Which brings me to why I write. I will go through each article one by one and tell you the intent of that article. Rhodes, and others, have accused me of many things since I started writing and even before. Rhodes, who I encountered previously, misrepresented my opinion and I responded to this previously on September 4th.

However, despite following me and even responding to the article I wrote, Rhodes states that they have never seen my work. This could be the works after this response, but I found it pretty peculiar. I will contrast my reasons for writing with Rhodes’s accusations and dismissals. These will be only for articles given to Rhodes. Rhodes did not want to look through my 50+ articles without a primer. I guess it pays to be lazy. I provided a list of the articles.

I wrote this piece at the mention of LianaK that she feels diversity in media is important. I wanted to know diversity in the media. I was shocked by the outcome. I personally feel diversity is ethical, and I wanted to link diversity issues to ethical issues.

Rhodes’s response here is that looking at photos is not acceptable and is stereotyping while ignoring that I addressed this issue as I noted the failure to release diversity reports and identities of those involved. Therefore, I had to rely on pictures and ascertainable racial categorization by provided evidence. Rhodes dismisses this piece as well as “no real ethical discussion” in spite of having a discussion on diversity being ethical as it promotes diverse views.

This piece uses an social Marxist and representationalist point of view to look at representation and social justice inequalities as driven by race-class power differential in games media.

I wrote this piece to inform readers of these practices as they are used by liberals and conservatives alike. I wanted people to be able to identify them and combat them in ways that Alinsky, himself, detailed. I also wanted to tie this to ethics by noting the strategies require abandonment of ethical communication.

Rhodes dismisses this article as well because it isn’t about ethics in gaming/journalism and it is a criticism of GamerGate. Of course, what Rhodes misses is that it is a criticism of ethical communication by the press, journalists, and participants on all sides. Of course, Rhodes unilaterally, without evidence, states that GamerGate is responsible for most of the problem.

This piece does not use a theoretical perspective.

I wrote this piece to make a proposal on ethics. I had read that many opponents of GamerGate said that it is not about ethics. I wanted to provide an argument that shows that it is about ethics and those ethics are vitally important. I wanted to present the framework from a systemic picture which is why I brought in unrelated fields to show comparative simularities and differences.

Rhodes dismisses this piece under the auspice that I do not argue “why.” However, Rhodes misses that this is not an argumentative essay. It is a proposal. I do provide a reason for why in the form of ethics protecting readers, opening transparency, and promoting reader faith. Rhodes states that these reasons are evidence of good journalism. Therefore, Rhodes directly provides a secondary source to state that these ethics are necessary as they promote these values — the exact same reason I gave.

This piece uses a purely ethical point of view with problem solving.

I wrote this piece to look at postmodernism and how it relates to ethics. I wanted to use ethics codes from all around news and editorial writing to show that ethics exist and can help.

Rhodes dismisses this article in that it is supposedly a straw man and use non-gaming publishers and organizations. The first thing that Rhodes misses is that there are near to no public ethical codes in games journalism. To dismiss my work based on the failures of others to publish is laughable. This is why I made the proposal for ethics which, for the record, L. Rhodes dismissed as well. Rhodes also knocks the length of the essay. Of course, in the essay where Rhodes makes some of the exact same points, they wrote ~7,120 words. In the linked piece, I wrote 2,521.

Yet it is my work that does not require “a dissertation to make that point” and thus is not to be included in the GamerGate ethics discussion. All I can say is simply this, “What?”

This piece uses a postmodern approach to examine relativity and subjectivity.

I again discussed ethics and objectivity in media as well as a resolution of this conflict through imperfect-but-close-as-possible truth in this piece. I used Schreier’s work as a backdrop to show how objectivity can help and how subjectivity can hurt depending on the reader.

Rhodes dismisses this piece as stating they wrote that objectivity is a chimera meaning it is a mythical animal. Of course, this is not the case in spite of Rhodes decreeing it so. Objectivity has been debated in media since before Rhodes or I were born. For Rhodes to majestically decree objectivity is a myth is tenuous. Of course, Rhodes’s piece actually argues for way to gain a degree of objectivity by seeking out alternative views. Rhodes later backs up on that and states that they want GamerGate to go away.

Of note is that Rhodes never quite proves the point in the chimera piece.

Those points of view may be guided by professional standards and honed by training and experience, but we’re wise to remember that they are, nevertheless, anchored to the subjectivity of other people.

Professional standards that I, and others, have championed in attempt to mitigate bias and increase objectivity while recognizing that full objectivity is not entirely possible as I wrote in the piece it is clear that Rhodes did not read:

But journalistic objectivity is an effort to discern a practical truth, not an abstract, perfect truth. Reporters seeking genuine objectivity search out the best truth possible from the evidence that the reporter, in good faith, can find. To discredit objectivity because it is impossible to arrive at perfect truth is akin to dismissing trial by jury because it isn’t perfect in its judgments.

This piece uses an objectivist point of view in that objectivity is possible.

I wrote this piece on suggestion of another person concerning social justice. In it, my intent was to show that modern champions of social justice are not championing social justice as discussed by Rawls. Instead, it has been co-opted by those who follow more Alinsky-esque ethical relativity.

Rhodes dismisses this article because it is not relevant and GamerGate people do not share Rawls’s view of social justice. However, on discussing with many GamerGate participants, I have actually found many agree with Rawls. They do not agree with social equity as they find it to ignore self-determination for the ethnocentric view that those like Rhodes actually know what everyone needs.

