For Some, Star Citizen Is A Deeply Emotional Project

A cursory glance of social media and various forums is all it takes to see the depth of passion and reverence people hold for Star Citizen, and the people making it. That doesn't mean there aren't concerns, and many of those have been raised over the last few weeks and months.

A lot of those concerns have hit Sandi Gardiner, the wife of Chris Roberts and Star Citizen's VP of marketing, directly. And some of those couldn't help but flow out, albeit inadvertently, during CitizenCon's opening moments.

Rather than a traditional intro, Gardiner read out a letter. Perhaps it was a follow-up, or addition, to Chris's earlier public response to what Cloud Imperium Games has since termed "specific, slanderous allegations". Some of those were targeted at Gardiner directly: you can read CIG's response in full.

In any case, Gardiner's had a bad couple of weeks — and in an emotional, tearful delivery, the impact of that became apparent. "From being the target of an anonymous hate campaign, to flowers and gifts and many compliments from a lot of our fans — so thank you to all of you who wrote me a nice customer service ticket," she read.

Crowdfunding records and scope aside, one of the most fascinating elements about Star Citizen is the sheer amount of communication. It's in vogue for developers to be open with their fans, honest about delays and clear when it comes to release dates, progress and features. Developers are more accessible these days anyway — it's how social media works, after all.

But that also means people are more exposed. The gaming industry is famous for being fickle, to put it politely. It's capable of showering the objects of its affection with incredible love, while those that earn its ire can be subject to intense savagery. YouTube some videos of Lord Gaben, or spend some time browsing StarCraft forums to see the kind of respect afforded to David Kim.

At CitizenCon, Gardiner inadvertently revealed — in front of the faithful — some of that struggle. This is, after all, the wife of a husband who works seven days a week. A man who has been around the industry for decades, but stayed awake during the Kickstarter campaign for so long that he had to be accompanied into a hotel bed.

The company, as she read out amongst a string of facts and figures, has published 1622 Commlinks, 1406 Citizen Spotlights, 232 livestreams and 222 Deep Space Radars since crowdfunding efforts began nearly three years ago to the day. Not all of that is official communication from CIG themselves — much is just the republication or linking of content produced by fans.

That level of emotion can be a double-edged sword, particularly when people on either side of the divide interact. And as the coffers for Star Citizen continue to grow, more questions will continue to be asked. Gardiner's emotion was a brief window into those questions, and the pressure they bring.

Deep down most people, even if they're not backers or fans of space sims in general, want Star Citizen to succeed. Any failure, or perceived failure, would be an astronomical slight against the careers of hundreds, Chris Roberts, but also for crowdfunding generally. After all, we're talking hundreds of thousands of individual backers. Some may have spent thousands. Some have spent significantly less. But anything that goes awry could result in them spending less later on.

It's almost difficult to remember a climate where space sims were so out of vogue, but a time existed when Egosoft and X: Rebirth was considered one of the great hopes for those who wanted to fly around space. Evochron Mercenary and total conversions of Freespace 2 were solid recommendations if you wanted an authentic space experience. It was a legacy genre banished to the past, like the General series of games or the wave of action-arcade flight games from Jane's, MicroProse and others.

That pressure is immense and it takes its toll. On a weekend where Chinese Room composer Jessica Curry posted about the toll game development can take on you, Gardiner helped illuminate a side of development that isn't often seen. It's not that we don't see or hear from those who are working on a game; only that, like so much of the video strewn across the internet, we so rarely see the humans behind them.


Comments

    Not anonymous and not a hate campaign...

      The former staff who apparently contributed to the Escapist article were not revealed in the article. That is pretty close to anonymous, and the stuff they said about her would qualify as a hate campaign if it were not true or exaggerated.

        A campaign is not one article. And are you actually arguing against the press being able to protect sources?

          We aren't talking about the press, rather The Escapist. It might as well be a copy machine. Also we aren't talking about allegation against the government. The escapist doesn't have the credibility for people to assume they had sources. They did 3 hit pieces that makes fox news look like news. The Escapist provided no evidence. Their story has been changing about how they verified sources. The auther pointed to a blank card and said that was proof of employment. They already admit all of the sources came from the same source and all of them also acted in concert to post on glass door. Derek Smart had knowledge of the article before it was posted. He was clearly the source as every accusation had been posted on his blog.

          The Escapist is simply joining in an organised crime to harm CIG.
          They are attempting to extort money out of CIG. They are demanding all expenses paid trips.
          Do you know what extortion is? There is malice shown in their actions.

          The escapist had one ex employee only and he was from the Hamburg studio and had no allegations other than parroting what derek said and trashing CIG for expecting work out of his lazy ass... They didn't even know the position of Sandi. She is VP of marketing and not in human resources. The only thing that was correct was that Sandi and Chris are married.

          They refused to let CIG respond to the criminal accusations. They uplifted as mentally ill failure who doxxed chris's daughter. They posted her personal information and pictures of her in pediphilia forums. Why did The escapist up lift and cast as heroes those that would do that to a toddler?

          Press have zero protection in such regards. Lizzy would most likely be put in jail for contempt of court if she failed to reveal her sources.. I bet her crying children would change her mind.

            Lot of personal opinion presented as fact there.

            For the record, you can't dox someone with information their mother posted publicly.

            Come back with an account and I'd be happy to discuss further.

              You're mistaken as usual. Doxing is about finding and sharing personally identifiable information, not just private information.

              From Wikipedia:
              Doxing [...] is the Internet-based practice of researching and broadcasting personally identifiable information about an individual. The methods employed to acquire this information include searching publicly available databases and social media websites, [...]

              Oxford English Dictionary:
              search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the Internet, typically with malicious intent.

                So in this case, the mother doxxed her own daughter. Good stuff.

                  In this case, a person on Twitter posted pictures of a child to further his dispute with the child's parents. Are you suggesting that is in any way an appropriate course of action?

                  I do, because I bothered to research it. He covers why he posted the connection across several of his replies to the original tweet. Examples:

                  "THE PERKS OF BEING MARRIED TO YOUR BOSS. THINK ABOUT IT JUST FOR A SECOND""AS VP OF MARKETING AND MY HUSBAND AS MY BOSS I DECLARE MY SALARY BE ALLL THE MONEY"

      Being called and abusive racist by people who don't want their names revealed sounds like exactly both of those things.

