#i signed up for flowcharts and theory

[mae-occasionally-reads]

i’m such a hater of being a girl in stem (i choose to do this) (this is completely my fault)

[timothyjchambers]

The Seven Deadly UX Sins of the Fediverse Web Experience (To Fix)

So, confession time: I was recently helping a new client get set up on the Fediverse—guiding them through their first steps into our glorious decentralized galaxy. And seeing it all again through fresh eyes?

Reader, it was brutal.

So much of what should be table stakes for any social media UX in the year of our Lord 2025 still is missing or deeply broken still. I know progress has been made and a good fight, fought. But those of us who love the Open Social Web can get blinded to the rough edges not yet fixed or not having lived with them, start to consider them not so bad. Beloved, they are that bad. Still.

Let me be crystal clear before we begin: I say all of the below with love for the fediverse.. Deep, stubborn, open-source-loving, billionaire-eschewing love. I want the Open Social Web to win. But wanting it isn’t enough. If we want this thing to thrive we have to face the user experience sins head-on—and maybe even laugh at them a little along the way.

<Caveate>I love native apps like Ivory or Mona or custom web UX like Elk or Phanpy as much or more than any of you but those are all UX bandaids over things we have needed to fix in most cases for years. That time is now.</Caveate>

So I jotted down the seven things that make my clients’ eyes cross. And no, this isn’t me dunking on one app or interface. Pixelfed—you’re not off the hook. No snickering, Friendica. These are Fediverse-wide sins.

And don’t get smug, Bluesky. You’ve got some whoppers in your closet too—and I’m saving those for another article.

So grab a cup of coffee—or maybe the nearest comfort blanket—and let’s soberly and bravely take a cathartic journey through the Deadly Sins that plague the Fediverse’s web UX.

(And any I missed in the comments to this blog post)

1️⃣ The Sin of Overwhelming Complexity: Instance Selection Paralysis

Ah yes, we start the OG sin. This one’s been haunting the Fediverse since before most people even knew the Fediverse existed. Again see this with fresh eyes:

Imagine the moment you decide to join the Fediverse. You’re feeling a tad noble. Brave. Ready to reclaim your digital life from Big Tech’s clutches.

Then… boom. You’re confronted with a cryptic list of servers, each with a name that sounds like a cross between a startup pitch and a medieval tavern.

Wait, what? “social.town or lemmy.world? climatejustice.social or a server with a frog logo? What am I signing up for here?” No warm hand-holding, no curated suggestion. Just a buffet of options that would make even a seasoned sysadmin’s head spin.No wonder so many people bail before they even get started. It’s like trying to join a secret club when no one will tell you the handshake.

And even our terms “Server” Or “Instance” make sense in an engineering flowchart but why in all that is holy would we foist those onto users to pretend to understand? At the very least we should talk about new folks joining a “server community” of fellow users.

And here’s the harsh truth: even offering more than one onboarding “server community” choice is often one too many. Even the fix at JoinMastodon for the mobile app only not the web app - while admirable and going in the right direction. If your onboarding flow requires a glossary, a decision tree, and a four-part documentary on federation theory, something’s gone very wrong. A multi-step wizard isn’t going to save you—it’s just a fancier maze. We’ve seen flows that bleed 50% of users per screen. That’s not onboarding, that’s a prescription for a slow-motion rage quit.

“But what about decentralization?” someone valiantly cries from the back row.

Don’t worry: I’m not selling it out. I adore decentralization as much as you and trust me, we don’t have to throw that out to give users onboard for the first time only one server choice. I hear you audibly confused now but trust me, wait for it.

For now I think we can agree that new users to the Fedi need an onboarding experience that doesn’t feel like a grad school entrance exam. I believe a far better way is possible, and I’ll spill the beans in the next post.

2️⃣ The Sin of Inconsistent Navigation: Timeline Turmoil

Congrats, you survived the Great Instance Selection Gauntlet™. You’ve picked your server, verified your email, maybe even uploaded a profile pic. You’re finally ready to explore your new digital neighborhood.

And then—bam. Three timelines.

Not one. Not two. Three.

Home, Local, Federated—each more enigmatic than the last. The Fediverse’s multiple timelines are a beautiful idea in theory, but in practice?

Home: Hopefully your cozy friends’ chatter.

Local: Pretty much your instance’s collective brain dump.

Federated: the cosmic firehose of everything, everywhere, all at once. Many are sure to be in languages you don’t speak. Basically: digital chaos in reverse-chron order.

New users are expected to intuit the metaphysical difference between timelines, And honestly—why should new users care? What does each one do for them?

What problem is it solving? No really, I’ll wait.

3️⃣ The Sin of Remote Interaction Purgatory: Federation Gymnastics

One of the Fediverse’s great promises is universal interaction—no matter which server someone calls home, you can still follow them, reply, boost, interact. In theory? Utopian.

In practice—for web users—it’s an absolute effing mystery.

Want to boost a post from another instance?

Want to follow someone who lives on a server that’s not your own?

Brace yourself: copy, paste, search, squint at a remote profile view, and whisper a quick prayer to the federation spirits that it might work this time.

Want to reply to a post from a different corner of the Fediverse?

You’d better hope the stars align, the server’s awake, and the fediverse goblins aren’t misbehaving today. Sometimes it’s seamless. Sometimes you end up trapped in a social media escape room, having to try every door twice.

It’s social networking as performance art: awkward, elaborate, and weirdly beautiful—but absolutely not the experience most users signed up for.

And remember the golden UX rule: every extra step you give a user cuts retention in half.

That brutal law applies here too. Every clunky redirect, every extra click, every “wait, what do I do now?” moment sends more would-be users quietly packing.

4️⃣ The Sin of DM Disasters Waiting to Happen

Private messages in the Fediverse: because who doesn’t love social roulette?

And yet here we are - as on most Fediverse platforms, “Direct Messages” live right alongside public posts in the same composer, the same timeline view, sometimes even with mostly the same visual styling. You can toggle visibility to “Direct”… but will you notice you didn’t? Will you check? Will the UI save you?

Spoiler: It will not.

One wrong toggle, and your private thought becomes a public reckoning.

There’s no special UI wrapper. No bold red warning. No modal that says: “Heads up—you’re about to tell your boss what you really think, in public.”

Instead, it’s all too easy to accidentally post a private message as public—or vice versa. This isn’t just a newbie trap. It’s a UX booby trap.

And let’s be real: “Direct Message” in the Fediverse doesn’t even mean what most users think it means. It’s just a post with limited visibility, sent to a tagged user.

Worse? There’s no encryption. So it’s not just accidentally public—it’s intentionally insecure. It’s plaintext dressed up as a secret. There is some fine print warning you, But let’s be real: nobody reads fine print mid-conversation.

The result: drama, confusion, and sometimes real harm. All from a UI that treats one of the most sensitive features of a social platform like just another post flavor.

5️⃣ The Sin of Ghost Conversations and Phantom Follower Counts

Federation is the Fediverse’s secret sauce—and as implemented, its spectral curse. What should be lively, multi-user conversations often arrive with limbs missing.

Replies that clearly should be there are gone. Half the participants never materialize.

You’re reading a thread and suddenly think: Wait�� who is this person even talking to?

Follower counts of remote users become carnival mirrors: someone shows “800 followers,” you see 12.

You follow a fascinating account, only to feel like you’ve stepped into a half-lit room where the conversation’s already happened—and half the guests are ghosts. Why does this happen?

Because what you see is only the part of the Fediverse that’s federated to you. Each server decides what to fetch, when to fetch it—and sometimes just… doesn’t.

There’s no guarantee your instance will pull in every reply, every participant, or even the full thread—especially if the original conversation lives on a server it barely talks to.

The result? Phantom threads. Phantom user counts.Hollow outlines of conversations happening elsewhere.

Social interaction becomes confusing swiss-cheese cutouts of themselves.

It’s enough to make you wonder:

Am I lurking… or am I the one being lurked?

6️⃣ The Sin of Invisible Discovery: The Content Mirage

The Fediverse was born to be better than Big Tech’s social media rage-bait casino—that places like X or Facebook designed to mine you for clicks, views, and your soul.

Good call to avoid that. Let’s not do that.

And yes, privacy is precious. Zero arguments here—no one’s asking for surveillance ads or algorithmic doomscrolling.

But the Fediverse takes that privacy ethos and forgets to replace it with… well… anything.

So what you get instead is discovery by divine accident: No algorithmic curation. No fediverse-wide trending topics. No “here’s what’s buzzing.”

Just you and The Void.

So new users end up wandering along, stumbling across interesting people and conversations only by sheer luck. It’s charming - but only in a 19th-century explorer way.

It’s less charming when you’re just trying to find a cat meme.

What about Mastodon Search? On paper, it’s powerful. In reality, it’s opt-in only—tucked behind an Easter egg hunt of privacy settings. Years after launch, Mastodon Search still surfaces a fraction of a fraction of users—basically just those who’ve unlocked the “I read the docs” achievement.

And hey, credit where it’s due: Eugen and team did build something. And erred on the side of caution.

Most other Fediverse platforms haven’t even really tried to tackle search yet in a meaningful way.

7️⃣ The Sin of User Discovery Hell

Search is one thing. But finding people to follow—especially if you’re new—is where the UX - beyond just search - really starts to melt down.

User discovery in the Fediverse is so decentralized, it’s basically unusable. No global directory. No “you might like.” No obvious trails to follow.

Just vibes. And maybe a dusty wiki from 2022.

(Full disclosure: I helped build some of those early directories for journalists and activists. We were literally hand-crafting Excel spreadsheets of accounts worth following. Read that again. No really.)

Want to create your own curated user list of great accounts? Go for it—just don’t expect to share it. Mastodon lists aren’t public. You can’t even make them public. So they live and die with you, like a mixtape you can’t give to anyone.

And other Fediverse platforms do not even have lists.

Some Fediverse servers maintain public list pages of their user profiles that are on that server —but good luck using them. They’re often:

Unsortable except by these vague, frustrating options:

Recently active: OK, fine. Credit where due. Good one.

New arrivals: (New…where? From what? And are they “New” and “Aticve” or just lookie-lous that joined then bounced away?)

From this-server-name.com only: What? Why? (See Sin #1.)

From known Fediverse: I’m begging you. What does that even mean to any newbie?

Unlabeled by any useful tag—even ones users have publicly applied to themselves.

Unfiltered, showing accounts that haven’t posted since Obama’s first term and giving no indication who’s worth following now.

And lastly each server’s public profiles do not flow up to any larger discovery pipeline. So even if you do find cool, active, Jazz fans found by hand from user profile section of the Jazztodon server, no other server benefits but you. Go you. But opportunity firmly lost for fediverse wide discovery.

And let’s say you gave up on all of the above. But a new idea struck you:

“I know: like on every other social media platform, I can find cool folks that my friends follow and follow them.”

Yeah…no.

Thanks to federation fragmentation - Think you Sin #5 - many of their following—although every last one of them being technically public—are totally invisible to you in practice. So much for that idea.

It’s a UX turducken. One Sin nested inside another.

You didn’t just fall through the cracks—you’re living in them.

🙏 The Path to Redemption

Ok that was withering to write, let alone what it must have been to read. Time for a palate cleanser for both of us: ![Adorable golden retriever puppies] (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrdpDT3eMO7ZBVv39srKhyD9rfVaAHAOW-3mzmx-IiO7qCL8j9439fPDhsKPCFnaiPHx0_fi13eZrFvhwy7YiSAGdTb0tXfqNxum9NAH3Rxy_-Q6s7aW2uZnnu-O9H7nciyNHDI4OIMZbP/s1600/Golden_Retriever_Puppies.jpg)

OK here is another ray of hope:

Remember I’m writing these out of LOVE for the Open Social Web and the fediverse and to improve it.

And let’s be clear: these UX sins aren’t as the preachers say, “sins unto death.” There is a path to redemption, each one of these is eminently fixable.

These fixed don’t require a pilgrimage to the holy land of W3C working groups or a blockchain duct-taped to the side of the server rack. We’re not waiting on divine intervention via Fediverse Enhancement Protocol v99.9b.

The path out of UX hell is paved with thoughtful design, a pinch of frontend finesse, and a few determined devs who are tired of watching newcomers bounce off of this experience back into the waiting arms of Big Tech Silos - often doing so with very good reason, and a sense of loss.

And more good news? Many folks have already started making serious strides. Now is the time to push forward.

Lastly, remember: The early open web had UX problems just as gnarly—and it worked through nearly all of them. The open social web can too.

I’ll dive into the fixes in the next article in this two-part series. Catch you on the other side.

This is Part 1 in a two-article series on the Seven Deadly UX Sins of the Fediverse Web Experience.

Part 2—our roadmap to redemption—will arrive as soon as the author can wrestle their love of the Open Social Web back into prose, ideally before the next major Mastodon fork or the collapse of another Twitter clone.

In the meantime, if you’ve spotted a UX sin I missed, drop it in the comments or send a direct message (just, you know, double-check the visibility setting first).

[atplblog]

Price: [price_with_discount] (as of [price_update_date] - Details) [ad_1] Syllabus Programming in ‘C’ Language - (312009) Learning Scheme CreditsAssessment Scheme Actual Contact Hrs./Week SLH NLH Paper DurationTheoryBased on LL & TLBased on SLTotal Marks CL TL LLPractical FA-THSA-THTotalFA-PRSA-PRSLA MaxMaxMaxMinMaxMinMaxMinMaxMin 2-2263-----25102510251075 Sr. No.Theory Learning Outcomes (TLO's) aligned to CO's.Learning content mapped with Theory Learning Outcomes (TLO's) and CO's. 1.TLO 1.1 Write the basic structure of C program. TLO 1.2 Differentiate between keywords and identifiers. TLO 1.3 Use relevant data types as per the given situation. TLO 1.4 Construct algorithm and draw flowchart for the given problem. TLO 1.5 Use different types of operators in given situations. Unit - I Basics of C Programming 1.1 Algorithms and Flow Charts : 1.1.1 Steps for writing algorithm 1.1.2 Notations of flow charts. 1.2 Structure of C program, Introduction of Assembler, Linker, Compiler, Interpreter. 1.3 Character set, Keywords, identifiers, constants, Variables 1.4 Data Types : 1.4.1 Predefined Data types : integer-unsigned, signed, long, float, double, character, single, octal, hexadecimal 1.4.2 User defined Data Types : Arrays, Structures. 1.5 Operators and expressions : 1.5.1 Formatted input and output statements 1.5.2 Types of Operators : Arithmetic, logical, relational, increment and decrement, bitwise, special operators : unary, ternary operators, 1.5.3 Precedence, Associativity of Operators. (Chapters - 1, 2) 2.TLO 2.1 Implement branching and looping. TLO 2.2 Demonstrate control statements using “if-else”. TLO 2.3 Apply different types of loops as per the given problem. Unit - II Decision Control & Looping 2.1 Introduction to decision control, branching and looping 2.2 Decision Control statements : if, if-else, if-else-if ladder, switch case, 2.3 Looping and branching Statements : 2.3.1 while Loop, 2.3.2 for Loop, nested for loop 2.3.3 do-while loop, break, Publisher ‏ : ‎ TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS, PUNE (26 December 2023); TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS, PUNE HARSHWARDHAN : +91 77092 33099 Paperback ‏ : ‎ 212 pages ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 935585756X ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-9355857569 Reading age ‏ : ‎ 18 years and up Country of Origin ‏ : ‎ India Packer ‏ : ‎ TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS, PUNE, NARHE GODOWN, PUNE [ad_2]

[otomaze]

CharaMani week 6

Note there are some Cupid Parasite spoilers too (along with the obvious CharaMani ones).

