“Quite the opposite” ignores that people involved with GamerGate have actually SWATed people (see e.g. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/13/gamergate-...) and has engaged in all of the other activities I listed. Even if true, a single incident doesn't magically cancel out half a year of real harassment no matter how many times GamerGaters have tried use that logic to avoid addressing bad behaviour by their fellows.

That said, you're linking to a post written by Mike Cernovitch, one of the more vociferous people in GamerGate, where he's making the popular argument that he's the real victim here.

Again, let's review the evidence: if you read more than the headline it's immediately obvious that there was no actual SWATing or even threat to do so and, more importantly, none of it was done by Zoe Quinn. The person who actually posted his address used the information which he'd listed on a business directory before removing it and apologizing:

https://medium.com/@ManfredVonKarma/mike-cernovich-based-law...

The key thing, of course, is that he wouldn't have been able to use a stranger’s actions to justify the anti-Zoe hate campaign. If you read it closely, notice how each claim in the article starts with something true but then adds unsupported insinuations that Zoe was masterminding it in an effort to shift the ire to her rather than the person who actually wrote the post.

I agree that there was no actual SWATing in Cernovich's case. He has been reported to the LAPD (probably several times) for harassment. However he has been doxxed, and I don't know how you're saying none of it was done by Quinn. Quinn has 52K followers on twitter. I think I can conclude that her tweets are widely read. And she has repeatedly publicized dox articles. Does that make her any less guilty than actually writing those articles herself? And Quinn herself admits that doxxing and SWATing are a package deal. SWATings are usually initiated as an anonymous tip, "stranger's actions", as you put it in a different context. I don't know how the law works in the US, but if it were up to me, I'd hold the doxxer responsible for it.

The Guardian article is probably right in naming baphomet (on 8chan), but then follows it up with some very shady language to link it with KiA. I have visited baphomet a few times, and they seem to be doing their own thing, whatever that may be.

As far as I know, Reddit has very strict policies in place to discourage doxxing (except on r/doxme). KotakuInAction, the one you called gamergate's organizing site, cannot be involved in doxxing. Though I'm not a regular reader, I visit it every few weeks to see what they're up to. Not only have I not seen any doxxing there, I have seen threads discouraging such behavior. Also see their Rule #2: "This is the quickest way to a ban, not just from us, but the Reddit admins. Seriously, don’t do it. Take every effort to ensure that your posts do not include any personal information, especially in screenshots."

Oh, go away! These links are hardly credible.

It very much seems like KiA is subbreddit of the day.

If you have reason to believe otherwise, please bring the links. ;-)

(Now, if you don't mind, take a minute to consider what you have just said in your last comments.)

Reddit is not a reliable source of information. Full stop.

It as the only reliable source on what is subreddit-of-the-day though.

And you still haven't provided evidence of anything else.

As the sign next to the radios used to say: think-push-speak.

What's your point? It's not a reliable source that Zoe Quinn called in a Swot team against someone falsely!

No, I didn't mention that link, which btw isn't from reddit but from someones blog. (I haven't made up my mind on that one but it seems he makes a leap yes.)

I'm trying to point out that you are acting as if you have already made up you mind: whatever the facts, gg-ers are wrong.

In this case it seems you are, among other things, denying that KiA is Subreddit-of-the-day. Which is very easy to prove.

I suggest you read through this very carefully and find out exactly what you commented on instead of jumping to conclusions[1]. Because, you know, -this isn't reddit.

[1]: Protip: This often a good idea elsewhere as well.

I misread the original post. I apologise, you are correct about the second link. I stand by my comments on the first link, but I've been very silly in commenting about the second one. Sorry about that.

Please though, stop making personal attacks.

No problem : )

> Please though, stop making personal attacks.

Sorry. My apologies for that. Will stop.

As opposed to the credible links you have provided?

I need to provide credible links to prove that someone didn't do something?

How about shedding light on the matter with actual information rather than trying to score with empty rhetoric? I'm sorry if I'm asking for too much.

Yep. If KiA isn't Subreddit of the day that should be easy to prove.

What? He's providing the link to reddit to prove that Zoe Quinn called in a Swot team. The source is reliable for matters on Reddit, but that's not what we are discussing.

NO!

Now you start reading before making assumptions!

SERIOUSLY: The reddit link is about KiA being subreddit-of-the-day.

The other link is about the Swot[sic] team, and it is NOT on reddit.

Now you wait until you are sober and/or ready to read before you comment : )

You are correct, I misread the original post. I apologise for that - the error is mine.