by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Wednesday July 22, 2015 @02:00PM (#50162143)
Just like many people predicted in the submission for asking the questions, it looks like the good, hard-hitting questions were totally ignored.
What's the point of having these/. interviews, regardless of who they're with, if all we get are answers to lame, uninteresting questions?
This isn't the only case where this has happened, of course. The same thing happened with the Linus Torvalds interview a few weeks ago. The best questions remained ignored, or if answered indirectly, the answers were pretty half-arsed.
If the best and most relevant questions aren't going to get answered, then/. should stop with these shitty interviews. Each one takes up two front page slots that could instead have been filled with relevant, useful stories.
You recently tweeted that no one who isn't transgender should voice opinions on transgender issues yet you regularly voice your own opinion on these issues. Is this a tacit "coming out" of your own transgender past, and if so, what does it mean for your own position as a representative and "megaphone" for women's issues and how you speak to the personal history of growing up as a woman?
You recently ran a successful campaign to get your game approved on Steam's greenlight. What approaches did you use to get your game ranked high enough to be greenlit. What do you feel had the biggest impact in getting the numbers? What suggestions do you have for other Indie Game Developers who want to get their games approved on Steam's greenlight system?
Considering you have spoken out in the past about female characters in games being overtly sexualized, could you explain why the protagonists of your own game Revolution 60 wear what appears to be skintight lycra to show off their perfect hourglass figures?
And that's just a few that didn't get modded down. Many of the +5 best questions early on got "mysteriously" modded down to -1 flamebait by.... somebody. Like this one which was at +5 funny when I remember reading it a few days ago:
Ms. Wu, when sending yourself harassment over steam [theralphretort.com] or twitter and faking having to leave your house [theralphretort.com] over harassment in response to trolling people, do you find TOR or a more traditional anonymous proxy to be more effective?
Definitely abuse of the modding system. People who saw troll questions like that and modded them up got away with it for a couple of days before other people noticed them and fixed them.
I wonder how many new Slashdot accounts were created from her Twitter whining and suddenly got mod points.
That or Dice decided to pull a Reddit and just hide them so they didn't appear "unfriendly to women in industry".
And right now I'd like to point out that Randi Lee Harper is speaking at OSCON this weekend.
TL;DR: A large and prominent tech conference (3.5K attendees) run by O'Reilly Media and sponsored by major tech companies is presenting Randi as an "anti-harassment" activist. When evidence of her track record of abuse and harassment was brought to the attention of the conference organizers last month, they publicly dismissed those contacting them about her as "trolls".
WHY THIS MATTERS: This is by far the biggest venue Randi has ever appeared in and the deception that she and the conference organizers are engaged in is shameful. If enough of us post evidence of who Randi really is to the #OSCON tag, there's a very good chance that future conference organizers (and their sponsors) will think twice before embarrassing themselves by giving Randi a platform.
DETAILS:
Although #OSCON was notified of Randi's antics when news of her speaking engagement became public last month, they chose to ignore the evidence, instead of taking seriously their obligation to their attendee's well-being. Adding insult to injury, a statement by @joshsimmons dismissed those who had raised concerns as "trolls":
They followed this statement up with a fawning "interview" in their online magazine in which they didn't ask Randi a single question about her atrocious behavior:
The conference starts today (Wednesday) and runs until Friday. Detailed information including the list of sponsors, can be found at http://www.oscon.com./ [www.oscon.com]
Here are some links to some resources about Randi's misbehavior, such as Milo's just concluded series of articles, Ralph's followup, and Stephanie Greene's series from a few months ago. Please post links to other resources, such as blogs, articles, images, etc., which you think are worth posting to the #OSCON hashtag, in the comments.
You do realize that new accounts don't get mod points right away, right? That's to prevent exactly what you're describing. I would wager most of the modding up or down was done by relatively established slashdotters with sufficient karma.
Both sides are doing it. First you get the GamerGaters come in early and block mod their sock puppet accounts up, while modding everyone questioning them down as flamebait or troll. Then later the grown ups and meta-mods come along and reverse it all.
