Beauty and the Geek: Gender Harassment and Anti-Social Behavior in Online Spaces

 Abstract

This paper is an analysis of gender harassment as expressed through computer-mediated communication as found in a recent incident wherein an internet celebrity received vast social censure for non-adherence to normative gender behaviors. First, a summary of the incident is provided, before continuing on to discuss the culture of online communications, with specific focus given to the historical audience of the medium, as well as perceived normative behaviors and attitudes in this space. Then, the unique features of the medium that contributed to this public outcry, anonymity and lack of social cues, are defined and considered. The Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects (SIDE) is applied to this incident as a possible explanation for the behavior of the individuals involved in the mass movement to criticize the target. Lastly, suggestions on how to prevent antisocial online behavior are presented and analyzed. This is a second-source research paper with the primary sources of information originating from the conclusions of experimental and theoretical research.

Beauty and the Geek: Gender Harassment and Anti-Social Behavior in Online Spaces

In late 2013, a woman cut her hair, and various internet community sites lit up with grief, disapproval, and condemnations. Felicia Day, the woman who adopted the shorter locks, was shocked by the response. The creator and producer of popular YouTube channel and geek culture community site, Geek & Sundry, and an actress who has appeared widely in numerous science fiction television shows, Day is no stranger to being in the public eye. However, the tenor of the criticism for her choice alarmed her. “The ones that confuse and hurt me the most are like this one I got last week: ‘Love your videos, will be back when you grow your hair out.’” (Romano, 2014) An image was created and circulated by anonymous users with the intent to show the grievousness of choice she had made and distributed it through various websites with captions like, “Felicia Day before and after. Which is better?” And “What boyfriend allowed this kind of self-harm?” (Kurp, 2014) Day is not the first to experience gender harassment through the internet. The New York Times reported on several other cases where women were harassed online for defying gender norms on the internet (O’Leary, 2012). In all cases, messages of condemnation were exclusively conveyed through geek and gamer internet bulletin boards, forums, and YouTube comments. In this paper, I will attempt to explain the proliferation of gender harassment online as a result of the Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects (SIDE), as well as the anonymity and lack of social context afforded by computer-mediated mediums.

Before analyzing and applying explanations to this behavior, it is important to look at the cultural and historical context of gender harassment online. The internet has traditionally been an environment that assumes traits of maleness. This includes admiration of aggressive communications and the reverence of anti-female attitudes and behaviors (Barak, 2005). Additionally, studies have shown that computer-mediated environments reproduce and reinforce existing social boundaries found in the real world (Postmes, Spears, Lea, 1998). This results in an environment that is potentially hostile toward a female presence, especially ones that violate traditional gender norms, and may engage in gender harassment in response. Ritter defines gender harassment as “misogynist behaviors that are insulting, hostile, or degrading towards women” (2013, p. 198) and is characterized by verbal or visual abusive assertions due to perceived gender (Barak, 2005). Research has corroborated these expectations—women experience extensive harassment on the internet, including gender harassment, conveyed through blogs, comments, videos, and images distributed through various websites. (Barak, 2005). In such a climate, an internet personality such as Day can expect to encounter significant persecution for non-adherence to predefined gender norms. That said, the reaction is only facilitated and made salient by the nature of the medium itself.

One of the primary attributes of computer-mediated communications is actual or perceived anonymity. Users have the option of removing part of all identifying information about themselves from messages or content they post on websites. Initially, it was presumed that this would have a democratizing effect on the web—with no cues or ties to a person’s identity, communities would be formed of previously unassociated groups and equality would be promoted (Kiesler, Siegel, McGuire, 1984). Ironically, however, the opposite was found to be true, and, in fact, is theorized to be associated with an increase in discrimination (Postmes, Spears, Lea, 1998). Research shows that people using computer-mediated communication engage in more insulting and harmful behavior, including name calling and hostile comments (Kiesler, Siegel, McGuire, 1984). Inability to be identified can instead remove threat of penalty or retaliation for acting aggressively against others (Hardaker, 2010). This is certainly true in the case of Day—the sense of anonymity allowed criticizers to comment freely about their feelings about her haircut, and non-adherence to gender stereotypes. Those with the intent to insult or harm were not concerned that they would be caught or punished for such behavior, as there would be no way to identify offenders. Thus their declarations were unhindered from becoming more malicious.

