You locked the other thread and just pointed to the rules. In a pm converstation you said that the thread didn't violate any rules but users were being toxic to eachother.

There's very little clarity going on.

I suppose the person who bumped it thought it would be better to ''test'' first using this thread rather than create a new one. But yeah, here's another rule you can put in : necroing is discouraged.

https://www.gog.com/forum/general/the_zoe_quinn_scandal_highlights_how_gaming_journalism_is_corrupt_and_has_turned_to/post2507

As its already been pointed out, the current forum rules suggest you search before posting. This thread is one of the results when searching for gamergate although there's many results. If we keep creating more GG threads and bumping more then I'd wager it would create the excuse needed to lock even more threads related to it due to spam.

This is another frustrating antiquity of forums structures. It's either, "Stop bumping old threads." or, "There's already a thread for that." None of this would've happened if the GG thread wasn't locked for Reasons™

Well, now it's not contained. Congrats.

Back on topic and not so hot off the presses but a 3 day young thegg.net article http://thegg.net/opinion-editorial/did-jonathan-holmes-just-say-that-the-doa-games-promote-beating-of-women/

Maybe because a thread this old/big seems to be resistant to deletion. Given the current state of the forum a new gamergate thread would likely face quick deletion by abuse of the spam function.

By the Gods. We have created a thing that is too bloated and ancient to get blown into oblivion by the one and only justified abuse of the spam button?

in fact, thanx for the enlightening moderation's decisions here, it helped me think with a broaden view of the problem.
and i came to a conclusion that there are in fact good reasons to accept, endorse and welcome corruption, and lack of ethics, in gaming journalism.

before looking at me as if i was a rambling madman, sit back a minute and think about it:
it's in direct line of thought in accordance with the actual global schism between traditional mainstream medias (and people holding public exposure and speech through it) vs Internet and the changes that were brought by the possibilities of online discussion and network.

still looking like a madman to you ? well it's in fact a basic "rule" of design of internet upon which it was build. Previous electronic networks of communications were rather star or circle shaped, meaning they had some central point of congestioning, while the core of internet's design was peer to peer, to ensure that if some nodes fall, nothing vital would be loss as the data and services would be backed up or spread among equally potent peers (where a peer can be both a client and a server).
Wee see today how most "traditional" companies with obsolete/archaic ways of thinking successfully reintroduced unwanted centralization of services and datas in the whole internet, and we saw the limits of this thought again, whenever one central noce of data/service fails to deliver or be reached (either because of malfunction, outside irl problems like weather, ddos attacks, or anything)

so in fact, letting gaming journalism, even online, remain our main source of information feed on the matter puts too much weight upon it and the gaming websites being as many centralized nodes of information and flow of discussion and opinion, often led and ruled by people who are no different that their reader, skillwise (i mean that, in opposition to traditional paper journalism, a journalism school's major or degree aint mandatory to work there and write online... thought it could be advisable but it's another debate)
Putting too much reliance in those gaming websites creates congesting nodes, and makes us customers/player "vulnerable" if they fall to any problem (being physical problems, technical problems, blatant or alleged corruptions, or simply personal agenda that may be considered as relevant or irrelevant to gaming, depending on the reader)

and what i'm saying is: LET THEM FALL ! lets welcome their corruption, their social/political bias and agenda, their lack of disclosure, there little agreements behind the curtain and such. Lets be glad of them becoming unreliable !

WHY ? Because it will force us to revert to the core logic of internet design, and peer equality. For once, lets use social medias not as some mockery of false communication and acting/pretending showcase devoid of any depth. One interesring example i saw of social media was "Diaspora"; instead of putting all your data, work and faith centralized on a commercial third party company that see us not as customers but as a raw ressource, lets use similar philosophy like the one of diaspora for example. Lets people use any online media to help you forge your own opinions and bring you content and information in other ways rather than old-fashioned journalism (YT, twitch, specialized boards, and such). Lets people organize themselves into smaller tightened circles of trust, mutual agreement and shared values the way they see fit, and evolve in as many needed specialized curator things. Instead of flinging poo at each other for impossible views to combine, lets just learn to talk together again.

