Hey, Kid, Got a Dollar?

[ZenMonken]

I think it's a case of realizing the beast can't be killed... but it can be leashed.

Well said.

 

[Susan Arendt]

Ah, how times have changed since making a joke about getting money from kids got you knocked off TV for a couple of weeks [http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/tv/soupy1.asp].

You are soooooo old.

(And I'm just as bad for knowing what you were referring to without even having to click the link.)

 

[mfeff]

Thanks for this well-thought-out response. I'll attempt to balance brevity with doing your response justice. Please, forgive any failings:

It's all good in the hood as they say. Just a conversation to attempt to approximate some truth of the matter. Often try to get around relative, and resolve to find reasonable, and I think you have done that here.

And the first portion of my post really centers on a lot of this. The idea is to capture the market when they are very young. We're not just trying to convince them to want our product. We're teaching them to fall for the next commercial's "tricks." We're leading them to believe we're their best source of information. We're using these tactics to train them to be obedient customers.

I tend to agree with this. Unfortunately as it has been my experience it is difficult to shift someone from an ontological position to an empirical or even engage the notion that an ontological frame is good as a basis of an epistemology, but is not information in and of itself. It reminds me of Mark Twain when he said "I've never let my school interfere with my education." Discernment of a subject and it's matter (in my book) is the preeminent indicator of maturity. It's difficult to teach in a round a bout way. When I have a chance to work with young people it is something I bring up all the time. I will say something, later I will say it was a lie, and ask them why it is a lie. As it has also been an observation that one who lie's is often times as susceptible or more so, to lies themselves. A bit of the old "universal culpability".

I know it sounds a bit Orwellian, and I'm aware that I'm overstating things a bit. This is, however, how the whole thing feels to me. Advertising is an entire industry based around doing just that, and these "freemium" games (as many currently exist) are essentially interactive commercials for the virtual goods, services, and currencies they're peddling.

There some merit here, but I would be of the mind to say that it may be closer to the "self fulfilling prophecy", rather than by a master-mind intention. So long as the who, what, when, where, why has a "why" that is privileged above all others, we find ourselves in a world of massive subjectivity. It begins to become clear why someone may take some trash from a junk yard, spray paint it, and sell it on in the museum for a couple grand. Catering to the subjective is patently "sure fire" to selling nothing, for something. Or in this case, sneaking some shit into the game. It's a three card Monty.

Agreed. And I don't mind folks being open about the profit motivation. I need money to eat, too, so I understand. My problem, again, is how it's being billed: As some kind of noble endeavor to improve young minds. Some folks honestly believe it, to be sure, while others know that's just how you sell something.

That is just it, it's not about improving young minds. It's about making a buck. If someone learned something great, if not, great. Many a college figured this out some time ago and charge for services well before they are rendered. In many instances in my own education the "professor" was nothing more than a test proctor. If I learned at all, it was almost solely due to my own effort. Nothing was really taught. Sign of the times maybe?

Actually, I'm speaking from experience. Gamification is a relatively new term, but the practice is an old one. Plenty of elementary schools use a "token economy" system, or provide treats for good performance, or other structured incentive programs intended to distract students from any feeling of "work." (Systems like this can be beneficial, if based on long-range goals, with sufficient emphasis placed on effort and the seeking of challenge. Most of the time, though, they only apply to one school year... or, most often, one short grading period.)

These systems cause a lot of problems when the students move into a grade or school that doesn't use them. In fact, even when you do continue them to the next grade, you'll still have problems with students expecting more for less. It's human nature -- we acclimate ourselves to the reward, and it loses its power.

I certainly have no cause to not accept what your saying as approximating fact. My only real experience in education is as a flight instructor, a maintenance instructor, a team lead, and a guest instructor of martial arts occasionally I take kids out sailing. As it has been my experience and general practice I typically rely on negative reinforcement rather than positive reinforcement. Perhaps to much? Often I try to let the goal be the goal apparent and avoid micro goals. It's a focus on "pride in the work", rather than ignoring the "work" aspect altogether. As a parent I notice that my approach is considerably different, so in that there are differences. Many of which I am learning as I go.

That all said, the educator of the young are perhaps the best source of information and experience when designing systems. How much is that actually done though? I have seen a lot of pseudo educators in the "games" field, that have next to no experience actually "teaching".

