Register, it's (almost) free

Join a laid-back, close-knit community of mixed interests Get a free account!

99th percentile

InsaneBoredGame joined on Aug 26th, 2010, since that has made 848 posts that are still accessible today, 15 of which are threads. Helping shape the community, InsaneBoredGame has given 1058 upvotes, and was last online on Oct 23rd, 2014.

  • In Naruto's Reaching a Climax, Soon.

    @9mm Didn't Jojo switch to Ultra Jump a long time ago?

  • In What kind of people do you like?

    People who compliment/praise me. Yes, I am that self-centered

  • In Naruto's Reaching a Climax, Soon.

    This is proof that the so-called 'Big Three' are nothing compared to the true SJ longrunner.

  • In The Grand #GamerGate Thread


    You raise some good points. And, I admit, I've been far too vitriolic in this thread. For that, I apologize.

  • In The Grand #GamerGate Thread

    @DarkChaplain @Cenica

    The moment you are selling them, you have an obligation to make sure they work as intended. Likewise, while the press is free to write editorials and opinion pieces, they are still obligated to report truthfully and independently

    Yes to the first and I'm pretty sure it's a no to the second. Ethical Standards/Guidelines are created by corporations/groups within an industry to promote ethics within their industry. None of this is actually legally required (or prosecutable).

    And about the public figure thing? They're legally defined 'in the law of defamation (libel and slander), a personage of great public interest or familiarity like a government official, politician, celebrity, business leader, movie star, or sports hero'.

    Journalists don't really fit that definition, do they? And until the scandal, an indie developer like Quinn wouldn't either.

    Hah. It does very clear harm to people identifying themselves as "Gamers", and how the public perceives Gaming as a medium and hobby. If gaming is supposed to grow and become more mature as a medium, the dedicated press cannot go around and make such claims and cannibalize its own audience.

    And this is we diverge. I cannot, in any way, consider the label of 'Gamer' as something important enough to uphold.

    But hey, since people in less civilized countries have to deal with worse, the privileged white cis scumlords have no right to complain.

    I don't remember saying anything about other countries or 'white cis scumlords'. I'm talking about how this issue is far too small to even consider using terms like persecution.

    I'm talking about how ridiculous, how insensitive it is to claim something as an 'I am Spartacus' moment when it's about video games. While it may be a line from a movie, its about slavery.

  • In The Grand #GamerGate Thread


    You claim you want honesty yet you're defending dishonesty and a lack of integrity.

    I'm not defending dishonesty, I'm defending the privacy that allows for it. Completely different.

    I maintain that demanding transparency and personal information to ascertain dishonesty is not within the consumer's right to demand. People have their own lives and that should be respected.

    Outside agencies or professional conduct committees within the industry itself are one thing, but demanding such things for the sake of video games is another.

    And the world news is just news. Who cares if it's accurate right?

    No matter how many games you play, or how much you love them, the two types are (pardon the pun) worlds apart. Dishonesty is still dishonesty but the scale that the issue does determine the amount of harm done.

    Misreporting world news can lead to foreign policy mess ups, deaths, etc. A video game journalist giving someone else's opinion on a game doesn't really lead to anything on that scale.

    The idea that the two can be equated like this pretty much accounts for half the problems in this movement, in my opinion.

    Journalist carry a responsibility to represent things in an honest way even if they give their own opinions in their work. There is still to be honesty with their audience. The audience accepts this. When the journalist is dishonest or allows themselves to be bribed, they break that trust with their audience and their work is no longer worth anything.

    Yes, journalism operates on ethical guidelines.


    While plagiarism and libel are certain crimes, nobody outside the industry should have the right to force them to abide by those guidelines.

    I'm not talking about how things should be, I'm talking about what an entire group believes they have the right to do.

  • In The Grand #GamerGate Thread


    The "witch hunt" as you call it was less concerned with Zoe Quinn than it was with the fact that a developer got good PR by fucking press guys. The "witch hunt" grew via further reports of indecency in the media.

    It grew afterwards, but that is how it started, correct? And yes, I maintain it's a witch hunt, despite the sarcastic quotation marks, based on the fact that it was at the beginning, an angry mob going after someone based on their ex's accusations. Whether people quickly stopped talking about it or not doesn't change that it happened.

    Yes, there was a "witch hunt" in the beginning, but that was founded on Zoe Quinn, the "victim" and catalyst, abusing the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) to shut down criticism (something that she cannot even deny having done, as her name is on the bloody takedown notice etc) and the media curling up in a ball over being called out on not disclosing personal relationships with the people they report on.