maybe i sound naive... as long as naive aint illegal according to current laws and social self proclaimed standards, i won't bother about how naive i may sound

TL;DR
Stop saying "i'm in favor of ethics and lack of corruption in gaming journalism" (that will obviously grants you a reply like "oooh so you are one of those people from Gamergate" = oooh you are an horrible person)

Be smart and say "I welcome and fully endorse corruption and lack of ethics in gaming journalist because it can be useful !", and leave such questionable things like ethic and anti-corruption things to others

I am still utterly flabbergasted that the site's operators decided it was ever a good idea to leave the power of thread deletion in the hands of users. The potential for abuse is simply absurdly high. Furthermore, it's abuse that cannot be effectively pinned down to one source (unlike when a moderator or admin abuses their power).

Between this and the rep system, it's almost like GOG WANTED certain users to do the inevitable and abuse it in order to censor people they didn't like. It's absurd.

https://twitter.com/nickmon1112/status/837869518374465536

Game journos pro 2.0

It just keeps happening.

Well, only a matter of time before someone in the group gets alienated somehow and turns leaker on them. Hoping it happens sooner rather than later, but you never know.

Going on three years, no one in gamergate has tried to understand what a simple journalist mailing list even is, and no one in gamergate has as of yet managed to explain in what way it’s “corruption” or “collusion” when starving game journalists, who clearly work independently of each other and in fact as direct competitors, debate the actual ethics of their reporting among each other (and clearly eventually came to vastly differing individual decisions concerning whether they should report on Quinn’s harassment and gamergate, and in what way).

This Escapist journalist (almost 10% of journalists on the Game journo pro mailing list were or had been Escapist journalists, and there was nothing whatsoever wrong with that) is trying to establish collusion between, in this case, a comic book author and a video game developer, because they were networking at a networking event that was advertised to be a networking event. Surprise, whatever actually corrupt people may be telling you: authors don't find work on textbroker. They're ideally making direct contact with the potential employer in a relaxed atmosphere (trade fair or party, doesn't matter, and as I understand it, here it's even just online), just like basically everyone in a creative line of work. It’s what the Creative Jobs for Dummies book says.

Yes, there has been collusion and yes, it has come from game journo pros. Here are 2 of them from a quick google search, all with screencaps of the referred emails

Patrick Keplek asking other journos not to quote someone in their work : https://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2014/12/gamergate-game-journo-pros-interview-blacklisting/

GJP members call for the blacklisting of fellow journalist : https://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2014/10/gamergate-destructoid-corruption-and-ruined-careers/

Finally a list with proof linked wikipedia style : http://thisisvideogames.com/gamergatewiki/index.php?title=Blacklisting

As to the networking event, it may or may not be incestuous. What's so wrong in thinking there might be? I'm not seeing proof from the tweet that there is any collusion, so I won't say its collusive, but posting about having a bit of doubt is harassment now?

The problem lies with people who have no idea whatsoever what journalism is or how it works making broadly negative assessments about journalistic practices. Here especially, the author of your linked articles doesn't even know what "blacklisting" is (he calls what happened "soft blacklisting", which isn’t exactly established terminology) and completely fails to show the existence of power structures established by monetary dependencies. It's the cardinal error of gamergate's investigation into corruption:

The other linked case concerns Allistar Pinsof, who was fired from destructoid over doxing a trans person whom he alleged was making a fraudulent Kickstarter campaign (that had zip to do with gaming), then couldn’t let the topic die at all until finally he threatened to sue his employer and insulted him at length. Pinsof, surprise, got fired at his boss’ sole discretion and this has seriously, objectively, factually nothing to do with “collusion” or “blacklisting” (Pinsof later expressly declared that he wasn’t “blacklisted” to boot). I really don’t understand why you link to all that stuff. There’s no “proof” of anything in there. To continue your Alex Jones comparison, you’re pulling an infowars guy argument here, link to stuff you don’t even try to fully understand, calling it “proof” of something.

Likewise, you must see in what direction this tweet is going. The guy tweets it, it’s nothing but the mere allegation of collusion on the basis of a ridiculous amount of nothing at all, and tomorrow deepfreeze.it has a screenshot of it up on their site, which you and others will link to as “proof” of collusion in future. Say it ain't true.