And even then, that's just the most basic kind of "engagement." A slot machine only needs to bait you into pulling a lever. These reward schedules are good for the superficial performance of simple, prescribed behaviors. You might get Johnny to say, "Please," by occasionally giving him a treat when he does it... but this says absolutely nothing about whether or not Johnny understands the reason for doing so. In fact, it eclipses that reason (Showing consideration for other humans) with another, more immediate reason (Candy!).

We're not training animals to perform abstract behaviors for our convenience. At least, we shouldn't be. Yes, getting them to perform the behavior is step one, but we shouldn't be building our own roadblocks to step two: understanding the reason for the behavior, and allowing that to be the reason for performing it.

Whoa there Tex! Your getting dangerously close to a Socratic dialog here!

The Platonic simile of the line is pretty clear on this, starting from the shadow and working up the ladder of ontological observation, coupled with epidemiological ground that justifies the a priory observation leads us to "knowledge". As it was more or less said, if you can't gimme the form(ula), you don't know it. It begs a certain ability to explain a thing to have the grounds to claim that one "knows" a thing. Aristotle coming from this Platonic school gives us an early form of empiricism in the western tradition.

If the student cannot explain it, they clearly do not "know it" under this categorization. The world is full of falsehoods expressed as "facts".

It's the tough sell for sure. It shouldn't surprise you that many of the arguments coming out of "the industry" are heavily leveraged in an ontological status, one of the more modern schools of thought on it is called "OOO", or "Object Oriented Ontology". The biggest criticism... it fails Socratic dialog/process philosophy.

Same old girl, all new wrapper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_ontology

I'm simply speaking about the general perception of good and evil. You can pretty easily get folks to agree that using shady tactics to convince kids to spend money is "a bad thing," just like you can convince people that when the enemy tortures our captured troops it's "a bad thing." But when those same tactics are being used to ostensibly benefit a side with which we identify? It gets harder to draw that line. In short, people believe the end justifies the means, and they don't look very hard at whether or not a particular "end" is really as good as it sounds.

It's a reasonable place to start. For example, in Japan it is not uncommon to come across teenage girls engaged in casual prostitution for no better reason than to fund designer clothing. It is culturally acceptable but perhaps noteworthy as perhaps not having the "best future" in the long run. I buy that.

I find myself obliged to state that it is a cultural casualty. Just as video games are cultural artifice. For me the idea seems to be a "chasing after an aesthetic", rather than "seeking to know". As you mentioned, it is a matter of attribution. There is also a begging of the "false dichotomy", or "Manichean dichotomy". The Manichean dichotomy is often sited as the foundational element of modern propaganda. Heck, St. Thomas Aquinas was "Sainted" for making an argument against it.

Referenced many times when discussing "potentiality" vs. "actuality". Pressing forward leads the novice philosopher into the territory of "practice what you preach", or "stfu". It's an unsavory dish if all one does is preach while practicing something else.

One does this though as it enriches the education... "I do it this way because of this...", "I live it this way because of this...", "Why, because". Maybe not the best solution, but a workable solution, a reasonable solution. If we don't see "reason" it's likely cause it's not there to see.

Read the article again, Mr. Monken is NOT talking about anything you mentioned. He is talking about structuring game design around the game being a vehicle for profits utilizing different methodologies.

I think it's a case of realizing the beast can't be killed... but it can be leashed. Yes, companies will keep trying to pull these tricks, and yes, they'll always go as far as you'll let them. So, the idea is to rein it in a bit. I just went on a mildly-tangential trip into where the same methods (used for "Good," namely education) can cause the same kinds of problems if we don't also monitor them in that setting.

The issue to clarify where I was coming from is that his complaint started with an appeal to emotion. So I took his complaint and his opinion as to the target audience and tabled it.

Then I read the article again.

Basically I concluded that the real argument was one of a pitch for a lemonade stand.

One lemonade purveyor offered 1 percent sugar, with sugar pay as you go.

The other lemonade purveyor offered 15 percent sugar, with sugar pay as you go.

They are both lemonade stands. They are both offering sugar sweetened products for no other purpose than to entertain. The structural difference is in where the "price" was gated.

The claim is that one may make a "better" product that is still profitable. I am sure that is possible, no issue with that. However, it never really addresses what is actually being sold. Vapid-ware? On a system that must be CC gated and to my knowledge Password gated to make purchases on via a service, which seems fairly explicit requires an adult to have had signed off on, registered for, and demonstrated a sufficient credit score to have had access to begin with.

The break down is that an adult is going to have to step in, and be a part of the process the whole way through. If it's educational, educators "one would think" would be a part of the process in much the same way.

Not having oversight is simply irresponsible, and unfortunate as it is, opens the doors to the gate when one clearly hears, sees, and smells wolves right outside.