Chapter 8: It initially threw me off to suddenly see a “Chapter 8” instead of going into an LI route, but I really love this structure choice! There’s definitely some necessary plot development that’s common across the three locked LIs, so it’s nice that the game just makes that part a shared route instead of making us repeat it every time. I love common routes and seeing different combinations of characters interacting, so I liked having a new sub-group as well (dear god they’re even more dysfunctional than cleaning route LMAO). 

DAZAI!!! It’s been so long since I spent time with him that I forgot how fond of him I am TT I got VIVIDLY reminded of that in the scene of him and Sena cleaning up, first his panicked shout when he thought Sena was in trouble, then when he implored her to remember… I trust him 1000% He truly wants the best for me. (The Makoto Furukawa of it all… I’ve been getting major CupiPara Allen vibes with how he’s trying to be selfless and keeping quiet about the memories that only he remembers, and I think that’ll be interesting to compare later too.) Also, we get to see a lot of his savage and petty side that we don’t usually see since he generally keeps quiet, so this is so fun!! Plus he did a good job building the table, I think it looks great :) 

Misc thoughts: 

I guess since it’s the common route, Banjo is overbearing again. 

Gyoubu’s impressions of other people xDDD IT’S ALWAYS SO GOOD. Really wish I could save voice lines in this game :’) (so far I remember him imitating Sena in Banjo’s route, and him imitating Dazai in ch 8)

The dramatic irony whenever Futami opens his mouth TTT Every time he talks about working together, or finding the Producer, or whether the Sponsor is in the exiled group… oof. (Also shoutout to him in Gyoubu route for advocating against his own human rights?? Bro why are you signing yourself up to be tortured for information TT Or it’s a genius move to deflect sponsor suspicion.)

Their whole theory that the supply chain would be impacted if they exiled the Sponsor(s) is a good premise, but has major holes in it. It would work fine if they had successfully found all Sponsors, but they haven’t accounted for missing at least one (I don’t think the game has outright brought up multiple Sponsors). Just as importantly, if they had accidentally targeted only innocent people, then the strategic move by the Sponsor(s) would be to still disrupt supplies in order to frame some innocent people. So basically there’s a good chance of both false negatives and false positives using their reasoning. Well, I guess we’ve seen that no one here is a perfect logician anyway but still wanted to point that out.

How has Sena forgotten something (past round?) if she and Banjou are with each other every day? Do I need to question both of their alibis??

I only JUST realized that clearing LI routes will unlock short story episodes. I had been searching through the flowcharts trying to figure out which ones I hadn’t unlocked lol. I’ll do all of them at the end, reliving my route order.

Route order: I decided I’m going to go Haiji (least favorite out of them) > Gyoubu (my silly little guy!) > Dazai (feels like finale material). I was actually planning for Dazai to be my first route since I liked him and trusted him in the beginning, so it feels like neat little bookends to do his route last. He’s always been a little protective of Sena, and now with him saying she’s forgotten something… Idk it just feels like a good route to do last! This order also happens to be my current most to least suspicious. Or, maybe not quite that, more like, least to most trusted? Or who I feel like has the best intentions at heart?

Haiji route:

WE FINALLY GOT THE FIRST BAD ENDING OF THE GAME?

Anyway, this route had THE COOLEST moment of the game when Haiji forced you back into redoing the decisions until you say you trust him. The escalation of him going from just turning the qualia system on/off and conjuring sweets, to force-starting a drama, then to the game itself… incredible. I just wish we could’ve lingered longer in that unease as we see him mess with Arcadia’s system. Also I think it would’ve been so funny if he literally sent you back to the beginning of the game if you accuse him as Producer > refuse to be with him. Can you imagine pressing the skip button and then it starts skipping through all the text and just… doesn’t stop? LMAO. 

Not sure if Haiji feels very convincing as an LI though? The way I’ve been describing it is that his route feels like an extended BE (possibly because I’ve only played the BE) or like what would normally be a hidden LI route (though hiding it here would be even worse in terms of spoilers). The relationship development is pretty brief and they can only be together if Sena turns away from her goals and embraces escapism. (Not Sena questioning if the Producer’s identity is even important… truly a jaw-dropping line…)  I mean, I like those kinds of twisted, yandere BEs, so I can enjoy that about the route, it just feels different. Also, Haiji’s behavior isn’t different enough from when he was pretending to be twelve, so it’s still hard for me to actually feel like he’s an LI.

At this point I stopped and avoided the choice where you accuse him of being the Producer – things were looking pretty damning for him and I wanted to save that branch if it was the true end. It did seem like I was missing a lot of content, since I didn’t see the normal ED movie and was still missing CGs.

Gyoubu route:

GYOUBU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I AM NOT IMMUNE TO WHEN THE TRICKSTER CHARACTER FINALLY GET QUIET AND SERIOUS AND VULNERABLE TTTTTTT when he was begging her for proof (permission) to trust her TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT and the wistfulness when imagining how it might be to be to sit next to her in class TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT the voice acting when his voice gets soft and serious TTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

I think one great thing about this route is that right from the start, we have Sena proactively investigating and really trying to confront her inner conflict about dis/trusting people. I feel like this route has been the best in terms of dealing with that. Maybe part of that is because I played it right after Haiji’s route, where the whole point of it was avoidance of any difficult questions.

I think the relationship development was pretty good in this route too (but also may be biased since i already liked Gyoubu so much anyway lol). The confession and affection wasn’t just crammed at the end, there were a few different points in the story where it almost felt like it would be the end of the route (the CG w their interlocked hands and the night sky for example) and I had to remind myself that we still hadn’t figured out the Akase stuff. I think this route is helped by the fact that their difference in personalities contributes to both their relationship dynamic and the plot, so the two aspects of the route are driven by the same force and don’t feel disconnected. The later parts of the route are also based on them working together instead of resolving suspicion like in many other routes, which also helps make the relationship feel like a progression. 

I was a little surprised by how much the last part focused on Gyoubu’s history with Dazai (maybe since there was that recent thread about how people felt about LIxLI content in games, so I was primed to look for things like that). I guess in retrospect it’s the culmination of the unanswered question of Gyoubu’s motivation + the burgeoning friendship between Dazai and Gyoubu in chapter 8. Still, the game is now extremely focused on what Sena (and Gyoubu) have forgotten, and I wish there had been more buildup of that in earlier parts of the game. When Sena talked about how she always felt like there had been something missing or forgotten, I was like… that would’ve been nice to know earlier? She talked about it as something she had always lived with, but we’re only just now hearing about it (unless I missed something). Also I’m just not a fan of having the main character watching everything happen… I mean I enjoy the story of it, I’m anticipating what the whole deal with the previous round was, but I wish Sena had more of a role in proving Gyoubu’s/Dazai’s credibility and sending everyone home than just sitting by and watching their drama. 

It also took me a really long time to put together the whole Dazai thing, I was just thinking their little spats were cute and it was funny that there was one-way trust (like when someone’s your best friend but you’re not theirs TT). It was only until Gyoubu was literally explaining it that I realized, Oh, Dazai. Gyoubu requested an eye penalty specifically to echo the penalty Dazai took for him. There’s also another resonance between them, as so far they (and Akase) are the only ones who’ve chosen to stay behind so the others can leave. And it’s nice to get further confirmation that Dazai’s a good person but the way Gyoubu talked about it reminded me of how Futami talked about the Producer (someone who would reach out a helping hand to anyone), so :/ don’t like that but I still trust Dazai.

Gyoubu and Ebana’s friendship… I couldn’t quite pin it down before since there were things that didn’t add up, but it’s nice to finally see that it’s genuine, or at least they can rely on each other! I do think it’s touching that the two most abrasive, uncooperative, annoying, openly distrustful people (I have a point here I promise) had chosen to place their trust in another person, and that their very ability to exist unobstructed in Arcadia hinged on the other maintaining that promise. Even though it was a mutually-assured-destruction type of situation, it’s wild to think that Gyoubu just made that proposal on night one and they both kept it until now, even going above and beyond to keep that secret for the other. Gyoubu’s friendship game is insane. 

It’s interesting to see how Gyoubu was following his own principle for determining if people were suspicious (if they suspected him, they were more likely to be innocent since actual Producers/Sponsors know the identities). Everyone, both characters and the players themselves, operate with their own ideas of what would constitute suspicious behavior. (For me, I thought blending in too well with the group and having the opportunity/competence to do things were suspicious.) Also, he notes that being a previous cast member doesn’t clear someone of suspicion which, yes!!! exactly!!

Also it’s so funny how the last routes are just like, no-holds-barred interference with other LIs. Either open suspicion and interrupting their alone time, or vouching for them and giving a stamp of approval for the relationship. 

Suspicion: Gyoubu at the end of his route said that the Producer wasn’t the one really betraying them (maybe NOIRC is?) so I decided to go back and finish Haiji’s route (thinking he was the Producer, but that wouldn’t be the finale reveal). He’s neither Director (which we know, I think it was Iochi’s route where they said it was a very advanced AI?) nor Producer??? Huh???  I guess there’s something else you need to unlock (still have an unknown part of his route’s flowchart) or an actual finale route (Director secret LI???? LOL jk but yellow is still an unclaimed theme color and this is not my first rodeotome.)

Honestly I went back to suspecting Akase a little since we know there’s a mole or something fishy going on with info HQ/NOIRC, but that stuff with Futami hard clears Akase. And Iochi’s route ending was too bleak for me to suspect them. Gyoubu also said that he could guess the real mastermind (notably, he didn’t say Producer) thanks to clues from Sena. Which again suggests Haiji, as he was the other one most involved in Gyoubu’s route (Dazai and Gyoubu are besties).

This is my last chance for theories so let’s just go through all my remaining questions and improbable answers: 

Haiji:

Why’s he Like This if he’s not Producer?

Why does he have so much control over Arcadia’s system? (Maybe just because he’s been here so long? After all, Gyoubu did have some control and he said he had to build the programs from scratch)

What exactly were the conditions of his game with the Producer? (He said he won against “that guy” after Sena accused him, so maybe his win condition is to be accused as Producer? It’s a common role in werewolf style games. Or his comment also suggested that it has to do with betting whether Sena will remember her memories/people will remember Dazai. Was the Producer betting on the side of human emotions overcoming all?)

Is he human? He keeps making sweeping comments about what humans are like, and he’s unfamiliar with emotions and cold (literally, physically). My ideas were isekaijin (though he doesn’t feel muddy) or partly an AI. 

For the AI theory: he made gestures like the Director, who was hypothesized to be a kind of AI earlier, has been raised on videos but not real experiences, has some control over Arcadia’s systems/programs, and feels kinship even with non-living things. Also he’s in some ways similar to the Bouncers, an even more primitive level of AI: it was pointed out once again in his route that Sena is unexpectedly kind to Bouncers, and his actions when playing games are extremely predictable (Gyoubu’s complaint about Bouncers; Haiji pantomiming ice cream for the charades game).

Last round:

How exactly did the last round end? Multiple people have spoken ominously about the way they were able to return (Ebana in ch8, I think Gyoubu too, and Dazai saying he’ll never leave Sena behind might also count. It seems like it also ended in a “either one person or everyone but one person returns”. There were some other comments but I can’t really remember the exact phrasing and don’t know where to check for them TT)

What happened in the last round/what have Sena and Gyoubu forgotten?

Why was Dazai erased from everything? (It feels like a special game/bet with the Producer? Also maybe a plot hole but why is he still in the roster if he was so totally erased from every other kind of record)

Why did it feel like Dazai was intentionally cutting off any further discussion at the end of Gyoubu’s route?

→ Okay writing it out, I guess we could piece it together like: last round Sena was the one to stay behind so the others could go home; but Dazai had won some sort of concession from the Producer to be able to switch places with her,  though in return he’s erased from all their memories; and part of the conditions are that he can’t interfere with her process of remembering (which is why he ended things suddenly?)

Misc:

Repeated theme of the connection between appearances and reality: Introduced during the lecture at school when the teacher says to confirm things with your own two eyes, but the experience of Arcadia casts doubt on experience being equivalent to evidence. Futami and also Gyoubu stress that things are not what they appear and that Sena should be careful not to get fooled, meanwhile Haiji seems to say that appearance is as good as reality since if the bangles can make unwanted things invisible, it’s like they don’t exist.

Still not sure... why the Producer picked these cast members. Maybe bc they each kind of need something from Arcadia (prev cast members with regrets, Sponsors with no better options, people trying to take down Arcadia, etc) but that feels so vague? I'm sorry Chigasaki i have failed u

Is Sena’s mom a sponsor or connected to the broadcasts from NOIRC? She had viewing access to them, tried to convince Sena to just forget what she saw, and also is very positive about the Morpheus project.

Dazai: Two random things from earlier in the game: he seems anxious to get back to school (supposedly a different one from Sena's, but he might just be hiding their connections?) and we still don't know why he made somewhat strained comments about his older siblings (u have no idea the wild theories i had about this. at one point i was staring at each character's eyes to see if they were similar to Dazai's (for a hot minute I entertained the thought of Futami being Dazai's older brother))

There’s like. World-buildy stuff like Ioichi’s route and the moons being used for access whatever bases and I’m just not getting into that. 

That building they use for exiling people and how there’s older technology there, and the records and laptop that they were unable to touch? There’s some kind of connection to how Arcadia’s based on the past and possibly also Haiji’s tower of junk. Idk I’m so bad at this I’m just taking the L.

Speaking of, there's also that area that Akase was trying to break apart in Futami's route. Those sleeping pod things seem like places you could keep people as you trap their mind in a VR-cadia.

[jonathanrook]

legally i have to give you intern 2

em you have awoken an ungodly beast inside me so i need to warn everyone that this post is. incomprehensible. but so is mymusic so i guess we're all used to it.

How I feel about this character:

i watched mymusic as it was airing/running/coming out specifically bc i'm a jack stannie, and as a kid melvin was my second favorite character (w scene being in first, obvs) for mostly that reason. he basically hovered around this ranking until my most recent rewatch in the summer of 2020, which was actually spurred by some events in my personal life that vaguely reminded me of scene's season two arc w jeff, and i thought it'd been a funny/nostalgic way to get my mind off things.