Lack of social cues are a second important facet to consider when analyzing the computer-mediated communication of outrage levied at Day. Behaviors found in face-to-face communication such as eye-contact, facial expressions, and physical distance, help interlocutors understand each other and mediate misunderstandings (Kiesler, Siegel, McGuire, 1984). Online communication has no direct corollary for these cues, and thus results in a decrease of awareness of social norms of appropriateness (Postmes, Spears, Lea, 1998). Individuals who engage in criticisms of others online may be unaware of or underestimate the effect their comments have on their targets, and therefore may not moderate their communication to preserve the feelings of the target. In addition, negative comments are often perceived as more harmful by receivers of the communication. A study by Biber et al. in 2002 (as cited in Ritter, 2013) found that gender harassing behaviors such as insulting comments about style choices were perceived as more offensive when issued through online communications than when conveyed in-person. This aspect of computer-mediated communication can be helpful in understanding the reaction to Day. Some of those who wished to express an opinion of the stylistic change may have been unaware to how such comments would be perceived. Additionally, as social cues are reduced in online communication, individuals may not have been aware of the inappropriateness of their commentary. Whereas in the real-world, there can be no mistake about the suitability of unsolicited criticisms of stylistic choice, the unclear nature of the internet does not readily lend itself to such distinctions. People often see fit to gossip about the fashion choices of celebrities, especially women, and it follows that the same would occur in online spaces. However, the manner in which this occurred in reaction to Day exceeded the bounds of propriety and ventured into the realm of unadulterated vitriol.

Lastly, the Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects (SIDE) can be used to explain why criticism of Day’s hair became so prevalent on so many sites. SIDE builds on the concept of anonymity and the effect of it on identity when in in a crowd setting. When a person is an anonymous member of a larger group, SIDE predicts a loss of cognizance of individual identity. When this occurs, awareness of social norms, and consequences are unintentionally set aside in favor of the perceived goals and norms of the group and the individual identity is replaced with a social identity. (Postmes, Spears, Lea, 1998). Reicher (as cited in Barak, 2005) applies this theory to online interactions, “People in cyberspace may incline under certain circumstances to follow group standards of behavior, rather than using their own standards; in other words, a social or group identity (and expressed norms of behavior) may replace an individual identity.” When this occurs in a space typically characterized by anti-women attitudes and promotion of aggressive communication, those affected by the SIDE processes may follow typical male-dominating behavior (Barak, 2005, p. 82). This can be used to describe what occurs when there a group, in this case male consumers of geek media, perceives a threat to their expected norms of female behavior. The goals and norms of the group usurp those of the individual, and declarations are made in support of these norms.

There have been various theories and suggestions on how to mitigate the effects of anonymity, reduced social cues, and SIDE effects. Some encourage an elimination on online anonymity entirely (Ritter, 2014). By requiring all online identities to correspond with the real-world counterpart, consequences become salient, and people will find it necessary to moderate their actions to avoid punishment for offensive behavior. That said, anonymity also affords protection to whistleblowers and users with fringe opinions who wish to express their opinions without possible danger to their person. To eliminate anonymity also destroys the ability to express these views which need to be protected. A second option is an educational one. By publishing guides, reports, recommendations, and codes of conduct in prominent locations on community sites, users may be made aware of the possible negative results of antisocial online behavior. However, those who are inclined toward gender harassment generally do so only because the online environment affords them the opportunity to do so, not because they are unaware of the possible harm that such insistences could have on others. (Barak, 2005). It is not the lack of information, so much as the attitudes that are the major problem of online gender harassment. In fact, such attitudes are just as prevalent in the real-world as well, but are frequently mitigated by apparent social cues or the absence of membership of anonymous group. Since anonymous computer-mediated communication is already socially conservative, in cases where clear norms of a group identity are available it is easy to reinforce group membership though the acting upon these norms (Postmes, Spears, Lea, 1998). Therefore, I propose a cultural solution. Through the promotion of different norms, such as a positive view of all genders, it is possible to change the attitudes that are the root of these issues. This is already being pursued by various geek and gamer institutions who are changing policies to punish misogynistic behaviors, and officially promoting ideas of tolerance (O’Leary, 2012). However, such an ideology shift can also be applied to the medium of computer-mediated communication. Cultivating and advocating new internet norms, such as that of responsible online discourse and constructive exchange of opinions, could foster a more conscientious community.

