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
Digilady | Sunday, February 18, 2001 - 02:21 pm  ~bump~ |
Lancecrossfire | Sunday, February 18, 2001 - 03:19 pm  As a watcher, most things about the game were good. I think in having something like this, it's tough not to have some negative along with it, so I don't know if that negativity is bad/ugly, or just part of the whole entertainment package. That said, I hope there are exceptions to that. Although I don't know if there will be in future games. There was still the shadow of a possible cheating issue in this game--as there was in game I. Would there be in every game? I don't know. I think each game is different...yet it's also the same. Different rules/format and different people yield different dynamics. Yet, there are some things that seem to remain. It's intense, it takes time, it's emotional, and it's eye opening. Each time people seem to reveal more about themselves than they would have on the board. People make connections they wouldn't have otherwise made. I think those things will always take place. I heard about other situations, although since it wasn't direct knowledge and I wasn't involved in them, I don't think it's my place to say anything about them. I'll leave that to those individuals. Oh, good things specifically. The players--it takes a lot to step up to the plate and put yourself through the Game. I think the rewards make it worthwhile, although that's just my thinking on that one. The hostesses and anyone that helped them was a good thing. I job that, from the outside, seems like it is very time consuming, and a situation where you will never make everyone happy. Not a pleasant spot to be in, although a spot needed in order for the game to succeed. The Gator. While not required for the game to work I think Gator is an important part to include. Gator gives the players a release to say things, provides a focus for them to think on, and can get into issues that might not otherwise be included. I'd like to add that the sponsors of any prizes is a very good thing. It's good to see something added to the game than just the experience, and it would be good if the sponsors could get some additional business out of the deal. I'll give some thought to the idea of an abbreviated game and get back with those later. |
Merlin | Sunday, February 18, 2001 - 05:07 pm  The good about Game 2. It put 10 people in a place where they were somewhat forced to interact. Interaction is the way that we get to know each other. The interaction inside the game is different than on the outside. It was on a much more personal level than occurs on the board. Why was this so? Maybe it was because there were only 9 other people you could talk to for weeks. Maybe it was because of the personal threads, the sharing of typically non-shared information about ourselves. Maybe it was because we all knew we were being assessed on our participation in the game and made ourselves more available. The bad about Game 2 By it being a game, it meant that there was a competition. When humans compete, different things show up. Some will take the message of banishment to mean things that it might not have meant. Some will be hurt by the outcome. By the game being a competition, some may take measures that go beyond the bounds of keeping integrity in the game. The ugly about Game 2 When the interactions between the players resulted in name-calling or personal insults, the game became ugly. Abbreviated Game 3 Take the goods things out of game 2 and have it happen on the regular board without all the work necessary by hostess in game 2. |
Misslibra | Sunday, February 18, 2001 - 05:34 pm  I would have like to seen us spend more time in the house, and less time in chat. Chat was cool but I think we spent to much time in there. Add different kinds of challeges besides the puzzles and the mysteries. A limit on the number of threads the BG's can start at any one time, I think we had to many. House meetings where the BG's meet in one room of the house at least once a week, for 30 minutes to an hour and express any likes or dislikes about another BG's. Or even, any complaints about the Game itself. No outside contact period, other then banners. Outside contact makes you feel like you need to do things to please people on the outside instead of just finding your on way and just being yourself. Even though it's true the outside will be voting, and you want to please people on the outside but you don't want that to be your only goal in the game. And because this Game is very emotional when you get banished we need a DR Drew on staff. Digi you think the doctor would charge very much ? LOL I think this Game ended without a bunch of fighting afterwards. So that right there is a positive. Lance, I hadn't heard about the cheating. But I did wonder sometimes if anyone was receiving outside contact. I didn't think about it a lot because there wasn't anything I could do about it anyway. I just figure if anyone was it would come out in the open sooner or later. Who is Sis ? |
Gail | Sunday, February 18, 2001 - 05:37 pm  Sis = Souer |
Misslibra | Sunday, February 18, 2001 - 05:41 pm  Oh ok  |
Spamgirl | Sunday, February 18, 2001 - 05:45 pm  Chat only at banishment time like Game I More interaction on boards Definately KEEP oneonones... opportunity for alliances and bonding is important NO nick changes/free-for-alls What the Host/Hostess says, goes... no questioning... fear like in BB |
