The History of Tabletop Role-Playing Games: A Correction

One of the assigned articles, from Zach Waggoner's My Avatar, My Self, goes into the history of role-playing games. Mr. Waggoner's accounting of the origins of tabletop role-playing games is not correct, and his factual errors are relevant in the way that gamers in general--across all gaming media--relate to their characters, and by extension to the milieu wherein they enjoy gameplay, and thus to the matter of identity.

I enjoy a certain privilege in that I met not only one of the co-creators of Dungeons & Dragons before both of them died, but I am also a friend of one of the people who was there when D&D came into being back in the early 1970s. I've learned, from those who were there when it happened, what went on and what they thought at the time. These are not the oft-repeated claims that Mr. Waggoner repeats, most probably out of ignorance. Rather than spend time while in session addressing these errors, I will take this post to issue the corrections and other relevant details.

• Gary Gygax created D&D in conjunction with Dave Arneson. (The linked Wikipedia article is correct in its presented facts, but is neither complete nor comprehensive in its coverage.)
• Both Gary and Dave were avid wargamers in the late 1960s and early 1970s, favoring medieval through Napoleonic wargame scenarios and multi-scenario campaigns. This play preference greatly influenced the design of D&D, evolving out of a variant Napoleonic scenario called "Braunstein".
• At this time time M.A.R. Barker taught at the University of Minnesota, and began to interact with this community, which focused upon an axis between the Twin Cities and Lake Geneva, Wisconsin. Professor Barker, following J.R.R. Tolkien, created a fantasy world known as "Tekumel" as a youth; during the 1970s Prof. Barker adapted his creation for use in role-playing games.
• Neither Arneson nor Gygax like Tolkien and the High Fantasy subgenre in general, preferring the Sword & Sorcery subgenre typified by Robert E. Howard, Lin Carter, Fritz Lieber, and (as a writer whose's famous creation was originally a counter-example which became a trope of its own in this genre) Michael Moorcock.
• Arneson, Gygax, Barker and all of the other early RPG creators never conceived of their products as a storytelling medium. The language today for their designed and intended mode of play is "vicarious life experience", where there is no outside force acting to enforce a narrative framework as one expects from passive media such as film or print fiction.
  
  Players kept a stable of characters, each of which would be at different levels of power and influence, and would exist at different points in time and space. (Bob the Fighter is at the Dungeon of Terror from 3 March to the present, but tonight's play session starts on 1 July of last year so Jack has to make a new character if he wants to play tonight.) All of this is far better explained at Ars Ludi.
• Player identification with their character did not happen in the manner we're talking about until the snot-nosed kids that had no wargaming background (i.e. my generation) got into this through our older siblings (or the siblings of our friends) between 1978-1983 or so. What Waggoner calls "ego investment" was something that came along with my age cohort's entrance into the hobby; the effects are not ones that we--as remaining hobbyists--agree as being beneficial. James Maliezewski, author of Grognardia, uses his typical allusions to mythical age reckoning to summarize the matter.
  
  Originally, players--coming from that wargaming background--did not have an avatar-like identity with their character. What today is "your character" was then "your hero", as in a classical Greek hero of "an individual of extraordinary ability that champions the desired virtues of his people", and your hero led a band or an army.
  
  The original scenarios were variations on traditional wargame scenarios meant to scale down the action to single figures or small warbands, which further changed when Arneson demonstrated a fast-play variant to Gygax that let the then-neutral third party referee run the opposition forces instead of an opposing player. (This is where your Dungeon Master came from.) Gygax ran with that, creating his (and the second) D&D campaign: Castle Greyhawk.
  
  The first, by the way, was Arneson's "Blackmoor". Both freely mixed fantasy and science fiction in their settings, as was the fashion in popular literature at the time. (The firm divide between the two genres is a post-D&D invention.)
  
  In short, the early days of RPGs had little or no avatars and a hell of a lot of agents; identification came with the collective stable of characters one had, and not with any specific individual character. That changed with the 1980s, and the shift in the business of the RPG hobby as a generational turnover occurred; a lot of the founding cohort, being college students at the time, graduated and entered the work force so their careers and marriages took off- time for hobbies went away. Mine was the up-and-coming cohort, and we were the ones that made the changes happen- and not for the best of reasons.
• Because we lacked the wargaming background, and we were children lacking both in maturity and perspective, a lot of what was unspoken (and thus assumed) about how to play RPGs went by the wayside. Rather than seeing our characters as Heroes (and thus Leaders), with sidekicks and proteges performing the role in gameplay that today we see with easily-reversible death/maiming/etc. due to magic or like-magic technology, we saw them as Power Fantasy figures and acted accordingly. We invested our egos into our characters all right, and in the process created a toxic subculture that had consequences far beyond our little hobby niche.
  
  A lot of tabletop RPG tropes that still directly influence console, PC and MMORPGs are the result of my cohort collectively acting like spoiled shits to each other and thus ruining it for everyone, because damn near everyone that's a big deal in videogame RPGs has quite the background in tabletop RPGs. (More than a few fantasy fiction authors after 1974 also have such a background, which is why that genre is so homogenous now.)
  
