BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Policy & Help >

A new forum for sport? A new forum for games?

  
  

Page: 12(3)456

 
 
The Strobe
10:36 / 03.06.05
Smoothly: I don't think so. None of the other forum titles are mission-related - well, Conversation, Creation, Gathering, maybe, but even they still also explain what's contained within. I don't think it'd be a problem.

I will stand by "Play" over "Games" any day, seriously. There's so much more you can talk about with the former, or that you'd be encouraged to talk about. The explanation can be whatever people have suggested - I like Grey Area's suggestion - but maybe with a little elaboration.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
10:44 / 03.06.05
Again, playing devil's advocate for sport here, but there have also been a number of threads on issues surrounding football- racism, etc- which certainly didn't seem like basic point-scoring (if you'll pardon the expression). Not that I read them, of course- a couple of posts in and I realised I didn't have a clue what was being discussed. But they certainly looked worthwhile.

Namewise, either Games or Play do it for me- I don't think we need to get too hung-up on arguing between the two.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
11:09 / 03.06.05
Games & Play.

If the one covers aspects that the other doesn't, what's wrong with having both? That, and I just really like the look of it. Presuming that we're sticking with having the various areas of the board visible on the index page in alphabetical order, it also means that it'll get put between FTV&T and R&M - that'd seem to be a good place for it anyway, and it's got the added bonus of meaning that you've got most of the titles that contain ampersands next to each other.

I take back a lot of what I was saying about sport yesterday. It was only after I'd gone to bed that I realised I was getting hung up the the whole 'narrative' thng, which is purely the result of my having been playing those sorts of games recently - give it a week and I'll probably be claiming that storylines have no place in games. Also, GA, Seth, Stoatie and others have all made decent arguments for its inclusion which I can't really counter.
 
 
semioticrobotic
11:18 / 03.06.05
While "games" (ludus) is fundamentally different from "play" (paidea), one quickly sees they aren't mututally exclusive (play always has rules, however implicit, and one must play games in order for the games to exist or maintain themselves).

Both terms, really, would work, but I prefer "games" for the title of the new forum. Rule-bound systems is really what we're all driving at.

(Reference: Videogames of the Oppressed, p. 7)
 
 
The Strobe
11:23 / 03.06.05
"Games & Play" is lovely.
 
 
invisible_al
12:01 / 03.06.05
Love the idea of a 'Play' forum, It's always felt a bit uncomfortable discussing computer games in one cramped thread let alone rpg's, board games, ccgs and lrp. All games have certain things in common and things they can learn from each other, check Greg Costikyan's thoughts on the matter

They all could benefit from a Barbelith take on them, I'd certainly like a place to do some deep thoughts on gaming here.

I also don't mind sport being in there as well as I'm sure that Barbelith would have it's own unique take on it.

Oh and it definately should be called 'Play', it rolls off the tongue better I think.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:06 / 03.06.05
Ludos, for future reference, means "a person from Lydia". Otherwise, it sounds as if there's at least a will to try this. Might I suggest that, if it is created, we pull a couple of threads from elsewhere and put them in to start things rolling. The latest videogames thread, say, the "Non-Euro 2004 Football" thread in the Convo, the "Racism in football" which I think was last seen in Head Shop...
 
 
semioticrobotic
12:22 / 03.06.05
Gah. My mistake, Haus. I always screw that up.
 
 
The Strobe
12:59 / 03.06.05
Bryan:

Rule-bound systems is really what we're all driving at.

No, it's not what I'm driving it. There's more to discuss than mere "rule-bound systems". There are games, and sports, and all manner of endeavours, that are scored not according to rules but judged upon merit. See: diving, figure skating. Real-world applications of play, and cultural traits that emerge through gaming (not to mention the social and socilogical aspects of gaming) have everything to do with "play" and nothing to do with "rules".

I don't like being incorrectly told what I'm talking about.

And also, as someone with a fair degree of Latin (to undergraduate level, certainly), don't tell me what the Latin for words is (especially when you're incorrect, as Haus points out). I already know.
 
 
Loomis
13:07 / 03.06.05
I'd be worried about interminable topics about who beat who last Saturday. Topics stating the bleeding obvious, really.

Threads about issues in sport would be very welcome however I can't help but think that if the only enjoyment one derives from games (of whatever sort) is from discussing the surrounding issues then I wonder if they've missed the point. Surely the reason you play or watch them is for the pleasure of the contest, which leads naurally into discussions of who beat who last week, who scored that goal with ten seconds to go, what type of delivery took that batsman's wicket, etc.

