[Update 12/22/2015: N4G has expanded their policies and reinstated the interview with Mark Kern for League for Gamers]

[Editors Note: Andy Frogman, who goes by the handle of Priest of Gamers, conducted an interview with Christopher, the administrator from gaming aggregator N4G. According to Frogman, he “spent most of [his] time attempting to prevent in fighting” and he wants “truth not propaganda.” He identifies as someone who believes #GamerGate is necessary to help improve the gaming industry. The interview is posted in full, unedited and formatted only for the publication on this site.]

Brothers and sisters of the blessed congregation of the Game, it’s been a long time since I have been directly involved in a GamerGate affair, and when I came across an argument regarding censorship of a fellow brother in GamerGate and an administrator of N4G being accused, I sought the opportunity to get a quote direct from the horses mouth, without it being ham strung by the limitations of twitter. Instead I managed to get into a chat with Christopher, AKA: @cgoodno, and we had the follow discussion.

From the get go Christopher was forthright with his answers, and willing to discuss personal opinions and website policies for N4G.

Going into this conversation I had no agenda but the truth, I wanted to cut through the preconceived ideas of censorship and an anti-Gamer slant, and like the Master Sword, divide light from darkness. Get to the crux of the issue without distraction.

The following transcript HAS been edited. I make no illusions to the contrary, off topic discussion has, for the most part, been removed. Additionally, spelling errors, grammatical errors, mistakes and out of turn posts have all been corrected for. The integrity of this discussion has been upheld, and nothing has been changed to misrepresent the conversation had between myself and Christopher. None the less, I urge you all to trust and verify. If you desire screenshots of the conversation, those can be obtained.

Thank you all,

Peace and Highscores!

-=DISCUSSION=-

Priest Of Gamers: Ok, this whole thing started when a post was removed from N4G, and the removal of which was posted by WilliamUsherGB saying: “@N4G has banned @League4Gamers content and suspends any user who discusses it.”Followed by a link to a screenshot. Correct?

Christopher: That is correct. The issue here is that @League4Gamers has not been banned from the site, only one submission failed after review based on an existing policy. We also have not suspended anyone for discussing this topic on twitter or our own site. The user who wrote the article was restricted solely for making multiple submissions with the same issue present in a short amount of time. And, to note, the restriction of the user only applied to submissions, not any other action on the site, such as making comments, approving submissions, and the like.

Priest Of Gamers: Ok, and what was the nature of the article in your opinion?

Christopher: It feels more as a way of introducing @Leage4Gamers and Mark Kern who is about being an advocate of Gamers. Mark Kern is known for developing games, but the conversations held did not relate to his history of development so much more of current issues as it relates to journalism and the skewed voice that the media has versus what actual gamers want. It approached his own thoughts on various “social” issues such as SJWs and similar concepts as well.

The article is not a bad one at introducing people to the site and the person behind it. It actually does a great job of informing the user on “who this is” and “what is he doing” and “why should I care”. But, based on the content, it was obviously not directly about a current issue with a social issue as it relates to a game his is developing (or had developed), but more a general relationship to the current social issues and an aim to provide a place for gamers who feel poorly represented.

Priest Of Gamers: And how does this violate your platforms submission guidelines?

Christopher: As far as our guidelines, we have a policy that says that GamerGate and similar social issues, as is primarily presented in the Interview, must directly involve a developer/publisher. While Mark Kern is a developer, none of what he presented directly involved him or his job so much as representing the gaming community.

I recognize there is more than just that there, but I believe it is obvious from the title of the submission that the aim is focused on those topics, and the content supports that.

Priest Of Gamers: Does N4G have a censorship/silence policy regarding GamerGate, Anti-Gamers and Social Justice topics? Alternatively: Are these topics something you are willing to host, or is it something that you would rather keep away?

Christopher: We have a requirement that it must directly involve a developer or publisher. So, I can’t say that there is no censorship at all, but the goal is to maintain a focus on our news that is specific to video games as opposed to social issues related to gamers or journalism issues that affect every medium. I understand some people disagree with this and feel that we are attempting to silence such things, but our goal is merely to maintain an alignment that focused on video games that N4G is known for without expanding too far into another realm (much how we don’t allow reviews of PCs, phones, tablets, or similar tech devices). If we grow beyond our current focus, we continue to limit the aid that N4G can provide to those who are looking for video game specific news and would result in N4G becoming less useful for our users.

As far as willing to host, we don’t host content except that created by our users (via User Blogs and User Reviews) and we attempt to keep those areas of the site the same as the rest. Especially now with the “beta” site as we work to merge user content with that of submitted content from other sites. I cannot say I am not “willing” only that it is deemed a necessary policy in order to maintain focus on the news our users come to the site for. I don’t want to keep it away, but for the time that we had it on the site it was obvious that it was greatly detracting from the news focus of N4G and that it was becoming volatile in a way as it promoted more of a “one upping” from one submission to another that would aim to support one group’s viewpoint over another.

