Debate or Relate: the contexual essay

My digital artefact, Debate or Relate is an online flashcard game I created with my peer, Remy, that is played on the public domain of Instagram. We took inspiration from card games such as We’re Not Really Strangers and Cards Against Humanity. Our game works by Remy and I prompting question cards relating to significant topics, social issues and events. For the players to participate, they comment their opinion and perspective on the topic and have discussions with other players about it.

While there are already platforms where conversations on topics occur such as Reddit, we believe Debate or Relate is unique as we also post information cards containing factual and reliable information relating to the topic in order for the users to gain a deeper understanding of the matter.

Additionally, due to Instagram’s features such as anonymous question boxes on stories and direct messaging, there is an element of anonymity and privacy that users may prefer to utilise, rather than stating their opinion publicly. The goal is for the users to develop empathy and compassion for the issues while also listening and appreciating the opinions of others. We also aim for the users to gain a deeper understanding of societal issues and topics in order to be an informed member of society, which is our social utility. In order to create content for our DA, we observe current news and media to see if there are any trending issues and topics that are widely talked about. Once we find a topic, we then use Canva to create a question card and find factual and reliable information on the matter that does not contain any opinions or biased information. The purpose of including information cards is to help inform and further educate the user on the topic, not alter or sway their perception on it. As we create and plan our content in advance, here is a look at our future content we have prepared.

We prep our content in advance in order to adhere to the FIST principles of Fast, Inexpensive, Simple and Tiny. By doing this, our content is always ready to post at any time, leaving little room for inactivity. Once we post the content, all we have to do is create a commentator card and post it which usually takes no more than 5 minutes, depending on the length of the response and if we choose to include more than one comment. As a result, Debate or Relate adheres to the FIST principle. 

An important learning moment we have had is that quality always trumps quantity. Although our game has less than 40 followers, there have been insightful and large conversations made on certain question cards which emphasises quality over quantity. To elaborate, on the question card attached below, there was a large discussion between three people who had differing perspectives. Reading this conversation was extremely beneficial for myself as a mediator as I could see that my aim of instigating conversations on important topics was occurring, without the need of a large following.

Looking at our engagement, there is usually little to no likes or 1-3 comments on each post to the public eye. Although, there is a large amount of users who direct message us their perspectives and thoughts on question cards and there is usually a good amount of interaction on story posts. This includes story polls and anonymous question boxes that we post when question cards are uploaded. These story and direct messaging interactions highlight that perhaps some users do not feel comfortable posting their opinions publicly and would rather their answers to be anonymous or private. As a result, this has shown us that story features are extremely useful and we will keep implementing them within our digital artefact.  

In order to gather feedback from our users, we used story features such as polls and question boxes. A question we asked was what topics they wanted to see us post. This is crucial for our DA since we want to project future subjects that are not only relevant but also something that our users desire to discuss and engage with. The responses we received sparked our curiosity in investigating new themes and issues. We believe that by considering and applying this feedback, we will not only have continued acceptance of new topics but also greater user participation.

When we asked our players if our discussions and the information cards on the topics have been helpful in deepening their understanding of the topic, 100% of voters said yes. This demonstrates our social utility as it is evident that Remy and I’s main goal of our players learning and becoming more educated on important topics is being achieved through our game.

Here is some more feedback we received from utilising Instagram’s story features. 

Additionally, feedback from my beta video stated that we should push our game onto more platforms such as Tiktok

We ended up attempting to do this by creating a video advertisement for people to hop onto our Instagram game and also tried to stimulate conversations on TikTok. 

While these TikTok videos had a decent amount of views averaging 500, it didn’t bring any new players onto the Instagram game and no one responded to our questions attempting to start discussions. This became another important learning moment for us as we realised that we should put our focus solely on Instagram so we ended up ditching TikTok altogether. 

Evidently, the experience of being a game creator and mediator has been a fun and unique journey. I aim to keep continuing Debate or Relate as I believe it has not only deepened my knowledge on important societal issues, but also the players which is extremely beneficial and rewarding.

