The Checkered Legacy of Reality Webgames

by S.E. Sidecorners

On the occasion of EliteTv's promised reality webgame modeled on Big Brother, called "EliteBro", a visit to the checkered past of reality webgames seems to be in order.

Oh what a sad day it was in Autumn 2000 -- the last day of Big Brother I! After the public relations fiasco of the whole summer in which Hollywood turned Big Brother into America's favorite whipping boy, it seemed certain that the network would never run Big Brother again. The poor houseguests, after a brief, perfunctory media tour, were thrown aside and forgotten like so much rubbish. In addition, we realized, turning off the tv and looking at ourselves in the mirror at our disheveled hair and bloodshot eyes, we had become addicts. The truth hurt. What do addicts do when they have no more crack? They go out and get some more, of course!

Changes were in the air. The beloved website, www.bigbrotherfanclub.com, seemed about to die. After all, with no more Big Brother in the offing, what purpose did the website serve? Website owner Neil ("ENB", "Admin"), a Canadian from Toronto who had achieved quick notoreity by first being unemployed and inventing the website out of nothing to occupy his time, and secondly by making it his career, was desperate. His ticket to salvation looked like it was about to croak for good. Something had to be done.

Well, it just so happens that one of the most addicted BB fans was Neil's wife, Lisa ("Lisa"). Lisa was a staunch supporter and defender of certain houseguests and was just as addicted to the webcams as everyone else, and just as crushed at the end, as we all were. With her husband holding the reins to power, what was she to do? She had to take the reins away at a gallop.

Neil was against any such games. After much pleading on Lisa's part, Neil agreed to let Lisa run a Big Brother-type game on the website on one condition: that he would have nothing to do with it whatsoever. He did not want to hear about it. He did not want to be asked about it. He did not want to mobilise it, maintain it, or moderate it. Little did he know he was going to be marrying it for the next eight weeks.

"Fine!" said Lisa. Then Lisa got together with the website owner's chief moderator and website manager ("X" [unnamed]). They planned a reality webgame that would have five men and five women participants who would be locked in a message board sub-area to which only they had access, to trade messages back and forth. All the other members of the site -- the spectators -- would only have reading privileges in that area, but be able to discuss the events on other areas of the board to which the players did not have access. Sounds pretty simple, right? It is. But little did anybody know what trouble was brewing, as this website game became the most potent and dangerous 'crack' of all, driving posters insane with jealousy, anger and deception, and the dirt involved with these events stuck to everyone involved like a feather on hot tar. Some of those involved -- one year later -- have yet to recover.

What did they call it? What else but "The Game". Ah yes, the infamous "Game". Just thinking of it now, recalling memories from exactly one year ago, remembering how fun it was. It was, as I wrote at the time, more fun than any television show I had ever seen. It was more fun than the originating website that sponsored it. It was more fun than any site, in fact, that I had ever participated in. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

News of "The Game" spread far and wide across the internet, amongst reality tv websites such as there were at the time. Calls went out for applications, which soon began to pile up. Little was it known at the time that the call had gone out for 'crazies' to get involved and wreak havoc on unassuming Big Brother fans merely looking for a fix.

The Mole

There was a fatal flaw from the start. Lisa and the newly-named "Tv Clubhouse"'s chief moderator and website manager "X" had a problem. The problem was that this website manager "X" was dying to play The Game. She was desperate to play, who wouldn't be? Lisa and X hatched a plan to have X enter the game under a pseudonym.

"Oh what a web we weave when first we practice to deceive," as the saying goes. And it was, indeed, a tangled web, much more tangled than anyone knew. Their plan was to let X play the game for a week or two, and then reveal her identity to everyone and ha, ha, ha -- ah yes, the best laid plans of mice and moderators ... plans never do work out, do they?

Well, The Game began and the players soon got down to business. The players in Game I hid behind secondary pseudonyms. Among the players of Game I were Zelda, a well-known poster and renowned Angel-savior of the toilet-paperless houseguests on Big Brother I. She took the name "Moondance." Another player was Tukuul, a rambunctious George-defender who took the name "Zebulon". There were ten players in all. They were shocked by how real it all was. They felt strangely together against the world -- and they were: after all, they were locked together in a room, with only each other for company.

How do people respond when they feel under assault and thrown together against a common foe? They bond. Small bonds of trust began to form between the game players and soon developed into apparently real friendships -- all between people who had never met and whose every word was read by a group of website members numbering in the hundreds.

Well, in hindsight, it all seems like a big set up. But it just so happened that, in the waning weeks of TV's Big Brother I, a group of Big Brother Fan Club posters had become involved in a long, tortuous thread which delved deeply into personal issues -- and explored them thoroughly. A great deal of bonding between strangers occurred in this thread. As it happens, some of the posters of this thread were chosen as participants in The Game. So they were all set up to trust each other and be great friends and be real and ... whoops -- a game is going on here! Competition. Jealousy. Anger. They forgot all about that until it reared its ugly head.

