Was listening to the @Sargon_of_Akkad stream with @Koretzky (yes, I memorized how to correctly spell his name), and I really feel that it was one of the best streams regarding GamerGate that there has been.

We have been asking for a honest debate from the beginning and the aGGers have proven to be just too biased. Koretzky comes at it with a fresh view doesn’t care about the ideology just journalism and ethics. He is clearly passionate about the subject on streams. However has proven himself quite human, in his recent SPJ updates.

Luckily It’s a rather shorter stream weighing in at 3 hours (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMFUV1derxo), the last stream with @Koretzky I watched was around 8 hours and ended with the #FreeKoretzky tag. If you have the time, watch it.

Koretzky’s behavior this week was not great to say the least. And he admitted so on the stream but also explained some of his motivations. He used his tantrum this week to claim his was illustrating what the press could ethical get away with due to our leaderless situation. While there were cries of him being unethical in his recent updates, he asked for specific examples to be email to him and he’d be happy to address them but so far he has only got blanket statements from readers that haven’t fully invested in AirPlay and what it could mean (read all the updates and watched most of streams).

Koretzky has graciously shined a mirror on us. I really do think he wants to educate us on how journalism is supposed to work. We say the press should get a thicker skin, well he claims he was trying to show where we have weaker skin ourselves with these recent updates. Sargon did his best to try and explain why abused victims are always going to be skeptical of their abusers but Koretzky points out that we can’t paint all journalists with the same broad brush, especially if we want to start receiving favorable coverage. And we will have to put up with newb journalists asking the same questions about harassment over and over because it’s on us to educate them if only because the other side is happy to educate them otherwise.

He did acknowledged several ethical issues GamerGate has with it’s detractors are correct. However our expectations may be a bit high for journalism in general. We’d like to hold them to a high standard that what maybe be possible in some cases, however that’s what the ethics code is supposed to be: a reasonable executable level that some will exceed and others may just fall a bit short. As he points out, like a speed limit.

He reiterated his point that if GamerGate wants positive coverage, we may have to compromised some of our values. Journalism expects a certain protocol and a leaderless movement doesn’t work well with those protocols.

That’s mainly where his interest lies in this. How to educate journolists on Internet sub-cultures easily. One thing one learns from studying subcultures is that they purposely develop their own lingo to keep outsiders away and acknowledge their membership between each others. Shitposting is a great example, if you react badly you’re outed. But I don’t see how learning a new language can be made easier and especially Internet ones as there are so many subcultures on the Internet that should be explored, covered and understood. There is going to be a few journalists that understand the language and most will not.

He compares GamerGate to the Occupy movement and points out that several aGGers, he has talked to, have stated, if aGGers just give us enough time and rope, we’ll hang ourselves or that we’ll be crushed under our own weight. I think we all realize this is does have some merit and/or weight to it, especially with the recent infighting.

As sub-cultures grow, cliques are formed. They are needed to form for the group to function. I think we’ve already seen “ethics-only” and “sjw-focused” sub groups emerge but this will need to continue as we are a diverse group and while we hold a single common value, we don’t all agree on others.

Koretzky states that if we want to communicate to a global audience that our “e celebs” become our defacto go to for journalists. They have many followers because they reflect the GG values and parrot what we think. Koretzky suggests gathering the ‘e celebs” together as a council because whether we like it or not they are our voice.

Sargon is quickly opposed to this idea, as he said he only really wants to speak for himself and doesn’t feel qualified to speak for others. However Koretzky points out he gets an individual’s creditability when he gets a subscriber. That social currency is important. People will look for the most popular opinions because they assume they have the most merit, whether that’s true or not.

I took the discussion to Twitter, it’s quickly obvious that not many want to discuss a council. It was shot down with no discussion allowed. Even got: don’t even try no one will listen. We’re too diverse in thought and being a leaderless movement has served us well in past. The one tweeter that I found did that wanted to discuss a council, immediately wanted this council to impose rules on said group.

For GamerGate to have a voice, we need to coordinate with our e celebs or appoint leaders. Both not great options. There has to be a middle ground between who we want to be and who we need to be. Brainstorming, I threw out how about surveys? They have worked well in the past. However it was pointed out that not all GamerGate wants a voice, so this isn’t a problem worth solving. Which I can’t argue with and another example of our diversity.

We can’t brow beat everyone into thinking and believing the same thing. Isn’t that what we claim the other side is doing. I think it’s fine we’re diverse.

This all results in a muddy mess for new people that are trying to gain understanding. I can understand how a journalist with an editor and readership, that only really apparently wants click-bait and drama, can be lazy or unethical. Koretzky points out on the stream (around 1:52) that he thinks the lazy ones are more dangerous than unethical ones. He cites at least the unethical ones at least understand journalism and know what they’re doing. While the lazy ones blatant disregard for the established rules make them harder to hold accountable.

Unfortunately the world isn’t the way we’d want it to be and wishing for it so isn’t going to make it happen. Is what we’re doing working? Do we need new goals? Do we need PR? I think each of us may have a different answer than each other.

Would a focused group have benefits? That one, I can answer: yes, it would have benefits but also costs. A group with rules could be effective but it would not be GamerGate, nor should it. We need to accept our diversity but if others want to organize and take it a step further that needs to be acceptable to all GamerGates. But if you’re looking to form a council, don’t call it GamerGate because you won’t be speaking for all of us.

Take LeagueForGamers launched this week by Mark Kern’s (@grummz) team. It could be an example of how GamerGate evolves. It has it’s own goals and direction. Very much pro-consumer (but is it pro-GG? what even is pro-GG? I mean who really isn’t approving of ethics in journalism besdies some crack pots). LFG is not leaderless and can have it’s own rules but it doesn’t have to be GamerGate. It does seemingly embraces our values and I consider that a win and something worth supporting.

Is that the future? Do we need to change? I don’t know.

I laid out my thoughts and questions in this writing. I’m sure I’ve contradicted myself once or twice but I share my thoughts so that I can either educate others or be educated myself. I chose medium.com you can directly comment on exactly where I went wrong or right. I hope this is the first of a great maybe conversations to be had about our values, faith and purpose. If you liked it, I’d appreciate it if you would please repost to your GG hotspot of choice.