Talk:Support List

From GamerGate Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search



  • On Adding Neutrals:
Devs: Agree that GamerGate is not a harassment movement
Sites: Update their ethics policy [without directly mentioning GamerGate]
  • On Non-gaming related Support adds: Make a note of whom are not related to games at all in their respective "Reasons" section
  • On Adding Developers:
Only use their last initial, some developers have been harassed outside of the internet

To Do



  • Snazzlebot Games
  • Super Awesome Hyper Dimensional Mega Team


  • jmjanetmars: account deleted, no archive --> Isn't this her account? @mjanetmars Conrad1on (talk) 09:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Bmikes1988: no mention of GamerGate in feed, no sourcing


Potential Additions

Website Links
All Games Beta Need further research
Attack Of The Fanboy No mention of gamergate, ethics policy (2012) [1]
Chet and Jon's Reassuringly Finite Gaming Playlist
CinemaBlend Multiple articles SVU[2]TYFC[3]Destruction Policy Update[4]
Colony of Gamers
Cosmos Gaming
Daddy Warpig's House of Geekery
Dark Side of Gaming No mention of gamergate, articles against unethical practices [5] [6]
GameGrep Seems generally supportive of #GamerGate [7]
Games Reviews Blocklist[8]Gamergate Indie Dev[9]Christina Hoff Sommers[10]Not Your Shield[11]
Geek(com) No mention of gamergate/Articles against ethical practices.
Geimaku Seems to have gone. Conrad1on (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
TheGG SVU[12]What it Feels like[13]AGG Bullying[14] Mark Kern[15]
Hardcore Gamer No mention of gamergate, articles against unethical practices [16]Kotaku[17]...Patrick?[18]
Honest Gamers No mention of gamergate, ethics policy [ttp://] No mention of gamergate, no articles against unethical practices
The Koalition Site has writers with pro and anti views (according to them.) [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]
Lo-Ping Runs community piece: The humanity of gamergate [24] [25] [26]
MechaDamashii No mention of gamergate, review policy [27]
Mindless Zombie Studios Currently under construction for a pending reboot. Seems to have gone altogether now. Conrad1on (talk) 09:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Mukyou Hasn't been updated for a bit, but they don't seem keen on a number of Anti-#GamerGate people. [28] The main version of this site seems to be Ship to Block 20 [29] Conrad1on (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2015 (EDT)
Original Sound Version
A People's History of GamerGate
Push Square
RetroGameGeeks Further research needed
RPG Site
RPGCodex Further research needed (Search function was broken)
Ruthless Reviews
Shacknews Not very fond of gamergate [30]
TheSixthAxis Also not very fond of gamergate. [31]
Staggerd Further research needed
Subtle Blend
Super Best Friends Play
TakuChat Articles on gamergate including: Harassment Patrol[32]Extra Life 24 Hour Charity [33]Paul Hubans[34]
VideoGameReviewHeadquarters(VGRHQ) ...Supports polygon?[35]More female critics, but no agendas please[36]VGJournalists aren't professionals, they just pretend to be [37]
WTBFUN No mention of gamergate, no articles against unethical practices. Seems to be gone now. Conrad1on (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I looked into the websites you mentioned. RPGamer writer Trent Seely mentioned GamerGate neutrally on a column in October 2014 and has some general anti tumblrette and anti man hating posts on twitter, but I'm not sure that's enough to add him. Cubed3 and My Nintendo News have never mentioned GamerGate. Psycho Robot (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Well I wasn't really sure what the criteria for inclusion was; personally I'm just happy to promote sites that haven't been dickish, regardless of whether they've mentioned #GamerGate at all. Conrad1on (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to do that too, but if we do that, we wind up having a list of most gaming sites on the internet. The general criteria so far have been 1. supportive of GamerGate or 2. exceptionally pro-consumer in opposition of the anti-consumer practices of the sites on the boycott list. Still, that's not written in stone and if people want the list could include any non-bullshit site, but then I wonder what use it will wind up being. Psycho Robot (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I think demonstrating there are many more choices available than just the handful of larger sites that turned on their userbase is no bad thing, and all the sites I've supplied for review come from #GamerGate sources, namely the other list on the main site (, the image used on this wiki page (, and an early support list from Reddit ( The list I use for my Site of the Day thing is a combination of the ones on this wiki and the other places I've suggested for review here previously, and that amounts to 65 sites, so it's still not too unwieldy really. Although admittedly I prefer more sites just because it means I'm not promoting the same ones over and over. Should this mean anything though, when I do promote sites very often the official Twitter account of that website will retweet it, as happened just yesterday in fact with Cubed³, so they don't seem to mind the association at least. Conrad1on (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
In that case I suppose we could add any website that's not full of shit, and just leave it up to the reader to decide if that's enough for their personal support. Psycho Robot (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't really mind either way to be honest. The original reason I mentioned all of these sites was to try and clear up any discrepancies between the various sources. I'll probably stick with the extended list for my promotion thing, but if anyone knows of any reason why any of the sites I use shouldn't be included, feel free to let me know. Conrad1on (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC) This one's interesting, as it's not a traditional games site, rather a collection of reviews of reviews from other sites, as well as interviews with games critics. It seems quite #GamerGate-y in theme at least. Conrad1on (talk) 08:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Cubed³, RPGamer and My Nintendo News are already on the list. Is this an oversight, or are they back under review? Conrad1on (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hadnt realised they had been added --SoggyKnees (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Is the issue with that Ziff Davis also owns IGN, or is there a more specific reason? Conrad1on (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Ziff Davis owns PC Magazine and, who (amongst other things) promoted Ms. Sarkeesian as "an outstanding woman of 2015". Personally, I would boycott their other properties based on nothing more than this affiliation, because my view is that Ziff Davis is awful. But the other fact of the matter is that searching for the word "gamergate" comes up with zero results. I should have specified "They don't support Gamergate" in my edit, sorry. Fitzgerald (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. I might just keep them on my extended list though (unless a specific reason turns up why I shouldn't), as the criteria I use is somewhat looser, namely sites that haven't been actively awful. Conrad1on (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