This is a wolf calling another wolf a wolf... it tosses the responsibility back onto the purveyor to regulate quality and does so by devising a cost to price structure. It's an advice piece on how to make a better lemonade stand (maybe). It does so without addressing the end user who buy this dribble. It's a false dichotomy, that lacks valid information as to why crap-ware is so prevalent, why it works, how much is made from it.

The audience... is a chimp... or a chump. Whatever adjective works best.

Great conversation so far.

 

[disappointed]

There are two aspects to these products that really need to die. One is the way they trick children into spending their parents' money without consent. There have been a ton of businesses pop up with this sort of model over the years and the only people who can get them shut down are vocal parents, co-ordinating in an effort to force government to act.

The other aspect is simply the way they deceptively present as free a product which in fact is nothing of the sort. Where demos and shareware are upfront and honest about the total amount the consumer is expected to end up paying for the full experience, these games try to lure you in, knowing that once you've invested a certain amount of time in the game you'll not want to throw it all away for just a few dollars more.

It's all about deceiving people about how much something costs in order to make them pay more for it than they would if given all the information ahead of time. It's not good capitalism. It's not all part of the free market. Nor is it a failure on the part of the consumer. We need some systems of trust in order to operate an efficient market. That's what regulation provides and that's why this sort of practice should and will be shut down.

 

[Formica Archonis]

Ah, how times have changed since making a joke about getting money from kids got you knocked off TV for a couple of weeks [http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/tv/soupy1.asp].

You are soooooo old.

Hey, now. It's not like I was one of the kids sending the green paper. Or one of their parents!

(And I'm just as bad for knowing what you were referring to without even having to click the link.)

Is there a port 'round here where us old battleships can go to get mothballed?

 

[GraveeKing]

So very, very true.
It's nice when you get to that point in a free-to-play game where you feel it genuinely deserves to get some of your money. Probably not the best example but Stronghold Kingdoms actually did it for me strangely enough. You can easily get through that entire game without spending a penny, but you get to a point when you think, eh they deserve some of my money.

But yeah there are way too many news f2p games targeting vulnerable audiences.

 

[MB202]

"It's no shocker that the good will fostered by the games industry is being manipulated and fed on by short-sighted, greedy monsters."

Truer words have never been said.

 

[Thyunda]

Way I see it, I am far more likely to drop money on say, World of Tanks because it's fully playable without spending money. I always believe that free-to-play games should follow the usual triangle. Money, time and effort. Use one and ignore the other two. Put work into a free game and it should reward you. Put time into a free game and it should reward you. But, if you're a casual player who doesn't have so much time on their hands, then just spend a little money and skip the time and effort.

So long as everything paid has a free equivalent, no matter how hard to attain, I won't see a problem.

However. Right now...being given some sample currency and some starter items, then being pushed with an open palm and pleading puppy-eyes is just...not right.

 

[Jian-Li]

I have an example of a game that fits this description. Jetpack Joyride. It's fun to play and everything you can buy with real money is purely aesthetic with the exception of the coin magnet upgrades but even then you can still get everything for free it just takes a lot longer than if you pay.

 

[ThunderCavalier]

While I'd absolutely kill for there to be a better regulation system for these games so that people don't get their money swindled out of them through freemium bullcrap, the problem is... they haven't really broken any laws.

I mean, unless there's concentrated public support against this (and let's be honest here; the only people that notice this problem are the hardcore gamers with a knack for common sense and economics, and they're more concerned with the CoD and Madden problem than this), the companies have no incentive to stop. WE, the educated gaming public, are not the target demographic. The target demographic here is the uneducated casual that'll buy anything that looks amusing but can be shelved quickly, and inserting little goodies one at a time will ensure an even profit.

And there's not really a damn thing we can do about it, save for finding every casual gaming friend we can, taking them by the shoulders, and shaking them repeatedly, yelling, "Stop falling for the freemium system!"

But that's not happening. As long as companies like Zynga aren't 'technically' breaking any laws with this system, we're not going to see any change. And this isn't like Gilded Age laissez-faire economics. This isn't going to crash the economy. It's merely a way to sucker people out of a couple more dollars, and the only people that notice aren't exactly the people that will be losing these companies money in the first place.

... I want to be the optimist, the idealist here, but there's honestly no way this is getting remedied anytime soon.

 

[Skratt]

There was a phrase I heard somewhere. Um, oh yeah, Fuck EA. The freemium begging games are akin to gambling, and now they are predatory towards kids. Fuck EA.

