Re: Porpentine’s work: I found howling dogs effective. The constrained and progressively disintegrating real world, in which one is forced to perform repetitive and mundane tasks before being allowed reentry to a vibrant virtual world, resonated with me.[quote=“PeterPiers, post:132, topic:250”]
I think a major criticism of the parser community is that it’s latched onto a certain format as near-gospel.
[/quote]
I think that this is a function of where one draws the boundaries of the genre and, given the existence of nested subgenres, in what genre (at what level) an author intends to conduct an experiment.
An experiment in IF is going to have different constraints than an experiment in puzzle-based parser IF, which will have different constraints than an experiment in investigating-my-eccentric-relative’s-house-as-a-condition-of-receiving-my-inheritance puzzle-based parser IF.
It doesn’t make sense to criticize an experiment in a specific subgenre for adhering to the essentials that define that subgenre. The value is in trying to do something new within those constraints. See the old saying about constraints inspiring creativity.
An obvious question is: well, then, how do genres evolve if the boundaries are set in stone? I think the answer is that someone comes along and shows us by example that some things that we thought were essential actually weren’t. This helps us to better understand over time what the core of the genre actually is: those essentials that haven’t (yet?) been convincingly overthrown.
You need to leave your pride at the door if what you are presenting is not a net positive to the community, otherwise your attitude will just jeopardize that which you love.
The way I see it, any format that gets listed on the IFDB is IF. While I prefer parser games, that is just my personal preference, and they are in no way superior to choice games. The benefit of inclusivity in our community is that maybe some players entering to just play twines end up playing parsers, and some authors who just create twines decide to create a game in inform, and vice versa. Maybe twine authors inspire inform authors, and vice versa. Maybe all that happens is everybody just ends up having a good time doing what they like, which you can’t ask for much more than that.
Additionally, the thing that worries me the most is that while there are many individuals who contribute to IF, and many more times that in players, there is probably only about 10 people or so that if they were to say “this drama just isn’t worth it”, our community would get decimated.
So if I’m reading this correctly, you’re criticizing this story for having (I assume; I haven’t played it) a Latina protagonist?
**
After more discussion, and with desire not to unwittingly re-offend,
he has decided not to further participate in reviewing IFComp
(humorously or otherwise) this year and has removed the previous posts
and reviews that the forum software allowed him to.
Yeah. This is one of the reasons I decided not to participate in that place any more. Sheesh.
Just like what happened in Euphoria with the vaporware incident - which ALSO included WesLesley - , the perceived attacker was bullied into being the victim - without any attack having taken place. Out of respect for WesLesley I won’t quote his last post, but it’s very revealing - shows what can happen when you imagine slights and pounce on them mercilessly. You don’t protect; you destroy.
So, one of the things that was great about Usenet, one of the big reasons for staying over there was that posts couldn’t be deleted. It drives me crazy that every forum in the world now does so now. Good grief, just let adults talk to each other.
Peter, vaporware said he was intentionally testing the boundaries of what was allowed in the chat room. He said this himself. I mention this because I think it’s a particularly sore spot with the Euphoria crowd that you portray vaporware as having landed in that situation purely by accident. If you want to reduce the amount of vitriol aimed at you, you could do worse than to stop bringing up this incident as an example of vaporware being an unwitting victim. I seriously doubt vaporware’s feelings will be hurt if you acknowledge that he sometimes says provocative things on purpose. (Sorry to talk about you in the third person, vaporware.)
Actually, the Euphoria incident was also precipitated by a WesLesley comment. And AFTER the incident WesLesley said a lot of things that made for a hard read, not unlike what happened just now. In the Euphoria incident, WesLesley was the person most affected.
What vaporware said for reasons of testing is what I might say myself, or would expect a number of other people to say, for reasons of humour. In this particular case there was an agenda (and not even an agenda to offend, just to test the waters); in a similar case next time there probably wouldn’t be, but the level of the response would probably be the same (I might be wrong; I can’t predict the future, except in that small way that we all do when we think like this).
The varpoware incident was very revealing to me of a certain mindset among certain people. It was an eye-opening experience. I can’t forget it and I can’t let that drop, because it affected me and my perception of the current state of the IF community. It’s a festering wound, only partially scabbed over. And the issue that happened just a few days ago with this new WesLesley / Lucea thing is an indication that it’s still going on, and people are still being bullied.
Just like the author of a vampire story, in a clear and unambiguous piece of genre writing, was bullied into saying that the vampire’s servants were “minions” rather than “gypsies”.
Probably I shouldn’t have complained about the vitriol in the other thread. I deserve it, because I am utterly unwilling to let this lie. It goes against a number of things I believe in and stand for, INCLUDING the ability to talk things over rationally before jumping to conclusions, reactions and acting on them.
That’s not what I meant, but since this seems to have taken on a life of its own, I guess I should clarify.
I made a flippant remark in response to an attempt at language-policing. As you wrote in the linked thread: “[w]hen people are passionate or deeply concerned about an issue and you say something that looks like you’re mocking that concern […], it’s not exactly an olive branch”. I was certainly mocking the concern, but I wasn’t doing it to provoke a response.