(i want to side note here that -- i know you didn't ask, but -- i love jeff. i have since i was a kid. like, obviously not as a person but i think he's honestly the best written character in the series, w indie close in second. idk what it says about the f*nes that their most interesting and well rounded characters are the villains, but i digress. to this day i'm salty that jeff never got added to the theme song and wasn't really included in promotional merch.)

however, in said rewatch, certain things about how he was written started to really get under my skin, and certain moments in particular have really stuck out to me in a negative way. like, for the entirety of season one and a good chunk of season two he's one person, and then he leaves mymusic and we have an entirely different person, but not in a nuanced character building sort of way.

i've said a few of these points before but i'll repeat them here regardless. at the risk of sounding like i've put on a tin-foil hat, it's my sneaking suspicion that scindie was supposed to be endgame, but since fan reception to it was pretty neutral, and scenechart stans were, at the very least, more vocal, changes were made to the intended finale, which is why in the last scene he's basically just. indie. like, if everything about the show was exactly the same but indie was the one who had ended up w scene in the end that would have made so much more sense since a) scene had a crush on indie that he/everyone knew about and b) indie was kind of a dick despite the half-assed attempts at redemption, so both combined make it slightly less weird/out-of-nowhere that he kisses her w/o her consent (since, even though like. implied consent is not real at worst and a fuzzy subject at best but you could argue that scene would want indie to kiss her); and this isn't even taking into consideration that c) melvin is heavily queer-coded in both seasons, with his friendship with nerdcore being, dare i say, homoerotic at times, and his arc about leaving the company and changing his name mirroring nerdcore's almost perfectly (with nerdcore being a character who b*nny [at least] has all but confirmed is actually gay).

i've also been on the fence about melvin's behavior in that final scene making more sense for indie's character being an intentional decision as a way of shoe-horning in a theme about the lasting effects of abuse/cycles of abuse/the corruption of power but i also don't think the f*nes are smart enough for that. however, for the sake of defending my straw theory, i also point to the scene where indie comes to visit the acid factory after melvin told him to shut up, and we see melvin use reggie as a foot-stool, going as far as to say that it feels good to do so (which, in all honesty, i think is a bit that was entirely improvised, since the f*nes were "notorious for never saying cut" [paraphrased from a bts video], but work w me here). he's also given a seltzer mug that perfectly resembles indie's kombucha mug. in these moment melvin is directly emulating the behavior of his previous abuser, purposefully or not, literal moments after being promoted to an equal position of authority, which was totally just included as a joke, but could also be argued is meant to show that he's becoming indie; or, if we acknowledge that the f*nes have no fucking clue what they're doing and were just directing like chickens with their heads cut off, it at least shows that melvin's new position of power is leading him to understand where indie was coming from, which is supported by their conversation in the finale.

the following contains a couple brief mentions of irl sexual assault so if that's something you'd like to avoid skip to the next section!

HOWEVER, that alone isn't what i have a problem with, since i think melvin is completely justified in being a dick to indie (and also reggie enthusiastically consents to being used as an ottoman so good for him i guess). the issue comes completely in how he treats scene in the scenes where the f*nes clearly thought what they were writing was super romantic. like, the fact that the only thing he's got hung on his cubicle wall is a single picture of scene taken from the fucking opening credits (like. how hard would it have been to have. literally any other photo[s] esp since there's an abundance of cute bts pics of the cast in costume that could have been put there) and him scrolling through her twitter at work really creep me out (and at the risk of oversharing the weird, like, social media stalking angle really fucks w me bc that may or may not have been the exact fucking thing i was trying to escape in rewatching mymusic in the first place). also, having him sexually assault scene as a means of comforting her after she had just been sexually assaulted in the same way by someone else was... a choice (which is also, uh, personally familiar).

again, i recognize that demonizing melvin wasn't what the f*nes were trying to do here, and i perhaps seem hypocritical for opening liking jeff, but what makes jeff work is he's intentionally "the bad guy." having melvin do the same things as indie and jeff uncritically only proves further that the f*nes can't write for shit, and ruins his character which had, up until he quit mymusic, been unironically good. like, it's obviously not beneficial that the exact asshole things he does are personally triggering, but the character would still be a mess and i would still dislike him regardless.

i want to say though that jack delivers a surprisingly great performance despite how shoddily his character is constructed and how little experience he has as an actor. like, it's clear he was having a lot of fun on set and i would love to see him in something, like, good; i think he could pull off even like, guest television roles, which is a lot more than can be said for other youtubers.

-----

All the people I ship romantically with this character:

nerdchart should have been canon i'm sorry. i know that close, nonromantic male friendships are valuable, esp between queer men, but also gd wouldn't it have been baller to have a canon interracial mlm ship. like. c'mon. and they could have been such a good friends to lovers story! we already got to see how melvin was the only person nerdcore could really be himself around so it would have been so cool if melvin's self-advocacy arc/flowchart arc had revolved more around nerdcore with a little role-reversal! and then they kiss! like god intended!

also i ship him and indie bc i'm a grubby little gremlin man ohoho. enemies w weird sexual tension? sign me up. not even enemies to lovers i'm not saying this one should have been canon i just love the vibes. do you think melvin and indie ever explored each other's bod-- *gunshot*

-----

My non-romantic OTP for this character:

i wish him and scene had just been bros. god remember in season one when they were just bros that was the life.

alternatively, i wish we'd seen more bonding w him and metal, as a means of reconciling that. uh. moment from season one. along similar lines i would have loved to see him get closer w rayna in a similar way to how she bonded w nerdcore in season two. i think that could have also worked to show how she'd grown between the two seasons.

-----

My unpopular opinion about this character:

HIM. AND. SCENE. SHOULD. HAVE. JUST. BEEN. BROS. (though i think my general dislike of him is pretty unpopular, lmao).

when the show was coming out i don't think it's unfair to say that scenechart/scenetern 2 was the most popular ship (aside from potentially techstep whatever) but luckily we're all gay and have better taste now. unfortunately i totally fell into this camp and scenechart was even my otp for years (until it was arguably more unfortunately usurped by reddie in 2019) and i didn't even realise that it's a hot mess until, again, the summer of 2020.

when actually watching the show the choices the f*nes made in regards to how the ship actually became canon are so odd and out of place, too? okay, so, on one hand everyone just shipped scenechart bc it was the whitest hettiest ship in the show (esp in season two when idol left) aside from scindie (and we already discussed what's wrong w that). but, on the other hand, lainey and jack clearly also just got along? and i suspect that lainey probably also admired jack's work and was happy to be working with him bc we have so many shots throughout even the first season when the ship wasn't the intended endgame of lainey scene looking really fondly at jack melvin at times when it doesn't make much sense at all, esp since she's smitten w indie? this trend continues into the second season which arguably works but it still seems really out of place for him to be the one to ultimately make the first move on her since it's clear she was the one crushing this whole time and also he's gay! this bitch is gay what the fuck!!

-----

One thing I wish had happened with this character in canon:

at this point i'm struggling to think of anything i haven't covered yet. oops.

i've talked at length before about how he should have been a woman/lesbian, but the tl;dr is that it would have solved a lot of the queer-coding "problems" that just didn't get resolved in the show. if he'd been a lesbian then not only would the friendship w nerdcore still made sense, but scenechart would have as well (not even mentioning that both of scene's other relationships w men make a lot of sense as comphet anyway).

[painted-crow]

What made you decide you were a Bird Primary and not a Lion Primary ? It seems like lots of people struggle to tell the difference .

Oh, I know I'm a Bird--intuitively!

(Kidding.)

Good question! And a fair thing to poke at, because although I'm an obvious Bird primary in my own eyes, I'm pretty confusing to the quiz and to other people, and a lot of the reason why is that I don't totally dismiss intuition. Birds don't have to. The difference is how you treat the information.

A Bird approach

I see intuition as a pointed finger. It's telling me to look closely at something. Whenever we make decisions, our information is limited by the things we notice; we can't act on info we haven't learned, and we can't learn it without paying attention to the right things.

But there's so much info available to us at any given time that our brains automatically filter most of it out! We have to choose what to pay attention to, deliberately. Intuition is your subconscious covering those bases, telling you, "this is important--focus on it."

A Bird applying this to a moral issue works like this: you have a gut reaction to a situation that says, for example, "this isn't right"; then you try to figure out why it reads that way to you. Does it make sense? Does this reaction mesh with your other beliefs? If it doesn't, which one is wrong, your current reaction or the old belief? --Or are there extenuating circumstances that make the comparison invalid?

This questioning sounds like a lot of work, but Birds do it automatically, on a regular basis, so we're pretty fast.

(Having my intuition consistently clash with other information I have about something is the worst feeling. It's like finding hypocrisy in a theory but not knowing how to pull it apart. In the end I'll act on my information, but I'll be on the lookout for signs that my decision was wrong--if it was, I want to catch it early.)

Lion approach

Lions don't go through this whole process. They don't use intuition as a means of getting data on which to base their decisions. Their intuition IS the base for their decisions. Something is right or it's wrong--you don't have to fit it into a jigsaw puzzle. Stopping to analyze the data and the context and the precedents you've decided on before is a waste of time at best, and at worst feels like you're trying to rationalize your way out of doing what you already know is right.

Lions do value mulling things over and collecting life experiences that hone their intuition so they know what's right more accurately. They're not just making things up. Birds build a machine to understand morality and make decisions; Lions are their machine, it comes from who they are and is honed by experience, and they don't have to question its inner workings. This is a very Bird way of putting it, but you get the idea.

Burned Lion vs Bird

I know that my intuition is right more than I give it credit for, but I'm not comfortable trusting it completely. I'm not a burned Lion, though; I'm happy with my Bird.

Burned Lions are like "this is awful, I can't trust myself, I guess I have to use this other way to decide," but Birds don't usually identify with their intuition that closely. We're more like "yeah, this is the way I've decided to decide, and if I decide it's wrong or inconsistent I'll change it. That process is part of me. Intuition? Maybe I'll listen to it... when it starts citing its sources."

But remember

Not all Birds interact with intuition the way I do. Many just dismiss it as biased and not worth bothering with. That's fine--maybe they're more naturally observant than I trust myself to be. It's possible that I have a Lion model (my mom's a Lion and we're really close), or maybe I've just integrated it into my system.

(What's the difference? Got me, let's poke it.)

Maybe someone with a Lion model would trust it more than I do, and be comfortable not going through that whole flowchart of internal consistency every time. I've decided what part intuition plays in developing my philosophy, and maybe that's too indirect for a model. But maybe a Bird without a Lion model wouldn't feel so conflicted when intuition and data pointed in different directions. I'm not sure if Lion is as important to me as my Badger primary model, which has influenced a lot of the contents of my system--but then again, Lion's influence is something I filter through my Bird so heavily that it's hard to see in the end, and models can have varying levels of importance to you.

Our current definition of a model is very "you know it when you see it," isn't it? Huh. I don't know how established a construct has to be before it can be considered a model. Is drawing that line useful? Maybe "you know it when you see it" is enough.

Anyway, if I do have a baby Lion model, it's definitely a model--I'm a loud Bird. I mean, look at this whole post. You're reading my thought process, if you look at it in a meta kind of way, and your thought process is probably different. I'm a perfectionist and I edit posts before putting them up (that's why these aren't even longer), so maybe the data isn't as pure as it might be, but any kind of essay I write will inevitably have a strong Bird flavor because that's just how I think.

Regardless, the official quiz often suggests Lion for my primary. And Badger. I've yet to have it or anyone else think I'm a Snake.* Once, it gave up on me as a complete hatstall! But yeah, I'm a Bird, I just borrow a lot of different stuff for my system.

---

* In the words of my friends a while back:

I guess I'm not fooling anyone. 😂

[stevensavage]

Creative Paths And Conspiracy

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com and Steve's Tumblr.  Find out more at my newsletter.)

Last post, I stated that conspiracy theories are creative acts, even if they have malicious or pathological motivation. It's essential to realize this because seeing them as such helps us identify and counter them. In this post, I'd like to digress on a bit of history because this will let us look at a useful diagnostic tool.

I had followed conspiracy theories for decades, first out of an interest in the paranormal, then to understand politics and the human condition. From 2015 onward, it became necessary for sheer survival in chaotic times. Over the years, I began to see Conspiracy theories fit specific patterns, and in 2020 I realized the patterns fit my Five Forms of Creativity.

My Five Forms of creativity were a system I'd made to classify the different ways people create. The Five Forms were a tool derived from my work on Seventh Sanctum and had proven useful professionally. I wrote them up in their own book, The Power of Creative Paths, and they appear again in Chance's Muse.

Seeing conspiracy theories slot into this simple system confirmed to me that there was a vital element of creativity in conspiracy thinking.  It also meant analyzing them as such might provide useful insights. This column is a dignified brain-dump of my attempts to do that.

I realize that this is dangerously close to me having a corkboard with random articles connected by red string. I am staying aware of that, and as I've noted, the Five Forms are just a tool for classifying messy reality. But any skepticism isn't merely acknowledged; it's appreciated.

So let's get to the theory.

THE FIVE FORMS OF CREATIVITY:

The five forms of creativity I identified are:

The Combiner – Combiners shuffle familiar ideas around in familiar patterns. This is "madlibs creativity" and the opposite of the Fuser.

The Fuser - Merges ideas, blurring lines and creating something new. Fuser creativity spawns stories of "Time-Travelling Art Thieves," and the opposite of the pattern-driven Combiner.

The Expander - Expanders pile ideas on top of each other in wild yet surprisingly stable structures. You'll see this in parodies and life sim games, and it's the opposite of The Reducer.

The Reducer - Reducers streamline ideas, strip them down, and even create new ideas by removing parts of others. Minimalist music like Devo or The White Stripes are good examples. The opposite of The Expander.

The Mapper - Mappers create by symbolism and metaphor, strange and profound-seeming connections and relations spun together. They are a unique form of creativity and have no opposite.  Grant Morrison's run on The Doom Patrol is a good example.

Now, with a system for classifying creativity, I'd like to attempt to explore what forms of conspiracy theorization appear in each form. With that, we may spot such thinking better and analyze the source or whom the source is imitating.

On to the Brain-dump.

COMBINER

Combiner creativity is madlibs, shuffling words into common patterns to create meaning. It's both syntax and semantics, putting various "trigger" words in distinct orders that lead people to interpret things in certain ways.

In the conspiracy theory world, this is the world of headlines and pithy quotes. "Obama attacks heterosexuality with help of UN" is a joke headline where you could easily swap around a few words to have "Hillary attacks freedom with help of Dr. Fauci." Any time pursuing a trash conspiracy news site exposes you to these headlines, as will breathless tweets.

Combiner creativity usually only speaks to those likely to respond to the patterns and the words invoked. If you see Combiner Conspiracy talk, it's talking to the faithful - probably to manipulate them or show affinity. Except for clumsy efforts to fit in, when you see this kind of creativity used for conspiracy talk, it's by someone who knows what they're doing.

Where I've seen it: Years ago when I jokingly said I could make a conspiracy headline generator. That has haunted me since, as all it would take would be a simple Combiner generator.

FUSER

Fuser creativity is when you combine two ideas into one. It's the novelist that creates a book about "Legal Dramas And AI Lawyers." It's the cook that finds harmony between Indian and Mexican cuisine.

When it comes to conspiracy theories, Fuser creativity is the world of "everything is one." This is when UFOs are vehicles of the Illuminati, or every Lawyer is also part of the Church of Satan. Fuser creativity is a stock in trade of conspiracy thought, and you've probably seen it many times.

