Let me begin by saying thanks, Russ, for responding at length to my snarky anti-your-editorial post. I in no way expected you to do this, and it is a thrilling shock to see that you have. I have always wondered if I was wasting my time responding at length to essays posted by the Internet's "Big People," and was tempted, after posting this post, to finally give it up. But now that you have responded, oh Lord, I am SO not going to do that.
Another thank you for that. And to that end, I'm sure the Internet and all it's other "Big People" will eventually thank you as a whole. DEVIL SMILEY FACE EMOTICON.
Anyway, let's get on with my response to your response to my response to your essay. Because as you've pointed out, if the Internet is about one thing, it's about guys like me using forums to feel big by talking to the type of people I'd otherwise never get a chance to meet.
I agree that if we are going to use both terms in a discussion about this, then that changes the game very much. I won't bother going into how, because the Escapist is not my personal space for reflection. But I will say that if we do decide to use both, then I'm more inclined to agree with you that there is a noticeable lack of media quality on the web. But I would still argue that defining "quality" is a problem in the first place. A web comic is not a t-shirt, and I don't know if we can talk about standards of quality as regards one yet. I personally feel that a lack of "traditional" media quality in online media may be one of the biggest pluses of online media, since valuable content is forced to shine since there's no expensive, distracting production gloss. But I too understand the occasional benefits of quality work, so I think we're more or less on the same page.
Maybe you think you see it just over the horizon. That's fine. And it's fine that I don't. C'est la vie. Agree to disagree, and all that.
Maybe I've never really personally faced the sort of high-level, cyber-hacky bullying you may be referring to - we're all very aware that this site has been the target of certain people with certain intentions, and I assume that this personally affects you in probably several ways, and understandably so. If these sorts of attacks are what you're talking about, then yes, we have a real problem with them.
But are they going to stop? Are they ever going to not be part of "business as usual" on the web? No. So I think it's more proactive to simply ignore and work around them than shed light on what they do. Because like responding to a prank call, that only makes the morons happier and bolder.
But then again, I don't run a for-profit site and have never dealt with the headaches caused by this kind of thing. So I'll wisely let this one go for now.
This point in particular, I mean. Not my entire response. No one is getting off that easily.
And now I've gotten to the point where I'm defining terms, which officially means the argument is as over as if I mentioned the Nazis. Again, thank you, Russ, for taking time to respond intelligently to my intelligent response. We can only hope that this sort of exchange, and the quality, valuable content offered by the Escapist in fact become the hallmarks of Web 2.0. That is, after all, why I'm here.
...Except for Game Dogs. I do not value Game Dogs. But otherwise, all in all, it's a pleasure to tool around here.
Another thank you for that. And to that end, I'm sure the Internet and all it's other "Big People" will eventually thank you as a whole. DEVIL SMILEY FACE EMOTICON.
Anyway, let's get on with my response to your response to my response to your essay. Because as you've pointed out, if the Internet is about one thing, it's about guys like me using forums to feel big by talking to the type of people I'd otherwise never get a chance to meet.
This is not the first time I have been accused of this, on and offline, and I'm sure it won't be the last. You should see my blog. And I've more or less perfected the art of preachy Twitter spam, as many Escapist members can testify. I'd apologize for it, but at this point I really don't know how to stop, and besides, I enjoy doing it way too much. But I will apologize for the inconvenience. Unlike myself you certainly have far more productive things to be doing than responding to forum posts, and I respect that. You took the time to read what I wrote and respond intelligently to it, a fantastic rarity. Much appreciated.Russ Pitts said:
For the sake of my response, yes, I did. Not intentionally or anything. I simply used "quality" in the same way it seemed to me you were using it. If you did specify a difference between quality and value in your editorial and I missed it, I apologize.Russ Pitts said:
I agree that if we are going to use both terms in a discussion about this, then that changes the game very much. I won't bother going into how, because the Escapist is not my personal space for reflection. But I will say that if we do decide to use both, then I'm more inclined to agree with you that there is a noticeable lack of media quality on the web. But I would still argue that defining "quality" is a problem in the first place. A web comic is not a t-shirt, and I don't know if we can talk about standards of quality as regards one yet. I personally feel that a lack of "traditional" media quality in online media may be one of the biggest pluses of online media, since valuable content is forced to shine since there's no expensive, distracting production gloss. But I too understand the occasional benefits of quality work, so I think we're more or less on the same page.
I agree that a lack of quality media on the Internet could create something of a "McDonald's Effect" when it comes to what people consume and why. But I personally don't think we're anywhere near that point yet, and I'm open to the idea that it may never come. I'm convinced by what I've seen online that, regardless of the sheer, exponentially-increasing amount of mediocre content, there is always new quality content, and thus far, I've been perfectly able to find it. The alternative is at this point simply a hypothetical, and like all hypotheticals, I don't know if there's much value in worrying about it coming to pass until it's clear it will.Russ Pitts said:
Maybe you think you see it just over the horizon. That's fine. And it's fine that I don't. C'est la vie. Agree to disagree, and all that.
Nitpick time. Yes, Point 1 has a subsection A. Hence my "second point on this point" line. Sorry if I didn't make it clear. I'll format and designate things better next time. :}Russ Pitts said:OK, so this would be Point #2, then? I guess that blows your numbering convention. Let's call this one Point 1 Sub A.
On paper, I agree with this. In real life, I'm tempted to say, um, get over it. Yes, I know that's dismissive of a real social problem that has potentially devastating effects. But, unfortunately, this is the Internet. People have been abusive forum jerks on the Internet for, well, as long as there's been an Internet. I've always been of the opinion that, terrible though it may be, that's just the color of the trees in this very weird forest. I personally NEVER take online insults and intellectual bullying as seriously as I would in the offline world, because I know that, being the Internet, there is always somewhere else to go, with different people to talk to.Russ Pitts said:
Maybe I've never really personally faced the sort of high-level, cyber-hacky bullying you may be referring to - we're all very aware that this site has been the target of certain people with certain intentions, and I assume that this personally affects you in probably several ways, and understandably so. If these sorts of attacks are what you're talking about, then yes, we have a real problem with them.
But are they going to stop? Are they ever going to not be part of "business as usual" on the web? No. So I think it's more proactive to simply ignore and work around them than shed light on what they do. Because like responding to a prank call, that only makes the morons happier and bolder.
But then again, I don't run a for-profit site and have never dealt with the headaches caused by this kind of thing. So I'll wisely let this one go for now.
As another Escapist pointed out, I misread this point, and I admit it. I clearly got overexcited by a "OMG HE DID NOT JUST SAY THAT" and posted a response about it before re-reading it.Russ Pitts said:
This point in particular, I mean. Not my entire response. No one is getting off that easily.
If we're using quality and value to mean different things, then yes, what I said doesn't make any sense. I used "well-constructed" to mean what you're defining as quality, and "quality" to mean what you're defining as value. So in that way, it did make sense.Russ Pitts said:
And now I've gotten to the point where I'm defining terms, which officially means the argument is as over as if I mentioned the Nazis. Again, thank you, Russ, for taking time to respond intelligently to my intelligent response. We can only hope that this sort of exchange, and the quality, valuable content offered by the Escapist in fact become the hallmarks of Web 2.0. That is, after all, why I'm here.
...Except for Game Dogs. I do not value Game Dogs. But otherwise, all in all, it's a pleasure to tool around here.