 

[Dastardly]

Sorry for the delay -- crazy couple of days!

There some merit here, but I would be of the mind to say that it may be closer to the "self fulfilling prophecy", rather than by a master-mind intention. So long as the who, what, when, where, why has a "why" that is privileged above all others, we find ourselves in a world of massive subjectivity. It begins to become clear why someone may take some trash from a junk yard, spray paint it, and sell it on in the museum for a couple grand. Catering to the subjective is patently "sure fire" to selling nothing, for something. Or in this case, sneaking some shit into the game. It's a three card Monty.

I think there's a certain amount of malice behind these strategies. Not quite mustache-twirling, but close enough for my tastes. They're deliberately going after an age group with minimal faculties for sorting fact from fiction -- taking candy from babies, as it were. As a teacher, I'm paid by a third party (the school board), so my use of "targeting children" with my instruction is far less suspect... but these companies are looking to be paid by the child.

That is just it, it's not about improving young minds. It's about making a buck. If someone learned something great, if not, great. Many a college figured this out some time ago and charge for services well before they are rendered. In many instances in my own education the "professor" was nothing more than a test proctor. If I learned at all, it was almost solely due to my own effort. Nothing was really taught. Sign of the times maybe?

Yes and no. I think it's more an admission by the college that some classes are "fluff." It doesn't matter to them whether you truly grasp college algebra, so they'll put a TA in front of the class and call it a day. The folks that need to know it will get it, or they'll get filtered out at the next level. The folks that don't need to know it are just doing their part to help pay the bills, so to speak. (I do not agree with this practice, but I can understand the rationale.)

In other cases, college learning should be far more self-directed. It isn't that the teacher doesn't know the content, or isn't willing to teach it, it's that they sometimes realize it's better for the student to learn how to teach themselves. After all, our job as teachers isn't to create students any more than it's a farmer's job to grow seeds.

But the gaming companies? I won't ascribe such noble goals to them. They get no benefit of the doubt from me. Admittedly, I'm a bit biased toward educators on this one.

I certainly have no cause to not accept what your saying as approximating fact. My only real experience in education is as a flight instructor, a maintenance instructor, a team lead, and a guest instructor of martial arts occasionally I take kids out sailing. As it has been my experience and general practice I typically rely on negative reinforcement rather than positive reinforcement. Perhaps to much? Often I try to let the goal be the goal apparent and avoid micro goals. It's a focus on "pride in the work", rather than ignoring the "work" aspect altogether. As a parent I notice that my approach is considerably different, so in that there are differences. Many of which I am learning as I go.

The relationship of both positive/negative reinforcement and positive/negative punishment is a tricky one. The practices themselves are firmly rooted in a Behaviorist philosophy, which has its merits... but it only goes so far. The behaviorist only asks whether or not the behavior is being performed, but not why. Now, that's an important first step. In many cases, it's more important that the "student" is performing the task than it is that they understand it just yet.

My problem is when people try to use one without the others. It's like trying to build a house with just a hammer or just a screwdriver. There's a trend to believe that any punishment is a bad thing, and that there's somehow no such thing as too much positive reinforcement... which is why we've got far less resilient kids, who can't handle any failures and who seek out no challenges as a result.

To me, positive reinforcement can work if we are constantly extending the reward schedule. Raise the expectation, move the carrot further back. The idea isn't just to get the behavior to continue, it's to teach the student to think long term. Negative reinforcement (the removal of an undesirable effect) can be used to allow students to earn certain conveniences as they go, which can help to tie choices to consequences, so that the student owns their situation rather than always blaming external circumstances.

And positive punishment (the application of an undesirable effect) or negative punishment (the removal of a desired effect or item) are useful for the most basic behaviors. They don't help much with learning new things, but they can do a lot to get certain undesirable behaviors out of the immediate path so that other learning can take place. Punishment isn't a teaching tool, but it is a tool that can be used to facilitate teaching.

That all said, the educator of the young are perhaps the best source of information and experience when designing systems. How much is that actually done though? I have seen a lot of pseudo educators in the "games" field, that have next to no experience actually "teaching".

Very few teachers are consulted on this kind of stuff. The ones that are, however, tend to be the politically-savvy teachers that gladly adopt whatever corporate jargon is being pushed as the "next big thing." Basically, the folks that fund the project already know what they want to make and how much they want to make from it, so they just look for folks willing to read the script.

There's a general belief that teachers know basically nothing. A middle school science teacher knows nothing beyond middle school science -- otherwise, he'd be teaching something harder, right?

