[arg_discuss] Deception and what it means to be Real

[Markus Montola]

Hmm, interesting. :-)

I don't have an opinion on this, just thoughts. Pardon if I'm getting 
long-winded here.


Brooke:

> So, how do you play along with something when you don't have any clue 

> that there is something to play along with?


That's the question. What kind of a "nod" or "wink" is sufficient to
categorize something as playful. In my eyes, Sacha Baron Cohen is
literally screaming those nods and winks all over the movie Borat. But 
when people just don't notice, were they winked at?

The point is: If the wink is not read as a wink, it is -- for the
purposes of the experience -- not a wink. And when you play with the
boundary of not being a game, you *will* have people who didn't read the
wink. Unlike Brian perhaps, I don't think guardrail gives you any excuse 
or alibi, except if it is found.

In Swedish Sanningen om Marika a clear and obvious disclaimer popup on
the website was not enough of a wink for many people. In order to solve
this problem, one trend seems to be building a (secret) code of
huge and obvious --WINK--'s aimed precisely at ARGers. "TINAG" being the
most obvious one.


I think one place where these things came from places where enjoyable 
experiences were created to people who don't know there is something to 
play along with. For example:

http://improveverywhere.com/2002/02/02/surprise/
http://improveverywhere.com/2005/05/21/even-better-than-the-real-thing/
even
http://improveverywhere.com/2009/06/02/surprise-wedding-reception/

One thing IE shows us is that play activities can be very much fun, even
when you are deceived of the nature of the play. Dunno if this would 
apply to an excellent discussion someone may have had with Aggett.


In Momentum we (I was researching, not designing) had players go obtain
a painting from an art gallery. The gallery owners were not notified
that the painting had to do with the game when it was planted in the
gallery. When the larper players started strolling in, showing strange
curiosity towards the painting, they grew suspicious, starting to google
the fake names the players gave them et cetera. It was a little bit of a
wink, but when my colleague Jaakko went to interview them afterwards,
they had not had any real possibility to figure out what had been going on.

They of course loved the experience, even though it had been strange and
possibly a little bit disquieting. They didn't want to participate in
the long-lasting game any further, stating that it wouldn't be fun now
that they knew it was a game.


(+ a dozen million other examples. It's fun thing to see what's on an
USB stick you found from the toilet even before you know it's a NIN ARG.)


Perhaps I fail to see the negativity associated with "hoaxes", "pranks" 
and "deception" here. We have a lot of examples shown how benevolent 
deception is forgiven and appreciated after the enjoyable experience. 
"Aggett" revealed himself before he had had the opportunity to create a 
positive experience -- possibly getting cold feet about the possibility 
of creating such an experience, I don't know.


> 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.


I don't buy this total fact/fiction separation here. Many pretenders and
characters act in the domain of "real life".

In my life, Britney Spears is a character, about as real (?) as 
Australia or Andromeda to me; never seen it, never experienced it, just 
heard stories that construct some kind of an image. Those stories tell 
me that she is very much a fabrication, a product created to please an 
audience, just like Bree of lonelygirl15 or Martin Aggett.

When Britney/Bree smiles at "me" on the video, it's an act, just like
Bree is an act. And when I now add a smiley to the opening of this
email, it's an act of conveying my delight of this interesting
discussion, but also a conscious act to influence you the reader. It's 
all about how we present ourselves.

In my opinion, performances such as Aggett's and Britney's, are not 
"fiction", whatever that means.


> 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.


If Aggett had pulled it through, you might have experienced a
progression from unawareness to awareness. Is that a not novel rabbit
hole if anything?

Of course, if people say they were insulted/offended/upset, I really 
believe that they genuinely were: Even though nothing is real and we'll 
never know, words are not just words. I mean -- if Rheta Shan faked her 
death in a classical masquerader maneuver, it was a fairly heartless 
thing to do.

http://pervasivegames.wordpress.com/2009/05/16/rest-in-peace-rheta-shan/

Playing on the edge of game and real is like playing with fire, and
sometimes someone gets burnt. The moral problem is that you can't
volunteer to unaware or semi aware participation, so someone is taking
the risk on your behalf.

Personally my surprise is that (like Aggett, I guess), I would have
assumed that the people at Unfiction would have been likely to
appreciate the long-term work he was doing, in order to possibly create
fascinating rabbit hole experiences. Then again, I'm not a member there 
and do not follow the discussions, so I don't really know.


Best,

  - Markus Montola

PS. Our book Pervasive Games is now on paper too. :-) It has one chapter
on ethics, and tells a lot more on games such as Sanningen om Marika and
Momentum.
http://pervasivegames.wordpress.com/2009/05/16/rest-in-peace-rheta-shan/