  Only in the last decade has that changed, as the original cohort is at or past retirement age and the survivors are now online to tell us what the hell we did wrong (and how to fix it).

If you want more on the history of tabletop RPGs, you can start with Grognardia, written by an acquaintance of mine by the name of James Malizewski. He links to other hobby bloggers that focus on D&D, or other tabletop RPGs--Traveller, RIFTS, Call of Cthulhu and Champions are commonly discussed in addition to D&D--of note. I also recommend "Playing at the World".

Still with me? Thanks. With this in mind, I'll go straight to online RPGs tonight in session; if you have any questions regarding tabletop role-playing games and the subculture thereof, please save them for the break.

There's a stranger in my house!

Two week ago my daughter brought home a laptop from school. She has pretty much always had access to a computer, either from my husband or me. But, generally she is in our presence and monitored to an extent. Now, thanks to our progressive education, my thirteen year old has been unleashed into the cyber world alone and unattended. I can’t say I’m overjoyed with this.

My fear of the internet begins with a movie called “StrangeLand”. In this movie a psychopath, who loves to inflict pain on his victims, lures a cop’s daughter and her friend to his house and proceeds to torture them and others. An avid lover of scary movies- this movie was especially scary to me because the killer was exceedingly sadistic. This began my mistrust of the internet.

Now my precious teen sits in her room skyping and sharing pictures and God knows what else! Who let this entity in my house? I’m happy my daughter is being more social, though. She, like me, is not very social and usually avoids engaging with or talking to friends after school. This, perhaps, will bring her out of her shell and help her to be more social and develop true friendships.

But, I still can’t help but think of Amanda Todd’s story and others where kids have been abused on the net and worry that the wrong person will enter her cyber space and cause her pain- all right under my nose, in my very home, amongst the internet.

Gender and Performance

Throughout my grad career here at Metro, I have looked a lot at gender, as it applies to my TPS. What the Gayming article said is pretty standard--that biological sex is something we are born with, but gender is performative. That being the case, it would seem as though gaming and online activities really have the ability to disrupt some cultural boundaries. But, I think that has a lot to do with who is in power--the content makers.

As Shaw says, "Like girl gamers before them, the homosexual market for games is being appealed to as gays, not as gamers" (238). If we apply this to all online aspects--in my case, shopping, since that is much of my online experience aside from email (esp. during the holidays)--we will find that marketing can still target the stereo types. Simply knowing my biological sex could make ads pop up on email or Facebook or other such sites.  

However, that being said, the marketing online seems to be more savvy--that "they" are assessing what people browse for. Can a computer figure out one is "queer" by what is being purchased? Not necessarily. So, My browser  will show things like Big and Tall cycling clothes after I have been shopping for dad, or cat toys when I have been cruising Drs. Foster and Smith.

I think the problem of reinforcement really comes from the media stereotypes--particularly on TV/in the movies. For example, in Will and Grace, Will was the "typical" gay male who appeared "normal" but he had his "ginger fag-hag," Grace; and their friend was the stereotypical musically inclined gay male with the "bitchy (and boozin') fag hag," Karen. Granted, the show is older; but many stereotypes cling.

SO! I think that the online ether has the capacity to disrupt the "norms" and boundaries of offline society. But, it is a change that will likely be slow in the coming, and could very well depend on how other media (movies, TV) start to change with the times.

Adrienne Shaw and Video Game Culture

Initially skeptical, in the end I enjoyed reading Adrienne Shaw's 2009 article, "Putting the Gay in Games: Cultural Production and GLBT Content in Video Games."

While I am not an enthusiast in that kind of game culture, I thought that she did a thorough job of examining the issue of having LGBT characters in video games, and did it in a way that acknowledged the complexity of the problem and the difficulty in defining it.

I found it particularly interesting that Shaw wrote another article about a year later titled "What is Video Game Culture? Cultural studies and game studies" that was the most downloaded article from Sage Journals in 2009 and 2010. From the abstract:

What is video game culture, however? What does it mean to have a culture defined by the consumption of a particular medium? Moreover, what are the implications of defining this culture in a particular way? While there has been a great deal of ink split on video game culture, the actual definition of the term is often treated as common sense. Unpacking the discourses surrounding ‘‘video game culture’’ allows us to see the power dynamics involved in attributing certain characteristics to it, as well as naming it ‘‘video game culture’’ as such. This has implications for how video games are studied and is connected with how culture is studied more broadly. By critically examining how video game culture has been defined in both press and academic articles, this paper illuminates how this definition has limited the study of video games and where it can move.

In this examination, Shaw opens up the whole concept of a gaming culture to scrutiny. Rather than focusing on the inclusion of LGBT characters in games, she articulates a reality for real life LGBT gamers, and others who play, as falling outside what we have traditionally stereotyped as "gamers."  In her critique of the approaches that have gone before, Shaw identified two separate and intertwined perspectives in the reporting of video game culture.

