Nordic Digra Conference 2023, Collected notes

INCOR - We got banned by FB for talking about automated discovery techniques for conspiracy theories

An interesting day in the INDCOR project. 

- we got banned by Facebook

- we had an online gathering where 

- we announced that the IDN Encyclopaedia is happening due to positive reception of our work

- we announced how to evaluate artefacts of last years complexity jam

- announcing Trinity as the next host for complexity jam

- were treated by amazingly interesting talks about how conspiracy theories are formed and structured as interactive narratives, both in participatory creation and as artefacts.

We had planned a social event to talk about the recent developments in the project, notably that we are well on our way towards making our encylopedia of interactive narratives into a book. A major academic publisher is interested, and the EU COST association is graciously agreeing to cover the open access fees of the publication, and this makes us very happy. The WG3 (evaluation) is doing thorough work of evaluating the artefacts that came out of the first complexity Jam, and we were happy to announce that the next host for the ComplexityJam will be Trinity College Dublin.
We had planned to tell all this in person at a social online gathering for the whole project, which now spans 37 countries (mostly in the EU, but also includes the USA and Singapore), bringing together a mind-blowing network of experts. For the gathering we had invited researchers from UC Berkley and UCLA who are doing extremely important work on how conspiracy theories are formed, and how the conspiracies grow as a collaborative consensual function in online communities. We can learn a lot from this work, and gain an understanding of how different actants propagate “truths” by “discovering” them through game-like “detective work” that create inherent reward structures for the participants.

Well, on to toda's meeting.
Our Facebook page for our research network got banned! The three colleagues who were administering it even got their *personal* accounts banned, so since yesterday we have been texting each other instead of using FB messenger when talking practicalities about today’s meeting.
It is quite ironic that the FB algorithm bans researchers doing work on computational methods to understand and detect how conspiracy theories are structured in online communication. Hilarious, but in a dark way.

Todays’ meeting,
Our social chair Maria Reyes organised it in Gather.town, made sure we would listen to each other, and that we hear all the presenters. Our chair Hartmut Koenitz gave a rundown of the happy news with our encyclopaedia, but then I lost the connection unfortunately (bad, because I’m the vice chair, and could have said a few words). I believe he talked about the FB debacle after that.

I was able to reconnect to Gather.town in time to hear the presentations from the researchers at UC Berkley, professor Timothy Tangerlini and his group, among them Shadi Shahsarvani and Pavan Halour. Such interesting work on conspiracy theory formation, grounded in scraping of online data.
Towards the end, one of the INCOR members, Noam Knoller, asked: What if we turn the tables around? Wouldn’t your narrative, based on your research, be possible to be interpreted as another conspiracy theory? (I came to associate the Medium article that circulated a mont back or so, on how Alternate reality game structures are similar to conspiracist theory mechanisms: https://medium.com/@registrarproject17/qanon-is-an-enormous-alternate-reality-game-arg-run-by-malevolent-puppetmasters-27e6b098ce9b) Timothy had a very interesting response to the question. He took it fully aboard, eg, why would our interdisciplinary approach when trying to understand how conspiracy theory formation works be different to an actual conspiracy theory? Tim was, in the QA (and forgive me if I misinterpreted)  outlining two main differences:
1) in research, the activity is not as game like - there are not the same reward structures involved as when you are in an online community which “discovers” clues in reality that may support the theory you are going for.
2) Conspiracy theories is a class of narrative that finds its explanations within *one* domain, rather than several.

I liked hearing that, what Tim said. I have to admit though that it could be because of a personal bias, just being  comforted by seemingly ordered mental lists and categorisations that help me understand this complex world we live in. In retrospect, I wonder whether I’m fully on board  with Tims first point of the explanation, knowing about the intrinsic and social rewards of ARG- and pervasive games. The other however, the very example of “Pizzagate”, a conspiracy theory featuring Hilary Clinton and satanists and whatnot seems to span a multitude of domains. Perhaps what Tim was aiming at - or maybe just what I’m thinking now - is that it is more lika a singular explanation model rather than a knowledge domain that is pushed. The win condition would be to get all pieces of the reality puzzle to fit. Finally, we would understand this weird reality we live in and take action. While acting, we would be  fully convinced that we do the right thing, without harrowing doubts, because we even found the clues ourselves, so we *know*.
So yes - it is not a far fetched to question what the difference is between being a conspiracy theorist and a scientist. Or a preacher for that matter, given the definition of what a religion is - a belief system.
I will likely not experience that luxury of ‘knowing’ in my life. I’m deeply ingrained with philosophy teaching I got when young, where  the very notion of an absolute truth is refuted.
How I would love if there was something like that, an absolute truth! Or an idea of what is really “good” - so I could do it. But alas, here I stand. Here all of us stand, who have grown up questioning everything.  Critically. Doing our best. Never knowing what is actually “best” and having to accept that fact.*  Also at the moment banned by Facebook, which adds a little bit of spice and pizzas to our efforts. But worry too. I think of my friends in countries where things cannot be said. And of some of my students, who are researching government power and its execution. Say no more. Banned I will be if I continue telling you. Friends. We do our best. Peace and love.  /m

