Well you have to shoulder some share of the blame here, seeing you for some reason prefer the identity of "some woman who behaved badly and got attacked" to be secret...? In your telling, the identity of this mystery person is already in the public domain since people tweeted and wrote about it in the media. To what end must this person remain incognito on gamrConnect Forums?

The entire purpose of being vauge enough for it to be potentially a number of different people is intentional.

I have expressed now, multiple times, that I have no intention to discuss that particular topic, I ask that you drop it, if you find yourself unable to do so, you will also find that you will no longer be receiving a response from me.

Why exactly must she say exactly who, and why is she "to blame" for not naming names? way to live up to your namesake.

Then it hardly seems fair getting surprised when I thought you were referring to Quinn and Sarkeesian, am I right?

Come now, you brought the subject up in your original post, you offered your opinion on it. Aren't you poking a (quite nice and friendly if I might say so myself) bear here, and getting annoyed with the response you're getting?

What's the point of opining on something on a forum unless your intent is to discuss it?

Except, she told you that you wasn't and asked you to drop it, multiple times.

Getting annoyed? she has been nothing but polite to you, and as i just said, asked multiple times to drop it, she's already told you that she won't comment on exactly who it is, or discuss zoe because they know each other personally, I'd call that sensible more than anything, since she's made it clear they know each other, commenting on a particular person or zoe directly is off limits to the convosation, as she put it, to respect privacy.

She made it clear that the thread is simply sharing her experiences and opinions and also made it clear to take these with a grain of salt.

You've been told, multiple times to stop, and you persist, would that not, by definition equate to harasment?

That was an interesting read.

I have ...honestly....never thought about the whole thing from the perspective of a game developer...

My opinion of games journalists is so incredibly low that I don´t even bother with the opinions of most of them, save for a few individuals like Jim Sterling .

Your point about journalists fueling the fire of a social lynch mob as a source of revenue is interesting as well.

I´m definitely in favour of better representation of females in games, but the mental gymnastics some people made why the next Zelda game ABSOLUTELY HAS to give you the option to play as a femal Link and not doing so would be sexist and awful and "behind the times lol Nintendo"....made me scratch my head a bit.

I´ll have to think about this.

Hey Tamron. I'm happy to drop Quinn and Sarkesian. I'm just asking who the woman who poked the bear, metaphorically speaking, is supposed to be. As you probably saw, I'm asking Tachikoma why we can't talk specifically about said woman. Which strikes me as a pretty fair question since Tachikoma brought this mystery woman up.

I mean, I guess I could just express myself like this:

Tachikoma, this woman who poked the bear that you're talking about in your OP... The only recent Twitter dramas I know of that this sounds like her are Quinn and Sarkeesian. If that's the case, I don't agree [see above].

Since that's not the case, kindly explain what the differense is between this event you're describing and e.g. Quinn or Sarkeesian, so I can get a better grasp of what upset you and what you considered wrong about this woman's behavior that you're talking about?

:)

Or maybe, you know, since she works in the industry, she's refusing to discuss either of them because, oh i dont know, maybe she knows both zoe and the person that poked the bear?and again, not once did she get annoyed or upset with you.
You were asked to stop, and told that if you didn't she would stop responding to you, you didn't, and she stopped.

cause and effect.

Well, what you're saying is that since she works in the industry she's allowed to offer opinions about people and then those opinions cannot be discussed? I find that idea wrongheaded. Nevertheless, if that's the case the problem can easily be avoided by detailing, in general terms, how what she's talking about is different from the objections I had when I assumed she was talking about Sarkeesian and Quinn.

The points I made were about general principles which are not in fact particular to the gaming industry, but to acceptable behaviour and discourse in a democracy.

As it happens, I was talking more about "the bear" than about the women who upset it.

If "the bear" lashing out, in this Twitter drama that Tachikoma is talking about, did not in fact involve anonymous threats and harrasment (the things I argued are fair game for the media to come down on), then I fail to see what stops Tachikoma from saying so?

Are you being paid to mention sarkeesian and quinn in every post or something?
You're derailing the thread btw, stop chasing a topic OP clearly has no intention of discussing with you.