back to article Beaten blokes hate the women who frag them in online games

Researchers from the University of NSW and Miami University have probably got themselves onto the “gamer-gate” hate list with a study that finds men who get fragged in online games really despise losing to a woman. The study, by UNSW's Michael Kasumovic and Miami uni's Jeffrey Kuznekoff, ploughed through recordings of 163 …

  1. Khaptain Silver badge

    Shock findings

    So it appears that makes actually prefer to play against males in order to avoid the embarrassment of being beaten by a woman.

    How many PhDs does one need to come to that conclusion? Isn't that simply the playground antics that we have all known?

    The next study should be "how many useless studies can a research team manage to grab money for/write useless paper for".

    Quick find me some Andrex for Plantigrades...

    1. P. Lee Silver badge

      Re: Shock findings

      >Isn't that simply the playground antics that we have all known?

      Its been a while since I was in the playground, but I seem to remember boys would annoy girls in a misguided attempt to get their attention, rather than because they actually disliked them.

      Also interesting would be the girls' response to being beaten. Was it PC or 50 Shades?

    2. Doctor_Wibble
      Thumb Down

      Worth a closer look to see how bad it is

      No mention that I could see of how many of these "men" were actually 12-year olds who haven't dared venture out of the basement yet to have some manners slapped into them.

      This 'study' is so badly flawed - the 'methodology' only gets that name because they wrote down what they did - play games, do some 'transcript interpretation' add some guesswork.

      163 games, 82 as female, 81 as male, speech in 102 games, 189 players identified through speech as male, *no* females spoke, zero, none at all so no confirmation of gender except for the normal 'FBI agents' assumption but I don't think Halo is quite that sort of activity.

      Did they consider the possibility that some people are avoiding saying things because they know that too many compliments come across as creepy, and others try too hard to be 'equal', or some are intimidated by the prospect of communicating with an actual female? Obviously the rest are the normal neanderthal retards, should go without saying.

      1. Grikath Silver badge

        Re: Worth a closer look to see how bad it is

        Well you can't, of course, use any actual successful female gamers for this kind of research. If they don't piss themself laughing first, they're not really likely to participate in fluff like this. They're too busy teaching immature twats that "gender" is not a game stat, and as such won't save your bunny ass when playing [game X].

        Especially when, at least in my experience over the past decade or so, most female gamers are not attracted to Frag-fests like Halo, but instead prefer the long-term RTS/economic style games, where actual intelligence and strategy matters.

        And never forget: The kiddies may rant and rave. Their sweet tears of rage and frustration fuel your Legions... ;)

        edit: well gender does come into game politics.. Most female gamers I know do regularly Fluff Up the Cleavage, Put On the Smile, and Flutter the Eyelashes. And there's still blokes that fall for that one, and get led to their inevitable doom.. ( and much hilarity...)

    3. AceRimmer

      Re: Shock findings

      The PhD allows the scientists to ignore casual anecdotal evidence gathered by 8 year olds in playgrounds and instead focus on the ethical collection of data and proper statistical analysis in order to prove a hypothesis.

      And I wouldn't call it that useless given that there is still a gender pay gap in most western countries.

      1. Doctor_Wibble

        Re: Shock findings

        > ethical collection of data and proper statistical analysis

        By wandering into an online playground, listening to all the shouting, and writing that up with as many long words as possible.

        And the gender pay issue is best addressed by ignoring crap 'studies' like this one.

      2. Craigness

        Re: Shock findings

        "And I wouldn't call it that useless given that there is still a gender pay gap in most western countries."

        Which ones? In the UK women under 40 earn more for part time work and women under 40 earn more for full time work. But there is a "gender wage gap" because men earn more over all. The problem in this country is that women have the privilege of being able to work part time and spend their partner's income (women spend more of a family's disposable income than men do). Until that changes, there will be a "gender wage gap" but the only policy that will be implemented is attempts to raise women's wages, which only serves to exacerbate the 2 wage gaps which are in women's favour.

        So when you are told there is a gender wage gap in any country, take a second to think about how the statistics are compiled and which gender is actually the privileged one.

        1. Jeremy Puddleduck

          Re: Shock findings

          Bloody women and their ovaries, taking time off and spending their partner's income. Bad, bad women. Who needs babies eh, we don't need future generations to pay our pensions do we?

          To suggest that women are privileged in any sphere in this country (except perhaps the Daily Mail Sidebar of Shame) is an idiotic thing to say, and can only be written by a MRA. Wind your neck in mate, and try and get involved in actual debate instead of mindless denial and pish.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Shock findings

        "And I wouldn't call it that useless given that there is still a gender pay gap in most western countries."