Fuser creativity with a conspiratorial bent is usually a good sign you're seeing conspiracy thought. Multiple unrelated elements are said to be the facets of one dark gem of evil. A sign of an active conspiracist - a grifter - is when The Latest Thing In The News gets incorporated into being a facet of the conspiracy theory.

This is similar to the Expander approach, but it's not a "pile on." Instead it's "this is one facet we haven't seen before." It's more nuanced in an area often lacking said nuance.

Where I've seen it: Propagandist news and bottom-feeding grifters, always working the story of the day into a larger theory - and not letting it go.

EXPANDER

Expander creativity is the big pile-on of ideas. This is where you start with "fantasy adventure" and soon have a road trip with two wizards, one of which has a drinking problem, going cross-country to . . . you get the idea. Expander creativity is about distinct ideas cramming together to make wild connections - but you can identify them still.

In conspiracy-land this is common, and more so in the internet age. It's what I've heard called "yes, and" conspiracy thought - where you hear a new idea and toss it into your pile of beliefs. Those giant flowcharts on the internet connecting everything are Expander creativity in action.

It's also the "starter" conspiracy style of belief - also easily witnessed on the internet where you can watch ideas get joined together on Twitter or message boards.

Expander creativity in use is usually the sign of someone either believing anything or trying to control a narrative and incorporate other ideas - to "win" or gain allies or avoid cognitive dissonance.

Where I've seen it: For decades, but I've seen a lot more in the internet age.

REDUCER

Reducer creativity is a rarer creative form, and it's often paired with other types to "reign them in." Reducer creatives can take ideas and remove parts or strip them down to their essence. Though it can seem dull, consider the joy of a precise film that's focused like "Versus" or minimalist music.

In the world of conspiracy, the Reducer approach simplifies ideas to justify conspiracy thought. Middlemen get cut out, inconvenient facts "forgotten," degrees of separation less separated. The messiness of the world gets refined outward for a simpler - and wrong- viewpoint.

Reducer creativity takes talent, and in the conspiracy world, it's used by people who know what they're doing. They ignore inconvenient facts and streamline beliefs. They can take complex headlines and create half-facts. When you see this, someone's probably good at this - and grifting.

Where I've seen it:  In the time of Covid I'd watch conspiracists claim relations among people and groups that existed only if you ignored multiple steps. Seeing simplified worldviews - that were wrong - became obvious to me.

MAPPER

FInally, we get to Mappers. These are the creatives of metaphor and symbolism, and rethinking. It's "Oh Brother, Where Art Thou" and the Odyssey, or characters who represent the Seven Deadly Sins, or a book loaded with iconography. It's unusual, mystical -and surprising.

In the conspiracy world, this is the symbol-hunters' creativity, always looking for hidden meanings. They'll become concerned about the color of a star's shoes or that the sign on a pizza restaurant looks Satanic. They'll see connections among the unrelated as they're able to bring symbols and metaphors together to explain the nonexistent.

Mapping creativity doesn't stand out one way or another because it is a standard part of conspiracy thought. I usually see it everywhere - it varies more by degree than anything else. Worries about the symbolism of gold fringe on a flag may seem simple, but it's not much different than finding Moloch in toy advertisements.  

Where I've seen it: Well, everywhere.

CONCLUSIONS

That's my attempt to see if my Forms of Creativity provide a useful way to identify conspiracy theories and thoughts. And honestly, I think there's something there. It's easy to map them, the mappings are distinct, and there's some diagnostic advantage.

Because this maps so well, this strengthens my belief that conspiratorial thinking can be seen as a creative act. It's likely I'll explore this more in the future.

But next, I'd like to discuss motivations and creativity - taking the view that conspiracy thinking is a creative act, it what it means for common motivations.

Steven Savage

www.StevenSavage.com

www.InformoTron.com

[hecth]

❛ ˗˗˗˗ ❥ ( alex fitzalan, he/him, cis male.) : * ❝ oh my god! is that heath godwin? i know all about them, i used to date a friend of theirs. they are a twenty-three year old production assistant from camden, maine but they’ve been living in apartment 405, room two for two years. they are known as the interstellar because they are so + open-minded, and + determined but they can also be very - changeable, and - airy. i’ve heard they really give off the arcade lighting, foggy evenings and super eight film cameras vibe you know? ❞

hello all!! i’m hayley n i’m excited to be here and introduce you all to my bby heath! he’s a reworked older muse of mine so i’m kinda working things out still but i would love to plot with you aLL! i’m about to head to bed bc,,, i have to be up early,,, and gmt problems... but if you leave a like i will come to you with all my best ideas in the morning! 

BACKGROUND!

the youngest of three boys, both with other varying nature names, heath is the product of two hippies who were chasing their lifetime dream of owning and running a b&b in camden, maine.

being the baby of the family, heath was always, well… babied… more than his older brothers. not that he ever really minded. he kinda loved the affection and extra attention

growing up, he really just enjoyed being around a lot of people? so a b&b was probably one of the best places for that. as he’d lie spread out on a rug on his stomach listening to guests’ stories and asking about their lives (probably contributed to the only 1 star reviews the place got on tripadvisor lbr) and particularly adored in the fall when spookier stories were exchanged

creativity was always fostered in their household and heath’s lying on the carpet kinda developed over time into his siblings and him playing elaborate games of pretend based on the stories they’d hear, which eventually!!! developed further into heath offering to record them so they’d always have a memory of it when they grew older

except he also became super passionate about filmmaking! which culminated when he was sixteen when heath made his first short film with the help of his brother who wrote the script. a debut characterised by heaps of imagination and vivid colouring, set on the coast in the height of summer and featuring some of the stories they’d heard over the years.

very idyllic and dreamlike as a result of his upbringing, this kinda transferred into the style of filmmaking he enjoyed most. most of the short films he’s made are sorta wes anderson-inspired focuses on visuals, but also think shrouded in some kind of scooby doo-esque mystery

by the time he was applying to college, heath was pretty certain he’d be applying to film schools. he’d developed a small showreel and had a couple of local accolades

attended nyu tisch with the help of scholarship funding and a pool of his parents’ savings and has kinda been haunting the city like a ghost ever since. when he moved into 405 it was basically the only place he could afford as he was still a student and on a part-time job/whatever stipends his parents were generous enough to give him budget!

he started working as a production assistant at nbc a year ago which… wasn’t exactly what he envisaged it to be, but ya know. getting some experience with witnessing how a production is run comes at the cost of taking everyone’s coffee orders

FUN FACTS !

odd socks with quirky designs for days

avid reader of horoscopes but he’ll never admit it. just judge u based on your sign from afar

big east-coaster. contemplated moving to los angeles for better job opportunities after graduation but… just couldn’t bring himself to do it. he loves seasons!

kinda gets by on good luck? definitely one of those people who you kinda wonder how they still exist as he honestly probably zones out sometimes while crossing the road and ~other stupid stories to come~

has the most chaotic creative process in which it’s probably just… a heap of stuff gathered around him and heath sitting in the middle drawing a weird flowchart that legit would not make sense to anyone bar him

will easily indulge in 3am discussions about conspiracy theories. is it procrastination? is it genuine interest? he’ll never tell

has a huge passion for all things stephen king but due to the fact that his parents deemed his work to be too gory, he still keeps this on the down-low like it’s some kind of taboo

[jayhartwinsterling]

Bandersnatch (Black Mirror) Megapost

Now loading... A *very* sizeable post with a lot to get through - here I am going to talk about the five “main” endings, the Easter eggs, why constructing a traditional flowchart for this game is technically a bit of a vain effort, how it’s probably best to link everything up in a guide - and the implications this story has regarding *us*.

Chapter 1: The Endings

So, we basically have five “main” endings. I say “main” because... well, we’ll get back to it on ending number five. 

Ending One Description: The first of which is what I call the “How It Was Meant To Go” - and getting this one is quite simple. All you need to do is accept the proposal Stefan’s given by the Boss to make Bandersnatch with a in-house team. Satpal shows up and then Colin tells Stefan as he’s leaving “Sorry mate, wrong path.” We then jump forward five months to find that Bandersnatch was rushed in production, cut down and done badly because of it being a team effort and it gets a 0/5 review.

We loop back around to that decision again but this time, Colin thinks he’s met Stefan before and Stefan knows the memory error with Colin’s game when it happens. And we come back to the decision. (Refusal again will give a similar scene btw where Stefan accepts and Colin tells him it was the wrong choice again - but Satpal doesn’t enter and we just... end. 

Ending One Analysis: So this first ending is rather simple. But the key to it for me lies rather simply in the fact that it can be done... without doing anything at all. If you left your remote/controller/mouse/finger wherever it is and don’t make any choices, this is where you end up. In essence, the universe just runs as it should and we don’t play god over Stefan’s life at all. I know it might be a little difficult to get what I’m on about here but consider that Stefan makes a remark to Dr. Haynes not too long after you take the refuse path, that he wanted to accept the offer and he doesn’t know what made him refuse. We did. This is more clearly pressed upon if you get to the point in your path where Stefan realises something is dictating his life and asks for a sign. We directly throw him a sign - if you’re super direct, that sign happens to be the most direct interaction we could possibly make with him. Telling him that he’s on Netflix in the 21st century for our entertainment and we’re controlling his life.

So, as I say, Ending One is where we don’t have an impact and thus things play out in the universe as they should. Bandersnatch is finished, it gets a 0/5 and Stefan resolves to try again. Ironically, if you just sit back and don’t take the option of making a choice (because, remember, us even making a choice is in itself a choice), though all the game does terribly - this is arguably the best outcome for Stefan. And all because we listened to the exact advice the trailer gave us with its music choice: “Relax. Don’t do it.”

Ending Two: If you go straight to Dr. Haynes (rather than going after Colin) and take your pills when you get home, you get what I call the “” ending. Stefan takes the pills, we jump forward five months to find that Bandersnatch got completed by Stefan but due to his pills, it comes across flat after the midway point and only gets a 2.5/5 rating.

Ending Two Analysis: Not a lot to say here - but it’s worth noting that the review dude on the TV mentions that if the creator had second chances, they should go back and do this game all over again but differently. Keep that in mind for later. It’s worth noting that if you take Stefan off the path that the universe was “meant” to take and then leave it to its own devices (and Stefan to his own choices) again, not making choices for him - then you’ll end up at this one. Almost as if the universe was trying to course correct itself...

Ending Three: “Stefan Jumps.” explanatory how we get here... We jump forward four months, and find that due to Stefan’s accidental death, the game seems to have been speedily finished by someone else.

Ending Three Analysis: We get no rating this time but TV review guy does say the game is bad. He also mentions that it seems abrupt, jarring, bleak, creepy... Almost a perfect way to describe the ending - since it then just ends.

Ending Four: “The P.A.C.S. Ending”. In this one, we unlock Stefan’s dad’s safe with the password “PAC” (obtained by crossing over paths from following Colin to visiting Dr. Haynes... we’ll come by to the implications of such things later.) and find to our surprise that Stefan’s entire life is part of a conspiratorial program, not only well documented but also manufactured with the trauma of his mother’s death being totally falsified. Dad wakes up, refuses to speak and in his rage, Stefan hits him with somethi--- Oh wait, it’s a dream. Just a dream... But then it goes off the rails, quickly plunging us into the choice where we give Stefan a sign that he’s being controlled. Instead of Netflix, we now have the choice of P.A.C.S. - taking that option leads Stefan to kill his dad with the ashtray in a rage about the apparent conspiracy. Stefan then picks up the phone to phone Dr. Haynes - and we have to enter her number. Entering it correctly means that Stefan outright says to Hayne’s receptionist that he’s killed his dad. As he’s burying his dad, we hear distinct sirens and then cut to a review of Bandersnatch. The game is given a 2/5 rating and we discover that Stefan has been charged with killing his dad and locked up in jail.

Ending Four Analysis: It’s safe to say that P.A.C.S. didn’t actually exist outside of Stefan’s head and it’s his life paralleling Jerome F Davies’ obsession with conspiracy theories and delusions. But... what nobody seems to be really talking about is - we did that. Again. Leaving aside all the choices up to and including the safe, we make the P.A.C.S. sign appear and fuel Stefan’s dream-induced paranoia. In this ending, we in a way become Stefan’s delusion. (Oh, and don’t be surprised if you didn’t get this ending with your choices, or only part of it - again we’re coming to all that...)

Ending Five: “Time Rewritten” - now I’ll be honest, I did all these endings in one straight through run. Which made for a REALLY messy time in both my head and the game. Particularly with Colin... But anyway, for this one, I had to make Stefan pick up the family photo after having followed Colin and heard him say that mirrors let you travel through time. Stefan then seems to head through a mirror in the bathroom back in time to when he was a kid. And discovers that his dad took the teddy away from Stefan and locked it away in his room. He wakes up, I take him through the Netflix sign again. [During this, I led into what I’ll be addressing in a minute as Ending Four-B.] And take Stefan back to the locked room, this time entering the password “TOY”. Stefan unlocks the safe and finds his teddy within... And then it takes an odd turn. Stefan turns to find a younger dad - and then suddenly he is a child again. The younger dad relents and lets young Stefan put the teddy back under his bed. After doing so, suddenly older Stefan is looking at young Stefan sleeping. We cut back to young Stefan on the day Mum leaves... This time, he finds the teddy but his Mum is still running late. She’s gonna have to catch the next train - the one that leads to her demise - and we have to make the decision for young Stefan on whether to go or not. Of course, yes is my choice here - for though it’s a tragedy, it’s the last of these paths to take - we get young Stefan and Mum on the train, cut to black, and then see that older Stefan has died in Dr. Haynes’ office. We then get shown a TV screen and the credits come rolling in, whether we like it or not. And there’s what seems almost a tune playing but we’ll get back to that because if you’re a ZX Spectrum fan like myself, you know where that’s headed.

Ending Five Analysis: Alright, now there’s debate to be had here. Did Stefan really walk through a mirror and change time, undoing his own existence in the present, rendering himself dead on the spot? Did he slip away into a divergent reality and leave his original one behind? Or did he, in reliving the trauma with Dr. Haynes, live too far into it and died? Well, my opinion is that the last of those three is true. (Although, this conclusion is a little shot in the foot for me personally because I never discussed the death of Stefan’s mum with Dr. Haynes ever. Unless you try to make the conclusion that the entirety of my personal run through this game even from Stefan getting up at the very start of it was all in his reliving). Time to come clean about something I’ve been hinting through this post. Delusions. Almost all of the endings involve delusions. But, you’ll have to wait until the end of this chapter before I bring all of that together.

Ending Four-B: “Cut!” - having taken Stefan down the Netflix path and into a fight with Dr. Haynes, I told him to jump through the window. He runs to the window but it doesn’t open - and then we hear something shout CUT! The view pulls out to reveal that Stefan is in a studio, and that - in a very meta move - all of this is just a production being made (for TV, for film... for Netflix?) and that trying to jump out of the window isn’t in the script. Stefan is then addressed as Mike and it seems to be the case that he has fallen a little too much into character. The studio assistant, worried with his insistence that he is Stefan, rushes off to find a medic. And that’s the end of that.

