Archive through February 22, 2001

The ClubHouse: The Game II - Discussions: Game II Discussions: Positive & Negative about the GAME II: Archive through February 22, 2001

Elitist

Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 08:32 am Click here to edit this post

Guru and Ocean - You both are making statements that you are contradicting in your own words and actions.

Guru - you talk about the thick skin question, then come back and said you considered leaving the board. Were you considering leaving the board due to anything that happened in or out of the game? Or are you saying the Game had no influence on thinking of leaving in the first place?

OI - You say you were not "upset" on leaving the game, but then you say you expressed your anger about what was going on outside the game. You also were expressing your hurt and anger before you left in no uncertain terms. Likewise you were not very happy when nominated by four people in the first aborted noms either.

My point is that the Game is messing with the human psyche and in such an environment that it can cause harm. We are essentially asking the players to risk their self-esteem in order to win a prize. It does not matter if a player answers the "thick skin" question yes or not - everyone thinks they have thick skin, but in the Game when it comes down to not winning - or not being accepted by your peers - it is a blow to your self-esteem. And that can be harmful.

Can you both (or all the Gamers) truthfully say that playing the game had no negative impact on you? Az, Gu, OI, Spam, myself exhibited signs of real emotional turmoil before and after the game. Newamush disappeared, I could tell Joni was hurt she was banished so quickly, and who knows what Merlin thinks - but he seems to have withdrawn quite a bit from the boards. MissL and Juju may have been least affected - it would be interesting to hear their comments on this. And Cammie even got deathly ill <grin>.

Guruchaz

Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 08:46 am Click here to edit this post

E, I considered leaving due to things I have done to myself. It has nothing to do with the game, so I have not contradicted myself. Also, I have not left. The pattern of my life leans to learning things the hard way so I just try to suck up and deal, but I go through a series of emotions like everyone else.

That's why I don't understand the people who DO run off. They don't know how to deal and wind up running to the next board to do it all over again.

Elitist

Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 09:17 am Click here to edit this post

I see what you are saying Guru, but the problem is the Game puts the board into an artificial situation of our own making that encourages the type of interactions that cause people to get to the point that they feel they have to leave.

Yes, on every board you have people get their feeling hurt and they leave - many times to do the same elsewhere. But here we actually induce the feelings that get people hurt and cause them to leave. That is not healthy.

The real question becomes: Is this board community going to survive or not? We have seen the numbers dwindle of active posters. People have left and they are not being replaced by enough new people. We try to get lurkers to come join us - but few do. As with any community we are suspicious of those we don't know - newbies are no exception - and that makes them uncomfortable.

Add upon that the bad things that come out of the Game, and it becomes detrimental to the community - by people leaving, by animosity on the board, and by lurkers deciding not to get into the fray.

Guruchaz

Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 09:36 am Click here to edit this post

I guess I'm confused on what makes a good board. Some people want everything pleasant. Some people want controversy. Some people don't know what they want. It's confusing. I originally came here to have fun and now I'm left wondering where it all is?

I'm trying to step back and look at a lot of things. I see a lot of complaining and a lot of negative commenting and a lot of things that make people NOT want to be here or to have others not possibly want to know anyone here. I've realized that I've also inadvertantly done this myself by expressing how I feel.

OI said he feels good about expressing his feelings. I'm not exactly sure how I feel at this point. Happy and sad, I suppose. I feel I'm always going to have to prove who I am to everyone for one reason or another. Sometimes, THAT's why I wish I had just disappeared and came back and started over from the beginning as myself instead of being a provoker of controversy.

A friend once said to me after an argument, "the past is in the past. Let's focus on the future." Maybe it's time we ALL take that advice and keep the good memories of Game II and let it go. As much as I care about a few people inside the game, I'm getting tired of worrying about it and watching friendships get ruined.

Moondance

Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 09:57 am Click here to edit this post

Elitist has a good point (I know, don't faint) ... *I believe* he isn't saying that this board is bad or is wrong with the diversity, he has just made the point that a game like Game I and II has been more detrimental than helpful to the environment of the board and to it's members. Even Neil was against having a Game (I or II) in the first place ... JMO

Guruchaz

Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 10:06 am Click here to edit this post

To me, the best part overall about the Game was the centralized daily interactions between the individuals inside. If we could find a way to put a few people inside a centralized area for a period of time (3 to 4 weeks) and they make the commitment to be there to talk about themselves, get to know one another, and have some group activities and solve some puzzles WITHOUT being voted on, I think that would be a great social boost to the TVCH.

It's just an idea that may have a more productive result.

