A Short Statement On GamerGate

Note: I drafted this statement for publication alongside those of my colleagues, but at times the wheels of official channels turn slowly. Because I feel it’s important and already long overdue, I’ve published it here.

I can only apologize to my friends that I have not said anything sooner. Early in the controversy, my family and I made a decision not to risk hacking, doxxing and death threats by engaging the topic officially. My thought was that given the tenor of the debate, my opinion would do little good to change minds while exposing my loved ones to harassment. In other words, I was successfully intimidated.

But ultimately I’m a writer, and if I can’t use that skill to help my colleagues when they’re threatened with death, what should I use it for? I can only hope that staying quiet in official channels (I have spoken about it on Twitter) has not given the impression that I do not support or stand with the victims of these heinous attacks.

***

Priorities

He fires a shot into the classroom ceiling and orders all the men out.

“I am fighting feminism,” he tells the remaining women.

“We are not feminists,” says one. “We have never fought against men.”

He answers by executing them, left to right. Twenty minutes later, fourteen women are dead and another fourteen students wounded. The shooter’s suicide note blames his actions on “radical feminists.”

This is not a theoretical scenario, it’s the coroner’s report from the 1989 École Polytechnique massacre. This is what an anonymous terrorist meant when he threatened to conduct a “Montreal-style attack” during Anita Sarkeesian’s Utah State lecture.

It appears that, in addition to being threatened with violence for speaking out, you can now be threatened for listening.

I’m not here to debate what GamerGate is or is not about. That conversation is immaterial to the current situation. Hacking, doxxing, and death threats are criminal acts, not rhetorical devices. No discussion can occur while people flee their homes.

Our sole priority right now must be safety.

Defending GamerGate as “not about misogyny” ignores the point. For some members it clearly is about misogynist violence and always has been.

I therefore call on GamerGate’s supporters to abandon it in the interest of public safety. While these zealots may not represent you, for as long as you continue to use the hashtag, you’re representing and emboldening them. Internal policing is inadequate – you can’t block/report an unstable man with a gun.

We can talk about ethics later, right now we need to ensure no one leaves this “debate” in a body bag.

***

If you are interested, other Escapist writers have also published thoughts on the controversy:

Bob “Moviebob” Chipman

Sarah LeBoeuf

Carly Smith

I would like to thank all my colleagues for their support and strength during this time.


Three Great Halloween Board Games

I’m already getting amped for Halloween.  It’s hard not to be in Hong Kong, where the Ghost Festival and Mid-Autumn Festival mean that the season’s already steeped in specters and harvest imagery before October even arrives.

And once the season of the witch officially starts, I’m ready to go berserk on everything Halloween — including Halloween board games.

Board games  are perfect Halloween accompaniments. They bring friends together, away from the night chill (or stifling heat, if you’re in Asia like me).  A good game pairs well with popcorn, tiny candy and hot chocolate, and the role-playing elements speak to the season’s masks and costumes.

So here’s three Halloween board games to get you into the season.

 

Betrayal at the House on the Hill (3-6 Players, $38.60 Avalon Hill)

There is a house that sprawls in every direction. A handful of investigators enter, exploring the tumbledown rooms to find the house’s secrets. But the mansion is alive and watching, and will soon turn one of the investigators against the others.

Betrayal at the House on the Hill is a strategy board game with a brilliant gimmick—the board is never the same twice. As the players move through the house, they pull each room tile at random, building the house as they go. The solarium might be next to the crypt. A wine cellar could hide a secret entrance to a pentagram chamber. The mystic elevator can deliver you to any door in the house. The players poke through the ruins, gaining items and activating “omens” until enough cards get dealt to trigger the “Haunt”—one of fifty scenarios from an included booklet. Once the Haunt begins, a random player gets labeled the “traitor” and controls whatever nasty creatures appear, trying to fulfill some dark plan. The other players use teamwork to stop the traitor’s dark ends.

Betrayal brings B-movie horror to life. The tone is creepy without being ghoulish and the scenarios have sufficient variation to play several times in a row without getting bored. One game might have the players fleeing from a mummy while the next sees the entire house being pulled into hell piece-by-piece.

