KeillRandor’s Techdirt Profile


About KeillRandor

KeillRandor’s Comments comment rss

  • Mar 11th, 2014 @ 3:10am

    Oh dear...

    Is it bad that the first thought of mine was a lolcats picture?:

    I'm in ur filez, re-searchin' ur research...

    (And now the word search just looks really weird to me for some reason, lol.)

  • Jan 13th, 2014 @ 1:38pm

    There is a problem, but...

    There is actually a very specific problem at the root of this issue, but it's not being fully recognised and understood:

    We have a number of different activities that are currently being labelled and considered as being the same, especially when using computers.

    Unfortunately, the differences between such activities are so fundamental, that not recognising and understanding them - (or being able to do so) - IS causing problems. And since those whose responsibility it is to inform and teach people about such differences don't even know any better, either, it should be no surprise that the problems, and symptoms, are getting worse.

    All this professor is doing is recognising the possibility of some symptoms of this very problem, but without relating it to such a problem in the first place it has no true context in which to exist, (and therefore be studied).

    So, the problem is with what we use the word game to represent, and how and why it differs, but is related, to what we can (and should) use other words to represent, such as art, puzzle, competition, work and play.

    So how can the differences between them so fundamental?

    Because we're talking about differences such as:

    Things a person DOES, and things that happen TO that (same) person.

    We're talking about differences between things that can and should never be able to be considered and recognised as being the SAME THING.

    That people (of any age) can be taken advantage of when getting confused between such different things should be no surprise to anyone.

    The main questions, however, that truly need to be asked, are how we managed to get into such a situation in the first place, and what we can do about it...

    Which is what I'm working on - (Part 1: On the Functionality And Identity Of Language).

  • Jun 12th, 2013 @ 8:13pm


    If our understanding, perception and even recognition(!) of language was fully consistent in the first place, then a lot (but not all) of the 'problems' we have with it wouldn't really exist - (because we'd understand why they're not truly 'problems' in the first place) - and vice-versa, some of the actual problems we have are not even being recognised, either, for the same reasons.

    But I'm working on it...!

    (On the Functionality and Identity of Language.)

  • Dec 3rd, 2012 @ 9:11pm

    learning basic maths...

    To learn basic maths - the first step must, of course, be:

    1) Learn how to count.

    How many people or resources do you currently think are teaching people and children to count incorrectly/inconsistently?

    For (an easy/quick) example: check a number wall chart somewhere and see if it counts from 1 to 10/100 or 0 to 9/99.

    If its the former, then it's doing it WRONG - our numerical symbolic system functions as base-10:

    20, etc..

    We don't count from 1 to 10 - (we start with nothing/0).

    Anyone who is taught or thinks in such a manner is already starting off on the wrong foot... Basic addition and subtraction becomes fairly easy once the numerical system is understood, with multiplication and division becoming easier with that foundation.

  • Oct 13th, 2011 @ 10:34am

    Re: Interesting

    No - vertical integration and expansion is not, inherently, monopolistic. This is the method of expansion usually favoured by Japanese and other far-eastern companies and conglomerates. For many companies and industries, it makes perfect sense.

    In the west, however, we've generally, (though not always), favoured horizontal expansion - buying out direct competitors - and it's THIS that leads to monopolies, and causes problems.

  • Oct 5th, 2011 @ 1:59pm

    Re: Re: Re: Submarine simulators

    Maybe I should try and explain a bit - (though I'd still recommend you read my blog to fully understand).

    As I said in my previous post, simulators can be perceived as games. But it does depend on whether or not an individual person sees all of the elements the word game represents in such an activity.

    (Games are about people competing in a structured - (created rules) - environment by doing something for themselves).

    The main element which causes problems for some people with simulators, is competition. The main reason for this, is because in order for such software to be viewed as being competitive as a whole, it must involve indirect competition.

    All single-player games (and even (created?) puzzles), involve indirect competition.