        The gender pay gap is a myth that's been thoroughly debunked numerous times over. Nowadays it serves only as a vehicle for politicians to increase their vote share amongst the gullible.

        Put simply, if it was possible for businesses to pay women less money for doing identical work, the only people in work would be women.

        1. Jeremy Puddleduck

          Re: Shock findings

          Well, we'll see won't we matey, after the pay audits that have to be carried out. That will piss all over your bonfire...

      4. Triggerfish

        Re: Shock findings

        I keep hearing this pay gap thing but I never see it, I've worked for plenty of places and never noticed it being applied to the women at them.

        Also couldn't care less who beats me as long as it's done with skill.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Shock findings

      >So it appears that makes actually prefer to play against males in order to avoid the embarrassment of being beaten by a woman.

      Oh no, shock horror, the embarrassment of being beaten by a... a... woman!!

      Because women are so inferior aren't they?

      FFS.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Shock findings

        >Oh no, shock horror, the embarrassment of being beaten by a... a... woman!!

        >Because women are so inferior aren't they?

        >FFS.

        Care to explain what you are actually trying to say here because it reads like a bit of babble ....

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Shock findings

          >Care to explain what you are actually trying to say here because it reads like a bit of babble ....

          Why yes, yes I would.

          Why should a man be any more embarrassed about being beaten by a woman than a man? Fair enough if you want to be embarrassed at being beaten by another *person* regardless, but even the suggestion in the original post that a man would want to avoid the embarrassment of being beaten by a *woman* inherently assumes that women are inferior to men. If you don't understand what I mean, try substituting the word "woman" in that original sentence for "five year old" or "Jew" or "homosexual" and consider the context.

          And I was just being sarcastic when stating that "women are so inferior". Sadly I didn't realise it would need explaining.

          1. Daggerchild Silver badge

            Re: Shock findings

            Why should a man be any more embarrassed about being beaten by a woman than a man?
            <John Wayne Voice>Well now, ya see, ma'am, begging your pardon and all, but that there is logic talk. We don't do that stuff in these here southern parts.</John Wayne Voice>

            It will do no good calling for modifications to the logic engine, when the logic engine is not the one running the program.

            Although, strictly speaking, emotion is logic too, it's just a vast million-year old logic that runs on multiple entities at once using encrypted inter-node metadata comms, for the benefit of the group, in the *future* - not the individual, now.

    5. Just Enough
      Boffin

      Re: Shock findings

      The story here is better summarised as "bad losers hate losing".

      A bad loser will therefore hit out in any way possible to redress the balance of their humiliation. Did they lose to someone with an particular accent? Fine, use that to insult them. Do they sound particularly young/old? Use that. Are they female sounding? Use that.

      Bad losers are jerks who will hit out anyway they can, we didn't need a study to learn this.

  2. cantankerous swineherd Silver badge

    "low-status, poorer-performing males" ie losers.

    nice take on the gamergate kiddies.

    1. Lionel Baden
      Mushroom

      Going to beat your downvotes

      Bet it was console gamers as well.

      Generally not particularly well known for loosing well.

      1. TheProf

        Re: Going to beat your downvotes

        Yeah! Loosers! ;-)

        1. werdsmith Silver badge

          Re: Going to beat your downvotes

          What surprises me about this is the revelation that there are female gamers.

          Not being a gaming fan myself, I've never heard women, at work or socially or anywhere, discuss their latest gaming exploits.

    2. PassiveSmoking

      Seems pretty spot-on to me.

  3. Charles Manning

    Eat it, fuck it or kill it

    Choose one. That is how the male lizard brain works.

    Therefore it it has the potential to frag you then you'll be more interested in killing it than sweet-talking it.

    Biologically too, you want something that would nurture you and your offspring, not shank you and the sprogs in bed one night.

    1. Dan Paul

      Re: Eat it, fuck it or kill it

      Why do you get downvotes for speaking the truth?

      Because the ones doing the downvoting, can't handle the truth!

      And they would be most likely to shank you while you sleep.

    2. Charles Manning

      Re: Eat it, fuck it or kill it

      Ignoring, or denying, the fact we're wired this way is not constructive.

      I am not trying to denigrate men. I am one. I am not trying to condone acting on this wiring either. We learn to moderate the urges so we can have a civilised society.