Online debating and discussions: the research report

For the past few months, I have been performing autoethnography on the media niche of online debating and discussions in order to gather data on the audience experience. While this niche typically refers to online forums such as Reddit, along with this platform, I have also been observing the online discussions that occur within social media platforms such as Instagram and TikTok. In order to conduct autoethnographic research, I have been performing participant observation within the niche which is the process of researchers learning about the activities of people through observing and participating in the same activities (DeWalt & DeWalt, 2002). 

Through actively being part of the niche by being a commentator as well as a spectator, I was able to formulate my own personal experience by being a participant of the online debating and discussion niche. With my participant observation and personal experience gained, I have been able to implement this knowledge within my digital artefact, Debate or Relate. Through studying my media niche, I was able to create my very own online discussion and debating space on the platform of Instagram. The specific details on how my autoethnographic research helped me create this and how it has been progressing are outlined within my video embedded below. 

By conducting autoethnographic research through participant observation, I was able to identify three major epiphanies that have helped me deepen my knowledge on my media niche, while also helping me create content for my digital artefact. These epiphanies are outlined within my previous blog posts, Much to talk about and Much to think about. While my methods included observational research and participant observation, these epiphanies formed the basis of my methodologies as I was able to analyse them and build a framework on my data with academic research to generate even more knowledge on my niche. Here is some more further research and its relation to my digital artefact. 

  1. Unpopular opinions are actually popular

My autoethnographic findings have discovered the popularity of unpopular opinions and how participants are able to connect with one another by sharing the same opinions. As people may be reluctant to share their unpopular opinions in real life, this may not be the case when it comes to online discourse as

“Anonymity online obliterates real-life identity boundaries and enhances free and open communication, thus promoting a more enlightened exchange of ideas.” (Papacharissi 2004 p. 267)

This discovery is also connected to Habermas’ concept of the public sphere, which is defined as a space where “private people come together as a public” (Habermas 1989 cited in Kruse 2017). While the public sphere was originally envisioned as a social coffeehouse, today’s public sphere occurs on the internet, notably on social media. People can “challenge discourses, share alternative perspectives, and publish their own opinions” (Loader & Mercea 2011 cited in Kruse 2017) over social media as the internet is readily accessible and anyone can transmit information. I see my digital artefact, Debate or Relate as its own public sphere as the participants are having discussions on significant topics and are challenging mine as the mediator and one another’s views. 

  1. Generation Z are too “sensitive”

Another insight I had explains how my observations in the online discussion niche have led to many people assuming that Generation Z is overly sensitive and takes various topics too seriously. This hypersensitivity has given rise to the concept of cancel culture, which some perceive as a senseless sort of social media mob rule. On the other hand, many people see it as a crucial instrument for social justice because it involves publicly demanding accountability and boycotting.

Furthermore, McLuhan’s communication theory may help to explain why some people believe Generation Z to be hypersensitive. McLuhan’s notion that the “medium is the message” is clear in my observations, which reveal how this enlightenment was primarily confined to the platforms of TikTok and Instagram. Considering social media allows Generation Z to communicate and express themselves, it’s possible that these platforms seem to contribute to the so-called hypersensitivity. This could be attributed to Generation Z’s ability to constantly access and consume media related to specific events, issues, and themes on social media, leading to an intolerance for what they consider unethical. Applying this to my digital artefact, I created a question card on this issue. Whilst no one commented on the actual question card, we received multiple direct messages and anonymous responses to the question and everyone had differing views. These answers definitely made me see the topic in a different light and my own previous opinion on the topic was altered as a result.  

  1. Participants are becoming more aware

Based on my observations, I’ve noticed that online debates and discussions can help people become more knowledgeable, aware, and educated about specific topics, situations, and events. When a participant is unaware of or uneducated about a topic, they are more likely to ask questions about it, expanding the conversation and increasing their knowledge. This is also due to the fact that these online forums expose users to thoughts outside of their personal associations, allowing for the acceptance of diverse viewpoints (McKenna & Bargh, 2000 cited in Wojcieszak & Mutz, 2009). 

