There is a user whose behavior I want to report. It's not just an isolated post but pretty much every post he makes is just to insult others. I flanged his comments but only a few were deleted and, since his account is recent, I believe the guy created said account just to behave that way.
Which would be proper procedure to do this?
Thanks in advance :)

Curious enough, I always find the same 2 topics in every answer: "I am not responsible" and "show me proof". And I didn't sayd "full of" I said "The louder voice in front of the media"

Well, Responsability comes when those scmucks use your movement and message as excuse for that kind behabiour, that happens and we all saw it. The proof is as easy as jumping to youtube and write "gamergate" on it, a good number of those videos (not all, of course) are little more than insults towards people against GG. Responsability for something that somebody generates (or, in this case, atracks) is the ethic way of doing things. The fact that GG claims that Ethics are the core of their movement, one expect at least a "Yes, me attracted this idiots. Our bad. we'll clean the house now"

But if still you want proof, the very existence of that patrol you mention is a proof. Aside from that, well... I'm anti-censorship and anti-biased press (or any biased media) yet is this kind of behavior that I saw multiple times that keeps me from choosing any side.

But anyway, I already got that info from @SambaLele so, for the moment, I have little else to add.

Cheers

I always match Sarkeesian's videos, so I already have a formed (and quite discussed) idea about them (Some points agree, other I don't, basically).

And you may call that "long", I call it "Wish more people would put explanations in such mature ways"

Thanks again.

Information is exactly what I want. Will check that.
Thanks.

I'm not talking about turning you back to your ideas because some people get radical about them (something that you can see in pretty much every message whatsoever), but you can make sure that those radical are not the high voice. The same way you can say that "Feminism is not #KillAllMen" you can say "Gamergate is not those idiots spamming insults on twitter", for example.
So why not do it?

:D :D :D

Problem is not GG, they are not a "hat group" in nature. Problem is that that hate comes from a number of their supporters that foung in GG a flag to carry around (Just criticize it somewhere and you'll se their reaction). When this started GG could have easily openly state that they are against this kind of activities and that those people do not represent them in any way. Instead of that, they remain silent (or the message was so small that it didn't reach most of us). Sometimes discusing this topic I got the (often mentioned) answer of "we are not responsible of what some idiots say" well... you may not, but those idiots you mention are using you hashtag, you know... Purging rotten apples is something I would expect from a group that claim about ethics and oppose corruption in general
But it's far too late, that stain most likely will never go away. They should start thinking about a fresh start taking care of who are those speaking in their name.

@stopgamingfraud Were you forced to acquire the console? were you forced to register online? no? Then there you go. Companies are private organizations like private clubs; you don't like what you see then go somewhere else. It's their product and it's their rules, and this is for pretty much every service in the world, not only video-games.

Oh, and by the way... you don't actually "buy" the console; you pay a lifetime rental (Like with music and movies), so it's not your property, but theirs. Think it this way, how do they do to "sell" you a machine but still keep PlayStation brand, for example, and everything on it still belonging to Sony?

Since you say you don't play games and never got banned I don't know if you are trolling or talking seriously. Either way, you got a serious answer from somebody that has been working close to eight years in the game industry: your theory is not correct. Do with this information what you see fit.

Good day.

"These firms claim their "Codes of Conduct" are a contract; however, I do not believe they are since they are not revealed until after purchasing the products and because they are one-sided, meaning it only benefits these firms."

Wrong:

1. What you beleive is irrelevant; and EULa is a binding contract you accepted.

2. They are revealed in the game description, when you register to their network, and in every game/system manual

3. You enjoy the game, that means its not one-sided, since you are paying to use that product/service.

Seeing how this is the second time you come with a rant and how you got banned from LIVE (which is something hard to achieve) Either you are just a tr0ll, a spoiled kid, or really stoopid.

Grow up.

Hope it's true. It would totally fit.