[arg_discuss] whitepaper:wiki, next version

[Jonathan Waite]

After reading weeks of responses on this mailing list, my reaction to 
the latest round of events is both of great jubilation and great 
sadness.  Allow me to expand, and I'll try to be short and sweet.

First of all, the ARG SIG, it has always seemed to me, is an excellent 
place for academics and developers to get together to discuss games of 
the past, games of the present, and ideas for the future.  Perhaps, in 
order to facilitate the advancement of that agenda and focus, you need 
to make this list private and available only to those who have certain 
credentials to access -- you do state that one of the aims of this group 
is to bring together experts, and not everyone is an expert.  On the 
other hand, if you all want this to be an open, public place where 
anyone and everyone is encouraged to contribute, then I think that there 
needs to be a more open and honest statement of beliefs, and a greater 
need of more current information.  As it stands, having only three items 
in the "Descriptions and Examples of ARGs" of the web site 
(http://igda.org/arg/whatisanarg.html) is wholly inappropriate and 
inadequate for a group which is supposed to be leading the way in the 
world of ARG development.  Having a clearer and better-defined image to 
present to the public should be the most important focus for the 
leadership of this SIG, because your group is, for all intents and 
purposes, representing the ARG community en masse.  As a member of that 
community, I am slightly embarrassed at the lack of pertinent and 
important information included in the ARG SIG web site.

Secondly, the Whitepaper is a good idea, but as had been mentioned 
before, has some growing up to do.  Instead of going through the common 
criticisms (all of which, incidentally, I have enjoyed reading for the 
simple fact that there are some really good ideas floating about out 
there), might I just say that this is a step in the right direction, and 
with proper direction, substance, editing and focus, the Whitepaper can 
be something special.  It's not there yet, and perhaps (in my humble 
judgment) it was released prematurely, but now there are people stepping 
up to help out.  I'd consider the end result to be less of a mistake and 
more of an opportunity, myself, but maybe I'm just being optimistic.  
Must be the seasonal good feelings. :)

On a related note, however, I am thoroughly disappointed and discouraged 
by the reactions submitted through this mailing list by the authors and 
editors of the aforementioned Whitepaper.  From the outside looking in, 
this is looking less like a constructive dialogue and more like a catty 
argument.  How shocking to read that this list may have to go back to 
being moderated because one of the leaders of the group feels that they 
are being personally attacked.  How disheartening to read the 
emotionally-charged comments made by authors as they defend themselves 
against public criticism, all of which seems to be happening outside of 
the confines of this SIG group?  Surely you all had to realize that, by 
publishing a Whitepaper to the public, that the public would want to 
respond to it?  Surely you understand that constructive criticism and 
commentary is never meant to be personal, and that even if it feels that 
way, that professionalism must always take precedence?  Seriously -- if 
you are going to be the public face to a professional subset of the ARG 
community, could you at the very least look like a group of mature, 
responsible individuals?  I mean, it's one thing to be passionate about 
your writing, but this was an academic/professional publication meant to 
inform, and in its shortcomings (which you wouldn't have known about if 
it wasn't for public criticisms) are the building blocks to a better 
paper, not cracks in the fundamentals of the mighty ARG SIG.  I expect 
that the leadership and its membership should be able to co-exist in a 
civil, business-like manner, and recent posts to the mailing list have 
shown that not to be the case. 

This group seems to be at a crossroads of sorts -- uncertain where to go 
next and even less certain as to who will lead them.  As someone who has 
a five-year commitment to ARGs, and a vested interest in this SIG, I'm 
hoping that the issues I've raised can be resolved, and that you can all 
celebrate the successes I've outlined.

Jonathan Waite
ARGNet: Alternate Reality Gaming Network



> Message: 6

> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:50:51 +0000

> From: "Adam Martin" <adam.m.s.martin at googlemail.com>

> Subject: Re: [arg_discuss] Whitepaper:What do you want? (call for

> 	ideas)

> To: "Discussion list of the IGDA ARG SIG" <arg_discuss at igda.org>

> Message-ID:

> 	<ca93830d0612140750k27d9370ekcb3d23f4b9f7e99f at mail.gmail.com>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

>

> PS: please could people retain the attributions on replies - just the

> header (On mm/dd/yy XXXX wrote:) is fine.

