Depression Quest

[McFrugal]

I agree with everything Disposable Ninja has said. I think TedBelmont in particular is being a huge dumbass while refusing to even talk about the facts, and everyone else who resorted to personal attacks against DN should be ashamed of themselves.

Zoe Quinn is a lying, cheating, manipulative whore. She was SLEEPING WITH HER BOSS, so even if she didn't get immediate rewards from the other four guys she was sleeping with, she is a whore just for doing that. She has FAKED being attacked on multiple occasions. She has made a point of suppressing criticism. This has been proven. These are facts. Anyone who defends her at this point are either serving their own self-interests or are blind to the truth for some reason (and there are so many possible reasons), and should be pitied.

Beatbandito, talking about your own problems is, like Thad said, brave. However, you seem to realize yourself that you're kindof a tool for doing those things, and Zoe Quinn did them for far more selfish reasons, so she's like, several levels above you in tool power, and you should realize this too. You're not really helping her case.

Edit: err, criticism is more accurate.

[ocksi]

Well, she definitely had sex with people. Judging her on that is silly. And as long as she's the one being judged (even though all parties named were also involved in literally the same act) for it, sexist.

I have not seen proof of literally any other claims against her, though. What were her selfish reasons? Where did she fake being attacked? What rewards did she get for having consensual (whorish?) sex with people?

Do you have proof of any of those claims? I mean, I guess I'm blind and pitiable. Won't you please show me the light so I, too, can believe this indie game dev is a whore?

[McFrugal]

Well, she definitely had sex with people. Judging her on that is silly. And as long as she's the one being judged (even though all parties named were also involved in moist the same act) for it, sexist.

I have not seen proof of moist any other claims against her, though. Will you offer it?

I'm faaaairly sure that judging someone for cheating on their significant other and sleeping with their boss is not silly. Nor is it sexist. Judging a woman for her actions is not sexist. Judging a woman for actions she didn't commit would be sexist. This is a very important and simple distinction.

As for proof, well, here you go! Here's like, a hub of information:
http://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/commen ... lications/
Here's specific proof of her faking the wizardchan thing: http://imgur.com/a/4VOcx (and there's a bunch of other examples of her behavior in there)
Specific proof that she faked her Tumblr being hacked: http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/new ... 59/1e4.png
She did a DMCA takedown of at least one negative video.

Edit:
Oh you edited your post. Well, she had sex with her boss, and it's basically impossible to do that while not getting special treatment. So she's a whore. It's possible the other people gave her favors as well, but that's more up in the air, because apparently the timeline is disputed. I think it's fairly likely though.
Oh, I think you were saying that if I judge her for the cheating thing but not the people she slept with, it's sexist. Well, that's not the case at all. I think her boss is a scumbag, and the other guys are dicks for sleeping with someone who was already in a relationship.

[Blossom]

I don't think there's sexism at play when you judge someone for doing things they themselves define as rape.

[ocksi]

I do think there's sexism at play when a woman is a whore for sleeping with people, but the dudes are just the victims being used for perks (none of which seem to actually exist). Her infidelity is private business and her ex is the one in the wrong for taking that public.

As far as the Wizardchan imgur link, the "proof" seems to be these guys are awkward so she could have made everything up. But also that yes some of them do hate women. But sure, the speculation that she's making it all up is as much proof as she offered. So still just he-said, she-said balogna. Surprisingly, no admin decided to use any sort of IP research to help debunk her claims. But proof is proof, if you say it is.

As far as the tumblr thing, ok. I'll believe you on that because I actually don't know what the argument over a submission page is about, but it's clearly important.

I still don't understand why any of this is news or matters or what, exactly, she's supposedly getting from it. I know she had sex with people because corroborating chat logs have shown that. I honestly don't know why anyone not in a romantic or sexual relationship with her has any business in this discussion from the get-go, nor why they care or think it's ok to attack her.

[McFrugal]

I do think there's sexism at play when a woman is a whore for sleeping with people, but the dudes are just the victims being used for perks (none of which seem to actually exist). Her infidelity is private business and he ex is the one in the wrong for taking that public.

As far as the Wizardchan imgur link, the "proof" seems to be these guys are awkward so she could have made everything up. But also that yes some of them do hate women. But sure, the speculation that she's making it all up is as much proof as she offered. So still just he-said, she-said balogna. Surprisingly, no admin decided to use any sort of IP research to help debunk her claims. But proof is proof, if you say it is.

As far as the tumblr thing, ok. I'll believe you on that because I actually don't know what the argument over a submission page is about, but it's clearly important.

