[imbri]

Rogi Ocnorb wrote:

http://forums.unfiction.com/forums/search.php?search_author=itwasntmeiswear I'm sorry. But, it's really hard to know where you stand on an issue.

BubbleBoy wrote:

I have not clicked the links to see what I have written in the past, but I am pretty sure that I would like to edit them to express my views of the present. But I will not because these things have also made me who I am. ... I always feel the need to write things down so that I may have a record of my experiences. Some good, some not so good. But that does not mean that I have not learned anything from those words. However, it DOES mean that there is a record of them and people who feel the need to remind me of them have the ability to do so and then I can simply explain that those were my views given my experience at those times.

Now that's just funny!

But, back on topic...

BubbleBoy wrote:

So when I say that I commend this guy for what he did, I mean that I am happy that he tried it. Yes, it didn't work and the outcome was rather unexpected, I am sure, but I also believe that the intention was NOT a negative one.

I don't see what there is to commend here.

Don't get me wrong - I am all for trying new things. Many of us would really like to see more experimentation and playing this genre. As much as I like the "Beast style ARG" there is so much more out there - whether they've already been tried or not. Please - try new things, explore! Whether it's a happy accident of someone playing with ideas similar to ARGs or some crazy ideas growing out of the community - I don't care, I just want to see it.

But, I have a hard time commending someone for just going out and doing something without thinking it through. I mean it's not as if what Steve did here was anything new or groundbreaking. Sure, it was the first time the ARG community had been infiltrated to such an extent but it most definitely wasn't the first time that this happened. ARGTalk, for example, worked its way into the community but did so in a manner that did not violate trust as deeply (and considering how mean and bitter the characters were, it was actually a bit of a relief that they were just characters mocking the community).

There was plenty of stuff out there for Steve to look at and build off of - from looking at hoaxes (Kaycee Nicole) to embedded ARG characters (PixelVixen) to blurring ARG meta realities (ARGTalk). If he had looked at those and put some thought into the process, there might be something to commend. But, as it happened, it was just some guy thinking he was doing something cool and wonderful and breaking rules and violating trust without putting any thought into the hows and whys of it all - once he started thinking about it, he had regrets that led to him backing out of his design decisions and seeking forgiveness from the community. That backing out may be worthy of some commendation but launching a character without thinking about the design implications - not so much.

[BubbleBoy]

Rogi Ocnorb wrote:

I'm sorry. But, it's really hard to know where you stand on an issue.

Our experiences make us who we are. As we get older, or even with just the passing of small amounts of time, our views and opinions on certain issues may evolve. I have had a child within the past 6 months and that has led me to view many things in a different light.

I have not clicked the links to see what I have written in the past, but I am pretty sure that I would like to edit them to express my views of the present. But I will not because these things have also made me who I am. They are just a piece of my "experience" in this genre and in life in general.

I always feel the need to write things down so that I may have a record of my experiences. Some good, some not so good. But that does not mean that I have not learned anything from those words. However, it DOES mean that there is a record of them and people who feel the need to remind me of them have the ability to do so and then I can simply explain that those were my views given my experience at those times.

But that is then and this is now and my views are now different. So I will leave it at that.

[Rogi Ocnorb]

Wow! is it time for another name change, already?
http://howtocreateanarg.wordpress.com/2008/03/29/the-lead-puppetmaster/

http://forums.unfiction.com/forums/search.php?search_author=itwasntmeiswear

I'm sorry. But, it's really hard to know where you stand on an issue.

[krystyn]

BubbleBoy wrote:

It's a very long story, but I had an OOG situation that could NOT be explained or done IG, so the forums where used to get a certain point across.

Oh, come on, don't be coy!

[BubbleBoy]

krystyn wrote:

Unless you're saying that you figured out why it was a bad idea, and are just admitting this here with some weird mixed tone of 'wisdom' and gloating.

It's a very long story, but I had an OOG situation that could NOT be explained or done IG, so the forums where used to get a certain point across. The players only found out later, during the PM chat, that I had posted on the forums and nothing negative was said about it. Personally, I believe that they understood the situation and that my options were very limited.

