Yawn.... wow is this stupid.

Just in case you didn't read my other post....

Here's all the relevant info you need on DiGRA - http://www.reddit.com/r/AgainstGamerGate/comments/36tk1d/digra_scholar_says_games_and_gamers_should_be/crh63ac

Not to mention, this is an egregious quote mine, dude. I planned to buy you a beer at the meetup, but if this keeps going, you're getting Natty Lite....

Here's the full relevant quote...[Bolding done by me for relevance]

Mark Kern is an example of the type of push-back against criticism which is both expected and common when anybody, scholars, amateurs or professional critics, start looking systematically at any cultural expression and ask more of it than just superficial entertainment. This reaction proves, just as the entire Gamergate affair does, that game criticism and research is growing up. It is no longer simply scratching at the surfaces of description, as we did in the first few years, at which time we tried to understand what was actually going on, creating a language of academic discourse, and fighting for the value of a thrashed and disrespected medium. The anger, the shouts of "don't criticize if you can't do the same as me", the misunderstandings and the deep fear that Gamergate expresses, demonstrates that the research has touched a nerve, has come too close for comfort.

I am not going to say game research is "winning", as that is Gamergate terminology. There is no victory to be had here. Reacting too much to the aggression will skew research, and make it certain that we start having a bias against a subgroup of people who claim the tag "gamer" for themselves. It will give Gamergate influence in a detrimental manner, as they are working very hard to make game researchers hate "gamers". However, it proves the relevance of game research. Games are deeply entrenched in modern culture, and understanding game culture combined with the social media ecology may be more important now than it has ever been. It also forces researchers to reflect on terminology, on user models and pre-conceptions, and on the value of games, which we so far have mainly taken for granted. Perhaps it is time, after years of thinking of games as an almost universally good thing and a medium to be defended, to question that truth. Perhaps games, design and gamers aren't so special after all, and need to be studied more as hostile objects resulting from a hostile culture, than as the labour of love it has been to so many of us.

First off, way to be Mark...I fully expect that whatever the fuck you're not making to be shipped never. [At least Tim Schaefer ships half assed games. Mark Kern's shipping nothing at all.]

Second, what she's saying is that games researches need to work hard to distance themselves from the subject matter, that too much games research has worked to defend gaming from people like Jack Thompson, and maybe they should instead study the hostility inherent in the subculture and why it exists. Nothing more.