It shouldn't surprise you that many of the arguments coming out of "the industry" are heavily leveraged in an ontological status, one of the more modern schools of thought on it is called "OOO", or "Object Oriented Ontology". The biggest criticism... it fails Socratic dialog/process philosophy.

Same old girl, all new wrapper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_ontology

In a sense, I liken these philosophical sandboxes to Calvinism -- even if, say, Predestination is true, it's impossible for us to practice a belief in it. It's just an intellectual exercise, but one that doesn't work out any terribly useful "muscles."

The issue to clarify where I was coming from is that his complaint started with an appeal to emotion. So I took his complaint and his opinion as to the target audience and tabled it.

Then I read the article again.

Basically I concluded that the real argument was one of a pitch for a lemonade stand.

One lemonade purveyor offered 1 percent sugar, with sugar pay as you go.

The other lemonade purveyor offered 15 percent sugar, with sugar pay as you go.

They are both lemonade stands. They are both offering sugar sweetened products for no other purpose than to entertain. The structural difference is in where the "price" was gated.

I don't want to be in the position of either critiquing or defending the article itself, but I can say that 1500 words isn't really enough to get into the meat of every topic. As such, this probably wasn't intended to be an exhaustive or comprehensive treatment of the subject in any way. I believe this was probably meant as a jumping-off point to do exactly what it has done: stimulate discussion.

By starting that conversation closer to where the "offending party" currently resides, the author increases the likelihood of the "offender" participating in the conversation. That itself legitimizes the idea by establishing that a line needs to be drawn at all... at which point we're then open to debate as to where.

 

[eddyshore6528]

I dont agree with the statement that World of Tanks succeeds in keeping a balanced game with paying and non-paying players. When you load a battle where 4 to 6 players have a 35$ tank, you just know you don't stand a chance. Paying customers do not only get their experience and game currency quicker, they also get to pay to get a clear advantage over other players. I would personnally never pay the price of a retail game just to get a vehicle in a free to play game, but i wasnt able to keep playing a game where i felt doomed at the start in the majority of the battles past tier 5.

 

[mfeff]

Sorry for the delay -- crazy couple of days!

Not a big deal.

I think there's a certain amount of malice behind these strategies. Not quite mustache-twirling, but close enough for my tastes. They're deliberately going after an age group with minimal faculties for sorting fact from fiction -- taking candy from babies, as it were. As a teacher, I'm paid by a third party (the school board), so my use of "targeting children" with my instruction is far less suspect... but these companies are looking to be paid by the child.

Solid argument here. Although under this categorization there are many products that could be said to fall under this umbrella. Everything from Jiffy peanut butter to Coke products to a stroll in a Target toy section loaded to the rafters with Avengers tie ins. The difficulty I still have with the position, and what you presented is a reasonable one, is that an arbiter had to facilitate a situation in which the child could of been marketed to. Specifically as it relates a cellular phone and service contracts. Now I am certainly not in a position to even make the attempt to talk around the intent. Clearly it strikes me as a method of turning a buck, reasonably making the case to make a buck off of a younger audience.

I simply struggle with the "malice" connotation behind it. My issue is that this stuff is so similar to "shareware" of the days of yore that I simply have a hard time saying that the derivatives, the core methods, are not "in essence" the same as they have been for years.

Maybe I am simply appealing to convention as a justification of what is arguably an unconventional tactic. Heck, I am mildly impressed by the moxie of it. Though I think market saturation of this sort of junk ware will reduce it's overall impact. Most everyone that enjoys digital gaming as a hobby has at some time or another, bought a shit game. Maybe this just gets it out of the way earlier?

"Experience holds a dear school, but a fool will learn in no other."- Benjamin Franklin

In other cases, college learning should be far more self-directed. It isn't that the teacher doesn't know the content, or isn't willing to teach it, it's that they sometimes realize it's better for the student to learn how to teach themselves. After all, our job as teachers isn't to create students any more than it's a farmer's job to grow seeds.

This holds, and I like what you have to say here. I would attest that the differences in industrial applications as it comes to training is that "I" am legally responsible for the performance level of my students for a certain time interval after I have endorsed the required paper for licensure. Although there are sayings such as "license to learn", so on and so forth, again it holds. There are many standards though, and in that the pass fail for demonstration of knowledge is in and around 96-100 percent, or it's a fail. I think that such precision is simply impractical in the realm of a general education. So in that, one either is or isn't interested in a high performance level for the oneself hits me as "self-determinate".