​​My experiences also align with the concept of deliberative democracy, which holds that if individuals talk about politics with others, they will become more knowledgeable, tolerant, and introspective, resulting in higher-quality opinions. Even if they are greeted with opposition, they are able to think on the diverse viewpoints of others and reevaluate their own preconceived notions (Wojcieszak & Mutz 2009). Participating in online conversations and debates appears to be advantageous for further learning and knowledge enhancement, as my autoethnographic data gathered via participant observation reveals. In order to apply this epiphany to my digital artefact, I implemented information cards, which is further discussed in my video [1:10].

My final thoughts

Critically analysing and observing the online discussion and debating niche has provided a new outlook on my perceptions towards these communities. A large amount of my previous assumptions and beliefs about the niche were challenged, and I was able to attain various ethnographic skills which are further highlighted within my video above [2:57]. Not only did I obtain a proper insight and comprehension of the niche by conducting autoethnography by observing and being an active participant, but I was also informed and educated on major subjects, issues, and events. This was achieved through being an active commentator and observer as well as through the creation of my digital artefact. All in all, this experience was extremely beneficial as I gained valuable skills and knowledge that will assist me in my day to day life.

Reference list

Cresswell, JW. (2016) ‘30 Essential Skills for the Qualitative Researcher’ Sage: Los Angeles. 

DeWalt, KM. & DeWalt, BR. (2002) ‘Participant observation: a guide for fieldworkers’ Chapter 1, p1-4, Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, available at: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=p1wcO3UNXQ4C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false&gt

Kruse, L., Norris, D., & Flinchum, J. (2017) ‘Social Media as a Public Sphere? Politics on Social Media’, The Sociological Quarterly, pp. 1-3.

Moore, C. (2020) ‘BCM241 Media Ethnographies – Qualitative Research and Ethnographic Skills Part Two’ [online video] available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28QmGs1ItF0

Moore, C. (2020) ‘BCM241 Media Ethnographies: Research Ethics and Ethical Research’ [online video] available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGXyTv4ZzR8&ab_channel=ChrisMoore

Papacharissi, Z. (2004) ‘Democracy online: civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups’ Temple University, USA, Vol 6.2, pp 267-268.

Thomas, M.J.W. (2002) ‘Learning within incoherent strcutures: the space of online discussion forums’ Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Vol 18.3, p. 351-366.Wojcieszak, M. & Mutz, D. (2009) ‘Online Groups and Political Discourse: Do Online Discussion Spaces Facilitate Exposure to Political Disagreement?’ Journal of Communication, Vol 59, pp. 40-56.

It’s reflection time

As a result of writing comments and leaving feedback on various BCM215 digital artefact betas of other students, I gained skills in critically analysing and examining their tasks through the lens of a tutor. As well as this, leaving feedback also made me reflect and think about my own digital artefact, and ways on how I could improve and adjust it. 

Here are the comments I made:

Comment 1: Andrea’s beta

Comment 2: Carla’s beta

Within each comment, I made sure to highlight what aspects of the beta I liked and if they had followed the task instructions. I also suggested some valuable academic sources that were specific to the student and their project. As well as these sources, I also described how they would be useful for the particular student and how they could utilise them within their research. I believe this was helpful as these sources may help them further their research and game analysis. Although, I could’ve improved these comments by also including actionable suggestions the students could implement within their DA and game analysis. Additionally, it would have also been a good idea to comment on the video and blog post structure to examine if it was logical and if it flows well.

By assessing the work of others, I was able to review my own digital artefact, Debate or Relate and my game analysis. Although most importantly, giving feedback to other students helped me critically reflect on how I can possibly improve my project. As I wanted to examine the betas correctly, the assessment criteria was present during the creation of the comments to see if the student had met the needs of the task. As this significantly helped me examine the student’s pitches, it led me to also think about my own project and if my pitch had met the criteria as well.


