UNICEF turning to shock tactics at game convention, WTF?!

OT: anything goes!

Moderator: Edi

User avatar
Jub
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4396
Joined: 2012-08-06 07:58pm
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: UNICEF turning to shock tactics at game convention, WTF?

Post by Jub »

salm wrote:I think most people in this thread are gamers, including myself and the other people in favour of the stunt. Like allways when a group acts silly it is only some members and not each and every one of them. In this particular case I think it is defensive teenagers mixed with a bunch of non teenagers who mistook the teenaged flailing with real opinions and joined in.
How is not wanting to have your time wasted due to deceptive marketing childish or flailing? I value my time, more so at an event I paid to get into with panels that may compete with each other for my time. If I chose to see this panel over another, based on the marketing, above having my time wasted I may have missed a chance to see another presentation that might have actually been relevant to why I attended the event in the first place; in this case do I not have the right to complain and point out my distaste with the people who tricked me and wasted my time and ask that they choose other methods in the future?
Indeed. This stunt doesn´t attack gaming, though. The idiots behaving like angsty teenagers on the other hand might make normal people believe that the gaming community is at least partially composed of inconfident, whiny little bitches.
The response to it sure has though, this thread is proof positive of that. Plus, the way that Unicef has used the footage and titled the official video (The video game idea that caused a walkout | UNICEF) makes it clear that they think that a plurality of people left because of the shock value of what they had to show rather than people leaving after realizing that they had been duped or that the panel's subject wasn't what they came to the show to see. Given the attacks gamers already face from the mainstream media it makes some sense that people feel unfairly targeted and victimized by these sorts of tactics.
I really doubt that they´d be upset as the whiny little gaming bitches. They´d either aprove of the message or roll their eyes and move on. That is because other industries aren´t composed of such a high percentage of idiot teenagers.
The percentage of car fans who would be offended, though, I´d find just as silly as the gamers in question.
Likely not as motoring is a respected pastime in a way that gaming isn't and may never be. People who are already firmly in a position of power have far less reason to complain about injustices committed against them than people already marginalized do. You can argue that whining isn't helping the situation any, but then you're making the same argument that people used about women speaking out against gamergate, that it makes them sound whiny and won't change anything either way.

Is it your intention to make that argument?
Nowhere is implied that gamers are somehow bad people unwilling to face real horrors. But of course, if you are used to being hyperdefensive you will find a way to interpret that into the clip. Just like fundamentalists find ways to interprete stuff that has little or nothing to do with them as attacking their religion.
So the title of the video isn't sensationalist and doesn't imply that most (or all) of the people left due to their unwillingness to face the horrors that exist in the world? An official post by their PR team on that same you tube video states "This video game idea caused a walkout at a gaming convention. Watch to see why." Given that the video never acknowledges that people may have more than one reason for walking out it's safe to say exactly what they meant with statements like that.

All the backpedaling and ass covering that they're now doing to say that it wasn't an attack is BS, if it wasn't an attack why would they have pulled back from their original statements and edited or removed posts now that people are speaking up?
User avatar
salm
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 10296
Joined: 2002-09-09 08:25pm

Re: UNICEF turning to shock tactics at game convention, WTF?

Post by salm »

Jub wrote: How is not wanting to have your time wasted due to deceptive marketing childish or flailing? I value my time, more so at an event I paid to get into with panels that may compete with each other for my time. If I chose to see this panel over another, based on the marketing, above having my time wasted I may have missed a chance to see another presentation that might have actually been relevant to why I attended the event in the first place; in this case do I not have the right to complain and point out my distaste with the people who tricked me and wasted my time and ask that they choose other methods in the future?
You have a right to complain. As do others have the right to laugh at you for complaining.
The response to it sure has though, this thread is proof positive of that. Plus, the way that Unicef has used the footage and titled the official video (The video game idea that caused a walkout | UNICEF) makes it clear that they think that a plurality of people left because of the shock value of what they had to show rather than people leaving after realizing that they had been duped or that the panel's subject wasn't what they came to the show to see. Given the attacks gamers already face from the mainstream media it makes some sense that people feel unfairly targeted and victimized by these sorts of tactics.
They imply that some gamers walked out because they found the games premise disgusting. They walk out and complain before they realize that they were mislead after all. This doesn´t imply that gamers are too week to face real world horrors. This implies that some gamers were upset with the content and chose to show that by leaving just like they might be upset with a game in which you play a protagonist exterminating jews in a concentration camp. They thought that the subject at hand is not something you should use to sensationalize your game with and that´s why they walked out. Others chose to stay but the video shows that most people there didn´t find the games premise suitable for a game.
Likely not as motoring is a respected pastime in a way that gaming isn't and may never be. People who are already firmly in a position of power have far less reason to complain about injustices committed against them than people already marginalized do. You can argue that whining isn't helping the situation any, but then you're making the same argument that people used about women speaking out against gamergate, that it makes them sound whiny and won't change anything either way.

