[arg_discuss] Deception and what it means to be Real

[Brooke Thompson]

On Jun 25, 2009, at 4:15 AM, Markus Montola wrote:


> I think it's interesting to see people trying to build a kind of an  

> inverse magic circle here. ARGs span everywhere and play with  

> deception and fabrication everywhere, but there is a problem if  

> someone brings the deception on the home ground of the deception  

> afficionados.

>

> I mean -- is it morally and ethically acceptable to have a game  

> character create a Facebook presence? As I have understood, that is  

> against the TOS/EULA of Facebook. If yes, why are the Unfiction  

> terms of service more significant? Why is Unfiction's "Forums are  

> out of game -- no exceptions" any more forceful statement than "This  

> is not a game"?

>

> The Swedes at The Company P have the habit of occasionally being/ 

> playing game characters themselves. I mean, for example, that Martin  

> Ericsson showed up in the final event of Sanningen om Marika *as  

> himself*, except that like all the players, he was following the  

> game's central theme "Play as if it was real". Besides, what's a  

> "real persona" anyway in a nickname community? You can't base trust  

> on realness, since realness does not exist.

>




The thing is.... statements such as "This is not a game" and "Play as  
if it was real" imply that there is, in fact, a game or something to  
play. Over the course of five months, Martin Aggett never implied that  
he was a part of a larger fiction - no wink or nod. in fact, if the  
person behind him hadn't started feeling guilty about the whole thing,  
it could have gone on for another year before there was any hint that  
he might be a part of a larger fiction.

So, how do you play along with something when you don't have any clue  
that there is something to play along with?

That is where deception comes in to play. You may say that the ARG  
community is "the home ground of the deception afficionados" but the  
reality is that the ARG community is, more, the home ground of people  
that want to play as if things were real. They don't want to be  
deceived anymore than the average person wants to be deceived: they  
want to play along.

Even in the movie The Game, the character was aware of the game's  
presence. And that awareness drove his actions. It was still very much  
"real" to him -- so much so that he attempted to kill himself which,  
well, was part of the game. It still had that nice "mindfuck" factor  
that many who advocate extreme blurring of the lines seem to be  
looking for. But he still knew it was just a game. There was still  
something for him to play and/or play along with.



As for how we can trust anything in this world where we are all just  
personas... well, I would argue that there's a difference between a  
persona and a character. You might think it's just semantics and,  
perhaps, you would be right.

A persona, though, is nothing more than a public front. Britney  
Spears, for example, may be a complete mess in her real life but on  
the stage she is a well put together and choreographed act. That is  
her persona. She is not a character, however, as characters are a part  
of a fictional world - no matter how based in reality that world may be.

A persona, because it is just a public front, can have intent and free  
will in the real world. A character, because it knows nothing more  
than it's fictional world, does not have free will and cannot have  
intent outside of its fictional universe. Oh, sure, the author of the  
character may have intent for the character that is very much in the  
real world space - they may intend for the character to tug at  
someone's heartstrings or guide them through the story, but that is  
the author's intent and not the character's. The character's intent is  
just to find her missing friend or bring down the evil corporation.

It is in understanding that intent that we know how to interact with  
one another. Assume, for a second, that we're little wolf cubs. We do  
the cute little baby animal thing and fight back and forth. We scratch  
and nip at each other and it's all good fun because we know that none  
of us really means to hurt the other. Now, suddenly, you decide it  
would be much more fun to play for real - you bite me, for real. After  
my initial shock - ouch! you jerk! you bit me! - I know that your  
intent is not to just play but to fight. My reaction could be to run  
away and lick my wounds or it could be to come at you with full force.  
The intent changed and so did our relationship and our interactions.

When interacting with a persona online, I am aware that their intent  
is based in the real world and that there is a real person behind it.  
I treat it as such and interact as such. If, however, I am exploring  
something that I think may be a game, my interactions are a bit  
different - I may "play as if it was real" but I am still playing.  
What happened in the case of Martin Aggett is that I was deceived into  
becoming a part of a game that I did not know even existed and,  
therefore, I had no way of actually playing let alone playing as if it  
was real.