 

Witch Trial (3-7 Players, Free Download from Cheapass Games)

It’s an age of superstition and social tension, when accusations fly and social deviation can bring a charge a charge of witchcraft. You’re not a witch though, and neither is anyone else, really – you’re a lawyer in the middle of this madness.

This lucrative, lucrative madness. Because you don’t really care who’s guilty or innocent, just like in real life, what matters is who makes the most money.

Of course there’s a problem – witchcraft isn’t exactly illegal per se, at least not in the small-town Edwardian times depicted on the cards. So instead you’ll have to charge people with lesser crimes like golfing, swearing or tampering with the mail.

In Witch Trial, you’re a legal mercenary, defending or prosecuting suspects on a whim depending on how much they’ll pay in fees. The guiltier the client looks, the more they’re worth if you win – but the harder it is to convince a jury.

Each turn, players buy evidence cards and match charges with suspects in order to bring a case to trial, with another player opting in as defense council. Depending on the client’s guilt rating, they jury level’s set at a number between one and twelve. After players put down evidence cards to move the jury level up and down, the defense attorney rolls two dice – if it’s less than or equal to the jury score, the client gets off scot free and the defense gets the money. If not, the prosecution gets the cash. And the client… well, who really cares about that guy anyway?

Witch Trial is exactly the kind of zany fun you expect from the folks at Cheapass Games. It’s fast, fun, easy and leads to an incredible amount of deal-making and wagering. It’s also free at the Cheapass website.

 

Werewolf (9-17 Players, Free)

Lie. Misdirect. Maul and lynch your friends! Werewolf is the ultimate social game of deception and mob rule. A moderator deals out a single card to each player, which they keep face down. Most players are Villagers, but two are hiding something—they’re secretly Werewolves, bent on devouring the Villagers in their sleep. Each turn has a day and a night phase.

During the night phase, the players close their eyes. The Werewolves open their eyes and silently decide who they’re going to kill. After they let the moderator know, they close their eyes and a special villager, the Seer, opens her eyes. The Seer can peek at one person’s card per turn, exposing their true nature to her.

During the day phase, everyone opens their eyes, and the moderator reveals who the Werewolves killed. Then everyone—Villagers, Seer, and secret Werewolves—start arguing about who they want to lynch that day. It’s a classic exercise in social misdirection. Werewolves try and direct suspicion away from themselves. The Seer tries to influence the decision without giving herself away to the Werewolves. When the players universally decide whom to lynch, they flip that player’s card and find out whether they’ve killed a shape-shifting murderer, an innocent townsperson, or even their Seer. Alcohol and grudges building up over multiple rounds things a lot more fun.

Werewolf works best when you play with ten or more people, and tops out at about seventeen. You can play it with an ordinary deck of cards or even post-it notes with the free online rules, but there are also professional versions available. Ultimate Werewolf ($17.99) is the most expansive set, with a dozen optional character cards. The Werewolves of Millers Hollow ($10.76) has several extra characters and the most attractive card art. Are You a Werewolf? ($7.99) is a budget version with lighter card stock and a few blanks to create your own special characters.


Help Me Update My Halloween Playlist!

Hey folks, I have a VERY IMPORTANT SUPER SERIOUS GAME JOURNALISM PROBLEM that I need help with.
I’ve been working on monster-and-ghoul-themed columns for a Critical Intel Halloween series, but my yearly Halloween playlist is getting a little stale.

I need song suggestions to keep my mad scientist lab a-rockin’ while I sew together all the myths and legends I’ve dug up.

