Clue Train Manifesto comments..

I thought the clutrain manifesto is a very thoughout and intelligent reading. Some of these statements have made me think more of why things are the way they are. Why do companies build a seemingly insurmountable wall between ring leader and employee? If all parts of a company would share knowledge then things would be more about people. This reminds me of where my Aunt used to work, she was a consultant at this company who made huge promises but did not seem to follow through. They spend millions on advertising and made it seem like they were helping the community, but how is this effective when the community around your company is in near ruins and don't lift a finger to revitalize it. One of my favorite lines from the clue train manifesto is: #3 Conversations among human beings sound human. They are conducted in a human voice.

Companies want to appeal to the working man and appeal to the public. If this had any traces of truth then employees fromt he company would going out intot he commmunity and appearing on commercials instead of the CEO trying too sell propaganda garbage.
#13 What's happening to markets is also happening among employees. A metaphysical construct called "The Company" is the only thing standing between the two.
The company seems like an intimidating force. Isolationg is prominent among companies. The different departments like human resources, compliance and the "top brass" should communicate collectively. Sharing knowledge could be key to the success and appeal of the company. My suggestion would be that people need to stop being stuck in their ways so progress could be possible. A company divided will not get far.

-Abe

95 Theses

I thought was a pretty interesting reading because it was a different way of looking at how companies and markets interact. A lot of the theses were redundant, but I picked three that I thought summed up the main arguments of the author. Theses 12, 16, and 25 seem to cover the main themes of the rest of them.

#12 - "There are no secrets. The networked market knows more than companies do about their own products. And whether the news is good or bad, they tell everyone."
I think this is an interesting point because with all the access consumers have to company information through the internet gives them a much better idea of what they are buying. Companies are no longer able to sugar coat their products and try to make them look better than they are.

#16 - "Already, companies that speak in the language of the pitch, the dog-and-pony show, are no longer speaking to anyone."
This idea kind of goes along the same road as #12 in that companies can't sugar coat their products, but this is also saying that companies need to lose the formal way of going about things and try to relate more to the people because this is what is becoming the ultimate marketing success. Companies such as Apple are able to appeal to a much wider consumer base with their informal and user friendly products.

#25 - "Companies need to come down from their Ivory Towers and talk to the people with whom they hope to create relationships."
I thought this thesis summed up pretty much the rest of the theses from 26 and on because they were all referring to the companies relating to their consumers more. They all kept referring to the human language and how companies weren't speaking it, which was going to be their downfall unless they can let the inevitable just happen.

-Mike

Gamer Theory

I was anticipating more than what was contained in this book. I understand many video games attempt to copy real life, which intrigue people to play it and become entertained and engaged. I just feel this book was long and drawn out to the point where discussing it further became confusing. Real life is real, virtual reality is virtual reality. I am glad we have moved onto the clue train manifesto which I think is much more interesting. The first six chapters of gamer theory in my opinion were enough for Wark to get his point across.

clue train manifesto

"There are no secrets. The networked market knows more than companies do about their own products. And whether the news is good or bad, they tell everyone".
*This reminded me of our discussion earlier in the year about data mining. Companies know more information about your digital self then you do which is a rather creepy phenomena as we talked about at length during class. Google knows every search you have ever done and can trace it back to your individual computer. Facebook "knows" what your interests are , there are advertisements that are specific to what you like and yes it is kind of nice that I get inundated with ads for Gossip Girl and The Hills it's still slightly weird for me, networked markets really are the ones with the eyes and we are all blind to it until we are trapped in it.

"We are immune to advertising"
*This 'clue train manifesto' applies to the one above in that advertising in many regards define American culture-physically and on the internet (my example of the facebook advertisements) we just internalize what we see and don't question it.


-Anna-

Clue Train Manifesto

I rather enjoyed reading this. I thought it was extremely intelligent, thought out, and very much applicable to today's standard business. These are the thesis that I liked.

12 There are no secrets. The networked market knows more than companies do about their own products. And whether the news is good or bad, they tell everyone.

I thought this was interesting because today when a new product comes to the market, it usually has a standard use and the customer has to wait for upgrades or accessories from the company. But, today when a new product hits the market there are tons of different little companies that sell their accessories or upgrades for the product well before the company releases them. Also, this body of under the radar companies combined with the market are very creative as they pool ideas from everyone at exceptional speeds.

17 Companies that assume online markets are the same markets that used to watch their ads on television are kidding themselves.