Video game scholars, however, tend to write about the culture from the
inside, as many of them identify as gamers. Journalists, however, tend to write about video gaming from this outside. Game studies academics often try to describe video game culture against the mainstream discourse. Likewise, journalists often quote, or misquote, game scholars. To get a sense of what is meant by games culture, we must take account of how it has been described in the popular press as well as the academe.

So, as we continue, in this class, to look at the many ways that digital identities are forged and "lived," I think that it will be interesting to remember that there are perceptual differences in defining of these identities.

Fandom as Tribes: An Ill-Acknowledged Aspect Driving Culture Clashes

Online gaming culture, as I noted in session tonight, is what's sometimes called a "dudebro" culture, better known as a macho culture. As gaming is a fandom-driven subculture, it creates cohesive communities built around an emotional investment--a passion--into the thing one is a fan of. As I noted last week, many people construct their identity around a fandom; gamers are no different.

The issue, in part, stems from the way that gaming--and this includes hobbyist tabletop games, those beyond what we known as "traditional family boardgames" like Scrabble or Monopoly--arose out of what was solely (and remains primarily) a set of male pursuits: warfare, espionage and mercantile endeavors. (This definitely applies to sports, which are outgrowths of military and similar male-dominated pursuits.) The games arose out of training techniques meant to develop skills and knowledge needed to succeed in war, trade and at court; though some degrees removed, one can (e.g.) still see the value in playing Chess to develop a far-thinking strategic mind.

For most that got involved in such hobbyist pursuits, they were the normative actor of our culture: the hetero-normative white male. They also were often the also-rans amongst such people--dorks, geeks and nerds--and thus their fandom communities were also resistance communities, with clearly defined and starkly defended territories. Women, non-whites and queer folk were not and are not still welcomed with open arms universally; several long-running Internet memes revolve around this fact. (This is changing, but we're talking at the usual rate of generational turnover.)

In the last couple of generations, a general breakdown of a formerly clear--permeable, but clear; exceptions to norms still existed--border between Male and Female work spheres happened. For many boys and men, this is taken as encroachment--trespassing, violation--of was once their clearly marked and defined territory. (I suspect that this is, in part, due to a lack of reciprocity with regard to accepted gender roles in our culture.) We can see proof of this in advertising, marketing, and the themes expressed with approval in artifacts of popular culture--literature, journalism, music, film, television, toys, etc.--over the last 100-150 years as this sense of territorial definition weakened.

Yes, "territory". Space is not merely a physical thing, as in the size of one's yard or the acreage of one's farm; it also has to do with conceptual areas, such as the social space for one's pursuits. If someone unwanted encroaches into territory claimed by, staked out by, and patrolled by another then reactions are inevitable as soon as that violator gets detected. This, I think, is an ill-acknowledged aspect driving the phenomena surrounding all non-normative identity issues online- not just LGBT folk, and not just the gaming/geek subculture.

There is a common pattern to the narratives told by those that run afoul of the online dudebros (and the women that go with them): insults- often vulgar as well as degrading and shameful, then harassment, escalating into stalking online to continue the online harassment; this can escalate into action in real-space, with the last step being physical violence with intent to kill but rarely gets that far, either because the target relents or because others intervene and shut down the aggressors. (When it doesn't, that's news, which is why we hear about it in online and offline media outlets; otherwise, it takes targeting a media darling or someone with clout to bring attention to the matter.)

(e.g. Rebecca Wilson of the Skepchicks and her head-on encounter with the dudebros in the Atheist crowd.)

This is, quite frankly, a tribalist behavior pattern and therefore it is based on an irrational foundation. That is why engaging through rational argument doesn't work reliably; the dudebro sees the girl gamer, the gay gamer, etc. as an Other that is Not One Of Us and therefore Does Not Belong On Our Turf--on irrational terms that are immune to logical, rational thought--and therefore must be engaged emotionally to unlock that belief and render it open to change. (This is where those stories of an outsider winning over a gang, tribe, or clan comes from.)

A successful strategy for ending the dudebro/macho subculture, wherever it exists, is one based on a two-fold method executed simultaneously. The first is a short-term one of containment and quarantine; the dudebros that are loudest and most charismatic, yet not violent, are to be deliberately targeted and hit with attacks that paint them as the insecure and untrustworthy characters that they are.

The audience is not the targets, but the quiet supporters that enable them. Cut those people out and you cut the targets out of the scene entirely- it's a lot like dealing with a psychopath (and like waging guerrilla warfare, because that is what you're doing), but with the possibility for reintegration once rehabilitation is confirmed.

To make these moves stick takes either the assimilation of the existing social structure, or outright conquest of it; the second part is doing just that, which is more long-range because you need turnover to make reforms stick long enough to become the "new normal". We're talking no less than five years, and probably 15-20, during which time you need to hold your ground against retaliation- and hope that they do not have a violent psychopath amongst them. (Be glad that such individuals are very rare, and usually either in prison or out of the country working for Uncle Sam.)

(Yes, I am witnessing this happening locally in the SF/F fandom community; the local fan conventions drive the local culture, and the leadership committed to this course of action years ago- and is now showing some significant desirable effects.)