More information here, eg our press release

*The thing is, that in our hearts, we know. No matter the rationalisations and the futile search for an ‘absolute truth’. We steer the compass towards acceptance, love, compassion and generosity, and there we have it.

Research Design Tool in May 2020, making for own use

I’m working on a research design tool for my own use.

I often feel overwhelmed and almost lost when planning new research: there is so much I want to do, and I feel I am all over the place.

Over the years, I have drawn research maps, with colored fields and arrows between them in order to have an overview. But they have become overwhelming, too. I understand them when I create them, but when I revisit them later, they don’t do the trick for me: I need to redo the mapping, using paper prototyping.

Last winter (2019/2020) I tried a more methodical approach – I sorted these fields and arrows into categories, and made cards with different colors, for bits like “research question”, “aim”, “method”, “application area”, “computational approach” and so on. 

A few days ago I pulled my cards out, in order to get a grip on an article I am working on. I wanted to make sure I didn’t get lost in it. I need to ensure that I  say what I wanted to say, don't  forget any important components, and also explain to the reader why, how and what. I found that many of my cards could fit in several categories, and that some where missing. 

I also saw that some things - because they are my recurring approaches, methods, and things I want to convey, forms a kind of palette - resources I can draw upon. Yet, if I would be able to conceptualize all the resources at the same time, things would be better! I need crutches for my forgetful brain that seems to hold so little at the time. So crutches I make.  For now I’m doing it for my own use only, to map out my palette, and as a help when I plan new research and publications. 

I have to say though, that in academia, there are plenty of occasions where we need to summarize our research fields. We write about our approaches, past results and future plans. We put a lot of work into this, because we have to, its part of the system. However, while these reports and applications are good ways to summarize and get  overview, they are always following a format of being done for someone else, and sometimes shoehorned for some research funding call. 

     The research maps I have drawn over the years, to get a sense that I am the one holding the rudder of my own ship, have been absolutely crucial to me, so that I have kept the focus of what I believe is most important and meaningful rather than to follow notions of “low hanging fruit” or whatever is trendy to do at the moment. 

Yet, they are getting too complex in density for me to understand myself quickly - just look at this, its a map i drew in September 2018.

That one, actually did help me, I had it in my note book. A year later,  in August 2019, I took stock. I left the bits I had actually worked on white. It felt good, as if I was in control.

When I revisited this map a few months later, in November 2019, it confused me. Clarity was lost. Perhaps some categorization would help. An attempt in this regard is below.

To test out this approach, I cut out pieces of colored card stock that I could move around my desk, like this:

It felt good at the time (2020-11-15, and it still feels good), and I made lots of cards that I could lay out on my desk. I put them in a box, to pull out for future use. An interesting thing I found was that I had many cards about what realized prototypes I wanted to make (and the ideas and aims motivating them), but not so many that would lead from idea to realization. Ahah! I thought, this will be useful ­ and then workload, corona and life happened, (as well as some obsessive nightly painting) and the cards stayed in their box.

I took them out again a few days ago (May 15 2020), and found that some cards could fit in multiple categories, that some categories should be merged, and that some additional routine info could be useful to record for different projects.

Right now, I have devised colors for different categories needed to plan a research project, and one for how to report it in a paper. I make symbols which are quick and easy to draw, and have boiled it down to four colors. This way, the tool could be used in collaboration: using a whiteboard with the four custom markers - black, blue, red and green. 

The research design tool i am making holds an expressive palette of my own approaches to research, but I do also reflect on how it might be useful for other researchers with their own palette. I also think about ways that this tool could serve as a guide for students who are new to research… but that is a potential future thing. Now, I need to apply it to the papers and articles I am working on to see if it is actually useful or not. If it is, then maybe I will develop it further. 