Ending Four-B Analysis: Firstly, I put this with Ending Four because it’s down a similar path, and once again we become Stefan... sorry, Mike’s delusion. And this led me to an interesting thought about this universe where we’ve taken control of a delusional actor - is the alternative for taking the Netflix sign, which is having the fight with Dr. Haynes (as “scripted”) and being dragged off just a part of this universe’s production? In that instance, is the delusional then our own that this world is a reality when - surprise, surprise, it’s a Netflix production (and presumably, in that universe, also a Black Mirror episode)? Secondly, as an aside, the only option presented to me after this ending for a rewind was “Get Rabbit From Dad”...

Well, there you go, five “main” endings (and a bit) and an awful lot for me to explain...

Except... Ending Six. What I Believe Is The True “Main” Ending.

So we lead Stefan back to the sign, give him the Diverging Paths sign (or call it Whitebear, if thus inclined.), make him kill Dad, and make him chop up the body. Then, the Boss and Colin discuss the fact that Stefan is late with his work - Colin convinces him to leave Stefan be for another day. And what happens here on, well, happens. It’s worth noting the reluctance and pain Stefan has carrying out the order we gave him to chop up his Dad. But then, it’s contrasted by the lack of emotion he shows in Dr. Haynes’ office. Perhaps he’s taken that JFD documentary to heart about believing that if all paths occur, and there is no free will - then why care? Why feel guilt on behalf of what seems to be destiny? And honestly, I can’t blame Stefan... Because he doesn’t have free will here, we’re throwing decisions at him and he’s along for the ride. We made him kill his dad. We made him chop him up. 

And herein lies our delusion. That in making these choices for him, we have a choice. Because we really don’t - we’re in a Bandersnatch of our own (if you’re a CYOA fan then you might’ve sensed this coming...) and honestly, we should’ve known from the start. We’re the ones that selected the option Black Mirror: Bandersnatch on Netflix and hit play, after all. Just as Stefan has pulled back from making an infinity of paths and left enough complexity to make it seem so. I mean, I’ll be blunt here even though I’ve yet to discuss it in depth in Chapter Two - technically, there is no way that any one human being is getting through every possible path/universe. To us, it may as well be infinite. And yet, it’s all just an illusion of free will.

Endings Two and Three all push us, the player, bluntly into going back into this warren of choices - to try again. Pushing us further on. Ending Four is more subtle, toying with us by giving us a tragic ending for Stefan so we feel inclined to go again and do better for him (and in my case, straight up offers up a path to Ending Five, and what seems a more hopeful ending until you get into it.) Ending One is even there if you decide to take the choice to not make any choices, to not interfere at all. Leaving the universe on course - but of course, this is our game and trap so it tells us not so subtly to try again as well.

And Ending Five leads us to ending with... A delusion. There’s the crux of the matter.

Ending One is our delusion that we can game the system by not getting involved.

Ending Two is Stefan’s (and our) delusion that if we play by the nicest choices and rules of life, it’s all going to turn out happily.

Ending Three is Stefan’s delusion (spurred on by the acid? by Colin’s way of thinking? by both?) that if infinite worlds are out there and free will is an illusion then what does it matter if he jumps?

Ending Four is where Stefan becomes delusional as a result of us and ends up locked up. We are the delusion. Four-B is where Stefan himself, as a person, is the delusion.

Ending Five is either the delusion of a man who relived his trauma too deeply or the delusion of us in thinking that when the paths were all clear and we had what seemed like a final end, that it would be happy. (Or none of the above, if you really want to go analysing this one differently.)

And Ending Six is our delusion. “And now, they’ve only got the illusion of free will but really, I decide the ending.”

In a few short seconds, we realise that we have been the Stefan of Charlie Brooker and co. - being led towards this ending that is out of our hands now. Despite all the paths and other endings you take, you’re likely to end up back here. 

And as Stefan says about how he thinks Bandersnatch led to a happy ending, and we see him in his room, with his computer - and walls covered in paths; trying to make sense of the maze he’s playing... well, I think you can piece together the parallels between him and us.

And then we’re landed with the fact that he’s kept his dad’s head. And the 5/5 review we’ve been looking for all game finally comes, but then it turns out even that comes at a price. We’ve driven Stefan insane, certainly - and we’ve tainted the happiness of a moment we were striving for. And there’s a final delusion for us - the delusion that whatever choices were out there for us to make, we could get an ending where everyone lives, Stefan is happy, the game gets 5/5 and all is well. But we can’t. No matter what Stefan does, he can’t divert from the path we choose and no matter what we do, we can’t divert from the path Charlie Brooker chose.

Colin’s daughter takes up the mantle of her father, inspired by having found Stefan’s work, just as Stefan was inspired by having found Jerome F Davies’. (She even has Jerome’s book as well!) And one more time, we fall into the meta hole as it’s revealed that she’s creating her game for TVs and smart devices under Netflix. Her game is the Bandersnatch we’re playing. 

As a parting shot, Charlie Brooker brings himself into the web the one we can without completely shattering what remains of the fourth wall. Pearl represents him, trapped in the same madness, trying to put this game together. We are given our final choice - and either way, it’s a moot choice. Both destroy Bandersnatch. Both cause the screen to cut out - did we just erase Bandersnatch? Does it matter, given that our choice or even abstaining meant nothing in the end?

And I suppose you have to feel sympathy for Charlie Brooker, because the pain Stefan felt and the pain we felt - he’s no stranger to it.

And we’re left with one question now that the game is gone: What about real life?

Chapter 2: Why A Flowchart Won’t Ever Cut It (Technically)

TO BE ADDED SOON

Chapter 3: So Many Easter Eggs

TO BE ADDED SOON

Chapter 4: The Best Way To Document Every Piece Of Bandersnatch

TO BE ADDED SOON

Chapter 5: Us

TO BE ADDED SOON

[dewmie-in]

my su theories and predictions so far - the tl;dr-est version I can write:

Several boardies have individual symbols hinted at in their character designs (especially hairstyles) and the art direction in episodes where they have major roles. These symbols are used as the most indirect method of exposition and foreshadowing in episodes where they do not appear or have cameos only.

Characters can also be foreshadowed with more direct symbols such as a statue (Dewey) or a mailbox (Jamie). (See here, here and this tag: character symbols)

One character can also ‘speak for’ another for foreshadowing purposes. When another character’s direct/indirect symbol is used, or when they are pictured or mentioned in passing immediately before or after a scene. (See this tag: a for b)

Founder of Beach City William Dewey and Buddy Budwick were revived or at least healed by Rose. William Dewey died again and is currently “frozen” somehow. (see the tag it melted gary)

Revived/healed lifeforms effectively become part gem - they are usually ‘assigned’ a cut of serpentine, referencing Ronaldo’s sneeple. At this point, a limited number of gems are available for revived/healed humans.

Steven will revive William Dewey; this may kill Lars a second time because Lars is currently ‘occupying’ William’s gem (williamsite). Lion is occupying Buddy Budwick’s gem (lizardite). (See more here.)

(Ex-Mayor) Bill Dewey, Yellow Tail and Peedee were created with gem technology. Rose was involved in their creation and the Diamonds’ initials (with Yellow Tail as ‘Yellow Dad’) were their namesakes. William Dewey’s sharing White Diamond’s initials inspired Rose’s naming scheme for the others.

Bill Dewey is a fusion experiment with Rose, William Dewey and Buddy Budwick (See the tag billiam and find an easy flowchart here):

Nanefua calls him “Billiam” in Dewey Wins - Billiam is Bill's real first name. Fusion!

He often clasps his hands together (Political Power; Dewey Wins) or hugs himself (Historical Friction; Dewey Wins) as if he’s doing the fusion comforting themself thing.

This makes him 150-200 years old. He can shapeshift/reform to different ages; he has been posing as the ‘son of’ the previous Dewey over the years:

the 'Dewey 4Eva' sign in T-Shirt Club

his first episode is Cat Fingers, the episode that introduces shapeshifting

the looping video of the tomato to the face in Dewey Wins ('again and again and again!')

He is pink, yet has no tan lines; that pink is his natural skin color, similar to how the gems can’t change color schemes when shapeshifting/reforming..

The moss at Dead Man’s Mouth may be part of the gem experiments that created Bill and the others. (see here)

Bill's age-shapeshifting might be what finally teaches Steven how to control his aging better. It could even result in a new re-design for Steven.

Buck Dewey was also created like Bill. Jamie will be revived/healed and imprinted with a gem; he will later travel time with Steven and become Buck’s actual ‘other dad’ so Buck can be created in a similar way Bill was:

Buck’s skin tone is a combination of Jamie’s and Bill’s if you generate the midpoint between them. (see here - the circles are eyedroppered from character sheets, but the hex code is the auto-generated midpoint!)

Buck has a similar nose and mouth to Rose.

Jamie and Jamie-as-Buddy are both shown in the same anachronistic historical room in Love Letters and Buddy’s Book, centuries apart.

Bill/Jamie is going to become a canon ship so all this can happen - they will most likely get together after Bill/Barb and Jamie/Smiley happen as ‘red herring’ ships of some kind. (see the tag love quadrangle). Barb will most likely end up with Andy. No idea what will happen with Mr. Smiley.

Steven may meet Rose while time traveling with Jamie.

That’s it for now. Thanks for reading - questions and theory ripping welcome!

[newadventuresinheeling]

The start of my new adventure

There are several friends and fellow obedience enthusiasts that I see whose teamwork leaves me almost breathless in admiration. The teamwork, silent communication and absolute joy they display in the ring inspires me to ‘be more like them’.

I love my dogs and long ago decided force based training was not for me, and have been expanding my training tool-set. But still, some teams truly show a level of skill and just beauty that I continue to search for ways to improve.

Several of my dogs have taken me to higher levels of understanding and levels of expertise, but still I have so much to learn.

One person whose teamwork with her dogs I greatly admire, Lara, posted about an online course by Alex Robinson. The class was in a silent audit mode since the course had run to completion, but I gladly signed up and my eyes are opening to how these teams build and train. But still, there are gaps in how the coursework is moving and my particular learning style -- I like to see the beginning, the ending and the connecting pieces since that is how I work professionally and a computer software system developer and designer.

I have truly learned so much already, I am really just starting his approach but wanted more information.  I noticed Alex mentioned his mentor Kamal Fernandez. I googled for Kamal Fernandez’s  online course area and signed up for 2 sets of classes (Foundations and Heelwork); I do believe this will start putting the pieces together for me. The theory of his methods and steps are explained in a really detailed way I can readily understand and kind of visualize as a combination of Flowcharting & Decision trees, a roadmap if you will. Between Alex and Kamal, the approach truly appeals to me.

How to fit those pieces together and just as important, when to fit everything together. I think Wren will do well -- Brady, Aedan and Finch will surely benefit but they are so far along in their training it will not have as much of an impact.

I am excited!! Kamal explains things very well and Alex adds on with his expertise on how & why dogs from strong working lines may not do best with pure shaping but may benefit from being shown. Between the 2 courses, and of course FDSA, I think the approach will do me and all my dogs well.

I will of course continue with my FDSA courses as well as my in person classes, but I truly feel the addition of these 2 resources will really help me evolve my training and help not only my current dogs, but all future dogs as well.

[automatismoateo]

I'm a Jehovah's Witness who is now an agnostic. via /r/atheism

I'm a Jehovah's Witness who is now an agnostic.

I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness and as of now I still am one. I don't have the circumstance or resources to live on my own so as of now I've kept m true beliefs to myself.

Many of you might've had an encounter with Jehovah's Witnesses. And first of all I just wanted to say sorry, because I've knocked at many doors under the pretense of having a friendly talk or a civil discussion although they were all just a facade to gradually convert any interested individual.The truth is I've always hated going door-to-door and preaching. I mean the waking up early part and it felt like a ritual but that wasn't the actual reason. It felt... like we were indirectly deceiving people because we never introduce the most foundational parts of the doctrine until the student is comfortable with us and after we bond with them.Sometimes whenever I've had to explain particular doctrines I'd cringe on the inside because I never believed it in myself. It's just I've felt that in my opinion, the Jehovah's Witness Organization cherry picks verses to back their doctrines and interpret certain verses as symbolic or literal whenever it works for them.

But that was just my opinion. They were tiny doubts which sprang up when I was mentally adhering to what this organization said.I didn't realize that I was in a cult. I just thought that it was a religion which truly cared for its members and one that takes a proactive role in ensuring the members stay.

I was indoctrinated so much that I couldn't even notice the warning signs.

I rejected scientific theories like Evolution and the Big-Bang without even looking at them just because my religion said that it was false. Instead of looking at scientific literature, I looked at what the organization's publications had to say about them.

The JW Organization has discouraged critical thinking and obtaining higher-education by attributing them as Satanic thinking and being rebellious.

This organization systematically suppresses the logical faculties of its members in this way.

And what if you express your doubts? Your doubts will be answered. But never question their answers.

Questioning the organization was always discouraged. It was only something a rebellious apostate would do.

You would be disciplined by the Elders, and it is firm. People who question the organization could get disfellowshipped or in other words, ex-communicated. Everyone you know in the organization would have to stop talking to you because you were "mentally-diseased". I've seen this happen to people, and I was scared. I wished it never happened to me.

And you were discouraged from making friends in the "world" or in other words, anybody who isn't a JW. Which would leave you stranded if you left or were removed.

If you were born in this organization, disfellowshipping meant you lost your entire social circle. The organization even called it a "blessing from God". It was meant to be a "loving provision" to encourage the person to return to the organization. It was blatant emotional manipulation. You could get disfellowshipped if you did anything wrong and if the elders deemed that you were unrepentant. And if you were an apostate, chances are you could never come back, because according to them you might be a lost cause.

This fear keeps many of us in our places. Fear of displeasing our god, enforced by a tightly-knit community or in other words a cult. Except we didn't live in a physical compound. Limiting our associates, and controlling us was an effective way to ensure that mentally we were shackled to this community.

As of now, I am an active Jehovah's Witness. If I expressed my true beliefs, it could cause serious repercussions. I'm also a teenager so I will be following the valuable advice in this sub's wiki's coming-out flowchart.

Yesterday, I decided that I would post my story of breaking free from the mental chains that were put on me from my childhood indoctrination in this organization on the r/exjw subreddit.

For many Jehovah's Witnesses, the fact that they are in a cult is never apparent. The word cult has such a negative and extreme connotation that when people told me that I was in a cult I would get a mental image of some cannibals or Satanists doing some weird rituals. Of course Jehovah's Witnesses weren't some weird sex-cult like The Family International or some extreme apocalypse cult which told us to inject poison into our bloodstream or eat poisoned apple pudding.

But Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult.

Steven Hassan's BITE model of Authoritarian Control helped to realize that.

If you had a look at that, and if you are aware of how the JW Organization works, then you can see that the organization ticks a considerable amount of boxes in that checklist.

To give an example Information Control.

The organization does not tolerate the reading of "apostate" material.Any literature made by an Ex-JW or any critical info on the organization was to be avoided at all costs. They use many analogies like it's poison and they're full of lies.

I trusted the organization with every cell in my brain.

In my post in the r/exjw subreddit, I describe the difficulty I had in unravelling all the mental barriers that prevented me from reading those articles.