Is it your intention to make that argument?
Gamers aren´t marginalized. Only a whiny subset of gamers keeps harping about being marginalized. Gaming is a multi billion dollar industry consisting of gazillions of gamers and thousands of companies catering to their needs.
Myself and plenty of other gamers don´t feel marginalized at all. In fact we are spoilt by the abundance of games available and resources poured into gaming.
So the title of the video isn't sensationalist and doesn't imply that most (or all) of the people left due to their unwillingness to face the horrors that exist in the world? An official post by their PR team on that same you tube video states "This video game idea caused a walkout at a gaming convention. Watch to see why." Given that the video never acknowledges that people may have more than one reason for walking out it's safe to say exactly what they meant with statements like that.

All the backpedaling and ass covering that they're now doing to say that it wasn't an attack is BS, if it wasn't an attack why would they have pulled back from their original statements and edited or removed posts now that people are speaking up?
The title is senstionalist because it´s an advertisment using shock tactics. No matter if you like advertisment or titles like that or not, it has nothing to do with implying that gamers are unwilling to face real world horrors. I find the connection you are making really strange.
This doesn´t attack gamers in the slightest. It implies that there is a game that people found so inapropiate that they walked out.
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: UNICEF turning to shock tactics at game convention, WTF?

Post by Thanas »

Brother-Captain Gaius wrote:At any rate, you're right that this is not worth debating, and I'm a man of my word, so I concede to your triumphant victory against the lowly gamers who ought not speak against their betters. I shall have a golden laurel wreath fashioned in your honor.
See, this passive-aggressive bullshit is exactly why people don't take gamers seriously.

Salm wrote:This doesn´t attack gamers in the slightest. It implies that there is a game that people found so inapropiate that they walked out.
And it really is a credit to them that they did walk out.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
User avatar
Brother-Captain Gaius
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6859
Joined: 2002-10-22 12:00am
Location: \m/

Re: UNICEF turning to shock tactics at game convention, WTF?

Post by Brother-Captain Gaius »

Thanas wrote:See, this passive-aggressive bullshit is exactly why people don't take gamers seriously.
You're right, it was too much, and for that I apologize.
Agitated asshole | (Ex)40K Nut | Metalhead
The vision never dies; life's a never-ending wheel
1337 posts as of 16:34 GMT-7 June 2nd, 2003

"'He or she' is an agenderphobic microaggression, Sharon. You are a bigot." ― Randy Marsh
User avatar
salm
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 10296
Joined: 2002-09-09 08:25pm

Re: UNICEF turning to shock tactics at game convention, WTF?

Post by salm »

Thanas wrote: And it really is a credit to them that they did walk out.
Yes, but the whiny part of the gamers even manage to feel marginalized when they are portrayed taking the high road.
I guess that is one of the sad parts of having a weak character. You lose the ability to accept compliments and suspect them to be attacks. I know a couple of people with self esteem problems in real life and the whiner part of the gaming community feels like a collective inferiority complex.
User avatar
Civil War Man
NERRRRRDS!!!
Posts: 3790
Joined: 2005-01-28 03:54am

Re: UNICEF turning to shock tactics at game convention, WTF?