I thought of my mom, who does own a computer and uses the internet is more likely to see a add from tv and then find in online rather than find it while exploring online more randomly. People who find computers tricky and awkward are not going to be this new type of market.

31 Networked markets can change suppliers overnight. Networked knowledge workers can change employers over lunch. Your own "downsizing initiatives" taught us to ask the question: "Loyalty? What's that?"
The new markets of online shoppers and users don't have that sense of loyalty. The internet makes that easier but I agree that this idea that companies cut employees with ease has led to this feeling of the best product with the best service wins, if there is somethings or someone better with the drop of a hat the market will shift.


65 We're also the workers who make your companies go. We want to talk to customers directly in our own voices, not in platitudes written into a script.

I know that this exists, but I would have to give this platform to the market not the company. For example with motorcycles, the market quickly makes a platform to speak about everything about the bike. The market is able to discuss everything in great detail ask questions and receive responses from people who already own the product which will either encourage or discourage the market from purchasing. The company is in turn able to respond to complaints and questions about the market and better respond to the market. On another note, I know of outdoor companies including skiing companies that have hours where an employee is online and you can talk and ask questions about the products. What better suits you and so forth. Though this is not human VOICE, its just as good especially as the market continues in the internet. They are real people with real suggestions ans responses.

Corey

*Those comments do actually express some of the views of tesekkur ederim"

I know "IT" is not quite ready for publishing but when you do get it down i think everyone will be on your side. There is just no real "world of games." Everything is created and there is always a planned path, regardless of whether or not you're online gaming. And there is always a designated space for gaming, be it the console, computer, 3D goggles, whatever... Which is why I hate the term gamespace for reality. Games are not real, they are made up outlets that people use for entertainment, strictly entertainment. Games don't let you leave reality and they don't operate by themselves.
-Tom

Gamer Theory

I have to say I really do not enjoy Gamer Theory at all, though some of it may be my own fault. I didn't think that the chart we attempted to decipher was scholarly or clever, it just reinforced my negative feelings. Even if it makes some connection across gamer theory I still don't really care. Why? Because it's gamer theory, that’s why. I know I'm being overly critical but I really hate this book and needed to vent. I don't like the connection from gamer theory to reality, I believe it is quite forced. This is by far my least enjoyable subject thus far in the class and I can sense a "God, can't this stupid subject be over" from the rest of the class. In my next post, instead of bitching like a whiny school girl, I will offer critical analysis of the book so as to trash it in a way that’s not utterly infantile. Until then, screw this book, one of the least interesting books I’ve read so far.

-Matt

*(The comments of this post do not neccesarily reflect the thoughts or opinions of Tesekkur ederim)*

Gamer Theory

When we first started reading this book, I was pretty excited because gaming has always been an interest and hobby of mine. I've always enjoyed playing video games and interacting with other people through them. The first couple chapters of the book were confusing, but at the same time interesting because of the way it compares a topic to a specific game. I thought I would be able to get a grasp on the writing style, but I was wrong because I am just as confused as ever, and I have never heard of the games being discussed. One of the most frustrating aspects of this book are the ridiculously cryptic charts the author includes in the reading. In any other book there is a small caption or description, or at the very least labeled axes, to try to help the reader get a further understanding of what is being discussed. This couldn't be farther from the truth in this book. The attempts at the description of the chart that we discussed in the last class just made me doubt even further that the author even knew what he was trying to present. I really hope the book becomes easier to read and understand.

-Mike

The Game of Gamer Theory

I agree that this book is not the easiest of books. But, attempting to make today's discussion a little easier I believe I have a some what understanding that might help. I could also be proven wrong on Thursday. But the diagram, a starting place I believe we all agree is on the left and moving right either up and down or straight across that is still up for debate. But, if you try and picture that chart with a connection to the ever growing ball from the beginning of class it might get easier. I have never seen this game before class. But, the game starts a set position. (Your starting point) Then the choice is yours, going straight, left, right, forward, or backward. Either way you have four choices that are yours but also still well within the boundaries of the game. (Your first choice) So now you have chosen a direction and you have starting rolling. Again another four choices that are yours to make but still within the game. (Your third and final choice) This might be exaggerated in the sense of time, levels, checkpoints etc but still doesn't matter to have a general understanding (if I am right) Your decisions to turn left, right, forward, and backward were all smooth transitions, (if you say erase and replace or draw lines to connect to the next choice) the game still goes on and it is a seamless transition at least to the player. So no matter your direction it all fits within the game. I think it is important to understand the difference between the player or the ball and its seamless transition of directions and choices versus the idea of the programmer or something where you see all the different choices either on paper or in some program that you created endless possible choices but it results in the game as a continuous flow. Maybe this helps maybe I am completely wrong.
Corey