As for the game companies themselves, it's far more difficult.

We will not see significant change towards LGBT acceptance in gaming until both the players and the makers get the dudebro/macho paradigm purged from them. The issue here is that gay-friendly games are not seen as sufficiently better than not being so to make it worthwhile on the quarterly report- which, I remind you, is all that matters to a corporation. (You must maximize profits above all else.)

Do not expect the gay-friendly games out of BioWare or other past creators or publishers to endure as such if shareholders can show that not being so friendly is more profitable to BioWare's shareholders; it's not fair, but that's how corporations work. Every publisher wants a sure-money franchise such as Halo, Call of Duty, Modern Warfare, Madden, etc. so they have even more reason to favor the dudebros over the LBGT community. The culture-jamming that works against the fan tribes is not enough here; you've got to overcome basic structural elements designed to shut down resistance to anything other than mindless consumerism, so unless you're willing to turn yourself into a zombie (as it were) you're going to get shut out by those that wield real power in our world. The LGBT community is best off doing for itself, going independent, and making games by and for gay gamers.

(Note: The last I heard of a conflict like this ending violently in real-space precedes social media, when South Korean player-clans of Lineage would sometimes resort to raiding each others' preferred Internet cafes when online combat was not effective; this got the euphemism "offline PK", where "PK" means "Player-Killer" and originally referred to the act of attacking another player online in a game that allowed for player-vs.-player violence.)

Where is this digital divide?

What is it, now, that separates us from cyberspace? Cords, electricity, our smartphones? The more research I do about Internet addiction and the more I read for class, the more the “digital divide” seems to exist only in people’s minds. While avatars and online gaming allow users to create separate identities, it is more common for people to represent themselves online as themselves than it ever was before.

Reading about Amanda Todd (I don’t think I’m related) really got me thinking about online and offline identities. Perhaps it is naïve to think that you can represent yourself truthfully without others taking advantage of it. This girl literally was so distraught by what was happening in cyberspace that she took her own life. Where was the divide then? She COULD NOT separate her real life from her digital life despite her efforts.

This also made me think of her harasser and his hidden identity. Although the public doesn’t know who this person is, would it be too outlandish to assume that if he harasses teenagers online that he thinks about or actually does it in real life as well? Could this personality trait of his be contained solely in cyberspace? Unfortunately, I think not. Despite the anonymity of the Internet, our true colors eventually show. At least, that’s what I think. 

Gayming

As a female gamer, I am often seen as a minority in the gaming world. While these demographics are constantly changing, the game content seems to lag (haha) behind. This, of course, includes LGBT content. My shelf has quite a few video games on it. The overwhelming majority include playable male characters or half naked playable female characters, which clearly signifies a hole in the gaming community already. But if I think about the games I own that includes LGBT content, I can only come up with two: The Sims and Dragon Age Origins. 

Dragon Age Origins was created by Bioware in 2009 and received the  Role Playing Game (RPG) of the Year award. This video game was different from previous RPGs. Why? The fact that male and female characters seemed more balanced in the game is overshadowed by the ability for the main character to have heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual relationships with others in their traveling party. This, of course, is not mandatory; it is simply an option available to players.

One player apparently had an issue with these options, and posted so in the discussion boards saying:

"To summarize, in the case of Dragon Age2, BioWare neglected their main demographic: The Straight Male Gamer. I don’t think many would argue with the fact that theoverwhelming majority of RPG gamers are indeed straight and male. Sure, thereare a substantial amount of women who play video games, but they’re usuallygamers who play games like The Sims, rather than games like Dragon Age. That’snot to say there isn’t a significant number of women who play Dragon Age andthat BioWare should forgo the option of playing as a women altogether, butthere should have been much more focus in on making sure us male gamers were happy.”

And of course he had more to say, but I won’t make you read it. You get the gist of it. Seems like an instance of Shaw’s stereotypical gamer market to me.

Bioware’s David Gaider respondedback in a rather passionate post saying that “The majority has no inherent"right" to get more options than anyone else” and that “…the personwho says that the only way to please them is to restrict options for others is,if you ask me, the one who deserves it least.” And while he seems to be taking a stance for equality in the gaming industry’s content, he doesn’t shy away from saying that it was just simply more cost effective to have the romances available the way they were in the game.

Obviously, the gaming industry, along with the media industry, are constantly disrupted by these new identities within these technological communities, however, that is only because they have not yet caught up with the “real” world. Straight male gamers around the world may be angry at these changes, but they are necessary and will come no matter what because the line between reality and technology is only fading with time. The boundaries are constantly being tested and pushed. Once this line is gone, for good or bad, media will begin to resemble the diverse reality that surrounds us.

Online and Offline Identity the Same?

It appears that the online production of identity can influence the offline presentation of “queer” identity. 

When using social media such as Facebook and Twitter, we 'manage' our identity by the actions that we take.  This is demonstrated in many ways.  For example, we often change a profile picture.  This information that we receive and analyze from a variety of changing pictures helps to create identity both on and offline.  For a profile, we could see a head shot, a picture of a dog, a favorite landscape from a trip, a political logo, an avatar, all of this information forms identity.