But many YouTube videos, posts on this subreddit and especially videos made by TheraminTrees helped me to use my critical thinking abilities.

But before I conclude I wanted to highlight an important point, Jehovah's Witnesses aren't bad people. They're just ordinary people, many who have been deluded into believing in this organization by childhood indoctrination, covert manipulation and conversion especially when many people were going through hard times in their lives and other genuine people who just didn't realize it yet. They preach because they have a genuine interest in saving you and also because they want to save themselves because preaching is pretty important to get "saved".

Now I don't believe in the Judeo-Christian god, because when I looked at the Bible from a cold perspective I felt that he was a genocidal, totalitarian, narcissistic and impulsive psychopath.

When I was raised as a Christian, the various justifications, rationalizations and interpretations made me view him as a loving, just and compassionate God.

With over 45,000 denominations in Christianity, all claiming to be true, representing the same god in many ways all from one single book, you can see that interpretations are very subjective, the personality of God himself becomes subjective.

And after some thinking, I have come to terms with Science, Science is the only objective search for truth.

Science has messed up in the past but atleast they had the decency to accept their shortcomings and move on, but religions continue to pose as infallible organizations while committing the same atrocities again and again.

I was raised up in an organization that tried to whitewash its past, and despite stating to be fallible and imperfect they suppress people who ask questions. I found that contradictory.

In the end, I came to the conclusion that:

I don't know if there is a god but if he exists then I wonder what the hell he is doing.

But to conclude, I'd like to quote TheraminTrees, "Those who don't want you to think are never your friend."

Submitted February 13, 2022 at 08:34AM by StayStrongKeepGoing (From Reddit https://ift.tt/IU1BOgR)

[alfielaneart]

 Above is a link to an exhibition overview from 2018 at the Met Museum, exploring the theme of conspiracy in art from the 60s to the present. There were a lot of really interesting artists involved that caught my attention, that I’d like to research into further.

The exhibition is divided into two parts: The first half explores deceit and communities in crisis, working with facts and research as the basis for the work. The artist Mark Lombardi creates huge pencil drawings of webs or flowcharts, documenting links between figures in finance, government and the military-industrial complex. Trevor Paglen takes photograph’s of ‘black sites’ where people would be taken by the US Government to be tortured. I was really drawn to the work of Jenny Holzer, who uses text from government documents in public spaces as LED signs. I think it could be an interesting idea to use Government documents and excerpts of text as part of the collage aspect of my work, working on top of it with lots of layers to give it the look of an old artefact which would fit in with the theme of create work as part of an imagined future. 

The second part explores the stranger side of conspiracy, with artists such as Jim Shaw and his Martian Portraits, displaying self-portraits of people next to their Martian Doppelgängers. I love the sinister tone that the work evokes with the blurred effect of the portraits. I think it could be interesting to do something similar with the images I use in my work, such as political figures or the monarchy, creating side by side portraits of them with their conspiratorial depiction as an alien or as a reptilian creature, referencing the more extreme conspiracies that suggest the elite are actually non-human. I think it will be really intriguing for my practise to also research into how these types of conspiracies arise as a result of the socio-political climate and distrust in the Government from the 1960s onwards. Soft pastels or charcoal could work really effectively to evoke the same ghostly look as these portraits:

I looked further into critical overviews of the exhibition, particularly this one:

https://bordercrossingsmag.com/article/everything-is-connected-art-and-conspiracy1

The writer flags up the crossovers between political protest and conspiracy, and how it is important to have the distinction between political art and conspiracy so that the reliable facts and genuine issues are not lost under the blanket of conspiracy:

“One mistake the show made, however, is the analogized overlapping drawn between conspiracy theory and political protest. In conspiracy theory, we are in fact speculating...we do not know for sure what truth there is to our conjectures.”

“In political protest...we are at the least operating with a large degree of reliable knowledge...even in calling for greater governmental transparency.”

“The thing about art about conspiracy theory is, when it’s really good, it provides an explanation for why these (mostly) seemingly questionable theories exist.“

I think its useful when going to explore this in my practise, especially considering that i am investigating both very real political issues and systems alongside ideas that go agains the narrative, that I don’t loose the impact of genuine socio-political themes. I think that the method brought up in my 1 to 1 crit will be helpful: Having an alter-ego that I can use in my work to delve a lot deeper into extreme conspiracies, allowing me to be objective about them and pick out the pieces of genuine concern and truth from the theories.

[theuniversitychallengereview]

UC 50.25 - Magdalene, Cam vs Birkbeck

It’s January again, and we’re settling in for a grim two plus months of a lockdown that should never have been necessary, and which is in the dark winter months rather than the warm(ish) summer months. But on the bright side we’ve reached the quarter finals of University Challenge, which is my favourite stage of the competition, and which Paxman loves to describe in ever-increasing hyperbole each year. 

The format is more complicated than a standard knockout, admittedly, but I’m looking forward to seeing which analogy he uses to describe its apparently absurd complexity - my money is on something to do with minotaurs and labyrinths (I don’t think he’s used that one before).

In honour of the lengths to which Paxo goes to convince us that to understand the quarter final format is to solve string theory (I’m really hoping he says something along these lines now, having written all this before the episode came out) I am going to try and explain the rules in the most needlessly convoluted manner possible (complete with a dodgy, difficult to follow diagram I just drew on Paint).

So, as you can clearly see from the below infographic, there are thirteen matches remaining in this years series of The Challenge. Ten of these are in the quarter final stage - demarcated by the big red box on the diagram. Now, usually when there are eight teams left in a knockout tournament there are four matches in the round - eight into two is four, and four teams progress while four go home. The end outcome here is the same, but the journey to reach said outcome is markedly different. 

There is a semi-well known knockout format called double-elimination (flowchart below), which is fairly similar to this in that it takes two defeats to get knockout out, but differs in that you don’t progress to a straight knockout semi-final stage (full disclosure I’m now slightly confusing myself, and for a moment thought that the UC format was exactly the same as double-elimination, but its not... I don’t think). 

The first part is the same - four matches are played and the winners and losers of these matches then face off in four more matches (winners vs winners and losers vs losers). The winners of the winners vs winners progress to the semi final stage (there are two such teams), and then the losers of the winners vs winners play the winners of the losers vs losers for the final two spots. It wasn’t that bad actually, I’ll try and level up the bamboozlement next time.

This means that we see four teams play twice at this stage and four play three times, which is what makes it so fun. you see the same people popping up again and again which makes it easier to identify with particular teams and players before the real business end of the tournament starts in the semis.

With that in mind tonight’s two teams are the winning sides from the previous two second round matches. Magdalene College, Cambridge came back from behind with a run of over a hundred points in a row to defeat Oxford rivals Corpus Christi in their second round match, while Birkbeck cruised to a 205-95 win over The Open University in theirs.

Both were entertaining matches, so hopefully this one continues in the same vein; here’s your first starter for ten.

Birkbeck captain Williams spent almost the entirety of their last match with a child-like grin on his face, and he starts this one off the same way as Clarke takes the opening question. Paxo teases her for taking so long to get Francis Bacon, as a medieval historian. Two bonuses give them twenty points, and Taylor continues his fine form to extend this with rats on the next starter.

Byrne gets Magdalene going with a tentative buzz on Bulgaria, and Paxman spends a while explaining why their correct answer on the first bonus is in fact correct. Byrne continues his alliterative buzzing streak with badger on the next starter and Mags snuck into the lead with two bonuses on Meryl Streep. 

The alliteration is broken by Aristotle, but Byrne completes his hat-trick with the first picture starter, on eponymous curves. Clarke then got Birkbeck out of their mini-rut with a fairly late buzz on what seemed like a fairly easy Shakespeare starter (not that I knew it), and a couple of bonuses tied the game at sixties.

A set of bonuses on RNA saw Lawson invent the phrase ‘small nucleotide operon’ for snoRNA. Perhaps unsurprisingly he was not right (it was ‘small nucleolar’), but a grinning Davies buzzed in with Elves on the next starter (even Paxo gave a wry smile too) to put Mags in control following a 65-0 streak.

Mutio recognises John Coltrane within about two seconds on the music starter, and a couple of bonuses cut the gap, but a neg from Williams next time around handed the initiative back to Cambridge. The Birkbeck skipper redeemed himself soon enough with Golden Apple, and the Londoners found themselves back in the running. Taylor, who is old enough to have been there, knows that Jimi Hendrix last performed in England at the Isle of WIght festival, and Birkbeck were level. What a comeback.

But we weren’t done yet, and Lawson took the second picture starter with gleeful relish to wrest back the lead. One more for Byrne and another for Lawson saw the lead boomerang back out to seventy points. Comeback neutralised. Surely this was it, and it was.

Final Score: Magdalene, Cam 240 - 140 Birkbeck

What a match that was, the highest scoring match of the series so far, and probably the closest one hundred point margin I’ve ever seen on the show. Magdalene found some serious form when it mattered at the end. 

They look seriously strong going into the first winners vs winners match against next weeks winners, and I’m certainly not going to rule Birkbeck out of the first losers vs losers match either. 

As always, thanks for reading, and I’ll be back next week for another quarter final match (game 2 on the above graphic)

If you’d be interested in even more University Challenge Reviews then you can click the link below to my Patreon where I’ve been doing retro reviews for the 2015/16 series, which is the one that inspired me to start this blog (assign praise or blame as you see fit). You can sign up for as little as £1/month and I’m so grateful for everyone who supports me over there, thanks :)

https://www.patreon.com/user?u=16447756&fan_landing=true

[shirlleycoyle]

What Alternate Reality Games Teach Us About the Dangerous Appeal of QAnon

This story was originally published on mssv.net by Adrian Hon (@adrianhon)

The far-right QAnon conspiracy theory is so sprawling, it’s hard to know where people join. Last week, it was 5G cell towers, this week it’s Wayfair; who knows what next week will bring? But QAnon’s followers always seem to begin their journey with the same refrain: “I’ve done my research.”

I’d heard that line before. In early 2001, the marketing for Steven Spielberg’s latest movie, A.I., had just begun. YouTube wouldn’t launch for another four years, so you had to be eagle-eyed to spot the unusual credit next to Haley Joel Osment, Jude Law, and Frances O’Connor: Jeanine Salla, the movie’s “Sentient Machine Therapist.”

Close-up of the A.I. movie poster

Soon after, Ain’t It Cool News (AICN) posted a tip from a reader:

“Type her name in the Google.com search engine, and see what sites pop up…pretty cool stuff! Keep up the good work, Harry!! –ClaviusBase”

(Yes, in 2001 Google was so new you had to spell out its web address.)

The Google results began with Jeanine Salla’s homepage but led to a whole network of fictional sites. Some were futuristic versions of police websites or lifestyle magazines; others were inscrutable online stores and hacked blogs. A couple were in German and Japanese. In all, over twenty sites and phone numbers were listed.

By the end of the day, the websites racked up 25 million hits, all from a single AICN article suggesting readers ‘do their research’. It later emerged they were part of one of the first-ever alternate reality games (ARG), The Beast, developed by Microsoft to promote Spielberg’s movie.

The way I’ve described it here, The Beast sounds like enormous fun. Who wouldn’t be intrigued by a doorway into 2142 filled with websites and phone numbers and puzzles, with runaway robots who need your help and even live events around the world? But consider how much work it required to understand the story and it begins to sound less like “watching TV” fun and more like “painstaking research” fun. Along with tracking dozens of websites that updated in real time, you had to solve lute tablature puzzles, decode base 64 messages, reconstruct 3D models of island chains that spelt out messages, and gather clues from newspaper and TV adverts across the US.

This purposeful yet bewildering complexity is the complete opposite of what many associate with conventional popular entertainment, where every bump in your road to enjoyment has been smoothed away in the pursuit of instant engagement and maximal profit. But there’s always been another kind of entertainment that appeals to different people at different times, one that rewards active discovery, the drawing of connections between clues, the delicious sensation of a hunch that pays off after hours or days of work. Puzzle books, murder mysteries, adventure games, escape rooms, even scientific research—they all aim for the same spot.

What was new in The Beast and the ARGs that followed it was less the specific puzzles and stories they incorporated, but the sheer scale of the worlds they realised—so vast and fast-moving that no individual could hope to comprehend them. Instead, players were forced to cooperate, sharing discoveries and solutions, exchanging ideas, and creating resources for others to follow. I’d know: I wrote a novel-length walkthrough of The Beast when I was meant to be studying for my degree at Cambridge.

QAnon is not an ARG. It’s a dangerous conspiracy theory, and there are lots of ways of understanding conspiracy theories without ARGs. But QAnon pushes the same buttons that ARGs do, whether by intention or by coincidence. In both cases, “do your research” leads curious onlookers to a cornucopia of brain-tingling information.

In other words, maybe QAnon is… fun?

ARGs never made it big. They came too early and It’s hard to charge for a game that you stumble into through a Google search. But maybe their purposely-fragmented, internet-native, community-based form of storytelling and puzzle-solving was just biding its time…

This blog post expands on the ideas in my Twitter thread about QAnon and ARGs, and incorporates many of the valuable replies. Please note, however, that I’m not a QAnon expert and I’m not a scholar of conspiracy theories. I’m not even the first to compare QAnon to LARPs and ARGs.

But my experience as lead designer of Perplex City, one of the world’s most popular and longest-running ARGs, gives me a special perspective on QAnon’s game-like nature. My background as a neuroscientist and experimental psychologist also gives me insight into what motivates people.

Today, I run Six to Start, best known for Zombies, Run!, an audio-based augmented reality game with half a million active players, and I’m writing a book about the perils and promise of gamification.

It’s Like We Did It On Purpose

Perplex City “Ascendancy Point” Story Arc

When I was designing Perplex City, I loved sketching out new story arcs. I’d create intricate chains of information and clues for players to uncover, colour-coding for different websites and characters. There was a knack to having enough parallel strands of investigation going on so that players didn’t feel railroaded, but not so many that they were overwhelmed. It was a particular pleasure to have seemingly unconnected arcs intersect after weeks or months.

Merely half of the “Q-web“

No-one would mistake the clean lines of my flowcharts for the snarl of links that makes up a QAnon theory, but the principles are similar: one discovery leading to the next. Of course, these two flowcharts are very different beasts. The QAnon one is an imaginary, retrospective description of supposedly-connected data, while mine is a prescriptive network of events I would design.

Except that’s not quite true. In reality, Perplex City players didn’t always solve our puzzles as quickly as we intended them to, or they became convinced their incorrect solution was correct, or embarrassingly, our puzzles were broken and had no solution at all. In those cases we had to rewrite the story on the fly.

When this happens in most media, you just hold up your hands and say you made a mistake. In video games, you can issue an online update and hope no-one’s the wiser. But in ARGs, a public correction would shatter the uniquely-prolonged collective suspension of disbelief in the story. This was thought to be so integral to the appeal of ARGs, it was termed TINAG, or “This is Not a Game.”

So when we messed up in Perplex City, we tried mightily to avoid editing websites, a sure sign this was, in fact, a game. Instead, we’d fix it by adding new storylines and writing through the problem (it helped to have a crack team of writers and designers, including Naomi Alderman, Andrea Phillips, David Varela, Dan Hon, Jey Biddulph, Fi Silk, Eric Harshbarger, and many many others).