Gamer Theory

These past two classes have been rather frustrating for me. I've really enjoyed all of our topics up until this point- all the discussions about monitoring, all the ethical debates we had in class over social networking sites like juicycampus, what we thought was actually legitimate - yet for some reason I cannot get on board with this last section of Gamer Theory that we were talking about in todays class. I understood the discussion about how we have lost all our leisure time due to work, but Wark's model about gamespace seemed to be completely over my head, it seemed to be written in a different language to me. I don't quite see the relevance to our class, and this switch in discourse was a little off-putting. Maybe I'm just not making an effort to understand Gamer Theory because I am frustrated but perhaps a more hands on approach would help me better, I don't know about anyone else.

-Anna-

Gamer Theory

I can see the paralells between gaming and real life. I agree that you can tell a lot about society by looking at its art. Obviously games are products for the society that created them so there is some taking in of the society they are intended for which sheds light on that society. But what about games designed abroad? Recently there has been a divorcing of the yes-no paradigm for a more vast game space which is mirroed by our societies embracing more and more options for just about everything. However, I don't believe that games wholly illuminate the world that gave rise to them, they just aid in our understanding. I reject the videos games as a sole approach theory. I have one big problem: since differnt games obviously provide differnt views of the world we have to find the common variables? This seems problematic. Which aspects are most important? This also tries to prescribe one neat and tidy view of a society that is clearly fractured and not unified.

Comments- Game Theory

I liked the discussion about analog and digital. Anytime I think about analog and digital I think about the connection between the past and present. As much as people prefer digital, we must remember that the present isn't possible without the past. Games like Vice City are popular because of their unlawful characteristics. As I said in our discussion last week, it is actions like stealing cars, robbing people and running over people which give us thrills and motivation to play a game of this caliber. Also, I know for me personally, sometimes I playing older games because of the simplicity, though it does not compare to the life like games that are being created today.

Gamer Theory

Thinking back to the last class discussion there was the debate about the gamer being "in" the game, or controlling its fate. The last video games I really played were GoldenEye and Zelda and those had unwaivering end goals. You needed to beat all the levels to win the game. You could lose but after enough losing you would have had enough practice on the certain level to cheat a little. Eventually you knew where the guards would be in the facility bathroom stalls and how to actually win on that stupid satellite at the end. Obviously you progress as a gamer and are still in your time frame but the character just starts back at the new level, none the wiser.

From what other people are saying about the new games is a different sense of user control that makes everyone feel like they may actually be James Bond. Sure this makes it a little more fun but is there a game with a blank slate that lets you be Bond and make your own path? There really cannot be one without some sort of aids, cheats, hints, path, etc.
-Tom

Google and Privacy

Here is an interesting article from the New York Times that looks at some of the differences in privacy laws between here and Europe. Thought you guys might like it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/technology/18google.html?_r=1&ref=technology

-Mike

Comments

The book Gamer Theory is really interesting so far because it compares video games to real life. This made me think about the reason why companies want to make video game so close to real life. I realized I could link this thought with something else we read recently that said that we are more attracted and engaged in something the closer it relates to us. Games like Grand Theft Auto, and even Socom if you plan on Xbox life is scarely real. You are in a battle zone, the object is to win. There are no explanation of the rules or why or how something is done. The object of the game is to not get killes and become victorious.
I enjoyed how work compared this to real life because I see this world as a rat race. It is referred to as the land of opportunity therefor, each player wants his or her piece of the pie. Work is play and play becomes work. We want the education and the degrees, all pieces of a larger puzzle that will hopefully result in us winnning, which in this case means an exciting career and monetary reward. I also think that the way the world is set up, I don't think there is anyway of escaping it. If you are not taking part of the race, what are you doing? standing still.