At GDC, Tim Schafer called everyone who tweets NotYourShield sockpuppets and pissed off a lot of people who are now calling him out, BadSeedGames among them ([38], [39]). They never explicitly say they're Pro-GG, but basically repeat one of the tenets (let devs make what they want). So is BadSeedGames neutral or pro? AmazingAnimals (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Definite Additions

As according to the chart above. Anything else is your call, really.

Website Reason
Cinemablend appears neutral but has still reported on many key events in gamergate.
GamesReviews is heavily supportive of gamegate
lo-ping Runs "the humanity of gamergate" series
TakuChat article on the gamergate harassment patrol
TheGG SVU, Feels, Article on AGG bullying.
Hardcoregamer [Being against kotaku/eurogamer is good enough.]

The Entire CBS Corporation

This may seem like a tall order, but CBS as a whole's minimal coverage of Gamergate has been fairly decent and they have a strong history of good journalism. One of these reasons could be due to less ties to "Big Media" and other things that don't want a bad reputation (the company that owns the company that owns, etc. etc. it is privately owned so no need to worry about stockholders and the like). Of these I found ties to Paramount, Nickelodeon, MTV, Spike, Comedy Central, two joint ventures with Lionsgate and WB (both of which abstain from reporting on news in-house, though there are syndicated news shows on the Lionsgate channel) and most notably, CBS Interactive. They own things like CNET, TechRepublic,, GameFAQs, Comic Vine, Gamespot, Giant Bomb, onGamers and Metacritic. You're probably thinking, "that's a lot", but the fact of the matter is that almost none of these have any interest in corrupting the news. Gamespot had a few incidents in the past but are now cleaning up. CNET's runners are huge Apple fanboys (as in Apple usually tops every list) but I don't see any reason interest-wise that this is sinister, I think it's just fanboys. I don't know anything about TechRepublic. I'd argue GameFAQs checks out. Giant Bomb did issue that Editor's note or whatever but judging from how quick they did a 360 and walked away and pissed of Klepek I'd argue they're good. OnGamers is one of those MLG eSports sites so they should be neutral. The only issue I could think of is the more news-oriented outlets doing damage control for each other, which I haven't been able to find, and biased reporting of the TV and Movie ventures. This obviously isn't ideal journalistic standards but it's better than the other media moguls.