        She's conflated the anonymous with the hate campaign. They are two separate things. Anonymous sources making serious claims are not a hate campaign. However, there are others who are taking a really aggressive stance against the project and attacking it and the people involved in it almost rabidly. That might be a hate campaign.

        And then there's Derek Smart, whom I'd say is neither anonymous nor conducting a hate campaign. An almost quixotic crusade, yes, but hatred...

          And yet only I get the down votes.

            Perhaps there might be things aside from content in the way you present your arguments that causes that to happen. Receptiveness, arrogance, compromise, ego, openness to changing one's opinion, there are lots of potential factors.

              Please discuss the posts, not the poster. And you are quite incorrect, the downvotes are referring to the topic of discussion, not the particular post.

                I am discussing your post. You were musing about why you were getting down votes when Zambayoshi doesn't.

                Last edited 16/10/15 4:14 am

                  Well I was being polite, but you were attacking the person instead of furthering the discussion. Against Kotaku guidelines. You should probably stop.

                  @234oufablrha987 There's nothing in my reply to you that in any way constitutes an attack. I simply mentioned some potential factors in why people downvote.

                  @zombiejesus

                  Ignorance, idiocy, misguided unedecuted sheeple, personal vested interests, these are also some reasons why perhaps some posts receive downvotes when they express opinions counter to gawker's stance.

                  Good talk.

                  @234oufablrha987 You seem confused. Gawker doesn't run Kotaku AU, Allure Media does. Allure licenses a lot of content from Gawker but Gawker has no say in the way Kotaku AU is moderated.

                  @zombiejesus

                  Your statement does not disagree with mine. Nothing is allowed here that counters gawker's stance on anything. Allure media's sister company Gawker.

      Completely anonymous, alleged accusations that are unproven, and slandered for Federal crimes are not light.

      Maybe if you're not familiar with the definition of "anonymous"

        You're absolutely right. The press should not be able to have anonymous sources. If someone is upset, they should be able to access those confidential details.

          In certain circumstances, it's possible to seek the communications with and identity of those sources by going to court. It would seem that unless you are going to court and seeking legal redress against either the publisher or the sources themselves, you don't need to know the identity in order to respond to the allegations. Discriminatory and/or abusive behaviour either happened or it didn't.

            Yep. She can publicly deny the allegations. Or she can take the Escapist to court, reveal the sources, and see what impact that has on the validity of the allegations.

          I'm not sure why when someone states that the sources are anonymous you are taking that as the person arguing that the sources should be revealed. But I'm guessing that doing this is the reason why you are getting downvoted.

            Can't complain about the sources being anonymous. Can't complain about the allegations unless they are proven false. She is doing both and linking that to other things and labelling it a hate campaign. The evidence does not support this claim. That is my point. Suspect that is why I'm getting upvotes.

              What evidence is that? As far as I'm aware, no evidence has been presented supporting any of the allegations made.

                Try rereading the post:

                labelling it a hate campaign. The evidence does not support this claim.

                  I'd say some of the tweets she's received have been pretty over the line.

                  Last edited 16/10/15 4:12 am

                  If you've received them from multiple people persistently in a short timeframe that attack you personally, that would fit the bill, yes.

                  The meaning is clear enough to me. If there's something particular you're unclear on, the usual solution is to ask. I'm more than happy to clarify my answer for you.

                  Define persistently define short. Since you have tried to define hate campaign, you should define your definition.

                  All from Oxford dictionary:

                  persistent: Continuing to exist or occur over a prolonged period

                  short: Lasting or taking a small amount of time

                  hate campaign: An organized series of hostile actions motivated by intense dislike or prejudice

                  I'm sure you'll ask the context of 'prolonged' in the first definition so I'm including that too.

                  prolonged: Continuing for a long time or longer than usual; lengthy

                  So using these, my statement can be restated as: If you've received offensive tweets from multiple people over a period longer than usual (which for internet abuse is typically no more than a day or two), particularly if those multiple tweets are condensed in a short amount of time (in this case, a few weeks) and those tweets attack you personally, then that would fit the description of a hate campaign.

                  That's paraphrasing, not restating. And your paraphrased definition of a hate campaign is still woefully inadequate.

                  Two people tweet twice over two days is a hate campaign? That fits your definition.

      I take it as somewhat clear that she's referring to messages she's received from people, whether it be Twitter, Facebook, emails or forums; not the Escapist sources.

    This game is going to be incredible, the people working on this game are under immense pressure to get the thing out and to get it right. They have done amazing things in the spotlight where other companies are afforded far more time and privacy during development. With that said I am blown away by the content so far and hope the future continues to be as good.

    Forer staff always complaing, this is why they are former...

    All those alegations already proved as lies, only who want to see the bad side believe in that

      There's proof that Sandi Gardiner wasn't abusive and didn't say "we aren't hiring a black girl"? Pretty hard things to prove. Last I heard these things were disputed but not proven beyond doubt one way or another.

        there is no proof that she did, just anonymous sources saying she did so lets just give her the benefit of the doubt here because you know innocent until proven guilty right.

        I could say that you are a racist homophobic because I have sources that refuse to be named telling me that its true, that doesn't make me right.

          Sure, I get what you are saying. All I'm saying is that the facts are disputed. The poster above me was saying that there was proof that the allegations were lies, which I wasn't aware of.

            basically the complete lack of proof that it ever happened at all is proof that it never happened since the burden of proof is on the accuser not the person being accused.

              Not quite. You have people who say they witnessed it. Now, what weight you give their evidence when they remain anonymous is up to you, but it's not the same as saying there is no evidence. There's no conclusive proof either way, which is why I said the facts are disputed. I wouldn't reach for my pitchfork on the strength of what has been put forward, but neither would I ignore what is being claimed altogether, as some are advocating.

              Can't prove a negative. And there is no accuser since the accusations against her are not part of a legal case. The press are allowed to publish anonymous sources. The onus is on them to investigate the claims appropriately. How much credence you give the press's claims is your own choice.

                Where do you get the idea that making an accusation can only be done in the context of a legal case? The Escapist sources have clearly made some serious accusations against the company, none of which have been supported by evidence. This isn't the first time the Escapist has published claims without evidence either, and has been rightly criticised by GamerGate and others for it in the past.

                "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." - Hitchens' Razor

                  Where do you get the idea I have that idea?

                  To be specific, they have not produced evidence. Yet. They currently have no obligation to.

