I'm starting to get the sense that this is a very specific medium of digital story that's being told: a sort of media presentation with sets of images and perhaps video with an overlay of voiced narrative. I had originally expected this to be a general article on digital storytelling, but it seems a lot more pinpoint than anticipated.

I think this is one of the most important pieces of advice for writing and storytelling. No matter how self-critical you are (and perhaps because of how self-critical you are), it's always advisable to have someone take a look at your work. Read it aloud to yourself, then to a friend, then to a peer, and then you can decide what needs to stay, go, or change.

Eschew is a helpful word! I agree with the importance of brevity - I tend to overuse it, in fact - but 'big fancy words' exist for a reason, and two arguably synonymous words can give passages significantly different meanings. Compare:

"They were depressed." and "They were miserable."

Similar meanings, very different inflections. Cutting words out of the toolbox can help, but it can be reckless when overdone.

I wonder why all these suggestions are non-fiction or autobiographical in some way. Is this author preference, or does storytelling in a digital medium somehow lend itself to these styles of genre?

This brings up an important feature I noted in this article: it refrains from actually linking the hate-filled forums it condemns. Which brings up the question: should they? Should regular, everyday people be exposed to stuff like this? On one hand, if we make links like this public we risk inadvertently 'converting' people to extremist mindsets. On the other hand, if we don't, we essentially allow the capitalist media to do our critical thinking for us. Neither option is particularly appetizing. Thoughts?

I was curious to see if the Gamergate participants had any schisms or splits, and tried to do some surface research on any communities they frequent. Unfortunately, they've proven exceedingly difficult to find - a google search simply brings up page upon page of anti-Gamergate media reports.

I play lots of games, but most of the Gamergate stuff flew over my head - does anyone else know how those members who ostensibly did want to see change in games journalism handle their far less savoury companions? Did they attempt to police the community, or did they abandon the movement entirely and leave it in the hands of the abusers? Judging from the overwhelmingly negative reports I see pretty much everywhere, the latter seems more likely - it doesn't exactly seem that cooler heads prevailed.

Weird in the sense that this wording makes it seem like Gamergate is a disease, and I'm not quite sure if it's a good analogy or not. Other people's thoughts?

I found this game fascinating for its ability to tell a story with only 6 words: 'There is too much noise' and 'silence'. I'm always interested in storytelling in video games, especially when they twist the medium in different ways, and I loved how the game's maps slowly unfurled to give you a more complete understanding of your environment. The game's ending was particularly poignant.

Wonderful! I haven't had a chance to play any of Killmonday Games's work, but I've always loved the aesthetic. I'm glad someone's seriously discussing the potential of video games to express the emotional spectrum - for a long time they haven't been taken very seriously as an artistic medium, but that's been starting to change in the last few years. My scholarly topic of interest is centered on video games and online storytelling, so this video was a great watch.