^^^^

http://www.coachingbysubjec...

-Foxtrot... you're trying to make this about you. It isn't.

***yet you failed them for "not being gaming realed" ***

You sure I failed them?

***You didn't bunch and inch when you were enjoying all the Anti GG articles but good grief a few Pro GG articles and you have to "get rid of them". ***

I don't enjoy anything about GG or anti-GG. Your analysis of me is way off.

Also, I stayed out of it all except for one instance where it was just talking about Quinn's sex life. The reason I'm stepping in now is because, honestly, it's needed and it's turning N4G into something it isn't. Plain and simple.

====== @Below ======

***Why didn't you do this then when he was submitting all of them. People reported those articles but they still managed to get through...why and how?***

Holiday season. Personal issues on my part. And, "people" didn't tell us about this stuff. Only you and only when you were restricted for whatever reason. That is until yesterday when we started this process of realigning things and I got PMs from everyone under the sun for failing one submission when they didn't understand I had failed opposing views of the same topic.

But, hey, let's look at these reports:

http://n4g.com/news/1652985...
No reports

http://n4g.com/news/1652991...
One lame report only. One that even a moderator agreed with.

http://n4g.com/news/1652820...
No reports.

http://n4g.com/news/1648655...
No reports.

http://n4g.com/news/1649564...
No reports.

http://n4g.com/news/1648656...
No reports.

***You think these articles are going to turn it into something it isn't? ***

No, they have just stopped being about video games and became about social media and the people involved. We will still allow GamerGate topics that are specific to video games. That's the type of news we cater to on N4G, that's the type of news our users want. Simple as that.

***So because you don't enjoy them they aren't allowed on here?***

Leap of logic. I was responding to your assessment of me. The decision made had nothing to do with me and to do with N4G.

"Foxtrot... you're trying to make this about you. It isn't"

I never said it was but I just think it's hilarious you make this new rule on here just after people complained about those submissions being brought down and how darkride has went crazy with the Anti GG articles you've mostly ignored for the past month and a half now.

Why didn't you do this then when he was submitting all of them. People reported those articles but they still managed to get through...why and how?

"I don't enjoy anything about GG or anti-GG. Your analysis of me is way off"

So because you don't enjoy them they aren't allowed on here? Sounds abit like censoring to me, I don't like it so you guys can't discuss it. No offence but in the past articles despite saying your neutral on the subject you usually have been one sided.

"The reason I'm stepping in now is because, honestly, it's needed and it's turning N4G into something it isn't"

Whaaaaa

You think these articles are going to turn it into something it isn't? I've seen so many articles on here which are full of crap yet they are allowed on here. GamerGate is a gaming movement it's not going to turn the site into anything, it's just a way of getting the news out there.

That's a really lame excuse.

@Nineball2112

How mature. I find it funny how if we did that to someone we would get marked for being "immature".

@Foxtrot:
For now, we just have to see how things go from here on out. Sensationalist, inflammatory and articles that are essentially false allegations and insults, decelerations that "Gamergate is Over" should not be showing up after this.

However, if there's another instance showing collusion between sites which are against the interest of their readership or an outright failure to report an industry issue because of a possible relationship, then there shouldn't be any back and forth between such an article being approved and failed. That is most certainly, if not outright news, something that should be known about.

We can only give things a chance and time.

@Christopher:
While you make a relatively good point with your last post, that it's in part the community's job to help in policing itself, looking at the approvals its a fair guess that those articles where passed too quickly to be really considered. like the worst of the year one that used TLoU as a pic yet doesn't mention that game at all.

All a pro or anti GG article needs is a block of supporting votes, maybe just one high ranking contributor, and a mod who wont remove it. Though in the case of pro-GG - or more accurate, corruption and collusion - articles, the opposite could be said to be true. A mod can't fail that fast enough.

And again, my main issue are the mudslinging and "They Lost" submissions.

***While you make a relatively good point with your last post, that it's in part the community's job to help in policing itself, looking at the approvals its a fair guess that those articles where passed too quickly to be really considered. ***

I understand, but any approved submission is not the end of it. Users can still report the submission and users can, and have in the past on various submissions, report a submission via a ticket.