I tend to gravitate towards those types of people. It would be very difficult for me to teach in the primary or secondary school system on that alone. A biased personal temperament that tends to look for the "one's that likely won't make it", and get rid of them as quickly as possible. Sometimes it causes people to try harder. Again, it seems self-determinate.

The relationship of both positive/negative reinforcement and positive/negative punishment is a tricky one. The practices themselves are firmly rooted in a Behaviorist philosophy, which has its merits... but it only goes so far. The behaviorist only asks whether or not the behavior is being performed, but not why. Now, that's an important first step. In many cases, it's more important that the "student" is performing the task than it is that they understand it just yet.

My problem is when people try to use one without the others. It's like trying to build a house with just a hammer or just a screwdriver. There's a trend to believe that any punishment is a bad thing, and that there's somehow no such thing as too much positive reinforcement... which is why we've got far less resilient kids, who can't handle any failures and who seek out no challenges as a result.

It's funny you mention that... when I take new kids out sailing I often will pick out one of the kids that have been out on the boat a couple times... as soon as we clear the docks I pick em up and toss em overboard. This begins an introductory lesson in procedure under fire. I cripple training aircraft as well during flight instruction, same reason. You have a very polite way of saying what I interpreted as a "pussy-fication" of the populace.

Still your right, I have certainly seen with my own two eyes these "less resilient kids". Had a parent come to me after one of these types of shenanigans and tell me that their child was excelling at school and she felt that it was because I was so hard on him in kendo. Like my teachers told me many years ago, all I did was sweep the dead leaves off the path. It's that potential vs. actuality again, he just needed some items "clarified". What he needed was an example in which to emulate.

As with any situation I often ask the question "who is the adult here", "who is setting the boundaries and providing the structure?"... even in Corporations... many times, there isn't one. Peter principle, kick the can, blame game... very common indeed.

To me, positive reinforcement can work if we are constantly extending the reward schedule. Raise the expectation, move the carrot further back. The idea isn't just to get the behavior to continue, it's to teach the student to think long term. Negative reinforcement (the removal of an undesirable effect) can be used to allow students to earn certain conveniences as they go, which can help to tie choices to consequences, so that the student owns their situation rather than always blaming external circumstances.

Not sure this is a sentiment that I am able to sign off on. Sounds a bit like moving the goal post to me. Again, I do not have the experience of working with younger young kids. I tend to stick with consequences being applied consistently, and further pushes beyond the boundaries resulting in escalation. Although I also use a "lilly pad" approach and often deeply criticize setting (what I dean) unrealistic long term goals.

As an example, if someone tells me they want to become an airline pilot. I squelch that noise right off. First we need to accomplish a student pilot endorsement, then a private, then an instrument, then a commercial, then a multi, then a CFI, then an ATP. Now we look at becoming an airline pilot. Each one a goal, each with a clearly defined set of parameters as to what constitutes accomplishment and demonstration of the knowledge. Then again I trend to work more with expectations rather than too many assumptions.

Ultimately the idea is to reestablish the LTG but to have it framed with a plan of attack, cost schedules, time schedules and checklist. As the student builds up a library of reference as to the discipline, we take field trips, maybe a flight deck of an airliner discussing systems, or meet the flight crew. Bridging fantasy to reality, it becomes real, and not a subversive idea, it's something that can be done and emulated. It's process, however, I do believe in the "blacksmith" approach to teaching.

Punishment isn't a teaching tool, but it is a tool that can be used to facilitate teaching.

I like this... I like this a lot. Embarrassing and shame, very effective for getting the point across.

Very few teachers are consulted on this kind of stuff. The ones that are, however, tend to be the politically-savvy teachers that gladly adopt whatever corporate jargon is being pushed as the "next big thing." Basically, the folks that fund the project already know what they want to make and how much they want to make from it, so they just look for folks willing to read the script.

There's a general belief that teachers know basically nothing. A middle school science teacher knows nothing beyond middle school science -- otherwise, he'd be teaching something harder, right?

The first bit is excellence, I mean... why wouldn't you? The second tends to strike me as a justified or semi-justified bias. It's not really true or not really not true. An investigation takes time, so it's just a circumstantial argument.

In a sense, I liken these philosophical sandboxes to Calvinism -- even if, say, Predestination is true, it's impossible for us to practice a belief in it. It's just an intellectual exercise, but one that doesn't work out any terribly useful "muscles."

I just mentioned it as it "tends" to be (from my observation) that the liberal arts focused schools tend towards these types of philosophical slants.

