I Pan For Gold In Millennial Era Streams
..............
Rolling Stone recently published a Millennial 100 list. That is, the biggest movers, shakers, memes, fads and shows in recent pop culture.
Here, I place all 100 into four categories: Flash-In-The-Fan forgettables, Can’t-Get-‘Em-Out-Of-My-Beds, Memorables, and Greats. And at the end I rank the ‘greats’.
And here’s a key to what each category represents:
1. Flash-In-The-Fan Forgettables: By 2050 they'll be forgotten by all but a few.
2. Can’t-Get-‘Em-Out-Of-My-Beds: They'll remain with us as frustratingly hard to forget regrettables.
3. Memorables: They'll be remembered by history, but not considered great.
4. Greats: The best from the Millennial era.
1. Total Request Live - Flash
2. Spice Girls — Flash
3. Jon Stewart - Great
4. American Idol - Can't
5. Music Piracy - Flash
6. 2008 Financial Collapse - Can't
7. Sex and the City - Memorable
8. Black Lives Matter - Great
9. Drake - Flash
10. Titanic - Memorable
11. Guitar Hero - Memorable
12. Rihanna - Flash
13. Spongebob Squarepants - Memorable
14. Amy Winehouse - Great
15. Lizzie McGuire - Flash
16. Tina Fey, Fallon, Poehler on SNL - Great
17. Video-Sharing Sites - Great
18. Bling Ring Thieves - Flash
19. Video Games - Great
20. Mariah Carey - Flash
21. Tech Pets - Flash
22. Olsen Twins - Flash
23. Pop Punk - Flash
24. Batman - Memorable
25. Will Ferrell - Memorable
26. Tattoos - Can't
27. Gossip Girls - Flash
28. Bernie Sanders - Memorable
29. Jonas Brothers - Flash
30. The Office - Memorable
31. SlutWalk - Flash
32. Lindsay Lohan - Flash
33. Harry Potter - Memorable
34. Clueless - Memorable
35. Janet Jackson - Flash
36. To Catch A Predator - Flash
37. Kardashian-Jenner Clan - Flash
38. Rom-Coms - Memorable
39. Lady Gaga — Memorable
40. ‘Twilight’ - Can't
41. Jennifer Lopez — Can't
42. Arrested Development - Great
43. Dating Apps - Great
44. Blink-182 - Flash
45. Pitbull - Flash
46. Suicide Girls - Flash
47. Selfies - Great
48. Taylor Swift - Memorable
49. Jennifer Love Hewitt - Flash
50 Toy Story - Flash
51. Grey's Anatomy: Memorables
52. LGBTQ - Great
53. Mean Girls - Can't
54. Space Jam - Flash
55. Beyonce´ - Can’t
56. C-list Celebrity Shows - Flash
57. Dawson’s Creek - Flash
58. “Mission Accomplished” - Can't
59. Warped Tour - Flash
60. AOL Instant Messenger - Flash
61. Daddy Yankee - Flash
62. Kanye - Can’t
63. Wes Anderson - Memorable
64. Stevie Nicks - Memorable
65. Friends - Memorable
66. Sofia Coppola - Great
67. Paris Hilton — Flash
68. Real Orange County - Flash
69. Outkast’s ‘Hey Ya!’ - Flash
70. Hot Topic - Flash
71. Molly - Memorable
72. Madonna - Flash
73. Evanescence - Flash
74. Perks - Flash
75. Emojis - Great
76. Freaks and Geeks - Flash
77. Miley Cyrus - Flash
78. Netflix and Chill - Great
79. Timberlake - Flash
80. Occupy Wall Street - Great
81. Emo - Can’t
82. Heath Ledger - Flash
83. Disney’s Domination - Memorable
84. 9/11 - Can’t
85. All That - Memorable
86. Cher as a Diva Live - Memorable
87. Vaping - Can’t
88. Kirsten Dunst - Flash
89. WB & UPN - Flash
90. Britney Spears - Flash
91. Serena and Venus Williams - Great
92. The Osbournes - Flash
93. Glee - Memorable
94. Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson - Can’t
95. Tumblr - Memorable
96. America’s Next Top Model - Flash
97. Dave Chappelle - Great
98. Zac Efron - Flash
99. Ryan Gosling - Flash
100. Veronica Mars - Flash
………………….