-Abe

Enter the Matrix

I thought the reading in the book 'Gamer Theory' was very interesting in the way it compares real life to video games. This book is particularly appealing to me because I'm really into video games on xbox live (one of the greatest things to happen to video games). In the book, the author brought up the idea that in the real world you are always going up against someone else and seeing how your skills compare, such as interviewing for a job or out in the business world. This is the same exact thing on xbox live when you are playing something like Halo 3, COD4, or even a sports game like Madden. You get matched up with someone of similar skill, and the outcome will determine who is better. In the financial world you may be a stock trader who gets rated by their sales, similar to your team slayer rank in Halo 3. This book is very interesting and I am excited to delve even further into what the author has to present.

Also, reading this book reminds me of the Matrix movies. Wark discusses The Cave in the first chapter of the book, which is a network where gamers can interact, which seems a lot like the ideas in the Matrix. There is a virtual world where people go and interact with each other, which is not the real world.


-Mike

class reflection

Today's class was really helpful for me since Boler's article was a bit over my head. The powerpoint - saying exactly what his views on new and old media were, were really useful for me. I disagree with him as well that debate and deliberation require consensus. I think confrontation and conflict inspires interesting and interactive politics. They are one in the same, there is no politics without debate and conflict, (Boler would definitely disagree with this statement). However, like I said in my last blog post why does there really need to be such animosity and conflict? Don't all these arenas for communication (facebook, twitter->trolls, myspace and twitter) just show that people are engaged and that they care? Our focus seems to focus on the conflict because that is what our society thrives on. Why can't we just be satisfied that we are taking part of something and engaging in intellectual thought, and put "sides" aside?

-Anna-

Participatory Media

I think digital should be referred to as participatory media. The reason for this is because mainstream media is sometimes biased. Digital media does contribute to deliberation and debate because so many peoples ideas and opinions have to be accumulated in order for it to be called participatory media. On the internet, I like poll questions that trigger debate. For instance, after one of the debates CNN or another website may have a question that will have widespread opinion. Because of the several views and opinions this contributes to a large circulation which I believe is the intrigue. The ability for people to voice their opinions through different digital media outlets (text message, twitter, blog etc) allows for a more powerful engagement. I think mainstream media tends to have a less opinionated audience because they are limited to how they can express their views.

media, technology & the election

Saying that media and technology didn't play an integral role in the 2008 presidential election would be wrong. This election has been the focus of media attention for the better part of the past two years, constant, and unwavering. Media has revolutionized the way we related and internalize media. Obama & campaign staff absolutely utilized technology and media and used it to their advantage. The constant flow of emails, the advertisements on popular sights (facebook), online groups where people had an outlet to discuss politics were essential, if not central to his victory.

This election, as well as many others I know, my first election. The excitement and sense of power I personally felt when I sent in my absentee ballot was (I thought) felt by those around me. However, after talking to a friend of mine, who said my vote didn't matter in the long run so what is the point of any of us voting, I reconsidered my stance on this. How many people really did in fact care? I had been exposed to so much media, online, tv, etc how could anyone NOT care or feel good about participating? Is voting like you said Professor Dean a false idea of participation, we do it because we think it is our civic duty, not because we care, or want to see a change in the world?

The constant hounding of media attention on this election, seeing the blogs dedicated to political discussion, exposure to twitter and other sites similar to it made me realize people did care, people wanted a change even if the people around me were apathetic. The media was a way for people who did have an opinion, even if they were conflicting, to express their opinions.

An interesting comment that was made in class that cast a negative light on media and the election, was; shouldn't the media have focused on some other things in the past two years besides the election? Though it was a historic election, we were also in the middle of a global financial crisis, shouldn't that have gotten more than a week of media buzz?

-Anna-

Main Stream vs. Main Street........

