Welcome to the Playpen, our space for ferrety banter and whimsical snippets of things that aren't quite long enough for articles (although they might be) but that caught your eye anyway.
In Arthur's thought examples, I would think that parents would be well advised to keep themselves in someway appraised of the games played. Even a four year old will try the old plot that they will "just finish this one thing", even if the thing will go on for hours and they will lie happily to achieve that goal. Which is a perfectly normal thing to do, but one has to stay sharp as a counter-measure.
The annoying thing is that, like most of these things, it's super easy to ignore what you know to be sensible and stay up all night reading the internet.
Coming back to the article, I feel like online games are in a funny place. Most parents will interrupt what kids are doing to enforce [important thing X] Time, including stopping them playing with their friends, or reading, or making them come home. Friends is probably the closest analogy because it's the only one where you're affecting third parties. But if a child has agreed to play a game of football just before tea, my observation is that football generally loses out.
I'd suggest that there's several things going on. One is that parents prioritise, and Fun Stuff is generally low priority. I'm also confident that many people do see computer games as less real and therefore less important.
Also, proximity is a well-attested point of bias. When you stop a child's online game, you're affecting people you've never met and never will, probably far away; psychologically you care much less about them. If it were a game with other local kids, it would most likely seem more important. If it were a game with adults the parent knew, it would seem more important again - adults are higher status, we tend to subconsciously care more about them, and we're more likely to feel bad about ruining their scarce leisure time. Plus we're more likely to be bothered if they're ticked off at us.
The other thing is that LoL is a quite weird thing, in that it's a leisure activity requiring a group of people for a set (but variable) amount of time. Most leisure activities can be stopped at any point, and either are solo or it doesn't make a huge difference if someone drops out. I suspect maybe it's rare enough that nobody's really comfortable dealing with that situation?
Of course how this rest period is enforced can be done in a good or poor way and all sorts of other issues should be taken into account between parent and child, including clear rules for gaming.
And I don't want to sound too strict, since enforcing bedtime rules is pretty simple(a war of attrition mostly) in the case of a four year-old and I just might drop the ball entirely in ten years time, if the kid stays as stubborn as she is now, but the goal and responsibilities of the parent are still pretty straightforward, enough to override most other considerations.
Eno mentioned today that he and Bowie had been trading ideas for about a year on how to revisit Outside and I kind of hope Eno tackles the project despite this, ah, minor setback. If anyone can delve into hundreds of hours of experimental recordings and extract true gold from them, it's Eno.
inconvenience some random strangers and cause a mild dip in their game statisticsThe analogy to an MMO raid is misleading you, because a raid is a "PvE" exercise, but League of Legends is strictly PVP.
In League of Legends, you can choose your teammates, but you can't choose your opponents, and you are dependent on both if you want to have a good time. It's not about winning or losing. If I'm 20 minutes in to a tense match, having an enemy quit is as frustrating as losing an ally.
"Blackstar" is very Scott Walker-y, to the point that I would almost call it an outright pastiche of Walker's style in Bowie's terms. I have, however, not heard the rest of the album, so I will reserve judgement, but even with that said, I love Walker and Bowie, so one riffing on the other is actually kind of boss.
Video for Blackstar is a Thomas Ligotti nightmare of twitching ritual, darkness, chaos, harvesting the shadow at the bottom of the world from the feet of spasming scarecrows.
Either works for me.
If the child is not trusted to do online stuff without parental supervision, then this isn't really an issue; the kid shouldn't be on there in the first place without supervision, and whoever's supervising them will quickly get a handle on how long games take and say "Oh no you don't" if the child starts looking for a new game 15 minutes before bedtime. The issue of pulling the child out mid-game won't come up once the parent has learned how long games tend to take, so the open letter is irrelevant.
If the child is trusted to play online games unsupervised, but still has an enforced bedtime, then I don't think it's reasonable to expect the parent to take the context of those online games into account when enforcing bedtime; if they haven't been hovering over the kid's shoulder, they can't be expected to know how long games tend to take and so on, and it's unfair to expect them to keep such tabs on their kid's online activities if they've already decided that they can trust their child to do stuff online unsupervised. (That would kind of completely undercut the meaning of the term "unsupervised".) It's also entirely reasonable to expect a child who has reached that level of responsibility to keep track of time themselves and not start stuff they shouldn't finish. They might be subject to in-game backlash for dropping out, but if a kid is old enough to be allowed to go play with strangers unsupervised they're old enough to deal with a bit of social fallout when they screw those strangers over.
