Some may recall a little over a week ago a thing about Too Human developer Denis Dyack implying he wanted to "own" gamers. The deal (posted on forum site NeoGAF) was gamers would say whether they were "for" or "against" the game; if there were more votes "for" it by the time of the game's release, those against would be tagged with the phrase "owned by Too Human", and the opposite would apply if the results were flipped.
Now, one of our writers here thought the whole thing rather childish, and he wasn't alone; it caused some controversy online. But now Dyack is revealing this was all apart of his master plan:
"I was basically calling out people who had no way of assessing the game. All I wanted to point out to people is that this is so ridiculous."
"I went through all of this for two reasons.... If you're going to look at the NeoGAF forum as a non-profit organization, if it does not reform itself, it's eventually going to crumble. There's going to be a point where they step over the line where someone's going to shut them down. That would be a loss for everyone.... The question I have to ask the moderators of GAF: Are you going to follow your own rules? With people making GIFs of myself that are, I would say, attacking me.... Why haven't 180 people been banned now? If I wanted to move in and shut that place down, do I have grounds under their own forum policy?"
Well, I'm all for his exposure of the occasional ridiculousness we see in forums, especially on the topic of prejudgment, but what's with the last thing? It's the Internet, and a hell of a lot of other worse things happen out there. Anyway, much as I really enjoy Dyack, I really have to say: man, if you don't like it, ignore it. Banning 180 people who don't like you or shutting down an entire site isn't going to make the world dislike you any less.
Here is his conclusion:
"NeoGAF and other forums like this that don't have good management are not only hurting society and hurting the videogame industry, they're in decline, and they need to reform quickly before people stop listening to them.... If the moderators and people who run the site think they aren't doing any damage, they are sorely mistaken, and it's only a matter of time before something bad happens."
Note that his full thoughts are located through the source in podcast form, and 1UP highly reccomends hearing him out (I do as well, it adds a lot of colour to his views that's mostly lost on online journalism). With that said, I kind of think maybe to stop listening is the best solution in this case. Everything works itself out in the end; there's a reason for the million brainless sitcoms out there (for example), but there's also quite a bit of room for the more thoughtful ones too: people pay attention to both. If everyone stopped watching either, the given one would fade and the other would fill in the gap. The same thing applies here to whatever sites he has a problem with. Ignore them if you don't like them, and your contribution to demand is done.
Note: After listening to the full podcast mentioned the paragraph previous, I wonder if Dyack doesn't have a point, if only in that it's important to stand up for humanization and civility online. If we just ignore users like those they mention, is that just as effective of a form of change as attempting to affect things from within the currently existing system? Or would it be ineffective and everything would repeat until someone (like Dyack) said something? Hard to say, but I think both are valid methods, details aside.