That's right: this week's podcast is early. You're welcome.
[ Download mp3 - 34 MB ]
00:59 - "literal"
01:21 - Listener Mail: Rachel brings up some very good issues!
03:55 - reading list: Punished by Rewards, The Upside of Irrationality, Drive
05:13 - Curtis rejects your reality and substitutes his own
05:48 - DeeAnn explains the social contract
07:23 - on being exceptional
09:12 - how is The Game like a wedding?
11:22 - say again: You should run a Game because it's fun!
13:16 - why Team Snout prefers first-come-first-served (FCFS)
16:41 - the downside of FCFS
18:11 - and that's why they're called Game Control
19:10 - the Hogwarts Game application nightmare
22:09 - the Midnight Madness invitation anxiety
24:30 - splitting semantic hairs (for great justice)
26:00 - DeeAnn is the perfect counter-example
27:02 - possible side effects of running a Game
28:38 - enjoying the product more than the process
29:36 - where's Spock when you need him?
31:28 - speaking of The Goonies Game...
32:55 - Snout GC is always at least seven people
34:53 - TOMORROW: Puzzled Pint in Portland, Oregon!
35:31 - upcoming events: BANG 23 re-run (September), Ghost Patrol BANG (October)
36:31 - The End
Music: instrumentals from "Code Monkey" and "The Future Soon" by Jonathan Coulton
[ Subscribe to SnoutCast / iTunes link ]
Summary: if she wanted a straightforward answer, then Rachel asked the wrong people :-p.
Let's see... why is Rachel asking this question?
(Theory 1) Rachel is talking some folks into helping her GC a game. These folks, despite many redeeming qualities, are not in XX-Rated. They worry that the game will be perceived as an XX-Rated event. They worry that non XX-Rated folks who help out won't be remembered, won't "earn karma".
(Theory 2) Rachel is planning to GC an event and is planning the application process. She wants to ask folks what a fair process would be. She wants to ask us this before application time, because once the application process starts, the frenzy will hit and she won't be able to get straight answers out of us.
If I were to try to answer this question in the context of (Theory 1), I'd say... make sure your game web sites have Credits pages. Make peace with the fact that different teams tally up karma differently.
Hmm, I bet Rachel already knew that. Paparazzi, BANG XX--they have credits pages, and I'm pretty sure that some of those folks in BANG XX aren't in XX-Rated. I have never seen Pete Demoureille wearing one of those pink t-shirts.
If I were to answer this question in the context of (Theory 2), I'd say... when you ask for the "team resume", make sure it's not just "the team's" accomplishments listed. If someone on GC likes the MIT mystery hunt, ask if anyone on the applying team helped run one.
Hmm, I bet Rachel knew that, too.
I'm out of theories, and I don't think I wrote anything that Rachel didn't already know. Nevertheless, everybody's entitled to my opinion, so I guess I'll post this.
Larry: thanks for your comments! And, obviously, we never promised Rachel a rose garden. :P
We'll do a follow-up, but I guess this episode was all about how DeeAnn and I don't really believe in the "GC karma" application model. Perhaps someone else more qualified to speak on the issue will weigh in before next Monday.
After being rejected for Ghost Patrol (though we were later lucky enough to play in the dry run, which was just as good if not better), The Smoking GNU discussed what we could have done better to make the cut. We came to the conclusion that nothing was wrong, per se, with our application. The paper portion was properly filled out and, as you said, we probably put more time into making our video than playing in the dry run. But it's not like GC will judge based on the quality of a team's video or how much effort they put into it... I mean one of the accepted team's videos was simply clips from a TV show (though it was impressive that they found a clip with an eggbeater in it).
We came to the conclusion that a) we didn't know enough of the right people; b) we hadn't run a Game; and c) we hadn't playtested/volunteered enough. I'm guessing that a) is more a symptom of b) and c), really.
I'm making a wild guess, but I think Red Byer came to similar conclusions, only obviously he *had* run events in the past. Which lead to his GC talk and "every five years" idea.
In the end, though, you're theory may have been proven in that unless it's a labor of love, the chances of reaching "activation energy" goes down considerably. To stretch the marriage analogy further, you're probably going to put more effort into planning it if you love the one your getting married to, as opposed to doing it just for a green card.
Post a Comment