As Burn suggests that mainstream media tends to be polarizing I find that hard to argue against. A select few corporations and thus public news channels cover the entire news media. Even the cable news channels like CNN and FOX News are owned by corporations. Having said that, the few select news channels are trying to incorporate the news from the entire country and sometimes the world abroad and attempts to engage as many viewers as absolutely possible. From that stand point the news has to be polarizing. I also think that the "little guys" everyday people or for instance bloggers do create deliberation and debate. What these people are talking about either is known by the masses are as soon as the mainstream media hears of it they grab it and pretend they brought the issue to you. But, it is obvious that the bloggers and other media sources would talk about a particular issue at greater lengths and in greater detail. But, the mainstream media does not really care about what they have to say. I would argue that the reason of their incorporation or involvement with the mainstream media is not because they provide such great insight but rather the need for 24 hour news coverage. The mainstream media does not have enough to talk about for 24 hours straight in this new age of always running news. I can't even begin to think of a better way to make the news longer, have more topics or opinions to discuss or interpret, and do that the cheapest way possible.......free. Because almost everything online does not cost a penny, especial news, bloggs, and emails why not start to include them. Also, as bloggs and other media sources continue to grow it becomes important for the mainstream media not to ignore them. They don't want to ignore for fear of loosing them as viewers not for fear of loosing their information. So the mainstream media and primarily two tier system is at work effectively. The mainstream media is able to incorporate a growing number of viewers who participate in other forms of media such as bloggs and make them feel engaged. This I would argue is a false engagement. The bloggs are being manipulated not incorporated. Since a news source like CNN has started incorporating them into the news the average person feels more engaged or at least others like them are engaged right along side the news. Don't forget that this is all free for the networks and allows the networks to bring you nonstop news. So it is usually a false engagement. I don't know how to characterize this in terms of bottom down or top down, more like something somethings starts at the bottom then is catapulted to the top with no or barely any in between. It is very interesting and can't wait to see what people think on Tuesday.
Corey

final projects

Hey guys,
So there are two weeks (ish) until thanksgiving and I was just wondering whether we wanted to start talking about final projects-or if we even want to do to something all together. I thought it would be fun to make a project that revolved around making some sort of movie. Everyone seemed to bring something different to the project we did before and I think it would be fun to work on something like that again-however, that's just my opinion.

-Anna

Juicy Campus and class reaction

I think the small size of HWS definitely makes the impact of juicy campus much greater than at larger schools. The fact that everyone is familiar with everyone makes it a much more personal issue because when you see someone's name mentioned, there is a good chance you know who they are.

I liked class today how we were able to break up into smaller groups for the discussion about Juicy Campus because I feel like you can contribute your ideas more than when it is the large group discussion. I'm glad that each group came out with just about the same opinions on what to do about the website because I definitely feel like taking action against it could only make it worse. The email that was sent out to all the students was the worst thing they could've done because it makes everyone aware of what it is, and many people may have never heard about it.

-Mike

Comments

I think the role of digital media in the 2008 election was to create limitless outlets. What I mean is how a network like CNN can bring the voice of the people right to the ears and eyes of viewers. Letting people's blogs be used as a podium for self expression and ideology. The capability to instantly send a mass text message to millions of people, updating them on the outcome of the election and other important headlines. The touchscreens in the voting booth that made it convenient to vote instead of the traditional procedure of pulling a lever. The role of digital media was to be as convenient as possible. It is amazing how much technology has changed over the last forty years. I can recall Barack Obama speaking of a 106 year old woman who lived through so many historic events and struggle and now being able to simply touch a screen to cast her vote. I think this progress is unbelievable and will keep advancing year after year.

2008 Media, SouthPark, and Juicy Campus

Two things. First did anyone watch Southpark last night, it was based on the election? I personally thought it was pretty funny and everyone should watch it. Secondly my vote for the most influential tool for the 2008 election had to be CNN. Where else do you "for the first time ever" have a hologram on live tv? I personally had to laugh multiple times watching the election from about 6 pm until around midnight. The amount of information they tried to bring the viewer was absurd. They had so many people plugged into computers they were getting data from around the country. I just think that this had to be the pinnacle of the media. I have never seen so much information coming from one channel. As pointed out in the reading, CNN was able to use blogs and pretty much any interesting tid bit of information found on the internet and discussion rooms was brought straight to the viewer. It came to the point of being just way to much information. One could argue either way in view of this being functional participatory actions or just useless engagement that allows individuals to pretend to be connected and important. Either way CNN was telling you all about it.

In regards to last class. I think the juicycampus definitely plays a larger role because we are a small campus. I also think that women in particular are much much more vulnerable. For the most part if your a guy you might have some slandering comments, but the majority of comments concerning women are slanderous sexual comments. Even if someone is joking making comments about stds or weird sexual encounters or if they have hooked up with a lot of people, that is going to stick a lot quicker for women. Women are much more open to long term damage. If a guy was reading something on the site and read about a girl he was with and there were comments about having stds or they are sluts, even if its slanderous, its going to invoke doubt.
But, I still believe this is an ethical issue of engagement. I still don't believe even that this goes on that it is the school responsibility or right to interfere unless physical threats are taking place. One, freedom of speech. Two, the world is not a nice place. The sooner people are able to understand this and accept that not everyone is going to love you, agree with you, or even just down right despise you. That is the way of the world.
Corey