So, no gloating. Just the point that sometimes, and very rarely, a situation calls for someone to break the rules. Yes, it's wrong, but I found that in this situation it was my only option at the time.

rose wrote:

I wonder if any of the PMs who have broken the rules here have any concern for how their actions affect the community as a whole? I see people thinking only of themselves, usually with ideas that are wholly unoriginal, and not mentioning any concern for the community. I care much more about the community than I do about any individual who thinks the only way to be creative is to break rules. I note that the most successful games have always respected the community...and have always told good stories.

I believe that you will find that a good 95% of the "rule breaking" is done by people who don't fully understand the rules - whether it is inexperience, not reading the TOS or straight up lack of judgment.

I believe that the other 5% is unintentional. And what I mean by "unintentional" is that they are focused so much on creating an experience that people will enjoy that they don't see it's impact, or don't fully understand the impact that it will have.

Some people are sticklers when it comes to rules and people abiding by them. I am clearly NOT one of those people. I tend view things a little more positively or give people a little bit of slack here and there, giving them the "benefit of the doubt" so to speak.

If a PM posting in their games' topic is the worst thing that happens in my day, then I am having a great freakin' day.

Yes, we have rules and people should abide by them. But if they don't I'm not going to jump all over them for it.

And, yes, I do fully believe that being "creative" can lead to situations that may be seen as uncalled for. But I don't want to take the option of being "creative" in an extreme way away from people. Just because they are afraid of what might happen if they try this or that doesn't mean that they should not try it.

If they try it and it doesn't work or people don't respond positively too it (and please understand that, whether we like it or not, the community will tell us what is uncalled for, not you or I) then we'll know not to try it. But I don't want to take the passion of experimenting with ideas away from people. I think that it just leads us down a road that I don't personally feel comfortable with this genre taking - I believe that you take the possible growth of the genre away.

So when I say that I commend this guy for what he did, I mean that I am happy that he tried it. Yes, it didn't work and the outcome was rather unexpected, I am sure, but I also believe that the intention was NOT a negative one.

Like I said, I tend to give people the "benefit of the doubt" when it comes to these sorts of things instead of tackling them to the ground. But that's just me.

[Varin]

rose wrote:

I note that the most successful games have always respected the community...and have always told good stories.

Yes, what Rose said Anyone thinking of making a game should read that sentence at least 10 or 100 times.

[TAPshooter]

Irresponsible not innovative

[johnny5]

Rekidk wrote:

In other words, is it ethically irresponsible for a character to enter into a conversation with someone who doesn't know that they're talking to a character?

Man!
That's just like when I'm chatting up some young thing for a rendezvous and it turns out it's a Federal Agent...I hate when that happens.

[krystyn]

BubbleBoy wrote:

I've posted as the PM (undetected, and without any backlash what so ever, I might add) in my own game topics.

why?

Unless you're saying that you figured out why it was a bad idea, and are just admitting this here with some weird mixed tone of 'wisdom' and gloating.

Also, what rose said.

[rose]

I wonder if any of the PMs who have broken the rules here have any concern for how their actions affect the community as a whole? I see people thinking only of themselves, usually with ideas that are wholly unoriginal, and not mentioning any concern for the community.

I care much more about the community than I do about any individual who thinks the only way to be creative is to break rules. I note that the most successful games have always respected the community...and have always told good stories.

[BubbleBoy]

While I have not read the entire 3 pages of this topic, I still would like to post a comment on this.

First; Martin, Steve, whatever online name you have chosen for yourself, I commend you on your efforts. Your concerns about "backstory" are no more different then those concerns that others of us have had, and I am sure that there are more than a few people who have considered doing what you did. The only difference is that you saw it through.

I am not commending you on the act itself. I am commending you for taking a risk. Most people would have thought about doing this and believed the consequences of such an action were to much to bare. That the backlash wasn't worth the risk. But not you, sir. You stood up tall and jumped where others would have stepped back.

Many people will see this as a negative thing. But not I. I believe that in order for art to exist there must be some people out there who are willing to push, not only the boundaries of what is and what is not right, morally or otherwise, but also be willing to push the buttons of the public.

That being said: I did this same thing 2 years ago.

I won't go into all the details because it might come across as bragging and that is not my intent, but our situations are very similar. I created an on-line persona and got him involved in the ARG community. You created a post that got onto ARGNet. I created a voice mail and e-mail that got onto the ARGNetCast.