      One of the few times we really let the lizard brain loose is playing FPS games. We can unleash the killer - even if just in fantasy. Unsurprisingly, the other lizard brain elements emerge too. Boys will eat more during/after FPS, energy dense foods in particular. So any surprises then that fuck part emerges too?

      In our lizard brain wiring we classify things into the three distinct piles: threat (kill it), food (eat it), women (be nice to them for breeding). If they're in the threat pile they don't get treated nicely.

      Men in the threat pile are still threats, but not as bad because they fit with our understanding of the world. Men are supposed to be virile champions. Even when they are the enemy, we still see them as being great.

      What we don't like is our classification system being messed with. These threat-women that confuse our lizard brain classification system get lashed out at. It's the same for blokes wearing dresses.

  4. Will Godfrey Silver badge
    Happy

    Normal behavour

    but...

    "Done on a computer"

    1. dan1980

      Re: Normal behavour

      Patent that!

  5. Paul Crawford Silver badge
    Gimp

    Meanwhile on another site...

    I wonder how the "low-status, poorer-performing males" on Fetlife react?

  6. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Holmes

    Hardcoded behaviour not going away anytime soon!

    “We suggest that low-status males increase female-directed hostility to minimise the loss of status as a consequence of hierarchical reconfiguration resulting from the entrance of a woman into the competitive arena”.

    Imma putting on my wifebeater.

    In other news at 11: women prefer pink and hate symbolic computation.

    1. PassiveSmoking
      IT Angle

      Re: Hardcoded behaviour not going away anytime soon!

      Do women really prefer pink though? But that's another conversation altogether.

      1. Grifter

        Re: Hardcoded behaviour not going away anytime soon!

        "Do women really prefer pink though?"

        They have no choice, from birth they're programmed to like it, everything everywhere is pink, go into girl's section in toystores, pink, everything.

        It's the same reason most guys shy away from pink, we too have been programmed, it's an inferior colour and would associate us with being girls.

        Even if you recognize this fact and you try to rebel against it as a parent to a girl, it's insanely difficult to achieve.

        1. Jeremy Puddleduck

          Re: Hardcoded behaviour not going away anytime soon!

          That is exactly why there are so few women in tech industries - they are told they can't, they are told they shouldn't, they don't see role models doing it. It's why it's so difficult to increase these numbers. If we can't stop the tide of sodding pink, STEM subjects stand no chance.

  7. Mycho Silver badge

    Missing

    What difference did they notice going the other way? How do the people who beat them respond to beating them?

    1. TheTick

      Re: Missing

      Or, indeed, how do women respond to winning and losing?

      1. dotdavid
        Joke

        Re: Missing

        "Or, indeed, how do women respond to winning and losing?"

        They tried to find out but all the women they asked turned out to be male truckers or canines in RL.

        1. Mycho Silver badge

          Re: Missing

          That's actually a very good point. Someone needs to do a study where the only difference is whether a male or female voice filter is in place, and the person speaking must not know which is which. Only then are we actually comparing like with like.

  8. dan1980

    The study was designed to test two hypotheses of sexist behaviour: the first, that sexist behaviour is designed to drive women away from a “male-dominated arena”; the second, that “sexist behaviour is in response to a threat to a male's position in the hierarchy”.

    The researchers conclude: “By demonstrating that female-directed hostility primarily originates from low-status, poorer-performing males, our results suggest that a way to counter it may be through teaching young males that losing to the opposite sex is not socially debilitating.”

    Okay, so can we then draw the negative conclusion about the first hypothesis?

    I.e. that this study concludes that, contrary to what is forced down our throats, male gamers are not actually trying to "drive women away from [gaming]".

    If we could get rid of that nugget of received wisdom then I think we would all be a lot happier.

    1. Craigness

      The study was not designed to test hypotheses, it was designed to give fuel to the feminists who want to remove from games anything which appeals to men.

      A study which did what this one claims to do would have measured reactions by both sexes to both sexes. "Social justice" academics are not interested in finding out how the world works, they just want to say "men are sexist to women" without having to explain how they are actually worse to each other.

      1. Jeremy Puddleduck

        Has poor little Craigness been treated badly by the nasty ladies? Sounds like someone has a chip the size of Canada on his shoulder, and MRA-tinted glasses on? Am I right, huh? Or perhaps making up for inadequacies in other parts of his, ahem, life <wiggles little finger suggestively>?

        Don't worry Craigness, you're amongst friends here, you can tell us the truth.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    gamer-gate isn't about hating women, but to do with the corruption of the journalists in gaming medi.... oh, this is an article written by a journalist.... never mind, carry on.