Rules to The Game were broken from the start. One rule of The Game was that the players were to have no outside contact with each other. Accounts vary on how it began, but several of the members began meeting in an ICQ room to chat and get personal with each other -- against the rules. Trust was being built up to a high degree; friendships had formed and were solidifying. Despite it being wrong and against the rules, the ICQ chatters felt justified. Then, due to the developing trust, "X", who was one of these rule-breaking ICQ chatters, revealed a secret to the others: "X" was, in fact, a Moderator. She requested that the others keep this secret from everyone.

Spectators watched the unfolding of a breakdown in trust, bit by bit, as one of the participants who had been entrusted with this 'secret' refused to keep quiet. First, she felt anguish about it, then this same participant realised that she could no longer play the game and keep this secret, and so she quit.

The spectators posting outside of The Game went wild. This was reality happening before our eyes! Not only that, but there was deception! A "Mole" -- X -- was discovered in the midst of the Game! Despite the fact that the "Mole" wasn't really a mole, that is exactly how it seemed to all involved. X was the next nominated by the players and was voted out the next week by the spectators, but at the cost of a lot of heartache on the part of those who had trusted "X" as a regular player and there was general hysteria all around for all parties concerned.

Benders

Unbeknownst to just about everyone on the site, a little background drama had been occurring at the Big Brother Fan Club for a period of time. A wayward and estranged family member -- "Q" -- had become a well-known poster. As such things happen, this person had been out of contact with their family for some time. Q's sister had gotten wind of Q's involvement in the site and had become a member herself (and soon a well-known poster in her own right) -- all unbeknownst to "Q".

Once The Game application process had started, Q had put out a call to all her friends to apply, and one of them, a certain "Mr. V" was chosen to play the game. None of Q's friends had ever heard of the site before or cared the least bit about Big Brother -- or the site either, for that matter. They just wanted to be in The Game and win.

Each week the players in The Game nominated fellow players for banishment, and the public at large voted one of them out. Votes were submitted through email. As the weeks progressed in The Game, it was clear that a kabal had developed against certain players in the game. The most beloved players were somehow voted out on their hineys, including Zelda who up until a few weeks before the end had been everybody's favorite! Without the least explanation -- but the polling mechanism had, strangely, registered one number an hour before voting closed, and then a totally different number twice as high at closing! Parallels with the Brittany factor were mentioned and quickly dismissed by all concerned. There had to be voter fraud going on, but this was impossible to prove. Had Q's friends cracked the voting code?

Lisa tried her best to maintain the voting process. She set up a voting system done by a poll site. But a vote was, after all, a vote. And lots of votes banished a lot of people, until at the end, "Mr. V" won. Despite the secret surveillance of "Q" by her sister, Q managed to manipulate the vote and her legions of friends had managed to crack the vote code and take over the game and lead "Mr. V" to victory over the protests of all.

But, after all, a vote is a vote, right? Lots of people voted the others out, so fraud could never be proven. There were murmurs of dissatisfaction in the ranks of The Game fans, but there really wasn't anything that could be done about it.

Then came the rumors. Hidden identities. Malevolent bashers. Voting usurpers. Then the shocker. Despite all evidence to the contrary, the winner of The Game, "Mr. V", was not who he said he was. Yes -- after all the other previous brouhahas, "Mr. V" admitted that he was, in fact -- and had been the entire time -- a woman.

Check back next time for part two of the Reality Webgame chronicles: Part II: Hysteria Triumphant or, and the Return of The Game.

In All Things, Moderation

By TVCH Moderator (c)

IIt seems the debate over "how much is too much" refuses to dissipate. Personally, I find it tiresome, but since many of you seem to find it engaging, I offer my perspective.

I've been a moderator at TVCH since very early in BB1. I was one of the original moderators, actually. Do I think that holds some sort of status? Heck no. Basically, it's a pain in the butt.

In a recent article, O'Sean Aieghlans, stated, "…the best moderators are those who remain independent and nameless." Some would readily agree with this. Others think anonymous moderators are "chicken" for not revealing their identity. Let's face it, no matter what we do or how we do it, someone is going to accuse us of abusing power, hiding behind power, being all-powerful and unfair, or being powerless in the face of their superior Internet abilities. All I can say is "ho-hum!"

Aieghlans goes on to say "Moderators should never be allowed to have a name or a moniker. Some sites list their moderators and their names, or have threads where moderating can be discussed with the responsible parties. The TV Clubhouse, a large site originally formulated as a fan club for the reality show "Big Brother," even goes so far as letting its moderators 'sign' the posts they have censored with a two-digit code. You might imagine that this intrusion of personality into the moderating function is a recipe for disaster."

