thread: 2006-01-12 : A third kind of me
On 2006-01-12, Brand Robins wrote:
Ben,
I agree, you can't have push and pull in a void and alone. Though it might be interesting to see more BtI type games where most of the push comes from time limit...
However, I think that a lot of the rhetoric around the point isn't so dangerous as you fear. It looks to me less like "I'M A PULLER ALL THE TIME!" and more like "Oh, I'm really excited about this and so want to say that I've always had this little uncomfortable part that couldn't fit into a lot of stuff, and now I see a way it might fit in and so I'm going to identify with that even though I don't think it is all of what I do in game, it just makes it easier to find my niche if I overemphasize my stance in order to make it clear how interesting I find this."
Which, really, isn't all that different from things we've seen in various other developments, or from group identification with just about any idea ever. So if you look at it less like "I'm a puller that means I never push and hate those who do" and more like a Myers-Briggs type indicator, it puts a lot of the worry at ease.
P.S. Dog's whole "the players made a statement, in the next town amplify the situation and go 'What about NOW?'" is a pull thing too, I'm thinking. You can't force someone to make a statement, but you can sure lead them right up to the pond and suggest that dunking their head in would be a great idea.
This makes BL go "Identity politics are harmful to discourse"
It's not that I disagree with you, but I've watched this happen with stance, mode, resolution, and a thousand other parts of theory. Gamers are joiners, and if we want a discourse we have to acknowledge that tendency and fight it tooth and nail.
This makes BR go "Sort of"
Bad identity politics are harmful to discourse. Which I don't know if this is or not as of yet. I think that judging it this fast, however, is at least as bad as the intial jump on board reaction. Patince, patience.
This makes JBR go "Oversimplified identity is harmful to discourse"
If we recognize that "I like pulling" does not mean "I am a puller" or at least does not mean "I am a puller, therefore I am not a pusher," we'll be on much more solid ground. However, most folks crave a label to slap on their foreheads.
This makes BL go "Complicated..."
It's not the "I'm a puller" label that I'm having trouble with. It's the "I'm a non-pusher" label. I've watched this thing turn stupid far too many times to not have a flinch reaction to it.
This makes BR go "Yea well..."
I've watched everything in life turn stupid so many times that I think I'm on the other end of the flinch. Just got my 1000 yard stare on.
This makes MT go "...or over-complicating?"
As the person who said "I'm not a pusher.", I have to say that you're pouncing on something not there. I've said elsewhere that it's not that I never push, nor ever enjoy pushing, I'm talking primary mode. I'm not a partier, but in the right context with the right elements, I enjoy a good party. Labels are an intrinsic to mode of exploration for many people: "This is something I feel I am. What does that mean for me, and who do I become as a result?" Identity Politics can not practically be separated from discourse, so voluntarily identifying them and talking about what they mean can only serve to stop them from being harmful to the discourse.
This makes BL go "It's not you I'm worried about"