                  Oh, you bring up Hitchens? His quote from GING, a perfect study in bias generation? Even the statement itself self-refutes. He has no evidence for it, therefore it is dismissed. Still, it looks pretty when you type it out like that.

                  @234oufablrha987

                  Where do you get the idea I have that idea?

                  Probably when you said

                  And there is no accuser since the accusations against her are not part of a legal case

                  Hitchens' statement is an axiom, not an argument. It's a restatement of the much older quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur, a rule of thumb that itself restates the more formal logical law (p -> q) ^ p |- q, which is that a conclusion is not sound in the absence of proof of premise.

                  Last edited 15/10/15 10:42 pm

                  @zombiejesus

                  The difference between allegation and accusation is subtle but established. Again, please don't attack the person making the post. If it doesn't further the discussion, you probably shouldn't post it.

                  I never called it an argument? I'd suggest you look at your wording. Dismiss, as in refrain from discussion without making a conclusion. So go ahead and dismiss whatever you like, that is your prerogative.

                  @234oufablrha987 There's no difference between the words as you used them. Per Oxford dictionary:

                  accusation: A charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrongallegation: A claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof

                  All allegations are accusations. This is why the dictionary lists accusation and allegation as synonyms.

                  So once again, could you please explain your sentence, "And there is no accuser since the accusations against her are not part of a legal case"?

                  @zombiejesus

                  Do you see the difference in you're two quotes? The proof bit. Get it? Like, GET IT? Ain't rocket science here.

                  But hey, anytime you want to stop attacking me personally and actually further the discussion, that'd be ace

                  @234oufablrha987 Did you see the term 'typically'? You haven't assumed it means 'always', surely. Did you also see that the definition of accusation is broader than the definition of allegation, and that all allegations are also accusations, by definition?

                  There are, yet again, no personal attacks here. I'm addressing the content of your argument directly - the words you wrote. Once again, please explain your sentence "and there is no accuser since the accusations against her are not part of a legal case", in particular the words 'there is no accuser'.

                  Last edited 16/10/15 2:43 pm

                  @zombiejesus

                  Did you see the term 'typically'? So it doesn't apply in every situation. You choose to apply it, I don't. Both are valid points. This isn't the point of the discussion, so let's return to it?
                  the definition of accusation is broader than the definition of allegation, and that all allegations are also accusations, by definition? Nope. As I said, appreciable and definable difference. Like you quoted. Actually, its the opposite. Everything is an allegation until it is supported by evidence, at which point it becomes an accusation. Good talk.

                  There are, yet again, no personal attacks here. I'm addressing the content of your argument directly - the words you wrote. My accusation stands, but by all means, let us return to the actual topic.

                  explain your sentence "and there is no accuser since the accusations against her are not part of a legal case", in particular the words 'there is no accuser'. Show me the accuser and their supporting evidence.

                  @234oufablrha987

                  You're mistaken again. The definition is very clear, an allegation is an accusation without evidence. Your interpretation to the reverse, that an accusation is an allegation with evidence, is not supported by the definition of accusation, which has no requirement for evidence. The clause beginning with 'typically' qualifies the first clause, it doesn't modify it.

                  You're welcome to accuse me of whatever you like, there's no evidence to support your accusation so it's somewhat meaningless. At least you used the word correctly there though, unlike earlier.

                  Show me the accuser and their supporting evidence.

                  1. The accusers are the anonymous sources quoted in the Escapist article.
                  2. Accusations don't require evidence, as per the definition I provided to you above.

                  You've again avoided answering the question. Can you explain what you mean by your sentence "and there is no accuser since the accusations against her are not part of a legal case"? Or can we take it as given at this point that because you misunderstood the meaning of the word, you're conceding that you made a mistake?

                  @zombiejesus

                  Right right right, except where the media use the qualifier "Allegedly" where they have no evidence to support their statement. To avoid being accused. In court. Of making accusations without any supporting evidence. Whereas anyone can allege anything they like. And frequently do. I've seen it happen on this site. Daily.

                  "Allegedly" is advised against in a number of news style guides, Reuters for example. The Associated Press stylebook states "crimes are alleged, people are accused". Here are a small sample of news media using the word "accused" or "accusation" in cases where there were no legal proceedings, in line with the definition I gave you above.

                  Reuters:
                  Sudan accused of withholding rations for Darfur peacekeepers
                  Trump accused of “no-show” by Hispanic business group
                  German authorities accused of playing down refugee shelter reports
                  A Russian provincial lawmaker who, in a rare show of defiance, accused the Kremlin of lying about whether it sent its forces to fight in Ukraine was stripped of his seat in the local parliament on Thursday.
                  Spanish PM hits back at Greek accusation of anti-Athens 'axis'

                  Associated Press:
                  Putin, without naming the United States, accused Washington of trying to enforce its will on others.
                  Members of the opposition Labor Party accused Turnbull of flip-flopping for political expediency.
                  But House Speaker John Boehner accused Obama of "ignoring the concerns of the American people" by allowing "such a consequential vote" to go ahead in the U.N.
                  SeaWorld suspends worker accused of posing as PETA activist.
                  They are happening as critics accuse state lawmakers of failing the education system.

                  BBC News:
                  'Damonsplaining': Matt Damon accused of insensitivity
                  Prime Minister David Cameron has accused some Muslim communities of quietly approving of the ideology of Islamic State.
                  Surrey council accused of hypocrisy over tobacco investments
                  Labour accused the government of failing to honour promises to boost funding.
                  'Wasted money' accusation over women's prisons

                  None of these uses of the term relate to legal proceedings. Your understanding of the meaning of the two terms is mistaken. Can we safely say that you withdraw your comment on that basis?

                  @zombiejesus

                  In all of those instances the accusers believed they had evidence for their claims. Great use of google, poor application.

                  Good talk.

                  @234oufablrha987

                  In all of those instances the accusers believed they had evidence for their claims.

                  Please provide evidence to support your claim that this is the case.

        They claims she didn't want to hire black people or people over 40, yet there's multiple employees that fit either description evidenced in multiple videos on their site.

        That's stronger evidence than the claims of the anonymous sources can provide. We also don't know exactly how "verified" their claims are by the reporter. A reporter that took a generic key card as "employee id" mind you.

    Not to mention some of the more ego - driven critics trying to make her kids a part of the narrative and smear campaign. That would get to anyone.

