followed tags: 46
followed domains: 0
badges given: 0 of 0
member for: 2009 days
- You have an evolved sense of online self which I would guess is not the case with many of those you interact with.
From my own perspective this is not how I or indeed many others view their "online persona". For some our online personas are simply an extension of our offline personalities, We try to communicate online exactly as we do in real life.
For some others they have an even less sophisticated online self which, due to the de-inhibiting nature of anonymity results in them becoming assholes.
i recall similar talk from kleinbl00 a while ago. it was in a thread made by a first time poster and it detailed some heavy personal life stuff. klein and others thought of it as a failure because the user starting their "hubski persona" with such a post seemed gauche. i remember finding it really interesting seeing these concepts discussed so starkly. i will try finding the thread but i do not trust my searching capabilities.
- I also don't think discourse about gaming has reached a level that's good enough or interesting enough or impactful enough to be valid. The last thing I remember reading that made me go "this is good writing on videogames" was posted by cov. That was 99 days ago.
This is a few year's older than the article cov posted but its one of the best things ive ever read about a game. its an analysis of metal gear solid 2. it would help if youve played metal gear solid 1 and 2 but i dont think its 100% necessary to enjoy it. (being an analysis its spoiler heavy, of course.)
heres a passage from it that i think is great:
- Actor refers to a character in a videogame whom the player presumes to control. Character refers to the identity of a fictional person within the game’s narrative context. All actors in MGS2 are characters, while only two characters are actors.
By extension, I have distinguished between Player Objectives and Actor Objectives. The former term describes the literal demands that a game places upon its player in order to complete the game’s objectives, including physical manipulation of hardware and the resulting in-game actions. The latter term describes the actor’s responsibilities as informed by narrative context and as they create the narrative.
The videogame Ms. Pacman illustrates how Player and Actor Objectives traditionally contrast and complement each other. The player must manipulate the joystick to guide Ms. Pacman through a series of mazes, meanwhile avoiding ghosts and eating pellets. In her narrative context, Ms. Pacman must survive her trip through the maze and consume. Ms. Pacman affirms that the Player Objectives fulfill the Actor Objectives since the player’s success guarantees the actor’s success.
The game splits the rewards: his score increases, and she lives to eat another day. Ms. Pacman has as little practical use for the score as the player has in her survival. He will leave the arcade without regret that she has repeatedly died, and she, in context, becomes no happier when he breaks the high score.
However, each reward affirms the other. Ms. Pacman’s survival guarantees that he will increase his score. The player’s increased score can earn a 1up, prolonging her desperate lease on life.
its strange reading this because before id never heard these essential parts of a video game described in such a way.
this is very interesting also. its linked from the article youve posted.
it was only when mike brown stopped and surrendered that wilson was able to shoot him at 100ft.
- Several officers wrote me days after the Mike Brown murder, stumped, as to how Darren Wilson missed so many shots @ such a close range.
wilson missed 6 shots. officers argued that it would be difficult to miss so many at a 35ft range. the size of mike brown also lends to the officer's confusion. when mike brown became a still, surrendering target, wilson was able to shoot him at a 100ft range.
even if hubski did have avatars you could presumably choose to not have one. but even then you'd be judged on your lack of an avatar if having one is the norm. so really there's no escaping it!
- I don't want to walk into a situation already feeling a certain way about the person I'm talking to. Pictures are much more likely to influence an opinion I have than a username. Let me figure out how I feel about you through words and discussion. Isn't that what hubski is about?
this is well put and i agree. i think hubski has a good balance between the two extremes of user personalization. the two extremes imo, is on one end a forum/comment section with mandatory social network connection (ghost accounts can of course be made but they will be shunned by a community that advocates real sounding name plus a human profile pic) which hopes to engender thoughtfulness instead of fanatical comments like on yt, twitter etc. the other end being the 4chan/bathroom wall situation i mentioned above.
p.s. has anyone here heard of ryder ripps' dump.fm? where communication is predominantly image based.
we might be similarly judged by our choice of username. but what does a forum with no names look like? 4chan or writing on a bathroom wall. i agree with you, i think our options for personalization should be stopped at usernames and whatever the user chooses to say on their profile.
i never used twitter in a smart way. just posted inane shit ad infinitum. i don't think i ever saw the smart side this guy is talking about but i never tried really hard to either. i just dont think the site is built for "big twitter" as he called it. i think its best at finding articles, music, video etc. i dont think its suited to facilitate serious discussion.
i've heard people using bubblegum bass as a descriptor for this sound. that article says maximalist which also fits imo.
ive really been enjoying pc music the past week, when hey qt first came out i loved it but in retrospect im a little bummed that they seem to be moving away from how pink and blue and attachment sounded.