    1. jonathan1

      Depends...on when people noticed the debate...

      Truthfully I missed it, I don't know where I was at the time...it passed me by completely.

      So from my point of view...it seems Gamergate whilst it may have started off about corruption it got conflated with lots of social issues, such as how certain people can behave on the net to one another. i.e. pretty damn vile.

      Problem is whilst some folk were trying to discuss corruption/ethics, other folk* where threatening to rape/kill women. Didn't help the orginal debate at all.

      Which is why Gamergate has many meanings depending on who you speak to.

      *The same folk who did that are probably the same sort who think its funny/acceptable to call SWAT teams on those that they lose to in video games.

      Anyway, above is entirely my opinion based on something I've tried to interpret. Either way, the whole thing from what I read didn't seem when taken collectively a shining example of rational human debate. But then its the internet, most things on it aren't rational ;o)

      1. Day

        Re: Depends...on when people noticed the debate...

        Gamergate didn't start off about corruption. It started when a man called Eron Gjoni posted a long account of his break-up with Zoe Quinn, which he hoped would result in her being harassed. To put it mildly, this was successful (in Gjoni's terms). One of his allegations was that ZQ cheated on him with a journalist and this journalist wrote a positive review of her game, Depression Quest.

        1. The journalist never wrote a review of the game;

        2. The journalist's editor looked into it and was satisfied that nothing untoward had happened;

        3. If it was about corruption, the journalist (Nathan Grayson) would have been hounded, but he was not - gamergaters' vitriol was directed at ZQ and other women involved in the games industry;

        4. I've got no idea whether ZQ and NG ever did have a relationship - Eron Gjoni does not seem very rational and it is none of my business anyway.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Depends...on when people noticed the debate...

          I've been following the whole thing from both sides from the sidelines, your not quite accurate in your writeup. I will show a short summery of the main situation then get to your points -

          Gamergate is a thing that should have been stopped before it even became a thing by going "OK yes we kinda screwed up a bit, next time we will add a link saying 'Person X is a friend of mine', now stop being dicks to people and just go play more games". However instead wagons were circled now its a year later and still going on :/

          Gamergate did not start when Eron posted the log about the breakup. That was the thing that spark the whole debate about the indie devs getting too close to the journalists but gamergate did not start then. The moniker didn't emerge until a few weeks later, I think it was after the gamejournopros leak that basically confirmed what a lot of people suspected after the 48 hours of suspiciously timed articles all with the same idea that "gamers are dead", that the journalists who were meant to be competing were in fact discussing story ideas etc.

          In fact the Gamergate tag was used as a way to distance form the initial info to more general issues of the press misbehaving, because this is what people were saying at the time ("if your really about it use a new tag as this one is linked to harassment" was a common counter to the initial tag). However since people still say "it started with this" (origins fallacy) any more crys to "change the tag to distance from harassment" get ignored. But lets go through your stuff point by point.

          1. You are right, no review was written of the game, this was something that from what I saw took the "said enough so people believe it" by a lot of people who say we should not listen and believe but did anyway. HOWEVER he did write about her game once and include it in a list of 50 indie games to play, so the argument is there that coverage was influenced that would not otherwise happen since the game was in no way a major push forward for indie games at the time.

          2. Yeah this was a bit of a joke, he said he thought it was fine in one of the publications as he excused himself from stories about her (as he should off, kudos to him doing the right thing), however the previous publication he worked for didn't say it was fine, but instead just went on the offensive in general. At no point did the previous publication say it was fine or not fine even when asked.

          It is also a case of "Company investigated problem within the company and said that the company did nothing wrong", we see that all the time and never believe it, like with the metropolitan police when they investigate themselves, or Microsoft.

          3. He was hounded, people called for him to be fired from what I remember. However you won't see this being bought up much for two reasons. One being it doesn't make as nice a narrative. Two being that he basically clamed up, did his work and didn't engage. Zoe (and most of the people that have been involved actually) engaged, poked the bear and was actively stocking the fires. She apparently showed pictures of herself browsing 4 chan and sticking up a middle finger, good to see her being defiant but is equivalent to kicking a lion in the balls then trying to take a selfie. From what I saw it reached a point where it because customary within the GG movement to not refer to her by name. Both to stop the advertising of her name and to help stop any potential harassment from new people bought into the fold.

          4. They did, Nathan admitted it and excused himself from any future stories where she was present, I believe he did do a story about the failed game jam but think that was before they got together.