Post by Civil War Man »

After a bit of thought, I realize that I was looking at it the wrong way. The people who thought this up probably would have been disappointed if no one walked out. "We did a presentation on life in third world countries at a gaming convention, and everyone who attended listened politely until we were finished and then went about their business" is not a video that would have gained much traction. The walkout gave them something more to put on YouTube, which allowed them to reach out to a wider audience. In a sense, the people who attended were not the target audience.

So, it was smarter than I gave them credit for. Though I still think it would have been smarter if they were actually producing a game. Find a developer who is willing to work for what they're able to pay, throw up a kickstarter or something to help with the costs, and let everyone know that if they buy the game their money will help fund efforts to improve conditions in those impoverished countries.
User avatar
TheFeniX
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4869
Joined: 2003-06-26 04:24pm
Location: Texas

Re: UNICEF turning to shock tactics at game convention, WTF?

Post by TheFeniX »

Yes, "gamers" not "asshole trolls with an axe to grind." Remember, gamers are a cohesive block, even though I get bombarded with advertisement about how "gamers are dead, long live gamers" because games are made for everyone now. About how gaming and nerd culture is cool now. But oh no: asshole exists who play video games. Quick, load up the 20-year-old stereotypes for entertainment mediums we don't like.
Hatred is not being made just for shock value, it is being made as right wing propaganda by the sort of person who thinks that all the darkies should be sent home (or beaten up for looking at our wimmins) and women should shut up and get back in the kitchen. (The CEO of the company making it has publicly endorsed the Polish Defence League, a borderline fascist right wing party with a particular hate on for muslims who "patrol" bars and clubs to keep good catholic women out of the hands of dirty foreigners).
Which totally explains why all the backlash has centered around it being a violent murder simulator. Bloggers were quick to harp on the game before any of that broke.
This is the sort of mindless defensiveness I'm talking about, you're not even able to think critically about gaming as entertainment and consider its content and why the designers chose that content any more, you're too used to defending it from criticism and so you defend everything, no matter how indefensible.
I'm being called mindless by a guy who constantly stereotypes the consumers of a multi-billion dollar entertainment industry because of the comments made by a few hundred, to a few thousand malcontents. In a medium with millions of purchasers.
Thanas wrote:See, this passive-aggressive bullshit is exactly why people don't take gamers seriously.
No one was talking about video games being taken seriously before all the "good decent normal" folk started flocking to the medium. This whole "serious games for serious gamers" shit is dumb and we want you to leave. I don't even give a damn about the UNICEF deal. At this point, it's just another soap-box thread about how gamers are terrible people. The only difference between now and 20-years ago is that more people are buying all these awful murder-death-kill sims, so they really have no excuse when they bitch about how offended they are.
User avatar
Vendetta
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10895
Joined: 2002-07-07 04:57pm
Location: Sheffield, UK

Re: UNICEF turning to shock tactics at game convention, WTF?

Post by Vendetta »

TheFeniX wrote:Yes, "gamers" not "asshole trolls with an axe to grind." Remember, gamers are a cohesive block, even though I get bombarded with advertisement about how "gamers are dead, long live gamers" because games are made for everyone now. About how gaming and nerd culture is cool now. But oh no: asshole exists who play video games. Quick, load up the 20-year-old stereotypes for entertainment mediums we don't like.
People who get super defensive about their hobby because they've subsumed their whole identity into this one thing they do, and because they lack any form of self reflection about the nature or content of that hobby and so they hate other people criticising it.
I'm being called mindless by a guy who constantly stereotypes the consumers of a multi-billion dollar entertainment industry because of the comments made by a few hundred, to a few thousand malcontents. In a medium with millions of purchasers.
Yes, because you've wrapped yourself in this flag of wounded identity as soon as anything in any videogame is criticised, despite the fact that you blatantly didn't know about the thing that was being criticised and the grounds for doing so.

You see, the difference between ordinary people who play videogames and the kind of fucknut gamer who is being criticised is exactly this, the sudden unthinking leap to defend the hobby from anything, no avenue of criticism can be accepted because they are a criticism of your identity as a gamer.