The initial down-modding looks exactly like the screenshot you posted. It's what happens a lot of people finish/start work around the same time. It happens on every story - the early moderation is rarely representative of the final scoring because the 'Gaters a
1. Can you please, in a Slashdot Q&A, please confirm something deeply personal in public?
2. A question that's essentially marketing tips, and not hard hitting at all
3. A question that's (mostly - see last part of this comment) reasonable, and that actually she hasn't shied away from at all - she's actually publicly talked about the models being of inappropriate shapes on her Twitter feed, apologizing for it, and confirming all the characters are being redesigned. BTW though,
You didn't understand 1, of course she's not transgender, she is just not following her own standards.
And yes this person should be accountable for what she did and asked the hard questions. She's a chronic liar that still to this day manipulates people to give her donations and publicity.
Brianna Wu doesn't fail to disappoint yet again. Always ducking the hard questions. Too bad the truth is already out there, and failing to address it yet again only adds more confirmation. Cowardly to the end.
Exactly what I was thinking reading through this. She answered not a single negative comment, only the positive ones. Just like Cosby, if you don't respond to critics, they will bury you.
I am still very curious about her response to the accusations of her harassment and doxing of others. If she truly thinks these things are wrong when used against women, how can they be acceptable when used for a woman against people she disagrees with.
Also, though it is hardly my business, I would have loved to see her either confirm or deny all the comments about her being trans. There is nothing wrong with being this way, but it does kind of reduce credibility of her cause which may be why there was no answer either way.
I read every question, and most of the answers, I see none of the negative questions getting any response, it was like we all sucked up to her in the original article, rather than it being questions critical of her. Questions about the harassment and doxing she herself did to others, what sex she was born, if she herself was the source of the harassment she claims targeted her, and about the fact that people were able to prove she never left her house when she was "afra
Here's a thought: What the fuck business if it of yours what sex she was born? I mean, really? Who entitled you to that information? What fucking relevance is it what sex she was born? I mean behind the notions rattling around your gamergate addled brain.
Some trans adopt a hyper-feminist line to deflect attention from the whole question of their previous gender. It's a technique some trans also use to affirm their legitimacy as real women while attacking others and denying them the same courtesy. Slashdot should have asked the hard questions. Wu should realize that when you become a publicity whore you're fair game. Of course a denial would have produced proof to the contrary, and an admission after refusing to provide a clear answer for so long would make
We don't actually know that she got sent the hard questions.
Does the interviewee go through the original post and look at everything that got a score of 5? That's a fairly low bar to hit, and probably a bit unreasonable.
I think it more likely that one of the editorial types gathered up the questions, using the best spelled of various repeats among questions (ok, that's a stretch), and decided what to send. I don't expect that they'd send anything that was outright abusive, no matter what score the question had, or how many people supported it.
I would imagine that they got filtered out, but she was apparently aware that they existed based on a twitter comment [twitter.com]. Or she at least claims to have read through them at the point where there were about 300 questions.
Do you really expect her to answer your troll questions where you won't even acknowledge her gender? I wouldn't answer questions about my mental health, or about allegations that were already debunked by other commentators etc. Engaging would only feed into the harassment, it's best to just try to answer people with a genuine interest in what you are doing and forward copies of the worst of it to the FBI.
By the way, have you ever heard of retweeting? It's where you copy/paste a tweet that someone else sent
We don't actually know that she got sent the hard questions.
Perhaps Slashdot could use a new Director of Talent [washingtonpost.com]? I hear a pretty good one [wikipedia.org] just went on the market after her former employer slashed and burned any remaining semblance of their credibility...
Does the interviewee go through the original post and look at everything that got a score of 5?
They certainly can, if she's such a techie that's certainly within her abilities. Interviewees have done so before.
I wonder, Is that related to how most of the hard questions / questions that don't fit Wu's agenda got mass downvoted to -1 flamebait [slashdot.org] from being +4 or +5 insightful after the post fell off the front page?
Does the interviewee go through the original post and look at everything that got a score of 5? That's a fairly low bar to hit, and probably a bit unreasonable.
It's extremely unreasonable. Many of the good questions ended up with ratings of 4. That's because a common strategy to disrupt the questioning is to wait until the last minute and moderate down all the rating 5 comments you don't like so that if the questions are chosen by rating none of them will get picked (and since it's the last minute, the ti
Caitlyn Jenner has already stated that she currently sees herself as asexual, but probably more of a lesbian. When people transition, sometimes the sex they're attracted to also changes, sometimes it doesn't. And Ms Wu is already married, so I guess that's not going to happen unless she wants to ride Jenner's coat tails and get more attention.