          So basically there is more to it than your letting on. Yes there has been some awful behavior from the GG side or trolls claiming to be on the GG side, but there has also been some awful behavior from the other side or trolls claiming to be on the aGG side (that for some reason doesn't get reported, I WONDER WHY). Trolls from everywhere have been throwing shit, both sides have had dox's linked to them (some spurious some not), both sides have had harassment linked to them but only one sides misgivings get publicized and pushed. Hell some news stories ran something saying that leaks of pictures had happened, whereas the person in question had put the pictures up herself on the website as she has been paid to pose for them for the site. Stuff like this really didn't help the journos side when they were doing dodgy journalism to hide the backlash people had about dodgy journalism!

          But when you actually look into it you see its basically two sides playing a game but not against each other and just throwing crap over a wall. It has changed now into something a bit more ideological (its because become PC vs non-PC, as in political correctness not personal computers)

          There are issues in the game press and in the gaming world, unfortunately narratives are being pushed and this study doesn't help, its already been interpreted in 8 different ways by different sites looking to push a narrative. Anyone countering the narrative is shut down not with facts but with spurious insults and personal attacks (this also happens on both sides).

          There will always be a bias but most people don't give a crap as long as its disclosed, there will always be a interpretation of events but again as long as you know its your interpretation of the facts its fine. Its when "my truth is the absolute and anyone who argues is a monster" comes into play that people get annoyed. Most of the time the actual situation is somewhere more central and between the two extremes than you think.

          1. Day

            Re: Depends...on when people noticed the debate...

            This is drivel, as you well know.

            a. ZQ did not stoke any fires. She was harassed and is still being harassed by people like you who have ZERO compunction about making nonsense up to attack one of your targets;

            b. Gamergate was named after it started. It was started by some people at 4chan, who were too dumb to understand that their conversations on the issue could be mined;

            c. The stuff about Kotaku investigating itself is drivel of course. This is how grown ups work. Here is the editor's account: http://kotaku.com/in-recent-days-ive-been-asked-several-times-about-a-pos-1624707346 . It is worth noting how some people in the comments, having read the article, immediately state something that is untrue;

            d. This is Grayson's only article about ZQ on Kotaku: http://tmi.kotaku.com/the-indie-game-reality-tv-show-that-went-to-hell-1555599284 . In Jan 2014, he wrote this on Rock Paper Shotgun: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/01/08/admission-quest-valve-greenlights-50-more-games/

            e. There is no "anti-GG side". There are gamergate people and other similar vile subgroups and then there is everybody else;

            f. Nathan Grayson was NOT hounded in the way that ZQ has been hounded. You know this, why tell lies about it?

            g. It's not "two sides playing games against each other". It's about second-rate people attempting to intimidate women in the games industry.

            h. It is pointless trying to argue, because you will just make up stuff if the facts don't fit your interpretation.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Depends...on when people noticed the debate...

              As normal I post a load of facts and info about the subject and it gets countered by "no not true". This the normal way it goes and is exactly why I said there is no debate. Because there never is one, posts and stories are made, facts used to counter then they get countered with "NOT TRUE" and nothing else.

              a. Sorry but your wrong, she was actively engaging the people who handled this, the picture of her with her friend browsing 4chan was something shared a lot near the start of it. I will admit to being slightly wrong however, it wasn't her sticking up the finger, it was her mate - https://i.imgur.com/PEMx1cq.jpg

              Not sure how you can say "it didn't happened" when there was photographic evidence of it. That picture was posted by herself and her mate at the start so I assume its OK to link to. Can't find the original picture (found this one with a 2 minute google search.....) but since your the one who made the first assertion and so are meant to provide evidence for it I'll just leave my bit of evidence here.

              b. It was named when it started. As I stated it was name and moved away from the initial movement to distance itself from it! I pointed out the origins fallacy which you are still pushing and once again proved what a lot of people pointed out , that moving hashtags is pointless (a guy called Jim Sterling suggested this as well but it was shot down because people just said whatever they use it will follow them)

              c. This is ignoring the time he was working for RPS and the articles he wrote there (which you admit happen later on in your post). yeah it was all fine for that article but it should be noted that the publication updated the ethics policy If they thought everything was A-OK why did they update their ethics policy on a few things and admit that there was a cliquishness a few days later ? - http://kotaku.com/a-brief-note-about-the-continued-discussion-about-kotak-1627041269

              d. So thanks, we are in agreement that he did write about her stuff, and was chummy with her around the time with no mention of said friendship. This is the whole crux of the matter, a simple "(a good friend of mines) game" would have been all that's needed. Some replies in a tweet i post later in this post have a bit more info on it. Yes its a he said she said situation here but there was a fair bit of evidence at the time.