This is the reason why, despite the fact that I almost certainly play more videogames than anyone else in this thread, I don't consider myself a "gamer" any more and I don't seek out gaming communities, because they're not positive and useful places to talk about videogames any more.
User avatar
TheFeniX
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4869
Joined: 2003-06-26 04:24pm
Location: Texas

Re: UNICEF turning to shock tactics at game convention, WTF?

Post by TheFeniX »

Vendetta wrote:People who get super defensive about their hobby because they've subsumed their whole identity into this one thing they do, and because they lack any form of self reflection about the nature or content of that hobby and so they hate other people criticising it.
Even in the bowls of the gamergate community: criticizing video games is par for the course. To say they aren't critical of the industry is pretty fucking stupid.
Yes, because you've wrapped yourself in this flag of wounded identity as soon as anything in any videogame is criticised, despite the fact that you blatantly didn't know about the thing that was being criticised and the grounds for doing so.
You're so full of shit. You saw it here people, TheFeniX won't put up with any video game criticism because Vendetta hasn't read single post in the G&C forum.

And I read more than a few comments about the controversy surrounding Hatred when it first popped. No mention was made about ties to supremacy groups from the mainstream sites that I bothered to read. They were to busy bashing it as "edgy."
This is the reason why, despite the fact that I almost certainly play more videogames than anyone else in this thread, I don't consider myself a "gamer" any more and I don't seek out gaming communities, because they're not positive and useful places to talk about videogames any more.
Aren't you so fucking special even though there's millions of people who do the same thing. It would be amazing someone could be this deluded, but there's nothing new about it. People sit on their asses all day watching whatever happens to be on the tube, then bitch about (let's just say) stupid Star Trek nerds who devote way too much time to the series.
User avatar
Sidewinder
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5466
Joined: 2005-05-18 10:23pm
Location: Feasting on those who fell in battle
Contact:

Re: UNICEF turning to shock tactics at game convention, WTF?

Post by Sidewinder »

Posted my own criticism of UNICEF's tactics here. My main points are:

1) No effort was made to protect the identities of those in the audience. With gamers being crucified on bulletin boards such as this, I think it is a valid concern.

1A) Addendum to that, those who attend video game conventions, are likely older and wealthier than the kind of people who play 'Hatred'- people who likely have their own families, and thus, more sympathetic to the plights of South Sudanese children. These people could've changed their minds, and offered support for UNICEF's programs; but after being compared to those who play 'Hatred', and crucified on this bulletin board...

2) As South Sudan is fighting a civil war, as Somalia was, what's stopping the warring factions from seizing the supplies UNICEF intended to use for the children, for their own use? Can UNICEF be certain the food they provided to refugee camps, will actually be used to feed refugees, instead of the warlords fighting the South Sudanese Civil War?
Please do not make Americans fight giant monsters.

Those gun nuts do not understand the meaning of "overkill," and will simply use weapon after weapon of mass destruction (WMD) until the monster is dead, or until they run out of weapons.

They have more WMD than there are monsters for us to fight. (More insanity here.)
User avatar
madd0ct0r
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6259
Joined: 2008-03-14 07:47am

Re: UNICEF turning to shock tactics at game convention, WTF?

Post by madd0ct0r »

sidewinder:

1) Dosen't that point apply to all videos/images taken of people in video game conferences? Can you point to a single instance of a non-female gamer being identified online for being present at a video-game conference?
Counter-hypothesis: it's not a valid concern. 'Gamers' are not being singled out.
1A) do you have any evidence for part 1 or part 2 of this statement?
3) How is this relevant to the question of wehter gamers are whiny hypocrites?
"Aid, trade, green technology and peace." - Hans Rosling.
"Welcome to SDN, where we can't see the forest because walking into trees repeatedly feels good, bro." - Mr Coffee
User avatar
Gaidin
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2646
Joined: 2004-06-19 12:27am
Contact:

Re: UNICEF turning to shock tactics at game convention, WTF?