We can also enhance our identity formation on these sites by doing 'check-ins'.  That allows others to see where one spends their time, and with whom they congregate.  We may not think of this as contributing to our online/offline identity, however it adds information that others use to know us through our likes and dislikes.

We also comment about ourselves and others.  This is part of the action that develops our identity for others.  These are just a few examples of how we show through online actions our offline identity- I believe they are one in the same.

Queer identity online offers like individuals a place in which to meet and identify.  Like other groups, these individuals are identified through their online presentation.  A negative consequence is that this can be polarizing. While it allows queer identity to be seen and therefore supported it also creates additional places for bullying and hate to exist.

Text Me But Don't Talk to Me

I just started reading Sherry Turkle book Alone Together. I am struck by how much we are all taken in to this notion that technology allows us to build our identity online as we want to be seen and not how others may see us. She mention that we are lonely yet we are fearful of intimacy. That digital connections offers (or may offer us) the companionship without the demand of friendship. We are able to hide behind an avatar from each other. We would rather text than talk. I feel that this is very true we can paint our self any way we want to be whatever we want people to think we are. Even those that are are close to us. A text message saying how much we care about someone isn't the same as being there with that someone. Hold someone close when they need some real support and love is lost with a quick note that says hang in there and that I love you.
It is quick and some would say at least they know that I care. Yet do they really know or has technology already moved us far enough apart that this is enough. Our depth of intimacy is is changing when we begin to believe that we know someone just because we are able to stay I touch with them yet not really be there.

Blog post for the week of October 21st, 2012

Theme: The manifestations of LGBT culture on the Internet

In this week’s readings, the authors discuss the ways in which online “queer” identity is maintained or created in online spaces and in video games. The readings also examine the dichotomies between online and offline production of culture and identity. Yip notes that “online and offline communities are often posited against each other in a zero-sum game” (p. 410). Shaw asks “how homosexuality, bisexuality, or transgender identities can be represented in the medium [of video games]” (p. 228). Mitra and Gajjala discuss “queer” blogging and note that “queer personal Web sites have begun to move away from queer-identity-as-core-of-self model to a queer-identity-integrated-into-self model” (p. 408).

In this week’s blog post, using these three articles as a starting point, you should discuss the ways in which online production of identity can disrupt or reinforce offline social and cultural boundaries related to the presentation of “queer” identity. You should focus on the online space you’re most comfortable or familiar with – games, blogs, social media, web development, or whatever. As usual, cite the authors when appropriate and useful and make connections between the readings and your own experiences when necessary.

Mountain Biking Commentary

Here is the 1st person video I was talking about in class. Happiness. :o)

Plagiarism and the Internet

Given the topic of community (which I missed, thanks to what was supposed to be a work thing, and ended up being me at home sick with the flu...), I feel compelled to write about the topic of plagiarism and the internet. I deal with it. Almost daily. 

 I believe the internet is very "two-faced" with this topic. On the one hand, you have the paper mill sites--where you can buy research papers. Example: Term Paper DOM.com. I am appalled that sites like these exist. It was bad enough to think students would buy papers off of each other (or bully others into writing papers for them). And now, it is a freaking business. I have even found "jobs" on things like Craigslist which are nothing more than a front for such a business.

At first, I felt like the internet was the bane of the educator's existence--that it was contributing to the problem. But then, we have things like Turn It In, a site that allows instructors to check their students' papers; it compares a paper to the major Mills, and other students' essays. And there are also things like plagiarism.org and grammarly.com that allow teachers to check for plagiarism, if their institution can't afford a program like Turn It In--or for students, who want to actually be responsible.

And, it seems like as new generations come up (about 2 e-generations behind me), more students are trying to do the right thing as teachers also become more savvy about online plagiarism. This Article seems to support that notion.

The issue seems to be balancing itself out--the more students try to cheat via the internet, the more the internet seems to post materials that counteract this (case in point: This Link from Plagiarism Today).

I am still a cynic, who tends to see the "bad" effects and potentialities surrounding the internet--but that is just my natural disposition. But, there are two sides to every proverbial coin. Sometimes we have to force ourselves to look.

Television Without Borders: Globalization of Entertainment Media and The Fan Identities That Come of It

This is one of those "first-world issues", but we're dealing primarily in such things so stay with me here.

We now live in a world where film and television is truly global in scope. Several of my favorite shows are produced and originally aired out of the United Kingdom. One of the most earnest of action movies I've seen in years was a Russian film about Soviet snipers during World War II. Comic books out of Japan can be (legally) read online, and novels written by authors France (for example) can reach a global audience within days.

While there have been international media sensations and darlings for generations now, it remained the case that the majority of fandom-derived aspects of identity built far more upon domestic media than foreign media. Hollywood--and U.S. media in general--long enjoyed a global presence, and a dominant position.