Here’s how the playlist stands now:

This is Halloween — Nightmare Before Christmas
Werewolves of London — Warren Zevon
Weird Science — Oingo Boingo
I Put a Spell On You — Creedence Clearwater Revival
Science Fiction / Double Feature — Rocky Horror Picture Show
Hell — Squirrel Nut Zippers
Zombie Jamboree — The Kingston Trio
Thriller (Single Version) — Michael Jackson
Dry Bones — Fred Waring
(Don’t Fear) The Reaper — Blue Oyster Cult
Season of the Witch — Donovan
Sympathy for the Devil — The Rolling Stones
Beetlejuice: Main Title — Danny Elfman
Dead Man’s Party — Oingo Boingo
White Ghost Shivers Ball — White Ghost Shivers
Mr. Crowley — Ozzy Osbourne
That Old Black Magic — Kevin Spacey
Oogie Boogie’s Song — Rodrigo y Gabriella, Nightmare Revisited
Ghostbusters — Ray Parker, Jr.
The Headless Horseman — Bing Crosby (Disney Legend of Sleepy Hollow)
Way Down Hadestown — Anais Mitchell (Hadestown Musical)
Grim Grinning Ghosts — Disney’s Haunted Mansion
Autumn Leaves — Paula Cole
Ghost of Stephen Foster — Squirrel Nut Zippers
Halloween Theme — John Carpenter
Red Right Hand — Pete Yorn (Hellboy Soundtrack)
Witchcraft — Frank Sinatra

Any thoughts?


How to Spot A Fake Photo on Twitter

The police response in Ferguson yesterday shocked the nation. We saw video of cops shooting rubber bullets at peaceful demonstrators, a journalist hassled out of McDonald’s and police gassing an Al Jazeera crew and dismantling their equipment.

Several photos stood out: One depicted a policeman spraying mace into a little girl’s eyes. Another a protester hit with a gas canister. A third showed an officer pointing his rifle into a car’s open window. In game circles, an article about how Ferguson affected videogames stoked anger at its insensitive focus.

Here’s the problem though–these last four had nothing to do with Ferguson. The photos were taken months or years earlier, over a thousand miles away. The article (from my publication, The Escapist) didn’t exist. These hoaxes are part of a growing trend in social media fakes–photoshopped or misidentified images intended to provoke outrage or fool users as a prank.

They’re not limited to Ferguson, either. I’ve detected fake photos during the World Cup, Occupy Protests and several other major news events. They’re a part of the news landscape now.

As social media like Twitter and Facebook start beating our traditional media to reporting on unfolding events, users need to start being more savvy about what they share. Not only does sharing fake images misrepresent the situation and cause confusion or anger in the public, sharing and commenting on media without fact-checking it can do lasting damage to a journalist’s reputation.

So here’s a quick-and-dirty guide to spotting a fake on social media. Generally, investigating and debunking a photo takes under two minutes, and some methods under 60 seconds.

 

1) Be Naturally Skeptical

TearGasOccupy

Photo Credit: AFP, Kimihiro Hoshino

First of all, consider the source. Does this photo come from a respected source like a journalist or a news outlet? If not, does it seem like this person is on the ground or knows what’s going on? Does it tally with other accounts?

For example, the photo above circulated a lot yesterday, claiming to show a protester hit by a gas canister in Ferguson. The photo does show a protester who’d been hit by a gas canister, but this was taken at the Occupy Oakland protests in 2011. It caused a pretty big stir at the time because the protester, Scott Olsen, was an Iraq veteran.

Anyone who’d seen footage or pictures of the Ferguson protests should’ve been immediately suspicious of this photo. Why? First of all, anyone who saw photos from Ferguson could tell you that the protesters were mostly African-American, but everyone in this picture is white. Second, there’d been no indication from reporters on the scene that there were casualties from gas canisters–something they’d have reported immediately. Third, the black hoodies were a hallmark of OWS.

Don’t assume anything’s true. If it smells even a little wrong or sensationalist to you, check it. Think before you Tweet.

 

2) If Unsure, Use Google Image Search

(Photo: O Globo, Pedro Kirilos)

Photo Credit: O Globo, Pedro Kirilos

When I was debunking Ferguson photos, a lot of people just assumed I have exceptional visual recall–but actually I was just using Google Image Search.

For example, when I saw the photo above of a cop macing a child, it didn’t read right to me. The cop’s uniform and police cruiser looked different than the ones I’d seen in photos. It was taken in daylight when the Ferguson crackdown happened after dark. And finally, the police in Ferguson flat-out weren’t getting that close to the demonstrators.