The 16 Greats:
16 LGBTQ
It really does take all kinds.
15 Emojis
🔄
14 Political Activism (Black Lives Matter, for example)
The truth will out.
13 Original Motion Pictures (Sofia Coppola, for example)
Moving.
12 Dating Apps
Think of all the unlikelihoods avoided....
11 Serena and Venus Williams
The Greatest Duo?
10 Populism, reborn (Occupy Wall Street, for example)
Short-cut to prosperity.
9 Selfies
Just me and my valley.
8 Humor, matured (Arrested Development, for example)
Better becomes.
7 Netflix and Chill
Just what you wanted.
6 Mixed Gender in Comedy (Tina Fey, Fallon, Poehler on SNL, for example)
Now the fun dart.
5 Video Games
Endless.
4 Golden Age of StandUps (Dave Chappelle, for example)
I think I get it.
3 Video-Sharing Sites
Show me.
2 Indie Music (Amy Winehouse, for example)
When pop went whack, these stars shone.
1 Comedy Mixed with Serious News (Jon Stewart, for example)
"You can't make this stuff up."
Saturday, November 24, 2018
Friday, November 23, 2018
I Expose Possible Problems In Pew Research Study
Are Scientific Studies Always 'Right'?
.................
I'll admit, I'm prejudiced when it comes to organic food, food additives, and GMOs (genetically modified organisms). And when I saw the headline "The Less People Understand Science, The More Afraid Of GMOs They Are" in Pacific Standard I was looking to debunk. And I think I succeeded--at least in my own mind.
My first step was reading the study, done by Pew Research, a well-respected organization. One key to finding out whether the study was legit was knowing what questions they used to determine who understood science and who didn't. And, because Pew is an honest, trustworthy outfit, they included all the background information one needs to review their study.
So, overall, what's my problem with their finding? Three things:
* Organically grown food is unavoidably superior--though it's often more expensive
* "Food additives" is much too general a term; the FDA hasn't even studied some
* GMO foods are inherently risky
Plus, statistically, the difference between science-savvy and non-savvy respondents was just barely meaningful (see the study's footnotes).
Then there's the predisposition on the part of those who're scientifically trained to view reality abstractly. Of course they'll tend to follow abstract logic that wants to manipulate food.
Even the phrasing of the "additives" question seemed unfair: "Additives in the food people eat every day pose a serious risk to health". Even I would hesitate at "serious risk". That's a loaded word, in my opinion.
And what about unconscious group-think that favors conventional, rather than unconventional (organic) food, because most everyone eats the former? There's even the question of whether journalists who're advocates for GMOs, aren't actually, in the back of their minds, eager to be noticed by a powerful biotech company that might hire them for big bucks. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if our big ag and biotech companies have invested in promoting the "scientific" case for their side of the issue. Is this why the European Union bans GMOs and the US doesn't?
And perhaps the biggest problem with conventional food, especially GMO agriculture, is that much of it relies on chemicals whose effectiveness tends to disappear over time. New toxins are then needed to take over from those to which pests are now immune. This tends to nudge us into tolerating harsher and more powerful herbicides and pesticides. And of course organic agriculture has no problem here; that's because up until the early 1900s everything was organic, and relatively sustainable. And let's not forget that organic soils are inherently carbon sponges, not to mention nutrient rich when fed carbon.
.................
I'll admit, I'm prejudiced when it comes to organic food, food additives, and GMOs (genetically modified organisms). And when I saw the headline "The Less People Understand Science, The More Afraid Of GMOs They Are" in Pacific Standard I was looking to debunk. And I think I succeeded--at least in my own mind.