What changed in recent years is that the technologies and techniques once solely in the domain of a specific regional media form--such as Hong Kong/Taiwan and its "wire-fu" technigues for creating supernatural martial arts movies--are now cross-polinating at rapid rates and being assimilated just as fast in other hubs of entertainment business activity around the world. One of the signifiers was 1999's The Matrix

Today, right now, you can order a Japanese "light novel", then its comic adaptation, and then it's film or television adaptation from Amazon and have it delivered to your door and this is not weird or unusual anymore. (e.g. Moribito: Guardian of the Spirit)

In particular, it is no longer weird or unusual--especially amongst the young adult and succeeding cohorts--to be a fan of entertainment media (book, film, TV, etc.) that originates in a foreign state or region, especially a non-Anglophonic creation such as Japanese and Chinese action movies of various genres.

Neither is it hard to watch shows or films from outside one's state of residence, as (with difficulty; this is "illegal"--as in some blowhard with a title spilled some ink or spewed some blather saying so--due to copyright bullshit) social media sites such as YouTube, Vimeo, etc. do have users that upload new episodes within hours of original airing. (This is how I watch a lot of my favorite U.K. shows.) Streams and torrents also account for a lot of global sharing of entertainment media, filling gaps that the big sites like YouTube leave due to legbreakers in suits demanding this or that lest accidents happen.

You can "like" the official fan pages on Facebook, add them to your Circles on Google+, add them to your RSS feeds, or otherwise easily find and engage directly with those foreign media now- and, as a result, it is easier to become engaged in the fan communities surrounding a film or an actor other than that of one's state and culture of origin. What was once seen only with major label music acts, and then rarely, is now increasingly commonplace and diverse.

The most obvious example now is the explosion of Doctor Who fandom in the last seven years; what was once a moribund thing, even in its U.K. home, is now a massive thing in the international realm of genre entertainment- and in the U.S. this really took off when actor David Tennant took the title role in 2006. (The man in the role as of this date is Matt Smith.) The themes and ethics expressed--sometimes blatantly so--resonate so much with so many young adults, many of which are geeks and nerds, that it becomes part of their identity and they derive satisfaction from it much as fans of Star Wars, Star Trek, NFL football, NASCAR, etc. do.

This globalization of fandom, accelerated by the ease through which social media lets media producers engage with fans as well as fans engaging with each other, casts down barriers of space with ease. (Barriers of time and language take a little longer, but only a little.) The tribalist-lite identities that fandom generates are now in a position to work around governments and corporations who seek to keep this network from working.

(Actors and other entertainment professionals that catch on to this are benefiting greatly from it, such as John Barrowman.)

This is another aspect of Castells's concept of the Network Society at work.

Neurolaw

After the discussion this evening, I found this article on the NPR website. It's about a neuroscientist named Jim Fallon. He tested his family, including some extended family, for the equivalent (I think) of the Warrior and Psychopath genes that Brad referred to tonight (the psychopath tendency actually wasn't a genetic test, but a brain scan). Apparently, there is a third factor that can mediate the psychopath and warrior predispositions. According to the article:

Jim Fallon says he had a terrific childhood; he was doted on by his parents and had loving relationships with his brothers and sisters and entire extended family.

Significantly, he says this journey through his brain has changed the way he thinks about nature and nurture. He once believed that genes and brain function could determine everything about us. But now he thinks his childhood may have made all the difference.
"We'll never know, but the way these patterns are looking in general population, had I been abused, we might not be sitting here today," he says.

As for the psychopaths he studies, Fallon feels some compassion for these people who, he says, got "a bad roll of the dice."

"It's an unlucky day when all of these three things come together in a bad way, and I think one has to empathize with what happened to them," he says.
But what about people who rape and murder — should we feel empathy for them? Should they be allowed to argue in court that their brains made them do it? Enter the new world of "neurolaw" — in which neuroscience is used as evidence in the courtroom.

 Just wanted to share. Interesting world of neuroscience where there are physical tests that can detect tendencies or likelihoods. But as this article points out, that's sometimes not the whole story. However, I suppose if we can access all factors, including the way we are treated in our childhood, would we be justified in taking measures to limit the possible damage - or ...what?

Internet Shines a Light on Hate

One thing that the Internet exposes is that hate for certain groups has not run its course and that many hateful, negative feelings that people harbor toward certain groups are still as strong as ever.

In Sarkeesian's article the amount of viciousness displayed for simply researching discriminatory practices in video games, was ridiculously hateful, mean and malicious and I'm sure, took her and others back a bit.

Though, saddened by this article and others I have read, I cannot say that I am surprised. Though women and minorities have come a long way in the fight for equality, this article shows that there is still quite a ways to go. Television does an excellent job of down playing stereotypes and discrimination. So clever is it disguised, that many question whether or not certain stereotypes, (Blacks as criminals, women as bitches, Asians as brainiacs), are even a problem. The Internet, fortunately or unfortunately- depending on how you look at it) is not afforded this same luxury, as individuals, (who are not as meticulous in their approach to disguise their hate), showcase their true, exposed feelings of hate and nonacceptance. Though many cowardly hide behind false identities, the message of hate is clear.