>

> On 14/12/06, Alex Fleetwood <alexfleetwood at gmail.com> wrote:

>   

>> One of the things that really struck me at COaP was the absence of an

>> agreed language to describe these activities. There were as many

>> different terminologies as there were games. People's excitement about

>>     

>

> This tends to be the case with any discussion of games in general.

> "What is a game?" continues to be an active area of debate and ongoing

> discussion. The ever-increasing variety and depth of computer games

> seems to be complicating the issue by providing more and more strange

> examples and personal experiences rather than simplifying it.

>

>   

>> Is there a reductive definition of what an ARG is

>> that everyone can agree on? And from that can you start to deduce

>> sub-categories of ARG? We, the ARG SIG, hold these truths to be

>> self-evident; an ARG is...

>>     

>

> In a global sense, no I don't believe there is. But then my experience

> is coloured by the MUD/M*/MMO* debates that Brian describes; the

> "argument that would not die". In the end, the MUD-DEV group, which

> contained at least as many MMOG lead designers and developers as it

> did MUD developers, settled on allowing everyone to use whichever term

> they personally felt most comfortable with. This also allowed much

> greater nuance, as the self-identification of games and speakers via

> the terminology they preferred came increasingly to be implicitly

> referenced by others to convey shades of meaning by using more than

> one term in a given post.

>

> However, for given audiences, I believe there are single (or small

> multiples of) definitions that we can agree on. For instance, I think

> there would be relatively little disagreement on how to present it to

> narrative specialists (authors, scriptwriters, etc) as opposed to

> games developers (programmers, designers, producers, etc). Although I

> conveniently sidestepped the problem of games developers who are also

> narrative specialists (story writers and story-focussed designers), in

> practice I've found it not too difficult to amalgamate definitions,

> making it clear that I'm briefly referencing two different

> perspectives and inviting listeners to look into one or the other or

> both as they wish.

>

> I also think that if we could reduce the definition down to one, true,

> definition then that would suggest the genre were a lot narrower and

> less exciting than it otherwise might be :). Previous attempts to do

> that for, for instance, MMOGs has lead to people becoming obsessed

> with the common characteristics of the prevalent products of the day

> and less open to working with other things that are natural extensions

> to the genre - witness the fact that for most people MMO* is

> synonymous with

> "multiplayer-online-only-RPG-in-a-shared-virtual-landscape-with-persistent-player-characters-and-achievements".

>

>   

>> Also, anyone who is interested in working with me on a London

>> COaP-style event next Spring please get in touch.

>>     

>

> ...sounds like an excellent idea. I hope lots of people get involved.

> You might want to talk to people like Blast Theory if you haven't

> already (people whose main interest is not in ARGs at all but who have

> a lot to offer a COaP)

>

> Adam

>

>

> ------------------------------

>

> Message: 7

> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:10:11 +0100

> From: Olivier Buisson <igda at shaze.net>

> Subject: [arg_discuss]  Introductions

> To: arg_discuss at igda.org

> Message-ID: <1166112611.7457.41.camel at localhost>

> Content-Type: text/plain

>

> Hello,

>

> My name is Olivier Buisson. I live near Paris, France. 

> I have a strong interess about ARG since few months and I get involved

> as a GateKeeper in Deus City. I am not a professionnal in game or

> multimedia industries but I am working in Internet industrie for about 7

> years. 

> To me, ARG is THE real experience of multimedia and I currently trying

> to understand how the genre works behind the curtain and would like to

> help about the developpement of the genre. 

>

> Olivier

>

>

>

> ------------------------------

>

> _______________________________________________

> ARG_Discuss mailing list

> ARG_Discuss at igda.org

> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/arg_discuss

>

>

> End of ARG_Discuss Digest, Vol 14, Issue 12

> *******************************************

>

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Text inserted by Platinum 2006:

>

>  This message has NOT been classified as spam. If it is unsolicited mail (spam), click on the following link to reclassify it: http://127.0.0.1:6083/Panda?ID=pav_7604&SPAM=true

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

>

>   


-- 
The contents of this e-mail message and all attachments are intended for the confidential use of the addressee.  Any retention, review, reproduction, distribution or disclosure other than by the addressee is prohibited.  Please notify us immediately if we have transmitted this message to you in error.  Thank you.