My first step was reading the study, done by Pew Research, a well-respected organization. One key to finding out whether the study was legit was knowing what questions they used to determine who understood science and who didn't. And, because Pew is an honest, trustworthy outfit, they included all the background information one needs to review their study.
So, overall, what's my problem with their finding? Three things:
* Organically grown food is unavoidably superior--though it's often more expensive
* "Food additives" is much too general a term; the FDA hasn't even studied some
* GMO foods are inherently risky
Plus, statistically, the difference between science-savvy and non-savvy respondents was just barely meaningful (see the study's footnotes).
Then there's the predisposition on the part of those who're scientifically trained to view reality abstractly. Of course they'll tend to follow abstract logic that wants to manipulate food.
Even the phrasing of the "additives" question seemed unfair: "Additives in the food people eat every day pose a serious risk to health". Even I would hesitate at "serious risk". That's a loaded word, in my opinion.
And what about unconscious group-think that favors conventional, rather than unconventional (organic) food, because most everyone eats the former? There's even the question of whether journalists who're advocates for GMOs, aren't actually, in the back of their minds, eager to be noticed by a powerful biotech company that might hire them for big bucks. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if our big ag and biotech companies have invested in promoting the "scientific" case for their side of the issue. Is this why the European Union bans GMOs and the US doesn't?
And perhaps the biggest problem with conventional food, especially GMO agriculture, is that much of it relies on chemicals whose effectiveness tends to disappear over time. New toxins are then needed to take over from those to which pests are now immune. This tends to nudge us into tolerating harsher and more powerful herbicides and pesticides. And of course organic agriculture has no problem here; that's because up until the early 1900s everything was organic, and relatively sustainable. And let's not forget that organic soils are inherently carbon sponges, not to mention nutrient rich when fed carbon.
Thursday, November 22, 2018
Pelosi In The House
An Outside-The-Box House Speakership
...................
The recent threat to Nancy Pelosi's return as House Speaker presents an opportunity. Rather than fret over dissension among its members, Democrats could embrace the chance to shake things up, and in the process, engage voters.
1. Make leadership a 'team', rather than a hierarchy.
2. Those who vote for the team can then legitimately claim they didn't vote for Pelosi (alone).
3. Embrace the chance to excite new, idealistic voters.
4. Appoint several young, tech-savvy members to be a fourth team member.
5. Make room for one more team player: members tasked with organizing a policy clearinghouse.
The Details:
1. A 5-member team that voted as equal members (in executive session) on party direction:
* Pelosi, nominally Speaker
* Hoyer, Majority Leader
* Clyburn, Party Whip
* Party Outreach (3 young, tech-savvy members)
* New Legislation Panel (3 up-and-coming leaders)
2. Though a bit of a stretch, the new 5-member executive can be seen as 'not voting for Pelosi'.
3. The recent midterm election brought out voters wanting a say in their country's direction. Not connecting with this opportunity would be a missed opportunity.
4. Social media allow members to connect with constituents, and to harvest and tabulate opinion. Voters, as a result, feel they're participating.
5. Having a 'new legislation' panel is the counterpart to #4's Outreach. Opinion is gathered, and used to propel new legislation. The circle is complete when new ideas are solicited, and then presented to voters to opine on.
The three members in the Outreach (#4) and New Legislation (#5) panels would each vote among themselves on matters before reporting their decision with the 5-member executive.
Those who've been reading this blog for a while will recognize where these ideas are heading: a House of Representatives that posts online videos presenting legislative alternatives for constituents to consider. I describe the idea behind these videos that voters watch, then 'vote' on (yes, on-line, because the interaction is 2-way--like a credit card transaction--rather than a 1-way secret ballot) in greater detail here.
My point in all this, aside from advocating for social media outreach, is that an outside-the-box approach might not only get Speaker Pelosi to the 218 votes she needs, but could also transform the House into a cutting-edge democratic institution and keep alive the participatory enthusiasm represented by the record voter turnout in 2018.
...................
