" 

 === Incomplete thoughts about where people are focusing now WRT GG === 
 There may be another shift coming in public focus WRT GG   
 * Opinion: An e-cop targeting cyber trolls is a step in the right direction - opinion piece 
 * New ‘Offworld’ Gaming Site Seeks To Redefine Gamer Stereotypes - ThinkProgress 
 * In the digital age: Cost of feminism 

 I don't know if anyone noticed 's suggestion (in the archive) for reorganizing one of the sections.  He suggests, ""[...] the section should be written should be ""GG is considered misogynist and sexist because (X). GG is considered to be a continuation of existing misogyny and sexism in the industry because (X). GG had the potential to be seen as a way to address these but failed because (X)."" That is, make it clear what is the now, why it highlights issues, and why it is not doing anything to help fix those issues.""  

 Now however, as I think about the focus many of the newer articles have taken, perhaps a better proposal is: 
 # GG is considered misogynist and sexist because (X) 
 # GG is considered to be a continuation of existing misogyny and sexism in the industry because (Y) 
 # GG had the potential to be seen as a way to address these but failed because (Z) 
 # Reaction to GG has caused reactions (A, B, C per above articles and Crash Override etc) 
 My problem being some of this goes to broader topics, and perhaps we should only bridge from here to those broader topics.  

 === extra article === 
 * Off Main: PAX Expo in Boston offers a glimpse of the future"