When reflecting on this, I realised that my pitch did not meet all of the criteria and could’ve been improved. To illustrate, while I added academic sources relating to my game analysis, I should’ve added some subject materials such as lectures within my beta. When I showcased my field journal within my beta, I should’ve referenced the Week 3 lecture as this lecture helped me formulate the field journal and informed me of what I should be observing and documenting in order to develop an analysis and build my analytical framework. Additionally, when I was outlining one of my analytical elements, interactivity, I should have referenced the Week 7 lecture as it focused on participatory media culture. While I believe I satisfactorily met most of the assessment criteria, I could’ve improved this. For future reference, I will make sure to read and review the assessment criteria in depth before I complete the assessments.

Reference list

Moore, C. (2020) ‘BCM215 Game Media Industries – Media Archaeology’ [online video] available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJa2mh4xEJs&t=2s&ab_channel=ChrisMoore

Moore, C. (2020) ‘BCM215 Game Media Industries: Participatory Media Culture (Full Lecture)’ [online video] available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGIEO-NkJHM&ab_channel=ChrisMoore

Peer reviewing and reflecting 2.0

By commenting and leaving feedback on various digital artefact betas of other students, I learnt how to formally analyse and examine their progress through the lens of a tutor. As well as this, leaving feedback also made me think about my own digital artefact and research project, and how I could improve it. 

Here are the comments I made on two beta videos:

Comment 1: Rebekah’s beta

Comment 2: Hannah’s beta

While providing my feedback, I made sure to suggest some valuable academic sources for each student. In conjunction with the sources, I also described how they would be useful for the student and how they could utilise them within their research. I believe this was helpful as including these sources would ultimately improve their DA content creation and ethnographic research. As well as this, I made sure to highlight what aspects of the beta I liked and if they had followed the task instructions. For future reference, perhaps I can add more suggestions on what they could improve on. 

By assessing the work of others, I was able to review my own digital artefact and my autoethnographic research. Although most importantly, giving feedback to other students helped me critically reflect on how I can possibly improve my research project. As I wanted to examine the betas correctly, the assessment criteria was present during the creation of the comments to see if the student had met the needs of the task. As this significantly helped me examine the student’s betas, it led me to also think about my own project and if my beta had met the criteria as well.

When reflecting on this, I realised that my beta did not meet all of the criteria and could’ve been improved. This included the inclusion of subject materials and academic sources. For instance, when describing my autoethnographic research, I should’ve cited the week 3 lecture which details the method of participant observation. As I showcased my notes and participant observation within the online debating and discussion niche within my beta, it would’ve been valuable to reference this lecture as well as other materials on observation such as Marvasti and Dawson’s sources. As a result of this, I will make sure to include more subject materials and well as sources on autoethnography such as Wall’s research within my research report and digital artefact submission coming up. 

Reference list

Dawson, C. (2002) ‘How to Carry Out Participant Observation, in Practical Research Methods A User-Friendly Guide to Mastering Research Techniques and Projects’, HowTo Books: Oxford.

Marvasti, Amir B. (2014) ‘Analysing Observations’, The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis. Uwe Flick editor. Sage: Los Angeles.

Moore, C. (2020) ‘BCM241 Media Ethnographies: Methods and Methodologies Part One’ [online video] available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHrzTp7-g-0&ab_channel=ChrisMoore

Wall, S. (2006) An Autoethnography on Learning about Autoethnography, International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5 (2).

My progress as a game maker so far

Since creating this DA, there have been various changes and iterations made as a result of audience feedback and observations made. Multiple polls and questions were posted onto the story so users could provide feedback. 

When I gathered feedback from the players, I asked if they enjoyed the discussions and if the discussions and question cards helped further their knowledge on certain topics. To both of these polls below, 100% of voters said yes. As the game does not have a large amount of followers, this demonstrates that my players are actually benefiting from the game, emphasising quality over quantity.

Another question I asked the players was if they had any suggestions for future topics. These suggestions will be implemented within our next question cards in order to meet their needs. The results are included below.

Following my pitch feedback, here was what one of my peers stated about my project.

After taking this into consideration, I revised my framework and agreed with my peer. As there was definitely a large amount of research required, I ended up narrowing my 3 concepts to a contextual analysis, spectrum and interactivity which has worked out to be a much more relevant and applicable framework.  