Lancecrossfire | Tuesday, February 20, 2001 - 08:31 am  Spam, that would provide for more of like what BB was like. Something we experienced in game I with the exception of the 1 on 1 chats---I agree that this is a great thing to keep in. One of the best changes to come out of Game II. On saying I like the idea of the Game mimicking BB as much as possible, there are countless mutations that exist. I would hope that we would be willing to take whatever comes with those mutations if further games have different rules. It is a great experiment in human behavior. |
Twiggyish | Tuesday, February 20, 2001 - 09:59 am  1. I liked the one on ones (my favorite part) 2. Make the game shorter in duration. 3. Have fewer players, maybe start with 5 or 6. 4. The banishment voting could be online like in a poll set up. Those are easy to set up. 5. Construct more challenges..like for example a scavenger hunt or a trivia contest. The House Guests have to form teams to solve. You could give them a few days to complete. The scavenger hunts are done over the net and the team members provide the answers by showing the web page/pages where the answer was found. They show the answer and then the source. The same thing is done with Trivia. If you have a creative person, the answers could be displayed in a web page format. The team with the most accurate or most creative answers wins. The advantage to a scavenger hunt or trivia thing is each HG works on it, in their respective time zones..as it is an ongoing project and not a timed game. I think you all did a good job though and these are just suggestions. |
Digilady | Tuesday, February 20, 2001 - 10:05 am  From a Hostess point of view: 1) Give up on the cheating. If they do, you can't prove it. If they didn't and were unjustly accused, it starts a shitstorm. And who gets to deal with it? The Hostess. This particular game had several instances of "possible cheating" brought to light. We investigated, and found most completely false. One there was a possibility, but it was explained to my satisfaction by the gamer... BUT! The rancid, accusing emails. The incessant emails detailing what was wrong with the Game, and how we should "fix THIS" now. Or, better, "I don't like how you arranged X. Now no one can find it..." IMHO that stinks. As Spam said above, the Hostess should not be questioned. Hopefully in the next Game that will change. 2) Agreed to less chat. But not only at Banishments. On BB, their chatter was an outlet. Cut the chat to an hour nightly if need be, and whenever they need it. We had several circumstances where a Gamer was really upset and needed us. 3 AM, once. Any Host/Hostess who is willing to run a new Game must be aware of that, and of the responsibilies which are involved. These include keeping your machine on Mirc 24/7 in case of emergencies, and having a backup (or two) Host who can cover when you're not around. 3) Start with less players: say 6. Let the Game run 2 weeks. No, you won't know the players as well, but IMHO the players won't get so very involved either. 4) SChedule all challenges in advance, and post the schedule. 5) Make allowances for ties. IF there's a tie, we do X. 6) Outline this clearly before the next Game. When troubles arise, point to the rules. I have a pretty good idea of where the trouble spots are now. Cheating is primary. You cannot stop it, so don't try. Lay the rules and schedules out well in advance. Hey, good luck! <snark> |
Guruchaz | Tuesday, February 20, 2001 - 11:16 am  Being placed in a centralized area where all 10 of us had no choice but to interact with one another was the key part of the experience. It may take a week or two, but you get more of a feel about who someone is and what they stand for in a shorter period of time than on the outside boards. Even if someone develops a strategy before going into the game, I don't see how they could benefit from the true meaning of the game if they close themselves off to certain individuals from the very beginning. It's about getting to know one another. The price of a good friendship far outweighs that of a burner, a printer, or coffee. It's just hard for me to understand anyone who would go a cutthroat strategic route from the beginning and then wonder why they haven't made friends or bonded with anyone when it's all over. I also agree on keeping the one on one chats. If any of the chat time should be reduced in the future, it should be group chat time. However, I truly enjoyed both and felt both were beneficial. As far as name changing to give information, that should be stopped. I think the negatives have already been summed up, but the worst negative I can think of is going into the game NOT being yourself or having some sort of chip on your shoulder. Be YOU and it makes the whole experience more true and minimizes a lot of bad feelings and regret in the long run. |
Gail | Tuesday, February 20, 2001 - 11:52 am  I would like to add my and say thanks to Digi for running a good game. She told me that she would make me forget all my nightmares of Game 1. Well, she wasn't able to do that but, she did have a good understanding where Neil and I were coming from with our negative attitudes. What Digi did do this time was to keep most of the really hateful stuff from hitting the game players and instead, she took it all herself. I would say for the most part, most of the Game 2 Players were welcomed back when they got out of the game and all of them are still posting or at least lurking. The behavior of some of the watchers during game 1 was disgusting. While some people might not like a "moderated" game - from a former game player's point of view, it is a good way to go. Digi - I won't ever forget the bad things but you managed to show me that you could run a game and not have the players get hurt. Next time . . maybe we can have a game where neither the Hostess nor the players take it between the butt cheeks.  |