I still don't understand why any of this is news or matters or what, exactly, she's supposedly getting from it. I know she had sex with people because corroborating chat logs have shown that. I honestly don't know why anyone not in a romantic or sexual relationship with her has any business in this discussion from the get-go, nor why they care or think it's ok to attack her.

She is a whore for sleeping with her boss. Sex for favors makes her a whore. Doesn't it? Or am I misinterpreting the definition? If I am, then I guess there's no term for what she's done. It's still wrong.
The dudes are not victims, they are dicks. Like I said. The ex is not really in the wrong for making his feelings public. He is allowed to do that, because it is HIS personal matter. That's his prerogative.
As for the wizardchan thing, I don't think you read the whole thing.

Edit:
Oh, as for why this matters... well, originally it was because she slept with a reviewer who reviewed her game. It's possible that the events were unrelated because apparently the timeline is disputed. Now, however, it's turned into a giant clusterfuck because of everyone trying to defend her for the wrong reasons. It's turned into an argument about sexism, when it was NEVER about gender.

[ocksi]

What favors did she get?

[Brantly B.]

I've had bosses I would have gladly slept with for no benefit or even to the detriment of my career.

(Note to anyone who might be reputation tracking me: Not my current boss.)

[McFrugal]

What favors did she get?

I've had bosses I would have gladly slept with for no benefit or even to the detriment of my career.

(Note to anyone who might be reputation tracking me: Not my current boss.)

You're free to disagree with me, but I still believe that it's not possible to have sex with your boss without having at least subconscious preferential treatment. Taking into account Zoe Quinn's behavior, though, I'm certain she actively pursued preferential treatment.

[ocksi]

I've actually slept with my boss before and the only things I got were an awkward workplace and a promise that if anyone found out, I would be unemployed, so I'm pretty sure it's possible.

But I am still curious what perks she got from the other four, if she was just fuckin' to manipulate people.

[Joxam]

So if by your own logic the dudes are not victims, who is? And if no one is a victim why do you still keep throwing around the word whore like a fucking 12 year old? Even actual honest to god prostitutes get the luxury (sarcasm) of being called prostitutes or sex workers at the very least. If by your own admission there isn't a victim what exactly was the crime? If sex with multiple partners by itself is not a crime.

Hell, sex with your supervisor is not immediately considered sexual harassment in the workplace until you have tangible evidence that it's reached the point of hostile work environment or quid pro quo. And guess what, its not the subordinates fault if it does get to that point. Because 'feminine whiles' is not an excuse for any member of a management team to put themselves in that position.

[McFrugal]

I've actually slept with my boss before and the only things I got were an awkward workplace and a promise that if anyone found out, I would be unemployed, so I'm pretty sure it's possible.

But I am still curious what perks she got from the other four, if she was just fuckin' to manipulate people.

Well, maybe I'm wrong then about it being impossible. As for the other four, I think only the one reviewer seemed to have given her anything that was immediately obvious to an outside observer, but that's disputed anyway. I guess she could just be exchanging sexual favors for loyalty or connections but that's speculation. It's not unfounded explanation though, considering apparently there's a lot of nepotism in the games journalism industry. Regardless, I was basing the 'sex for favors' thing entirely on her sleeping with her boss. Just her boss. I hope that's clear now.

So if by your own logic the dudes are not victims, who is? And if no one is a victim why do you still keep throwing around the word whore like a fucking 12 year old? Even actual honest to god prostitutes get the luxury (sarcasm) of being called prostitutes or sex workers at the very least. If by your own admission there isn't a victim what exactly was the crime? If sex with multiple partners by itself is not a crime.

orange, sex with your supervisor is not immediately considered sexual harassment in the workplace until you have tangible evidence that it's reached the point of hostile work environment or quid pro quo. And guess what, its not the subordinates fault if it does get to that point. Because 'feminine whiles' is not an excuse for any member of a management team to put themselves in that position.

I'm using the word whore because it's a convenient term. It nicely encompasses the shitty thing I strongly believe she's done. Her co-workers are the victims where preferential treatment is involved.

[Joxam]

If your claims are true she's also the victim of quid pro quo sexual harassment, is my point.

[Classic]

Holy fuck was there a lot of activity while I wrote this and got a burrito. coconuuut.

I don't think there's sexism at play when you judge someone for doing things they themselves define as rape.

I don't know what exactly Quinn posit(ed?) on this subject, but if I take what you're suggesting about her claims at face value...
I'm still not sure making poorly thought out statements to the internet where people might take it as an authoritative opinion is actually a crime. No matter how much I'd like it to be. It definitely isn't cause to call someone a whore as a pejorative. So there's definitely something else going on with this criticism of Quinn.