On another note, while the Instagram profile only has 40 followers, depending on the question card, there are usually 1-3 responses on each card or sometimes there are full-blown debates from multiple players with different perspectives. This was evident within our prompt, “Can people be gender fluid”. 

This was a major moment for me as a game creator as the discussion was civil and extremely informative for me as a mediator, the active players and the audience who read the discussion. This was also when I knew my DA was heading in the right direction and my goals of creating a civil and informative space for online discussion in a game format was beginning to occur.

I’ve been Debating AND Relating

By undertaking an autoethnographic investigation into the media niche of online discussions and debating, I was able to create my digital artefact, Debate or Relate. This project is based on Instagram which aims to promote and instigate discussions with users about social issues, events and topics in current society. Since creating this DA, there have been various changes and iterations made as a result of audience feedback and observations made. Multiple polls and questions were posted onto the story so users could provide feedback. 

When asked, “Have the discussions/information provided on the question card helped you better understand the topic?” 100% of voters said yes. 

This relates to my first epiphany of the niche, participants are becoming more aware. As the discussions and information cards help further the knowledge of users of certain topics, it coincides with Thomas’ conclusion that online discussion forums can lead to enhanced learning outcomes.

Another question we asked our users was if they had any suggestions for future topics. These suggestions will be implemented within our next question cards in order to meet their needs. The results are included below.

Additionally, some of the pitch feedback we received for our DA was to observe without interference and let rude remarks occur which may happen when discussing controversial topics. While no rude remarks have occurred yet, we decided to take on this advice and not interfere with our participants at all, ensuring the discussion is as real and raw as possible, especially when there are opposing perspectives.

How will Debate or Relate be analysed?

In order to perform a critical analysis on a game I created, Debate or Relate, I have built an analytical framework revolving around the concepts of contextual analysis, spectrum and interactivity. Let’s have a look at what these concepts are, and how I will apply it to my game. P.S click play below if you prefer to listen while you read!

The context of a game involves the circumstances in which a game is produced and played as texts are the products of their time, place and situation (Moore 2020). This post-structuralist approach is crucial to an analysis of a game as if we miss the larger context in which texts are created, we may miss elements that are essential to understanding it (Fernandez-Vara 2019). Not only is context important within game media, but it can also be applied to a range of media and texts, such as utilising contextual analysis to study philosophy. As a result, contextual features such as social-political and techno-economic circumstances of Debate or Relate will be considered while evaluating the context as it will help form an analysis on how context shaped why and how the game was created.

Source: https://www.emypa.com/blog/context-the-spice-that-works-the-magic-in-client-relationships/

Depending on the individual, play can either be a competitive human pursuit within a set of activities or an outlet of expression and a manifestation of human emotions. The concept of spectrum refers to exactly this, where games fall on a spectrum between the two poles of Paidia (playfulness) and Ludus (formality) (Moore 2020). Further explanations of these concepts are defined below.

Paidia: “[Paidia] incorporates implicit socio-cultural rules that guide a player’s actions and behaviour but do not lead to a ‘winning scenario’.” (Frasca 2003 cited in Jensen 2013)

Ludus: “[Ludus] is entirely structural and is play that is explicitly bound by rules, characterised by regulation and strategy.” (Moore 2020)

The concept of spectrum predominantly aligns with game media, although it can apply to any game, no matter the format or genre. I will be comparing spectrum with my field journal in order to analyse whether elements of paidia and ludus are both presented within my game.

This may be through my observation of the players and by identifying the formal elements of the game. Additionally, the contextual analysis of the game may help when applying spectrum as the context will help identify why elements of paidia and ludus are present. 

My last concept is interactivity, which is a technique of participation within games according to Raessens (Raessens 2005). This characteristic is described as

“A summative perception of the degree to which a user participates in a communication process with substantive interactive features of a technology.”

