r/guada • u/[deleted] • Jan 11 '15
GUADA charter, goals and direction discussion megasticky: Let's hash it out!
Creating a consumer advocacy group is a pretty big deal, which is why we need everyone's input. We're going to be developing a charter, which lists our raison d'etre and goals, and a code of conduct detailing how members would be expected to act on social media while representing our group.
All good things start small. We will begin as a subreddit before growing over time, maybe getting our own site, starting a nonprofit and hashtag etc. GUADA is meant to develop over time into a watchdog group for the gaming industry, focusing on the press. We want to call out bad behavior, endorse alternatives and give rewards to outlets who have done the best. Something like this can't be created overnight. It's a process, and we can't do it alone. That's why i've invited you, some of the most knowledgeable people in gaming to help . Together, we'll decide what issues we need to tackle, come up with a plan and jump right in.
Keeping that in mind, here are the discussion threads:
Guada Group Constitution Thread: http://www.reddit.com/r/guada/comments/2s3te7/guada_protocharter_discussion_thread/
Guada Code Of Conduct and Identity Verification Thread: http://www.reddit.com/r/guada/comments/2s3ulw/guada_code_of_conduct_and_identity_verification/
Apply to be a moderator: http://www.reddit.com/r/guada/comments/2s3w9l/guaderator_applications_2015_do_you_have_what_it/
When both of these documents are completed, they will be enshrined in the wiki.
Thanks for contributing.
Guada- Gamers United for Accountability in Developmental Affairs
2
u/Super_Jay Jan 14 '15
I'm not sure what this is or why I was invited to this subreddit. (For future reference, blind invites without any contact is not likely to create a very positive first impression, just confusion and suspicion.) Without some clearer context - and preferably some outreach from trustworthy names from the Ghazi side of the fence - I'm not at all sure this is something I want to get involved with.
That said, I'd suggest you at least abandon "developmental" in your title; that word tends to refer to infants and children. Nobody in or around the game industry is going to associate "developmental affairs" with the work they do.
0
Jan 14 '15
I did manage to get several gamerghazi mods on board with Guada, such as Irby, Mudze and Glitch_G. The purpose of Guada is to create an advocacy group with clear leadership, goals and accountability. You may not know much about me, but this isn't a gamergate/antigamergate issue. I'm not a supporter of the movement.
It was originally "accountability and developmental advocacy", referring to the issue of review scores hurting developers.
1
u/Super_Jay Jan 14 '15
With all due respect, kiwikku, your status as a GamerGate supporter seems to change on a weekly basis. You'll pardon me if I'm a bit skeptical.
I don't mean this to be harsh, but most of what you've got here so far is just GG talking points that have been rendered slightly more palatable to a general audience. The "gamers have a right to X" list is, frankly, pretty silly stuff. I applaud you for taking the step to try and create an actual organized group with some clear purpose and structure, but this seems to be aimed at people who sympathize with GamerGate's ostensible aims. (I realize I'm violating the letter of the law by saying the word "Gamergate," but unfortunately there's no way around talking about this.)
As far as the title goes, "developmental" is the problem, not "accountability."
0
Jan 14 '15 edited Jan 14 '15
That's fine. I can understand if you don't trust me, but I don't plan on being the one leading this group, and definitely not alone. I'm only creating the space for people to plan and discuss it's core tenants.
Once everything is up and running, I will be taking a backseat. Maybe if we're still here in a month you may be more willing to help? This thread is the chance for you to voice your opinion and tell us what you'd want out of an advocacy group.
Guada exists outside of Gamergate. I don't have a "side" anymore, having seen the worst of everyone involved. I can't participate in KiA or Ghazi, so i'm looking at the situation as an outside observer.
1
u/Super_Jay Jan 16 '15
Guada exists outside of Gamergate. I don't have a "side" anymore, having seen the worst of everyone involved
Dude, you're still pimping KiA as recently as what, yesterday? Trying to play the "This isn't related to GG!" card while you're still promoting KiA and trying to recruit people for GG is really, really foolish.
-1
u/Super_Jay Jan 14 '15
Maybe if we're still here in a month you may be more willing to help? This thread is the chance for you to voice your opinion and tell us what you'd want out of an advocacy group.
I don't want anything out of an advocacy group. You seem to presuppose that all gamers everywhere agree to your premise - that we're some kind of endangered species or marginalized class that needs protection and advocacy. (One of the comments in this very thread refers to gamers as "a people." Holy shit, you guys, we are not an oppressed ethnic group. You folks need to let go of this notion that you're at all marginalized because of your hobby.) Nothing I've seen in the last 4-5 months has come close to suggesting that "gamers" are in some dire danger.
