8 ms·

SXSW Cancels Gamer Panels After Threats

44 points by conover 11y ago

nefitty 11y ago
Wow, didn't see that coming. /sarcasm
manicdee 11y ago
Why wouldn't they continue with the programming, and be ready to press charges against anyone who behaves violently?
- idle_processor 11y ago
  Liability.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
    - MBCook 11y ago
      But then invite anyone in the first place? This was all foreseeable. They're acting like this is coming out of nowhere.
- intopieces 11y ago
  Austin is located in the American state of Texas, which prides itself on gun ownership. Also, the SXSW conference has already had an instance of violence: a driver ran into a crowd of people and killed a few of them. While not intentional, I'm sure the programmers of this conference are eager to separate their brand from the idea of danger.
  - 13thLetter 11y ago
    "Austin is located in the American state of Texas, which prides itself on gun ownership." That doesn't really follow from the facts as a reason to be concerned about violence. Austin's crime rate is lower than that of most other major American cities, including ones such as Chicago which have heavy gun control. (As per Wikipedia, Chicago's murder rate for 2014 was 15.1, Austin's 3.5.)
    - intopieces 11y ago
      I'm not sure the crime rate statistic is relevant in the context of the flood of threats being directed at the event. We're no longer talking about 'random crime' at this point. Also, if there's going to be a threat of violence, I'd prefer that threat not to happen in a state where people have easy access to guns; I understand that many people have trust in crowd-sourced defense (ala a well-armed populace) but I like to think the police and the event security are better choice for that.
  - cloverich 11y ago
    > Also, the SXSW conference has already had an instance of violence: a driver ran into a crowd of people and killed a few of them Though I can see them being overly cautious as a result, I think context is important here: that was a drunk driver running from the cops. SXSW being there was a tragic coincidence.
  - mtanski 11y ago
    Don't hold things in TX / do not support things in TX. I know I get flames for that everytime, but the state of TX holds / enforces some horrible views.
- bsder 11y ago
  Because they would likely be subject to a boycott by the neckbeards. And the neckbeards spend WAY more money than the feminazis at SXSW. SXSW was stupid to not forsee that giving an online flamewar a physical presence was a bad idea. There is also the fact that concealed carry of weaponry is legal in Texas. And, again, if SXSW explicitly banned concealed handguns at their events, they will provoke a boycott by a very loud, obnoxious group of social warriors who have lots of crossover with neckbeards.
oomkiller 11y ago
SXSW had the chance to take a stand for diversity here, choosing instead to show just how shallow they truly are. edit: Added clarification of which "side" I'm on
- striking 11y ago
  I don't think that's fair to either side of the discussion, or to SXSW. They reportedly received threats and piles of attention over both panels, and they didn't want to deal with that. They allowed both panels to sign up in the name of neutrality and diversity of ideas. And I guess people from both sides made sure neither could have nice things. (SXSW didn't blame anyone, but that's my guess.)
  - oomkiller 11y ago
    I get it, SXSW is a business, and they want to protect their profits. It makes plenty of sense. SXSW loves attention, they just chose to sit this one out because their analysis concluded that it would be better for their bottom line. They pride themselves as a forward-thinking event, even continuing this spiel in their announcement. It's now obvious to everyone that cares that it was all just marketing. Ultimately I think this will hurt their bottom line by driving diversity away from their event. Will discussions of racial diversity now be cancelled at the whim of the KKK? These groups operate through threats and intimidation, and I think there is a real risk of other hate groups catching wind of this and using similar tactics to stir up attention for their cause.
    - MBCook 11y ago
      So now the GGers are mad and will probably boycott them or yell at their sponsors. And the anti-GG, anti-harassment people are mad at them for hosting the others and then cancelling the good side... so they'll boycott and yell at the sponsors. So instead of having neither group at no monetary cost, they found a way to have neither group and take a hit to their reputation and possibly pocket books. And of course they didn't take a moral stand either way (which both sides likely see as a stand with their enemy). Way to go SXSW. Playing with fire has a reputation for a reason.
striking 11y ago
#SavePoint on why their panel was cancelled: http://www.theopengamingsociety.org/savepoint-dear-community/ http://www.theopengamingsociety.org/savepoint-dear-community... LevelUp on why their panel was cancelled: https://twitter.com/randileeharper/status/658780409765994496 https://twitter.com/randileeharper/status/658780409765994496
- douche 11y ago
  Which side is which here? I'm not really clued into the whole GamerGate thing... I have seen Randi Lee Harper say some very unpleasant things, and some even more unpleasant things said about her. I know nothing about the Open Gaming Society, but reading their website it seems like a relatively sane organization.
  - msabalau 11y ago
    SavePoint was to featured "several prominent GamerGate figureheads". The sponsoring organization generally claims to take "a neutral stance" on GamerGate. (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/sxsw-cancels-gaming-panels-due-to-threats-of-violence http://motherboard.vice.com/read/sxsw-cancels-gaming-panels-...) Randi Lee Harper is noted for making tools to help victims of online harassment. Level Up panel description was "A panel from experts on online harassment in gaming and geek culture, how to combat it, how to design against it, and how to create online communities that are moving away from harassment." The GamerGate crowd claim that they care about "ethics in game journalism" and that the abuse that feminist gamers experience doesn't have anything to do with them. So theoretically, there aren't opposing sides here.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