You're assuming she's done something wrong. You seriously think she's going to say "yup, the morons behind gamergate were right, abuse of women is a good thing because they shouldn't be in gaming, and I'm only doing this for the lulz"?
Didn't see that I had accidentally touched the post anon check box. Using the sit on a phone sucks. I suspect it will be fixed around the time they fix Unicode support - not holding my breath.
To the other question, I have made it clear that she is playing the victim card for all its worth, both as a shield and a sword. Like many, I don't buy that all the harassment was genuine; recently the authorities were asked about the investigation and said they're not in the business of embarrassing people. Ouch!
Don't forget lying and misleading answers. Wu was flat out given hundreds of thousands of dollars by her parents to start her "company" and uses her patreon to buy expensive motorcycles.
So the good questions were ignored. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like many people predicted in the submission for asking the questions, it looks like the good, hard-hitting questions were totally ignored.
What's the point of having these /. interviews, regardless of who they're with, if all we get are answers to lame, uninteresting questions?
This isn't the only case where this has happened, of course. The same thing happened with the Linus Torvalds interview a few weeks ago. The best questions remained ignored, or if answered indirectly, the answers were pretty half-arsed.
If the best and most relevant questions aren't going to get answered, then /. should stop with these shitty interviews. Each one takes up two front page slots that could instead have been filled with relevant, useful stories.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe they were really bad questions. Retard level stupid. :D
You have some links to the questions so we can verify or rule out?
Re:So the good questions were ignored. (Score:5, Interesting)
Transgender voice? [slashdot.org]
You recently tweeted that no one who isn't transgender should voice opinions on transgender issues yet you regularly voice your own opinion on these issues. Is this a tacit "coming out" of your own transgender past, and if so, what does it mean for your own position as a representative and "megaphone" for women's issues and how you speak to the personal history of growing up as a woman?
Steam Greenlight [slashdot.org]
You recently ran a successful campaign to get your game approved on Steam's greenlight. What approaches did you use to get your game ranked high enough to be greenlit. What do you feel had the biggest impact in getting the numbers? What suggestions do you have for other Indie Game Developers who want to get their games approved on Steam's greenlight system?
Regarding your own game [slashdot.org]
Considering you have spoken out in the past about female characters in games being overtly sexualized, could you explain why the protagonists of your own game Revolution 60 wear what appears to be skintight lycra to show off their perfect hourglass figures?
And that's just a few that didn't get modded down. Many of the +5 best questions early on got "mysteriously" modded down to -1 flamebait by.... somebody. Like this one which was at +5 funny when I remember reading it a few days ago:
On Managing a Patreon Campaign [slashdot.org]
Ms. Wu, when sending yourself harassment over steam [theralphretort.com] or twitter and faking having to leave your house [theralphretort.com] over harassment in response to trolling people, do you find TOR or a more traditional anonymous proxy to be more effective?
A bunch more were mysteriously modded down. [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:1)
You're asking why a flamebait answer got modded flamebait?
It often happens that more sensible moderation comes along later, as grown ups are often working, and not reading Slashdot right through the day.
Re:So the good questions were ignored. (Score:5, Informative)
Bullshit.
Several questions were at +4 or +5 for days, and then suddenly got modded down to -1. That is pretty blatant abuse of the modding system by someone.
Re: (Score:1)
Definitely abuse of the modding system. People who saw troll questions like that and modded them up got away with it for a couple of days before other people noticed them and fixed them.
Re:So the good questions were ignored. (Score:5, Informative)
I wonder how many new Slashdot accounts were created from her Twitter whining and suddenly got mod points.
That or Dice decided to pull a Reddit and just hide them so they didn't appear "unfriendly to women in industry".
And right now I'd like to point out that Randi Lee Harper is speaking at OSCON this weekend.
TL;DR: A large and prominent tech conference (3.5K attendees) run by O'Reilly Media and sponsored by major tech companies is presenting Randi as an "anti-harassment" activist. When evidence of her track record of abuse and harassment was brought to the attention of the conference organizers last month, they publicly dismissed those contacting them about her as "trolls".