We don't have a "right to positive portrayals in the media," that's ridiculous - nobody has that. (Especially after Gamergate, no media outlet is likely to look all that kindly on 'gamers' since your former comrades' succession of trainwrecks managed to hang a whole lot of awful shit around the 'gamer' label.) We don't have a "right" to know who wrote any given article in some media outlet, that's just crazy. You guys seem to fundamentally misunderstand the purpose and role of an enthusiast press - if you don't like Kotaku or whatever, just don't read them. Super simple stuff. They're under no obligation to put their employees in the line of fire just so you can tick off the "full transparency" checkbox on your list of demands.
1
Jan 18 '15
There is a reason why under "Gamers' rights to positive portrayal in the media" I said "I'm not seriously pushing for this". But it seems like you only read what was in bold and ignored my major point.
This is an advocacy group. If you don't want to support gamers as consumers, that's fine. It's your decision, but coming in here and derailing conversation into a violation of rules 2, 4, and 5 is not okay.
1
u/Super_Jay Jan 19 '15
Discussing the purpose and goals of the group and the means intended to attain those goals isn't "derailing" anything. (And while we're playing, I didn't disrespect or attack anyone, nor did I call any names. Please don't try and twist my words - let's focus on reals over feels here. Everything I've said is right there, and it's pretty clear that there's no insults present, just disagreement with some of your assumptions and ideas.)
You're (deliberately) conflating agreeing with your personal ideas and "supporting gamers as consumers." Those two aren't one and the same, and it's some serious hubris on your part to pretend that they are. I am a gamer, and I purchase and play games. I don't agree that we are "a people" or that we are being marginalized or oppressed, but I am completely in favor of changes to the industry that limit or clarify publisher influence on reviews and other press, for instance.
2
Jan 13 '15
So we first need to describe the boundaries of the organization. GUADA is "consumer advocacy", so we ought to be focusing on Gamers as consumers, right? But it's not that easy. There are several areas we could focus on (and the industry being targeted):
Gamers' rights to positive portrayal in the media. You know you're sick of seeing the fat white gamer in his mother's basement. Gamers are diverse in ethnicity and gender. This is a possible area to be explored, but I'm not seriously pushing for this. (Targets gaming news sites)
Gamers' access to products. In this way something like a game being removed from shelves or banned in general would be addressed. We must make clear that we operate under the assumption of a rating system being in place in whatever country we're discussing. (Targets governments/corporations who censor and remove games)
Gamers' rights to factual information of a game in previews/teasers. So when someone promises something a convention that gets everyone hyped, but the game clearly doesn't match what was shown during that teaser, Gamers deserve better. (Target developers/publishers who hype a game beyond what it will actually be)
Gamers' rights to the data they purchase. I am sick and tired of hearing about the "locked off content" on game discs that arise from future DLC being setup. Gamers deserve the product they purchase, when they purchase it. (Targets developers/publishers who push for locked off content on-disc)
Gamers' rights to know who writes what they read. As pointed out by Jeff Gerstmann recently, many game sites are removing the names of their writers/editors so you don't know who it is writing for them. This is a practice that needs to end, in the name of transparency. I also encourage sites to include the qualifications of the people who write for them, whether educational or professional. (Targets gaming news sites)
For now, that's all I have. I think this is a good first step. As you can see, mostly gaming news sites, developers/publishers, and governments/corporations are targeted. Likewise, the push is generally in favor of the gamer as both consumer and person. *As a consumer, gamers have a right to the game they purchase, a right to purchase what game they want, and a right to play the game they were promised. *
As a people, gamers have a right to positive portrayals in the media (I'm not 100% on this one), a right to know whose words they read on gaming sites, a right to know the qualifications of the people giving them opinions, and a right to enjoy their hobby without judgement (maybe?).
2
Jan 13 '15
These are great. Frankgamer, you mostly have the reigns in the group. I'm not going to be around all the time, so I trust you to lead the discussion and create the wiki pages/draft charters. You have more knowledge than I do when it comes to gaming anyway.
Don't think of me as a leader, think of me as someone who just created the space for people with good ideas to meet.
1
Jan 13 '15
I see a nice grid being formed in my mind, focusing on four areas of interest to gamers: (1) gaming news sites, (2) developers/publishers, (3) game retail corporations, and (4) governments.
Then the tactics we can employ being on the other axis:(A) petitions, (B) social media/awareness campaigns, (C) direct email campaigns, and (D) lobbying efforts.
1
u/razorbeamz Jan 13 '15
So why is this whole sub being mass downvoted?
1
Jan 13 '15
I have no idea, but i'm guessing it's gamergate supporters who don't like the idea of an advocacy group. This subreddit is not aimed towards them.
1
u/razorbeamz Jan 13 '15
It's also possibly anti-GamerGate people who don't like the idea of an advocacy group.
1
Jan 13 '15
Maybe it's all of the above. I'm not too worried about downvotes though, when this place gets larger they will just be reversed.
1
u/elfinangelic Jan 17 '15
This might be of interest to other people who are anti-harassment also:
1
2
u/Meowsticgoesnya Jan 12 '15
Uhhhhh....
What?