When Felicia Day cut her hair, she did not expect the outpouring of hostility at this seemingly innocuous act. However, the online environment contains many features which would indicate this outcome. As a socially conservative and culturally male space, users will generally have an expectation and dedication to traditional gender normative behavior. As a computer-mediated communication method, features of the medium such as anonymity and lack of social cues will facilitate antisocial behavior through the increase in hostile language without recourse. Lastly, SIDE can be used to explain the mass social condemnation of her act, as members of the geek and gamer community sites replaced their individual identities with those of the socially conservative group found in the online space. Several solutions to this antisocial behavior have been suggested, such as removal of anonymous posting capability and education of appropriate behavior. However, I contend that the best course of action is to change the online practice and to encourage a culture of responsible online behavior. To encourage users to maintain individual identity rather than getting caught up in the mob-mentality of the public censure. To promote traits like objective analysis, civilized discourse, and mindful deliberation. Perhaps then, we will have more constructive responses to incidents like experienced by Day, like those expressed Kotaku commenter Jens Wessling in regards to news of the mass denunciation, “I've gone back and looked at pictures of you with short hair and pictures of you with long hair, and after considerable consideration, I think you are funny and talented” (Hernandez, 2014).

References

Barak, A. (2005) Sexual Harassment on the Internet. Social Science Computer Review. 23(1), 77-92. doi: 10.1177/0894439304271540

Hardaker, C. (2010). Trolling in asynchronous computer-mediated communication: from user discussions to academic definitions. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture. 6(2), 215-242. doi: 10.1515/jplr.2010.011

Hernandez, P. (2014, Feb 4). Critics Of Felicia Day's Hairdo Don't Even Know What She Looks Like. Kotaku. Retrieved from http://kotaku.com/critics-of-felicia-days-hairdo-dont-even-know-what-sh-1516188224

Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist. 39(10), 1123-1134. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.39.10.1123

Kurp, J. (2014, Feb 6). Felicia Day Pities The ‘YouTube Guys’ Who Think She Was Hotter Before Her Haircut. Uproxx. Retrieved from http://www.uproxx.com/up/2014/02/felicia-day-pities-the-youtube-guys-who-think-she-was-hotter-before-her-haircut/

O’Leary, A. (2012, Aug 1). In Virtual Play, Sex Harassment Is All Too Real. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/us/sexual-harassment-in-online-gaming-stirs-anger.html?_r=3&hp&

Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea M. (1998). Breaching or Building Social Boundaries? SIDE-Effects of Computer-Mediated Communication. Communication Research. 25(6), 689-715. doi: 10.1177/009365098025006006

Ritter, B. (2013). Deviant Behavior in Computer-Mediated Communication: Development and Validation of a Measure of Cybersexual Harassment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 19(2), 197–214. doi: 10.1111/jcc4.12039

Romano, A. (2014, Feb 5). Felicia Day's haircut just became headline news, thanks to sexism. The Daily Dot. Retrieved from http://www.dailydot.com/fandom/felicia-day-pixie-haircut-sexist-comments/

February 27, 2014

Thor Losers

People had opinions after Marvel announced the new Thor. #Thor was trending on Twitter for two full days. Nothing trends on Twitter for multiple days. The Twitter collective has a maximum attention span of 27 hours. But the Thor announcement cultivated such a response, that it spawned a feedback loop of nerd-rage and counter-rage-at-rage. I stopped eating for the duration, instead absorbing the opinion-fueled-energy directly through my eyes and converting it to calories. I also seemed to develop additional calf definition. I'm just saying that your nerd-rage sustains me.

And while I firmly fall into the New-Thor-Direction-Is-Awesome camp, I'm always curious about the makeup of my nutrition. Yes, nerd-rage is delightful, but what flavor am I consuming? Before getting into specific nerd-things, it'll probably be helpful to look at more general norm-things to give some context. 