Twiggyish | Tuesday, February 20, 2001 - 11:52 am  Digi, how can you stop people from emailing you as hostess? I mean look at what Neil gets. The fewer players and shorter game might get more interested in participating on the outside. But I can see where it would affect getting to know the players. The way we vote might save you from receiving so many emails. So maybe my idea on the polling or online voting might help. You could set it up where only one vote per person. You all asked our opinions and here they are.. sorry people gave you such a hard time. |
Gail | Tuesday, February 20, 2001 - 11:55 am  Twiggy - A few not so well meaning viewers during game 1 made online voting not a great plan. While it might seem like a bit of a headache to email the votes, it is nothing compared to the headache of having to have the votes done over and over. You think the presidential election was bad? Game 1 Voting was worse!! |
Digilady | Tuesday, February 20, 2001 - 12:09 pm  Gail: You're a queen, I tell you. Someone understood that we mananged to take the flack off our players! That just made my day. As for neither players NOR Hostesses taking it where the sun don't shine... your killfile is your friend. Twigs, that answers your question as well. Yes, we receive the mail: I have it sent to Trash. Then I scan it. If it's vile (as it usually was) I ignore it and go on. My problem is that I tried to talk sense into the few whiners. And tried, and tried... LOL For future Hostesses: if you get a few folks like that, killfile em. Scan to make sure nothing of importance is in there (YES that includes votes!) then just ignore the cr*p. Were it not borderline illegal, I would post the durn things so folks could see... I still may post snippets of certain emails. Just snippets. No names, natch. BUT I can't see what good it would do at this point... let me add, though, that I am =still= receiving cr*p, as of yesterday. Thanks again, Gail, for the kind words. They're really appreciated right about now... life ain't easy. And continuing whining, sniping and insults ain't making it any easier at all. |
Gail | Tuesday, February 20, 2001 - 12:14 pm  Digi - you probably saw my counterpost to Guru's post in the Memorable Times thread. In Game 1, I made 2 new friends. Because of Game 2, I met you. |
Lancecrossfire | Tuesday, February 20, 2001 - 02:03 pm  I agree it would take a full month long game to have their chance to make really good connections with one or more people. A short game could be run if the interest was to get something out of the game other than that. It seems like second to me, Guru is feeling the strongest about 1) what the game has done for getting to know someone, and 2) expressing it to others. A few (ok, more than a few) thought I was a bit over the top after I got out of game I and continued to say what a fantastic experience it is and how it would be great if others could experience it themselves. I also agree on the issue of getting the most out of it by being yourself. I also remember how many watchers questioned that issue as well. I agree with Gail that there was a lot more and a lot worse crap from watchers in game I. With a little luck, that may have gotten better from learning from our mistakes. I'm thinking the mind set of a moderated board may have helped as well, although that is strictly speculation on my part. As far as what the gamers want to get out of the game, that responsibility rests mainly with them. While the question was asked in game II, and Neil made it known about the possibility of getting raked over the coals in game I (he said he would allow us to change IDs) I think there is a responsibility to the watchers to remember that when the gamers get out, they will be looking what was posted about them. While making observations about behavior seems very fair to me (good or bad behavior), character assassinations based on personal biases will be remembered by your fellow posters. We are allowed to have a little self-restraint in what we post about those in the game, and remembering, that while they can't see it for a month, they will eventually be reading it might help guide what we post. (or maybe not for some folks) I hope we all a learn a little about each other and also hope we learn a little about ourselves as each game is played. Until you've been a part of one, it really is hard to understand just how much impact the game can have on you. That is the great drawing point about the game--getting to experience something you've never gone through. |
Norwican | Tuesday, February 20, 2001 - 02:50 pm  Good: the one-on-one chats were a great addition. Good: chat logs. Good: there were no witch hunts ala Vykin/Optics. Good: generally spectators were fair in their comments on the board IMO. Good: Moon, Tukuul and Bamagirl's commentary. Good: The Hostii and helpers. Bad: apparently some were not fair in e-mails to Digi. Bad: still implications of cheating without proof. Ugly: I guess Digi mostly shielded us from ugly . |
Twiggyish | Tuesday, February 20, 2001 - 06:05 pm  Digi, I emailed you my concerns during the game, but I am appalled that people took it to that extreme. You did a good job with everything. I didn't realize the online polling was a problem, but I can see now where it might have been. |
Digilady | Tuesday, February 20, 2001 - 06:23 pm  Twigs, Never for a moment think I was referring to you!