Post by Gaidin »

madd0ct0r wrote:sidewinder:

1) Dosen't that point apply to all videos/images taken of people in video game conferences? Can you point to a single instance of a non-female gamer being identified online for being present at a video-game conference?
Counter-hypothesis: it's not a valid concern. 'Gamers' are not being singled out.
1A) do you have any evidence for part 1 or part 2 of this statement?
3) How is this relevant to the question of wehter gamers are whiny hypocrites?
In one, the camera is on the game company and their developers, while the visiting gamers are anonymous bystanders. UNICEF specifically made an effort to put the camera on the visitors, as the scenario sounds.
User avatar
madd0ct0r
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6259
Joined: 2008-03-14 07:47am

Re: UNICEF turning to shock tactics at game convention, WTF?

Post by madd0ct0r »

either way, in both cases your image is exposed online 'revealing' you as a gamer. Sidewinder is clearly concerned that being outed as a gamer may harm his social standing in real life.
"Aid, trade, green technology and peace." - Hans Rosling.
"Welcome to SDN, where we can't see the forest because walking into trees repeatedly feels good, bro." - Mr Coffee
User avatar
Gaidin
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2646
Joined: 2004-06-19 12:27am
Contact:

Re: UNICEF turning to shock tactics at game convention, WTF?

Post by Gaidin »

Yea, because, point 1 wasn't important at all. In one scenario the only identity being well and truly outed is the developer, and they're doing it willingly. The only people who know the visitors already know them. UNICEF is pointing a camera at the visitors and going "Here look at this!". You really think that's the same thing? Really?
User avatar
madd0ct0r
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6259
Joined: 2008-03-14 07:47am

Re: UNICEF turning to shock tactics at game convention, WTF?

Post by madd0ct0r »

in both cases their faces are on camera. in both cases only people who'll recognise them will recognise them. I really fail to see a fucking difference.

Image

snip - broke formatting -https://38.media.tumblr.com/1ba52f4646b ... 2_1280.jpg[/img]

Image

Image
"Aid, trade, green technology and peace." - Hans Rosling.
"Welcome to SDN, where we can't see the forest because walking into trees repeatedly feels good, bro." - Mr Coffee
User avatar
Gaidin
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2646
Joined: 2004-06-19 12:27am
Contact:

Re: UNICEF turning to shock tactics at game convention, WTF?

Post by Gaidin »

Yea, you think the scenarios are the same. Good to know.
User avatar
Ziggy Stardust
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3114
Joined: 2006-09-10 10:16pm
Location: Research Triangle, NC

Re: UNICEF turning to shock tactics at game convention, WTF?

Post by Ziggy Stardust »

Gaidin wrote:Yea, you think the scenarios are the same. Good to know.
Stop being a twit. You can go online now and find thousands upon thousands of photos of people at a gaming convention, taken by hundreds of people and organizations for a variety of reasons. Hell, photographs of the busy crowds in front of a booth are one of the primary ways a lot of these companies fill their promotional materials. Fuck, I have some on my phone right now. Maddoctor just showed you pictures that you would be utterly unable to tell the difference between if you didn't already know that some were taken by UNESCO and some weren't.

It's a PUBLIC EVENT. No one is being 'outed'.
In one scenario the only identity being well and truly outed is the developer, and they're doing it willingly. The only people who know the visitors already know them. UNICEF is pointing a camera at the visitors and going "Here look at this!". You really think that's the same thing? Really?
Almost every developer takes reaction shots of the crowd to use as promotional material, to show how interested people are in product A or product B. The people that run the convention take shots of the crowd to show how popular the convention is to attract advertisers. And I'm not sure what you're idiotic "The only people who know the visitors already know them" line is supposed to prove.
User avatar
Gaidin
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2646
Joined: 2004-06-19 12:27am
Contact:

Re: UNICEF turning to shock tactics at game convention, WTF?

Post by Gaidin »

Ziggy Stardust wrote:
Gaidin wrote:Yea, you think the scenarios are the same. Good to know.
Stop being a twit. You can go online now and find thousands upon thousands of photos of people at a gaming convention, taken by hundreds of people and organizations for a variety of reasons. Hell, photographs of the busy crowds in front of a booth are one of the primary ways a lot of these companies fill their promotional materials. Fuck, I have some on my phone right now. Maddoctor just showed you pictures that you would be utterly unable to tell the difference between if you didn't already know that some were taken by UNESCO and some weren't.