To check it, I opened up another tab to Google Image Search and typed in, “cop macing child.” There was a matching picture on the first page of results. When I clicked on the photo, it led to a page debunking the photo as a hoax–turns out this one’s a favorite and has been around for years. When I followed through on the links, I found the original news report from Brazilian outlet O Globo.

Yes, not only was this photo from 2011, but it was taken at a protest in Brazil. Finding the real source took around 60 seconds–not exactly strenuous. Trade secret: hoaxers are lazy, they take from the first page of results every time.

There’s also a shortcut for this tactic: If you install the Google Image tool in Chrome, you can search for pictures through dragging and dropping them into Google Image search or pasting a URL, which is useful for pictures that aren’t easily described, if you’re not good with search terms or you’re in a hurry.

 

3) Make Sure Any Text You Share Contains The Proper Context

Sometimes it’s not the image itself that’s wrong, it’s the comment framing it. While editorializing on a situation is one of the things social media does well, make sure the text passes muster and corresponds what the picture shows. Even a genuine photo can mislead people if it’s framed in an incorrect or biased manner.

checkpoint

Photo Credit: AP/The Sacramento Bee, Randall Benton

 

Take this photo for example. It made the rounds yesterday as an example of militarized police, and while it carried the hashtag #Ferguson it didn’t explicitly claim to be from Ferguson–an inherently misleading difference (clever girl). While this snapshot does show worrying things about police use of weapons–he shouldn’t be pointing that rifle directly at the driver–this didn’t happen during a protest, or even take place in Missouri at all. This photo shows a checkpoint the California Highway Patrol set up after a man shot four police officers in a Sacramento suburb–making the rifle a little more understandable. (If you look closely you can see the officer’s CHiP patch.) While it expresses a valid point, the way it’s framed tricks the viewer into thinking police checkpoints are happening in Ferguson as we speak.

But there are more harmful examples too. Remember the Reddit attempt to find the Boston Marathon bombers that ended up plastering an innocent man’s picture all over Twitter? Or Anonymous claiming they’d found Mike Brown’s killer yesterday? All real photos with erroneous or deceptive text. If the evidence on a claim seems thin, it’s better to wait until it’s corroborated before passing it on.

 

4) Spotting Photoshops

Most social media fakes aren’t photoshop jobs, since it’s less work for a hoaxer to find an existing photo and misrepresent it. However, since today someone decided to smear The Escapist with a photoshop, I’m including it.

Learning to spot photoshops can be difficult and should be a post in itself. I’ll instead link you to this short LifeHacker guide and add this: your best bet is to look for edges that don’t line up well (see the awful unmatched blockiness in the Escapist fake below), suspicious blending, lighting that isn’t right or shadows that should be there but aren’t. Most photoshop fakes are fast and sloppy alterations–but the best way is still to use Google Image search to find the original and see if it was doctored.

 

5) A Note On Article Screenshots

Photo Credit: Some Lying Jerkbag

Photo Credit: Some Lying Jerkbag

One recent trend has been for people to take screenshots of an article’s headline and then post it to Twitter, decrying that a site would publish an article on such an offensive topic. This is problematic for a number of reasons, but the main one is that by giving people a screenshot rather than a link, it can either misrepresent the content (i.e. spur people to judge the article without actually reading it) or in the case of the crude photoshop above, spread around a piece that the website never published.

When you see an article being flogged around the fleet like this, your first step should be to find and read that article.

“But I don’t want to give them traffic!” you say. But I would counter that until you know that the article exists and the actual content it contains, you probably shouldn’t jump to conclusions about what it says and definitely shouldn’t share it. (Indeed, hoaxers count on you sharing without reading.) Sure, you can argue that an individual headline–at least when it’s real–can be off-putting, but making that argument implicitly states that you’ve judged the material based on your preconceptions rather than what it actually says. “This article is awful,” is a different statement than, “This article is ok, but I don’t like the headline or the header picture.”

If you search for an article and don’t find it–or find a similar article under the different title–don’t automatically assume that the website retracted or altered it (as I saw several people do today on Twitter with the fraudulent Escapist piece). If you’re suspicious, contact one of the editors on Twitter and ask if the screenshot’s genuine and if the piece was removed–editors are generally fairly upfront about that sort of thing and it takes roughly five seconds.