It's important to teach kids to see through their commitments, of course. But it's equally important to teach kids not to make promises that they can't actually keep.
From the perspective of other players, I think having partners leave you in the lurch is going to be the inevitable price you end up paying for choosing to play with utter randoms. If you don't want people to drop out on you mid-game, then only play with people that you (or people whose opinion you trust) have some confidence will not pull out midgame. You sacrifice the experience of playing with a wide variety of people but gain a more consistent game experience; for some people, that's a sensible choice, for others the balance of their preferences will go the other way and they'll accept the irritation as a reasonable price to pay for being a bit more gregarious.
Of course, it could be that LoL doesn't allow you to be choosy about who you play with but simply teams you up with utter randoms... in which case that strikes me as a major design flaw in LoL. I've discussed this on Facebook with people who are more into this than I am and at least one has pointed out that in DotA (which I understand is a similar sort of game) people who keep dropping out of games are likely to get flagged and shunted into the "you're gaming with the other flakes unless and until you get better" list, which seems to be a fair enough way to solve the problem.
The goal of promoting good habits in a game's player base is a good one, of course. But I don't think telling parents to suspend their house rules for the sake of a videogame is remotely appropriate, and that's really what I consider to be the objectionable part of a letter. Encouraging your kids not to start games they know they can't finish? Fine, onboard with that 100%. Letting your kids stay up past bedtime so as not to inconvenience some random strangers and cause a mild dip in their game statistics, however, kind of assumes that everyone else sets as high a priority on LoL stats as the hardcore players do, which is an opinion which doesn't survive exposure to reality.
On the one hand it seems reasonable to say that, in most cases, when someone starts a game they should finish it. On the other hand, the needs of real life should override video games. I've left LoL games to drive family around or the like. "Finishing a LoL game" is very low on my list of priorities. Moreover, if you're a child, it seems like you should learn the responsibility to judge when your bedtime is and whether you can get a game in, or to ask your parents "Hey, when's dinner going to be? I'd like to play a game."
Surely that's just a basic life skill? It's important to learn to manage time. Interpreted charitably, that's what I think the post is saying: parents, if your children play lots of LoL, try to get them to manage their gaming time.
If I had to name a single weakness to the film, it's that it treats
I finally got my hands on a copy of the 1972 version of Sleuth, after almost 10 years of questing. If you get a chance to see it (and I wouldn't judge you for downloading it illegally, given the extortionate prices being asked for used DVD copies here in America), I highly recommend it.
Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine are brilliant and would have each been a strong contender for the Best Actor Oscar in any other year; the script is great: very tense, witty, and surprisingly funny (you can see why Anthony Shaffer won a Tony and two Edgar Awards for it, and I'm a bit surprised he wasn't also Oscar-nominated); and the direction by Joseph Mankiewicz is really quite dynamic considering the whole business takes place in three rooms and a hallway.
Five stars, would watch again (and can now, thanks to the magic of region-free Korean imports).
Also, I pretty much agree with what everyone said about the Burroughs thing. I get that the piece was meant to satirise the tone and content of that very stupid list, but it still ticked me off for all those reasons, and I'm glad there was some truly interesting conversation about it. (As for the semantics: Accidentally shooting someone during a drunken William Tell act is manslaughter, and generally subject to criminal culpability, but it's still an accident—and in this case, one that personally haunted Burroughs for the rest of his life in a way that few of his other poor decisions did.)
Incidental note: I have really enjoyed what I've read of Bukowski's poetry, but I've never bothered with his prose for whatever reason. I suppose because his sad, dingy view of the world works best in measured doses.
... the article editor itself only recognises the years from 2006 to 2015...
The Decennium Bug strikes!
he was becoming a Catholic because it was the religion a Vulcan would practice.
That's highly illogical.