I created blogs and websites having to do with ARG's. I even created one blog that was dedicated too my character complaining about world events as he saw them.

I was doing what I thought the community was asking for - a character that, if searched, had an on-line history that could be found and noted. But I later figured something out that caused me to cease all of the characters activities.

I learned that a characters history is not something that is on-line, per say. It is something that is written into the story, something that players can discover through playing the game itself.

Now, I know that this might be a bit confusing on some levels, but there is actually a difference between what we, as creators, see as history and what ARG's see as history.

We see history as a past that can be traced through google searches and youtube tags. ARG's see history as a past that can be traced through character interaction and IG web-sites.

That is NOT to say that a future character can't create a freewebs blog right now for a game that will launch in a year or so... because THAT would be considered an IG web-site. It's when we start getting that character involved in the present - when no trouble is afoot, when no one has gone missing - that is when our difference in opinions on what "history" is as defined comes into conflict with how we play these games.

I've been known to cause trouble here on the forums in the past. I've posted as the PM (undetected, and without any backlash what so ever, I might add) in my own game topics. I've pushed more than my share of buttons around these parts. So, take it from someone who knows about these kinds of things. There are lessons to be learned from all of our actions. I have learned so much more by the mistakes that I have made then I have through listening to any PodCast or reading any forum topic.

Good luck in all of your future projects and please leave the rule breaking to me.

Amateurs! Pft.

[BlackandBlue]

We are all players on a stage

[thebruce]

Rekidk wrote:

Taking it to a lesser extreme: what if my character joined a knitting forum, where members exchanged knitting patterns? Does it make a difference if my character specifically avoids forming "friendships" with the others on the forum (and, instead, only comments on knitting patterns)? Taking it even further: what if my character created a knitting blog that was primarily one-directional in nature but attracted knitting enthusiasts?

I think we've seen in past games that there's even a difference in dynamic between official and grassroots games... rather, between promotional ARGs which eventually lead to a product or commercial revelation, and ARGs meant purely to be an entertainment source.

I think we'd find more often than not, to use your knitting example, if your ARG launching stealthily in that forum was to lead to some new awesome knitting product, the people who may feel 'duped' may feel that at least it was worth something. But if you're trying to launch a game just for fun, then they find out they were being a part of it - they thought they were building a real acquaintance/friendship, when it turns out the person was only fictional - then it comes back to the issue of 'choice'. They didn't have the choice of whether they wanted to invest time and effort into that relationship (or that profile, if no personal relationships are being built).

Basically, if a game is purely for entertainment, then choice is a much bigger concern with players. But if the 'reward', per se, is another product/service that will benefit the player or that the player will enjoy, then chances are, if you've targeted your playerbase accurately, they'll be more excited than upset.

In the end, choice is key. And pure entertainment is a time suck. If people pour energy into pure entertainment unknowingly, and find out afterwards they could have used their time better elsewhere, they could very well end up furious.

Point being, in running/launching a game, be aware of what value your game is going to bring, and to whom you are offering it. I'd assume that's pretty much a given anyway =)

Rekidk wrote:

Of course, that offers a potential solution to my character's invasion of a knitting forum: creating my own. If I put effort into creating an array of characters to inhabit a fictional knitting community, I can create a background for my character without deceiving anyone at all - which is undeniably the best solution from a game perspective.

Definitely. The drawback to a separate forum though is you don't have a community to pull players from, and once again you resort to somehow getting word out, attracting people there, 'opting in' in some manner.

Rekidk wrote:

What if players grew attached to my knitting character and wanted her to stick around after the storyline finished? I'm not saying that you can have a true friendship with a fictional character, but I'm not not saying that either. Who hasn't gotten attached to a character from a TV show, movie, play, or book? Is that type of attachment different when the character talks back?

I think that's where fanfic comes in. Players, readers, follwoers, what have you, who basically don't want a story to end, typically form niche groups who continue to explore the fiction-space that was created by the original writers. I think it's certainly possible to do with ARGs, but finding a PM who would be willing to run a game its full length, then continue it with no foreseeable end, goal, or plot in sight would be quite difficult. Not saying it can't be done, but that would definitely become a major task for whoever took it up (fan or creator). I'd even say that starts becoming more of a roleplay, since without a real narrative to go on (otherwise it would still be a game, not just a fictional character continuing his existence in the real world) it's a person now simply acting out the role and personality of a character.