    If you're going to take the moral high ground in any of this, please have some thing like 'abusing the DMCA' as your catalyst instead of outrage based on accusations (I don't care if they are true or not, there is no way to verify this as fact, and no good reason to be concerned over a developer's sex life).

    And the media being curled up in a ball? What is wrong with that?

    Journalists aren't entities based on making the consumer happy, they are people. They have personal lives. And wanting to know personal relationships between everyone in the industry, believing you have the right to know, is what I'd call entitlement.

    Abusing their right to privacy and their right to have a personal life for better pr (or whatever else), is a moral wrong.

    However, because it's just games, it's far from being a societal harm. Because it's just games, outrage doesn't justify harassment (whether it's GG or anti GG).

    The way I see it, is that the GG side believes that they have the right to know everything, that everything should revolve around them simply because they are the consumer.

    Which I believe is bullshit, because paying for a game means paying for a final product of the developer's work. Paying for a magazine means paying for news or an opinion piece by a journalist about a game.

    Neither means paying for insight into their lives or even the structure of the industry itself.

    Buying video games doesn't mean you have the right to decide how other people run their business (unless if, as said before, it's illegal and can be proven/actually harming someone).

    The fact is the consumer cannot, and doesn't have the right to force ethical journalism.

    Then I am afraid you haven't paid enough attention. The gaming press has closed ranks to alienate and declare dead their target audience in one fully concerted effort, which was spearheaded by agenda-driven people to whom gamer culture has been a thorn for years. Not just that, but they've weaseled their way into various companies and institutions to push their angle.

    Is that what you consider 'persecution'? If so, please give me a moment to laugh.

    You said it yourself, didn't you? Games are a form of art. Are you really surprised that people in the industry don't want the consumer to have a say in press and production?

    That isn't persecution, far from it. It's more about reducing commercial interest in decision making. Shouldn't you be happy with that? Over pandering to the fans is a recipe for disaster.

    The problem with your views seems to be that you don't consider the business practices and journalism within the world's biggest, fastest growing entertainment sector to be relevant, no matter how toxic and incestuous they are.

    You know what? You're completely right. And the fact that people view themselves as activists or noble warriors fighting for a cause makes it even more laughable to me. Gamergate, in my opinion, is the definition of the often parodied First World Problems. It's nothing more than a bunch of entitled children begging for relevance.

    If you want to make the world a better place (hell, if you want to feel morally superior for one reason or another), go out there and do something besides complaining about how the video game industry doesn't pander to you.

    I apologize for the rudeness, but I wished to be as honest and transparent about my motives as possible.

  • In The Grand #GamerGate Thread

    With all this proGG stuff around here, I thought I might throw in as the negative opinion.

    GamerGate is a current online movement that, at its core, demands more transparency, disclosure and truthfulness from Gaming Journalism. It condemns bias rooted in personal relations to people they are reporting on, and openly questions the journalists' integrity, due to various cases of collusion and favor-trading taking place.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a movement that was started by a witch hunt? Isn't there more than a bit of hypocrisy in the act of making it about questioning other peoples integrity?

    Yeah, there are a bunch of doxxing assholes on the anti-GG side, but there are a few on the GG side as well. In my opinion, its more of a mudslinging contest than 'gamers being persecuted'.

    And again, in my opinion, playing the victim card (when nothing has personally happened to you) is extremely hypocritical when the movement was started by a goddamn witch hunt.

    Say that you've moved on all you wish, but movements are forever defined by their first action, their moment of conception.

    It just so happens that this one was about an internet army rising when some dude bitched about his ex sleeping with other people for publicity.

    In short, I think this whole 'movement' thing is fucking ridiculous because it's about nothing but a bunch of entitled whiners complaining that a subsection of the entertainment industry doesn't work the way they want it to.

    It's the media? The act of publishing involves hiding as many things as you release. Its how it works? I mean, maybe I'd take it more seriously (or seriously at all) if it involved something actually, y'know big.

    Like maybe foreign relations and less 'they conspired to get better reviews on this sonic game '.

  • In If you could send one device back in time to your 10-year-old self....

    A book light. Ten year me was a fucking nerd (and also a major brat and doesn't deserve Nice Things.)

  • In The CL Internet Speedtest Thread

    Look at my super balanced stats