Nor was I wondering whether my comment, or anyone else’s, would be allowed in the chat room. I had no reason to think it wouldn’t be.
Rather, I was wondering whether the comment I replied to was a sign that it was the kind of place where participants would have to avoid using everyday idioms or else face a perpetually outraged mob… and given the dogpile that ensued, and everything that’s happened since, that turned out to be the case.
I’m sure it’s sore. But I think it’s sore mostly because they have to lie to themselves and build me up as a sinister force to justify the way they acted. Every time someone brings it up, they have to do it all over again – more fervently each time, it seems – and all that melodrama must be exhausting.
[quote=“vaporware, post:144, topic:250, full:true”]
That’s not what I meant, but since this seems to have taken on a life of its own, I guess I should clarify.
I made a flippant remark in response to an attempt at language-policing. As you wrote in the linked thread: “[w]hen people are passionate or deeply concerned about an issue and you say something that looks like you’re mocking that concern […], it’s not exactly an olive branch”. I was certainly mocking the concern, but I wasn’t doing it to provoke a response.
Nor was I wondering whether my comment, or anyone else’s, would be allowed in the chat room. I had no reason to think it wouldn’t be.
Rather, I was wondering whether the comment I replied to was a sign that it was the kind of place where participants would have to avoid using everyday idioms[/quote]
Sorry vaporware–I didn’t mean to misrepresent your intent.
I hear you. I feel bad for people with good intentions who get caught in the crossfire in this sort of situation. Hostility affects more people than the ones who are actually participating in the argument–it can create a really uncomfortable atmosphere for others, too. Unfortunately, people tend not to be at their most rational when emotions are running high.
Wes started an IFComp review thread in general comp discussion; one of the games he reviewed was Cactus Blue Motel by Astrid Dalmady. Some of his comments were serious (pointing out inconsistencies in the interface), others sarcastic (the Coke bottle I found was empty—so you didn’t leave any for me?? Minus 1 point). His last remark expressed shock that the PC was named Maria, saying he was going to stop playing.
Another poster took this as a criticism of the character’s race, though this view wasn’t universal; my interpretation had been “I thought my PC had been male so far, and the ‘reveal’ broke mimesis (since she would have known her gender the whole time)”. This turned into an argument; Wes deleted his review and requested that the thread be taken down.
Disclaimers: this is my impression from observing it; I haven’t spoken to anyone involved or even played the game in question yet. (If the PC is characterized strongly from the beginning of the game, for instance, then I’m completely off base here.)
I think that’s the extent of the matter. I should also add that the people involved have resolved the issue, apparently peacefully, and Wes has expressed a desire to let the whole thing die.
I played that one and quite enjoyed it. The pc is very strongly implied from the get go to be a female lead - the others calling her Mari also implies it’s not quite “Mary”.
As far as I can tell, that review was quite sarcastic and att-whorey.
That “apparently” is in the eye of the beholder. “Expressed a desire” is also quite light a word. But as the thread doesn’t exist anymore, it’s moot. Bullying triumphed again.
To the credit of the participants, the argument seems to have taken place privately elsewhere. The two posts I quoted are sequential.
AN INTERESTING NOTE: It WOULD be possible to resolve this without major drama. Even starting with Lucea’s post (which I quoted in full - it wasn’t much). There’s no open criticism in that post. There is AMPLE space to discuss the issue. It seems to have affected WesLesley more deeply. I dislike that the situation happened, and lay blame at the atmosphere generated on that place where a remark like Lucea’s could cause that to happen. But I honestly perceive no ill-intent on her actual post. Ok, there’s some subtext, yeah, but there’s ample space to talk it out peacefully.
Just, y’know, so people don’t think I’m targetting anyone, or that I’m unaware of a parallel between her comment here and possibly vaporware’s in Euphoria, for those who want to make the parallel (I try to see both sides of the question always. Just because I pick one doesn’t mean I don’t see the other). In this case it’s more the atmosphere that led to this developing this way.
The same atmosphere, I might add, that sparked off the updates debate All Over Again. I’m so tired of that one, everyone made their point so clearly in the old Spring Thing thread, bringing it up again is serving no purpose, everyone is being forced to repeat themselves.
Yes. And also, let them potentially make mistakes, or say something awkward. Acknowledge that sometimes people mis-speak, and don’t read into it. (I’m saying this to the world in general, not intfic.com.)
I say this as someone opposed to language policing. I find that if someone says certain things, I won’t get along with them, and it’s best I don’t socialize with them, and better to know that sooner instead of later. If the incompatibility is buried beneath the surface of PC-talk, that wastes my time.
As for Wes, I think he may try too hard for attention at times, and his reviews made me cringe, but–that’s not the worst crime. He was a pretty ripe target, and in fact once I saw his first post I worried something like this might happen, then felt guilty of doing so.
Absolutely. Personally, I always find it a bit much, but I can never bring myself to fault him. It’s the way he is. I’d feel bad curbing his enthusiasm, there isn’t enough of it to go around these days. And once you get used to it, y’know…
I haven’t played his game from last year yet (the alphabet is a cruel mistress, as someone said in IntFiction recently!), but I’m certainly curious.