This is particularly crucial if you’re a journalist, since you risk burning bridges by posting fake or misleading screenshots. Check your facts. Do at least the minimum amount of research to make an informed decision. Don’t take attacking a publication lightly.

 

6) What To Do If You Share a Fake

If you do share a fake–and it happens to all of us–minimizing the damage takes seconds.

  1. Delete the post or tweet.
  2. Immediately post a retraction apologizing and explaining the photo was fake.
  3. If you wrote a blog post highlighting or editorializing on the photo, take it down or–if it’s only one part of a larger blog post–edit the post and include a highly visible note at the top explaining the mistake and apologizing.
  4. Apologize to anyone you may have disparaged and say you’ll be more careful in the future. This is especially important if you’re a journalist and badmouthed another publication–this is a small industry and editors will remember.
  5. If any of your followers shared the photo with a lot of people, you may want to tell them individually that it was fake. Think of it like a virus, you want to contain the spread.

Social media is an incredible opportunity to share information without gatekeepers, but with that opportunity comes greater responsibility about what we spread across the internet. If you want to fire CNN and get your news on Twitter, you need to be your own fact-checker. Thankfully, a little skepticism, a few simple tools and a cool head will go a long way toward keeping your feeds hoax-free.


China’s New 72-Hour Transit Visa: I Did It, And Yes, It Works

For ten months now, I’ve lived a one-hour subway ride from Mainland China but have never been there.

It’s more logistics than anything – as an American, applying for the visa is a pain and it’s relatively expensive for a double entry. While I plan to spring for it next year, this year it just wasn’t in the cards.

But wouldn’t it be great to get a couple days in Shanghai or Beijing without all that hassle?  See the Wall, the Forbidden City or Asia’s tech hub?

Well good news, impatient or poorly-prepared U.S. citizen: you can! In 2013, the People’s Republic started a new program that allows onward travelers to stay 72 hours visa-free in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Chengdu and an ever-expending list of other cities. There’s no pre-registration, no visa, and best of all, no repeated trips to the Chinese consulate – you just book your ticket and go.

While I’d known about this program for awhile, no one I knew had used it yet, and whenever I brought it up among friends I frequently encountered skepticism that it could possibly be as easy as the ads described.  But when one of my friends visited Hong Kong and our plans for a Thailand side-trip fell apart due to high temperatures and an inconveniently-timed military coup, I suggested we book a flight to Beijing instead.

Having done it, here’s the good news: provided you read the requirements, it really is as easy as it’s described. While I’d recommend you look at the actual text or a good summary of the program, these are the basic requirements:

  • You Have to Be a Citizen of Certain Countries: But it’s a 51-country list that includes the U.S., U.K. and Canada, so if you’re reading this in English you’re probably golden. Still, check.
  • NO ROUND TRIPS: This is a transit visa, so you can’t fly round trip – i.e. no Hong Kong to Beijing and back to Hong Kong.  You can fly from Hong Kong to Beijing, stay 72 hours, and fly on to Singapore.  The neat trick here is that Hong Kong and Macau count as two different countries – but more on that later.  Note that you have to have an onward ticket already booked when you arrive in China.
  • You Must Arrive and Leave by Air On a Direct Flight and Can’t Leave the City: The visa is only available in airports, and you can’t travel to another city during that 72 hour period. Your flight can’t have a layover inside China either on the way there or back (a layover outside China is fine).
  • The 72 Hour Period Starts on Takeoff and Landing (Varies): This actually varies by airport, but in general your 72 hour period starts once you land/get issued your transit visa.  In my mind it’s better to just make sure your tickets fall within the 72 hour period to avoid ambiguity – so if you arrive in Shanghai at 10:00 AM on Thursday, your flight needs to leave before 10:00 AM on Sunday.  Check the requirements for your airport.
  • Tell Your Airline You’re Using the 72 Hour Visa: They’ll inform immigration that you’re coming. Apparently you don’t have to do this for Beijing, but we did at check-in anyway.  We did it verbally and didn’t have to fill anything out.
  • Once You Arrive, You Need to Register: If you’re staying at a hotel, you don’t need to worry about this step as the hotel staff will do it for you.  But if you’re staying with a friend, you have to register at a police station within 24 hours of arriving.