      No-one tried to make her kids a part of anything. She herself put her daughter's photo and other information on the internet. Her daughter is a child actor. Chris Roberts has built Derek Smart up into the root of all evil and made some pretty wild accusations (some might say the same kind of wild accusations that Smart himself makes).

        There's a huge difference between having children with a public internet presence, and someone holding up pictures of your children in an attempt to attack and discredit you, as well as destroy the project you're working on. Do you really think it's okay to use children as attack ammunition? How about some basic human decency and leave the children out of it? There's no need for that.

        (And if you're really trying to go into apologetics for DS, you must have never googled him. He's been famous for his lies and personal attacks for decades.)

        You can't seriously believe what you're saying. Her daughter's public profile has no connection to Sandi, the person who dug that information up had to use Facebook posts Sandi had made mentioning her daughter and cross-referencing them with the girl's IMDB profile. Even if there was an obvious public connection, what purpose was there in posting pictures of her at all?

        Using a child as ammunition or leverage, publishing her photo in a dispute with her parents is well and truly over the line. She's a child, Zambayoshi. You never bring children into this kind of nonsense. If you genuinely believe that was in any way appropriate or acceptable, you have a deeply corrupt sense of ethics.

        Last edited 14/10/15 8:56 pm

          Dude, I think you may have misunderstood exactly how Skye Roberts was 'used' in the dispute. As far as I know, the only reference to her was when DS commented that a photo on IMDB of Sandi with Skye was taken down. At the time, he was talking about how Chris and Sandi were (apparently) trying to hide the fact they were married. I'm pretty sure DS never talked about the Skye in any way apart from incidentally. Add to this the fact that Skye has her own IMDB listing, with photos and film information, and I think claims that Skye was doxxed are ludicrous. No-one is attacking, criticising or even talking about her in any way.

            Actually, you've misunderstood how she was used. Derek Smart is irrelevant to this topic, you're the only one that's mentioned him in this thread. Sicario said critics brought her up, I said a person used her and published her photo on Twitter to try to draw the connection between Sandi, Robert and the kid. That person was not Derek Smart. Pulling personally identifiable information up is doxing, whether it's publicly accessible or not. The guy pulled information on a child and published her picture on Twitter over something that has nothing at all to do with her, because of a dispute he has with her parents. Sorry, but that's absolutely over the line.

            Edited to add: I'm not going to link to the tweet in question because I want no part in spreading it any further than it already has been. You can find it in @istheguy's tweet history (28 Sep) if you want to see it.

            Last edited 15/10/15 11:57 am

              OK, sorry, I did misread your comment. I assumed you were referring to Derek Smart because that's who I mentioned in my original comment.

              I saw the tweet you referred to. I am still of the view that the purpose behind the tweet was in no way intended to encourage harassment or intimidation of Skye Roberts. At worst, you would think the purpose was to make people believe that Sandi's photo had been removed from the IMDB profile so that people wouldn't realise that she and Chris Roberts were married.

              I don't agree with what the tweet was trying to do (many people separate their professional and personal lives, and not for nefarious reasons) but I maintain that merely tweeting or linking information about someone without an intention to harm that person is acceptable.

              Saying that linking Skye's information potentially damages her parents and therefore indirectly damages Skye, well, I think that the causation would be too nebulous there. You might remember that Craig Thomson tried that argument as well. Saying that we should treat a parent with kid gloves merely because it might have some unintended side-effect on a spouse or a child is conferring responsibility where none is warranted

              Just to be clear - I don't support any of the personal attacks being made against Chris Roberts, Derek Smart or anyone else. I think the Star Citizen project and the actions and statements of those involved in it have generated some very interesting discussion points, such as this one. As the article says, I think a lot of people feel strongly about the project, but I also hope that polite discussion of the issues surrounding that project can take place without being tainted by personal attacks at those discussing them.

                I'm not talking about the image he posted about Sandi's photo being removed from Skye's IMDB page, go back 3 more days and there's an earlier tweet. As I mentioned in my earlier reply, he cross-referenced photos and personal posts from more than one site to make the connection he wanted to make, posting at least two pictures of Skye in the process, one of which was from Sandi's Facebook page. It's creepy as fuck, His post was what triggered the image removal on IMDB, as well as every post Sandi made about Skye on her Facebook being changed to private. I think any parent would be disturbed by that kind of thing popping up involving pictures of their kid.

                I don't buy that his goal wasn't to cause harm, I think he posted it with a very clear intention to damage Roberts' and Gardiner's reputations. His somewhat melodramatic all-caps follow-up tweets were much more explicit that he thinks Gardiner having a job at Roberts' company is a serious conflict of interest (it isn't) and he wants them to pay for this supposed crime. If you look through the replies you'll see there's actually a lot of people calling him out for crossing the line there too, though his responses are firmly unrepentant.

                  Ok, I saw that one too. I think it's clear he wanted to do an exposé on Sandi and Chris being married, and using the information about Skye (which was publicly available) was his 'evidence'. Not supporting what he did - as I said, people separating themselves from their spouses in the professional sphere is nothing new - but I think it is fair to say that there was no malice towards Skye at all. Saying that she was 'doxxed', a term with negative connotations of harassment and incitement, is disingenuous, attempting to paint the tweeter as desirous of harassing a child, when in my view he clearly wasn't.

    It's also a big target for journalists who can get easy clicks by making any kind of claim while at the same time denouncing calls for clear evidence as the backlash from the "angry cult."
    It's a fundamentally dishonest way of communication, made all the more odious in that the slander is cloaked in alleged concern for the state of gaming.
    The vivid irony is that very type of reporting found in the Escapist and Forbes is the very thing that harms gaming (in my persona view)

    Last edited 13/10/15 4:46 am

      I agree that journalists can take advantage, but you are talking about silencing potential whistleblowers. Who's going to come forward with allegations of abuse if every journalist says that he or she won't publish? The irony is that Star Citizen, by creating a special class of people with a vested interest in the project's success, has also enabled those people to attack 'outsiders' whom they see as trying to wreck the game. To many 'backers' or 'pledgers', CIG can do no wrong. Saying that reports by the Escapist harm gaming is unnecessarily (and inaccurately) dramatising what is otherwise a serious issue. If there are allegations of misconduct, those allegations should be aired, not smothered because 'no-one is allowed to attack the golden child'. That's the very thing that people like Robert Hughes and Rolf Harris relied upon to get away with what they did.

        if those allegations were prove correct and sourced properly I dont see why they can be made, its when the accusations are made without evidence that people have an issue with it and rightly so.