    Unfortunately, however, many people fail to recognise and understand the presence and role of indirect competition, (since it's so prevalent throughout our entire lives and existence, most people have long since learned to ignore it), and as such have trouble recognising many activities as being competitive - (some people even go as far as saying that games are not competitive, when they obviously are, once you understand what competition represents):

    The basic use of competition, is as an application of compete:

    Compete n. To try and gain an outcome/goal at the expense of, or in spite of, someone or something else.

    It's the ability to compete in spite of something else - in this case, the setting and rules governing the behaviour of whatever the player is controlling - that allows indirect competition to fully exist.

    Of course, in addition to that, simulators tend to be very open-ended and free to the 'players', which again, many people have trouble dealing with in the context of the word game.

    But that's FINE, so long as everyone understands what it is the word game itself represents, (which such activities can then be compared to, but, unfortunately, that isn't the case at this time) - a subjective application of a (hopefully) objective definition, which is exactly how the language is supposed to work!

  • Oct 5th, 2011 @ 6:03am

    Re: Re: Submarine simulators

    I'd love to post a full reply and explanation of why simulators can be perceived, recognised and understood to be games, but it would be so long, it'd probably take me all night to just write it :p

    I recommend you read my blog, though, since it might help.

    Either way, however, your post, along with the problems with 'gamification' etc. are caused by the same problem:

    People not knowing or understanding what it is the word game itself represents, either in isolation OR in relation to the rest of the language.

    If that sounds like a matter of linguistics, then you'd be correct, which is where my blog comes in...

  • Mar 29th, 2011 @ 2:23pm

    Re: Art...

    Doh - forgot to say:

    Although my blog doesn't cover art (yet), I still suggest you read it to understand some of the other foundations of this problem (apart from greed) - (Click my name).

  • Mar 29th, 2011 @ 2:21pm


    The problem with art, is similar to many other similar words - such as game, puzzle, competition, and even work and play (as nouns) - in that people constantly, (and consistently), get confused between what a word represents - its DEFINITION - and how such a thing is applied - its APPLICATION.

    This is the problem here - since we're talking about trying to judge a definition by how it is applied, which, by its very nature is PURELY subjective!

    It is therefore up to an individual to apply such a definition by themselves, and not be dictated to by anyone else. I'm sure that if society didn't agree with any individuals opinion then they'd have ways and means of making it known without having to involve the law, which can't AFFORD to be so subjective!

    The ONLY objective standard is a pure copy of any work of art - and so that is all the law itself can defend - (but even then, it may not be in societies interests to do so) - anything else and society as a whole is then being dictated to by someone else's standards - at which point, society will ignore it and just work round it anyway, as it always does - which is what's happening.

  • Feb 26th, 2011 @ 9:37am



    @Jane McGonigal

    More people getting confused between games and general competitive behaviour... But then, whoever decided to call game theory such a thing - when it's purely about competitive behaviour/co-operative behaviour in a competitive environment, is definitely to blame for all this.

    Unfortunately for Jane - easy and hard is purely subjective, and therefore has no bearing on the matter at all.

  • Jan 17th, 2011 @ 2:42pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Epiphany or Token Gesture?

    "Congress: Exerting its monopoly on shamefulness and surrendering since 1776...."

    I guess the French won after-all then? ;)

  • Jan 8th, 2011 @ 9:58am

    Re: Re: Re: How much does our language affect our perspective?

    If anyone is interested in understanding what this post is about - it's been taken from this thread here (for some reason): Games_and_Game_Design.php

  • Jan 8th, 2011 @ 9:26am

    Re: Re: Re: How much does our language affect our perspective?

    Why someone has decided to re-post this post I made a while ago here, (probably from a reply to a topic on, I really haven't a clue, since it's not really relevant to the matter at hand... Pointless - my apologies for whoever thought it was a good idea...