It was becoming very antagonistic and detracting from the video game news our users wanted. So, we didn’t remove it entirely, instead decided that we would ensure it was specific and directly related to a developer/publisher. Rather than allowing many of the twitter comment battles we had or the news on DOXXing people here or what trolls under the guise of another group did over there. And we needed to make a rule with that wording we had to limit too much discussion on what is or isn’t allowed. We didn’t want to limit it all, but we had to do something. But, it became more of a Venn Diagram of results. Things overlap and for some people they overlap unfairly. And I understand that and accept it. If we had not made the rule, then it would just be me going around failing whatever I like or don’t like. I don’t think anyone wants that.

Priest Of Gamers: So you were attempting to stay neutral, and in doing so doubled down on your policies that all articles submitted should be focused on the games themselves and the people creating and developing them. Rather than what you have referred to as the “social” aspect, which is the community of gamers, and their interactions with other journalism sites and each other?

Christopher: Neutrality has been key. When we discussed it with the moderation team, we all had some differing opinions and the goal was to come to the best result that everyone would be okay with, regardless of their personal opinion.

And, so, yes, that was our goal was to remain neutral and do so by limiting it while not preventing them outright. A lot of this did come from the great feedback from our community (regardless of how passionate some people were). And even though we didn’t make everyone there or outside of it happy, I

believe we met a good middle ground.

Community of gamers is part of it and a good way to say it. By that I mean that it’s gamer reaction to things, such as a feminist blog on what it means to be a girl gamer or a blog on what it means to be a gay gamer. To us, while these are possibly topics people want to discuss, it’s not really about video games so much as just about a life style or element of life that is presented in way more than just video games and really isn’t about video games but people in a community in general.

But I also made sure to note in the past that journalism is not necessarily a gaming specific issue and while we want to criticize journalists for things relevant to video games, we don’t want a lynch mob of sorts that attacks a journalist for something that doesn’t directly involve a developer or publisher. If a journalist is sleeping with a developer and that is brought to light after their reviews? That’s news we want. If it’s an exchange of texts between a game journalist and they’re talking about how they hate certain games? That’s something that really isn’t video game news but random journalist who says something stupid news.

Priest Of Gamers: Simply, because this leads into another question, what is your personal opinion on GamerGate? Positive, negative, is it serving a purpose, completely unnecessary? And don’t worry, I won’t be offended.

Christopher: As for me personally, I am for ethics in journalism. I can’t complain enough about the lack of journalistic integrity out there. And, honestly, there really just isn’t. The sites are about selling ad space and as long as you keep doing that, the bosses won’t really care what you do. They only matter as soon as they start losing advertisers.

But, I do feel that online harassment, not just of women, is a huge issue. Doxxing, SWATing, general comments of threats towards another. The usual internet trolls who attached themselves to either side made this know.

As far as whether it’s positive or not, I have mixed feelings. I think there are people out there who I wish were more in charge of the whole thing and could become a singular voice to approach things. Mark Kern is definitely someone I’d prefer over others. But, there are negatives as some approach the subject of “you’re either with us or against us” without any care for the fact that not every site has to support them. Many who attack us for our policy fall in this arena. And it has been hard for me to attempt to say “I know, you don’t agree, but this is our policy and we hope you respect it.” Perhaps it’s because I have a problem communicating it properly? I do wish I was wiser in my ability to explain our purpose and reasoning sometimes.

Priest Of Gamers: Maybe it’s also a matter of perspective. GamerGate was formed from the perception that games journalists were turning their backs on the gaming community, in favour of a social justice narrative, and an anything for a buck mentality.

Christopher: Perspective plays a huge role in all things. Some people feel more passionate or have a personal investment in it. Whereas, me, my investment with N4G is to maintain a certain focus and keep the site from unraveling or going too far one way.

Priest Of Gamers: Do you understand though that creating a hard line policy that excludes the events of the gaming community, may be seen as the same as turning your back on it? There are sites that are for GamerGate and sites that are against it, but the sites that are complacent, censoring or ignoring the community outcry, come off as just as bad as those who use their platform to preach in ignorance of the community at large?

Christopher: I think that’s because people want N4G to be what they want it to be. So, in turn, I feel that people are refusing to accept who we want to be and our goals. Instead, they want us to be them. But, that’s something we fight every day on more than just GamerGate. We have policies that limit who can post opinion-based content so as to not allow anyone to write up an opinion piece and submit it to N4G. People don’t like that. We have a policy in linking to the most original source of content, and people want to link to their site because they “explain it better”. People don’t like that.