              e. There is very much a aGG side but its not a group with a membership card yes so your half right here, its more "people against GG regardless of what they say". Sort of like how it works in Parliament atm, terrible idea when they do it, brilliant if you do it. Hell there's a reddit sub for it (can we link to stuff like that here?). There are a lot that seem to refer to the whole situation as stuff like "gooble-gaters" and the like. Once again moving the discussion into a different realm where discussion can't happen because both parties are not present, which is half the issue of the whole sodding situation. Everyone is "othering" the other group as monsters so they don't have to have the discussion because once again, the actual nugget of the issue is somewhere in the middle and BOTH parties will have to admit that maybe they have been a bit dickish.

              f. Yes he was hounded at the start https://twitter.com/vahn16/status/501650041736396801 , this is dated October 20th (seriously this has been going on for way too long), he was trying to put up his side of the story. Lots of replies in there against him, not her. So yes he was hounded as well, he was hounded less afterwards because he reacted to it differently however.

              g. Your right its not two sides playing against each other as i stated, however your wrong about your reasoning. While there are obviously a few dicks trying to be ... well dicks there are also a lot of people just refusing to debate. Its like both sides are playing football... but on pitches next to each other rather than on the same one, firing shots at a open goal and cheering whenever they score, while occasionally flinging stuff over the wall between them. No-one is really winning or losing and nothing productive happens because they are not on the same field. This applies quite well to both sides of it.

              I should also ask which group here is trying to intimidate this women out of the gaming industry - https://twitter.com/Alison_prime/status/623698462681378816 ? Because as far as I can see its not the GG side here. Yeah there are dicks on both sides, but the spotlight is only every on one set of dicks (and that is a sentence I never thought I would end up writing in my lifetime :P)

              h. I can say that right back at you since I posted facts and you have basically countered with "nuh huh". I even provided evidence here despite the onus being on you to provide it. Note Wikipedia won't count because that has been a battleground for the whole sodding situation in itself (and apparently still is somehow)

              As i said i follow this from the start, i honestly though ti would have been over and forgotten about a month after it started and its stupid that its still going on. But its still going on because of the lack of actual debate, the othering of people, the focus on the trolling rather than the actual nuggets of problems BOTH SIDES have. Then when it does die down the press in their egarness to go "we were right and stomped out those nasty people" post articles in that sort of mannerism but in such a way that somehow manages to start it back up again!

              The whole time both sides have been adversarial, but I have noticed its the press that don't seem to want to talk (ironically) but still control the conversation. I was reading something about a debate being planned, but only one side is going because no-one stood up to debate them, i'll let you figure out which way round that was :/

              Until a actual discussion can be had this isn't going anywhere. Which is a issue imo as at the core both sides have a valid point or two but they will never come to light, instead of sorting out the issues and making things better for everyone, everyone is instead standing around yelling and just making things worse.

        2. Craigness

          Re: Depends...on when people noticed the debate...

          1. The journalist never wrote a review of the game;

          The journalist gave positive coverage to the game on numerous occasions. That was the claim, and it is true.

          3...gamergaters' vitriol was directed at ZQ and other women involved in the games industry;

          Simply false. The conversation was about the ethical issues stemming from the ZQ revelations. It was re-cast as harassment by an unethical media afraid of losing its power. Talking *about* someone is not harassment.

          4 I've got no idea whether ZQ and NG ever did have a relationship...

          Then you don't know what you're talking about. The relationship is well documented.

          1. squigbobble

            Re: Depends...on when people noticed the debate...

            Dear fucking God, this shit's spread here as well :/

          2. Day

            Re: Depends...on when people noticed the debate...

            1. I am surprised that you did not include links to prove this: "The journalist gave positive coverage to the game on numerous occasions.". Can you provide links now?

            3. Gamergate started on 4chan. The hashtag came later. Gamergate started in response to Eron Gjoni's long account of his break-up with ZQ.

            4. You're right. Stephen Totilo writes about that here: http://kotaku.com/in-recent-days-ive-been-asked-several-times-about-a-pos-1624707346

            1. icesenshi

              Re: Depends...on when people noticed the debate...

              Of course they can't provide any links, because they don't exist. Or they'll come back and say do the research yourself because they can't be bothered.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Depends...on when people noticed the debate...

