Great OP, shows a great deal of why I don't read and respond to reviews any longer; it has become a system that moves as much against its original intent as for.

Important notice; whiteknight101: this is not a topic about Sarkeesian and Quinn and the OP has asked you to drop that and I am doing the same. It would appear that you created your account mostly for the purpose of discussing and/or defending the two mentioned people, in which case you would be better off starting your own topic on it rather than funneling a more general discussion into what you want it to be.

Consider this a public warning, and that goes for everyone else in the topic as well.

I have noticed this in regards to the negative coverage of many ps4 exclusives, DC being the latest example of "similar workings across outlets" the game had lukewarm reviews, while it all worked for them... And it's not like it was a medium or bad racer at its core, the "bad points" looked like some politician's talking points being repeated in a couple of reviews, some being outright lies (rubberbanded ai, exagerated penalties, etc.).

so great OP, I wish I could say it was crazy to think, but this kind of media manipulation seems to be what's to expect now a days... Gaming or no.

Great read, of course, you will never see opinions like this on sites like Polygon, Kotaku, EG and Gamasutra.

Watching most big game media outlets and how they deal with all that's been going on for past few months would be hilarious if it wasn't really bad for the industry at large.

Thanks Tachikoma! This thread was quite revealing.

I was able to smell the corruption in the gaming media a long time ago (I blame Argentina for knowing the smell of that). But your thread shows pretty much the whole (or most) story behind it.

I'm not sure if the gaming media has SO much power as to crash the whole industry but it might be a factor as to why it crashes.

Obviously if you insult a gang and they rob you / rape you / murder you, then they are committing a crime and are liable for time in jail and / or execution. The insult does not change the fundamental principle of rule of law, under which insults are permissible while robberies assaults rape and murder is not.

Police are obviously a different matter, due to how they are tasked with the enforcement of laws, and to that end mandated to apply prudent force. (A mandate which they, in the US, abuse far too often).

But all that is beside the point.

The police have no right to harass and threaten people who exercise their 1st amendment rights to make public statements. If Jay Leno made a joke on TV about Bristol Palin being a prostitute and we found out that the LAPD took offense and harrassed and threatened Jay Leno, then that would be a bona-fide scandal. People would lose jobs and quite likely go to jail. If Leno made a joke about the Cribs and they invaded his home, cut his throat and raped his wife then people would go to jail or to the gas chamber.

In much the same way, any citizen of the United States has a consitutionally protected right to make public statements, even offensive statements. If they are offensive and insulting, then anyone offended has a right to call them out as such and consider that person an idiot. But that's the end of it.

You seem to be suggesting that we should all go around being fearful and mindful about not saying stuff that might offend the Police; the cribs; the KKK; #GamerGaters; whatever. That strikes me as wrongheaded.

If we were talking about running around calling people of color n*ggers or girls sl*ts - well obviously that is jerkish behaviour and would warrant people getting pissed. Even then, responding with threats and harrasment is out of bounds and not an acceptable response. I think this is pretty self-evident stuff.

Seeing as you are a moderator, I will absolutely comply with your warning and not mention either Sarkeesian or Quinn in this thread (after this post).

I will however note that while my first few posts here on Vgchartz concerned a thread about Quinn, I have since made a number of posts on other topics relating to video games and sales. And point out that you're liable to know that very well seeing as you have access to my posting history. For this reason I reject your suggestion that I "mostly" created my account for "the purpose of discussing and / or defending the two mentioned people".

I'm sure that you're fine with me making that point, since that clearly was just your opinion rather than part of your tasks as a moderator? And that opinion was wrong.

i dont get it this time... nobody is taking kakatoo and polymorph seriouse anyway. they have lost all credit long time before gamergate.
the 1st gamer gen is old now and the 2nd is in its prime years, and we are smarter than those feminazis with fake masters.
and there is a easy way to get those people out of gaming, just lock steam with a tiny math test every time u lock in, and they are gone.

you sure like your long winded skirt around the point responses,  lets make this easier. 

If you saw a gang in the street,  would you exercise your right to free speech and insult them openly? 

and more to the point,  if you had done so,  and were telling people,  do you think they would say "damn them for beating you up for insulting them"  or would they say "are you dumb or something?" 

You don't however need to answer this,  and I would rather you didn't,  you have taken a very minor point of the thread and firstly tried to divert it to a topic of your choosing and when that failed,  taken litterally a similar point and decided to focus on that one single point,  in an extremely overanalytical manner. 

the real kicker here is that the only "attack"  this person received in response to the provocation,  was as you put it,  simply "free speech",  insults in kind from several users,  the story that ran focused only on these insults and glossed over the fact that they were directed at her in response to her own. 

As such our discussion of this is over. 

Given that you created the account on the same day as jumping headlong into a fairly heavy discussion on said topic and you have 67 forum posts in about two months, where 27 of them, or close to half, revolve around the subject I mentioned, I hardly think it's a stretch for me to make the assumption that you joined the forums mostly to discuss this topic. I don't mind that you consider my opinion wrong, it is mostly based on your insistence of steering this topic and, as mentioned, having nearly half of your posts on the very same and actually starting the account with about 10 posts on said topic.

You are right, however, that it has no bearing on my tasks as a moderator and it is as such irrelevant to the public warning. And let's leave it at that and not stink up this thread any more.

I dont envy you the research it must have taken to come up with that tally ;)

Now that you did and opted to inform the forum, would you mind also informing them that my last thread on that original topic was about two months ago, and that those 40 posts not relating to #GamerGate, but rather to video games and video game sales are in fact spread out over a quite large number of threads and throughout these two months.

If I were you, I think I'd kind of assume that someone who choose to stick around for two months and read enough threads to make 40 posts unrelated to that subject just might be interested in video games and sales of video games? I think it strains credulity that I would have hung around if my only interest in Vgchartz was to white-knight said ladies.

I'm not you, however, I'm me and luckily I know with absolute certainty what my own intent is, and it's not what you thought it was. I have strong opinions on this particular subject - sure - but I suspect that isnt something the VGchartz forums frown upon, as long as those opinions are offered in a courteous and civilized manner. Right?