I am keen for a sport and games forum but I wouldn't like to feel that I was lowering the tone by discussing a particular match rather than a more worthy issue. Mind you the only sport I watch is cricket and I don't think the forum would be clogging up with cricket threads ...
 
 
semioticrobotic
13:09 / 03.06.05
Paleface:

Real-world applications of play, and cultural traits that emerge through gaming (not to mention the social and socilogical aspects of gaming) have everything to do with "play" and nothing to do with "rules".

I see your direction, but is this really true? Is performance possible without competence? In other words, the "social" of which you speak -- does this not imply a competency based on "rules" that are either explicitly or implicitly defined?

I don't like being incorrectly told what I'm talking about.

For that I apologize.

And also, as someone with a fair degree of Latin (to undergraduate level, certainly), don't tell me what the Latin for words is (especially when you're incorrect, as Haus points out). I already know.

But perhaps others would not? I'm sorry if I somehow insulted you; I certainly don't want to make enemies my first week on the board!
 
 
The Strobe
13:33 / 03.06.05
Oh yes, performance is entirely possibly without competence. You don't need to be good at a game to express yourself through playing it - I think you looking at games too much as a "gamer" and to enough as a "player". Play - within any parameters, rules, fences - is as much about expression as winning. If you don't think so, well, you've never been a child. Quite often, incompetence at a game, or lack of skill, leads to an enhanced level of expression. Look at Bartle's chart of MUD players - those diposed towards conversation or group-play are on opposite ends of the scale from lone task performers and player-killers, and yet the PKs and the obsessive task performers are, according to point scores, far better at the game. And yet in a MUD, part of your "unwritten" score is contribution to the community. Some of the best contributors are not the most skillful players.

Sorry, I'm going off topic, but you ask a question and it needs answering. The reason I raise that Latin point is that you use it completely irrelevantly: the Latin word for play is different to the Latin word for game, but the English words are just as different! We're not trying to explain several foreign concepts that only have one translation; hence, I found your pseudoacademic use of them frustrating.

Off topic marks to Paleface: -1 - but we could easily keep up such discussion in a forum...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:44 / 03.06.05
Everybody. Calm. Down. The ludus/paidia distinction I'd suggest we leave for the moment - apart from anything else, Frasca demonstrates that the definitions of the terms are open to modificatiion even in that very specific context , but more generally I don't think it makes a huge amount of difference to what to call this putative forum.

Loomis: I think it's reasonable to have threads discussing specific sporting events, as we had a thread on, say the Eurovision song contest. The only risk is that nobody else would have seen it or want to discuss it, so you'd have response spread very thinly, but that needn't be the end of the world. I imagine it would find its level - for example, There might be one thread about, say, the European Cup Final, but another thread for general discussion of Premiership matches...
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
13:46 / 03.06.05
You don't need to be good at a game to express yourself through playing it

Oh God, I should hope not. If anyone wants to come round when I'm playing Splinter Cell they can enjoy the new Marx Brothers movie "Sam Fisher: Shit Agent". Slapstick physical comedy galore.

"Games & Play" I like. Manages, to my sleep-deprived brain at least, to sound both academic and fun.

Until now, I think the "keeping videogaming discussion in one thread" approach has indeed cramped the discussion a great deal- people wanting to talk about new releases have been resenting people talking specifications and vice versa, and any conversational "thread" that's been running through the, er, thread has been lost in the middle of several discussions taking place at once. Imagine trying to do that with films, or comics.

And having witnessed various sport-oriented 'lithers "in their cups", as it were, I would put money on that side of things throwing up a lot of good debate as well.
 
 
semioticrobotic
13:46 / 03.06.05
Well, I amicably diasgree with the wide schism you depict between play and games, or between performance and competence, but this is a subject for the new forum, and something we'll no doubt bat around, when the facility becomes available.

As far as ludus is concerend, I use this word only to stay in line with some of the work Frasca, Juul and others have been doing.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:11 / 03.06.05
Incidentally, paidea is Greek. Which is one reason why I am dubious about the value of those terms as distinctors - crossing languages in your terminology for no reason suggests that you haven't got a grip on your subject matter. Also, because paidea means all sorts of things that are not simple "play", and that is likely to muddy the waters. So, let's stick to a nice, Anglo-Saxon, undefined "Games and play", and leave discussion of Caillois - perhaps keep it for a thread in the new forum, if it comes into being, or the Head Shop if not.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
16:23 / 03.06.05
Loomis: I can't help but think that if the only enjoyment one derives from games (of whatever sort) is from discussing the surrounding issues then I wonder if they've missed the point.

Yeah, you're right. As I say, I think those comments were more a reflection of where my head's currently at than an accurate representation of what I actually think. They also sprouted from the attempt to conflate 'videogames' with 'sport' which, as explained previously, doesn't really work for me.