Let me clear up one piece of misinformation Aieghlans is using to form this opinion. At TVCH, there are several of us who moderate using the name "Moderator." At the end of any post made under this username, we put a code that lets other moderators know who made the post. This is useful for us to keep track of things. At one point, we had 10 moderators. If we received an email from a user asking about a moderated post, the code let us quickly know who moderated the post and therefore who should answer the email. It's a bookkeeping function, nothing more and nothing less.

Of course, there are some people who have a need to find conspiracies at every corner. Those folks will take any given situation and find something suspicious about it. There's nothing any of us can do to alleviate that kind of paranoia.

As Aieghlans said in the article, moderation is sometimes very necessary. What happened on the RT board is a prime example. The mess that is BBInsider's board is another. TVCH attempts to maintain a level of quality and consistency on the boards, but there are some people who don't like that and will do anything and everything they can to cause disruption. And, being human, we're not perfect. We do the best we can under sometimes very difficult conditions.

Some folks who feel they've been "wronged" can't seem to let go and move on. They feel a need to continue ranting and raving about how unfair the moderators have been. If they can identify a particular moderator, they seem to take great pleasure in flaming that person wherever they can and even sending personal emails that many would find threatening. I've been there in the past and it's no fun. Fortunately, the troll who stalked me when I first became a moderator disappeared eventually. I guess he decided there was more to life than stalking a faceless person on the Internet. I learned the hard way that being anonymous was preferable.

For those who feel the need to continue trolling message boards with inane comments about moderators on TVCH or any other board, all I can say is: It must suck to have such a small life that the only way to get your jollies is to rant on and on about how unfair someone has been to you on a message board. After the events of 9-11, I'd think people would have gotten a bit of perspective on what is important in this life, but some folks obviously haven't. Sad.

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled life.

Censorship in Moderation? Or OA's Ideal For The "Perfect" Moderator?

By Flint

O'Sean Aieghlans, OA if I may, you wrote a good article. You views were interesting, and fairly well presented. However, for my part, your central argument really didn't seem to have anything to do with censorship by Moderators. It was about your "ideal" of how a Moderator should act.

This seems to be encapsulated in your statement that "...it appears clear that a moderator's chief duty is to remain above the fray..." Unfortunately I have to disagree with you. A Moderators chief duty is to make sure that a SITE runs smoothly, the rules are followed, and people can enjoy the site. Other than that, they are free to be just like anyone else.

One of the questions that some people kept raising (usually when they had a problem with a Moderator) was "why are they anonymous?". Why do the Moderators, for the most part, hide behind a codename, whether it was Moderator T, 007, or any pseudonym? Security was one good reason for some. It helped prevent them from being on the receiving end of abuse that some people like giving out when they are at odds with the Moderators. I could cite examples of hate mail campaigns, threats, and that sort of BS but anyone who reads this article, on this site, knows all about that sort of thing.

Another, equally important reason would be so that they could actually give an opinion freely. One given without people either being afraid to reply out of misguided fear. Or whithout having to worry about those who would attack whatever they say because a Moderator said it. (Unfortunately even when using a pseudonymn a Moderator is still subjected to people who get some kick out of "outing" them.) Yet you claim this is "a recipe for disaster". I could be wrong, but going by what you seem to be saying, by becoming a Moderator a person loses their right to have an opinion, and fight back if attacked. That I cannot agree with.

You also said part of a Moderators job is to "... a valued role to make the internet safe for all. " Unfortunately again, I have to disagree. We are not Net Cops. It is not the job of a Moderator at TVCH to make sure the internet is safe for all. It is our "job" to make sure that our little section of the internet, the TV Clubhouse, is safe for all members. While I, and the others, may care about what goes on all over the internet, and would love to be able to make it safe for all, that simply is not within our capabilities or purview.

You seem to feel that by becoming a Moderator a person has lost any right to post on any forum, not just "their site". You stated "the hardest thing to understand is a moderator who takes pleasure in banishing a poster or even ridiculing them in public forums." If someone acts like a jackass then it shouldn't matter who points it out. Whether it is a Moderator, another poster, or Bill Mahr. Especially see the way in which some people open themselves up for what could be considered ridicule by the way they act. As I said, a Moderator on TVCH is responsible for TVCH not any other site. Looking at what you say makes it sound like anyone can say or do what they like, on any site; unless they are a Moderator.

Then we have that taking pleasure in banishing someone comment. Here is something you might not know. In all the time I have been a moderator at TVCH I have banished a whole TWO people. Toast and Rob. That is it. Banishing someone is not something I do lightly, or even consider as being a perfect solution. When a banishment does take place it is usually after some discussion or debate. No one says "I don't like this person." and then banishes them. That would be a quick way to end your time as a Moderator on TVCH.