While most see the Internet as a place of equality and freedom, I see it as a place where realities are played out, sometimes unmercifully. By taking an honest look at the Internet, perhaps, it will helps us to take an honest look at the world we live in and stop making excuses when, for instance, women's basic rights are challenged and debated as if the arguments are even plausible. Perhaps, by examining Internet content, it will help us take an honest look at the real world we live in today and instead of saying "things are much better", we will open our eyes to the realities of hate toward women and others and  begin to confront and address these issues, as Sarkeesian is doing.

Derailing Sarkeesian

After reading the optional articles, I was appalled. Being who I am, I decided to see what I could find out there. And I found this: an article about a Sarkeesian-type project (in Kotaku)--which is basically a BS troll. Sadly, there will be people who find this entertaining.

However, is it truly amusing? What is it about mocking feminism that is so appealing to certain people--men, in general? The logic is that, by lampooning Sarkeesian, they are discrediting what she is attempting to do. It is feeding into the rude, explicit, sarcastic, denigrating, and vile actions, words, and thoughts of the men who are somehow threatened by an attempt to challenge gender tropes in the gaming world.

Interestingly enough, the original site was taken down. I could not access the google.doc, and I was certainly not going to ask for permission to access it; lord knows what I would find.

The author of the above article states that, "yes, most of the stuff in the early drafts document was more than a little ridiculous (when it wasn't being offensive), it would appear that its creators are not just having a laugh;" and points to other writers around twitter talking about actually attacking this. Which brings me to the next point: the male hegemony.

My topic for this class's final project will be gender and the internet, though from what angle I do not know. If there are legitimate attempts to pursue misandry, I am of two mind about this. I appreciate it, as the internet could be a truly gender-neutral or gender-free space. At the same time, since it is currently a gendered space focused on male hegemony, should we not first address that? Or, will it take people of all gender and all races challenging all the current norms to really effect change?

Definitely some interesting supplementary materials this week!

Accountability & Sock-Puppets: Why This Matters to the Future of the Online Frontier

Accountability online is a tricky thing. The thing that too many people forget, or never realize, is that you are not the label associated with you--your name, handle, or unpronounceable symbol associated with your online identity--and as a consequence you can (and people do) swap out labels as corporations do. Online, this often has the same effect: a change in name often means a reset of identity, unless those following you are willing and able to keep up with your snake-like label-shedding.

This is because those individuals or groups that create the software that run discussion fora, social networks, etc. are either unwilling or unable to implement technical means to prevent users from shedding labels that no longer possess neutral or positive value to said users in favor of assuming one that does. This practice is sometimes called "sock-puppetting", which is not accurate--it properly means using two or more accounts at the same time to give the illusion of agreement or interest where there is none--but is close enough for most usage.

(e.g. "Bob" becomes known as a troll and serial cyber-stalker; "Bob" quits that label and shifts to "Jane", changing apparent behavior to deflect suspicion and shifting methodologies to allow resumption of favored activities without immediate consequence. It should be noted that, as with real-space criminals, most online trouble-makers are nowhere near this savvy- most slip up and out themselves. The few that don't, as with real-space, are the truly dangerous ones that Hollywood loves to write about.)

Truly dedicated trolls, stalkers, etc. can and will use sock-puppets in a malicious way. That method is meant to overwhelm a user's ability to block/ignore other users, as this takes the form of a virtual gang-stalking, which works well when a target is also hit with gas-lighting attacks to drive the target to insanity or death.

For now, the tools that administrators and moderators have to deal with individuals who use sock-puppets to get around accountability are often quite few. Most can do no more than compare the logs of IP addresses incoming to their site of concern against the logs of user accounts, encourage users to submit abuse reports to them, and wait for the aggressor to do something.

That something is either a violation of the user agreement (which, to be fair, often results in the offender switch socks and little more) or violates a criminal statute in a manner that demands prompt action. (This is difficult in large part due to the conflicting jurisdictions of real-space; the victim is in one place, the accused in another, and the scene of the crime in a third place in terms of real-space. Within a nation-state it's confusing; across those lines, it becomes much harder for justice to be had.)

Various governments and international organizations propose various solutions, none of which are politically acceptable to all of the key players in the international system, but all of them are doing the one thing that will result in a solution: they are focusing not on human solutions, but technical ones- they are focusing upon means by which common users simply cannot sever the connection between themselves and what online labels they go by as they can (and do) now.

The problem is that this is not a problem that governments or similar institutions can solve. Much like alcoholism, this problem can't be effectively remedied through criminalization and brute-force leg-breaking (i.e. Prohibition and the War On (Some) Drugs). What works is a combination of instructing users as to how the technology of the Internet works, instructing them on the psychology of both the offenders and of the offenses, and then synthesizing the two subjects together in a demonstration of how to apply the latter through the former to shut down the offenders and filter them out of one's life.

In other words, how frontier cultures deal with frontier dilemmas: by helping others to help themselves, and then working together to handle our own problems effectively, without the need to call upon something outside the community to do it for us.