(Gleason & Lane 2009 p. 5)

In order to apply this to Debate or Relate, I will analyse the interactive elements of the game including how the players interact with other players as well as how they interact with me as a mediator. I will also examine how this may affect their play experience. Furthermore, outside of a gaming context, interactivity has been analysed within a range of different texts. To illustrate, Richards completed a study on how interactivity can improve learning within students (Richards 2006). While this study does not relate to games, it may help me with my analysis as an objective of Debate or Relate is learning and informing players about important societal matters. On another note, after performing a contextual analysis of Debate or Relate, I will be able understand why interactivity occurs in the game. As well as this, the concept of spectrum will also help me formulate an analysis using interactivity as the characteristics of paidia and ludus may impact the way interactivity occurs within the game. 

References

Fernandez-Vara, C. (2019) ‘Introduction to Game Analysis’ New York: Routledge, Second edition.

Gleason, JP. & Lane, D. (2009) ‘Interactivity Redefined: A First Look at Outcome Interactivity Theory’ In annual meeting of the NCA 95th Annual Convention, Chicago IL. Vol. 24, pp. 1-26.

Jensen, G. (2013) ’Making Sense of Play in Video Games: Ludus, Paidia, and Possibility Spaces’ Eludamos. Journal for Computer Game Culture; 7(1), pp. 69-80. Available at: https://www.eludamos.org/index.php/eludamos/article/view/vol7no1-4/7-1-4-html accessed 21/09/2021

Moore, C. (2020) ‘BCM215 Game Media Industries – Media Archaeology’ [online video] available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJa2mh4xEJs&ab_channel=ChrisMoore accessed 21/09/2021

Raessens, J. 2005, Computer games as participatory media culture, In J. Raessens & J. Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook of computer game studies (pp. 373-388). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Richards, D. (2006) ‘Is interactivity actually important?’ Computing Department Macquarie University, pp. 1-7.

Much to think about.

My last blog post highlighted three important epiphanies that I identified as a result of completing autoethnographic research within the media niche of online discussions. Within this post, I will be building on these ideas and examining how they will help me develop my online persona within my digital artefact, Debate or Relate.

Through my observations, I’ve discovered that online discussions and debates are actually extremely useful tools for participants to be more informed, aware and educated on certain topics, issues and events. When a participant is unaware or uninformed about a topic, they tend to ask questions about the matter, furthering the discussion and becoming more and more informed. This is also due to these online forums exposing the participants to opinions beyond the confines of their immediate associations, enabling the acknowledgement of different perspectives (McKenna & Bargh, 2000 cited in Wojcieszak & Mutz, 2009). The effectiveness of online discussions is highlighted within a journal article by Thomas which states, 

“As a tool for promoting conversational modes of learning, it has been suggested that online discussion forums can lead to enhanced learning outcomes for students.”

(Thomas 2002)

In addition, my observations also coincide with the concept of deliberative democracy, which is the logic that if people discuss politics with others, they will be more informed, tolerant and reflective, leading to higher quality opinions. Although if they are met with disagreement, they are able to reflect on the differing views of others and have the opportunity to reevaluate their own preconceived opinions (Wojcieszak & Mutz 2009). As my autoethnographic data collated form participant observation demonstrates this, the act of participating in online discussions and debates are seemingly beneficial for further learning and enhancement of knowledge. 

My second epiphany highlights the popularity of unpopular opinions and how participants are able to connect with one another by sharing the same opinions. As people may be reluctant to share their unpopular opinions in real life, this may not be the case when it comes to online discourse as

“Anonymity online obliterates real-life identity boundaries and enhances free and open communication, thus promoting a more enlightened exchange of ideas.”

(Papacharissi 2004 p. 267)

This epiphany also relates to Habermas’ concept of the public sphere which is defined as a place where “private people come together as a public” (Habermas 1989 cited in Kruse 2017). While the public sphere was first imagined as a social coffeehouse, the modern public sphere takes place on the internet, more specifically, on social media. As the internet is relatively accessible and anyone can distribute information, social media allows for people to “challenge discourses, share alternative perspectives and publish their own opinions” (Loader & Mercea 2011 cited in Kruse 2017). Thus allowing for participants to express their unpopular opinions and discuss them freely with others. 