Site Reason Research

The following sites (at the time of writing) have no reasons listed. I provide links, and the community will come to a consensus whether or not they should be included. As for the 'Further Research Needed" entries, no related articles/op-eds were found, but I shall look into them further. --Zettou (talk) 12:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

According to the FAQ, a site/owner must be against unethical practices or at least neutral of Gamergate For cases where they don't mention gamergate at all, I look into that "unethical practices" thing. As for those who haven't mentioned it (in any stance), I suppose you'll just have to ask them directly what they think of gamergate. I checked their twitter for good measure but that also turns up nothing, --Zettou (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Website Links
BluesNews A news site that links to both sides, assumed neutral...(...Assuming it is even run by a human.)
Brutal Gamer Wrote about gamergate a while back in September [40] but hasn't mentioned it since, also this article, But it is quite old, from 2010 [41]
DualShockers An article decrying bribes [42] and a review of Polygon's Bayonetta review. [43] (Bayonetta's Over Sexualization Complaint, a Perfect Example of what's wrong with modern reviews)
EGMR Many supportive articles of gamergate [44] [45] [46] [47]
Games Radar Wrote an article against the SVU episode's portrayal of gamers [48]
GameRevolution Not mentioned directly, but did promote this blog post [49]
Gamersyde No mentions of gamergate or articles against corruption found;
Game Trailers No mentions of gamergate or articles against corruption found;
Game Zone Has written neutral articles on gamergate [50] [51] [52]
Gamnesia Supportive article [53] , Older 2013 Articles [54] [55]
Gematsu No Gamergate (pro/neu) articles/opinions/blogs/twitter/found, furthermore requests no discussion on gamergate/feminism in their open forums. [56] [57] (We Redefined Open)
Invision Game Community Article on gamergate [58] However, by a different writer [59]
JustPushStart No mentions of gamergate or articles against corruption found;
NintendoLife No mentions of gamergate or articles against corruption found;
OPRainFall No mentions of gamergate or articles against corruption found; [60] (Review policy)
PixelJudge Supportive articles [61] [62] [63]


I copied over your findings to the main page, thank you for digging up what you could find --SoggyKnees (talk) 09:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Who did the actual descriptions?, Obviously I'm not able to make the reasons sound professional. --Zettou (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Sites To Remove

Past Removals

List of sites that have been added and since removed in the past, reasons appreciated but not required.


The Editor-in-Chief said back in December he was 'quitting' #GamerGate (, but he didn't do it in an unreasonable way, and one of their contributors had previously been supportive. There's now this though: so at best I think you'd have to say they'd not be keen on the association. Conrad1on (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Someone could reach out and ask him if he wants to be removed; personally Im fine with leaving it on there, criticism of the revolt grounded in reality shouldnt be grounds to remove someone from the list. --SoggyKnees (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I talked to the Editor when he wrote the first piece I linked. I told him if he'd rather not be on the list he'd have to ask, but he didn't give an indication that wanted to be removed. I have to say though, there's a difference between the first article and the second one, where the writer trashes #GamerGate seemingly on the basis that he didn't get a job that he for some reason believed was owed to him. Conrad1on (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Cubed³ [Closed/Removed]

Recently, Cubed3 was caught shilling his reviews fairly hard on Gamefaqs using a sockpuppet, even challengingother reviewers. Im pretty sure thats grounds for removal, but Ill wait a day to see if anyone wants to defend the sites inclusion. --SoggyKnees (talk) 03:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is it always sites I've *just* promoted? Talk about the Reverse Midas Touch. Conrad1on (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Cubed3 has now been removed, so marking this as closed --SoggyKnees (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


GoodGamers have announced they've shut down: Conrad1on (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Youtuber Additions

This page seems to be missing a lot of YouTubers to support other than Totalbiscuit. How about shoe0nhead, Mundanematt, The Amazing Athiest, Sargon of Akkad, MrRepzion, Thunderf00t? Hell even DramaAlert is pro-gg.