We had a saying when these diversions worked out especially well: “It’s like we did it on purpose.”

Every ARG designer can tell a similar war story. Here’s Josh Fialkov, writer for the Lonelygirl15 ARG/show:

“Our fans/viewers would build elaborate (and pretty neat) theories and stories around the stories we’d already put together and then we’d merge them into our narrative, which would then engage them more. The one I think about the most is we were shooting something on location and we’re run and gunning. We fucked up and our local set PA ended up in the background of a long selfie shot. We had no idea. It was 100% a screw up. The fans became convinced the character was in danger. And then later when that character revealed herself as part of the evil conspiracy — that footage was part of the audiences proof that she was working with the bad guys all along — “THATS why he was in the background!” They literally found a mistake – made it a story point. And used it as evidence of their own foresight into the ending — despite it being, again, us totally being exhausted and sloppy. And at the time hundreds of thousands of people were participating and contributing to a fictional universe and creating strands upon strands.”

Conspiracy theories and cults evince the same insouciance when confronted with inconsistencies or falsified predictions; they can always explain away errors with new stories and theories. What’s special about QAnon and ARGs is that these errors can be fixed almost instantly, before doubt or ridicule can set in. And what’s really special about QAnon is how it’s absorbed all other conspiracy theories to become a kind of ur-conspiracy theory such that seems pointless to call out inconsistencies. In any case, who would you even be calling out when so many QAnon theories come from followers rather than “Q”?

Yet the line between creator and player in ARGs has also long been blurry. That tip from “ClaviusBase” to AICN that catapulted The Beast to massive mainstream coverage? The designers more or less admitted it came from them. Indeed, there’s a grand tradition of ARG “puppetmasters” (an actual term used by devotees) sneaking out from “behind the curtain” (ditto) to create “sockpuppet accounts” in community forums to seed clues, provide solutions, and generally chivvy players along the paths they so carefully designed.

As an ARG designer, I used to take a hard line against this kind of cheating but in the years since, I’ve mellowed somewhat, mostly because it can make the game more fun, and ultimately, because everyone expects it these days. That’s not the case with QAnon.

Yes, anyone who uses 4chan and 8chan understands that anonymity is baked into the system such that posters frequently create entire threads where they argue against themselves in the guise of anonymous users who are impossible to distinguish or trace back to a single individual – but do the more casual QAnon followers know that?

Local Fame

A Beautiful Mind

Pop culture’s conspiracy theorist sits in a dark basement stringing together photos and newspaper clippings on their "crazy wall." On the few occasions this leads to useful results, it’s an unenviable pursuit. Anyone choosing such an existence tends to be shunned by society.

But this ignores one gaping fact: piecing together theories is really satisfying. Writing my walkthrough for The Beast was rewarding and meaningful, appreciated by an enthusiastic community in a way that my molecular biology essays most certainly were not. Online communities have long been dismissed as inferior in every way to “real” friendships, an attenuated version that’s better than nothing, but not something that anyone should choose. Yet ARGs and QAnon (and games and fandom and so many other things) demonstrate there’s an immediacy and scale and relevance to online communities that can be more potent and rewarding than a neighbourhood bake sale. This won’t be news to most of you, but I think it’s still news to decision-makers in traditional media and politics.

Good ARGs are deliberately designed with puzzles and challenges that require unusual talents—I designed one puzzle that required a good understanding of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs—with problems so large that they require crowdsourcing to solve, such that all players feel like welcome and valued contributors.

Needless to say, that feeling is missing from many people’s lives:

“ARGs are generally a showcase for special talent that often goes unrecognized elsewhere. I have met so many wildly talented people with weird knowledge through them.”

If you’re first to solve a puzzle or make a connection, you can attain local fame in ARG communities, as Dan Hon, COO at Mind Candy (makers of the Perplex City ARG), notes. The vast online communities for TV shows like Lost and Westworld, with their purposefully convoluted mystery box plots, also reward those who guess twists early, or produce helpful explainer videos. Yes, the reward is “just” internet points in the form of Reddit upvotes, but the feeling of being appreciated is very real. It’s no coincidence that Lost and Westworld both used ARGs to promote their shows.

Wherever you have depth in storytelling or content or mechanics, you’ll find the same kind of online communities. Games like Bloodborne, Minecraft, Stardew Valley, Dwarf Fortress, Animal Crossing, Eve Online, and Elite Dangerous, they all share the same race for discovery. These discoveries eventually become processed into explainer videos and Reddit posts that are more accessible for wider audiences.

The same has happened with modern ARGs, where explainer videos have become so compelling they rack up more views than the ARGs have players (not unlike Twitch). Michael Andersen, owner of the Alternate Reality Gaming Network news site, is a fan of this trend, but wonders about its downside—with reference to conspiracy theorists:

“[W]hen you’re reading (or watching) a summary of an ARG? All of the assumptions and logical leaps have been wrapped up and packaged for you, tied up with a nice little bow. Everything makes sense, and you can see how it all flows together. Living it, though? Sheer chaos. Wild conjectures and theories flying left and right, with circumstantial evidence and speculation ruling the day. Things exist in a fugue state of being simultaneously true-and-not-true, and it’s only the accumulation of evidence that resolves it. And acquiring a “knack” for sifting through theories to surface what’s believable is an extremely valuable skill—both for actively playing ARGs, and for life in general.And sometimes, I worry that when people consume these neatly packaged theories that show all the pieces coming together, they miss out on all those false starts and coincidences that help develop critical thinking skills. …because yes, conspiracy theories try and offer up those same neat packages that attempt to explain the seemingly unexplained. And it’s pretty damn important to learn how groups can be led astray in search of those neatly wrapped packages.”

“SPEC”

I’m a big fan of the SCP Foundation, a creative writing website set within a shared universe not unlike The X-Files. Its top-rated stories rank among the best science fiction and horror I’ve read. A few years ago, I wrote my own (very silly) story, SCP-3993, where New York’s ubiquitous LinkNYC internet kiosks are cover for a mysterious reality-altering invasion.

CITYBRIDGE/NYC

Like the rest of SCP, this was all in good fun, but I recently discovered LinkNYC is tangled up in QAnon conspiracy theories. To be fair, you can say the same thing about pretty much every modern technology, but it’s not surprising their monolith-like presence caught conspiracy theorists’ attention as it did mine.

It’s not unreasonable to be creeped out by LinkNYC. In 2016, the New York Civil Liberties Union wrote to the mayor about “the vast amount of private information retained by the LinkNYC system and the lack of robust language in the privacy policy protecting users against unwarranted government surveillance.” Two years later, kiosks along Third Avenue in Midtown mysteriously blasted out a slowed-down version of the Mister Softee theme song. So there’s at least some cause for speculation. The problem is when speculation hardens into reality.

Not long after the AICN post, The Beast’s players set up a Yahoo Group mailing list called Cloudmakers, named after a boat in the story. As the number of posts rose to dozens and then hundreds per day, it became obvious to list moderators (including me) that some form of organisation was in order. One rule we established was that posts should include a prefix in their subject so members could easily distinguish website updates from puzzle solutions.

My favourite prefix was “SPEC,” a catch-all for any kind of unfounded speculation, most of which was fun nonsense but some of which ended up being true. There were no limits on what or how much you could post, but you always had to use the prefix so people could ignore it. Other moderated communities have similar guidelines, with rationalists using their typically long-winded “epistemic status” metadata.

Absent this kind of moderation, speculation ends up overwhelming communities since it’s far easier and more fun to bullshit than do actual research. And if speculation is repeated enough times, if it’s finessed enough, it can harden into accepted fact, leading to devastating and even fatal consequences.

I’ve personally been the subject of this process thanks to my work in ARGs—not just once, but twice.

The first occasion was fairly innocent. One of our more famous Perplex City puzzles, Billion to One, was a photo of a man. That’s it. The challenge was to find him. Obviously, we were riffing on the whole “six degrees of separation” concept. Some thought it’d be easy, but I was less convinced. Sure enough, fourteen years on, the puzzle is still unsolved, but not for lack of trying. Every so often, the internet rediscovers the puzzle amid a flurry of YouTube videos and podcasts; I can tell whenever this happens because people start DMing me on Twitter and Instagram.

This literally came a few days ago

A clue in the puzzle is the man’s name, Satoshi. It is not a rare name, and it happens to be same as the presumed pseudonymous person or persons who developed bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto. So of course people think Perplex City’s Satoshi created bitcoin. Not a lot of people, to be fair, but enough that I get DMs about it every week. But it’s all pretty innocent, like I said.

More concerning is my presumed connection to Cicada 3301, a mysterious group that recruited codebreakers through very difficult online puzzles. Back in 2011, my company developed a pseudo-ARG for the BBC Two factual series, The Code, all about mathematics. This involved planting clues into the show itself, along with online educational games and a treasure hunt.

To illustrate the concept of prime numbers, The Code explored the gestation period of cicadas. We had no hand in the writing of the show; we got the script and developed our ARG around it. But this was enough to create a brand new conspiracy theory, featuring yours truly:

My bit starts around 20 minutes in:

Interviewer: Why [did you make a puzzle about] cicadas?

Me: Cicadas are known for having a gestation period which is linked to prime numbers. Prime numbers are at the heart of nature and the heart of mathematics.

Interviewer: That puzzle comes out in June 2011.

Me: Yeah.

Interviewer: Six months later, Cicada 3301 makes its international debut.

Me: It's a big coincidence.

Interviewer: There are some people who have brought up the fact that whoever's behind Cicada 3301 would have to be a very accomplished game maker.

Me: Sure.

Interviewer: You would be a candidate to be that person.

Me: That's true, I mean, Cicada 3301 has a lot in common with the games we've made. I think that one big difference (chuckles) is that normally when we make alternate reality games, we do it for money. And it's not so clear to understand where the funding for Cicada 3301 is coming from.

Clearly this was all just in fun – I knew it and the interviewer knew it. That’s why I agreed to take part. But does everyone watching this understand that? There’s no “SPEC” tag on the video. At least a few commenters are taking it seriously:

I am the “ARG guy” in question

I’m not worried, but I’d be lying if I wasn’t a touch concerned that Cicada 3301 now lies squarely in the QAnon vortex and in the “Q-web“:

Here’s a good interview with the creator of the “Q-web”

My defence that the cicada puzzle in The Code was “a big coincidence” (albeit delivered with an unfortunate shit-eating grin) didn’t hold water. In the conspiracy theorest mindset, no such thing exists:

“According to Michael Barkun, emeritus professor of political science at Syracuse University, three core principles characterize most conspiracy theories. Firstly, the belief that nothing happens by accident or coincidence. Secondly, that nothing is as it seems: The “appearance of innocence” is to be suspected. Finally, the belief that everything is connected through a hidden pattern.”

These are helpful beliefs when playing an ARG or watching a TV show designed with twists and turns. It’s fun to speculate and to join seemingly disparate ideas, especially when the creators encourage and reward this behaviour. It’s less helpful when conspiracy theorists “yes, and…” each other into shooting up a pizza parlour or burning down 5G cell towers.

Because there is no coherent QAnon community in the same sense as the Cloudmakers, there’s no convention of “SPEC” tags. In their absence, YouTube has added annotated QAnon videos with links to its Wikipedia article, and Twitter has banned 7,000 accounts and restricted 150,000 more, among other actions. Supposedly, Facebook is planning to do the same.

These are useful steps but will not stop QAnon from spreading in social media comments or private chat groups or unmoderated forums. It’s not something we can reasonably hope for, and I don’t think there’s any technological solution (e.g. browser extensions) either. The only way to stop people from mistaking speculation from fact is for them to want to stop.

Cryptic

It’s always nice to have a few mysteries for players to speculate on in an ARG, if only because it helps them pass the time while the poor puppetmasters scramble to sate their insatiable demand for more website updates and puzzles. A good mystery can keep a community guessing for, as Lost did with its numbers or Game of Thrones with Jon Snow’s parentage. But these mysteries always have to be balanced against specifics, lest the whole story dissolve into a puddle of mush; for as much we derided Lost for the underwhelming conclusion to its mysteries, no-one would’ve watched in the first place if the episode-to-episode storytelling wasn’t so strong.

The downside of being too mysterious in Perplex City is that cryptic messages often led players on wild goose chases such that they completely ignored entire story arcs in favour of pursuing their own theories. This was bad for us because we had a pretty strict timetable that we needed our story to play out on, pinned against the release of our physical puzzle cards that funded the entire enterprise. If players took too long to find the $200,000 treasure at the conclusion of the story, we might run out of money.

QAnon can favour cryptic messages because, as far as I know, they don’t have a specific timeline or goal in mind, let alone a production budget or paid staff. Not only is there no harm in followers misinterpreting messages, but it’s a strength: followers can occupy themselves with their own spin-off theories far better than “Q” can. Dan Hon notes:

“For every ARG I’ve been involved in and ones my friends have been involved in, communities always consume/complete/burn through content faster than you can make it, when you’re doing a narrative-based game. This content generation/consumption/playing asymmetry is, I think, just a fact. But QAnon “solved” it by being able to co-opt all content that already exists and … encourages and allows you to create new content that counts and is fair play in-the-game.”

But even QAnon needs some specificity, hence their frequent references to actual people, places, events, and so on.

A brief aside on designing very hard puzzles

It was useful to be cryptic when I needed to control the speed at which players solved especially consequential puzzles, like the one revealing where our $200,000 treasure was buried. For story and marketing purposes, we wanted players to be able to find it as soon as they had access to all 256 puzzle cards, which we released in three waves. We also wanted players to feel like they were making progress before they had all the cards and we didn’t want them to find the location the minute they had the last card.

My answer was to represent the location as the solution to multiple cryptic puzzles. One puzzle referred to the Jurassic strata in the UK, which I split across the background of 14 cards. Another began with a microdot revealing which order to arrange triple letters I’d hidden on a bunch of cards. By performing mod arithmetic on the letter/number values, you would arrive at 1, 2, 3 or 4, corresponding to the four DNA nucleotides. If you understood the triplets as codons for amino acids, they became letters. These letters led you to the phrase “Duke of Burgundy”, the name of a butterfly whose location, when combined with the Jurassic strata, would help you narrow down the location of the treasure.

The nice thing about this convoluted sequence is that we could provide additional online clues to help the players community when they got stuck. The point being, you can’t make an easy puzzle harder, but you can make a hard puzzle easier.

Beyond ARGs

It can feel crass to compare ARGs to a conspiracy theory that’s caused so much harm. But this reveals the crucial difference between them: in QAnon, the stakes so high, any action is justified. If you truly believe an online store or a pizza parlour is engaging in child trafficking and the authorities are complicit, extreme behaviour is justified.

Gabriel Roth, editorial director for audio at Slate, extends this idea:

“What QAnon has that ARGs didn’t have is the claim of factual truth; in that sense it reminds me of the Bullshit Anecdotal Memoir wave of the 90s and early 00s. If you have a story based on real life, but you want to make it more interesting, the correct thing to do is change the names of the people and make it as interesting as you like and call it fiction. The insight of the Bullshit Anecdotal Memoirists (I’m thinking of James Frey and Augusten Burroughs and David Sedaris) was that you could call it nonfiction and readers would like it much better because it would have the claim of actual factual truth, wowee!! And it worked! How much more engaging and addictive is an immersive, participatory ARG when it adds that unique frisson you can only get with the claim of factual truth? And bear in mind that ARG-scale stories aren’t about mere personal experiences—they operate on a world-historical scale.”