It's a PUBLIC EVENT. No one is being 'outed'.
In one scenario the only identity being well and truly outed is the developer, and they're doing it willingly. The only people who know the visitors already know them. UNICEF is pointing a camera at the visitors and going "Here look at this!". You really think that's the same thing? Really?
Almost every developer takes reaction shots of the crowd to use as promotional material, to show how interested people are in product A or product B. The people that run the convention take shots of the crowd to show how popular the convention is to attract advertisers. And I'm not sure what you're idiotic "The only people who know the visitors already know them" line is supposed to prove.
Wait, I'm supposed to view it as one and the same when they like making publicity out of focusing on specific people walk out? As opposed to that line playing? I think this is two groups of people at the convention with two hugely different goals. If you think it's the same, well, more power to you, but you've got some work to convince me.
User avatar
Sidewinder
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5466
Joined: 2005-05-18 10:23pm
Location: Feasting on those who fell in battle
Contact:

Re: UNICEF turning to shock tactics at game convention, WTF?

Post by Sidewinder »

madd0ct0r wrote:sidewinder:

1) Dosen't that point apply to all videos/images taken of people in video game conferences?
The people are specifically being used as a negative example. As I wrote, "If I approached you on the street, and publicly accused you of being a 'de facto child molester' because you supposedly 'failed to support programs meant to end child prostitution,' will you feel compelled to support a program you previously knew nothing about? Or will my behavior be associated with the program I'm promoting, meaning it will also be the target of your anger, and innocent children will suffer because their advocates are SELF-RIGHTEOUS ASSHOLES?"
madd0ct0r wrote:1A) do you have any evidence for part 1 or part 2 of this statement?
Again, see what warring factions did in Somalia, during the Somali Civil War. If this can happen then and there, what's stopping it from happening here (in South Sudan) and now (in the South Sudanese Civil War).
madd0ct0r wrote:3) How is this relevant to the question of wehter gamers are whiny hypocrites?
How is the fact some gamers are whiny hypocrites, relevant to the fact UNICEF advocates are self-righteous assholes? And if this isn't enough, see this U.S. News & World Report article on UNICEF's policy of discouraging international adoption, which leaves many orphans stuck in orphanages; and this National Review article on UNICEF providing moral support for a Palestinian terrorist. If the works of American journalists are unacceptable, there's this Lancet article, criticizing UNICEF's focus.
Please do not make Americans fight giant monsters.

Those gun nuts do not understand the meaning of "overkill," and will simply use weapon after weapon of mass destruction (WMD) until the monster is dead, or until they run out of weapons.

They have more WMD than there are monsters for us to fight. (More insanity here.)
User avatar
madd0ct0r
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6259
Joined: 2008-03-14 07:47am

Re: UNICEF turning to shock tactics at game convention, WTF?

Post by madd0ct0r »

sidewinder: 1A) was
Addendum to that, those who attend video game conventions, are likely older and wealthier than the kind of people who play 'Hatred'- people who likely have their own families, and thus, more sympathetic to the plights of South Sudanese children. These people could've changed their minds, and offered support for UNICEF's programs; but after being compared to those who play 'Hatred', and crucified on this bulletin board...
I repeat, do you have any evidence for this statement?

as for the first point: ok, so you are not arguing that being exposed is a bad thing, you are just angry about it being a negative 'comparison'. To which I can only say my heart bleeds for you. You are completely correct and my eyes are opened to the injustice of this world. It must be so horrible for people in that video, for images of them look uncomfortable to be broadcast online. Truly you are justified in your own comparison to " publicly accused you of being a 'de facto child molester' ". I mean these people who's images are being used online by a company that paid to give a presentation, have suffered irreparable damage to their reputation. Being the oppressed minority they are, they truly need you sally forth to defend them to prevent them 'being crucified in online forums'. You may have completely missed the point that no-one is arguing their behaviour is bad, but instead arguing the posters displaying such outrage over this show a remarkable sense of entitlement and lack of empathy.