 

SO IS IT REALLY AS EASY AS IT SEEMS?

Yep, I’ve confirmed it: it’s certified easy.  Provided you follow the fairly minimal rules, it’s a no-hassle experience – in fact since the program isn’t well known yet, we got through the 72 hour visa line faster than people with standard visas. When you arrive at your destination, have your passport, itinerary and arrival card all filled out and ready to go.  The itinerary is to prove you have an onward ticket, and in our group we used both itineraries printed off email and those printed by the airline – neither caused a problem. The only issue is that since the program’s new, the immigration officer may need some walking through what you’re doing – ours didn’t speak great English, so be prepared to smile a lot and point at the relevant parts of your itinerary. Our guy rang his superior to ask a question, but let us through after that. The whole process probably took 90 seconds per person.

 

HOW TO FLY “ROUND TRIP” WITH THE HONG KONG-MACAU STRATEGY

The biggest sticking point for most people is that you can’t use the 72 hour visa on a round trip, meaning you need to chain your China visit with a longer travel itinerary or eat the cost associated with a triangular flight path. But there’s a way around that if you’re living in or visiting Hong Kong or Macau. Both Hong Kong and Macau are Special Administrative Regions of China, but they have independent legal systems and different immigration requirements. That means for the purposes of this program, they’re considered separate countries – which is great, because they’re also 45 minutes apart and connected by a cheap ferry. So when our guests visited, we worked it like this: we caught a flight from Hong Kong to Beijing, stayed 72 hours, boarded a flight from Beijing to Macau, and once we arrived in Macau partied until we lost energy and took a US$21 ferry ride home to Hong Kong. Since Macau’s entry requirements feature a free visa-on-arrival for U.S. citizens, you can basically just show up without any notice.  And who doesn’t want to see the Las Vegas of Asia?

 

OKAY, BUT IS 72 HOURS LONG ENOUGH TO SEE BEIJING?

It depends.  If you’re trying to embed yourself in the culture and get a thorough appreciation for what China means then no.  But if you want to see the Great Wall, the Forbidden City, Tiananmen Square, the Temple of Heaven, and buy live scorpion-on-a-stick at Donghuamen Night Market, then it’s totally adequate. But remember that it is a condensed schedule, so book a hotel near the things you most want to see.  Transit represents wasted time, but it can also can drain your energy if it’s around rush hour and you can’t afford to tire out on a packed itinerary.  Thankfully Beijing has an efficient and cheap subway system with stops near popular tourist sites. It’s preferable to cabs, since drivers will quote you a price that’s three to four times what a trip should cost. Best of luck travelers!  And if you’re going to sling ink while you’re there, remember to pack your writer’s travel kit.


Confession: I Write With My Pants On

“I’m a writer because I can go to work with no pants.”

Ha! No pants. Pantsless. Sans pantalon.

Cue laugh track. Classic.

We’ve all heard this one. The joke’s been around for ages but has gained popular cachet in the age of bloggers, tekkies and work-from-home culture. What used to strike us as figurative truth (that writers pick their own uniform) has taken a hairpin turn into literality: In all likelihood that co-worker you’re emailing or chatting with is, most probably, in their boxers right now.

The gag’s especially caught on with the new generation of tech-connected writers – the wordsmiths-cum-webmasters – who fuse the worlds of tech and fiction. Chuck Wendig’s the most notable when it comes to outright revelry about pants-burning, though I’ve heard it from others. Women writers tend to substitute the more modest “please don’t think about me in my underwear” term pajamas, but the joke functions the same way – being a writer means not having to dress for the job. Being your own boss. Asserting your independence.

But here’s the thing: I always wear pants while writing, and you might want to consider it too.

For hygiene’s sake at least. Especially if you have a cloth chair. I mean, c’mon, even nudist colonies ask you to put down a towel. Jesus, this place smells like a hippo enclosure.