We’re never going to make everyone happy, so we need to keep to our goal and focus on that. And, as I’ve said, I know people disagree, we just hope you respect our goals and our decisions and we aren’t saying we oppose you, only we have a focus to maintain and we made a decision that we need to limit this in some way to maintain it. But, we do feel we give people a place to still present that sort of news, just not every bit of it they want, it has some requirements. But we don’t shy away from it at all. We are neither for or against GamerGate. We fail things on both sides for the same reasons.

Priest Of Gamers: Do you have a section where you actively discuss these things though? Do you have a page that shows that you do care about the community, but wish to remain neutral? I don’t mean an article, but an actual policy page that assures people that you are doing what you are doing for the sake of maintaining the community rather than splitting it?

Christopher: All I have right now is that blog page. I do not own the site, only administer this one which is one of many owned by Hava Media. They have trusted in me to make these decisions and so far stand behind me in them, understanding my goal. This is why when a submission is failed for that specific reason, I link to the blog. We are going through a beta phase of the site revamp and myself and the site owners will be talking about updating the rules to help clarify and specify certain things as much as possible. I do not know if such a thing as “N4G is neutral in cases as it relates to GamerGate or anti-GamerGate topics and offer the opportunity for both sides to be presented equally if they meet the guidelines as expressed…” but I am trying to work towards that. If that doesn’t work, I will work to create a new blog that will outline some new things. But, some of that is out of my control. And, as always, I do not have final say.

Priest Of Gamers: Fair enough, I can’t fault you for that. If that’s what you are working towards, then that’s great.

Christopher: Personally, my goal with N4G is maintaining a focus to deliver gaming news that people have always expected out of us without expanding too far that users find it too hard to get news from us. I cannot say that this goal is shared by others above me nor can I say they are not motivated by the potential profit of the site or others like it. But, so far, they have shown faith in my decisions (as they did previously with Cat, who I replaced and was assistant to for a few years).

Priest Of Gamers: Despite a sense of “us and them” in the GamerGate/Anti-Gamer argument, objectivity is what GamerGate wants.

Christopher: That is a hard thing to do considering how the media folds under the weight of social news and attaches itself to the story that would get the most attention rather than the story that would show both sides equally.

Priest Of Gamers: Exactly

Priest Of Gamers: My personal opinion on GamerGate is simple on the surface, but there’s nothing simple about it. I support GamerGate, I do so because the driving force that started it all, was the uncovering of a conspiracy between multiple gaming websites in relation to the censorship of a news story. Not even that any website lied, but they suppressed information that the community felt vital. As you say, trolls attached themselves to both sides, but it was the journalists themselves, not trolls that waged war on gamers. For that I feel that the entire controversy is a necessary evil. I don’t like that it had to happen, but I hope that something good can come from it.

Christopher: I can appreciate that. To be honest, I was never surprised at this sort of thing. Perhaps it’s the cynic in me? I never trust much of what is opinion based in gaming journalism. Though, I do sometimes love arguing about it (yes, I admit, I also like to be a drama queen sometimes). Perhaps the reason why I’m not as motivated by it is because I kinda always thought it was there.

Priest Of Gamers: Haha, I agree, but I’ve been in some dark places in my life, and Gaming was the one thing that I had, it even kept me alive. I owe so much to that simple hobby, I can’t turn my back on what these people are doing to it. They called me the Priest of Gamers for a reason, I may have faith in God, but Gaming is my religion. So last round of questioning regarding Mark Kern, and these are far more straight forward questions.

Christopher: Shoot.

Priest Of Gamers: Is Mark Kern in any way, shape or form, disallowed, banned or otherwise prevented from posting on N4G?

Christopher: Not at all. As I mentioned to him earlier, he is welcome to post to the site anything that is allowed per our guidelines and policies.

Priest Of Gamers: Is the topic of Mark Kern or League4Gamers (As written by other members) disallowed from N4G?

Christopher: If it’s about Mark Kern as a developer, it is allowed. If it’s the topic of a “web site” we don’t consider that “video game” news so much as “community or web site” news. Much how we don’t allow posts about site updates, community activities specific to one community web site, or the like. At this time, that is where League4Gamers falls. If it is news of League4Gamers as it relates to a video game convention, working with a specific publisher/developer directly (and is actively developing/publishing) or the like, it is allowed. And by “as it relates to a video game convention” I mean holding a conference at one or participating in some way or even sponsoring one. Not just “some guys are attending one who are associated with the site”. That would fall under “not newsworthy”.

Priest Of Gamers: Mark often times talks about censorship in the industry, and many people see this as an issue that is indeed related to games development. If articles are written regarding censorship, or the effect of social outrage, SJW or GG alike, on games development as a whole is that news worthy, or would it also have to be focused at a specific game or developer in the way that DOAX3 was handled?

