashion that buried Swagger.
I missed most of Jericho vs Wyatt, but I have no doubt that it was an awesome match. Jericho could have a great match with a broomstick, and Wyatt is pretty good at telling a story in a match. The ending did what it had to do. Jericho will always be over, and Wyatt needed this win in order to keep his push going. It was unfortunate that the Wyatts came out at tyhe same time as the Shield. If they would have come out just as the Shield was breaking up, they would have been able to get the same level of impact as the Shield did. As it is, they were eclipsed by the Shield.
Reigns vs Orton was your typical big man match. Reigns didn't get a chance to show his stuff in any significant way, and it was your standard Orton match. Yes, Reigns is getting pushed higher, faster, but feuding with Orton is going to kill any push he is getting. Reigns just doesn't have the ability, yet, to drag Orton into a good match. Reigns won, so I hope this means that he is heading towards someone else. Maybe a feud with Cena?
Cena v Lesnar was, honestly, a big surprise for me. I was not expecting Cena to be so completely dominated and only put forward a couple of moves in total. I can see one of two reasons. Either Cena got legit injured before the match, or they did this to pull the titles out of the limelight for a while and allow some non-title storylines to come to the fore and evolve. They did it with Bryan last year. They are doing it with Rollins and Ambrose. I think that they have something planned for this as well.
I can also see the Bree and Nicki situation turning into a feud between Cena and Bryan. It would give Cena a chance to show off more than just power matches, and I could see it ending up in a three way between Cena, Bryan and HHH.
1
Erick Cruz's profile photoMarcel Beaudoin's profile photo
3 comments
 
They needed to do it this way after Brock defeated the Undertaker.To have him be defeated, or to win in a way that was anything less than dominating ruins all of the momentum that Lesnar had gotten. It also will give Cena (and others) something to strive for in the future. It is building in the long term, plus, like I said, it will allow for a bunch of PPVs without either Cena or the World title having to be there.
Have them in circles
1,040 people
Christian Lindke's profile photo
Patti Rains's profile photo
Pete Griffith's profile photo
Susan Palmer's profile photo
Darren Tunseth's profile photo
Rob Monroe's profile photo
Jean Clément Paris's profile photo
Elena Dillon's profile photo
Mark Knapik's profile photo

Marcel Beaudoin

Shared publicly  - 
 
This will amuse David to no end I think.

Over on the KiA reddit Subforum (where all GG talk is exiled so that the rest of Reddit doesn't have to deal with repeated cries of CORRRUPTION!!!!), they were complaining about the bias in the GG wikipedia article.

I posted in there explaining, to the best of my knowledge, how Wikipedia works for reliable sources, equal weight, why Forbes blogs are not considered reliable sources, how they deal with opinions and biased sources and the like. Currently, most of my posts in that subthread, including some that are literal copy/pastes of wikipedia definitions, have been downvoted into almost invisibility.
2
Marcel Beaudoin's profile photoDavid Hill's profile photo
3 comments
 
Well yeah. Facts are very traumatising to Gaters.

Marcel Beaudoin

Shared publicly  - 
 
Is there anyone out there with experience/knowledge in Android phones??

My brother-in-law is contemplating jumping from Apple to Android, and would like to know the pros and cons of the phones available to him. He is not looking for something huge, about iPhone 5S or 6-sized.

Here is the list of phones available to him.
http://www.rogers.com/web/link/wirelessBuyFlow?forwardTo=PhoneThenPlan&productType=normal&N=52+11+277
1
 
This is a really interesting way of looking at it. This might interest you +Tracy Hurley 
 
Sexism in Technology and Gaming

Take a look on the Gamergate or pro-feminism posts of really popular Plussers like  +Yonatan Zunger, +God Emperor Lionel Lauer, or +Kimberly Chapman and you'll find people talking about how women are just as sexist as men.

Let's see where that train of thought takes us.  Spoiler: Even if everyone is equally sexist, women still get harassed exponentially more.
This image is explained below. Image links to large nonlooping animation. Looping version also available. If you don't think sexism in Tech and Computer Science is a major problem, you really have not been paying attention. T...
7 comments on original post
4
1
Tony Sidaway's profile photoZak Smith's profile photoKasimir Urbanski's profile photoBenjamin Reed's profile photo
33 comments
 
Tom seems to have blocked me as well, meaning he's surrendered the argument. That's cool.  Just want to point out for those he might have left some sanctimonious bullshit-lade last-word for that I'm not responding because I was cowed by his awesomeness, but because like a fucking coward he ran away from the debate when the tough questions were being asked.
 
I just finished listening to the latest Isometric podcast (episode 18), where they go into #gamergate. If you ever wanted to hear what 3 women go through and their feelings, you should listen to this.

http://isometricshow.com/018-rainbows-and-sunshine

I did, and it is completely and utterly heartbreaking. It fills me with no small amount of rage that there are people out there behaving this way.
You asked us to talk about GamerGate. So we talked about GamerGate. A lot. (But also PAX Prime, the PokeRap, and dating tips for birds.) What We're Playing: Maddy - Hatoful Boyfriend; Georgia - Puzzix; Bri - Crypt of the Necrodancer and Danganronpa 2; Steve - Madden 15 and Azure Striker Gunvolt ...
2
Tony Sidaway's profile photoSoreThumbs Bill's profile photo
2 comments
 
Stop being such rapists and leave #Gamergate alone.

Marcel Beaudoin

Shared publicly  - 
 
Jay Smooth is the bomb!!
1
People
Have them in circles
1,040 people
Christian Lindke's profile photo
Patti Rains's profile photo
Pete Griffith's profile photo
Susan Palmer's profile photo
Darren Tunseth's profile photo
Rob Monroe's profile photo
Jean Clément Paris's profile photo
Elena Dillon's profile photo
Mark Knapik's profile photo
Links