The real-space frontiers closed because too many people, too long accustomed to having a Big Daddy figure do the dirty work, called for that figure to handle this work instead of doing it themselves. (There's a euphemism and symbol for this sort of mentality: White Picket Fences.) If we want the Internet, and its potential, to be open and free for generations to come then we must accept that a frontier milieu demands a frontier approach to problems: we must do it ourselves.

And, as this is the Internet, doing for ourselves is not only viable- it's easy. The knowledge we need to comprehend and master these technologies is at our fingertips- we need only ask just one knowledgeable search expert what to search for and where to look. Once found, we can link to it (if linkable) or send copies of it (if not); we follow up, implement measures (and keep doing it until it works), and then--once we confirm it's dealt with--we get on with having fun with our lives.

We need not call upon things that are increasingly obsolete in this networked society we live in; we should, instead, make use of it- we route around the trouble-makers by cutting them out of the network. The sock-puppet problem with regards to accountability online, while a problem here and now, won't be for much longer- and we need not let Orwellian (or Huxleyan) methods favored by Too Big To Fail governments and private institutions infantilize us in search for security either. We're capable of handling this ourselves, so we should. Our posterity demands it.

Internet: Friend or Foe?

I have experienced both positive and negative effects in social media spaces on the internet. The internet has been a great place to connect with old friends and to keep in touch with current friends. There are many spaces where you can find support groups (Black women, domestic abuse, immigrants, poets) and where you can connect with people who share your experience and point of view.The internet can be a wonderful place of support when you are dealing with a specific issue or going through a rough time in your life. There have been times when  felt like I was the only one who thought a certain way, only to serf the web and find others who not only saw the same thing, but could expand my knowledge on the subject. Even the fact that you can search for dates, (no, I haven't done it), shows how the internet can bring people together-people that may have never met if not for the internet.

I have also stumbled into some sites that were offensive, hurtful and angering. Even as I did research for my bibliographies, I was often bombarded with racist rants from people who spurt the same ignorance..Blacks are violent, Blacks are lazy, Blacks are draining this country. ....blah, blah, blah.
Sometimes I respond to these rants, sometimes I don't. Sometimes, (if allowed), I report it as abuse, sometimes I don't. Either way I'm left to simmer deep inside and wonder why people are still so ignorant.

I don't think a lot of people are held accountable for what they do on the internet because many hide behind false identities or what they do is not known by others. People are a lot more aggressive when they are amongst strangers and only when they get exposed are they held accountable, otherwise, they can do and say pretty much what they want, because whose going to know them. Now, in social circles where you are known, people are extra careful of what they say because they will be held accountable, maybe even harsher than necessary.

My adolescence came way after the internet, so I'm not sure how it would have changed me socially if it had been around. I could see it being a positive experience: making new friends, connecting with St. Paul and North students, meeting new guys, and sharing music. I could also see it being trouble: arguing with peers for all to see, boyfriend stealers lurking about, fights stemming from online argument, embarrassing photos being posted. In any event, I'm glad it came when it did, though researching at the library was no fun!!

In the Heart of the Beast

I find the internet a beast of great pleasure and excitement - and also of time theft, distraction and worry. During my adolescence and young adulthood it was necessary to get information about the news of the day from the daily newspaper or televised news report (only at noon and 6pm) and other information from magazines or periodicals and by checking out books at the library (or rummage sales or bookstores) or going to the stacks for journal articles.

The internet information at my fingertips is, therefore, feels to me like a dreamland where I can find almost anything by doing a Google search and clicking a link. For me, that would be enough. I never anticipated the social connection aspect of the internet as I grew into it in my adulthood.

I was in my early-30s when I started taking undergraduate classes at the University of Minnesota Extension. After a few years of taking one evening class at a time, I quit my management job and matriculated as a full time student. During the course of my time there, I discovered the wonder of email and the internet. I had 3 student jobs on campus that fed my interests. I was a student liaison for the Registrar's Office, a Research Assistant in the Psychology Department and a Teaching Assistant in Computer Services. I have been characterized as a "super user" and I am also a website designer with html and css programming skills.

So, I blog, I create content and I know my way around the internet pretty well. I have entered, sunk into, and left many of the games and entertainments I've found on the internet. I have experienced first-hand the pitfalls of engagement and over and over again commit to disciplined use. However, I find that I have a curiosity that drives me to look at the new, and sometimes find myself throwing more and more hours into something that often eventually seems like a waste of time (like the Castle Age game I talked about during class - or mindless solitary card or puzzle games).

I suppose there are real-life examples of that kind of activity - my grandmother loved to play solitaire with real cards in the evenings after dinner. Or what about addictive gambling or other real activities that seem to steal our time? The internet doesn't have a corner on that market, but it still seems to be yet another place where the bait is held out and easy to take.

One of the things I would like to discover about the internet is what would it take to make it less of a threat to my time and more of a friend to my interests. I am starting to discover what I'll call the "heart" of the internet that exists in the human connection that it facilitates. Not a compulsive checking of email and Facebook, but a thoughtful sharing of ideas and invitations to connect in real life for good cause and genuine knowledge of each other. It is slow developing and needs building, but I am very interested in influencing a good outcome for this network in the air.