As for your second, subsumed, point that UNICEF may be loosing more support then gaining. 1) I doubt it, guilt tripping people in an enviroment where they are conditioned into spending money is normally effective. 2) Doesn't matter since, drum roll please, there may in fact be more then one charity working in the world and boycotting one does not in any way preventing you donating to another. This loops back to point 1A, but I'm going to assume you don't need me to provide evidence there's more then one charity in the world.


Your third point, debating the effectiveness of UNICEF's actual work (as opposed to fundraising efforts) is irrelevant to this thread (which is about UNICEF giving a presentation, and whether or not some gamers are whiny hypocrites for getting upset over it).
If you want to debate effective development work by NGO's (and the priorities and methodologies involved) then start a new thread. It's something I'm interested in and have been working on as a side project for a few years now.
"Aid, trade, green technology and peace." - Hans Rosling.
"Welcome to SDN, where we can't see the forest because walking into trees repeatedly feels good, bro." - Mr Coffee
User avatar
Purple
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5233
Joined: 2010-04-20 08:31am
Location: In a purple cube orbiting this planet. Hijacking satellites for an internet connection.

Re: UNICEF turning to shock tactics at game convention, WTF?

Post by Purple »

madd0ct0r wrote:1) I doubt it, guilt tripping people in an enviroment where they are conditioned into spending money is normally effective.
Well I was not going to be the first one to bring this up. But since it has already been I feel obliged to ask the obvious. Am I the only one that finds that sort of behavior disgusting and despicable? I genuinely feel that when the best argument one can make as to why I should donate to his pet cause is an attempt to guilt trip me than he has not only driven me away but convinced me that his cause is flawed and not worth donating to ever. Does anyone else feel like this?
It has become clear to me in the previous days that any attempts at reconciliation and explanation with the community here has failed. I have tried my best. I really have. I pored my heart out trying. But it was all for nothing.

You win. There, I have said it.

Now there is only one thing left to do. Let us see if I can sum up the strength needed to end things once and for all.
User avatar
Jub
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4396
Joined: 2012-08-06 07:58pm
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: UNICEF turning to shock tactics at game convention, WTF?

Post by Jub »

Purple wrote:
madd0ct0r wrote:1) I doubt it, guilt tripping people in an enviroment where they are conditioned into spending money is normally effective.
Well I was not going to be the first one to bring this up. But since it has already been I feel obliged to ask the obvious. Am I the only one that finds that sort of behavior disgusting and despicable? I genuinely feel that when the best argument one can make as to why I should donate to his pet cause is an attempt to guilt trip me than he has not only driven me away but convinced me that his cause is flawed and not worth donating to ever. Does anyone else feel like this?
I feel like showing me what my money does, giving me a detailed breakdown of where it's spent, and then show me success stories in the region would be a better method by which to attract my donation. I want to see the projects where they succeed and thus that region stopped needing support, or at least needed less support. I dislike throwing my money at things that just maintain a slightly less shit standard, I want to donate to projects that actually fix things.

Show me the good you can do, don't show me the bad shit and try to tug my heart strings with shit I've seen on infomercials my entire life.
Last edited by Jub on 2014-12-27 02:48pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Sidewinder
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5466
Joined: 2005-05-18 10:23pm
Location: Feasting on those who fell in battle
Contact:

Re: UNICEF turning to shock tactics at game convention, WTF?

Post by Sidewinder »

So madd0ct0r, in expressing his empathy towards South Sudan's suffering children, demonstrates he has zero empathy towards video gamers.
Please do not make Americans fight giant monsters.

Those gun nuts do not understand the meaning of "overkill," and will simply use weapon after weapon of mass destruction (WMD) until the monster is dead, or until they run out of weapons.

They have more WMD than there are monsters for us to fight. (More insanity here.)
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: UNICEF turning to shock tactics at game convention, WTF?

Post by Thanas »

Sidewinder wrote:So madd0ct0r, in expressing his empathy towards South Sudan's suffering children, demonstrates he has zero empathy towards video gamers.

Why the fuck do gamers deserve empathy anyways? Please make a case why they deserve it any more than any normal person which gets "guilt-tripped".
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
Post Reply