When it comes to someone who has been nothing but a Troll, and has sunk so low as to post peoples personal information, and fake posts associating with things like the terrorist attack, yes I take pleasure in banishing them. I take pleasure in knowing that regardless of anything they have said, excuses they have made, they deserved it. If they weren't kicked off a Moderator would NOT have been doing their job. The site is better off without that type of "person". Yet even in "that case" it was not a decision that was reached over night was it? It was one that was taken after the Administrator and Moderators of the site had bent over backwards to give the person chance after chance to change their ways. Is it professional to take pleasure in that? Who knows or cares? Being a Moderator is not a profession or an occupation. It is a service that someone is asked to perform by an Admin, and to which one volunteers. When it becomes a profession, then I will wonder about it, and hopefully get a paycheck.

You talk about ways of developing a Moderators persona. Yet none of what you had to say really had to do with censorship by Moderators. It was the "ideal" you think a Moderator should embody. They basically should be a robot that doesn't talk, doesn't discuss anything, whether it is topical, amusing, controversial; basically they shouldn't say anything at all. They should also go through "rigourous training". You expect people to volunteer to be a Moderator on a site they enjoy and not participate in any way? It is a great ideal, but ideals aren't always practical.

One thing that people don't seem to be realize is that the problems that occur tend to be with a very small percent of the actual number of members. By this I am talking about real problems, fights so to speak. And in many cases, they usually happen with the same people. The total number of malcontents, and by that I mean the serious trouble makers, at any given time is less than 1% of the total number of users. Even considering just using the total number of members who actually post, it is a small percentage. However, it tends to be the most vocal percent. When there is a problem with these people the excuses and complaints that I brought up tend to be what they use almost every time. Which is why I find them amusing, and why they can also cause others to grind their teeth in frustration. Keeping that number in mind, being a Moderator isn't a thankless job.

Your article started off purporting to discuss censorship in moderating, but seems to have been about something else. While some of the discussion presented has to do with censorship, most of it didn't. If you meant it to be an example of how you think a Moderator should be censored, what they should be able to do, say, participate in, THEN I could see it being all about censorship. It seemed to be more about your ideal of what a Moderator should be. Please keep in mind, anything can work in theory, whether it is an Ideal, an idea, or a principle. Then again, in theory the communist ideology worked. In theory.

Copyright Problems

We have learned that the republishing of copyrighted material continues to be a problem, even after the article by MissMary of RealityTVFans on the subject.

From what we have seen, an article published on RTVF was copied in totality onto VotedOff.TV . The author, somewhat incensed, asked on the board that the article be removed and a link to the article on RTVF be put in its place. This caused an uproar on the Voted Off site, including statements by the Voted Off webmaster that links to RTVF from their site and SurvivorNews.Net would be removed. The author realized that perhaps he should have let the editor, MissMary, handle the copyright problem, and passed it off to her.

In summation, VotedOff thought the author was very demanding in the request to remove the article, and replied in kind, including the threats to remove links and "damage" the revenue stream of RTVF. RTVF replied that copyright infringement is copyright infringement, and removing the article or linking to the article should not have been any big deal. As to "damaging" the revenue stream, RTVF is not in the money making business, and the hits from the sites that were threatening removing links were miniscule compared to their overal volume.

Our question is: Why did VotedOff make such a big deal of this, when it is obvious they were violating copyright law? Was it just the tone of the author's message, or was it more the "Hand caught in the cookie jar" syndrome? And why would an unassociated site like SurvivorNews.Net get involved?

Dregs and Dross

The Elite TV EliteBro game begins today. It looks like you have to be a registered member to view the game. And where did they come up with this name EliteBro? Players in the game include Curlbender, Digilady, Gummy, Hakishiroom, Justanextra, Mishi, Snowraven, and Vinceg2 with Lissajo as an alternate.

Our favorite to win? From our lead article, it appears to be Lissajo, unless of course the alternate gets put into the house.

Favorite Poster: Letz Talk's LadyPlumbie

From another LetzTalk poster:

Though we are a reality site, we also have a forum called "the Main Lounge", just to hang out, chit chat, play, have some great fun. Two of our Mods, OhSarcasticOne & LadyPlumbie are absolutely wonderful! I hope you will put them in as Nominations for Favorite Posters.

Well someone already nominated OhSarcasticOne last week, so this week our Favorite Poster is LadyPlumbie!

Have some trash? Send it to us!

If you have some good scoop on the reality web scene, or want to nominate a favorite poster, send it to us at realitytrash@yahoo.com and we will try to get it into our next issue. And thanks to all of you who have contributed!

We are also looking for article submissions from our readers. We will give you your own byline and let you be part of our "Who Runs Reality Trash" game!

Reality Trash is published twice weekly on Tuesday and Friday if we get enough dirt. Please bookmark us and send us some TRASH!