Perhaps it could be a method of tying multiple stories together in the interim, but I think if a character is acted out without the aid of a plot or direction other than 'existence', then it's not a game any more anyway, and you fall back into that issue of deception and 'hoax'es for people who don't know the character is fictional and start putting time into them.

Quote:

When you start telling stories that cross the traditional boundaries, you run into issues like this.

Yup! Fun stuff

[Rekidk]

ndemeter wrote:

Rekidk wrote: If I created a character who joined an online Alcoholics Anonymous forum, interacted there, and then was kidnapped - would that be ethically wrong? Absolutely! AA is built on dynamics of people that realize they have an addiction. They support and feed off each others strength and will to say no to a harmful substance to them. To violate and upset that dynamic with some game is most certainly ethically wrong!

I agree completely. Taking it to a lesser extreme: what if my character joined a knitting forum, where members exchanged knitting patterns? Does it make a difference if my character specifically avoids forming "friendships" with the others on the forum (and, instead, only comments on knitting patterns)? Taking it even further: what if my character created a knitting blog that was primarily one-directional in nature but attracted knitting enthusiasts?

danteIL wrote:

In my opinion, however, it is the responsibility of the game designers, especially when working within a game world that closely mirrors our own or that is in some ways intertwined with real-world entities, to err on the side of caution -- that is, they should give up some verisimilitude in favor of direct information.

I tend to agree with that, especially when dealing with those not familiar with the genre. Although the moments of "is it real or isn't it" can be fun, they can also be terrifying and confusing. (I'm vaguely recalling the Wyoming Incident, which appears to have recently rebooted and recrashed.) I stopped playing because TIAG was not stated clearly enough (there was a wealth of planted information regarding the history of fake TV hijacks that were central to the plot) and because the subject matter was extremely dark (a fictional forum dedicated to killing people for sport.) Of course, that offers a potential solution to my character's invasion of a knitting forum: creating my own. If I put effort into creating an array of characters to inhabit a fictional knitting community, I can create a background for my character without deceiving anyone at all - which is undeniably the best solution from a game perspective. It's certainly feasible, as we've seen it done on a larger scale with Eldritch Errors.

ndemeter wrote:

A character serves a purpose. They are meant to guide the players to a point and that's it. The game itself needs to have a definite beginning, middle, and end. What is the purpose of a fictional character creating very real and lasting friendship ties?

I can't remember who or when or where this was brought up, but I remember someone once talking about the idea of characters existing beyond the frame of an ARG's story. The idea was that these characters would exist online and continue to interact with players, even after the ARG's story ended. (Of course, this serves a larger purpose only if a sequel to the game were planned, as IIRC happened with SamII.)

In that vein, couldn't a "freeform ARG" that consisted of no "story" but lots of character interaction be creating characters for the sole purpose of giving "players" someone to interact with? But then you loop around: if "players" (I use quotes because there's no longer really a game at this point) just want to interact with a character, why not interact with a real person? And if the purpose in interacting with a character is to discover his/her life story, then isn't that a game within itself (thus giving it some sort of narrative structure with a beginning and end)?

To the extent that we grow to form friendships with characters in ARGs (just as readers grow attached to characters in books), an extension of the character beyond the game (eg. beyond a tool to tell a story) might be something that some people would be interested in. What if players grew attached to my knitting character and wanted her to stick around after the storyline finished? I'm not saying that you can have a true friendship with a fictional character, but I'm not not saying that either. Who hasn't gotten attached to a character from a TV show, movie, play, or book? Is that type of attachment different when the character talks back?

Anyway, just some thoughts I've been having. When you start telling stories that cross the traditional boundaries, you run into issues like this.