Christopher: I think on that one I would have to say it would need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. You throw a lot in there with “censorship, or the effect of social outrage, SJW or GG alike” and so on. That covers a ton and I don’t want to make a statement about them all that says “yes to it all”. If he wrote an OpEd about a topic like the one experienced with DOAX3? Allowed just like any other (I think I linked you a few earlier in the twitter stream). If he wrote a general article describing social outrage? Could be allowed, could be too far off focus depending on content, I can’t just make a flat decision based on how open it could be.

Priest Of Gamers: So the social or community element is not entirely disallowed, but it must have a direct connection to it’s effects on the games industry and the development of games, rather than being a social message for social messages’ sake. And of course we aren’t talking in absolutes here, like you said, such topics would have to be considered on a case by case basis.

Christopher: I think that embraces most of it, but remember it must directly involve a developer or publisher. I know I keep saying that, but it’s important. It definitely is designed to move away from being a social message for social messages’ sake (as well as just for the sake of arguing).

Priest Of Gamers: So not even a general discussion regarding the state of the games industry, but specifically A GAME or A DEVELOPER who is currently developing a game?

Christopher: Give me a second. I want to retype to make sure we’re “staying on point”.

Priest Of Gamers: Sure thing, though I wouldn’t worry too much, I’ve got the next (and last) few questions outlined, anything you say at this point so long as it’s not declaring war on Canada, could be brought back in pretty easily 😛

Christopher: We have articles on the site that examine various elements of the industry. Trends in the industry such as mobile gaming, increase of the popularity of certain genres, or the like. But, if this is a “state of the games industry” from the position of GamerGate, journalism, SJW, or other “social” issues, it would need to be on a case-by-case basis. For example, it’s possible for only part of it to analyze an element of GG in a non-prioritized manner alongside other elements that don’t involve such a thing. I would consider that OK, but if it becomes a priority and doesn’t hold much attachment to a direct involvement with a publisher/developer… hard to say without reading it.

Priest Of Gamers: So this is a case of leave your preconceived notions and prejudices at the door, write objectively without slant, and you are more likely to be on to a winner.

Christopher: That’s a fair assessment. I admit that I have a hatred of completely opinion-based writings in these arenas where, in the end, it’s just something no one will ever truly have an answer to. In the end, if it’s just a basis of opinion, no one is right or wrong and nothing is truly solved. But, that’s just me. Review of a game, tell me about the things that are facts, don’t just tell me how you feel.

Priest Of Gamers: Some might argue that a review is purely opinion. It may be based on the game itself, but it will always be YOUR perspective of said game.

Christopher: They can be, but explaining mechanics, controls, performance, etc. is important in reviews, IMHO. And those are fact-based. I’ve read many a review where a person only said “it made me feel this way and I did or didn’t like it” rather than actual information that would aid me in determining if I might or might not like it. I don’t feel the same way others do, so how they feel does nothing for me.

Priest Of Gamers: True, but is that a review, or is it simply describing the game from a mechanical perspective?

Christopher: It’s both. Why I specified “completely opinion-based” 🙂

Priest Of Gamers: *nod* I get ya Ok, I think that covers everything, I’ll get this written out and properly formatted, and uploaded. Would you be available for any follow up questions later on? I’ll try to make sure people post to me, so I can pass the message on, rather than being ganked on twitter with a million and one comments.

Christopher: Possibly tomorrow. I’m not sure when. I’m working on a new contest and will be in meetings part of tomorrow (they’re trying to launch the beta into full mode this week). If you have a list of questions, feel free to e-mail me at christopher@havamedia.com (I’m fine with this being public, since I already make it public, it’s my work e-mail). Otherwise, I’ll try to check in here when I can tomorrow.

Priest Of Gamers: Sure, thing, I doubt it’ll be straight away, and I may want to take a break from the internet myself after this 😛

Christopher: I want to say thanks for the questions and chat. Whether we agree or not, we can still walk away knowing we love our hobby and want it to thrive.

Priest Of Gamers: Thanks very much to you too, for sticking around to chat, I really appreciate it, and I hope others do to. Gaming is important to both of us, we may see slightly different ways of preserving it, but I think the end goal is the same for the both of us. A free and open platform for entertainment and a hobby that we love.

Christopher: Yes! Let a creator create and buy what you want, don’t tell them they’re wrong. Allow people to enjoy what they like and we’ll respect what you love. Unless it’s Canada, can’t wait until we go to war with them.

Priest Of Gamers: HAHAHA!! Thanks again! XD Peace and Highscores, brother.

Christopher: Thanks and good luck out there. 🙂