Guruchaz

Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 10:13 am Click here to edit this post

There would be no motive for accusations of strategy and people could be themselves and discuss whatever they wanted openly. Only one on one chats would be implemented. If prizes were going to be handed out, give some token of appreciation to ALL the participants but I don't see where that would be necessary. The motivation would be to really get to know a few others on the board.

Lancecrossfire

Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 10:41 am Click here to edit this post

Guru, I wonder if your idea about just doing it for the experience, or at most a "token" prize wasn't the initial intent of Game I. If you have 1 token prize, that means keeping score to see who wins. That prize was a T-shirt. IMHO, that seems minor for the efforts the gamers would have to give to the game.

Now one way to take acre of keeping score to figure out a winner is to give everyone the same small "prize"--something small to acknowledge their efforts.

Of course that doesn't address most of E.'s other issues. I'll be processing all of that and posting later. I hope to include what you and OI have said as well.

Well, back to work and more on this later. Good discussion on this, IMHO.

E., it looks like I have a couple more things to cover with you in that 1 on 1 we've yet to finish.

For what it's worth E., I was always of the belief your offer for immunity to OI was an honest one. It didn't mean you were gone from the game--just that you could be---and you thought that trade was more than worth what you'd be giving to someone. I would hope I wasn't the only one that believed in who you were as a person to offer that.

Ocean_Islands

Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 10:51 am Click here to edit this post

Well E I said I was not extremely upset to be banished, which is the truth. I think I've been clear in expressing the hurt regarding the nominations, but you weren't referring to that, but to being banished.

Let me add that I no longer feel hurt about the nominations. I see being upset about the noms as separate from being banished, which to my surprise, did not feel hurtful to me. I had always thought it would be the other way around.

I was angry on coming out of the game because I realized I had been portrayed unfairly. I'm not going to cover that ground again.

I did want to be in the game and was disappointed that my participation was over.

I had also said -somewhere- that I knew the game would hurt me. That said, I don't feel hurt about it right now. I think the hurt was centered on the noms which of course is now long over.

Twiggyish

Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 10:57 am Click here to edit this post

If we had a pleasant "happy" virtual house, it would be boring! I thought part of the game was watching the different relationships emerge. This could mean conflict or otherwise, which generates negativity. We the "watchers" then carry this to the message boards.
There is no way a game could be set up without some controversy.
If people take that into consideration, then maybe it will work. I can see where others might not want the game to take place. Again, we are in a controversy over whether to have or not to have.

I go with the flow on this one. Either way, the games have kept some of us active here.

Ocean_Islands

Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 11:16 am Click here to edit this post

The Game is definitely bad for some. They should stay away during the Game period and return when the game is over.

Norwican

Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 11:41 am Click here to edit this post

Agreed Twiggy and Ocean.

Lancecrossfire

Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 12:14 pm Click here to edit this post

I throw something out for everyone's consideration. IMHO it seems that the game has created a situation for a number of us to get to know each other a bit better--in some cases quit a bit better.

Some of that process has been painless, some has been not so painless. In either event, I am glad to have gotten to know a bunch of people so much better.

I offer that as a data point and as an indication that I don't mind going through a bit of "pain". So far for me, the folks I've gotten to know better has not been overshadowed by whatever it took to get there. I attribute that to the individuals I'm speaking of.

Max

Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 02:20 pm Click here to edit this post

I didn't follow The Game this time, so my comments are really out of context, but....

Elitist said:
"What have I gained from Game II? Unfortunately what stands out in my mind is my growing perception that the board is becoming even more divided, and my disappointment in some of the players and members who I once had great respect."

After Game I, I noticed that the board seemed to be divided into several cliques. Guru created some groupings for these that reflected the mood that seemed to be emerging. It began to feel as though, if I wasn't part of the "in crowd," I couldn't participate in the conversations. As someone who has been around on these boards since very close to the beginning of BB, that was a disconcerting feeling.

Just before Game II started, things were starting to feel a little better. The new season of reality TV was starting and there were things to talk about. I was feeling a little more "at home" again.

Then, Game II began. Suddenly, it seemed that the only place any discussion was really happening was in the Game II area. Everything else seemed to dry up and blow away.

That's sad. I'd really like to see the board be more of a community united around discussion of topics related to our beloved reality TV shows and other areas of general interest than a game show in and of itself.

I'm hoping that the divisions will start dissipating again, as they eventually did after Game I, and the board will be back to being fun. BB2 will be here before we know it and that should shift focus back to the small little people we see on the TV screen and computer monitor instead of on each other.