Stoatie: people wanting to talk about new releases have been resenting people talking specifications and vice versa

This, again, is tied in to the issue of quality of discussion. I have absolutely no problem with people talking about specifications, but there's a smart way to do it and there's a dumb way to do it. The smart way is to look fairly and objectively at the issues, talking about the experiences that the differing specs on different hardware can provide, or the business and artistic decisions behind them, or many other things. The dumb way is to stick caps lock on and type NINTENDO IS TEH UNDERPOWERED KIDDY SHIT. I'm all for those threads that do this the smart way. Those threads that do it the dumb way will probably make me want to kill myself.
 
 
Grey Area
19:32 / 03.06.05
And it would be the moderators' job to see that the discussions are maintained within the 'smart' criteria and not degenerate into the l33tsp34k hell you see elsewhere. Yes, we'll probably have the occasional shitstorm in the style described above, but show me a forum that doesn't.
 
 
lekvar
22:48 / 03.06.05
It looks like this has been resolved, but I'd like to put in a belated "yes, please" for a Play & Games forum, one that incorporated videogames and sports.

My biggest downer on including sport would be that there's nothing new there to talk about.
Well, Le Parcour (freerunning) is only a few years old, the rules have not yet been codified. Rollerblading only really caught on about ten years ago. Calvinball? New sports pop up all the time. There was an interesting Parcour discussion in the Temple not too long ago, it generated some interest and then promptly dropped off the page. There's all of the associated aspects, too - fitness, training, exercises... plenty of fodder for discussion.
 
 
Tom Coates
10:22 / 04.06.05
Okay, I think there are problems with "Play" to be honest - and don't laugh at me here - because I think it doesn't protect us enough from bleeding into areas like Toys. I have no problem in and of itself with us having a place to discuss Lego or train-sets, but I'm not sure that this is the environment we would want it to happen in.

I also have really mixed feelings about Sport's relationship with the forum. What I'm really clear that I don't want this forum to be is one in which people discuss transfers of players between football teams. If we want a forum to do that in, then I think that has to be an additional one. I think people said earlier in the thread that if there was going to be a discussion about a particular console game that was going to deteriorate into spoilers, hints and tips, then at least it could be restricted to one thread per game. I don't know that that's possible with Football or Cricket or whatever, and I think much of the exciting stuff to do with narrative, identification, MMORPGs, game theory, immersive fiction, physical interfaces and an enormous amount of other stuff might get lost in a forum with a thread for every match in the sporting calendar.

So far I'm tending towards something banal like "Games & Gaming", with something like, "Computer games, board games, RPGs and game theory" as a description.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
11:43 / 04.06.05
How about 'The Pit' or 'The Ring'? Actually, the media fora seem to have less imaginative names than the discussion ones, so perhaps 'Sports and Games' will have to do.

Spatula Clarke I'd be very worried about the likelihood of a gaming forum eventually becoming full of, well, stupidity.

Which is something I worry about with The Conversation at times...
 
 
Olulabelle
11:46 / 04.06.05
But Tom, like Haus said, general discussion on premiership matches would all go in one thread. It would be such a shame not to include sport just because we're worried about monday morning football office talk. There are ways of dealing with those subjects - a thread specifically for 'football chit-chat' for instance. We have the fashion questions one in A,F&D which acts in a similar way.

There are so many other wonderful subjects that could come up if the forum was open to sport, like Lekvar's suggestion about Parkour. That thread in the Temple would have been far less likely to die if it had been in the new forum, simply because there are people on Lith who never ever visit the Temple. A 'Play and Games' forum encompasses everyone. (And I bet even Nina, who said upthread she would never go there would end up becoming involved!)

So I really think if we're going to have a new forum we should start off with it as open as we can, and then narrow it if we need to later on, if things aren't quite working.

As for using the word 'play', I think most discussion along the lines of the merits of Lego over Mega-bloks* would still occur in Conversation, and any unsuitable threads that did pop up could easily be shifted out of the new forum. We do that for all the other forums already.

* Mega-bloks wins hands down because they have pirate ships and dragons with glowy mouths.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
12:25 / 04.06.05
The "Sport and Games" idea works for me; I think there'd probably be enough non-sport people weighing in to maintain the balance.

Only I want it to be called !!!TEH CLAN WAR ROOM!!!
 
 
Spatula Clarke
13:06 / 04.06.05
How about 'The Pit' or 'The Ring'?

Too gladitorial for me, either of those. Both suggest gaming purely as a form of competition. Work for sport, but not for videogames.