[danteIL]

I'm coming in very late to all of this, but those of you who know me also know that I love me some meta. I'm glad that imbri brought up the PixelVixen comparison, because that situation (which I also only recently learned about), combined with this one, has gotten me thinking about the intermittent problem that ARGs have had with the 'hoax' label. And somehow in my stew of thoughts this is also tied up with the entire question of ARGs and 'immersion.' So, it seems to me that one motivation behind 'Martin' was to create a richer sense of verisimilitude (aka 'backstory') than is usually possible with the standard cache o' backdated blog entries that is more typical in ARGs. I think we can all respect the game-design motivations behind that decision, even if we also agree that perhaps interacting on UF wasn't the best way to go about it. But Rekidk brings up an interesting point which was one of my initial thoughts too -- which is, well, wouldn't it have been cool if Martin had confined himself to photography and travel communities, leaving a rich and 'authentic' trail of interactions for players to discover and follow when it came time for the ARG to kick in? At first that sounds great -- it establishes the reality of the character without infringing on unFiction. But, the case of PixelVixen illustrates why this isn't such a good alternative either -- as ndemeter points out, the members of those communities are not 'in' on the game, and when inevitably they do find out about the fictional nature of this person, anger and confusion will result (along with a lot of 'shrug', admittedly). And ARGs become further tarred with the 'hoax' brush. Not good.

So around about here my stew of thoughts turn toward the concept of TINAG -- which is, of course, one of those eternally confounding centers of debate. I won't try to resolve those debates -- in some contexts TINAG seems to mean that the characters in the game don't realize that it is a game, while at other times this is taken to mean that for players there is no separation between game-life and real-life -- that is, the game can ring your phone and send you email just like anyone else can. Obviously, these two aspects are intertwined -- to the extent that the characters believe in their reality, and your game-self is part of their reality, then they will (and should) interact with you like they would as if they were real. TINAG as a design-goal originated, as far as I know, with The Beast -- and given that The Beast was set in the year 2142, it seems appropriate that it would have adopted TINAG as its mantra -- in that context (i.e., interaction with the future), the richness and internal consistency of the world it created was enhanced by doing everything possible to convince the players that they were having an effect upon events in some far-off time.

Nowadays, however, I think that it can safely be said that most games are set, more or less, in our current time and place. Even if they involve robots or vampires or cryptids, the essential framework of these game worlds are for the most part altered versions of our own (and yes, I'm sure that counterexamples probably exist, given that I'm not aware of every ARG in existence). This can be a good thing -- since we are obviously most familiar with our own lives and times, we (as players) can easily supply the necessary details to flesh out and fill in the gaps in the game world (I suspect that this may have benefits from the development side as well). Also, when the game world reaches out into the real world -- because it is congruent with *our* real world -- the boundaries between the game and reality are blurred. On the surface, this is a feature of ARGs, not a bug. And yet..

In a game set in 2142, this game-world/real-world boundary is relatively rigid, obviously -- the very essence of the game-world is by definition very foreign from our own. Hence, TINAG becomes a reasonable goal because the game content itself serves as a signal that this is a game (and I do think you need those signals, even if they are not omnipresent). In a game set in 2009, however, this boundary is much less obvious. Even if the game involves vampires or robots, these vampirebots may be doing things that we recognize and do everyday, like post blogs and buy videogames and shop at Target. On the surface, they're just like us!. Cool, right? But therein lies the danger -- because, to circle back around to Martin, we still need to know that we are playing a game in order to approach the game appropriately. When that boundary is lost, then confusion results. Thus, it seems to me, that for ARGs toward the end of the alternate-reality continuum (and it *is* a continuum) that is more like our 'real' world, TINAG as a philosophy needs to be supplanted, in some important circumstances, with "TIAG" -- explicitly marking out the game space as such. I realize that the makers of PixelVixen tried to do this (i.e., mark her as a fictional entity), but it is likely that they realized that if they made the markers that said "this is just a game" too obvious, then people (i.e., naive 'civilians' not in on the game) wouldn't take the character/etc. seriously in the way that was needed to fully flesh her out as authentic. Same goes for Martin. In my opinion, however, it is the responsibility of the game designers, especially when working within a game world that closely mirrors our own or that is in some ways intertwined with real-world entities, to err on the side of caution -- that is, they should give up some verisimilitude in favor of direct information.

Anyway, what I'm saying probably isn't anything new, and this is too long, but these are just some thoughts I've been having.