Thanks for the support from everyone. This should all make for a more positive Game III (if indeed there will be a Game III!) |
Soeur | Tuesday, February 20, 2001 - 06:46 pm  Digi, it was a very interesting project to participate in. I realized how engrossing the Game could be and really felt caught up in some of the imbroglios that developed. Trying to be fair while also avoiding upsetting people was quite a balancing act for you. Isn't it funny how now, after things are over, it is hard to imagine why some issues loomed so large and caused such a dust up? It is a good reminder that at times it is wise to just step back, detach, and spare ourselves and others unecessary distress. The members of this site are a living example of how to coexist and share space. What is NOT to love about this place?  |
Elitist | Wednesday, February 21, 2001 - 09:37 pm  I have been thinking about the Game and have taken some time to make sure that my thoughts are not too tainted by the experience of playing. Unfortunately, I do not hold the popular view that I see being espoused above - i.e. that the Game is a wonderful growing experience for the individuals and a good thing for the board. I for one did not really enjoy my time in and out of the Game. Yes it was an experience, however it was an experience that I could have done without. It was painful, emotional, frustrating, and time consuming. People both inside and out showed sides of themselves that were not pretty. BB was an interesting concept. However this concept brought to this board has a major flaw. In BB we did not know the people going into the house, and when they came out we did not have to deal with them on an ongoing basis. So all the analysis, carping, and b1tching had no affect on them. With the Game, however, we put people we know into an unreal situation that revels in emotions and personal interactions viewed by all, and we analyze, carp, and b1tch. Then when it is all over we have to live together - or leave. Guru and Lance have praised the experience, however they are a small number of those that played - 1 of 10 each time. Look at those in Game I that left the board due to the game. Look at those in Game II that were extremely upset at being banished. And how many of those will we lose? And what about the animosity that has been generated between players in the game, between players and their board detractors, and between board members that have disagreed on their favorites? I do not see the positives outweighing the negatives here. I believe the Game as it stands is harmful to many of the players and overall detrimental to the board - both for existing members and for drawing in new members. 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. Digi and crew, you did a fantastic job. But I for one cannot support a Game III based on the BB format. Perhaps we should move to a format of one of the other reality shows which does not lend itself to so much character inspection and introspection. |
Guruchaz | Wednesday, February 21, 2001 - 10:40 pm  What I don't understand is the fact that one of the questions asked on the application form was: 2) Is your skin thick enough to deal with slams within the GAME and on the board outside the GAME, when the GAME is finished? Yes/No Why would anyone answer YES if they don't mean it and then wonder what the hell happened afterwards? |
Guruchaz | Wednesday, February 21, 2001 - 10:43 pm  If anyone wanted to disappear from this place, it was me but I chose to stay. Don't ask me to explain either. I'm still not sure I made the right choice. That's not a slam at anyone here so please don't take it that way. |
Ocean_Islands | Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 04:51 am  I, for one, answered 'no' to Question #2. I never had any desire to leave the site. Neither was I 'extremely upset' to leave the game. On the contrary I was glad I didn't have to invest so much time in it anymore. Up til now I don't think any of the players have been able to convey to the spectators just how time consuming the game is to play. In that respect, it was not much fun. I think people like the Game because they like to get into it and yell and be upset. That's why they like it. It's like sports. Some can't handle it and leave. I was honest about what things in the Game hurt me and which things didn't. I was also honest about my anger and revealed and expressed my anger about what was going on outside the Game. That honesty did me a world of good and while almost no one liked it, I feel great about it. In our society it's often viewed as wrong to express your honest emotions. I reject that view. I have no lingering rancor, hurt or anything else left over from the game that I am aware of. I will add, however, that I am still catching up on my sleep and it feels damn good. |
|