Human beings have a serious commitment to patterns. We prefer them, we seek them, whole parts of our brains are devoted to identifying them. In the grand scheme of the universe, we are tiny, meat-based pattern recognizers-- we're not even that picky about the quality of our collections. We have systems in place to help us identify true patterns (SCIENCE!) while simultaneously engaging in making up whatever patterns suit us (constellations!). Theories of cognition posit that we have a representation of objects in our heads (a cat, for example), and that we identify things by seeing how closely they resemble that representation (Do they have triangle ears, fuzzy belly, and incorrect grammar? Object identified: CAT). This process then both informs and reinforces our internal pattern of the object/concept/thing. We tend to have a distaste for things that don't conform to our expected patterns-- it's why many people hate jazz (less repetition of musical themes within the song), and moving to a new OS often first inspires a level of frustration generally seen only in bureaucratic offices and when operating the Mako in Mass Effect 1.

I hate everything about you. Your very shape inspires exponential rage.

And it's why we get so threatened when gender norms are violated. Humans have created expectations of modes of behavior based on cultural ideologies that are tied to a perceived gender. While some behavioral trends have been informed by biology, there is nothing explicitly "natural" about most gendered behaviors. Take a turn down a different cultural-development street, and females being the smaller of the species could have resulted in an increase in violent action to defend their place in a social hierarchy, rather than taking the roundabout make-friends-to-secure-social-safety route.* No, there is no niceness gene in the female brain, and research has shown that testosterone is not responsible for violent men. We train children on how men and women act, and society reinforces it-- the same patterns get reinforced for generations and the behaviors become so entrenched that it's called "natural".  There's a ton of research about this, people devote their entire lives to studying this, and its mind-blowingly fascinating so if you have any interest, there's a ton of resources to delve into.

So we have a bunch of made up patterns and a species that gets flustered when patterns aren't adhered to. We expect Thor to be a man, and we expect women to act a certain way. Certainly not swinging weapons around, and especially not ones that require strength to wield-- that would be weird and doesn't adhere to what we know about Thors and Wimmins. So we have a giant outburst of OMG LADY-THOR MAKES BAD FEELS and this is all exacerbated by nerds' tendency to want to protect the fandom. Some members of the culture are particularly protective of who has access to the culture, or what changes are implemented in our fictions. Nominating themselves to fulfill the role of gatekeeper, these individuals champion the authorization of potential persons, media, or changes to either, and are not at all hesitant to make their opinions known on the internet. (Behold: A nerd making her opinions known on the internet. The irony is not lost on me.) Gatekeeper behavior in nerd culture is particularly consumed with authenticity and leads to many of the issues being discussed on the internet about our culture today. (See: fake-geek girls, character representation, and rage at those who became fans only after the movie came out.)

Combine these general-human factors with geek culture's tendency to view itself as Official and Benevolent Gatekeeper of the Fandom and you have a recipe for a sexist nerd-rage backed with all the righteous indignation of the most devout rules lawyers. It's a layer cake of various flavors of misconceptions-- deliciously complex. I've mentioned a lot of things and cited a bunch of science, so the tendency may be to think that this behavior is normal for humans and there is nothing to be done about it. This is a wrongness-- don't think this thing. My intent, rather, is to highlight that these are not simple issues. They are complex problems, intertwined with a bunch of behavioral norms, so just blaming sexism is to simplify the variety of issues that need to be addressed. The good news: culture is alterable! By being aware of and deliberate about what culture we are reproducing, we create new norms of behavior and expectation in the rest of the fandom. Which is precisely what Marvel is doing with this change. That said, raging-nerds, I'd appreciate it if you'd jump on board as soon as you can. You're harshing my fem-Thor buzz.

* Someone will likely argue that statistical differences in strength among sexes results in a preference of one course of action over the other, and thus I will refer back to how biology can (and often does) inform behaviors, but, again, this is not a required course of action.

 

Pattern recognition: Scientific American | Turn Me On, Dead Man

Creating gender: TED | Colin Strokes: How movies teach manhood

Testosterone findings: Scientific American | Strange but True: Testosterone Alone Does Not Cause Violence

My Wildstar Obsession: Community and Marketing

Today was the first day in… some quantifiable amount of time I can’t be bothered to math at the moment… that I haven’t been able to log into Wildstar for random play fix. This is a sad world I’m living in— I had gotten quite accustomed to not having any barrier between me and super-fun-stabbin'-times, and now I have to wait for head start to continue said stabbin'.