WHY THIS MATTERS: This is by far the biggest venue Randi has ever appeared in and the deception that she and the conference organizers are engaged in is shameful. If enough of us post evidence of who Randi really is to the #OSCON tag, there's a very good chance that future conference organizers (and their sponsors) will think twice before embarrassing themselves by giving Randi a platform.
DETAILS:
Although #OSCON was notified of Randi's antics when news of her speaking engagement became public last month, they chose to ignore the evidence, instead of taking seriously their obligation to their attendee's well-being. Adding insult to injury, a statement by @joshsimmons dismissed those who had raised concerns as "trolls":
http://www.oscon.com/open-sour... [oscon.com]
They followed this statement up with a fawning "interview" in their online magazine in which they didn't ask Randi a single question about her atrocious behavior:
http://opensource.com/life/15/... [opensource.com]
The conference starts today (Wednesday) and runs until Friday. Detailed information including the list of sponsors, can be found at http://www.oscon.com./ [www.oscon.com]
Details about Randi's talk can be found here: http://www.oscon.com/open-sour... [oscon.com].
Here are some links to some resources about Randi's misbehavior, such as Milo's just concluded series of articles, Ralph's followup, and Stephanie Greene's series from a few months ago. Please post links to other resources, such as blogs, articles, images, etc., which you think are worth posting to the #OSCON hashtag, in the comments.
http://www.breitbart.com/londo... [breitbart.com]
http://www.breitbart.com/big-j... [breitbart.com]
http://www.breitbart.com/big-h... [breitbart.com]
http://www.breitbart.com/big-j... [breitbart.com]
http://theralphretort.com/pill... [theralphretort.com]
http://s2b20blog.mukyou.com/hi... [mukyou.com]
http://s2b20blog.mukyou.com/th... [mukyou.com]
http://s2b20blog.mukyou.com/th... [mukyou.com]
http://s2b20blog.mukyou.com/bl... [mukyou.com]
http://theralphretort.com/prol... [theralphretort.com]
https://www.reddit.com/r/Kotak... [reddit.com]
https://www.reddit.com/r/Kotak... [reddit.com]
https://www.reddit.com/r/Kotak... [reddit.com]
Most recent #OSCON tweets:
https://twitter.com/search?q=%... [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that new accounts don't get mod points right away, right? That's to prevent exactly what you're describing. I would wager most of the modding up or down was done by relatively established slashdotters with sufficient karma.
http://slashdot.org/moderation... [slashdot.org]
(scroll up to "Who")
Slashdot jumped the shark (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Both sides are doing it. First you get the GamerGaters come in early and block mod their sock puppet accounts up, while modding everyone questioning them down as flamebait or troll. Then later the grown ups and meta-mods come along and reverse it all.
The initial down-modding looks exactly like the screenshot you posted. It's what happens a lot of people finish/start work around the same time. It happens on every story - the early moderation is rarely representative of the final scoring because the 'Gaters a
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if it's related...
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
So the questions are:
1. Can you please, in a Slashdot Q&A, please confirm something deeply personal in public?
2. A question that's essentially marketing tips, and not hard hitting at all
3. A question that's (mostly - see last part of this comment) reasonable, and that actually she hasn't shied away from at all - she's actually publicly talked about the models being of inappropriate shapes on her Twitter feed, apologizing for it, and confirming all the characters are being redesigned. BTW though,
Re: So the good questions were ignored. (Score:1)
You didn't understand 1, of course she's not transgender, she is just not following her own standards.
And yes this person should be accountable for what she did and asked the hard questions. She's a chronic liar that still to this day manipulates people to give her donations and publicity.
Re:So the good questions were ignored. (Score:5, Funny)
Just like many people predicted in the submission for asking the questions, it looks like the good, hard-hitting questions were totally ignored.
I doubt she has an opinion one way or another on systemd.
Re:So the good questions were ignored. (Score:5, Funny)
Just like many people predicted in the submission for asking the questions, it looks like the good, hard-hitting questions were totally ignored.
I doubt she has an opinion one way or another on systemd.
First of all, if you are "neutral" on the horrific abuse that is systemd you are part of the problem!!!
Re: So the good questions were ignored. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: So the good questions were ignored. (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly what I was thinking reading through this. She answered not a single negative comment, only the positive ones. Just like Cosby, if you don't respond to critics, they will bury you.