I have no particular reason to believe that Quinn isn't an asshole game dev personality. It could very well be that she's using seriously scummy tactics to try and control criticism about her titles. But the style and source of this outrage smacks very much of the misdirected and/or unwarranted rage that I've seen against Sarkeesian, Hepler, and Simone. So much of it isn't directed at things I actually consider problems or crimes for which Quinn is a most significant perpetrator.

I mean, I'm still soured on how DN put it forward:
She had sex in ways I disagree with, therefore you should believe that she did these things.

Everyone seems to want to gossip about the juicy (secret?) polyamory going on before they get into what would be a relevant concern. It feels like someone is trying to scandalize me about this person so that I'm more likely to believe shaky evidence of other crimes. I don't like it.

EDIT:
In awesome news, polyamory for this post spellchecks to polyandry!

[Brantly B.]

So I have to take a moment out of work to stop making quick phone posts and respond to this.

The ex is not really in the wrong for making his feelings public. He is allowed to do that, because it is HIS personal matter. That's his prerogative.

Fucking hell no. It's not his personal matter, it's their personal matter. Dragging all that out in public without her knowledge or consent is a violation of privacy much deeper, personal, and severely relevant than almost anything else, and this is an area where most people will feel disgusted just to find out that some office clerk somewhere has their search history.

Do you know how many people, just here, I could dick over by deciding that I have a sole right to decide which of our shared matters get discussed? The few times I've actually gone and done it - via absent-mindedness, pettiness or just plain bad judgement - are all what I consider the biggest mistakes I've ever made in this community and the very first ones I'd take back if I could.

For the most part I don't try to change people's views on what is moral and what isn't and don't ever want to, but this is something I feel strongly enough about that I have trouble seeing the middle ground. I humbly and hopefully request that none of us ever act like that schmuck if such a situation occurs.

[McFrugal]

So I have to take a moment out of work to stop making quick phone posts and respond to this.

The ex is not really in the wrong for making his feelings public. He is allowed to do that, because it is HIS personal matter. That's his prerogative.

Fucking orange no. It's not his personal matter, it's their personal matter. Dragging all that out in public without her knowledge or consent is a violation of privacy much deeper, personal, and severely relevant than almost anything else, and this is an area where most people will feel disgusted just to find out that some office clerk somewhere has their search history.

Do you know how many people, just here, I could banana over by deciding that I have a sole right to decide which of our shared matters get discussed? The few times I've actually gone and done it - via absent-mindedness, pettiness or just plain bad judgement - are all what I consider the biggest mistakes I've ever made in this community and the very first ones I'd take back if I could.

For the most part I don't try to change people's views on what is moral and what isn't and don't ever want to, but this is something I feel strongly enough about that I have trouble seeing the middle ground. I humbly and hopefully request that none of us ever act like that schmuck if such a situation occurs.

...I dunno, I think if she lied to and manipulated him over their entire relationship and cheated on him multiple times, he's allowed to tell other people she's a manipulative liar and a cheater. I mean, that level of breach of trust breaks any foundation of friendship they had. You regret spilling secrets on your friends, or even your acquaintances, and that's perfectly normal. However, there's no reason to regret outing someone for being inherently toxic. That's like warning other people. I will say that he's likely gone into excessive detail. From what I've heard, he released a LOT of information on the subject.

[Classic]

W-wait...
So you're criticizing Quinn of this, without reading the first-hand allegations yourself, even though they're easily available?

[McFrugal]

W-wait...
So you're criticizing Quinn of this, without reading the first-hand allegations yourself, even though they're easily available?

I read the TLDR version. Also, the veracity of her ex-boyfriend's claims was never in question.

[Classic]

"Was never in question" is a disconcerting phrase to use when the claims are being used to attack the credibility of someone else's claims and/or everything. I took it to mean that they were more-or-less proven to be accurate, barring a conspiracy more coordinated than Quinn's usual band of detractors could execute. But maybe I was wrong to think that?

[McFrugal]

"Was never in question" is a disconcerting phrase to use when the claims are being used to attack the credibility of someone else's claims and/or everything. I took it to mean that they were more-or-less proven to be accurate, barring a conspiracy more coordinated than Quinn's usual band of detractors could execute. But maybe I was wrong to think that?

It's not wrong. Like I said, he posted a LOT of stuff. Like, evidence. Here's the TLDR version I referred to:
http://thezoepost.wordpress.com/2014/08/16/tldr/