This is not meant to be argumentative either. Rhodes has a real problem understanding how essays work, but there’s no problem in dismissing THIS piece as well.

This piece uses a social justice perspective.

I wrote this piece to address a concern I personally had concerning gaming identity and the behavior of press as unethically marginalizing a group of people who have been increasingly marginalized in the greater culture. I utilized a multi-tiered, systemic, person-in-environment construct to then look at this. I provided ample evidence to my argument and then argued that this treatment is unethical under Rawls and under the concept that readers should be treated with dignity and respect.

Rhodes dismissed this article as having “unnecessary concepts introduced to lend academic flavor.” Rhodes does not seem to understand what I do. I do not just state, as Rhodes does, that something is the case. I provide evidence. I provide explanation. I allow the reader to view my work and take my evidence into consideration. They can read my interpretation, look at my evidence, and make their own decision.

This piece uses a social justice perspective utilizing a person-in-environment biopsychosocial approach.

This article was written to actually discuss my personal opinion on why the list is a problem in relation to ethics. It is purely editorial. It is not persuasive. It is my opinion. I provide links to back up statements I feel should be backed up, but this piece was intended to be purely opinion.

Rhodes decided this piece was “probative” in spite of it being a purely editorial piece. It apparently proves something, but it also “happens to be wrong.” So it doesn’t prove anything. This article is summarily dismissed as well.

I don’t think L. Rhodes knows what probative means. It does not mean “probing.” If something is probative, it proves or demonstrates. This piece was not, in any way, meant to prove or demonstrate. It is editorial and does not use a particular approach. It is dismissed by Rhodes.

I wrote these article to show the ethical slips when analyzing research. In this article, Wafford used data to make a conclusion that does not follow. This is actually a very unethical behavior in research. If one concludes something that does not follow, they will be laughed off the stage and then questioned as to why they presented their research incorrectly. Their entire work will be combed over and it is possible they will be seen as complete idiots. The ethical piece here is that Wafford reports the data incorrectly and does not disclose personal bias in the process.

I wrote the second to show that the methods were flawed, the outcome did not follow, and the data were not representative or tested in spite of attempts to generalize data without inferential testing. This, again, is unethical as it misrepresents the data and outcomes while hiding the bias of the researcher. This must be disclosed in research.

Rhodes did not see the “ethical probity.” Probity means “the quality of a person who is completely honest” or “adherence to the highest principles.” One day, Rhodes will get the right word. In the second article, Rhodes says “where are the ethical argument?” Well, right here:

Article 1:

Stating they do is unethical as it generalizes the research further than it goes while simultaneously not disclosing the bias of the researcher and the methodological shortfalls.

Article 2:

This, by the way, is a massive sin in research. Having an undisclosed bias or having a disclosed bias then not qualifying that bias is unethical in research AND the media.

The important part of this is an attempt to minimize that bias through transparency and disclosure. In other words being ethical.

The least Rhodes could do is hit Ctrl+F and type in “ethic”. This piece is also purely research methods and it is dismissed by Rhodes.

I wrote this piece to propose ethical research after the absolute failures of Wafford et al in mitigating their bias. In it, I put forth a manner in which to do research in an ethical manner. I used the word “ethic” twice. I also talked about informed consent, random selection, inclusion, and gold-standards in research including CITI training. All of which are related to ethical research.

Rhodes states in criticism, “Uses the word ethical once, so that’s something.” Maybe we need to increase how we consider ethics from “ethical” to a whole host of behaviors. Or at least realize that “ethical” is not the only conjugated form of “ethic” when you actually bother to use CTRL+F. This piece is dismissed as well.

This piece uses a purely research orientation.

I wrote this piece to discuss ethnocentrism and imperialism in context of ethical research as conducted by a recent spate of researchers with personal bias. In it, I discussed how researchers can experience ethnocentrism and how they can mitigate it. This is in attempt to increase the ethical outcomes of researchers. In it, I stated:

“While ethnocentrism is not inherently unethical, the failure to manage it while doing analysis is unethical. It taints the research and the culture that is being studied due to the bias of the researcher.”

“Failure to do so could result in the researcher reporting on the culture erroneously and only in their bias, smearing the culture, and harming it both within and without — research should seek to avoid, not cause, harm. Failure to do so is unethical.”

The only criticism Rhodes has is that I’m accusing GG detractors of being “as bad.” This is correct. I am noting that people like Rhodes are “as bad” as those they claim are “bad.” They are willfully, happily “as bad” under the auspices of cultural relativity while not understanding that cultural relativity is exactly what keeps them from engaging in this bad behavior by mitigating ethnocentrism. This piece is dismissed as well because, well, it makes L have a sad.

Of note is that this piece uses a structuralist and relativist argument.

I wrote this piece to enter into a conversation with Quinn on ethics. It was not intended to be satirical, sarcastic, or insulting. I offer her praise, criticism, and reinforcement. I welcome her, quite honestly, to the GamerGate cause in discussing ethics in gaming. My response to her is legitimate.

L. Rhodes degrees that this is an attempt to “satirize and critique” and is “mostly snarky.” Rhodes apparently has not read my ACTUAL snarky pieces. My snark is more biting. It’s more sarcastic. Rhodes dismisses my discussion of ethics because of the perception of the tone that is completely incorrect and wholly absed on Rhodes’s opinion of me.

Yes, Rhodes dismisses this piece