The recent threat to Nancy Pelosi's return as House Speaker presents an opportunity. Rather than fret over dissension among its members, Democrats could embrace the chance to shake things up, and in the process, engage voters.
1. Make leadership a 'team', rather than a hierarchy.
2. Those who vote for the team can then legitimately claim they didn't vote for Pelosi (alone).
3. Embrace the chance to excite new, idealistic voters.
4. Appoint several young, tech-savvy members to be a fourth team member.
5. Make room for one more team player: members tasked with organizing a policy clearinghouse.
The Details:
1. A 5-member team that voted as equal members (in executive session) on party direction:
* Pelosi, nominally Speaker
* Hoyer, Majority Leader
* Clyburn, Party Whip
* Party Outreach (3 young, tech-savvy members)
* New Legislation Panel (3 up-and-coming leaders)
2. Though a bit of a stretch, the new 5-member executive can be seen as 'not voting for Pelosi'.
3. The recent midterm election brought out voters wanting a say in their country's direction. Not connecting with this opportunity would be a missed opportunity.
4. Social media allow members to connect with constituents, and to harvest and tabulate opinion. Voters, as a result, feel they're participating.
5. Having a 'new legislation' panel is the counterpart to #4's Outreach. Opinion is gathered, and used to propel new legislation. The circle is complete when new ideas are solicited, and then presented to voters to opine on.
The three members in the Outreach (#4) and New Legislation (#5) panels would each vote among themselves on matters before reporting their decision with the 5-member executive.
Those who've been reading this blog for a while will recognize where these ideas are heading: a House of Representatives that posts online videos presenting legislative alternatives for constituents to consider. I describe the idea behind these videos that voters watch, then 'vote' on (yes, on-line, because the interaction is 2-way--like a credit card transaction--rather than a 1-way secret ballot) in greater detail here.
My point in all this, aside from advocating for social media outreach, is that an outside-the-box approach might not only get Speaker Pelosi to the 218 votes she needs, but could also transform the House into a cutting-edge democratic institution and keep alive the participatory enthusiasm represented by the record voter turnout in 2018.
Wednesday, November 21, 2018
A Way Forward On Climate
What's To Be Done?
................
David Roberts presents yet another important Climate Change post. This time we're treated to an interview with Hal Harvey, the author of a book that busts several myths about stopping carbon accumulation in the atmosphere.
Highlights:
1. Harvey has developed software, the Energy Policy Simulator, that allows ID-ing the carbon strategies that are most effective.
2. Importantly, a full 80% of global carbon is produced by a mere 20 nations. So, worrying about how we’re going to herd over 200 cats is a non-issue. It’s really all about China, the US, India, Indonesia, Russia, Brazil, Japan, Canada, Iran, Mexico, South Korea, the Saudis, South Africa, Australia, the U.K., in that order, and you’re well over three-quarters there. The fact that France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc., aren’t on the list means this focusing could actually work.
3. Plus, despite “experts” to the contrary, it isn’t R & D, mainly, that’s necessary in tackling our problem. Solutions already exist. What’s needed is implementation, where solutions become cheaper as a learning curve drives down the cost of mass-production. For example, as energy-storing batteries are deployed, they become cheaper, thanks to not only R & D, but performance standards and economic signaling (hey, these are cheaper!)
4. Performance standards that legislate a rate of increase (cars will get 4% more efficient every year) are much more effective than those focusing on a target: say a fleet average of 25 mpg by a given date.
5. If you price carbon without performance standards and R & D, there won’t be much of an effect. And if the price on carbon doesn’t ratchet up, or doesn’t ratchet up fast enough, the effect is minimal.
6. A price on carbon doesn’t work on buildings (about 5% of needed reductions). This is because those who design and build buildings are usually not the people who pay for the energy used in those buildings. This is why performance standards are needed.
7. Another example: the price of fuel is only a small part of the price of operating a vehicle. So, fuel efficiency standards are needed, too.