    - daleharvey 11y ago
      It is not a complicated situation, from the start its been clear that gamergate is solely a vehicle for organised harassment (primarily of women). There isnt any moral quandry or naunced position about it, its just harassment.
tlrobinson 11y ago
So why not hold the panels in an undisclosed location and webcast them? Preferably for the public, not just conference attendees. Instead of giving the terrorists (for lack of a better word) exactly what they want turn it around and use their threats to garner extra publicity.
- famousactress 11y ago
  There isn't a better word, and we don't need one.
- thoughtmonkey 11y ago
  Actually, #Savepoint will still be having the panel, at a separate location. It seems like they expected to be canceled, or not get the panel, so they planned ahead. With tempers this high, it's likely have one (or several) bomb threats will be called against the location the day of. http://www.theopengamingsociety.org/savepoint-dear-community/ http://www.theopengamingsociety.org/savepoint-dear-community...
dbg31415 11y ago
So... it's probably for the best. SXSW is light hearted and fun. Having someone come in and talk smack about games being sexist, or overly violent, or racist... it doesn't really belong at SXSW. It's not supposed to be a Debbie downer convention, it's supposed to be fun. Plenty of other places to go tell game creators that they aren't politically correct -- if you're serious about wanting games to change / be more heavily regulated just write a letter and drop it in your nearest trash can.
Karunamon 11y ago
I get the liability arguments here, I really do, but people need to understand this is going to keep happening as long as people keep kowtowing to the demands of terrorists. And I do not see that as too strong a word, either. Making threats against an event because it's against your ideology is the textbook definition of using fear to shape thought and policy. These threats are never credible. It's high time to stop treating them as such.
Zikes 11y ago
The Gamergate/Anti-Gamergate movement has to be a Sociology PhD Candidate's thesis topic. It's fascinating how utterly polarizing it is, I mean just look at the sort of comments we're seeing right here on HN, and we tend to be the levelheaded and civil ones! Both "sides" are victims of their own success. In spite of whatever potentially valid points they have, the moment someone figures out which "side" you are on you are immediately lumped into one group or the other and considered completely guilty by association. And the folks that do that are so absolutely certain of how "vile" or "evil" you are, as certainly as if you'd come out as a Nazi or somesuch. But if you could somehow make your argument without getting either label attached, someone might actually want to listen to you as though you were a rational human being.
- MBCook 11y ago
  > and we tend to be the levelheaded and civil ones! I've seen a lot of things discussed on HN. I think that may be wishful thinking. Just because HN isn't full of straight out cussing and insults doesn't mean we're level headed or civil.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    We are still like two sigmas right of the mean.
  - cbsmith 11y ago
    "levelheaded and civil ones" was clearly meant in relative terms. HN is not level headed or civil, we're just more level headed or civil.
fragsworth 11y ago
What's frustrating about this whole situation is how deceptive the "extremists" have been on both sides (GamerGate and Anti-GamerGate) by making false-flag attacks. You just can't tell who is faking what now, and it's making reasonable discussion between the two camps impossible, further polarizing everyone.
nradov 11y ago
The whole Gamergate drama reminds me of the old saying: “The reason why campus politics are so dirty is that the stakes are so small.” I mean seriously what kind of loser takes video games seriously? Or even worse, who actually cares about video game reviews?
- Zikes 11y ago
  http://www.statista.com/statistics/278181/video-games-revenue-worldwide-from-2012-to-2015-by-source/ http://www.statista.com/statistics/278181/video-games-revenu...
- chasing 11y ago
  If you're interested in interactive media -- and you've had an account on Hacker News for 8+ years, so let's assume so -- then you really should have at least a passing understanding of how video games work. Both technically and creatively. And as businesses. It's a fascinating topic -- and arguably we're going through a bit of a golden age! If you're just interested in making fun of nerds for liking video games... Again, you've had a Hacker News account for 8+ years. Might want to watch you you call "loser" for liking stuff related to technology. (8+ years? Unless you first created your account when you were 10 years old, you're literally an adult who wrote the comment above. Wow!)
  - nradov 11y ago
    Ha ha. I used to be a hard core gamer. Then I grew up, moved out of my parents' house, and got a life. There's nothing wrong with playing games as a hobby. The losers are the ones who actually care about games and take them seriously.
    - chasing 11y ago
      Whelp, you're missing out on some interesting stuff, man. Happy to hear you finally moved out of your parents' place!
    - Fuzzwah 11y ago
      For people to play games as a hobby, at least a few people have to take them seriously...
mfjordvald 11y ago
What I find most interesting is how this thread is in position 89 with 38 points after only 2 hours. There's some super heavy flagging going on to censor this whole thing.
erics32 11y ago
Threatening violence to noplatform your ideological opponents is a pretty standard tactic out of the SJW playbook. See: http://www.polygon.com/2015/5/3/8539733/gamergate-bomb-threat-washington-ggindc-milo-yiannopoulos-christina-hoff-summers http://www.polygon.com/2015/5/3/8539733/gamergate-bomb-threa... http://www.polygon.com/2015/8/16/9161311/bomb-threat-shuts-down-spj-panel-discussing-gamergate http://www.polygon.com/2015/8/16/9161311/bomb-threat-shuts-d...

