/gg2/ - (GG)^2

Oh a PS

PS if things did go south I would probably clear out alot of the old threads from the previous migration, for now I will leave them alone.

More Stuff

/burgersandfries/ thread:

https://8ch.net/burgersandfries/res/138.html#139

Boards thread:

http://8ch.net/boards/res/8348.html#8350

More to come!

Re organizing the board right now. Will have several cyclicals up for large threads.

Okay so. Got a few more tweaks to do but.

The main cyclicals are up and the directory is ready. I am gonna wait to post the directory for just a bit until we see a bit more how things flesh out. If there are a bunch of anons in here in the next 24-36 hours then I will move forward with activation and get it posted.

For now we remain on standby, but the major cyclicals such as ODN, Deepfreeze.it, ect are posted.

>>343

I don't mind mods deleting obvious bait and shilling, it's the heavy-handed, everyone-who-doesnt-agree-with-me-is-a-shill type of moderation that I dislike.

You see Acidman actually trying to restrict what others can discuss, such as the boycotts thing. Even when legitimate and helpful for the movement, boycotts are not allowed because he doesn't agree with them.

The moderation style on /gghq/ is also very inconsistent. They banned swami for criticizing moderation even though he contributed to the threads but unbanned dolphin who's an ayytist tripfag.

Owner, I'm posting the GG boycott list below, if any of those links are not filtered yet please do so now

http://www.ausgamers.com

http://www.destructoid.com

http://www.eurogamer.net

http://www.gamasutra.com

http://www.gamefocus.ca

http://www.gameinformer.com

http://www.gameplanet.co.nz

http://www.gameranx.com

http://games.on.net

http://www.joystiq.com

http://kotaku.com

http://www.kotaku.co.uk

http://www.kotaku.com.au

http://www.kotaku.jp

http://www.ktkbr.com.br

MVCUK.com

http://motherboard.vice.com

http://www.pcgamer.com

http://www.pcgamesn.com

http://www.polygon.com/

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/

http://arstechnica.com/

http://www.osnews.com/

http://www.theverge.com/

http://www.wired.com/

http://www.heise.de/

http://www.golem.de/

http://www.financialpost.com/

http://www.theguardian.com/

http://www.msnbc.com/

http://www.pbs.org/

http://www.npr.org/

http://www.newyorker.com/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/

http://www.bbc.com/

http://www.aljazeera.com/

http://abcnews.go.com

http://www.cbc.ca/

http://boingboing.net/

http://www.bloomberg.com/

http://www.buzzfeed.com/

http://chezapocalypse.com/

http://comicsalliance.com/

http://www.cracked.com/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/

http://www.dailydot.com/

http://deadspin.com/

http://gawker.com/

http://io9.com/

http://jezebel.com/

http://www.themarysue.com/

http://www.newsweek.com/

http://www.rawstory.com/

http://www.vice.com/

http://www.vox.com/

http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/

When filtering, please use "example.com" rather than "https://www.example.com/", since the first is broader. Otherwise you risk letting links past the filter and giving those sites clicks.

>>344

>the movement

Retard spotted already.

>everyone-who-doesnt-agree-with-me-is-a-shill type of moderation

Shills frequently whine this particular whine when called a shill. Do you have any examples?

>>477

>Retard spotted already.

Said the guy saging a sticky :^)

Also,

>movement

>a series of actions or activities intended or tending toward a particular end

>actions or activities, as of a person or a body of persons.

GG is a movement, get good.

>Do you have any examples?

A couple:

>>338

>>>/gamergatehq/180407

>>>/gamergatehq/180476

>>>/gamergatehq/180610

>>>/gamergatehq/181004

>>>/gamergatehq/182048

>>>/gamergatehq/182373

It's stupid to choose rules by strawpoll, anyone can fuck with those.

>>484

But muh downvote. It's called being an offtopic post.

No, it's not. The dictionary definition is effectively worthless. Eating a meal could be considered a movement by it. Nobody rational would describe breakfast as a movement. Additionally, dictionary definitions follow usage and seek to inform usage, but the relationship is not automatic. Therefore, we need some other objective criteria.

If we look at other movements, not a single one in history is even remotely like the response to the GG controversy. I've asked this every time some retard busts out "movement." What movement is it like? And then crickets.

Therefore, it's a shit objective descriptor at best. Words exist to describe patterns and there's no pattern for what GG is yet because it's the first of its kind. Even "consumer revolt" really fails to make sense of the shape. Here's a question for you to think about: Is there any real need to refer to the response to the controversy at all? If what we care about are the issues, why are we even talking about the response? Why is there any need to affix some label to it?

The answer for the opposition is that movements are what they think in and where you play the battleground of PR - it's where they're fish in water. The answer for us? It's just a giant waste of time for us and it comes with the baggage of how we look at our tactics, strategy, and how victory works. I don't give a shit how they think about us, but us thinking about it like this? That's a detriment.