8. Carbon sequestration should be the dessert at the end of our meal, not our immediate first step. This seems counter-intuitive until one realizes that it now actually saves money to switch from coal to solar in some locations. Why pay money to build a sequestration plant (that sucks carbon out of the air and buries it), when you can save money with solar? Contrarian Note: the Rodale Institute identifies a long-term sequestration method, regenerative organic agriculture, that if begun sooner, rather than later, and if implemented far-and-wide, could absorb into farmland soils all the extra carbon we currently produce. It would take many years, though.
Interestingly, the interview mentions a book I’m still reading (on days when digits decline, like today: the 21st of November, or 2-1), Drawdown. Harvey thinks the ideas in that book (ranking the most likely solutions to climate change, with girls education and family planning being the most effective) are fine and worthwhile. The problem is that Drawdown is about comparing technologies, not about what is most likely, immediately.
................
David Roberts presents yet another important Climate Change post. This time we're treated to an interview with Hal Harvey, the author of a book that busts several myths about stopping carbon accumulation in the atmosphere.
Highlights:
1. Harvey has developed software, the Energy Policy Simulator, that allows ID-ing the carbon strategies that are most effective.
2. Importantly, a full 80% of global carbon is produced by a mere 20 nations. So, worrying about how we’re going to herd over 200 cats is a non-issue. It’s really all about China, the US, India, Indonesia, Russia, Brazil, Japan, Canada, Iran, Mexico, South Korea, the Saudis, South Africa, Australia, the U.K., in that order, and you’re well over three-quarters there. The fact that France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc., aren’t on the list means this focusing could actually work.
3. Plus, despite “experts” to the contrary, it isn’t R & D, mainly, that’s necessary in tackling our problem. Solutions already exist. What’s needed is implementation, where solutions become cheaper as a learning curve drives down the cost of mass-production. For example, as energy-storing batteries are deployed, they become cheaper, thanks to not only R & D, but performance standards and economic signaling (hey, these are cheaper!)
4. Performance standards that legislate a rate of increase (cars will get 4% more efficient every year) are much more effective than those focusing on a target: say a fleet average of 25 mpg by a given date.
5. If you price carbon without performance standards and R & D, there won’t be much of an effect. And if the price on carbon doesn’t ratchet up, or doesn’t ratchet up fast enough, the effect is minimal.
6. A price on carbon doesn’t work on buildings (about 5% of needed reductions). This is because those who design and build buildings are usually not the people who pay for the energy used in those buildings. This is why performance standards are needed.
7. Another example: the price of fuel is only a small part of the price of operating a vehicle. So, fuel efficiency standards are needed, too.
8. Carbon sequestration should be the dessert at the end of our meal, not our immediate first step. This seems counter-intuitive until one realizes that it now actually saves money to switch from coal to solar in some locations. Why pay money to build a sequestration plant (that sucks carbon out of the air and buries it), when you can save money with solar? Contrarian Note: the Rodale Institute identifies a long-term sequestration method, regenerative organic agriculture, that if begun sooner, rather than later, and if implemented far-and-wide, could absorb into farmland soils all the extra carbon we currently produce. It would take many years, though.
Interestingly, the interview mentions a book I’m still reading (on days when digits decline, like today: the 21st of November, or 2-1), Drawdown. Harvey thinks the ideas in that book (ranking the most likely solutions to climate change, with girls education and family planning being the most effective) are fine and worthwhile. The problem is that Drawdown is about comparing technologies, not about what is most likely, immediately.
Monday, November 19, 2018
Campaign 2020 Update -- Gillibrand and Klobuchar
The Time I Watched Colbert Interviews Back-to-Back
....................
The other day I watched Colbert interviews from two weeks ago; two senators, DVRed several days apart, watched one right after the other. Here's my stream-of-consciousness reaction:
Gillibrand: I'm shocked to see a weak first minute. It begins with a controlled walk up to the stage, reminding me of the Mittster's inelastic gait; this is followed by Senator G.'s inaudible mumbling as Colbert begins a conversation. And yet, once Gillibrand warms up, she speaks with conviction and passion, being a 'comeback kid' in the end Her interview is just a single segment; is this due to the show running late, or does this reflect poorly on her performance?