ARGs’ playfulness with the truth and their sometimes-imperceptible winking of This Is Not A Game (accusations Lonelygirl15 was a hoax) is only the most modern incarnation of epistolary storytelling. In that context, immersive and realistic stories have long elicited extreme reactions, like the panic incited by Orson Welles’ The War of the Worlds (often exaggerated, to be fair).

We don’t have to wonder what happens when an ARG community meets a matter of life and death. Not long after The Beast concluded, the 9/11 attacks happened. A small number of posters in the Cloudmakers mailing list suggested the community use its skills to “solve” the question of who was behind the attack.

The brief but intense discussion that ensued has become a cautionary tale of ARG communities getting carried away and being unable to distinguish fiction from reality. In reality, the community and the moderators quickly shut down the idea as being impractical, insensitive, and very dangerous. “Cloudmakers tried to solve 9/11” is a great story, but it’s completely false.

Unfortunately, the same isn’t true for the poster child for online sleuthing gone wrong, the r/findbostonbombers subreddit. There’s a parallel between the essentially unmoderated, anonymous theorists of r/findbostonbombers and those in QAnon: neither feel any responsibility for spreading unsupported speculation as fact. What they do feel is that anything should be solvable, as Laura Hall, immersive environment and narrative designer, describes:

“There’s a general sense of, ‘This should be solveable/findable/etc’ that you see in lots of reddit communities for unsolved mysteries and so on. The feeling that all information is available online, that reality and truth must be captured/in evidence somewhere”

There’s truth in that feeling. There is a vast amount of information online, and sometimes it is possible to solve “mysteries”, which makes it hard to criticise people for trying, especially when it comes to stopping perceived injustices. But it’s the sheer volume of information online that makes it so easy and so tempting and so fun to draw spurious connections.

That joy of solving and connecting and sharing and communication can do great things, and it can do awful things. As Josh Fialkov, writer for Lonelygirl15, says:

That brain power negatively focused on what [conspiracy theorists] perceive as life and death (but is actually crassly manipulated paranoia) scares the living shit out of me.

What ARGs Can Teach Us

Can we make “good ARGs”? Could ARGs inoculate people against conspiracy theories like QAnon?

The short answer is: No. When it comes to games that are educational and fun, you usually have to pick one, not both—and I say that as someone who thinks he’s done a decent job at making “serious games” over the years. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible, but it’s really hard, and I doubt any such ARG would get played by the right audience anyway.

The long answer: I’m writing a book about the perils and promise of gamification. Come back in a year or two.

For now, here’s a medium-sized answer. No ARG can heal the deep mistrust and fear and economic and spiritual malaise that underlies QAnon and other dangerous conspiracy theories, any more than a book or a movie can solve racism. There are hints at ARG-like things that could work, though—not in directly combatting QAnon’s appeal, but in channeling people’s energy and zeal of community-based problem-solving toward better causes.

Take The COVID Tracking Project, an attempt to compile the most complete data available about COVID-19 in the U.S. Every day, volunteers collect the latest numbers on tests, cases, hospitalizations, and patient outcomes from every state and territory. In the absence of reliable governmental figures, it’s become one of the best sources not just in the U.S., but in the world.

It’s also incredibly transparent. You can drill down into the raw data volunteers have collected on Google Sheets, view every line of code written on Github, and ask them questions on Slack. Errors and ambiguities in the data are quickly disclosed and explained rather than hidden or ignored. There’s something game-like in the daily quest to collect the best-quality data and to continually expand and improve the metrics being tracked. And like in the best ARGs, volunteers of all backgrounds and skills are welcomed. It’s one of the most impressive and well-organising reporting projects I’ve ever seen; “crowdsourcing” doesn’t even come close to describing its scale.

If you applied ARG skills to investigative journalism, you’d get something like Bellingcat, an an open-source intelligence group that discovered how Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (MH17) was shot down over Ukraine in 2014. Bellingcat’s volunteers painstakingly pieced together publicly-available information to determine MH17 was downed by a Buk missile launcher originating from the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Rocket Brigade in Kursk, Russia. The Dutch-led international joint investigation team later came to the same conclusion.

Conspiracy theories thrive in the absence of trust. Today, people don’t trust authorities because authorities have repeatedly shown themselves to be unworthy of trust – misreporting or manipulating COVID-19 testing figures, delaying the publication of government investigations, burning records of past atrocities, and deploying unmarked federal forces. Perhaps authorities were just as untrustworthy twenty or fifty or a hundred years ago, but today we rightly expect more.

Mattathias Schwartz, contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine, believes it’s that lack of trust that leads people to QAnon:

“Q’s [followers] … are starving for information. Their willingness to chase bread crumbs is a symptom of ignorance and powerlessness. There may be something to their belief that the machinery of the state is inaccessible to the people. It’s hard to blame them for resorting to fantasy and esotericism, after all, when accurate information about the government’s current activities is so easily concealed and so woefully incomplete.”

So the goal cannot be to simply restore trust in existing authorities. Rather, I think it’s to restore faith in truth and knowledge itself. The COVID Tracking Project and Bellingcat help reveal truth by crowdsourcing information. They show their work via hypertext and open data, creating a structure upon which higher-level analysis and journalism can be built. And if they can’t find the truth, they’re willing to say so.

QAnon seems just as open. Everything is online. Every discussion, every idea, every theory is all joined together in a warped edifice where speculation becomes fact and fact leads to action. It’s thrilling to discover, and as you find new terms to Google and new threads to pull upon, you can feel just like a real researcher. And you can never get bored. There’s always new information to make sense of, always a new puzzle to solve, always a new enemy to take down.

QAnon fills the void of information that states have created—not with facts, but with fantasy. If we don’t want QAnon to fill that void, someone else has to. Government institutions can’t be relied upon to do this sustainably, given how underfunded and politicised they’ve become in recent years. Traditional journalism has also struggled against its own challenges of opacity and lack of resources. So maybe that someone is… us.

ARGs teach us that the search for knowledge and truth can be immensely rewarding, not in spite of their deliberately-fractured stories and near-impossible puzzles, but because of them. They teach us that communities can self-organise and self-moderate to take on immense challenges in a responsible way. And they teach us that people are ready and willing to volunteer to work if they’re welcomed, no matter their talent.

It’s hard to create these communities. They rely on software and tools that aren’t always free or easy to use. They need volunteers who have spare time to give and moderators who can be supported, financially and emotionally, through the struggles that always come. These communities already exist. They just need more help.

Despite the growing shadow of QAnon, I’m hopeful for the future. The beauty of ARGs and ARG-like communities isn’t their power to discover truth. It’s how they make the process of discovery so deeply rewarding.

What Alternate Reality Games Teach Us About the Dangerous Appeal of QAnon syndicated from https://triviaqaweb.wordpress.com/feed/

[plaiceonthegreen-blog]

Section 10

Final Completion 

Plaice on The Green Project Evaluation

The Project:

Before commencing with the project, I had to consider a wide range of factors. Firstly, I had to make sure that I chose a suitable client who I would be passionate about working with testing my skillset to the highest level. Selecting a client who would suit my personal skills would allow the work to flourish as If the project was not suited to my personal skills then I would be unable to fulfil the full potential of the project. 

Secondly, relevancy to my degree. As a Digital Marketing student, a creative challenging project would benefit my existing multimedia skills as well as creating new ones (Illustrator, WordPress). Also, I could apply my relevant marketing theory that’s been developed through university to a live client project that can give me real world experience developing my skillset.

Thirdly, selecting a business that had no digital platform was important so that all the work being conducted was completely new. This meant that I could start on a clean landscape with a fresh design and the content that needed to be used. 

The Client/Rationale 

One client stood out who I knew personally. I chose a local fish and chip shop within Sarisbury Green where I had been visiting for over 15 years and worked in for 3. As I was close to the client, I knew that I would be passionate about the work. Before the project the business had no digital/online presence meaning that any impact the website or facebook page would have, it would be big. According to my client the business needed an online presence where they could interact with consumers and offer the relative information needed, as they had seen a decrease in sales compared to competitors who had online profiles. Joining the digital era was key for the business to maintain a high standard reputation which gave me all the information needed for the rationale of this work.

The Plaice on The Green Project: When my client stated her needs and wants, I divided the project into specific parts which needed to be fulfilled. The primary focus was to give the business an online presence by building a website, logo and Facebook page.

Objectives: I had two objectives when conducting this project:

1. Create engaging and visually appealing content that showcases Plaice on The Green supplying the relevant information needed for customers

2. Increase engagement with customers within the local area, using Facebooks potential

Project Planning: 

At the start of the strategic planning to the website I created a SWOT analysis which allowed me to assess my personal and client’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. This offered support in the decision-making aspect of the project. One of the key strengths gathered is that myself and my client can benefit from my digital skills improving as the website would be visually appealing meeting all of my client’s objectives. Critical analysis on this project then allowed me to analyse competitors, gaining an understanding of what we could do differently to gain competitive advantage.

The planning of the project was the most crucial aspect, as planning effectively would allow me to stay organised and keep the time management of the project on schedule. Before creating the artefact’s, I constructed a Gantt and flowchart to stay aware of the various deadlines, allowing me to set production phases for some of the artefact’s being created. These measures allowed me to stay on top of work production and variate time between projects.

Artefact Planning:

Logo: I decided to create the logo first, as it would be the major point of inclusion in the Facebook page and Website. Most of my time was dedicated locating various examples. Although the shape would change the colour pallet of the original would remain which made the logo creation a faster process.

Facebook Page: I dedicated a couple of days to the Facebook page, as already being an experienced user on the business side I knew how to create a page. Following the Gantt Chart, I did allow myself leniency with an extra day of production in case any issues arose.

Website: Production of the website would take the most time so once the other aspects were completed, I could pursue all my focus into this particular artefact. I dedicated 10 days to complete the website, 2 of which were used for research gathering examples, themes and a proposed layout. The rest were used for the production and development.

Risk Assessment Finally, I created a Risk Assessment, presenting technical and client problems that could arise identifying sensible measures to control potential risks during my project. This form helped me improve my problem-solving skills as I could find solutions in complex situations, which kept me confident during the project.

Client Meeting: As production was due to get underway, I met with my client to conduct a survey. Establishing requirements and recommendations based of various examples I had provided. As a result of the client meeting, I now knew what was needed and had a clear picture of what my client wanted for the creation of her artefacts.

The Development:

After the client meeting, I began the development process of the project. The first stage was to look at research of similar websites, logos and pages to gather inspiration.

Logo: When designing the logo, I provided my client with various logos that could be used to suit her needs. My client requested a similar logo to the one used on the branding at present, keeping the element of green as it’s the face of the business. I designed the logo in Adobe Illustrator using various editing techniques, this seemed the best platform to use as the colour palette and reshape tool allowed me to adapt the current logo and send high quality drafts to my client.  After approval I incorporated the logo into the website and Facebook page making the business stand out and recognisable with the audience.

Facebook Page: As I already had experience with Facebook, the development stage for this artefact was not as time consuming compared to others. When creating the “Plaice on The Green” Facebook page, I entered important aspects including address, prices, contact details and offers at the time. I then imported all media which was professionally taken by myself with permission from my client. The main focus was to design it so that when it appeared in search engines people recognised it or would be inclined to enter the page. This therefore meant that the cover image would be key as this grasp’s potential consumers attention. The second task was to create a picture folder that contained the menu, history and about us section as this made the page more personal. This platform was very important both for myself and my client, as I was able to apply my theoretical knowledge of social media marketing into practice and my client received improved engagement from consumers as she wanted.

Website: To construct a professional website I undertook secondary research in terms of graphical designs, colour palettes and page layouts. This allowed me to gain an understanding of what colours would work well with each other and which layout would be appealing to my client’s audience. Before editing the chosen template, I liaised with my client to establish what particular pages she would like in the website, this information became the basis for the production. I then chose a suitable template and implemented 4 pages “Home” “Menu” “History” and “Contact” pages. I then added content including descriptions and media provided by my client as well as new ones taken by myself with client approval and filled in the website. I worked alongside my client sending weekly screenshots of progress which allowed the work to flow and progress at a good rate. This meant the project was completed in timely fashion and the work exceeding my client’s expectations.

User Testing: Once all artefacts were completed user testing was conducted to test the functionality and responsiveness of each artefact. The testing allowed me to pick up final issues with the work before I sent the final product to my client to sign off.

Critical Reflection: Merits/Problems 

In the duration of this project I rarely faced any technical or communication issues. The Gantt and flowcharts allowed me to effectively stay on track completing each piece either on time or before deadlines improving production. As a result of the risk assessment I knew the potential risks in play and tried to avoid these throughout. Constant communication with my client via Facebook made sure she was in the loop of each production phase. The only small technical problem I faced was the re-sizing of the profile picture for Facebook as it could not fit within the profile picture dimensions. This was resolved by evaluating options and reshaping the image in word which fixed the issue. No other technical issues were faced as a result of my research and learning process undertaken in the projects primarily stages.

To conclude I feel that this project was an overall success.  I gained invaluable experience that has not just developed my skillset but the way I look at problems and carefully evaluate alternatives. My client was satisfied with the product and now has a better engagement online, where new customers have begun to engage. This project was successful as a result of constant communication with the client allowing them to be involved in each production phase. 

Future Improvements:

I have learned a lot of lessons from this unit both in regards to project management and website production.

For the future of this project I would encourage my client to offer a budget on promotional activity. First of all, I would purchase the “Premium” plan on WordPress that allows customisation, SEO and website ranking analysis that could benefit the business. This would have allowed me to meet all my clients expectations as I was unable to change certain colours within the website, the premium plan would have allowed me to adapt the CSS so I could remove certain parts such as the purple strip and writing on the website. Additionally, it offers analytics to measure engagement seeing when the website is most popular. 

Secondly, for the Facebook page I would suggest paid advertising, as it allows for more visibility and engagement with potential consumers. This could increase my clients engagement.

Thirdly I would utilise the opportunity to collaborate with a professional photographer as I felt I needed to be more open to working with others. I approached this project very independently from the start with all aspects which created a lot of work however I did not give myself enough time to learn the process of photography. The images used were okay but could have been improved making the overall website more professional. Lastly I would have changed the Menu page, although the Menu is a good quality image it’s fonts do not match with the fonts of the website which you could argue makes it harder to read, again with additional time I would have created a PDF design Menu displaying the same font the website displays throughout improving the experience for users and upping the quality. 

Conclusion: 

Overall both myself and my client were very happy with how this project turned out. With the restrictions of WordPress basic plan I felt that we still achieved a professional artefact as a result of the clear communication between myself and the client. I think that I approached the project with ambition, organising my time well and managing multiple aspects of the project at once. 

As a project manager, I found this experience very exciting and beneficial in understanding what is needed from me to succeed in working with real world clients.