[arg_discuss] whitepaper:wiki, next version

[Brooke Thompson]

Well, it appears that the substance of my last two posts were lost in
translation. Let's try this again...


Adam:

> Unfortunately, very little of that is constructive criticism,

> and much of it revolves around misunderstandings about the

> scope and basis of the paper. There have been rebuttals on 

> other blogs pointing out the invalid assumptions and specious 

> claims throughout the intellinuts piece, but I would suggest 

> focussing instead on whatever positive changes people would 

> like to add (and which they volunteer to provide), rather than 

> trying to resolve an individual's issues that ultimately fell 

> into ad-hominem attacks. 


I disagree. I found her post to contain valid criticism and agreed with much
of it. In my experience as an "editor" of the paper, I must say that I agree
with her claim that there was a failure of the editorial process as well as
a lack of "collaboration, interpretation, incorporation of ideas and
debate". For a more detailed explanation of my experience in order to
understand why I agree with that statement, please contact me or refer to my
previous post. 

And as to her further allegations that the paper is biased, incorrect, and
misleading - she has provided examples of all of the above.  I have similar
concerns and made mention of them weeks before the paper was published,
which just adds to my agreement with her assertion that the editorial
process was flawed.

In the weeks since the paper was published, a number of people have
approached me with criticisms that mirrored both mine and Jackie's.
Addressing these criticisms is *not* attempting to resolve an individual's
issues and to imply that is the case dismisses all of those that agree with
what she wrote - many of whom have volunteered to help edit the paper. If,
however, the claims are specious and based on invalid assumptions, you need
to explain this further and provide links to the rebuttals. That is how you
will enable those of us that would like to help in the editing process but
do not want to waste our time in doing so. This includes Colin who has
already spent significant time in getting the whitepaper up on the wiki and
whose requests for guidance and a copy of the paper in Word have gone
ignored.

This is not the first time that valuable resources to the SIG have been
dismissed. And, I think that is an issue. There are a number of people who
have valuable experience and insight, many of whom have development
experience, but feel disenfranchised from the SIG. This, indirectly, leads
to this misunderstanding...


Adam wrote:

> I'm sorry that you have this misunderstanding, but there is no

> us-and-them divide between "the leadership" that you describe

> and (I guess?) "everyone else", no matter how you many times and

> ways you wilfully misinterpret events. Persisting in this attitude 

> is liable to become a self-fulfilling prophecy through alienating

> the people who currently are trying to work with you - no-one 

> appreciates being talked about the way you talk up what sounds 

> like a fascist dictatorship.


The "us v them" was not between leadership and everyone else but between
those that associate primarily as members of the player community (whether
they are leaders of that community in the form of unfiction admins or
"hobbyist" developers or just have a number of years of experience in
playing, thinking on, and writing about ARGs) and those that are members of
the development community. I thought that my examples made that clear -
especially in pointing to both the "Communities and resources" thread and
the unfiction thread that was mentioned somewhere at the beginning of this
thread (I believe in Colin's post) in which you asked for examples of this
and those were provided. 

And, I'm sorry, but the inability to address any of the concerns presented
in my posts while saying that I am willfully misinterpreting events and
persisting in an (I assume, bad) attitude is not doing much to make me (and
others) feel that my posts were, well, misinterpreting events. I don't know
who I am alienating, but if asking that things be addressed for the
betterment of the SIG and the white paper does that, then I don't mind the
alienation. 


Adam wrote:

> I will happily talk to you off-list if you like, if you want to

> hear what I have to say - you have my email address.


I'm not sure the intent behind this statement (accusing me of not following
protocol? attempting to show that you were unaware that I had issues with
the paper?) but, as you know, I did email you off-list almost two weeks ago
and am still waiting for the follow-up. It was left with you needing to talk
to IGDA about the process of correcting the mis-attribution as editor as you
were unsure of how to do that.