Klobuchar: Senator K. gracefully sinks into her chair, in time with the band's music (this, importantly, proves she's a listener, and 'in the moment'). She's open, affable, and immediately engages with Colbert. There's a joking challenge about what she's doing in New York the day before her election in Minnesota. Another joking challenge involves her image being carved in butter at the Minnesota state fair. In both cases: laughter, with a strong comeback that's interesting. She sticks around for a second segment; is this telling or due to the need for fill? Here's a pro-K op-ed in Newsday discussing the Progressive winning tradition from over 100 years ago (West coast, East coast, MidWest) and suggesting Biden/Klobuchar. FWIW, I have Biden at Defense.
A previous update in this series discussed Klobuchar as a possible candidate for president in 2020, cementing a 3-way pact (with Booker and Castro) that ran as a team.
And the original multiple-candidate idea can be read here.
Saturday, November 17, 2018
The White Album's 50th
An Unabashed Appreciation
......................
In the New Yorker, Jordan Orlando praises "The Beatles" on its 50th anniversary. A few questions, RE: Beatles music:
* Was it intentional, or do the opening few bars of their Sgt. Pepper's recording just happen to sound Native American? Curious, when the opening lyric on their next effort is "Back in US, back in the US, back in the USSR".
* As for the White Album's best..., that clanging cowbell sound revving up "...Me and My Monkey"... isn't that an old-fashioned fire alarm?
* And isn't the real emergence of Beatle politics found in "Bungalow Bill"? It seems like a pure anti-imperialist, anti-war song to me. Whereas "Revolution" can actually be seen as the other side of the coin...or perhaps, both sides.
* Isn't "Sexy Sadie" perfect as a humming-to-oneself spirit booster? It's a patient locomotive that keeps pulling, no matter how grim one's circumstances.
* And finally, wouldn't the brash, aggressive, wasteland of rock 'n' roll excess yet to come, be a lot easier to listen to if it had followed the Beatles' mix of melody with climaxing sound, witness "Helter Skelter"?
......................
In the New Yorker, Jordan Orlando praises "The Beatles" on its 50th anniversary. A few questions, RE: Beatles music:
* Was it intentional, or do the opening few bars of their Sgt. Pepper's recording just happen to sound Native American? Curious, when the opening lyric on their next effort is "Back in US, back in the US, back in the USSR".
* As for the White Album's best..., that clanging cowbell sound revving up "...Me and My Monkey"... isn't that an old-fashioned fire alarm?
* And isn't the real emergence of Beatle politics found in "Bungalow Bill"? It seems like a pure anti-imperialist, anti-war song to me. Whereas "Revolution" can actually be seen as the other side of the coin...or perhaps, both sides.
* Isn't "Sexy Sadie" perfect as a humming-to-oneself spirit booster? It's a patient locomotive that keeps pulling, no matter how grim one's circumstances.
* And finally, wouldn't the brash, aggressive, wasteland of rock 'n' roll excess yet to come, be a lot easier to listen to if it had followed the Beatles' mix of melody with climaxing sound, witness "Helter Skelter"?
Monday, November 12, 2018
My Hobby
I Design Games
At work the other day I was asked whether, when I get home in the PM, I kick back and "watch a show". I started to say 'no'--I actually don't--then changed the subject; that's because describing what I do in my spare time is a challenge.
I design games. I honestly can't think of anything more fun these days than tweaking the rules to a game, playtesting them, then repeating this until the design really shines.
Even for game designers, I'm unusual. Most of us design video games, whereas I've settled on boardgames. And, yes, I am published.
Especially exciting for me are games that simulate history. My brother's and my current design, that we've been working on for about two years, is a simulation of the 2016 presidential election. Previously, we'd finalized a sister project: the Obama/Romney contest in 2012.
