Personalities in the Gaming Industry and Politics

[Umbran]

Folks like Chris Pramas (and myself) view our journals as aimed not at our audiences, but at our peers and friends. We communicate with our audience via forums like EN World and our own websites.

Going back to the topic of blogs for a moment...

Basic problem - what's making sure that your aim has anything to do with who actually reads the thing? It is not enough to match content and writing style to reach teh people you want to talk to. You also need to stop and think about who really will be reading the thing.

Part of the price of celebrity and fans is loss of privacy. Chris Pramas is reasonably well-known in the business. He can expect that folks interested in his products will go lookign for information on them. If his blog is under the name "Pramas", a quick web search will (and did) find it. The fact that he titles it as "The Completely Personal and Totally Non-Corporate Blog of Chris Pramas" doesn't change the fact that it's going to be read by customers.

As a practical matter, that title give Mr. Pramas exactly zero protection from the feelings of the audience. The claim "I said it was personal, not corporate!" will be of little comfort if a public relations blunder happens in that blog.

 

[Belen]

Institutions of higher learning are worse than useless for the process of learning about new ideas; true wisdom comes from the novelty of family-held beliefs and chats around water coolers.

No, I am saying that new ideas come from interacting with people that may have different ideas than yourself. Universities, by desire, have latched onto one set of social and political beliefs, then created structures to maintain them.

Family shapes your view in the beginning; introduction to new and varied people continues to shape your ideas throughout school; co-workers and friends shape or introduce you to new ideas throughout a lifetime.

My main point, is that if you work in an environment of stagnant ideas or stratified social structure, then the people you meet will only reinforce your beliefs and not challenge them.

IMO, universities no longer participate in rational debate or discourse. They have their own methods for discussion that does not include normal people. Tenure and difficulty in getting rid of government employees result in less turnover, fewer differences in viewpoint. and stagnation. It can take years to fire someone who is incompetent etc. This gives them a security that most normal people can never enjoy and so they feel free to say things that would be unconscionable in other arenas where actual consequences exist or someone has the power to effectively disagree with you.

 

[nothing to see here]

IMO, universities no longer participate in rational debate or discourse. They have their own methods for discussion that does not include normal people. Tenure and difficulty in getting rid of government employees result in less turnover, fewer differences in viewpoint. and stagnation. It can take years to fire someone who is incompetent etc. This gives them a security that most normal people can never enjoy and so they feel free to say things that would be unconscionable in other arenas where actual consequences exist or someone has the power to effectively disagree with you.

Tenure puts to the lie every notion that censorship is product of hierarchy. By removing direct organization-based accountability from people in academia/government all you do is allow demographiclly based biases free reign, regardless of their substantive merits, while agressively silencing outside views. Ironically this process takes place under the label of 'political correctness'

 

[Aus_Snow]

IMO, universities no longer participate in rational debate or discourse. They have their own methods for discussion that does not include normal people. Tenure and difficulty in getting rid of government employees result in less turnover, fewer differences in viewpoint. and stagnation. It can take years to fire someone who is incompetent etc. This gives them a security that most normal people can never enjoy and so they feel free to say things that would be unconscionable in other arenas where actual consequences exist or someone has the power to effectively disagree with you.

I agree that it "can take years to fire someone who is incompetent etc." It's a problem.

But universities (or rather, students and staff therein) no longer participating in rational debate or discourse? That sounds to my mind a little harsh. . . or unfounded? Then again, I don't know the origin of the opinion to begin with. Is it based on your experience of university? Or is it somehow statistically borne out?

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Universities, by desire, have latched onto one set of social and political beliefs, then created structures to maintain them.

[...]

introduction to new and varied people continues to shape your ideas throughout school; co-workers and friends shape or introduce you to new ideas throughout a lifetime.

[...]

IMO, universities no longer participate in rational debate or discourse.

This is bizarre. I dunno where you went to school, but every university I've attended has been all about "rational debate [and] discourse," not to mention "introduction to new and varied" people and ideas.

They have their own methods for discussion that does not include normal people.

So ... is it the millions of university students that are abnormal, or just the millions of staff and faculty? (Or is it both?)

Tenure and difficulty in getting rid of government employees result in less turnover, fewer differences in viewpoint. and stagnation.

Or one could say that tenure results in the freedom to express ideas that may very well be unpopular with a university's administration. You know, kinda like how lifetime tenure is designed to grant the same freedom to the federal judiciary?

This gives them a security that most normal people can never enjoy and so they feel free to say things that would be unconscionable in other arenas where actual consequences exist or someone has the power to effectively disagree with you.

Uh ... exactly.

 

[nothing to see here]

This is bizarre. I dunno where you went to school, but every university I've attended has been all about "rational debate [and] discourse," not to mention "introduction to new and varied" people and ideas.

QUOTE]

Jane Jacobs (writer of 'The Death and Life of the Great American Cities'...best book on urban renewal ever written) recently wrote a new book called 'Dark Age Ahead'... It's a Canadian publication, so Americans might have to poke around here or there to locate it.

One of the sign posts Jacobs uses to point out the coming 'Dark Age' has been the transformation of Universities from centres of formal education to clearing houses for formal accreditation. A subtle trend to emerge out of the information revolution has been the commodification of holding a post-secondary degree. Therefore univeristies have come under pressure to refocus their efforts to expediting the granting these degrees -- at the expense of guarding a robust intellectual experience for students while at school.

In short where once universities were about the process of learning, today they are all about product. Education has become more bureaucracy than enlightenment.

 

[Staffan]

1. "Smackin' Mona Around" is a fun party game, btw!

Yeah, now that Hong has seemingly abandoned us, we have all these sticks around that need using.

 

[billd91]

Really? Clearly there is a correlation? Clearly?

<snip>
How about people who attended higher university in the midwest, as opposed to universities on the coasts?

Cause, I'm just talking me personally, I don't remember having to list my educational level when I registered to vote.

Then you must not have been exit polled. But even if you weren't polling still identifies trends in the general population, some of which are strong and some of which are not. Elementary social sciences, really.

 

[Belen]

Then you must not have been exit polled. But even if you weren't polling still identifies trends in the general population, some of which are strong and some of which are not. Elementary social sciences, really.

Polls tend to be designed to give you the answer you want regardless of how someone answers. I was laughing at the polls that said the last US election was centered on moral values. Who in their right mind would say that are against "moral values?"

 

[Belen]

This is bizarre. I dunno where you went to school, but every university I've attended has been all about "rational debate [and] discourse," not to mention "introduction to new and varied" people and ideas.

I went to a state school. I remember very clearly getting a "D" on my freshmen comp midterm paper because I had used "mankind" rather than "humanity." That was the only red mark on it. When I protested, I was told that I was responsible for perpetuating gender inequity. She never told us not to use "mankind" and my female English teachers in High School never batted an eye at the term.

So ... is it the millions of university students that are abnormal, or just the millions of staff and faculty? (Or is it both?)

Sorry, I was mainly commenting on faculty and admin.

Or one could say that tenure results in the freedom to express ideas that may very well be unpopular with a universities administration. You know, kinda like how lifetime tenure is designed to grant the same freedom to the federal judiciary?

Uh ... exactly.

Lifetime tenure is a blight. It a system whereby you force people to work in a certain way. You can deny qualified people based on ideology, gender, or race and enforce that only people who "think" correctly get permanent positions. It also shields people from reality by giving them a security that no normal person could ever attain.

Tenure does not give them a shield versus any administration. Admins are usually on their side. It grants them immunity to public accountability.