It has given me the time, however, to review the unending mass of dev videos, blogs, and various other community interactions that Carbine puts out/updates regularly. It’s a vicarious fix, but it soothes the savage beast in the interim. And they provide plenty of salve. This is an aspect of Wildstar that doesn’t get quite as much vocal appreciation from the community, but truly is an unsung hero of development.

So games are one of those quirky art forms that requires an audience. Images/music/choreography/etc. can be created in the home of the artist and never see the light of day again, but can still be widely considered to be an art. Games, on the other hand, can’t be a game until they are played. The very definition of game-ness means that someone has to interact with it in order to unleash it’s game-y nature. In this sense, the anticipated audience makes up a good portion of the game. But game companies are still kinda fuzzy on how to develop this part. Developing communities usually gets regulated to marketing or advertising, which always (unintentionally) has a air of skeeze to it. And this often makes it feel fabricated, heavily constructed, and just fake as fuck.

Carbine has decided instead to operate not as an salesman, but as a community member, and I’ve deemed it (in my infallible wisdom) to be rather successful. They post blogs, they make videos, the troll fandoms and repost their favorites. They get visibly excited about updates, geek out unabashedly about mechanics, and get personally invested in the game. They admit when things go wrong and make fun of themselves for it. They admit when things are awesome, and make fun of themselves for it. They have an awesome sense of humor that mirrors the one their fanbase has (The Nexus Report 5/13 included a Walken Off— a competition members of my social circle has spent years battling each other for superiority). They play with us— while some make a distinction between them, I truly believe that games are (at their core) toys— and using this understanding, it’s the only game community development that makes any kind of sense.

So hats off, Carbine. You not only made a game so good that I am openly, embarrassingly, OBSESSED, about it, but you've come to my house to geek out about it with me. Bold move-- I dig it.

Game Night: Indie Edition - Gone Home

I finished Gone Home a week ago, but I wasn't entirely sure how to begin to describe it. I certainly wasn't prepared to tell others how good it was. I found myself in conversations I feel I've seen parodied in sitcoms, where one person is excited about an event but unsure if it's considered cool or not and wants to talk about it, but isn't sure if they should be wanting to talk about it, and the other person is a normal-fucking-human-being.

me: I finished Gone Home!
normal-fucking-human-being: How was it?
me: It was awesome. I mean, it was okay. I mean, if you like that sort of thing. It was weird. But good!
normal-fucking-human-being: What's it about?
me: It's about a girl and her family. Well, a girl and her sister. But no, actually her sister. And her sister's friend. And you're the girl. But the story's not about you.
normal-fucking-human-being: What's the game play like?
me: You run around clicking on things. And those things give you more insight into the story.
normal-fucking-human-being: So it's a point-and-click adventure game?
me: Yes! But not like that at all. I mean, you point and you click, but you don't adventure.
normal-fucking-human-being: ...
me: Well, not normal adventure.
normal-fucking-human-being: ...
me:  It's an emotional adventure? 

How do you judge a thing if you have no category for it, no schema to understand it, no examples to compare it to? What merits a good whatever-Gone-Home-is?

Super-Brief Spoiler-Free Analysisless Summary
You come home from a year-long trip through Europe, to find your house dark and empty. You start making your way through the house and picking up objects, nosy-neighbor-style, to find out what's been happening since you've been gone. Each paper scrap, letter, and note gives you a bit more insight into the lives of your family members. Over the course of the two-hour game, you put together why they aren't home. (And waiting to welcome me with sweets and rollerskates, having turned the foyer into a personal skate rink with only the best music. E.g., all Ghostbusters all the time. Which is what I expect each and every time I arrive anywhere.) Since much of the game is about the process of discovery, every specific detail I could give becomes a spoiler and thus makes a summary a bit spotty.

Things I like about it
It's loud in all the right places. Every sound is jarring and out-of-place in the silence of that desolate house. Every decibel is relevant. The murmur from the telly sounds summons you down the hall like a whispered name, and you physically hunger for the continued revelations from your sister's journal just to hear her voiceover. The punk rock is terrible and tinny, just like I remembered mid-90s punk and the musical proclivities of teenagers. The sound of thunder is always startling and though the game boasts that there are no puzzles, conflicts, of fights, I couldn't help spinning around to face the door in preparation for a zombie ambush. (No guns ever made themselves available, but I'm pretty sure I could fling one of the bazillion carefully rendered objects and dropped them in the general direction of brain stems.)