My last epiphany details how my observations within the online discussion niche have led to many believing Generation Z are too sensitive as they take certain topics too seriously. This resulted in the creation of the label, snowflake which is a means to criticise the entitlement and hypersensitivity of younger generations. To some, this hypersensitivity has led to the concept of cancel culture, which may be seen as a senseless form of social media mob rule. On the other hand, to many, it is an important tool of social justice as it is the process of publicly calling for accountability and boycotting.

In addition, the theory of communication by McLuhan may also help to explain why some perceive Generation Z as hypersensitive. As my observations convey how this epiphany was predominantly confined to the platforms of TikTok and Instagram, McLuhan’s theory of the ‘medium is the message’ is evident. As social media itself allows Generation Z to communicate and voice their opinions, perhaps it is these platforms that causes this so-called hypersensitivity. This may be due to Generation Z being able to constantly view and consume media relating to certain events, issues and topics on social media thus building an intolerance to what they deem is unethical. This results in their labelling of ‘snowflake’ and being hypersensitive. 

REFERENCES

Papacharissi, Z. (2004) ‘Democracy online: civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups’ Temple University, USA, Vol 6.2, pp 267-268.

Thomas, M.J.W. (2002) ‘Learning within incoherent strcutures: the space of online discussion forums’ Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Vol 18.3, p. 351-366.

Wojcieszak, M. & Mutz, D. (2009) ‘Online Groups and Political Discourse: Do Online Discussion Spaces Facilitate Exposure to Political Disagreement?’ Journal of Communication, Vol 59, pp. 40-56. 

Kruse, L., Norris, D., & Flinchum, J. (2017) ‘Social Media as a Public Sphere? Politics on Social Media’, The Sociological Quarterly, pp. 1-3.

Participate in the discussion!

My digital artefact, Debate or Relate is a game I created on Instagram which aims to promote and instigate discussions with the players about social issues, events and topics in current society. This is through posting question cards that relate to a certain topic and the players respond with their opinion. As the game heavily relies on the participation of players in order to operate, my digital artefact aligns with Raessens’ analytical framework, ‘Computer Games as Participatory Media Culture’

Multimediality

Multimediality refers to the interconnection of various functions which can provide media, ranging from texts, images, graphics and animations. As Debate or Relate was designed to be an online flashcard game, we predominantly post question cards which are still images. Although, while observing our players and how they respond to the game, some are unable to form their own opinions or perspectives due to their lack of knowledge on a topic. To bridge this gap, we post informative and factual resources as well as our question cards in order for the players to learn more about the topic. As these resources can range from infographics to videos, multimediality is evident. 

Here is also video we created to advertise our game:

Virtuality

While Debate or Relate is not a typical ‘virtual’ world like VR, according to Moore, “virtuality is the representational elements that enable humans to directly engage with algorithms in real time” (Moore 2020). This applies to my digital artefact as the game may be viewed as a virtual public sphere. Habermas visioned the public sphere as a ‘coffeehouse’ where individuals come together to form public opinions. Although in today’s current society, social media may be recognised as the new public sphere. As Debate or Relate has the same ideals as Habermas’ coffeehouse, it is essentially a virtual public sphere. 

Source: https://www.ecommerce-nation.com/7-best-social-networks-to-do-marketing-in-your-ecommerce/

Interactivity & Connectivity

Interactivity is Raessens’ third ontological characteristic of computer games. This characteristic is described as

“the ability to intervene in a meaningful way within the representation itself, not to read it differently.”

(Cameron, 1995, p. 33 cited in Raessens 2005 p. 374)

Debate or Relate relies on the players to interact with the question cards by responding to them with their own opinions and perspectives of the topic at hand. These interactions may be done by commenting, liking, sharing and direct messaging us their opinions. The players are also able to connect with other debaters as well as me, the mediator which allows for connectivity. Additionally, this relates to Bruns’ ‘produsage’ theory where users are no longer just audiences of a text, but also producers. While we create and prompt the question cards, the players are the predominant producers of Debate or Relate as they comment their opinions, connect with other users and participate in discussions which is the purpose of the game. 