44 points by conover 11y ago

nefitty 11y ago

Wow, didn't see that coming. /sarcasm

manicdee 11y ago

Why wouldn't they continue with the programming, and be ready to press charges against anyone who behaves violently?

idle_processor 11y ago
Liability.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - MBCook 11y ago
    But then invite anyone in the first place? This was all foreseeable. They're acting like this is coming out of nowhere.
intopieces 11y ago
Austin is located in the American state of Texas, which prides itself on gun ownership. Also, the SXSW conference has already had an instance of violence: a driver ran into a crowd of people and killed a few of them. While not intentional, I'm sure the programmers of this conference are eager to separate their brand from the idea of danger.
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  "Austin is located in the American state of Texas, which prides itself on gun ownership." That doesn't really follow from the facts as a reason to be concerned about violence. Austin's crime rate is lower than that of most other major American cities, including ones such as Chicago which have heavy gun control. (As per Wikipedia, Chicago's murder rate for 2014 was 15.1, Austin's 3.5.)
  - intopieces 11y ago
    I'm not sure the crime rate statistic is relevant in the context of the flood of threats being directed at the event. We're no longer talking about 'random crime' at this point. Also, if there's going to be a threat of violence, I'd prefer that threat not to happen in a state where people have easy access to guns; I understand that many people have trust in crowd-sourced defense (ala a well-armed populace) but I like to think the police and the event security are better choice for that.
- cloverich 11y ago
  > Also, the SXSW conference has already had an instance of violence: a driver ran into a crowd of people and killed a few of them Though I can see them being overly cautious as a result, I think context is important here: that was a drunk driver running from the cops. SXSW being there was a tragic coincidence.
- mtanski 11y ago
  Don't hold things in TX / do not support things in TX. I know I get flames for that everytime, but the state of TX holds / enforces some horrible views.
bsder 11y ago
Because they would likely be subject to a boycott by the neckbeards. And the neckbeards spend WAY more money than the feminazis at SXSW. SXSW was stupid to not forsee that giving an online flamewar a physical presence was a bad idea. There is also the fact that concealed carry of weaponry is legal in Texas. And, again, if SXSW explicitly banned concealed handguns at their events, they will provoke a boycott by a very loud, obnoxious group of social warriors who have lots of crossover with neckbeards.