I am still very curious about her response to the accusations of her harassment and doxing of others. If she truly thinks these things are wrong when used against women, how can they be acceptable when used for a woman against people she disagrees with.
Also, though it is hardly my business, I would have loved to see her either confirm or deny all the comments about her being trans. There is nothing wrong with being this way, but it does kind of reduce credibility of her cause which may be why there was no answer either way.
Re: (Score:1)
She answered not a single negative comment,
That's very obviously not true.
Re: (Score:2)
Please, show me the error of my ways.
I read every question, and most of the answers, I see none of the negative questions getting any response, it was like we all sucked up to her in the original article, rather than it being questions critical of her. Questions about the harassment and doxing she herself did to others, what sex she was born, if she herself was the source of the harassment she claims targeted her, and about the fact that people were able to prove she never left her house when she was "afra
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So the good questions were ignored. (Score:2)
Re: So the good questions were ignored. (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't actually know that she got sent the hard questions.
Does the interviewee go through the original post and look at everything that got a score of 5? That's a fairly low bar to hit, and probably a bit unreasonable.
I think it more likely that one of the editorial types gathered up the questions, using the best spelled of various repeats among questions (ok, that's a stretch), and decided what to send. I don't expect that they'd send anything that was outright abusive, no matter what score the question had, or how many people supported it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: So the good questions were ignored. (Score:4, Informative)
We don't actually know that she got sent the hard questions.
He claims to have read through all the questions on Twitter [archive.is].
And it looks like someone forgot which account they were logged into [twitter.com] when faking harassment again! Oops!
Re: (Score:2)
We don't actually know that she got sent the hard questions.
He claims to have read through all the questions on Twitter [archive.is].
And it looks like someone forgot which account they were logged into [twitter.com] when faking harassment again! Oops!
Now that should be modded informative.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno. Not taking sides, but your sarcasm detector might be broken?
Re: (Score:2)
Replied to wrong post. Should be attached to the parent.
Re: (Score:3)
And it looks like someone forgot which account they were logged into [twitter.com] when faking harassment again! Oops!
Sarcasm in text. It's hard. And some people just don't want to understand, which makes it harder.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you really expect her to answer your troll questions where you won't even acknowledge her gender? I wouldn't answer questions about my mental health, or about allegations that were already debunked by other commentators etc. Engaging would only feed into the harassment, it's best to just try to answer people with a genuine interest in what you are doing and forward copies of the worst of it to the FBI.
By the way, have you ever heard of retweeting? It's where you copy/paste a tweet that someone else sent
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps Slashdot could use a new Director of Talent [washingtonpost.com]? I hear a pretty good one [wikipedia.org] just went on the market after her former employer slashed and burned any remaining semblance of their credibility...
Re: (Score:2)
Does the interviewee go through the original post and look at everything that got a score of 5?
They certainly can, if she's such a techie that's certainly within her abilities. Interviewees have done so before.
Re: (Score:1)
Does the interviewee go through the original post and look at everything that got a score of 5?
They certainly can, if she's such a techie that's certainly within her abilities. Interviewees have done so before.
I wonder, Is that related to how most of the hard questions / questions that don't fit Wu's agenda got mass downvoted to -1 flamebait [slashdot.org] from being +4 or +5 insightful after the post fell off the front page?
Re: (Score:2)
It's extremely unreasonable. Many of the good questions ended up with ratings of 4. That's because a common strategy to disrupt the questioning is to wait until the last minute and moderate down all the rating 5 comments you don't like so that if the questions are chosen by rating none of them will get picked (and since it's the last minute, the ti
Re: (Score:1)
We don't actually know that she got sent the hard questions.
Well, we know she saw at least some of them, because she complained about them. [archive.is]
Note that in Brianna's circle, disagreement is "harassment" or being "toxic".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So the good questions were ignored. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You're assuming she's done something wrong. You seriously think she's going to say "yup, the morons behind gamergate were right, abuse of women is a good thing because they shouldn't be in gaming, and I'm only doing this for the lulz"?
Re: So the good questions were ignored. (Score:2)
Re: So the good questions were ignored. (Score:2)
Re: So the good questions were ignored. (Score:2)
Re: So the good questions were ignored. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget lying and misleading answers. Wu was flat out given hundreds of thousands of dollars by her parents to start her "company" and uses her patreon to buy expensive motorcycles.