For rapid prototyping of my tool I have used spreadsheets and a little database to try out how it works, but in order for it to be useful for myself, I need the physical aspect –  to be able to touch and move around pieces on my desk. Especially, because in this way it is easier to move bits around without any constraints, to add and subtract: not being restricted by a structure but helped by it. I find when I need to design, I do it better with analog means, but when I document and structure, I want my machines. 

What I have done now is to define categories, and identified which ones recur: these will become a card deck. For each paper/project there is a formula of items that are mandatory. I have taped some envelopes together to form a notebook. The first envelope will hold a template index card for what needs to be on a paper-project plan. The second envelope will hold a card deck forming the palette of research tools/means of expression. The third envelope will hold cards to write on and stickers to use when planning and working on a research project/paper. The rest of the envelopes will hold actual cards for the projects/papers I’m working on. The envelopes can hold different notes relating to the questions investigated, and I can glue ephemera onto the actual envelopes to decorate them with information. 

I'm hoping that this will help me to

- remember ideas I have had, and want to realize

- remember my research history, things I have done over the years that might be useful in future work,

- have a quick way to “prototype” a paper, for example making sure that I define an answerable research question, that I have access to using the methods that can answer it, and that the work would be useful for someone else. 

- remember what I have on my ‘palette’ as a researcher, and be able to add  tangible symbols of  new techniques to the palette.

Narrative Design Think Tank in Utrecht September 2019

The area of interactive narrative design research has, in my perception, got an upswing lately, and after spending a week in the Netherlands I think I know why :).

On Sunday the 26th of September I was invited to give a talk at the Interactive Narrative Design Think Tank at the Nederlands Film Festival in Utrecht. The other speakers were Michael Bas (Co-founder of Ranj, pioneer of interactive narrative experiences for commercial clients), Geert-Jan Strengholt (Director Medialab at public broadcaster VPRO), and Roy van der Schilden (Game designer, game studio Wispfire).
   The event was moderated by Hartmut Koenitz, Professor of Interactive Narrative Design at the HKU, and he gave an overview of the field, stressing how important it is for all of us who are in different fields, but all working with narrative design to get together. 
   The event was a great example of that - film people, game people, broadcasting people and artists - we had a very interesting discussions over drinks, and new collaborations were seeded. I hope to return to the Netherlands soon!

A few days later I got to visit HKU University of the Arts Utrecht and meet the students in the brand new education in Narrative design.

I also got the chance to meet up with colleagues from both the University of Delft (Rafa Bidarra), and University of Amsterdam (Frank Nack), and we got the chance to talk about the forthcoming work in the COST Action of Narrative Complexity. (The full name is COST Aktion CA18230 "Interactive Narrative Design for Complexity Representations, INDCOR) We are all getting connected now, all over Europe, thanks to Hartmut Koenitz and his colleagues in the Interactive Narrative Design research group (Christian Roth, Noam Knoller, Teun Dubbelman, Yotam Shibolet, and Mirka Duijn.  
    It is amazing what they have accomplished the past few years: the founding of ARDIN, the COST action, organisation of numerous conferences, workshops, think-tanks and meet-ups connecting industry and research. And on top of that they started a new educational programme, and published many impactful papers. It is mind boggling, humbling - and important. Their work has impacted my own research focus: I am back in the design space of interactive narratives, and I love it.

Here are some photos!

At the Narrative Design Think tank 26/9 2019

 

And then

 

Links:

About the Think Tank

https://www.filmfestival.nl/en/collection/interactive-narrative-design-meetup/

About the research group Interactive Narrative Design

https://www.hku.nl/Home/Research/Professorships/InteractiveNarrativeDesign.htm

Slides from my talk:

AI and Interactive Narrative

DiGRA 2019 Watercolor Notes from Kyoto

It was a treat to get to go to the DiGRA 2019 Conference! I'm so grateful to all the organisers, who did an amazing job. The conference happened in Kyoto, Japan,  6 - 10 August 2019, at the Ritsumeikan University. 

I had the opportunity to present some of my own thoughts at the conference (4 pieces, one co-written with Petri Lankoski, and two with Hartmut Koenitz). I also had the pleasure - it was great fun - to run the workshop on Teaching Games Pedagogical Approaches together with the those of us from the organisation committee who could make it to Kyoto: Mia Consalvo, William Huber, Hartmut Koenitz and Andy Phelps. 