        Last edited 13/10/15 12:13 pm

          I don't disagree. It's the difference between 'having an issue' with the veracity of the accusations and shouting down the accusers that I have a problem with. The internet is a place where people feel free to express outrage at the drop of a hat, and to attack anyone with a contrary opinion to what they believe is 'acceptable'. It works both ways, providing a platform to those whose views diverge greatly from the mainstream, and also to those wishing to attack those views. I'm all for letting people express themselves freely, but it is sad if people feel unable to express themselves because they are fearful of being targeted with personal attacks and threats.

            its a difficult situation right, people are passionate and on the internet where everything seems to be magnified that becomes a bigger issue, basically I think if you make claims and accusations against something like this you better be able to back up your claims with evidence.

            if people are making baseless claims I'm glad they are being shot down, because the fact of the matter is even if something is true or not saying it can change peoples perspective on things, it brings doubt and causes harm to whoever it is about regardless if its found to be true or false.

              I disagree that people should stay quiet unless they have 'conclusive' proof of something, merely so as to avoid creating doubt. The beauty of being an independent thinker is that you can make up your own mind based on what both sides are saying. We shouldn't bury our heads in the sand, saying 'please don't say anything to rock my world-view'. The only area I would agree with you is where people are saying something with either no evidence (remembering that their eye-witness account is in fact evidence) or by extension deliberately claiming something when they know it to be false. Imagine you had evidence of something bad happening but you were too scared to come forward because you thought no-one would believe you, but then someone else comes forward with the same claim. Sometimes the very fact that someone else is in the same boat is encouraging. Look at what happened with Bill Cosby. Another case where there is no conclusive proof (that I know of) but people coming forward with eye-witness accounts have encouraged others to break their silence. Rolf Harris and Jimmy Savile were other cases. If someone comes forward they should be sure of what they are saying, but they shouldn't be scared to say it for fear of not being believed.

    Actually to me it seems like maybe those people work for an abusive terrible company, but also don't have another job lined up yet and don't want to be fired. As a person who's been in the situation of working in a workplace where bullying is the way that they "motivate" their workforce I can relate pretty closely to wanting to tell people and also not be fired.

      In the absence of evidence, the allegations remain hearsay. We live in a culture that believes in innocence until guilt is proven, it's not appropriate to witch hunt and trash the name and reputation of people or companies without it. Even if false, the mere existence of some allegations causes significant and often long-term damage to the victim because some people act on the assumption it's true.

      If it's proven that CIG has been mistreating staff and breaking the law I'll be condemning them right alongside everyone else, but I'm not going to use unproven allegations to make these people feel stressed and attacked without cause.

      Did you read the reply CIG posted and linked in the article? The sources are apparently known to CIG as former employees who've been fired. They tried to sell their story to other publishers but were refused due to lack of evidence and proof. Also the writer of the article on the Escapist seems to have strong ties to Derek Smart. So seems like total BS to me, especially when Derek Smart contacts Chris Roberts just before publication of the article letting him know that some previous employees are talking.

      Last edited 13/10/15 9:01 am

        Derek Smart has been set up as a convenient straw man. So what if he's been behind the scenes encouraging these sources to tell their stories or encouraging outlets to report on it? Unless he's conspired to actually fabricate the claims, the sources are still the ones making the allegations, not Derek Smart.

        Furthermore, just because someone has been fired does not mean that they are lying. They deserve a chance to tell their side of the story without being shouted down as people 'with an axe to grind'.

          Telling their story is reasonable. The problem is allegations tend to stick around and cause damage even when they're proven false. As an extreme example, a friend of mine was accused of rape a few years ago. He was acquitted and the person who made the accusation ended up being charged with filing a false report, but the 'rapist' stigma still affects him even today even though it's completely baseless.

          I agree that it's important that people should be able to tell their story, but Escapist reported serious allegations of illegal conduct that, whether true or not, will affect the reputations of the people involved. Accusing senior managers of calling staff faggots and retards and high-level abuse without evidence is one thing, publishing those allegations without asking for or receiving evidence they happened is something else.

          As for Derek Smart, there's a few things that raise questions. He did state that he gave sources to Escapist, which isn't anything untoward. However others have found that some of the ID checking Escapist did on those sources was dodgy - in particular, one source provided a company ID card that was accepted as evidence of employment, but it was later found that CIG doesn't use company ID cards. That raises some serious doubts as to the validity of the sources Escapist used for their articles, sources that were provided by Smart.

            Yeah, I agree that it was a tough call on the part of the Escapist whether or not to publish. I think that both the source ID verification and the diligence in seeking comment from CIG were somewhat problematic, to put it in neutral language. Nevertheless, Escapist did say in the article that the sources were anonymous, so I think the onus is on the reader to take that into account. We're still only talking about public opinion rather than a criminal investigation. Presumably either none of the sources were the target of the alleged discrimination/abuse or alternatively they were the targets and are too scared of going public with a criminal or administrative complaint.

              Escapist did say in the article that the sources were anonymous, so I think the onus is on the reader to take that into account.

              The expectations of the reader is that the sources were verified by the author but did not want to reveal their identity to the outside world.

              We're still only talking about public opinion rather than a criminal investigation.

              its hardly public opinion the article tries to pass these accusations off as facts, and they are pretty big accusations, embezzlement, racist and ageist hiring practices, I mean come on there's a line that gets crossed when you start accusing people of that sort of thing with no real evidence to back it up, maybe forgivable if it was someones personal blog but this stuff was posted on a supposedly reputable gaming news website, the wider community are meant to be able to trust that these sorts of places are doing their due diligence to provide information backed up by facts.

                My reading of the Escapist article was that the allegations were clearly attributed to sources, not presented as fact. I'd happily reconsider if that's not the case, since that would be unethical and probably actionable.

                  mm wish I could find the original version of the article, the update shows a lot more information in terms of where the accusations come from in terms of their numbered anonymous sources. will keep looking, if you want to see escapists position on the whole thing though have a listen to this podcast.

                  http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escapist-podcast/57500-Crowdfunding-Podcast

                  or read through this transcript

                  https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/3nbg31/escapist_follow_up_podcast_on_cig_employees/

                  also I assume you have read the response from CR located here.

                  https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/14979-Chairmans-Response-To-The-Escapist

                Remember when Patricia Hernandez attacked Max Temkin over false rape allegations? And then Totilo retracted her story, but didn't say the story was wrong? Is that the expectations you have as a reader of Kotaku? Were you even aware of the bias, the public vilification, the refusal to apologize to Max or correct their readers?

