It would have ended there were it not for a collection of writers who, horrified by what they perceived as misogyny, attacked gamers as a whole in their columns. I initially dismissed these articles as hackneyed click-baiting, but these op-eds had really hit a nerve among gaming enthusiasts. Gamers didn't like the idea that there was propaganda announcing their extermination.

That turmoil has shifted into the Lord of the Flies-style Twitter battle that became known as "#GamerGate," a term possibly coined by Chuck and Firefly actor Adam Baldwin. Post deletions, blocking, banning, and other things ensued, even on open-access sites like Reddit and 4chan. What's ensued has been messy, angry, but undeniably passionate. In essence, gamers tend to hate each other because we love our games. The outcry about standards in gaming journalism may have started with a false accusation, but it's led to some soul searching by major gaming sites, and that's good.

Adam Baldwin and Yvonne Strahovski in Chuck.

What's not good is what it took to get to that point. Multiple personalities were subjected to a potentially criminal form of harassment known as doxxing - the practice of publishing personally identifiable information: real names, addresses, phone numbers, sometimes even bank account info or business records. Both Quinn and an indie game developer (and regular troll target) Phil Fish got doxxed. Others who weighed in on GamerGate like a video blogger with the handle "boogie2988" were threatened with doxxing.

The so-called "mainstream gaming media," which is about as big a paradox as you can get, was accused of censoring dissent and muzzling coverage. Campaigns to promote alternative sites began, as well as an ad-blocking campaign designed to deny "enemy" websites of revenue. The sites targeted tended to be ones associated with "Social Justice Warriors" or SJW, a derogatory term used on social media to describe those who cynically use leftist social issues to raise their own personal profile. This eventually led to the #notyourshield hashtag, a response to the belief that columnists who were predominantly white, male, heterosexual and cisgendered (not transgendered), were cynically speaking for minorities instead of treating them as individuals.

And we are. But we already have a word to describe that. Leftists don't have the market cornered on hypocrisy. That being said, I've come to the conclusion that the intentions on all sides of #GamerGate are, for the most part, sincere. I believe everyone wants a free, safe, open and honest video game media and community. There is, however, a deep divide regarding how to go about that. So I present the pros and cons of a sampling of the major players.

The Gaming Sites

Rock Paper Shotgun, Gameranx (which has published some of my pieces), The Escapist (which has rejected some of my pieces), and Polygon (which I have submitted to) are some of the most prominent gaming sites that regularly cover social issues related to gaming. There have been accusations during GamerGate of mass block lists, poor behavior in IRCs, and other difficult-to-prove allegations. These allegations are the perceived justification for the adblock campaigns against these websites. (Note: the accusation that anyone who used the #GamerGate hashtag was blocked was false. I used it a lot, and was not blocked)

Pros:

These sites publish content under authors' real names, and have editorial vetting processes that many of these sites are actively reviewing in response to GamerGate. They accept article pitches from freelancers, and they pay fairly (though their rates vary). They take responsibility for minimizing the dissemination of things like libel, harassment, and other false and inaccurate information. They cover a wide range of socially engaged topics, but also have staff that do legitimately care about gaming. They have their own opinions about what constitutes "good journalism," but they are generally consistent in the application of those principles. They are an improvement from the highly corporate sites of the past, and they do have standards. Yes, there are politics, but the intents are good. The willingness to openly discuss social issues despite very real and very abusive backlash is important.

The gaming media has an important role in making sure that the dollars of consumers are respected. Without the press, there would be no system for separating fact from hype. Watching a press conference on a computer screen is not the same as being there, and watching a trailer for a game is not the same as playing a demo.

I've met some of the folks swept up in the accusations of conspiracy, and they're good people. Usually they're shy and introverted, and they care enough about games to overcome that, get out in the world, and cover the industry. Video game journalism has improved by leaps and bounds from when I first started. Many sites at that time barely grasped the basics of a story, never mind generate intelligent commentary. Part of the reason I shifted from television and music to gaming was because I saw a young, passionate community that was willing to have debates just like GamerGate. And I know there are others out there like me in the press. Reporters and editors are, at the end of the day, human beings with feelings. Those feelings sometimes cause them to say and write stupid things, but most of the time those feelings serve as an important moral compass to do the right thing.

Cons:

Their reaction to the uproar, while well-meaning, was seen as heavy-handed. Mistakes were made, and participants in GamerGate who were not part of 4chan did get banned due to guilt by association, which fed the anger. Mistakes in factual reporting were also made, forgetting that accusations alone are not proof of guilt. The collective response to the original Zoe Quinn / Anita Sarkeesian story was a series of shocking headlines that overpowered thoughtful analysis. One person who is apparently a well-known personality deemed GamerGate "worse than ISIS," which is inherently idiotic.

Clickbait is not an issue specific to gaming journalism, but at the end of the day, we still need to figure out how to do better. Both Kotaku and The Escapist have made statements that they have reviewed their policies and are making changes, and by the time this piece is published more sites may follow suit. From a branding standpoint, it was suicidal for these core gamer writers to decide they were no longer gamers, that the term "gamer" was dead, and people who still identified as gamers were bad people. People want news and opinion from people they feel relate to them, not people who are standing in judgement of them. While free speech means that columnists have a right to be wrong, editors usually have the last word on the headlines, so there is collective responsibility here.

Moving forward, there is still more work to do. Balance in coverage is important, and major websites still have work to do to achieve a diversity in their staffs that accurately reflects who plays games. Hiring practices need to diversify, or all the defense of women and minorities is just lip service. It's not enough to say that the voices of women and minorities matter. These services have to show that we matter by compensating us fairly for our knowledge and perspective. When a bunch of white dudes are trying to speak for us instead of letting us speak, and the only "acceptable" feminists are the ones on the conservative end of the spectrum, that seems odd.