                As requested - one link.

                https://twitter.com/rockpapershot/status/420859877460684801

  10. Cari

    No, we laughed at the "study" and the "make games easier" casuals that are treating it like Gospel. We're too busy taking down Gawker media and playing games to care about this shit.

    Disappointed El Reg, I expected better standards than lazily buying into a false narrative created by the rest of the media.

    1. Craigness

      This is what adblock is for. Apologies to the Reg's ethical journalists.

  11. Flatpackhamster

    Hmm

    I wouldn't say it's a great way to carry out a study. You've got no real control over who's playing and there are an awful lot of variables and 150 or so games isn't really statistically significant. Further, it would be useful to establish if males still exhibit this behaviour when they know, or think, that everyone they're playing against is female.

  12. MJI Silver badge

    On my favourite PvP

    I just hated losing, was more often on the winning team.

    And women played, and were treated the same, and we knew they were women and good. One was playing with her husband (tell by PSN names).

    I did not mind being beaten by good players, but cheaters annoyed me.

    1. MJI Silver badge

      Re: On my favourite PvP

      Cheating

      A common one I found was glitching off the map and sniping from a distance. I once got a really good kill streak along with a Medic with revive, hiding under cover from the glitchers, catching them as they attempted to glitch from their spawn.

      I died once (thanks Medic) but ruined their cheating game.

      1. werdsmith Silver badge

        Re: On my favourite PvP

        I have no idea what you mean.

        But well done anyway.

  13. dan1980

    Here's a guide . . .

    • Step one: don't be a tool.
    • Step two: have fun.
    Step two is optional; step one isn't.

  14. TRT Silver badge

    Men have always been obsessed...

    with pwnography.

  15. Ru'

    I do hope this wasn't for their entire phd; hopefully it's just being poorly reported. Sample size of 160-odd? Fk off.

  16. Ironclad
    Trollface

    Console jockeys

    It's Halo on XBox with a joypad.

    They're all 'low-skilled'.

    Mouse and keyboard for teh win.

  17. Banksy

    Credibility

    I believe PLOS One is an 'open' journal that allows you to publish anything so long as you pay the fee. So long credibility!

    1. John H Woods Silver badge

      Re: Credibility

      "I believe PLOS One is an 'open' journal that allows you to publish anything so long as you pay the fee. So long credibility!" -- Banksey

      "PLOS ONE takes the hard work out of publishing. There's no stress waiting to find out if your article meets subjective acceptance criteria. As long as your work reaches a high technical and ethical standard, PLOS ONE will publish it - and make it freely available to a global audience."

      This is not quite "anything" it just relaxes the peer-review requirement, similar to arxiv.org. It's not that one should immediately discount anything that's written there, but that one should be sensitive to the context.

  18. gregthecanuck

    How about this combo?

    My 13 year old daughter and I play Smash Brothers a fair bit. I'm over 50. We mention that in our handles so other teams online know what they are up against.

    It's quite funny to see some of the reactions when other 2-player teams are beaten by a *girl* and her old man... ;-)

    (She plays a mean Jigglypuff, I'm a semi-decent Pikachu).

  19. CaptainBanjax

    This does make sense.

    In this so called scientific study did they take into account rule 29 of the internet?

    Im calling shenanigans.

  20. Little Mouse
    Coat

    Some people *like* getting beaten by women for recreation

    ...apparently.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Some people *like* getting beaten by women for recreation

      A certain former Formula one boss for starters

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Be interesting to see what happened if they also added voices with heavy accents and people with speech impediments into the test. Personally I think there's a little more to it than "blocks really hate losing to women", its more "blocks losing get frustrated and lash out at anything different to them". I would hypothsi... hypothsise... guess that if you include other obvious differences between the player and the competitor (voice wise) that was beating them that would also be called out in anger.

    I also kinda want to know in what cases the voice clips were used and in what cases, "Nice Shot" takes on a different tone if you have just blown yourself up with your own rocket launcher :P

    People don't like to admit that the failure is in themselves so lash out at something different and blame that i think, doesn't really matter what it is as long as its not "them".

    1. Craigness

      "blocks losing get frustrated and lash out at anything different to them"

      "people losing get frustrated and lash out at anything different to them"

      FTFY

  22. graeme leggett

    Major and minor flaws?

    This is based on the reactions to the perception to how the researchers played and the associated voice. But they did not include a control group - they had the data there potentially but didn't use it.

