As the so-called "GamerGate" debacle has unfolded, we've considered whether, and how, to address it. We're a news site first and foremost, with recent expansion into more original feature content, but game culture has never been our focus. We're a community of gamers, especially as evidenced by our vocal Chatty community, and we certainly aim to appeal to our target audience. However, our site squarely focuses on games rather than gamers, and so we were never sure just how much engagement was necessary on our part.

(If you're not familiar with GamerGate, Gawker explains it well. Deadspin also covered the different factions of it in-depth, from a perspective outside the video game sphere.)

Just as GamerGate reached its first apex, though, it was delivered what I thought to be a crushing blow. Zoe Quinn, whose personal life had been the match that lit the firestorm, personally exposed the roots of the movement as bigoted trolls. Many of its broadest acts were part of a concerted effort to distract and defend their hate speech. The volume died down, and I thought it was over.

I was mistaken.

This belief had led me to ignore it entirely, even as the remaining GamerGate supporters celebrated minor victories. Recently they found that game journalists had been part of a social network, which they claimed as proof of collusion. This came alongside support from Brietbart, a well-known news source. Then they convinced Intel to pull ads from Gamasutra, following an opinion piece that criticized them. Intel quickly issued an apology, but retained its decision.

The continued momentum of GamerGate has convinced me that engagement is necessary, but not to expound on the virtues of game journalism or chastize the misogynistic elements. Most readers know, or at least should know, that game journalism isn't perfect and that issuing threats or gendered insults to women is never justified. Those subjects are well-worn.

Instead, I want to talk directly to the well-meaning people who honestly have concerns about journalistic ethics and want to improve game journalism as a whole. Your goals are noble, but you need a new flag.

You are building a house on a foundation of hatred, and it will never stand on its own until you start fresh.

I'm enough of an optimist to firmly believe that the well-meaning supporters outnumber the bigots by a wide margin. You probably believe that by sheer numbers, or volume, you can take this toxic foundation and turn it into a legitimate one. You cannot. You are building a house on a foundation of hatred, and it will never stand on its own until you start fresh.

It is easy to have our understanding of an ongoing event skewed by our own perceptions. Many who have joined the GamerGate cause may naturally feel that they are the founders and true gate-holders. By extension, they believe, those issuing ugly threats are fringe elements that have corrupted it. In truth, it is just the opposite. The ugliness is the original cause, and all of the outrage over journalistic ethics was brought up afterwards to act as a shield for bigots.

I know you believe in the cause, but that doesn't matter. Even if the cause itself is just, it's playing a role in a greater injustice. You are, likely unwittingly, helping to provide cover for people who want to threaten, demonize, harass, and frighten minority voices into silence--particularly women. They are using you to further a goal that you probably don't agree with.

A jilted lover found a way to get back at his ex-girlfriend, and he recruited gamers to help. He and a small group of misognynists cynically played upon an actual debate that's been boiling under the surface of video game culture for years: journalistic ethics. But for them, this was never about ethics. It was about tricking people into extending the life of their hate campaign by giving it a legitimate front. Rejecting the "GamerGate" banner does not mean abandoning concerns about journalism. It means freeing those concerns from a taint that makes them easy to dismiss.

You can't turn GamerGate legitimate. Any attempts to do so will only continue the smokescreen that is still allowing bigots to get away with death threats and hostility. You need to abandon them, leave them to fend for their own hate, and let the views espoused by a small group of cynical misogynists shrivel up on their own. Find a new banner that's based on inclusion, on welcoming more voices into gaming, on being unafraid of change. Then, continue asking journalists the hard questions. The very moment that one of the bigots from the old movement tries to join your new one, make sure he knows that his kind is not welcome. Not now, not ever.

To understand why the GamerGate label is beyond all hope, we only need to look at the events of last night. In the wake of a school shooting threat, one of the largest GamerGate hubs was gleefully fantasizing about murdering feminist commentator Anita Sarkeesian. The biggest problem in their eyes was the possibility that she'd become a martyr.

Forced to cancel my talk at USU after receiving death threats because police wouldn't take steps to prevent concealed firearms at the event. — Feminist Frequency (@femfreq) October 15, 2014

Others, donning their tinfoil hats, speculated that someone opposed to them might carry out a murder to discredit and defame them. Different arms of the same group were simultaneously fantasizing about a murder and their own subsequent defense, just in case some unhinged reader actually did the unthinkable. Whether it's sincere death-wishing or a joke in poor taste doesn't matter. If you march to the beat of GG, these are your chief strategists.

Pragmatically, if you are genuinely concerned about journalistic ethics, that tag isn't doing you any good anymore. It's become so linked to the hatred that any moderate message you want to send is being obscured. Even ignoring its origins and current controversies, it's simply not an effective way to convey your desires to game publishers and journalistic outlets. The more clearheaded supporters of GamerGate need to ask themselves if the title is more important to them than the cause, because right now the one is strangling the other.

To be clear, I am absolutely not suggesting that you stop looking critically, even skeptically, at game journalism practices. In fact, I would be disappointed if you did. This industry is young, and making the sometimes painful transition between enthusiast press that borders on advertorial, and legitimate fact-finding, analysis, and critique. To do that successfully, we need the community to hold us to certain ethical standards. For that community to have any weight behind its words, though, it needs the moral certitude that can only come from rooting out its less desirable elements. You can only keep us honest if you can keep yourselves honest.

These steps aren't easy, but they're not meant to be. They are the only way to salvage a semblance of respectability, which is necessary for the discourse you want to have. If anything good is ever going to come out of GamerGate, it will be from those wise enough to extract themselves from it.

We’d love to hear what you think about this topic on Chatty, and we’ll be there engaging with the community as usual. We want to make sure we can set an example for a clear, respectful dialogue about a tough topic.