oomkiller 11y ago

SXSW had the chance to take a stand for diversity here, choosing instead to show just how shallow they truly are. edit: Added clarification of which "side" I'm on

striking 11y ago
I don't think that's fair to either side of the discussion, or to SXSW. They reportedly received threats and piles of attention over both panels, and they didn't want to deal with that. They allowed both panels to sign up in the name of neutrality and diversity of ideas. And I guess people from both sides made sure neither could have nice things. (SXSW didn't blame anyone, but that's my guess.)
- oomkiller 11y ago
  I get it, SXSW is a business, and they want to protect their profits. It makes plenty of sense. SXSW loves attention, they just chose to sit this one out because their analysis concluded that it would be better for their bottom line. They pride themselves as a forward-thinking event, even continuing this spiel in their announcement. It's now obvious to everyone that cares that it was all just marketing. Ultimately I think this will hurt their bottom line by driving diversity away from their event. Will discussions of racial diversity now be cancelled at the whim of the KKK? These groups operate through threats and intimidation, and I think there is a real risk of other hate groups catching wind of this and using similar tactics to stir up attention for their cause.
  - MBCook 11y ago
    So now the GGers are mad and will probably boycott them or yell at their sponsors. And the anti-GG, anti-harassment people are mad at them for hosting the others and then cancelling the good side... so they'll boycott and yell at the sponsors. So instead of having neither group at no monetary cost, they found a way to have neither group and take a hit to their reputation and possibly pocket books. And of course they didn't take a moral stand either way (which both sides likely see as a stand with their enemy). Way to go SXSW. Playing with fire has a reputation for a reason.

striking 11y ago

#SavePoint on why their panel was cancelled: http://www.theopengamingsociety.org/savepoint-dear-community/ http://www.theopengamingsociety.org/savepoint-dear-community... LevelUp on why their panel was cancelled: https://twitter.com/randileeharper/status/658780409765994496 https://twitter.com/randileeharper/status/658780409765994496

douche 11y ago
Which side is which here? I'm not really clued into the whole GamerGate thing... I have seen Randi Lee Harper say some very unpleasant things, and some even more unpleasant things said about her. I know nothing about the Open Gaming Society, but reading their website it seems like a relatively sane organization.
- msabalau 11y ago
  SavePoint was to featured "several prominent GamerGate figureheads". The sponsoring organization generally claims to take "a neutral stance" on GamerGate. (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/sxsw-cancels-gaming-panels-due-to-threats-of-violence http://motherboard.vice.com/read/sxsw-cancels-gaming-panels-...) Randi Lee Harper is noted for making tools to help victims of online harassment. Level Up panel description was "A panel from experts on online harassment in gaming and geek culture, how to combat it, how to design against it, and how to create online communities that are moving away from harassment." The GamerGate crowd claim that they care about "ethics in game journalism" and that the abuse that feminist gamers experience doesn't have anything to do with them. So theoretically, there aren't opposing sides here.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - daleharvey 11y ago
    It is not a complicated situation, from the start its been clear that gamergate is solely a vehicle for organised harassment (primarily of women). There isnt any moral quandry or naunced position about it, its just harassment.

tlrobinson 11y ago

So why not hold the panels in an undisclosed location and webcast them? Preferably for the public, not just conference attendees. Instead of giving the terrorists (for lack of a better word) exactly what they want turn it around and use their threats to garner extra publicity.

famousactress 11y ago
There isn't a better word, and we don't need one.
thoughtmonkey 11y ago
Actually, #Savepoint will still be having the panel, at a separate location. It seems like they expected to be canceled, or not get the panel, so they planned ahead. With tempers this high, it's likely have one (or several) bomb threats will be called against the location the day of. http://www.theopengamingsociety.org/savepoint-dear-community/ http://www.theopengamingsociety.org/savepoint-dear-community...

dbg31415 11y ago

So... it's probably for the best. SXSW is light hearted and fun. Having someone come in and talk smack about games being sexist, or overly violent, or racist... it doesn't really belong at SXSW. It's not supposed to be a Debbie downer convention, it's supposed to be fun. Plenty of other places to go tell game creators that they aren't politically correct -- if you're serious about wanting games to change / be more heavily regulated just write a letter and drop it in your nearest trash can.