This is sort of the problem, really - videogames can be wildly different things. The focus of some is rules-based competition, so there's a link with sport. The focus of others is leading the player through story, so there's a link with film. And Lego? Well, there seems to be an unwritten rule that any discussion of freeform, 'sandbox' gaming has to mention Lego and toys at least once - there's a link there, too. I mean, Animal Crossing is a videogame, but it's not a game videogame, with a set of rules or a purpose beyond simply playing it - it's a toy videogame.

With that in mind, I'd want the overwhelming focus of the forum to be videogames, obviously, but also to have it be malleable enough that threads on those other things - sport, card games and, yeah, toys (provided that discussion of the last of those was more in-depth than "what toys did you play with when you were a kid" or "OMG look at the new titanium Optimus Prime!") - could take place within it where there's some crossover. Again, though, effective moderation would be important there - we'd need to try and ensure that we weren't just creating a second Conversation forum. It'd probably entail the relocation of the odd thread every now and again, but then that's not anything that we don't already have to do in the other Spectacle areas.

"Football chit-chat," for example, I'd be inclined to move to Conversation, just as I would "film chit-chat" or "music chit-chat." It'd need slightly more focus to really justify sticking around in a dedicated, non-Conversation forum, imo.

I like the term 'play', but not just for the reasons Paleface talks about. You often find that people misinterpret a request for intelligent discussion of videogames as a request for a po-faced discussion of videogames. Like when a certain games mag used to have the tagline "the future of electronic entertainment" - self-conscious embarrassment about the medium. I'd like to see a new forum here strike a balance between the academic and the gut-instinct enthusiastic. And I think that the inclusion of a word like 'play' - if not in the title, then at least in the description - would help that along.

Messy post. Sorry. Possibly contradicted myself in a couple of places.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
13:17 / 04.06.05
If you're set on something along the lines of Games & gaming, Tom, could I suggest changing the description to

Videogames, board games, RPGs, sport - the mechanics of play

? You get sport in there, but as an adjunct rather than a fundamental part, and you also get the mention of play mixed in, along with the suggestion of academia.
 
 
semioticrobotic
13:20 / 04.06.05
I think that's the best one yet, Spatula. All the right elements in all the right proportions.
 
 
Olulabelle
13:37 / 04.06.05
I agree that Videogames, board games, RPGs, sport - the mechanics of play is the best idea so far. It really helps people to see the point of the forum.

However, what I think should be largely ignored since I have only just realised that you don't pronouce the 'Spatular' bit of Spatular Clarke in the way you pronounce the similarly spelt cooking implement.

Thus, I have only just got the joke.
 
 
alterity
13:41 / 04.06.05
For what it's worth, I think that the exclusion of sports from would be a mistake. I don't think that it would become a place for "did you see that call last night? that was bs" discussions, simply because these issues are too ephemeral. The day-to-day grind of many sports precludes online discussions of individual games, except perhaps certain big events like the World Cup or Super Bowl. Otherwise, the nature of this board is not such that it invites discussions of particulars so much as the issues that surround those particulars. I would personally have those conversations face-to-face or through instant messaging.

For those wondering about what one could possibly discuss in regards to sport: there is far more to sports than box scores and feats of strength (sorry for being reductive or pedantic; I don't mean to be so). For example, where would a discussion of the socio-economic impact of the impending Vancouver winter Olympics go under the current system? While one could stick a discussion of the political fallout of NYC's own quixotic bid to host an upcoming Summer Olympics in the Switchboard, it wouldn't quite fit because there are different concerns involved (albeit related ones). Or consider the different strategies of certain professional teams in a given sport. Whether a baseball team is "station-to-station" or a running team is an interesting discussion, and not only because of particulars (the discussion of which, it seems to me, is what many people are against), but also in terms of an overall approach to the game, a philosophy which often incorporates vast amounts of data into newly developed statistical measures.

While I completely understand that many people do not want to take part in such conversations, I think that there may be those who would. As it stands right now, there is nowhere for such discussions to take place. And, as I read it, this thread started out asking about sport, which quickly became games and then switched back, and then both were involved, and now it may be back to just games.

Sorry for rambling. I would just like once again to state that I think that there is a place here for sport and that it would go quite nicely alongside a discussion of games. I can understand why the topics of games and sports might be kept separate, but I don't think that it need be the case.
 
 
Tom Coates
15:10 / 04.06.05
I'm still quite resistant to the Sports angle, but I could probably go with Spatula Clarke's short description under a heading like Games & Gaming. I really think that a post about the socio-economic impact of the Olympics would belong in the Switchboard.
 