                  That'd be this article, which has a note from Totilo at the bottom that explains why it was rewritten, as well as a link to the original article. I know your comment was directed at hyper1 and not me, but I'll note that many many people lambasted Kotaku for the original article, myself included (about halfway down the comments section). It's not appropriate conduct for any publication, whether it's the Escapist or Kotaku.

                  Note that link to the original was not in the first note. They fully retracted the article however refused to say what they did was wrong. So actually, that is worse than what Escapist has done.

                  Yet hyper is still hear reading and believing Kotaku. So by his own behaviour, thats the only punishment Escapist should have: none at all.

                  to be perfectly honest I dont know the articles you are talking about, never read or heard of them but from your descriptions they sound like pretty dodgy articles.

                  @hyper1

                  Yep. Supremely dodgy. So all your feelings of mistrust and anger towards the Escapist? You should be displaying double towards Kotaku here. They crossed that line you referred to earlier.

                  Last edited 15/10/15 7:17 pm

                  Nonsense. hyper1 has no obligation to react to something that happened a year ago that he wasn't present for and was corrected in days. As someone who was there at the time myself and was critical of the article, your stance here is plainly insincere.

                  Where was your comment, as an aside? You had other accounts active on Kotaku when that article was posted, why didn't you respond? Why are you still "hear [sic] reading" this website given you've criticised hyper1 for doing the same thing?

                  Last edited 15/10/15 11:12 pm

                  @zombiejesus

                  You're perfectly right, there is no obligation to react to anything. Ever. So everyone just stop learning. Fantastic point you make.

                  Please refrain from attacking the poster. Further the discussion or keep it to yourself, okay?

                  And if you have any evidence for any of your allegations, please feel free to present that here. Otherwise, again, keep it to yourself please.

                  I haven't attacked you here. I've asked you why the standards you hold others to aren't also applied to yourself. Where was your reply to the linked article and why are you still reading Kotaku? By your own logic, that means you believe that's the only punishment Kotaku should receive: none. Is that accurate? If not, why not?

                  @zombiejesus

                  Show me where I held him to a standard? Show me where I didn't uphold this fictional standard you created? Why should I give you my reply? What do you know about what I do? You're making claims you have no basis for.

                  You're no longer furthering discussion, you are trying to attack me personally. You take 2hrs a day to reply to me personally, dude, get a life.

                  You have a very odd definition of what constitutes a personal attack.

                  Where you held hyper1 to a standard:

                  Yet hyper is still hear reading and believing Kotaku. So by his own behaviour, thats the only punishment Escapist should have: none at all.

                  You should be displaying double towards Kotaku here.

                  Where you haven't upheld the same standard:
                  A) You haven't commented at the linked article on any of your other accounts.
                  B) You're still reading and commenting on Kotaku.

                  Oh, by the way. "Dude, get a life"? That's a personal attack. Please discuss the posts, not the poster.

                  Last edited 16/10/15 3:04 pm

                  False rape allegations?

                  Do you have the court case documents in which they were proven false?

                  Or did you just get your information from /r/MensRights as usual?

                  @hyper1

                  Now we see... allegation was made, not supported with evidence, thus dismissed. If you are going to make a claim, go ahead and support it. I'll wait.

                  Don't frequent reddit. Do you get a lot from it?

                  @zombiejesus

                  "Yet hyper is still hear reading and believing Kotaku. So by his own behaviour, thats the only punishment Escapist should have: none at all." That is an observation and conclusion. Tell me where I asked or told him how to behave? Spoiler: Didn't happen.

                  "You should be displaying double towards Kotaku here." Again, a conclusion based on observation. Of course, if you want to take that line out of context, go ahead.

                  A) You haven't commented at the linked article on any of your other accounts. I have no obligation to disclose any of my actions. Go on with whatever you were thinking.

                  B) You're still reading and commenting on Kotaku. That's the basis for your false syllogism. I always try not to draw a conclusion too soon. Commenting on the evidence as it appears is far more appropriate.

                  Oh, by the way. "Dude, get a life"? That's a personal attack. Please discuss the posts, not the poster. I apologise for that. I'm sure it isn't relevant to you. Would you like me to remove it from the post?

                  Tell me where I asked or told him how to behave? Spoiler: Didn't happen.
                  You should be displaying double towards Kotaku here.

                  You literally quoted the evidence to counter your claim on the very next line after you claim it didn't happen. Thank you for proving my point.

                  As an aside, in your comment on false accusations, you've misunderstood a core logical principle: absence of proof is not proof of absence. The claims against Temkin were unproven, not proven false. It's rare for claims of that nature to be proven false, usually a rock-solid alibi will do it. It might sound like a nitpick but it's an important distinction - we don't know the claims were false, we just know they weren't proven true. Hernandez's original article operated on the assumption they were true, which was wrong.

                  Last edited 17/10/15 8:02 am

                  You literally quoted the evidence to counter your claim on the very next line after you claim it didn't happen. Thank you for proving my point. Unfortunately "should" is not an instruction. But thanks for playing.

                  As an aside, in your comment on false accusations, you've misunderstood a core logical principle: absence of proof is not proof of absence.

                  I act on the evidence I can find. I'm not doing anything on a guess, hunch or feeling that evidence is possibly in existence. You seem to operate on precedence and averages. My research into Temkin showed enough evidence for me to label the claim as false. Every proceeding development supports that theory. Nothing has ever been shown to support the rape allegation.

                  'Should' is a modal verb that indicates obligation or expectation. Are you suggesting that your sentence "You should be displaying double towards Kotaku here" doesn't indicate an action you expect hyper1 should be undertaking? If not, please explain what you meant by this sentence.

                  My research into Temkin showed enough evidence for me to label the claim as false.

                  Please share the evidence you have that the claim was false. As I noted above, it's difficult to prove a claim like sexual assault false, but you seem confident and as someone who followed the story, I'm definitely interested to see it. To the best of my knowledge no such evidence has been uncovered.

        owww my privilege :(

          That is a large assumption.