By starting that conversation closer to where the "offending party" currently resides, the author increases the likelihood of the "offender" participating in the conversation. That itself legitimizes the idea by establishing that a line needs to be drawn at all... at which point we're then open to debate as to where.

The thought crossed my mind, so in that it did do spark a conversation. I suppose when contemplating "what should be done" and "what can be done" is the dilemma. I cannot simply state that video games exclusively should be targeted when there are so many products and rubbish con's floating around. The sheer effort it would take to draw these lines would be monumental. It would take hours to simply work through all the available titles, nevertheless play them all and rate them according to any sort of metric or standard.

More "work" would be generated than there is time, money, "resources", to actually complete the work. It's worth a discussion for sure. I got no answer on this one. It seems culturally systemic, in that someone growing up with Jiff later in life, thinks to themselves... did it work? What can I do to make this better? Loosely using the phrase, "it's evolution" of a meme. Why wouldn't they take their own products in these directions?

 

[Dastardly]

Solid argument here. Although under this categorization there are many products that could be said to fall under this umbrella. Everything from Jiffy peanut butter to Coke products to a stroll in a Target toy section loaded to the rafters with Avengers tie ins. The difficulty I still have with the position, and what you presented is a reasonable one, is that an arbiter had to facilitate a situation in which the child could of been marketed to.

I agree, to an extent. A parent has to bring the child to the store in order for the child to be face-to-face with all the merchandise, and candy bar vendors smartly put the best stuff right at eye-level with tots near the cash register... but in those situations, it stands to reason that the parent is within the vicinity.

Now, yes, parents have to buy the gaming devices. And yeah, they need to at some point put a credit card number in there. But the fact remains that advertising through games is just a bit different.

- "Advertising" in a store (Kid sees toy, kid wants toy) is usually in the presence of a parent. Even then, they are passive advertisements -- the toy is just visible, not being pushed.

- TV ads are often seen while unsupervised (Thanks to TV babysitter), but they are only half the story: the kid is being sold the product, but they can't see or feel the product, so there's a bit less power there.

In-game ads are interacting directly with the child. They're not passive.

While parents ultimately get to say Yea or Nay to the purchase, I think that comes a bit too late in the process. It's akin (bear with me) to telling parents, "Well, it's up to you what you teach your kids about sex in kindergarten," after a school has already opened up the subject. You, as the parent, should have been consulted before, not deferred to after.

There are many standards though, and in that the pass fail for demonstration of knowledge is in and around 96-100 percent, or it's a fail. I think that such precision is simply impractical in the realm of a general education. So in that, one either is or isn't interested in a high performance level for the oneself hits me as "self-determinate".

I can agree there. Sometimes it is, in fact, just lazy teaching.

It's funny you mention that... when I take new kids out sailing I often will pick out one of the kids that have been out on the boat a couple times... as soon as we clear the docks I pick em up and toss em overboard. This begins an introductory lesson in procedure under fire. I cripple training aircraft as well during flight instruction, same reason. You have a very polite way of saying what I interpreted as a "pussy-fication" of the populace.

And in those endeavors, it's easy to explain to people that you need to prepare them for these eventualities. What's more, sailing or flying lessons aren't components of compulsory education. As teachers in mandatory schooling, they unfortunately tie our hands a bit more -- "sink or swim" doesn't work when they're grading you based on whether the kid sinks or swims on the first try.

In your lines of instruction, you tend to either draw kids or parents that are seeking challenge. Public school often sticks us with folks looking for the path of least resistance.

Not sure this is a sentiment that I am able to sign off on. Sounds a bit like moving the goal post to me.

No, not at all. I'm not talking about changing the expectations before presenting the promised reward. I'm talking about rewarding a kid for Task A, and then saying, "Good. Next time, you get rewarded after completely Tasks A and B." You're increasing the expectation each go'round.

Embarrassing and shame, very effective for getting the point across.

In the right contexts, they can. They can backfire pretty quickly, too. However, we're at the other extreme at the moment: We're so afraid of them that we swear off them entirely. Shame, believe it or not, is an absolutely critical component to developing empathy -- another attribute that is sorely lacking in many kids. Now, you don't shame a kid for messing up something he's new at... but, after a touch, it might not hurt to shame him a bit if he fails to do anything about the mistake.

 

[mfeff]

snippers

I agree, to an extent. A parent has to bring the child to the store in order for the child to be face-to-face with all the merchandise, and candy bar vendors smartly put the best stuff right at eye-level with tots near the cash register... but in those situations, it stands to reason that the parent is within the vicinity.