As usual, I took my notes in ink and water color, here they are :).

I made the last one when I had gotten home, I had a blank backside of one of my three papers. Digra2020 returns to Tampere! I recognise the green color and the tower on the call page from the graphics for the conference that was there in 2002 (unless I am mixing things up), though it was not yet called DiGRA back then. I remember that I stayed at hotel Tammer and that it never got dark. ...So I added the tower to the drawing, but I couldn't bring myself to use quite the full murkiness of that green color. 

TGPA: HEVGA workshop on Teaching Games: Pedagogical Approaches at DiGRA 2019

The HEVGA workshop we organised on Teaching Games: Pedagogical Approaches at DiGRA 2019 Conference was a success!

Date: 6 August 2019
Place: Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto

In the morning, we had paper presentations, and the in afternoon we divided into discussion groups. Me, Mia Consalvo of Concordia, Jonathan Elmergreen of HEVGA, Clara Fernandez-Vara of New York University, William Huber of Abertay University, Hartmut Koenitz of HKU University of the Arts Utrecht, Petri Lankoski of Södertörn University, Adam Mayes of Uppsala University, and Andy Phelps of the American University, have put lot of effort into planning it, so it was  gratifying that so many participated and contributed to the discussions.

 In the morning session, we were 32 participants, and 7 papers were presented:

•  Seth Hudson. Phenomenological Research Approaches to Game Pedagogy 
•  Hartmut Koenitz and Mirjam Palosaari Eladhari. Teaching Game System Building as an Artistic Practice 
•  Hartmut Koenitz, Teun Dubbelman and Christian Roth. Ludonarrative in Game Design Education – Cornerstones of a Program 
•  Petri Lankoski and Mirjam Palosaari Eladhari. Constructive Alignment in Teaching Game Research in Game Development Bachelors Programme 
•  Mirjam Palosaari Eladhari. TOG: An Innovation Centric Approach to teaching Computational Expression and Game Design 
•  Christoffer Mitch Cerda. Defining “Filipino” Video Games: Teaching Filipino Identity and Culture for Video Game Development 
•  René Glas, Jasper van Vught and Stefan Werning. ‘Thinking through’ games in the classroom: Using analytical game design to play with and investigate historical datasets 

Clara Fernancez Vara and Jeff Watson also had papers accepted for the workshop, but unfortunately they couldn't make it to the workshop.

 Here are a few pictures from the morning:

 
 In the afternoon, we formed four groups for discussion. Two of the groups formed from topics that had emerged during the morning, and the two other groups used themes we had prepared as prior suggestions. The groups were:

 • Teaching Game Writing and Narrative Design (emergent topic)
 • Games in Societal Context (emergent topic)
 • Teaching Game Research Methods
 • Designing Education Programmes in the area of games

 

Below is a photo of our blackboard as it looked when we had finished forming groups around topics. The topics in the big pink circles became focusses for topics, and the names in the circles were the participants. Those names with a yellow circle around them were the appointed group leaders.



In the ending discussion, much focus was put on local culture: How is local culture represented in games, and how do we approach this as educators?

 We hope to organise more workshops like this in the future :)

Links:

• Slides for the workshop programme are available at SlideShare: Workshop on Teaching Games: Pedagogical Approaches at DIGRA2019
•  The proceedings will be online at the workshop webpage: https://hevga.org/digracfp/
• A few more photos: https://flic.kr/s/aHsmGpaw6r

NECS Game Theory Session

A watercolour note made at the game theory session of the NECS conference in Gdansk, Poland, in June 2019. I gave a speech in the same session (but obviously not taking notes then, as I was speaking :) ).

AMAZE in Berlin - Game Gardening

A watercolour note from the the AMAZE Festival in Berlin, a session that revolved around how game development can seen by a lense/metaphor of gardening.

Shonan Seminar 130: AGAIG

Watercolour notes from Shonan Seminar 130: Artificial General Intelligence in Games: Where Play Meets Design and User Experience.



Day 1:


Day 2:
 

Day 3:


 

Day 4:




Link to more information:
http://shonan.nii.ac.jp/shonan/blog/2017/10/20/artificial-general-intelligence-in-games-where-play-meets-design-and-user-experience/