You raise an interesting problem. I don't think we can list every YouTube channel that's pro GamerGate. Listing the most notable is subjective which could be problematic. I don't really know how we should handle this. I mean I suppose we could just have a long list of pro-GamerGate channels but that would be a lot of work to maintain and not much use to anyone. Psycho Robot (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
We could do YouTubers that generally do series content, have made a video that is fairly popular, and talks regularly about both Gaming and GG-related topics in general, this includes people like Action Points and MM, but helps keep it focused on gaming, (So while Thunderf00t is great at youtube, he wouldnt be added because its not gaming-centric.) Exceptions could be made for videos/YTers we find "important" like shoe (or tf00t), but this would help cut down on maintenance and effort --SoggyKnees (talk) 11:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
It should also be people who spoke out against people like Sarkessian "prior" to GG, or people who were put under pressure from the Anti side and it didn't shut them up nor make them change or retract their opinion. Also, try to add people who are Gamers, not just talking about gamergate. It's why I'm hesitant to add Sargon of Akkad to this list. Not to downsize his contribution, but I feel too large a percentage of his work is more blatantly anti-them than Pro-games. I don't doubt for even a moment he's a gamer, but his body of work is too little pro-game. Army Guy (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe we can find objective criteria to distinguish major YouTubers from minor ones, like video views, likes on the video or linked from KiA + number of upvotes of the op? --JTRetrogamer (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I understand adding the big guys just because it gives Pro-GG a larger microphone by borrowing their's. I'm actually not for adding them however on that basis alone. They already have a following, and don't need our help. They will get the message out even if we don't advertise for them. This is the opportunity to advertise for people who don't have that microphone yet. The problem we run into there is that a lot of them are opportunists, so there is no perfect way to go about this. That being said, I say we all go out and find people, and nominate them here. I don't care if they have 100K subscribers or 100, what they are saying is more important than how many people listen. We can't just tear the sytstem down, we need to replace it. That takes time, money, and the people to do it.Army Guy (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll start by nominating Orichalcum Road. Less than 100 subscribers, kind of artsy fartsy guy, and has a taste for Lovecraftian horror. Games are art kind of guy.

Army Guy (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


I've noticed this guy Andy Frogman (@andyfrogman on Twitter), he was previously posting on #GamerGate topics as The Priest Of Gamers, basically doing the sort of thing that the Hug Patrol are doing. While his website isn't strictly a pro #GamerGate website, it's clear that Andy himself is, and from what I've garnered from some articles on the site, others have a similar opinion. The articles are certainly interesting, and there is a good variety of topics and contributors. I was thinking maybe we can help out the site by showing our support, or at least having someone talk to Andy, to get information, and put badly productions on the list of supported sites.

Support Reasons?

So, after noticing that multiple websites/organisations on the list don't have any 'Reason' for support given, I've come to believe that the whole 'Reason' column is pretty confusing. As far as I understood from introduction, a condition that must be fulfilled to include an item on the list is that it adheres to "acceptable policies of disclosure, transparency, and objectivity in reporting and discussing video games and video game industry related news." What I don't understand is whether that's it and anything that fulfills it should be added to the list or it's a precondition and there should be some other additional reason for the item to be added. If it's the former, and 'Reason' is just some additional justification, I think it should be renamed to 'Additional Info' to avoid further confusion'. If it's the latter, then shouldn't all those items without any 'Reason' given be removed?

The reason I added it was for people to cite specific examples or to give reasons why they should be included. If somebody adheres to transparency and ethical practices there should be some form of evidence of it. If there's nowhere to provide a reason, then any site could be added, and nobody knows why. You raise an interesting point though, about whether or not to add someone just for being ethical, or if they should go above and beyond. I dream of a land where most sites are ethical and therefore listing all ethical sites becomes redundant or even impossible, however, I don't know if that's the world we live in. I think that people will generally only add sites that do make some sort of significant effort to be ethical, beyond the normal background effort, so this distinction may not be important. Psycho Robot (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC) has been added, but a couple of weeks ago an edit to the Boycott List suggested they were united with AlternateHistory in wanting to 'go to war' with #GamerGate ( This could have just been hyperbole from the AlternteHistory vandal of course, but some clarification is needed I think. Conrad1on (talk) 00:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed that the IP address of the person who added ( is the same as the person who vandalised the Boycott List yesterday by removing AlternateHistory among other things. I would suggest in that case, CounterFactual has been added maliciously. Conrad1on (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Gaming Reinvented

I've added my gaming site to the support list, because it has articles in support of GamerGate, as well as various political and opinion articles that were well received on Kotaku in Action and Voat's GamerGate forum. It's also going to allow user submitted content in future, which will allow posts about GamerGate, gaming politics, etc regardless of opinions. It's on various support lists for GamerGate, I'm just trying to make things consistent here.

I've also added Player Essence. This site has said quite a lot against censorship, SJWs, Sarkeesian and others, and has mentioned GamerGate in a positive light a few times. It's also on a few support lists, so I think it should be on this one as well.

CM30 (talk) 19:05, 09 May 2016 (UTC)