 
The Strobe
15:18 / 04.06.05
As someone with a whole heap of vested interest in discussing gaming of all forms, especially videogaming, I entirely agree that to leave out sport is a very bad idea. Sport is, after all, key to our understanding of games as competition - rather than games as exercising our right to play. There is more to games (of all forms) than narratological or interface concerns. Some people won't want a thread on every game released, either; those wishing to discuss more theoretical concerns about anything are going to be less interested in chit-chat, whether we're discussing Resident Halo 5 or last night's Chelsea match.

I personally don't think that the angles Tom is afraid of on Play are anything to be afraid about - but I can see why he might be concerned. I'm loathe to give up on the idea, but hey, it's his board.

I don't think we should do things by half measures, and I honestly think sport is an integral part of "games". It also makes for more interesting cross-discipline conversations.
 
 
alterity
03:12 / 05.06.05
I've read this thread thoroughly and I still can't see why there is so much resistance to sports except that people might "abuse" such a forum by discussing particulars (i.e. last night's game/set/match). If I missed something vital, I'm sure someone will point it out. In response I will say (paraphrasing Paleface) it's Mr. Coates' board. However, I will add that (and this is only my opinion) in order to generate free discussions one has to be prepared for abuse. To paraphrase Marshall McLuhan, "What do you get with freedom? Excesses. . . And what is that? A small price to pay." My point is simply that if the board does not want sports in any way shape or form, then don't have it. Fine. However, if the board does want it, then it should not be denied because someone might overstep the boundaries of its original intention. Which is not to say that the board should sanction racism or sexism or any other ugliness, but rather that the occasional lapse in judgment as to what is permissible in terms of thread creation is a small price to pay for the benefits of such a venue. Of course, I am probably treading way too closely to a whole can of worms of which I am unqualified to speak, having been here not long at all, but there it is.

To be more specific, while my proposed discussion of the Olympics might go well in the Switchboard, and perhaps belongs there entirely and without question, there are still interesting aspects of sport and sports that cannot be discussed currently without stretching certain definitions. Has anyone read Brian Massumi's very philosophical (Deleuzian/Whiteheadian/Bergsonian) analysis of football? While that discussion could fit into the Head Shop in terms of the theory, when you leave the heady grounds of philosophy and begin (as Massumi does) to discuss the artistry of what he calls star players (who fundamentally affect the way the game is played by everyone on the field, such as Michael Jordan or Pele) the topic does not seem to fit as well. Or perhaps someone would want to know why slugging percentage and on-base percentage are better measures than batting average, or just what the heck isolated power means and how the advent of sabermetrics has influenced the front office decisions of contemporary baseball. Perhaps someone would like to discuss revenue sharing as it exists in the NFL as opposed to the system in major league baseball, or the notion of collective bargaining which has for the first time eliminated a whole season of a professional sport in North America (the NHL). It's an interesting discussion for me, as I am generally pro-labor, but find the constant demands of multi-millionaire players for more money more than a bit off-putting. So do I side with management? Tough call, and something that people might want to discuss. I am sure that these issue could fit elsewhere, but they don't seem to fit anywhere well. That's my two cents.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
08:02 / 05.06.05
Might I suggest that we start off accepting sports threads in this new forum and come back in a month or two if it seems like there are problems?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
16:37 / 05.06.05
Lady is wise.
 
 
Loomis
09:21 / 06.06.05
I still have a problem with the antipathy towards discussion of sporting events.

The other spectacle fora don't limit themselves to dicussions of the philosophy of music or tv. They are full of discussions of what bands or writers are up to, developments of their work and new releases, etc. And there's plenty of "Have you heard this band? They're ace." Which is entirely as it should be. Is sport any less a spectacle than pop music? Is enjoying the physical dexterity and quick-thinking strategy of a sportsperson on the field less worthy of comment and appreciation than a musician displaying similar skills on the stage?

If Tom wants to create two fora (one for gaming and one for leisure pursuits or something) then that's fine by me, but I don't see why discussion of specific sporting events should have no place on the board. Sport vs intellect is a dichotomy that I think we can move beyond.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:49 / 06.06.05
I still have a problem with the antipathy towards discussion of sporting events.

I'm inclined to agree. If a single instance of a game - a sporting event - can be seen as synonymous with a single instance of a theatrical performance, or a sporting season as a run of a show - then a gaming forum seems to be as good a place as any to put them. Having said which, enthusiasts might find other areas to discuss sport outside Barbelith, so the traffic might be quite low, but that in itself may not be a deal-breaker - the existence of this forum at all seems predicated on the idea that once it exists more people will want to discuss games (and sport, possibly) than do currently.
 
  

Page: 12(3)456

 
  
Add Your Reply