. . .

Posts relating to Ideas:

4 years ago

More Miasmon Stuff!

◊ Posted by A β Pseudolonewolf
I've written more about Miasmon on the Alora Fane blog: ∞ LINK ∞

I only plan to play around with this for a bit before getting back to AFC, then I'll likely return to this after that's finished, but for now it's serving as a nice little project. I'm excited about it! Also, it'll probably be a mobile game.
4 years ago

Weekly Update - Miasmon Ideas

◊ Posted by A β Pseudolonewolf
The full post is on the Alora Fane blog: ∞ LINK ∞

I wrote about Miasmon-related ideas this week in a totally long and not-at-all mind-numbing way!! I still want to do something with this game idea, though I'm still not sure what it's going to be; I've poured too much time and effort into it to abandon it! A freemium mobile game is most likely, I suppose.
4 years ago

Four Factions

◊ Posted by A β Pseudolonewolf
Categories: IdeasThe Site
Oh gods how I hate knee-jerk, hostile reactions to basically every new idea that I come up with. It's one of the biggest reasons I stopped posting on Fig Hunter, because it seems that peoples' heads fill with all kinds of negative assumptions about whatever I suggest, which make them firmly oppose it. It destroys my motivation and feels like it seriously hinders my ability to be creative.

I'm at university right now, but I'm struggling to meet people because the way in which I prefer to communicate is relatively unusual... or rather, it's more subdued, so it's difficult to find others who prefer the same style. I don't like 'laughing and joking with buddies'. That kind of interaction doesn't appeal to me in the slightest. I find it tedious and I want to escape. However, I love discussions where I can probe deeply into someone's mind, and where they're doing the same to me. Serious conversations about personal sentiments, without any need for joking or keeping things 'light'. Other people hate this 'heavy stuff' though and are guarded about revealing their soft underbellies. This is understandable. We're not all the same.

I did meet one person who I seemed to have almost instant rapport with because we were both communicating in this same penetrating style, while I've talked to others for much longer but never felt like we're quite on the same wavelength because their subconscious preferences are so different to my own.

It would be wonderful to have a place, a haven, to come to, knowing that other people shared my interaction style and that I could have discussions that were really satisfying to me without the threat of people coming in and telling me that how I think or behave is wrong. Is this such an objectionable concept? Isn't that the very thing that made this community appealing to so many of you in the first place?

Anyway, the whole 'site split' thing has been my way of addressing this particular concern, but I've never been sure how exactly to handle it, since I know that many people would join the 'sensitive' section I set up for myself even if they don't belong there, rendering the whole thing pointless. Splitting things based on general preferences for interaction styles seems like an effective way of allowing very different types of people to have their own 'havens' that they can turn to if the conversation styles of others get frustrating.

I know that this isn't even a desirable idea for other people. Largely the idea appeals to me because of the years of embittering that Fig Hunter has inflicted upon me. However, I've also never cared about 'group unity' at all. Other people do, though, and I realise that. Socionics comes into play with things like this. For example, here's a general description of the 'delta quadra' types, of which my type, EII, is a member:

Groups made up of primarily Delta types tend to be focused on working on projects, enjoying physical recreation, or finding out interesting things about each other. Laughter is usually subdued and brief; instead, people smile a lot and try to be witty and welcoming. Groups need to be focused on some specific productive activity or topic of discussion, or else they fall apart. In Delta groups, there is a lot of splintering and decentralization. This allows for more focused and productive interaction with only those who share your particular interests or sentiments. People jump from small group to small group easily to keep up their interest level. No one demands that the entire group listen to one person or that everyone do the same thing. Delta Quadra types believe that if everyone just pursues their own interests and makes some accommodations for others, the group will be better off anyway. Delta Quadra types do not focusing on building group identity or unity of purpose, but prefer for the group to remain splintered and decentralized.