The way we interpret games is dependent on cultural studies. As everyone has different opinions, views and perspectives on certain topics, each player will interpret the question cards according to their own culture. The characteristics of their culture may include features such as ideology, class and ethnicity which may form the basis or influence their own perspectives and interpretations of the topics at hand. (Moore 2020). The differing interpretations among the players is what ultimately causes debates and sometimes, heated discussions within our game, especially if the interpretations clash. 

References

Bruns, Axel (2006) Towards Produsage: Futures for User-Led Content Production. In Ess, C, Sudweeks, F, & Hrachovec, H (Eds.) Proceeding of the 5th International Conference on Cultural Attitudes towards Technology and Communication. School of Information Technology, Australia, pp. 275-284.

Moore, C. (2020) ‘BCM215 Game Media Industries: Participatory Media Culture (Full Lecture)’ [online video] available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGIEO-NkJHM&ab_channel=ChrisMoore accessed 10 October 2021

Raessens, J. 2005, Computer games as participatory media culture, In J. Raessens & J. Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook of computer game studies (pp. 373-388). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Much to talk about.

For the past few weeks, I’ve been actively participating and observing the media niche of online debating and discussion. As online discussion occurs on pretty much every social media platform, I chose to conduct autoethnographic research on the discussion that occurs on Reddit, TikTok and Instagram. Here are the notes that I gathered observing these platforms:

Through these observations and being an audience member of this media niche, it led me to three important epiphanies that will help me with the content creation of my DA, Debate or Relate

A common denominator that I observed on all three platforms was that the online discussion that occurs is actually extremely beneficial. This is due to the people involved in the discussions becoming more aware and educated on certain topics. They are either aware about a topic/event but do not know the details or it or are not aware about it at all. Regardless, they are eager to know more about the issue at hand, leading to them asking many questions so they have more knowledge on the topic. 

This screenshot is taken from a Reddit post that was discussing the recent Texas Abortion Bill. As you can see, commentators are asking questions about the bill and other participants are answering them. 

As well as this, some participants in the discussion learn about new and different perspectives, further highlighting the importance of discussion. Here is screenshot of an Instagram profile that posted information about racism towards Asians and a commentator stating, “I honestly never thought of it that way…”

This epiphany coincides with this journal article by Thomas which outlines how people can learn within incoherent structures, such as an online discussion forum. As Thomas studies online discussion forums and how they can be a tool for promoting conversational modes of learning, it supports my observations. Additionally, within my DA, I will also post information about a particular issue/topic so the participants can be more informed and completely understand the topic before forming an opinion if needed. 

My next epiphany is an ongoing theme that I have also observed across the three platforms. Many people create a post conveying their unpopular opinions expecting people to disagree. Although through my observations, I have gathered that there is usually quite a lot of people who agree with the unpopular opinion, making them popular. 

Of course, there are also people who do not agree with the opinion as well, creating discourse. As a result I will conduct an online discourse analysis and also draw on concepts such as the public sphere and how it relates to social media and online discussions. This is useful for my DA as perhaps I can post some unpopular opinions to see if people agree or disagree with the statement. 

My last epiphany was mostly observed on TikTok and Instagram where people would bring up a certain issue, and they would be immediately scrutinised for being too “sensitive”. This is evident within the screenshots below.

This has led to some people believing certain issues shouldn’t even be an issue in the first place which may be an problem as they dismiss the whole topic entirely. Additionally, this has become topic of discussion as many believe Generation Z are too sensitive in general. This will be utilised within my DA as I can create a question card based on this topic and create a discussion. A reaction to the rapper, Eminem being cancelled is attached below. 

In order to analyse this epiphany, I will draw on concepts such as ‘Cancel Culture’ and ‘Snowflakes’ how it relates to Generation Z’s “sensitivity”. In addition, as I observed this epiphany on the platforms of TikTok and Instagram, which are predominantly utilised by younger generations, perhaps the communication theory by McLuhan may also be a useful analytical framework.