juicycampus

I left class really confused about my feelings towards Juicycampus.com as well as some other things that were mentioned during our discussion. I had seen the website before and was kind of amused by it, I glanced at it and didn't really think anything of it (which I think is how others should view it)but after people who I knew were being named (full names) I got incredibly wary of it. Why is directed and specific slander ethical? Why isn't HWS doing anything about it?We had discussed in class how HWS was drawing the line of comments that directly addressed physical violence. This may be true, but having over heard people talk about all the negative ramifications of this site, some said the individuals targeted are suing the site as well as the school for allowing this site to still exist within the HWS community.

Today's class discussion was interesting to me and one that I wanted to soak in rather than participate in. It is hard to debate something like this which has such moral and ethical ties attached to it - very similar to our conversation at the beginning of the year concerning data mining-everyone is going to view things in a different light. For instance, Professor Dean as well as some others argued that you are exposing yourself to the site, therefore you shouldn't let the posts affect you. However, this site has had extensive ramifications already, how far are we going to let this bullying go?Are we going to wait until someone commits suicide just because we want another form of mind numbing entertainment?

It is rather dramatic to say that peoples lives change drastically because of the posts on Juicycampus,yet how can one not internalize those negative feelings?What do others think?

-Anna

Free Speech

There is something to be said about the freedom of speech and how it has evolved over the years. In the beginning it could have been religous or against the British, in the 60s it was picketing and rallies, and now it has made its way to juicy campus. I have no idea what this means; it's obviously just one slice of what makes us up as a generation, but I'm leaning strongly towards seeing it as a waste of time. Someone in class said that like 80% of things we do over the course of the day are useless and mindless, juicy campus, facebook, etc. fill that criteria pretty well. What does this really mean though?

Are we spending time we should be studying, learning, or reading the newspaper on stupid things like slanderous websites? Should we be outside until dark playing football at a friend's house like when we were kids? Has the fact that we aren't doing these things made our future worse? Would you rather play fantasy baseball, or pick-up baseball? Will you join groups 'pledging' to vote, yet will not make it out to the polls today? I think this Millennial generation or whatever they want to call us has to do some self evaluation...

-Tom

Comments

The impact and effects of the media we’ve been using can vary. I think the blog site that Asa showed us is set up to promote power to the people. With the thought that the deans are symbolic of the state and the students are the citizens, this anonymous expression of views is virtually limitless. For instance, there are some postings on the blog about giving the students more power and preventing social gatherings from being disrupted by authority. A blog site like this can be interpreted in different ways. One way would be viewing it as a daily news site where you can read and react. Another way would be for others to be negatively persuaded. The site states that it is purely for entertainment and should not be considered an authority, leader, source or point of origin of any information. Blogs like this could be easily turned into places of personal attack on an individual. I interpret this site as a Hobart gossip site with the sole purpose of airing out their personal beef’s with the Deans and security people.

Teaching Day and Blogs

I really enjoyed our last teaching day. It was a lot of fun and everyone really brought some interesting things to the table. I also liked Abe's presentation as well as others. It was a lot of fun when everyone was fully engaged. I particularly enjoyed this class because it was not necessarily teaching as you might associate in the general definition of the word. I liked that people brought things they have found (like Abe's Amazon) and just spread the word. It was more of a show and tell, but I liked it. Maybe we could have one more day like this and have the entire class present show and tell and make it short and sweet and let everyone present. I also enjoyed the blog presented by Asa. I found it very interesting and somewhat engaging. I think this school needs something like this that either engages or looks to further educate for the sake of the students. Since we are in an internet class I think its some what ironic that this is out there. But it is a simple and easy way for student to check out and don't have to spend much time. But I believe it has the potential to be constructive and beneficial. Replying to Anna's comment on juicycampus (since I presented on it) I think it is sad that their is the amount of slander that goes on. But, I also believe that the school does not have the right to chase people down because of comments on it. I think juicycampus is a perfect example of where we want to draw the line for what is appropriate for the internet and are people responible for what they right as anonymous. I personally don't agree what is written but believe it is still freedom of speech. I would agree it is like middle school but that doesn't hold any concrete position of what should be done if anything and should their be consequences. I can't wait for class on Tuesday to see what people think of Asa's presented blog and their feedback as well as the two presentation still to come.
Corey