That fits fairly well with my idea of splitting up the site into small groups with similar sentiments. Compare and contrast that with the description of the 'alpha quadra':

Inclination for comfortable and pleasant group atmosphere, in the emotional, sensorial, and intellectual aspects. An ideal Alpha group situation is the exchange of light-hearted jokes while discussing imaginative ideas, movies, or sometimes sports, all while enjoying pleasant food and drink. Narrating personal experiences usually takes the form of telling a joke; funny personal experiences are preferred over "serious" ones. The exchange of sober concrete details are avoided. If the group is playing a game together, the fun and jokes that go along with it are at least as important as the game itself. They avoid generating "heavy" moments; any dramatic expressions are limited in time, most often in service of a joke. Alphas are also perhaps the most likely types to participate in group use of mind-altering substances.

Alpha discussions tend to go off on tangents, in whatever direction seems most interesting or funny at the moment. Unusual personal observations are common, resulting from the analysis of the idiosyncrasies or inconsistencies of everyday life. If many in the group share the same observations, they are likely to express their agreement emphatically, so as to create a kind of "mental harmony" which enhances the group dynamic. If a new problem is encountered, it is expanded and developed in as many ways as possible, until some kind of satisfactory conclusion is reached.

Alphas make no distinction between "insiders" and "outsiders", easily drawing people into a conversation once it has begun — though they tend to just as easily withdraw if the person is not receptive. Likewise, they prefer to have the same behavior at work as at play; they find formal speech and dress to be pretentious, unnecessarily limiting, and even ridiculous. Alphas dislike the idea that there is something going on "behind the scenes", preferring to keep things (especially personal motivations) as open and straightforward as possible.

As you can hopefully see, those describe very different interaction styles. I would definitely enjoy a situation that would fit into the delta quadra preference description, but I'd hate to be in a group that ran in this 'alpha' kind of way. Indeed, many groups I've seen so far at university have that feeling about them, and it just makes me feel like I'd never fit in at all because I can't do and don't enjoy that kind of interaction. I'd never even want to be part of a group at all; more than three people would be too much for me. I can see those who have that kind of group-preferring mentality being hostile about the idea of a group splitting up, though, as they have a much stronger sense of group identity and a desire for everyone to be together at once. It isn't even an extroverted thing; each of these 'quadra' things has as many introverted types as extroverted ones.

My idea for the 'factions' mainly caters to my specific desires, but I do think that it could have some value for everyone. I feel like the forum thread I started does a poor or misleading job of describing what I actually have in mind, so I'll do so again here.

Essentially, there'd be four factions which would play a role in the fictional world (as religion/nation kinds of things, with names like Attanga, Baktash, Cantor and Dwyru, or something), as well as being a feature of the site. You'd be able to select your faction from the settings menu. Each faction would have its own forum that only it could post in... However, the full forum might look something like this:

The Site
Other Games

Welcome Room
General Chat
Look what I found!


Feelings & Support

Entertainment & Media
Science & Technology

Religion, Philosophy & Politics


Faction A forum
Faction B forum
Faction C forum
Faction D forum

As you can see, *the majority of the forum would be shared*. The factions would each have their own room to retreat to if need be, but that'd only be a very minor part of the forum experience. There'd also be chatrooms for each faction, but I imagine most people would just spend their time in the common chatroom instead, retreating to their faction rooms only in rare circumstances where they wanted to talk to someone specific or where the general chat was too much to bear.

So it's not as if this idea would segregate you from your friends so then you'll never see them again. Instead, it gives different kinds of people their own 'safe room' where they can talk about things that are meaningful to them in a way where they're likely to get the kinds of responses that they'd be most appreciative of. Why is that so objectionable? It's the kind of thing I'd absolutely love, and which I wish there was more of in other places.

Anyway, it really is frustrating how people just dismiss basically every new idea out of hand as if everything is some terrible threat to the status quo. If it were up to the masses, everything would probably just stagnate, and we'd never develop or evolve at all. New ideas wouldn't even be tried because they'd be assumed to go badly if they were unusual, and... well, sigh, that just makes me feel so weary as a creative person who's always interested in trying new approaches.