You have never been in the presence of a plastic cup so dangerous.

This game is achingly lonely. As you make your way through the post-its and paper scraps, you discover three individuals suffering their own personal crises in isolated worlds, surrounded by each other but utterly failing to connect. It gives the impression of ghosts passing by each other in the kitchen, and sidling past one another in halls. The game makes you meet it halfway. Since the story is told in found notes and bits of trash, you are find yourself inferring emotional confusion, depression, anger, and joy. You're forced to make an effort to derive meaning, and therefore unintentionally become more invested. It's ridiculously fucking immersive.

Time management. It's two hours. (It's two hours if you're thorough and read everything, anyway.) This is the perfect amount of time. Any longer and it would feel like a chore. Any shorter and it would have felt like developer laziness. I make a whole section for this because knowing the right amount of time an experience should take is trickier than it has any right to be.

Moment of awesome: Following the trail of my sister's sleepover antics, seeing the remnants of her seance, and scaring myself by being alone in the dark, empty house and speculating on the monsters and baddies that were going to jump out at me from around corners.

Problems I have with it
It's not a game. There is no indication of what's important and what isn't, so after the eighth toilet paper roll you examine, you have to convince yourself there won't be anything under the ninth. Forced to self-determine importance for the sake of time, you can't stop wondering if there was something special about that last cup, maybe a word carved into the bottom that would unlock another journal entry. It's also ridiculously linear-- once you've explored a room, well... that's basically it for that room. Once there is nothing more to see, you move along. This is likely to be reflective of real life, you aren't likely to snoop through someone's living room, leave to snoop through the kitchen, then get an explicitly worded hint that you might have missed something in the back corner. Except that...

Kidding, it IS a game. And you do get an explicitly worded hint to go back into a specific room. But to uncover the super-secret panels that were put there originally for... a plot device to further the story. The secrets in this game are of the not-really secret variety. And once you uncover them, you feel vaguely disappointed that you got so worked up to begin with.

Stupid Sitcom Family is Stupid. The entire premise of the game is that you have no idea what's going on with your family and you have to discover it. They attempt to explain your ignorance with a year-long trip to Europe-- you even find postcards you sent from your travels! But apparently, your whirlwind trip was so erratic, you didn't have an address for your family to send a letter back to you. Neither did you have time to call, due to all the fantastic travel you were doing. Or maybe, your family didn't want to depress you with the mundane trivialities. Because, you know, this is set in the mid-90's when people refrained from telling their children about the happenings at home. (The better to induce a laugh-track, my dear!)

Moment of screaming furiousness: When half the house was locked from the foyer for no perceivable reason whatsoever. Compounded when I finally found the way in... only to discover that it was locked from the foyer for NO PERCEIVABLE REASON WHATSOEVER.

What the fuck is it?
Gone Home describes itself as "an interactive exploration simulator" and this is probably both the most and least accurate descriptor. It isn't a game in all the head-deskingly frustrating ways that you would want a thing to be a game. But it sucks the player in so completely, pushed face-first into a feels-filled ballpit that the experience morphs into something else, something wholly unexpected and something near-embarrassingly indescribable. I'm calling it a game if only to encourage developers to do more of this part.

From the Depths of Game Obsession

I’ve been alternating between being wholly involved with school or Animal Crossing. I’d atone for being so one-track-minded, but I haven’t unlocked a “sorry” emote yet. Legitimately incapable or apologies.

SteamOS and Consolification

I've been so inundated with schoolwork that I didn't even know to look for the announcement. Thank god Twitter blows up at the smallest waves in the internetosphere, and that I feel no guilt in perusing the 140-character news bursts while dashing to class. (On that note: sorry to the bicyclist who must have thought I had some sort of bizarre walk pattern as I dashed out in front of you, stopped suddenly, did an excited arm flail, then looked terrorized before dashing off again, requiring you to swerve manically out of my unpredictable path. But, to be fair, us peds are known to be wily and thus why you aren't supposed to be riding on the sidewalk to begin with, so it's your own fault, really.)