Part of the power belonging to the community is knowing what they can do and utilizing the tools at their disposal. I think with GamerGate those tools have been ignored and instead people have used the comment section to show their dislike of a submission.

So long as both sides are being treated exactly the same (and articles attacking gamers aren't okay if articles defending gamers aren't), then I am content....ish. :)

I think we also need to look at certain individuals who are abusing the submitting process.

It's no secret why you and other mods had to step in and put a stop to this. My question is will this certain person be stripped of their submitting power?

Not so long ago this same person SPAMMED N4G with articles about MS selling off Xbox. This person knew what he was doing and continued until (I believe) mods had to step in and put a stop to it.

It even continued after MS officially said they would not sell off the Xbox brand.

It's obviously a pattern as this person is "trolling" members of this site by constantly submitting articles he knows well and good will irritate the masses on here.

I think mods should investigate members submitting habits. Look into members who are abusing the submission process and trying to submit multiple articles that are intentionally only made to rile people up.

My days. This medium has entered the realms of politics now. I agree with the decision here but it is a bit of an eye opener how seriously we take things in a medium that is really, all about having fun.

It seems that the more you import ideas that games are art, the more the medium 'matures' and that maturity opens it up the realms of discussion/politics and 'elevates' the issue beyond good ol' gaming fun.

So let's make a hypothetical industry topic.

Let's say a story breaks called...

[100,000,000°] PEWDIEPIE THE PEDO GUY?!
"Internet Let's Play darling Pewdiepie has become a registered sex offender! How the internet sensation's whole world came crashing down in one drug fueled night...oh yeah...and SEX! CLICK ME!" - GameCheeze.com

This has nothing to do with video games, but discusses a known figure within the video game industry. Now would knowing (Hypothetically) that Pewdiepie is a sex offender be important news to inform everyone about?

***Now would knowing (Hypothetically) that Pewdiepie is a sex offender be important news to inform everyone about?***

Would this news be about video games at all? Would this news affect the video game industry? Would a game or publisher or developer be affected by this news at all?

Now, questions for you: Say we allow it, similar to how we allowed news of Greg and the gang leaving IGN, the premise being that it's news that our users would like to hear. At what point do we stop taking any news about this topic? Do we allow all the opinion pieces on it? What about Pewdiepie's responses, which are not additive to the news nor about video games at all?

At what point does it stop becoming video games? If it doesn't, then at what point does almost everything become video game news? How does allowing such a wide variety of news that is tangent to video games but not about it start hurting a site that is used primarily by users to get news on video games?

"At what point does it stop becoming video games? If it doesn't, then at what point does almost everything become video game news? How does allowing such a wide variety of news that is tangent to video games but not about it start hurting a site that is used primarily by users to get news on video games?"

If that particular news gives a negative perspective of what a Gamer is to the outside world, I think that would be News4Gamers. Is it okay for Gamers to be accused of being all the vile crap they say we are? Should we not know when to voice our opinion on particular shady subject matters?

I used Pewdiepie as example because he has millions of viewers on youtube. He actually has some influence (not on me) within the industry. If he plays a game, many people will see that game, most likely want to get that game, and the industry profits. This a new type of cycle happening in the industry that Publishers are learning to adapt and take advantage of. Do you seriously think that if Pewdiepie gets brought down by some scandal the news media isn't going to put blame on the entire industry along with every single Gamer? It happens every single time. I want to know if and when something like that happens for I can have my say. I believe Gamers would like to know if they're getting mislabeled simply for of enjoying their hobby.

Gamergate (the scandal) isn't something that happened because Gamers wanted it to happen. It was put on Gamers due to corruption. When Gamers were abandoned by the ones they once trusted, they got on that sattle and rode that bucking bronco. Gamergate (the community) is the quasiappointed internal affairs of the gaming industry composed by the Gamers themselves. It poking holes in the industries curtains and it's driving people in the industry crazy.

Now let me ask you a question. Do you think Gamers are fond of the news sites Kotaku, Polygon, or other sites that genuinely think Gamers are the worst type of people on the planet? Because if those sites don't think Gamers are a worthy audience then why should a site called News4Gamers even host them?