The two year period we've spent on 2016 has seen us play our game nearly every day. We've become so familiar with it that it feels like we're speaking a language that nobody else knows. "Mojo", for example, refers to a currency, you might say, that each side can own--maximum four per player. Mojo is spent to Fundraise in any one of five regions (moving east to west: East, South, Rustbelt, Frontier and West).
The 59 cards in the main deck have titles like Team Clinton (Blue's ability to use campaign surrogates twice per turn, rather than only once), Supreme Court List (Red removes Blue support in the South and Frontier), and One of the People (either player can Fundraise each round of play without paying Mojo).
Here's a selection of other cards from the main and News Cycle decks:
.
Exactly how do I handle the ennui of revisiting the 2016 election? Because my job places me under the Hatch Act's prohibition against direct campaigning--especially from work (for example: "Vote for Snodgrass, he's better than Tupman!"), I can't always say what I feel, politically. I can study, interpret and illustrate, and that's what I do here.
Plus, my brother and I plan a 2020 election game. It'll be much easier to learn, for those who'd like to check out our designs. 2012 will be the intermediary game: slightly more complex; and 2016 will be the most challenging. In 2016, for example, the Red player can hijack the flow of events with a Media Domination play of his Candidate card (sound familiar?).
Is the mapboard different for each election? We haven't revisited 2012 yet. It did have a different map. For example: Iowa was easier for the Blue player to win; Virginia was easier for Red. Likewise, the issues were Jobs, Gas Prices, Protest, and National Debt (most-to-least important); in 2016 it's Character, Jobs, Protest, and Immigration. How will we know when we're done? We'll see.
At work the other day I was asked whether, when I get home in the PM, I kick back and "watch a show". I started to say 'no'--I actually don't--then changed the subject; that's because describing what I do in my spare time is a challenge.
I design games. I honestly can't think of anything more fun these days than tweaking the rules to a game, playtesting them, then repeating this until the design really shines.
Even for game designers, I'm unusual. Most of us design video games, whereas I've settled on boardgames. And, yes, I am published.
Especially exciting for me are games that simulate history. My brother's and my current design, that we've been working on for about two years, is a simulation of the 2016 presidential election. Previously, we'd finalized a sister project: the Obama/Romney contest in 2012.
The two year period we've spent on 2016 has seen us play our game nearly every day. We've become so familiar with it that it feels like we're speaking a language that nobody else knows. "Mojo", for example, refers to a currency, you might say, that each side can own--maximum four per player. Mojo is spent to Fundraise in any one of five regions (moving east to west: East, South, Rustbelt, Frontier and West).
The 59 cards in the main deck have titles like Team Clinton (Blue's ability to use campaign surrogates twice per turn, rather than only once), Supreme Court List (Red removes Blue support in the South and Frontier), and One of the People (either player can Fundraise each round of play without paying Mojo).
Here's a selection of other cards from the main and News Cycle decks:
 |
| Hard to get this played, but a doozy. |
.
 |
| A minor card, but RCs are full at '4'. |
 |
| Debates are powerful, but treacherous. |
 |
| Will Blue play 'Putin Bromance' first? |
 |
| Key card for Red. |
Exactly how do I handle the ennui of revisiting the 2016 election? Because my job places me under the Hatch Act's prohibition against direct campaigning--especially from work (for example: "Vote for Snodgrass, he's better than Tupman!"), I can't always say what I feel, politically. I can study, interpret and illustrate, and that's what I do here.
Plus, my brother and I plan a 2020 election game. It'll be much easier to learn, for those who'd like to check out our designs. 2012 will be the intermediary game: slightly more complex; and 2016 will be the most challenging. In 2016, for example, the Red player can hijack the flow of events with a Media Domination play of his Candidate card (sound familiar?).
Is the mapboard different for each election? We haven't revisited 2012 yet. It did have a different map. For example: Iowa was easier for the Blue player to win; Virginia was easier for Red. Likewise, the issues were Jobs, Gas Prices, Protest, and National Debt (most-to-least important); in 2016 it's Character, Jobs, Protest, and Immigration. How will we know when we're done? We'll see.
 |
| Mapboard section |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)