            I'm pretty sure I'm the best person to comment on my own privilege but thanks anyway. Yours seems to be doing well ;)

              Really? So the best person to comment on their privilege is that person. No one else has a better opinion or view? Careful, that's what the MRAs say.

      I agree. Blacklisting is an unfortunate reality in many industries. Look at what happened to Allistair Pinsof: he had a falling out with the powers that be at Destructoid, and there is some evidence to show that certain people at Destructoid (a) threatened to change his tagline on all articles at Destructoid written by him, and (b) contacted other outlets to discourage them from taking him on after he left. I think even an ex-employee would be very brave to out themselves as a source of the type of claims made to the Escapist, particularly if they wanted to continue working in the industry.

    I hate to bring up the issue of ethics in game journalism but the author of the Escapist piece is hardly unbiased. The way the matter was handled was the presentation of a hatchet job - and one that played directly to the sympathies of the Escapist's Gamergate-leaning audience.

    A cynical reading would suggest all of this has produced exactly the desired outcome for the Escapist.

      What sympathies would pro GGers have with attacking Star Citizen?

      And you are saying that an unethical piece of journalism would resonate with a group who argue for ethical journalism? I don't understand that stance.

        That's the point.

        The author is pro-GG but puts out an unethical article.

        It would be ironic if anyone actually believed GG was about ethics in games journalism.

        But it isn't.

        As to why the GG audience would be interested in attacking Star Citizen, just take a look at the comments on the escapist forums.

        Ragey neckbeardy beasties who subsist on video games outrage with a dollop of faux libertarianism and a very large dose of conspiracy theorising.

          1) Only unethical if it is proven that the sources were wrong and not properly investigated.
          2) You are mistaken, that is not irony.
          3) Thanks to GG we have sites such as kotaku actually providing disclosure, not to mention new FCC laws specifically requiring disclosure in youtube videos.
          4) Are you saying the escapist forums are only populated with the entirety of the pro GG population?
          5) Any other groups you want to offensively stereotype? I can link you to multiple prominent pro GGers who are not any of those things.

            OMG THE FCC CHANGED THE LAWS THANKS TO GG>>>>???

            Go home, you're drunk.

            but since you seem to enjoy this kind of thing:

            1) That's not how journalistic ethics works. You can easily publish unethical stories with correct sources that are investigated. For example, publishing only one side of the story - like in this instance.

            2) If you actually READ what you responded to I in fact stated that it wasn't irony. Because everyone knows GG is about misogynistic neckbeards and has nothing to do with ethics in games journalism. You know, because it's all about screaming at Sarkeesian instead of investigating ACTUAL ethics issues like the millions of dollars spent by A list producers on influencing journos. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good moral panic.

            3) LOL. No.

            4) Did I say that? No. Read what I said again if you have comprehension difficulties.

            5) Go on. Link me to these mythical pro GG ers who are ACTUALLY discussing ethics in games journalism.

            Actually don't bother. I was a games journalist for over a decade. I know all about the ethics issues and not once has GG even come close to discussing them.

            It's just a bunch of entitled neckbeards upset their treehouse has been 'invaded' by ideas they don't like.

            Deal with it.

              Sorry about that. Hopefully you come to terms with your bitterness. Good luck with everything.

              You clearly only see what you want to. No point educating someone who willfully remains ignorant.

              Last edited 16/10/15 1:42 pm

                I'm not bitter :)

                I'm loving the fact that GG is the last hurrah of whingey dudes who conflate their ideological issues and insecurities with actual issues (and a bunch of rape and death threats).

                Gaming is no longer the exclusive preserve of white middle class dudes. In fact, in a decade or so, they will be an endangered species.

                This is a good thing, and it's awesome watching them scream as their privileges are eroded.

                It's a form of mass mental illness when you have thousands of people posting millions of comments about 'ethics in game journalism' but all they talk about is 'feminists' and 'SJWs' as opposed to 'marketing executives' 'promotional junkets' and 'professional sinecures'.

                Granted, many GG'ers are just utterly stupid people instead of being mentalists but they are in the minority.

                Anyone with even a handful of functioning brain cells can tell that the ethical issues come from global corporations not a handful of people in the indie dev scene.

                If you believe otherwise you're not NECESSARILY a misogynist twat but it's certainly an extremely high likelihood.

                  a bunch of rape and death threatsShow me a pro GGer who has threatened and harassed who has not been rejected by the majority. Like any fanatic, and appropriately so. Do you know how many pro GG events have been disrupted by bomb threats? Even the ones in Australia?

                  Gaming is no longer the exclusive preserve of white middle class dudes.#notyourshield supports GG and your statement. I'm happy we agree there.

                  Don't think you are reading the right material if you think ethics in journalism is the only catch cry. And your "thousands" and "millions" are very inaccurate estimations. Where did you get that data?

                  Anyone with even a handful of functioning brain cells can tell that the ethical issues come from global corporations not a handful of people in the indie dev scene. I don't think that. I don't know anyone that does? Is there unethical conduct in the indie dev scene? I believe so. I certainly don't condemn the entire scene because of that. Indies are great.

                  If you believe otherwise you're not NECESSARILY a misogynist twat but it's certainly an extremely high likelihood. These generalistions and stereotypes, to me that just demonstrates a clear bias. Please note, I'm not saying you are wrong, just that your opinions, to me, show a bias. And again, please note, while I disagree with you, I will support your right to state how you feel. See, I'm all about the inclusion. We are all gamers and we all have opinions. I won't try to label you, shame you, or exclude you because of your opinions. Can you honestly say the same?

                  @burnside

                  And here is the evidence that GGers were not actually harassing anyone.

                  http://womenactionmedia.org/cms/assets/uploads/2015/05/wam-twitter-abuse-report.pdf

                  Sooooooooo....

                  If GG isn't about ethical issues from the Indie dev scene.....

                  What IS it about?

                  I can see the millions of pages of GG screaming about Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian.

                  But for some reason I can't see millions more of investigation, information gathering and criticism of AAA+ studios

                  Since you're clearly a card carrying, fedora-wearing member of GamerGate, you can illustrate to me that this is a serious movement that is incisively examining the undue influence of advertising dollars on the gaming journalism sector...

                  ...as opposed to a truckload of neckbeardies grasping for thin justifications for their misogyny and bigtory.

                  There's hidden forums, right?