***If that particular news gives a negative perspective of what a Gamer is to the outside world, I think that would be News4Gamers.***

I agree, initially, it is. But, at some point, which you did not answer at all, it stops becoming that and just becomes a flurry of opinion pieces aimed at hits and social controversy.

***Is it okay for Gamers to be accused of being all the vile crap they say we are? ***

Yes, it actually is. Whether it's right or not doesn't matter. It is okay, per how society works now, for them to do that. That's how social controversy works. Someone says something stupid, people react in knee-jerk reactions, and instead of it just ending, people keep arguing over it knowing full well that there is no end in sight since both sides will never agree and some parties live off of the ongoing debate.

***Gamergate (the scandal) isn't something that happened because Gamers wanted it to happen.***

How does that have anything to do with the concept of determining if it's video game news or if it's moved beyond that? How does that at all address any of the questions I asked you, of which none you actually answered?

***Do you think Gamers are fond of the news sites Kotaku, Polygon, or other sites that genuinely think Gamers are the worst type of people on the planet?***

First, I think most don't care what a person thinks as long as they provide them the news they want. If Kotakue, for the mass majority of gamers, provides them the latest news on a game, they will read it. They don't care that someone wrote an opinion piece complaining about toxic gamers and how they are the worst. They just care about getting their video game news. They're not there for the drama. They're there for the news.

***Because if those sites don't think Gamers are a worthy audience then why should a site called News4Gamers even host them?***

Because regardless of their opinion, they provide news directly for those people whom they say are the worst. Because what they provide is what gamers want to read.

N4G isn't here to rate who is bestest and most honorable at what. It's here for gamer news. You submit it, community approves it, moderators make sure it meets the guidelines.

Been busy so I missed this blog when it was first posted...but what kind of crap is this? N4G lets through tons of news that doesn't really relate to games, and plenty of troll crap that isn't news.

Yet, one of the biggest things to happen in gaming in a long time, something that is long overdue, is being stopped because it doesn't relate to gaming?

I'm sorry, but GG topics are directly related to gaming in every way, because this is the way we get our news. Gaming cutlture is under attack, and gamers are fighting back against the media, yet somehow that isn't important?

Here's something you may not have considered, or maybe you did, and it didn't matter.

GG is made up of gamers. As a gamer, who is a reader of this site, perhaps articles about GG are important to read, even if they don't relate to a specific game, because the topics that GG is addressing are important. Very rarely does a GG article relate to a specific game, but more often than not they do relate to the industry at large in some way, or the gamers themselves. To me, I can't see how that isn't relevant news.

I agree with cutting out the crap and false news that constantly gets put up, but just because a article doesn't directly relate to games does not mean it's not important information. How about moderating things that are blatently false in regards to GG?

I've read hundreds of suggestions about ways to improve this site over the years that seem to fall on deaf ears, and now I can only say how disappointed I am that this is the issue that you the mods or admins of this site would finally take a stance on.

Such a shame that N4G would fall in line with exactly what GG supporters are actually pissed off about in the first place.

Edit:

I understand that my post may come across as confrontational, but while I dislike some of the negativity that comes with a more open submission policy on this topic, the fact remains that it is important to know what's going on across the board, and not keep things in an echo chamber. It's important for those that pay attention to be able to spot what is real and what is false, and being able to reference things easily helps that a lot.

What it really comes down to is that for every negative article, it gives people the opportunity to defend their side and make their counter-arguments. Not allowing through the negative or "useless" articles to me is equivalant to Anita Sarkeesian not allowing people to respond to her videos because her arguments only exist in an echo chamber for like minded individuals.

N4G should be better than that, and having an open forum is great to be able to discuss these things. It's important on this topic for others to see what all the arguments are, and by doing so, hopefully they can make a more informed opinion on the matter at hand.

It sucks that trolls ruin things, but despite constant bickering, the truth is is that there are more intelligent people reading this site than sheep who don't know how to think critically. Let the trolls have their fun(or moderate them appropriately), but don't cut off the ability to address the topics at hand.