This is easily one of the worst, most misguided articles I've read concerning controversy in the video game scene. Admissions like "from where I sit," "at least from what I can see," and "it's a fair guess" are bad enough in that they confirm that the author is not speaking from a position of a member of that community; but the lack of research completely kills the point that the author is trying to make. The outcry from the scandals has been extensive, and the issues that the article touches on briefly are discussions that the community has already had and are addressing.
But that's not the real issue with the article.
The real issue is that the article banks on accusing the community for having misguided priorities in caring about a flourishing community tournament scene, over the community's response and handling of scandals from earlier in the year; and articulating it in a way that suggests that not enough was being done to resolve the issues (I guess because banning the perpetrators, taking more steps to prevent future abuses, and making sincere apologies to the victims wasn't a strong start, to say nothing of other measures since then). There's a tremendous amount of disconnect in doing that, because it necessarily ignores that the community itself was also a victim of the scandals. And to be clear, they were not direct victims of the abuse, all sympathy should be directed to those who were- but I part of the outcry came from those fans who were angered, saddened, alarmed by the knowledge that people they once admired were doing such vile things. An article like this seems like a slap in their faces, an accusation that they should have done more to prevent it and fix it.
The shorthand is that it spends time redirecting a conversation about tournament organization using new resources, using scandals from earlier in the year to invalidate the discussion without actually arguing the points. It's a poorly-constructed red herring fallacy mixed with an equally weak strawman, that fails to make a reasonable point or compelling connection between two topics. Even if the author had decided to simply focus on the scandals, the article would have failed simply based on its woeful lack of research and perspective.
Comments 1
Re: Soapbox: If The Smash Community Wants To #SaveSmash, It Needs To Start From Within
This is easily one of the worst, most misguided articles I've read concerning controversy in the video game scene. Admissions like "from where I sit," "at least from what I can see," and "it's a fair guess" are bad enough in that they confirm that the author is not speaking from a position of a member of that community; but the lack of research completely kills the point that the author is trying to make. The outcry from the scandals has been extensive, and the issues that the article touches on briefly are discussions that the community has already had and are addressing.
But that's not the real issue with the article.
The real issue is that the article banks on accusing the community for having misguided priorities in caring about a flourishing community tournament scene, over the community's response and handling of scandals from earlier in the year; and articulating it in a way that suggests that not enough was being done to resolve the issues (I guess because banning the perpetrators, taking more steps to prevent future abuses, and making sincere apologies to the victims wasn't a strong start, to say nothing of other measures since then). There's a tremendous amount of disconnect in doing that, because it necessarily ignores that the community itself was also a victim of the scandals. And to be clear, they were not direct victims of the abuse, all sympathy should be directed to those who were- but I part of the outcry came from those fans who were angered, saddened, alarmed by the knowledge that people they once admired were doing such vile things. An article like this seems like a slap in their faces, an accusation that they should have done more to prevent it and fix it.
The shorthand is that it spends time redirecting a conversation about tournament organization using new resources, using scandals from earlier in the year to invalidate the discussion without actually arguing the points. It's a poorly-constructed red herring fallacy mixed with an equally weak strawman, that fails to make a reasonable point or compelling connection between two topics. Even if the author had decided to simply focus on the scandals, the article would have failed simply based on its woeful lack of research and perspective.