Mawoomy Christmas · @DontGoAwayM4d
8th Dec 2014 from TwitLonger
Open Letter to @AbleGamers, from me, a #GamerGate supporter
Dear @AbleGamers,
I would like to extend my deepest apologies for the incident triggered by #GamerGate last night (as it is now about 4 in the morning here as I type this... long day at work). The charity drive/stream that was planned came as a complete surprise to me, and I'm sure many others, as not all of Gamergate (GG) monitors Reddit regularly. As I understand it, the announcement via Twitter that the charity drive failed was incomplete and muddled, thanks no doubt in part to the 140-character limit, and GG's detractors were quick to praise the decision which implied that they were somehow involved, though now it appears they were not. The DDoS further complicated matters, as GG was quick to be blamed and was busily disavowing the action while simultaneously investigating it and the charity cancellation. I thank @thenichegamer and @theralphretort for quickly disseminating clarifications regarding the incident, and hopefully as this knowledge spreads the vitriol and malevolence surrounding this will fade. We in GG try to "Trust but Verify", but we are only human, with all the weaknesses and flaws that implies. Emotions were high, tempers were flaring, and mistakes were made. It seems to me your decision to reject the charity drive was grounded in reason, even if I don't agree with it, and your judgement should not be questioned. Again, I apologize; GG owed you better.
GamerGate is a decentralized consumer revolt with no set leadership, which makes it both incredibly resilient but simultaneously unfocused. Individuals typically act on their own initiative, and their actions are theirs alone. For example, no one ordered me to right this; these are my thoughts, ideas, interpretations of events, etc. and no one else's. As such, there are oftentimes "bad actors" within GG, or claiming to be within it, who do reprehensible things of their own volition. If uncovered, GG as a whole will typically disavow, report, and otherwise shun such individuals. Anyone sending you threats of bodily harm, threatening the solvency of your charity, or targeting you via cyber attacks a la the previously noted DDoS, I and I'm sure most of GG will cooperate with you fully in seeing these charlatans exposed and properly dealt with, legally if need be.
There are three other issues I'd like to address. The first is regarding the phrase "weaponized (word)". This is actually a joke, based on this picture taken at an XOXO conference;
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BxgzlIICAAAUFpr.jpg
Taken out of context, the term "weaponized nice" is a total oxymoron. It swiftly became an inside joke among GG supporters, who found themselves being accused of harassment for doing things that, typically, aren't considered harassment. "Weaponized Charity" is the most common phrase, but I've also seen Weaponized Facts, Weaponized Retweets, Weaponized Punctuation (referring to .@ replies on Twitter), and of course, Weaponized Porn. While this language is used in a jocular tone within GG, it is done WITHIN GG. It's an inside joke, an obscure one to boot, and as such GG should have had no reason to hold you accountable to understand it. This wasn't a failing of any sort on your part. I hope that GG becomes better at its messaging as a result of this incident.
As for "Weaponized Charity" itself, the term gained popularity due to GG's use of charity for multiple purposes. As a consumer revolt, GG must demonstrate that it has "the power of the purse". A consumer with no money isn't a consumer any producer/developer needs to worry about, and as such it is necessary for GG to flex its monetary muscle in a way that shows it can effect market outcomes. Expressing disgust to gaming journalism's advertisers, who value the click-thru gamers give media sites, is one route. Sales are another; when GG's opponents expressed interest in boycotting a game being worked on by a GG-friendly developer, the lovely Jennifer Dawe, GG rallied and pressed the game through Steam's Greenlight service in near record time. When Stardock's Brad Wardell was subjected to spurious and nearly slanderous accusations and the dredging up of past scandals (of which he has long since been cleared and received apologies for), he noticed a sharp spike in sales due to GG interest. Charity is also a prime means of showing market-driving strength, since it is typically public, visible, and quantifiable. It's also a great morale booster, and GG goes about it with irreverent enthusiasm. When Gawker's Sam Biddell tweeted that we should "Bring Back Bullying", we raised money for bullying awareness. When accused of "sea lioning", we funded a sea lion habitat. And such and so forth. As a further demonstration of GG's fiscal prowess, we have also provided the lion's share of donations to charity drives launched by GG's detractors, which also emphasizes the disparity between our potential generosity and theirs. Yes, this vexes them, and they feel it is done out of spite. Perhaps it is. But then, what motivates them to demand charities turn down the funds we voluntarily submit? Is that not also spiteful behavior? Which charities can be provably shown to be "hurt" by association with GG? Which is better; spite that creates, or spite that destroys?
Lastly, I want to "call out" several of my colleagues who, upon learning that you were turning down our charity, pointed to a tweet your organization put out stating that people should not buy the latest Call of Duty game. They characterized this as somehow being a sign that AbleGamers wasn't sincere about its goal of providing a pleasurable gaming experience for the disabled because, somehow, "jumping" was considered non-inclusive. I would like to point out that, quite bluntly, they didn't know what they were talking about. I interpreted that tweet to mean that one shouldn't buy the game for someone with disabilities, even if it was on their wishlist. This is vital information for non-gamers (say, parents for example) who might not understand the implications of a game including a considerable focus on jumping in terms of a disabled person's ability to play. If I might elucidate...
I have a friend, let's call him DS. DS was playing D&D in college while I was still struggling with that whole "being born" thing. In our current campaigns he's a dashing, well-coifed elven rogue in D&D and a razor-tongued, firebrand, lady's man mid-bulk freighter captain in Firefly RPG (I'm a monk/swordsman and pilot/sniper, respectively). He's a life-long tabletop gamer, devourer of science fiction and fantasy, and player of video games. He particularly loves MMOs and third-person action-shooters, such as Resident Evil, Tomb Raider, Mafia, LA Noire, etc. DS also has cerebral palsy. He's wheelchair-bound, requires daily nursing visits, and has vision problems that have required multiple corrective surgeries. In short, his reflexes, precision, and visual acuity are less than ideal; even playing on "Easy" is for him the equivalent of a hardcore, non-disabled person such as myself playing those games on "Impossible". But play he does, and I refuse to believe he's any less a gamer than I am. While some decry the inclusion of lowered difficulty settings, I embrace them. They aren't "just" for kids and casuals, some people need the extra health, damage, ammo, time, etc. in order to succeed at all due, not to a lack of skill or determination, but because of circumstances beyond their control, such as DS' cerebral palsy. Which brings us to jumping, you inconsiderate compatriots of mine. Unlike the previous examples of "Easy" mode, jumping sections in gameplay tend to be pass/fail situations. Easy might give Mario twice as many possible goomba-bites before he dies, but regardless of difficulty, *lava pits are lava pits*. Jumping accurately requires precision, which people with severe muscular, skeletal, nervous, or visual problems often don't have. My love for FROMSoftware's "Souls" series is well-known, but it pulls no punches and would not be appropriate for DS. Buying a gamer a game they end up not liking is unfortunate, but buying them a game they *can not enjoy* is just cruel. You are wrong, friends, to criticize AbleGamers for this. To AbleGamers, my respect; you clearly understand your organization's mission, and I wish you the greatest success possible, for DS and all like him who refuse to allow a little thing like fate stand between them and the magic that is gaming.
With regards,
Don't Go Away Mad