  • Jan 7th, 2011 @ 11:09pm

    Re: How much does our language affect our perspective? (as Darren Tomlyn)

    This is, I think, slightly, (very?), related to something I'm working on at the minute.

    I'm currently working on a study of games as a matter of linguistics, (in relation to the English language), and the amount of confusion that exists around the subject is extremely high, all due to one problem:

    The subjective manner in how we USE the language, affects our perception, recognition and understanding of what other words within the language represent.

    Since we're taught to use the English language in a very subjective manner, (and the language itself reinforces such subjectivity), how much does this affect our perception and understanding of the world around us, without our awareness of what is happening?

  • Mar 6th, 2010 @ 9:17am


    This, of course, goes all the way back to Aristotle's Theory Of Art:

    Any art we create - (story we tell) - merely reflects the experiences of its creator(s) back upon them.

    You'd think that we'd fully understand all this stuff by now, wouldn't you? But you'd be wrong - and there would be a VERY good reason WHY!

    Unfortunately, this reason is what I'm currently trying to write a paper about at the minute, but I need help, since I'm not an student or have any academic background, and it really needs to be a 'proper' academic paper - but it's SO simple and fundamental, it's almost funny that it hasn't been realised before now...

    (We're talking (potentially) the most important English language paper ever, and (potentially) one of the most important language papers of all time... - (And no one seems to be interested in helping me :( ).

  • Jan 5th, 2010 @ 6:27am

    (untitled comment)

    (P.S. I hate the work/play dichotomy in the English Language, because the world really isn't so clear cut).

    The only difference between a toy and a tool, is a subjective viewpoint and application.

  • Sep 3rd, 2009 @ 12:31pm


    The biggest problem with making health care into an industry, (as the US has, and in so doing, has affected every other country), is that the best healthcare system is one that's NEVER USED.

    In other words - having the best health care, and making a profit, are actually ideally incompatible.

    With that in mind, along with the fact that health care HAS to treat everyone for lots of things equally - (since the minority can and WILL cause problems for the majority) - healthcare is actually one of the best systems designed for a socialist program - but only if it's done properly, and preferably from the ground up, without any interference - unfortunately, of course, such a scenario doesn't, and will probably never, exist.

  • Aug 13th, 2009 @ 1:31pm

    Re: gonna go ahead and say

    "people doing massive amounts of drugs in the middle of the dessert"

    Cannabis flavoured ice-cream?

  • Aug 8th, 2009 @ 1:11pm

    Re: (herodotus)

    1. Recorded music is free because I want it to be and so fuck the RIAA.

    2. Recorded music is free due to vast technological forces beyond anyone's control, so people who make it had better figure out how to adapt.

    But even this doesn't get the proper reason for what is going on:

    Distribution of information, (as well as its storage), at this moment in time, is almost free, (and getting cheaper).

    The reason why there's a problem, is because large parts of the music industry have been built on the premise that distribution is a) expensive, and b) under their control.

    Now those two are no longer true, they're having problems...

  • Aug 7th, 2009 @ 6:17pm

    Re: all those (damn) pizza analogies....

    Please, can people STOP trying to find analogies for the music industry by trying to use physical property and objects in place of INFORMATION. It CANNOT, WILL NOT, and will NEVER work...

    Information is NOT property, and one of the reason why everything is so screwed up these days is because people keep on trying to treat it as that, and failing dismally, but dragging everyone one else along with them.

    But the information itself ISN'T the problem here!

    The problem is that some of the industry got itself so set in it's ways about DISTRIBUTING the information, (i.e. the carrier pigeon vs telegraph analogy I give above), that they're having trouble adapting to a newer, more efficient method of distribution, (and copying).

    If the industry had charged for the creation of the information to begin with, rather than it's distribution, it wouldn't be in this situation right now.

    And THAT is why it's ENTIRELY a business model problem, and NOTHING ELSE. And it's no-one else's problem, but theirs - if they can't adapt, then tough cookies.

More comments from KeillRandor >>