    They also seem to have tried to compensate for any differences in their playing style (and that of the other players) in the statistics rather than in attempting more standardization (or a larger dataset). What's that phrase about changing the experiment by interacting with it?

    The dataset size does not seem to have been determined prior to the experiment (actual size was N = 126). One interpretation of the statement in the report " We stopped at 163 as this is a substantial time effort." is they ran out of time/got tired/got bored/had something else they needed to do rather than X games is the right amount to play to get good answers.

    That leaves open the question as to whether the experiment had sufficient power - a good statistics treatment of research should discuss this in the paper - in the first place for a significant difference to be found. If you throw enough permutations at an data block, something will stick, even if just due to the random distribution of the data. As exemplified by "scientists say X will give you cancer" interpretations by newspapers.

    I also note they are reusing data from a previous experiment - " Kuznekoff and Rose’s (2013) original study" - http://nms.sagepub.com/content/15/4/541 New Media & Society June 2013 (first published online in 2012) so there's a second element to the possibility that a better study would have been done if they had designed their experiment and got new data rather than try and fit an experiment to previous work.

    Personal declaration of my own skillset in this area - reading some books (No Starch publishing's Statistics Done Wrong), and listening to the radio (Radio4's More or Less: Behind the Stats), and a large dash of cynicism.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Oh goody! Another thinly veiled attack by the feminazis...

    This time dressed up as a science paper.

    1. Trollslayer Silver badge

      Re: Oh goody! Another thinly veiled attack by the feminazis...

      Point proven.

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Mute all

    Problem Solved.

  25. Trollslayer Silver badge

    Bad survey but it does happen

    There was a good article about how women are treated like ComicCon, particularly by guys who aren't really into it.

    They get really upset when they try to patronise women and get their heads handed to them on a plate.

    The real comicCon fans have a few bad apples but not that many.

  26. Red Bren
    FAIL

    in the dim distant past

    When I used to play online ganes I would often use a female avatar as I found it easier to blag free stuff from male players. It went slightly wrong once when I tried flirting with another female player. "You're a bloke in RL, aren't you! Well so am I!" was the response.

  27. Hans 1 Silver badge

    Exactly why I use "feminine" sounding pseudonyms for online games ;-)

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    More from the university of the bleedin' obvious...

    This has long been known by anyone that plays online games. Changing your in-game name to something cute and girly is a trolling technique as old as online gaming itself.

    It's common enough in competitive situations in real life too. Unfortunately "boys" need to learn where they should expect an advantage over a "girl" (games of strength, or requiring physical size for example), and games of skill, where strength and size just don't impact the result very much, if at all.

    In my local pub the pool rules were "winner stays on"... So you put your money down, and you play the winner of whoever was playing last.

    I often went to my local with a female friend, and played pool with her. If the table was busy, we put our marker down, and when it came to our turn, my friend Jo would step up to play. More than once she had an "Oh, I don't want to play a girl" reaction... Which only made her more focused.

    She invariably won. That's why when we wanted a game together, she'd be the one clearing the previous winner off the table.

    That and she *really* enjoyed beating sexist male pool players.

  29. Andy Tunnah

    Shocker!

    People with poor social skills and who are generally shitty people are shitty to women!

  30. x 7 Silver badge

    first night on a new project in a new town last night and went on a pub crawl...the landlady in the first pub was built like a cross between an Amazon and an Olympic rower, Blonde as well.......she can beat me any time she wants.............

  31. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge

    WTF? Noob!

    I play various online games with my niece. She is 21, I am 47. She'll batter me at DOTA, CS:GO and most other "twitch" games. I, on the other hand, will wipe the floor with her in any strategy game you care to mention. Her peer group are all males. she is a clan leader and runs her community with an iron hand. When people lose to her they never mention the fact that she's female, and when she beats them its because they are "noobs" (just like any male gamer would point out).

    Why is this? Because the opposition don't KNOW she is female and her peer group accept her as an equal. She doesn't advertise the fact she is female and competes on a completely even keel as a result. She's a gamer in her own right, using her own skills, and is a model of equality as a result. She doesn't play the gender card when beaten or when winning and she's going to give as good as she gets if someone starts trash talking in TS. (I have occasionally heard people state that they believe she's a "nine year old boy" because of her voice, and she will correct them then, which often results in stunned silence).

    If I were to ask her about this whole thing. she'd probably roll her eyes and say the following two things, which you may or may not "get".

    Rule #16: There are NO girls on the internet. Also, on the internet no one knows you're a dog.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019