Karunamon 11y ago

I get the liability arguments here, I really do, but people need to understand this is going to keep happening as long as people keep kowtowing to the demands of terrorists. And I do not see that as too strong a word, either. Making threats against an event because it's against your ideology is the textbook definition of using fear to shape thought and policy. These threats are never credible. It's high time to stop treating them as such.

Zikes 11y ago

The Gamergate/Anti-Gamergate movement has to be a Sociology PhD Candidate's thesis topic. It's fascinating how utterly polarizing it is, I mean just look at the sort of comments we're seeing right here on HN, and we tend to be the levelheaded and civil ones! Both "sides" are victims of their own success. In spite of whatever potentially valid points they have, the moment someone figures out which "side" you are on you are immediately lumped into one group or the other and considered completely guilty by association. And the folks that do that are so absolutely certain of how "vile" or "evil" you are, as certainly as if you'd come out as a Nazi or somesuch. But if you could somehow make your argument without getting either label attached, someone might actually want to listen to you as though you were a rational human being.

MBCook 11y ago
> and we tend to be the levelheaded and civil ones! I've seen a lot of things discussed on HN. I think that may be wishful thinking. Just because HN isn't full of straight out cussing and insults doesn't mean we're level headed or civil.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  We are still like two sigmas right of the mean.
- cbsmith 11y ago
  "levelheaded and civil ones" was clearly meant in relative terms. HN is not level headed or civil, we're just more level headed or civil.

fragsworth 11y ago

What's frustrating about this whole situation is how deceptive the "extremists" have been on both sides (GamerGate and Anti-GamerGate) by making false-flag attacks. You just can't tell who is faking what now, and it's making reasonable discussion between the two camps impossible, further polarizing everyone.

nradov 11y ago

The whole Gamergate drama reminds me of the old saying: “The reason why campus politics are so dirty is that the stakes are so small.” I mean seriously what kind of loser takes video games seriously? Or even worse, who actually cares about video game reviews?

Zikes 11y ago
http://www.statista.com/statistics/278181/video-games-revenue-worldwide-from-2012-to-2015-by-source/ http://www.statista.com/statistics/278181/video-games-revenu...
chasing 11y ago
If you're interested in interactive media -- and you've had an account on Hacker News for 8+ years, so let's assume so -- then you really should have at least a passing understanding of how video games work. Both technically and creatively. And as businesses. It's a fascinating topic -- and arguably we're going through a bit of a golden age! If you're just interested in making fun of nerds for liking video games... Again, you've had a Hacker News account for 8+ years. Might want to watch you you call "loser" for liking stuff related to technology. (8+ years? Unless you first created your account when you were 10 years old, you're literally an adult who wrote the comment above. Wow!)
- nradov 11y ago
  Ha ha. I used to be a hard core gamer. Then I grew up, moved out of my parents' house, and got a life. There's nothing wrong with playing games as a hobby. The losers are the ones who actually care about games and take them seriously.
  - chasing 11y ago
    Whelp, you're missing out on some interesting stuff, man. Happy to hear you finally moved out of your parents' place!
  - Fuzzwah 11y ago
    For people to play games as a hobby, at least a few people have to take them seriously...

mfjordvald 11y ago

What I find most interesting is how this thread is in position 89 with 38 points after only 2 hours. There's some super heavy flagging going on to censor this whole thing.

erics32 11y ago

Threatening violence to noplatform your ideological opponents is a pretty standard tactic out of the SJW playbook. See: http://www.polygon.com/2015/5/3/8539733/gamergate-bomb-threat-washington-ggindc-milo-yiannopoulos-christina-hoff-summers http://www.polygon.com/2015/5/3/8539733/gamergate-bomb-threa... http://www.polygon.com/2015/8/16/9161311/bomb-threat-shuts-down-spj-panel-discussing-gamergate http://www.polygon.com/2015/8/16/9161311/bomb-threat-shuts-d...