Of course, all this is just my opinion. I could be wrong!

Guruchaz

Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 03:39 pm Click here to edit this post

Yes, Max, it's all my fault that you left and that everything is "drying up and blowing away". I ran people off with the abrasion and now I'm running them off with kindness.

Maybe if you had joined in on the Game discussions, you wouldn't have felt the other areas "dry up and blow away".

Of course, all this is just my opinion. I could be wrong!

Digilady

Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 03:52 pm Click here to edit this post

Devil's advocate mode
Elit and OI, you made some very telling posts. I’ve been meaning to respond, but time being limited… anyway, here goes!

Elitist said:

People both inside and out showed sides of themselves that were not pretty.
It’s called human nature. With or without a Game, you will see these aspects occur. Refer to the BB archives. Sweetness and light?

Elit also referred to knowing the people before and after the Game. IF another game is held, the players should have anonymity. As in Game I, but enforced.

The question of loss of posters from Game II. NewaMush never posted a lot prior to the Game… and I don’t see that anyone else has vanished.

Finally, Elit says:
"What have I gained from Game II? Unfortunately what stands out in my mind is my growing perception that the board is becoming even more divided, and my disappointment in some of the players and members who I once had great respect."

IMHO any board will be divided. Humanity is different by nature. You’re going to discover disappointing things about people =outside= the Game as well. You also find fascinating things about folks within the Game, things which never normally see the light of day. Look at Azriel’s incredible bravery at describing her situation. Look at Elit’s courage in discussing his family, and best of all, look at the self-revelation our Guru went through.

Are these things necessary to keep a board going? No. Do they build a solid community where newbies should never fear to enter and share their own stories? I certainly hope so.

In another post, I’ll detail my thoughts as to the Game and the benefits/detractions it has for a board like this.

Guruchaz

Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 04:55 pm Click here to edit this post

I think anytime someone gets the raw end of a deal or something doesn't turn out as they expected, it's just natural instinct to blame it on the game they participated in.

Look who really started all this in the first place. It was someone who basically decided to quit Game I and leave.

That's fine to act on your principles, but don't badmouth the game or the participants in it or participants of future games just because it wasn't your cup of tea. I'm just stating that to everyone in general.

Max said the outside areas were dying while the game was going on. Whose fault is that? It's certainly not the game participants because they can't post out there.


I think we need to set a day and a time and round up the members who want to see the TVCH thrive and gain members and gather into a chatroom and discuss all this further.

Ocean_Islands

Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 05:01 pm Click here to edit this post

I think Max is entirely correct in the post above.

The game was a competition and of course sides developed and became competitive. That goes with the territory.

I attempted to shine the mirror on everyone with my 'Game II's greatest smackdowns' thread in which I demonstrated that just about everybody has said something about someone else in a heated or critical moment. Regardless of the background of where these comments came from, most of it stems from competition and its aftermath.

I still maintain that people like getting upset about it all and that what makes the game not only so addictive and compelling, but why some might want another one. I'm not making any judgment on that.

Lancecrossfire

Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 06:33 pm Click here to edit this post

Max, you bring up some interesting opinions. I don't disagree about cliches, although they may well have started in the days of BB. If you go back and look ast posts, many were discussion between a few people about half way into threads. Also by definitions you had the camps created by the rooters for the different HGs.

It's possible the game cliches are worse--that one I don't know, other than my own opinion.

You then wrote: "Then, Game II began. Suddenly, it seemed that the only place any discussion was really happening was in the Game II area. Everything else seemed to dry up and blow away.

That's sad. I'd really like to see the board be more of a community united around discussion of topics related to our beloved reality TV shows and other areas of general interest than a game show in and of itself."

I will not try and define your teerms about drying up and blowing away. In a moment some data to let everyone decide how they view this from their own perspective. Before that, moving to your second paragraph, during BB almost all that was discussed was BB--a game show. While there were other areas, it feels like the posting was much less than what was posted about BB. The game is nothing more than a version of BB created for us to play.

Ok, for some data points. As of 5:15pm today, 2/22, there were the following posts:

Game II: 12,103

Mole 636; of those 75 were before game II in which dicussion took place both before and after the game. 169 were threads concluded all before the game started. So there have been 392 posts during and after the game.

Survivor 705; of those 6 were before game II in which discussion took place both before and after the game. 18 were threads concluded all before the game started. So there have been 681 posts during and after the game.

TI 368; of those 72 were before game II in which discussion took place both before and after the game. 159 were threads concluded all before the game started. So there have been 137 posts during and after the game.