                  Tens of millions of SECRET posts where GG'ers reasonably and clearly examine the ethical issues of journalism?

                  And the millions of CLEAR and OPEN posts in which they screech about SJW's and feminists are just a clever 'false narrative'?

                  Right?

                  Right?

                  @234oufablrha987 The report you linked doesn't support your claim that "GGers were not actually harassing anyone". In fact, it does say that 12% of abusive accounts were identified with GamerGate.

                  This source is particularly surprising coming from you, given your support of Derek Smart, considering the dataset used to identify GamerGate supporters came from ggautoblocker by Randi Harper, a woman who added Derek Smart over a conflict unrelated to GamerGate at all. As the saying goes, "junk in, junk out". Are you sure you want to use this source to support your claims?

                  @burnside

                  I can see the millions of pages of GG screaming about Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian. Then you're looking at the wrong millions of pages.

                  Since you're clearly a card carrying, fedora-wearing member of GamerGate The old "with us or against us" is it? You really seem to like excluding and isolating people that don't share your view. Isn't that how you would describe pro GGers? And for the record, I have made no claim of support or not. This is a discussion, treat it as such. Also, never owned a fedora?

                  you can illustrate to me that this is a serious movement that is incisively examining the undue influence of advertising dollars on the gaming journalism sector... I made no such claim. I like deepfreeze.it that is a step in the right direction. I like the RECENT BUT ENTIRELY UNRELATED changes by the FTC (not FCC) that require youtubers to disclose when they are being paid to promote a product.

                  ...as opposed to a truckload of neckbeardies grasping for thin justifications for their misogyny and bigtory. So Christina Hoff Sommers is a misogynist? The other women and minorities that support it? The entirety of the #notyourshield tweeters? Brad Wardell? Hell, you are adding Ice T to that list?

                  There's hidden forums, right? Not sure what you mean. Have pro GG sites been taken down because of SJWs disagreeing with what they say? Yes. Has the reverse ever happened? Not that I'm aware of.

                  And the millions of CLEAR and OPEN posts in which they screech about SJW's and feminists are just a clever 'false narrative'? And every muslim who tweets about killing infidels is representative of every muslim? How about, since this is all about threats and harassment according to you, show me something like the Melbourne pro GGer meeting that had multiple bomb threats issued by 'anonymous' sources. But in the reverse.

                  Right? Wrong
                  Right? Wrong

                  As I said before, can't educate the willfully ignorant. If you aren't going to actually research the topic on both sides, then I'm not going to try. Take you raging slander elsewhere.

                  @zombiejesus

                  it does say that 12% of abusive accounts were identified with GamerGate. You've misunderstood the context. You can't claim that GG is about harassment and threats when only 12% of the harassment and threats were linked to them. Same way 12% of Canadians identify as evangelical Christians means I can't say Canadians are evangelical Christians.

                  given your support of Derek Smart, Never expressed any support. Have you confused me with someone else?

                  As the saying goes, "junk in, junk out". Yep, seeing a lot of that junk in your posts. Do you have a better source? A better dataset? What exactly are you saying about the cited study? Randi's autoblocker, while contradicting Twitter ToS, also blocked Richard Dawkins. Does anyone believe Richard Dawkins is a pro GGer? The autoblocker was so wildly overreaching and inaccurate it covered a massive swath of twitter. That is the strength of the study and dataset, not its weakness as you thought.

                  STOP HITTING YOURSELF 234oufablrha987

                  STOP HITTING YOURSELF

                  Seriously, when ARE you going to point to even one shred of evidence about the vast journalistic ethics conspiracy that the brave sex commandos of GG have uncovered?

                  Come on dude, EVIDENCE.

                  I don't mean a 4chan post of a screenshot of Zoe Quinn's Twitter feed with crudely drawn MSPaint arrows pointing to random letters and big comic sans comments like 'ILLUMINATI CONFIRMED' 'SUPPORTED BY HILARY CLINTON'S $$$' 'STEEL BEAMS = NOT MELTED'.

                  I mean an actual, researched investigation by GamerGaters that illustrates the millions of dollars poured by advertisers into games publications, links with advertising portrayed on sites, and evaluation of the coverage provided to AAA titles correlated with that spend.

                  You know, what GamerGate is ALLEGEDLY about.

                  Because so far, you've posted a massive pile of hot air but not answered the questions that have been repeatedly asked of you.

                  And we both know why.

                  I have 'researched the topic on both sides'.

                  I don't need you to educate me in the confabulated conspiracy theories and thinly veiled misogyny that is GamerGate, because I'm not mentally ill.

                  I know what the 'ethical issues' are in games journalism and can easily point to the evidence.

                  You on the other hand appear to subscribe to the reverse vampire/saucer people school of thought where you can't provide a shred of evidence AND THAT PROVES THE CONSPIRACY MUST BE TRUE.

                  2dank4me bro.

                  @burnside

                  You have evidence? By all means share it.

                  I'm under no obligation to 'defend' or 'convince' Gamergate to you. I disagree with your conclusion. Without offensive labeling, stereotyping, ranting or even capslocking. You clearly aren't looking at both sides, which is your choice to make.

                Replying here so as not to spam burnside.

                You've misunderstood the context. You can't claim that GG is about harassment and threats when only 12% of the harassment and threats were linked to them. Same way 12% of Canadians identify as evangelical Christians means I can't say Canadians are evangelical Christians.

                You seem confused about your own claim. Here is what you said:

                And here is the evidence that GGers were not actually harassing anyone.

                Your claim was that GamerGaters were not harassing anyone. The report clearly states that 12% of accounts responsible for harassment were identified as GamerGaters. This means that at least some GamerGaters were harassing someone, which means your source contradicts your claim.

                Yet more grammar education: If I make the statement 'pies don't contain apple', my statement is only true if no pies contain apple. If any pies contain apple, my statement was false. Likewise, your statement is only true if no GamerGaters harassed anyone. Since at least some did, your statement is false.

                Do you have a better source? A better dataset? What exactly are you saying about the cited study?

                You made the claim and used that report as your source. I've demonstrated that your source is unreliable, for reasons you appear to agree with. The onus is on you to provide a different reliable source to support the claim you made.

                Last edited 20/10/15 8:55 pm

    Watch people justify their uncontrollable, ignorant and misplaced rage at some game taking longer than they want. Watch the excuses fly as they attempt to reconcile the futility of their perspective and behaviour.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now