As far as those examples, I don't really see anything wrong. In my opinion, the only one contributing any real criticism instead of spewing hyperbole like a retard is

>>>/gamergatehq/182373.

There are some legit good questions in there. There are also things like this that give the person away: "Defeatism [a.k.a. acknowledging reality]."

The reason why this is obvious is - well - just look: https://gitgud.io/gamergate/gamergateop/tree/master/Current-Happenings

This is acknowledging reality and it's a significant stretch of the imagination to suggest that this huge compendium of updates and things of significance is anything remotely similar to being defeated.

So overall, I don't really see these as good examples. It mostly looks like either supporters getting swept up in emotion or shilling, either way, it's not like a ban is a big deal. That board has been overloaded with shilling lately as the things that are happening are becoming more severe for the opposition - jobs being lost, brands being unemployable, SPJ happening, etc.

>>488

>But muh downvote. It's called being an offtopic post.

It does absolutely nothing since the thread is stickied.

>The dictionary definition is effectively worthless.

If you wanna argue using definitions that only exist in your head I'd like to recommend a place filled with more like-minded individuals:

>>>/tumblr/

I'd rather use the universal meaning of words rather than arguing imagined definitions. If it pleases you I have no problem using 'revolt' instead for this conversation but I'd rather not get into a pointless argument about semantics.

As for the bans being justified or not: These were all in threads dedicated to discussing the more strict moderation. If they were criticizing anything else with the same arguments do you think they'd have been banned for dramafagging? Should users who think the new system is bullshit should be censored if the mods don't agree with their posts?

Truth is, moderation on /gghq/ has always been authoritarian. AcidMan has the bad habit of forcing his views on the rest of the revolt. Ralph was wordfiltered even though he wasn't part of the boycott list and over 75% of the users were against it. Acid constantly posts with his capcode on threads when not discussing board-related things. Pedobutts digging thread was deleted even though lots of interesting info was being dug out. And then there's the boycott thing: mods claim that there's a consensus but any thread discussing the issue, no matter how civil, gets deleted and the poster banned for shilling.

This decision to make the rules more strict was at no point discussed with the users. They just held a closet meeting and later informed us what they decided.

I'm not saying that Acidman hasn't done good things when running the board. Important OPs usually get stickied within 24 hours, mod logs are public and obvious spam and bait gets removed quickly. Problem is, so do legit posters who happen to disagree with him.

When someone is trying to be the dictator of a leaderless revolt is time to move on.

>>489

>It does absolutely nothing

Then you should waste less time making an issue out of it.

>If you wanna argue using definitions that only exist in your head

I love it when my argument is strawmanned hard. It doesn't please me to use "revolt" either, although it's definitely more precise than movement. One of my points is: Why the fuck do you need so hard to categorize it? Seriously, I want to know. Why is it so important, especially in internal dialogue?

It's not a pointless argument, unless you think selection of tactics, strategy, and victory conditions being different somehow constitutes "pointless" differences. Even if you think that, it's only your opinion that it's unimportant and means nothing for general discourse. It does not mean that it is universally unimportant because you think it's not.

And ultimately, this "universal meaning" you speak of is completely nonsense. Usage informs dictionary definitions. This is a fact. Dictionaries sit around trying to keep up on what sticks and then put that into the definition. It follows usage and only in some cases. As we've established, the dictionary definition is effectively meaningless because it covers things that are clearly not movements. Usage of the word movement in a political context (and we could argue about whether or not this is a political context at all) means much more specific things. Based on this usage, it is inapplicable. It's not in my head. If you think it is, argue what movement this is similar to. Go ahead, I'll wait.

>Should users who think the new system is bullshit should be censored if the mods don't agree with their posts?

Users that think the new system is bullshit should provide constructive criticism about their opinions and why instead of bathing in the emotion of the moment. The majority of the posts you outlined did not do this and as such, I find it difficult to feel like there's a problem here.

>Ralph was wordfiltered even though he wasn't part of the boycott list and over 75% of the users were against it.

How do you know that over 75% of the users were against it?

>Acid constantly posts with his capcode on threads when not discussing board-related things.

That's not an authoritarian moderation issue. That's an identity issue. Shocking that a namefag would have such an issue.

>And then there's the boycott thing: mods claim that there's a consensus

To be fair, there was a consensus on that front since October (several boards ago). I personally didn't agree with it, but I understood the reasoning behind why it was said that it wouldn't do anything meaningful.

>This decision to make the rules more strict was at no point discussed with the users.

What sort of discussion do you think would have happened if it had occurred?

>I'm not saying that Acidman hasn't done good things when running the board.

I'm not saying that you're not saying he hasn't. I don't really give a shit either way about him. I'm just interested in your opinion and probably more importantly, the grounds for it. I've paid as little attention to meta issues as possible, so I'm genuinely ignorant.