Now, yes, parents have to buy the gaming devices. And yeah, they need to at some point put a credit card number in there. But the fact remains that advertising through games is just a bit different.

- "Advertising" in a store (Kid sees toy, kid wants toy) is usually in the presence of a parent. Even then, they are passive advertisements -- the toy is just visible, not being pushed.

- TV ads are often seen while unsupervised (Thanks to TV babysitter), but they are only half the story: the kid is being sold the product, but they can't see or feel the product, so there's a bit less power there.

In-game ads are interacting directly with the child. They're not passive.

While parents ultimately get to say Yea or Nay to the purchase, I think that comes a bit too late in the process. It's akin (bear with me) to telling parents, "Well, it's up to you what you teach your kids about sex in kindergarten," after a school has already opened up the subject. You, as the parent, should have been consulted before, not deferred to after.

Now that Sir... is a brilliant argument. There should be a medal given out for going above and beyond the call like that.

I like where you took this because what it in fact does, is demonstrate that while the parent has facilitated the means for the advertisement to work (including the middle) into the hands of the child, the child is demonstrably not mentally (or legally) prepared for dealing with the subject matter in a responsible way. The parent is likely to not know what is in the content wrapper, begging a shrink wrap contract/content.

Further underlying what one could call "an act of good faith", an implied agreement between the game developer/publisher and the end user could be called into question. It's circumstantial, but I really think it could be allowed as admissible evidence to make the case of intention... notoriously difficult to prove.

Long to short, you persuaded me to see it from your position. Good argument is good.

I can agree there. Sometimes it is, in fact, just lazy teaching.

Well, I have yet to see the perfect lesson, perfect student, or perfect teacher... it's a fine line between lazy and frustrated... I have seen both... seen one become the other and back again... we do what we can, bang on the hull twice, call it good'nuff some days.

And in those endeavors, it's easy to explain to people that you need to prepare them for these eventualities. What's more, sailing or flying lessons aren't components of compulsory education. As teachers in mandatory schooling, they unfortunately tie our hands a bit more -- "sink or swim" doesn't work when they're grading you based on whether the kid sinks or swims on the first try.

Indeed. The sailing thing was a tip I learned when I was a salt pup. It came down from an old man, yellow bearded from his pipe... he regaled me with a tale of being out and letting a young gun take the helm. The boy turned the ship sharply and the boom caught the old man right upside the head, over the gun wail he went... of course, no one on the ship knew how to stop the ship with any effect. Between that and being safety conscious with machines that will hurt the user if used improperly has simply reinforced the lessons over and over again.

As it goes and something that surprised me... was just how difficult it is to get people past the fear of the machine or the tool. Focus on that sense of "confidence", which is a great replacement for "belief".

In your lines of instruction, you tend to either draw kids or parents that are seeking challenge. Public school often sticks us with folks looking for the path of least resistance.

I get this as well (goes around comes around?), but I don't sign off on nonsense. Receiving instruction and receiving an endorsement aka. "The Blessing" are two totally different negotiations. Though I have a luxury of time, and in the school systems that is simply not an option. It's a tough racket, and clearly teachers don't get paid nearly enough for the headache.

No, not at all. I'm not talking about changing the expectations before presenting the promised reward. I'm talking about rewarding a kid for Task A, and then saying, "Good. Next time, you get rewarded after completely Tasks A and B." You're increasing the expectation each go'round.

That makes sense.

In the right contexts, they can. They can backfire pretty quickly, too. However, we're at the other extreme at the moment: We're so afraid of them that we swear off them entirely. Shame, believe it or not, is an absolutely critical component to developing empathy -- another attribute that is sorely lacking in many kids. Now, you don't shame a kid for messing up something he's new at... but, after a touch, it might not hurt to shame him a bit if he fails to do anything about the mistake.

Class act all the way around, to phrase a pun. Again I like this. Interestingly how I tend to utilize it is very similar. Mostly framed around team building exercises. In that I try to take the bully and turn him about into a team leader. I don't want him or her to "not" be a bully, I want them to take that skill and put it to something productive that benefits everyone involved. Not everyone wants to go at it like this, which is fine. Many roads to Rome I suppose.

It's food for thought... student gets carried away with another student... my first inclination is have them try it with me... but it's too heavy handed to simply bully the bully... I've lost kendo students over this, and I hate seeing talent walk out the door. I suppose perhaps it always lingers over the teacher... could'a should'a. Hmmm.