Since the beginning of what was “online studies” in elementary school, hearing the dial up box and being able to repeat it verbatim as it rises/falls and then extends into the heartbeat that would become the Internet. With the start of the Internet came the username. Before that, it was sign your name ‘Mr/Mrs/Cis/Trans’. Currently, it’s please type your password or scrawl your three initials in this box and click ‘Submit’. Forget about how we got this way or why someone said that we needed to have the option of anonymity because we all have that option. So when that snot nose brat from Star Trek tells me that it’s too dangerous to have my face and name be hidden, the Klingon in me fries the smallest life form on every planet from here to the other side of this nebula. I, digress.
A day ago (at the time of writing), I read a blog post written by Wil Wheaton, and it came down to a few punchlines that just couldn’t stand on two feet if they were humanoid (I know that’s the Cis in me talking). The very foremost of these points was the fact that a 34-year-old should know better than to talk about someone’s “sexual conquests” with the other’s mother. Being non-anonymous would not stop those things from being said. Why? Easy, it’s been done. Take a look at Blizzard forcing World Of Warcraft (and now other IP’s under BattleNet) to use real names and email addresses for friending/chat purposes. How quickly can someone become dangerous online? Ask some teenagers that gave out that info down the line – something I personally have vehemently avoided – using my username on everything. If you want to track me, there is more than enough information for the above average user, let alone the police.
It’s really the biggest of his points that fails to meet me in the middle and bring me to the other side. The fact that exposing women online, in games, wouldn’t greet those individuals with even more hate and fear mongering. The point would be fine if someone could sell it with utmost fervor. Alas, that’s not the case and it’s clarified that they aren’t treated badly in games, as long as the offended people could now see the offenders face/name. Going on to utter nonsense about how that would spur a change of the human condition, and that gamers would be more up front with the fears of other social attributes. GIVE ME A FRIGGIN BREAK! Are you kidding me? IS THIS REAL? Unfortunately it is. You can break anything apart and make it sound sensible. This is all about facing reality. Calling the concrete divider what it is and breaking down the walls that divide those issues. That’s what change is. It isn’t taking away protection so that the friction caused by the collision fuses the sides as a consequence – thus creating harmony for all mankind? That’s all been tried before. You can’t make individuals like, let alone love, one another by tossing them in the entertainment battle arena (this is my magnifying glass version of what gaming can be at times).
Then I read this Washington Post Article and about lost my s*** ish(that’s my slang). Going down the track at full speed it gets really hard to see what is passing by. Things will catch your eye and your brain will go haywire trying to comprehend. This is pointing at the issues surrounding Felicia Day, on behalf of Wil Wheaton. Who blames #GamerGate for the doxxing, threats, and general harassment. The scenario really isn’t as it’s been made out. Someone from a third party going by two names, one name being some anonymous then the other being InternetAristocrat (verified not to be the Youtube Personality that was on a personal venture to Chicago at the time). All this to funnel into the bottom line of that Article being “teach gamers that they can compete without being competitive, that they can win and lose without spewing racist, misogynist, homophobic bile at their fellow gamers”. I agree with some of this statement. If this was really the bottom line, and not the middle paragraph of how bad it is to be anonymous online, then I’d say there is common ground to be progressed on. Instead a rift is left with no owner to mend it.
This is gaming. It’s not a culture or subculture. It’s a group of individuals that have different tastes and tenacity for their entertainment. You can make a case that liking a certain game or genre will have a host of people with similar lifestyles and identities, but those will fail with the next game type. You can’t make a claim that harassment will go away. When I say ‘You’, it’s everyone who agrees with this sentiment. There will be new, more real, problems for people. Good People, that just let loose on a game because of a bad day – saying things that aren’t exactly racist, phobic, or inflammatory, just sarcastic or stupid. It sounds like I’m setting up a strawman, but look at it as; “if you don’t like it, don’t be a part of it”; find/create your own system if you’re that unhappy. I know a guy with enough money and apparent know-how to make it work, you could be friends.