I'm generally a Valve enthusiast, loving the games they make, supporting their platform.Valve has honestly tried new things without reserve. They support and market indie games, they embrace new distribution methods. Steam was ridiculously brilliant when it came out and continues to be brilliant.  The Steam community is vast and varied, connecting gamers cross-genre. They seamlessly integrated the community into their platform, they make fantastic games, they experiment with new mechanics. They're hiring researchers to study their community. (They think that their community is something worth studying. And oh em gee it feels awesome to have my studies validated after coming up against derision for so long and so consistently.) Basically, they are super rad.

So when they announced yesterday that they are releasing SteamOS, for free, in 2014, my first reaction was to do the aforementioned spastic-arm-flail-of-excitement. And then, because I'm a worrier, I got worried. I feel no shame in the worry-- come, worry with me. But first, excitement justification:

Giddies:
Stream-to-TV: By including the feature to stream games from your PC to the TV, you feasibly give yourself the ability to choose how you want to play your game, at that moment. Feeling the need to be as horizontal as possible, perhaps in Batman footy jammies? Stream it to the telly and couch it. Want to capture one of Bioware's touching romantic scenes so you can finish your Garrus/Tali/Thane/Liara tribute video? Motivate yourself to your computer. That can be within the same day if your gameplay moods are as fickle as mine.
Resolution of the Romeo and Juliet Dynamic that is the Console/PC Divide but Without Tragic Circumstances: I've long bemoaned the rift between PC and console players of the same game. I play TF2 on PC, but my friends seem to be more comfortable controlling fine actions with the unwieldy flippers commonly found attached to a controller. (It's fine, I don't judge.) Even worse, we can't settle this in true gamer fashion as we've never been able to play together while using our respective platforms. On SteamOS, this divide is effectively removed, and the battle of which-is-better can actually be based on statistical win data.
One Platform to Rule Them All: My couch friends are my PC friends, and my couch achievements will be my PC achievements.

Worries:
Linux is Scary: For those used to buying a box and just having it work, SteamOS will take a bit more to implement. Choosing (or building!) a box and installing OS could be intimidating to those on the busier or less technologically inclined. I assume that Steam will be announcing just such a box to get around these concerns, but until then, I'm leaving this on the list. And while Steam already has tech support, there is the additional issues that arise from using Linux. Already, many people can troubleshoot their own problems on Mac, Windows, or even their consoles. Linux quite a bit less used, and hardware developers may not have had Linux in mind when creating their drivers.
A Question of Interest: Do Steam players want to play in front of the telly? Or are they part of the Steam community in part because the mouse-and-keyboard calls to them? If this is the case, how will they be incited to become couch converts?
Conversion usability: As of now, the only way to use a controller with Steam games is to plug it in as a peripheral and map the controls to your liking. This could be a deterrent to the plug-in-and-go group, and be difficult for devs to find time to pause work on the current projects to retrofit a new control scheme. (Especially all those lovely indie devs that have less manpower to reallocate.)
How We Play: I've mentioned the player-gamer interface issue a couple times in my worry list, so maybe this is indicative of a broader question. Is there a new way we could consider playing in the living room? Something with the fine control of the mouse and keyboard, and the relaxed mechanics of the controller? Such a system would be perfect for the Steam Box, but I've heard absolute zero discussion on input device redesign with these goals in mind. I suppose all controllers are trying to be better versions of the one before, but they seem to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary.

Steam has promised two more announcements this week which I'm sure will illuminate some of the specifics of the living room experience they have planned for us. But Steam has the ability to play with and redesign our expectations and perceived possibilities in how we play games. And judging from their history, we're likely to see something interesting. I'll try to be more stationary this time when the news comes out.

Travel Preparations

I'm preparing to go to PAX. This is my single favorite trip I take every year, and as such, my pre-PAX schedule is specific to the point of absurdity. At this point in the travel process, I have packed twice, cleaned once, determined the point in time which I should be doing final checks, final FINAL checks, gathering bags, and walking out the door. Simultaneously, I am constantly taking inventory of what I packed to make sure I forgot nothing. (Clearly the worst possible thing. As there is no possible way to replace my Cthulhu Fluxx at a gaming convention.)

Husband, by contrast, is setting up his webcam so he can spy on the cats.