Even the ex agrees that if there was any conflict of interest, it wasn't sexual in nature.

It doesn't matter if it's sexual in nature... but the nature of the relationship still must be disclosed. Or the author can recuse themselves.

6 words about her game. Incredible. And again, long before the relationship started. That post was in January. The relationship started in April.

Their friendship extends back far further, and he was thanked in the credits of her release back in February 2013.

There is yet to be any actual evidence of this that hasn't been disproved in minutes.

So, having Robin Arnott be a curator at Indiecade isn't a conflict of interest? The least relevant is sleeping with her boss, a fellow developer, which is arguably not necessarily a violation of proffesionalism, but it will certainly cast doubts on any raises or promotions she received while working under him, if any.

Ultimately, it's the doubt that's the problem. We don't really need to know about her relationship with her boss (though co-workers might feel jilted if they knew) but we do need to know about people curating games and pushing them in articles. Because it's on them to disclose, and they didn't, and even when they went back and made disclosures on some articles retroactively, they did not fully disclose the extent of some relationships. Even Archon at The Escapist and Erik Kain have called out websites for being too connected, among other ethics violations or shady practices.

Oh, and six words that link to the store page isn't a problem? Of 50 new releases, it just happened to be that one?! Again, this wouldn't be a problem... except for the doubt. If it really wasn't an issue, then simply disclosing the relationship would have solved the problem.

Oh, and the timeline doesn't quite work out so smoothly, because Zoe herself says it happened before the trip, but things "got serious" there. It's clear their relationship had been ongoing for months, if not years (based on Depression Quest's credits). They were certainly friends for some time. Apparently quite close. Close enough to warrant disclosure.

So seeing as the central allegation is nonsense, it'd make no sense for any reputable outlet to report on it.

Again, not nonsense. And again, there's pages of other violations and sketchy behavior. Nobody is reporting on GameJournoPros. Nobody reported on TFYC, even without mentioning the Quinn fiasco. It's also been proven at this point that Zoe basically just tried to shut down TFYC, either because she got hung-up on them for whatever reason or, possibly, because she had her own project she wanted funding for instead. A project which links directly to her personal PayPal. There's also the time Zoe said Wizardchan was harassing her, and that was later proven to be totally made up. Only The Escapist has apologized and issued a retraction of the allegations, but this claim which has been proven false continue to be perpetuated.

Grayson was the only journalist. The others are completely irrelevant.

Robin Arnott is far from irrelevant, considering he curates IndieCade.

Then gamergate should shut up about her already. They're apparently completely unable to do that.

Are you sure that's not anti-GG? Because they've been publishing article after article. GG really hasn't discussed her, excepting times when articles are released discussing both her and GamerGate, or trying to link the two.

I find it incredible that a movement can be against the press, and that same press can publish articles, and then when the subjects of the articles are discussed, the movement is the one "that keeps bringing it up".

Which the guy who ran the kickstarter is a producer for. Clearly no conflict of interest there.

It was disclosed what studio would be used well before the Kickstarter ended. It was not hidden. If people had a problem with the studio choice, they did not have to donate. A little disclosure goes a long way.

That's laughable. Gamergate does little beyond just defend itself, and what it does beyond that is wholly unproductive.

Yeah, they totally accomplished getting sponsors to pull by defending themselves. GamerGate hasn't defended itself because it has nothing to apologize for. It's not responsible for the harassment, and it does not condone it. The greater problem is the journalists trying to make it about that instead of discussing the real issues of nepotism.

The position doesn't exist in the game industry at all. Not much of a resume booster, that.

As far as I know, they're still hiring "game designers", so...

The industry usually expects more out of a full-time employee now, but having a good game that you can say, "I came up with the mechanics for that"? That's a boost to your credibility. It gives you a much better position to enter from.

There is no evidence of this.

GameJournoPros.

Their audience has no reading comprehension if so. The "gamers are over" articles were all about how the stereotype is outdated, and that gaming is more diverse now.

Gamers are just as diverse as they've always been: plenty diverse. The notion that the core demographic has changed is laughable. Also, all those articles were published the same day, and all hit on the same talking points. And they say they aren't colluding? That's one incredibly coincidence.

The original article on Gamasutra wasn't even directed at gamers; it was directed at developers, telling them that they didn't have to focus on appealing to the stereotype any more.

And GamerGate, as the consumer, responded by saying, "hey, we're not dead, we are right here!". The article was wrong and published to push an ideal that gamers disagree with. So they complained, and some advertisers agreed that what they said was bad. So they chose to pull their campaign.