So between the 3 subjects, there have been 1,709 posts, of which 346 were posts that took place before the game, yet in threads that were pretty much finished before the game, or about 20% that couldn't have been affected by the game. 153 remaining posts took place before the game in threads added to during the game, or about 9%. So, during and after the game, 71% of the posts in the 3 reality show areas took place before or after the game.

So, I leave it to all of you to see if you think these numbers would have been greatly affected by te game not taking place. Would there have been more posts? I believe so, as 10 people (and less as time went by) were not allowed to post in these areas.

In the general discussion area, there are 3,704 posts as of the same time period. I didn't go break these down the same way--the general discussion area has been up a long time!

I also ask--would those 12,103 posts done during game II been spread out over the board in that one month IF there had been no game, or would there have been much less that those 12,103 posts created if Game II hadn't of happened?

I think 12,103 posts is a lot of posts to be created in 1 month. Is that good for the board??

So, I'll let everyone decide for themselves about the issue of the board drying up except for the game II area.

I offer this as a possible comparison. BB, like the game, happened every day. The 3 shows currently on only happen once a week. Does that affect the number of posts per unit time we would see for these 3 shows? Would we be seeing less posts for the game or for BB if both took place for 1 hour a week?

Now to comments/opinions about the way the board was during the game. I'll use BB days to compare. I remember there being battles between people who were rooting for the various players. There was name calling (between each other), a lack of respect at times (between each other), and genuine hate and dislike for the HGs. I agree that we don't know them, and that we know each other better than the HGs. I wonder how you can hate or dislike a person you don't know at all (the HGs)?? Yet posters did it on a daily basis.

We know each other at varying degrees here on the board--from just knowing each other's posts to being friends in RL, and everything in between. We've had plenty of name calling and plenty of disrespect. I don't feel a lot of hate as compared to the BB days, although we certainly know each other better, so at least could have some level of basis for hate or dislike. (although IMHO, not enough for hate)

So, did the game stir up anything worse than BB did?? I think it was Elitist who mentioned that by playing the game we are doing it to ourselves willingly. Yes, that certainly is true. To learn more about each other, can we expect to do it without discomfort and without hurting each other's feelings once in awhile? So far, it doesn't appear so. If that is true, which is of more value--to just post and learn about each other that way and have less conflict, or to do something like the game where we get to know more about the people behind the post, yet there seems to be more problems involved in doing so??

And why can't we conduct a game without all the crap? Why couldn't we conduct BB without it?? I bet the answers are similar.

What show brought us all here to begin with?? Are we any richer for it to begin with?

Lancecrossfire

Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 06:35 pm Click here to edit this post

Sorry--I hit post before hitting spell check. My bad.

Azriel

Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 06:46 pm Click here to edit this post

Well said, Lance.

Twiggyish

Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 07:09 pm Click here to edit this post

You know for what it's worth, I have found the core part of a group will stay. The other people who post will come and go.

Guruchaz

Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 10:10 pm Click here to edit this post

The Game posts were based on the changing DAILY happenings inside the game and therefore generated more responses.

I disagree that the outside Survivor, Mole, and TI posts would have been considerably greater because the shows only appear once a week and then it doesn't take long to talk that week's happenings to death, maybe 2 days and then it's repetitive babble. How much of a one hour episode can be talked about over a week period?

That part about Mike killing the pig got so repetitive that people weren't really adding anything new to discuss in the Survivor II thread. That's just an example. Game II generated new plot (so to speak) everyday and therefore generated more posts from the people that decided to participate out here instead of being out where everything was supposedly "drying up and blowing away".

Lancecrossfire

Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 10:33 pm Click here to edit this post

Guru, I wasn't saying that the posts would have been considerably greater if no game II. I merely threw out the information and asked.

Of course maybe you weren't disagreeing with me. lol

I admit that these conversations in this thread are thought provoking. It's interesting to hear the various perceptions and reasonings. At least people are willing to showing a little deeper portions of their feelings. Well, at least it feels like it to me.

It's great to hear E, OI, you, Max, Digi, Moon, Guru and others have said. To me, these are the heart of what we are all about. It feels good to talk about it. Some here are always willing to talk like this, and others do it rarely.

Guruchaz

Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 10:38 pm Click here to edit this post

That wasn't directed at you, Lance. The thought you brought up got me to thinking that, in general, there wouldn't be that many more posts in those other areas. There isn't enough occurrances in the weekly one hour episodes to keep the post topics flowing steadily 24 / 7 like in the Game and BB. That's why people who didn't even pop into this area missed out and found the rest of the board dead.