But the main reason I wear pants – apart from minimizing my Scotch Guard budget – is that getting dressed reminds me I’m here, at my desk, to work.

Next week marks my first anniversary writing full-time. It’s been an astonishing experience, but like any new endeavor, the first year has been as much about learning as it was about marking accomplishments. And one of the biggest things I learned was that I very badly need a separation between my work life and my home life. You hear this all the time from writers who talk about writing space and designing your environment, but in my experience personal grooming plays a big part in that.

Maybe it’s because I started my working life at decidedly white-collar law firms and research companies. Maybe it’s because I come from a buttoned-up family. Whatever the case, I can’t just roll out of bed and hit the keyboard. If I do, my writing comes out unfocused and inattentive. Slouching in a rumpled T-shirt and pajama bottoms tells my brain, “weekend” even when it’s Tuesday and I’ve got a deadline.

But throw me in a shower, scrape me with a razor, and put me in a nice clean shirt and pants? I’m golden. That mental switch flips. I’m at work, it says, Time to write some words.

It’s a ritual, and we all do it. Some workers brew that first mug of coffee. Others listen to psych-up music on their commute. I’ve need to put on work clothes. Sure, sometimes they’re the most lax work clothes on the planet, but even if it’s a T-shirt and shorts they’re at least clean and new. It’s the act of putting them on that works magic, not the clothes themselves. The ritual’s the thing – I can’t just wake up and type words in the same way the Catholic Church can’t just pass out crackers and wine. The act loses its meaning when you don’t remember why you’re doing it.

This ain’t grape juice, it’s the Blood of Christ. This ain’t wacky-slacky-watch-latest-Moviebob-time, it’s work time.

When you embrace them, clothes can be a powerful tool in your writing life. I used to wear a big felt Stetson when I had a hard time focusing. I called it The Writing Hat. The rule was that if the hat was on, I had to be writing. No checking Facebook. No outlining. I was only allowed to put words on the screen. I’ve also used wardrobe changes as a re-focusing technique. Oh, you can’t seem to buckle down on that article this morning, eh? Out of the Tees and jorts, buddy, into the khakis and button-down. It’s grindstone time.

The truth is that clothes serve a psychological purpose. While they marginally control how others see us, they also regulate our self-image and mental state. Soldiers don uniforms to leave the civilian world and adopt military values. Brides wear dresses to help them feel more beautiful than they ever have before. Vestments remind priests that they represent a higher power. We all do it, in our own way, when we get dressed up for a night out. Sure, we want to look good, but it’s more important that we feel good.

Which is why I’m a pants-on writer. I may be an office of one, but yeah, I have a dress code. It glitches my brain into work mode, which is exactly what dress codes are supposed to do.

Will it work for you the same way? No idea. Maybe you’re more productive when you’re über-comfortable in your boxers. For me, comfort’s a progress-killer. An external spur keeps me on track.

Because being your own boss also means being your own employee – and seriously, you gotta watch that guy, because he will slack right the hell off if you give him the chance. Let him come to work sans pantalon and soon he’ll be taking two-hour lunch breaks and spend his afternoon looking at Tumblr photos of cats caught in venetian blinds.

And no one likes to be that boss, but sometimes you have to be. Sometimes you need to drop by and say: Seriously buddy, go home and put on some pants. Come back when you’re ready to work.

Next time, it’s a write-up.


I Discuss the Leland Yee Affidavit on Game Talk Live

If you’re a Critical Intel fan you’ve probably read my narrativized breakdown of the affidavit against Senator Leland Yee. In short: Yee, a California State Senator and anti-gun, anti-violent games campaigner, has been arrested on charges of accepting campaign donations for political favors, links with Triad gangs in San Francisco’s Chinatown and brokering arms deals for Muslim separatist groups in the Philippines.

Yeah.

And that’s where the craziness starts. Let’s not forget that Yee’s closest associate and main campaign fundraising official was also allegedly caught trafficking drugs across state lines and trying to hook an undercover FBI agent up with not one, not two, but three contract killers in a murder-for-hire plot.

Given all this John Woo-style insanity, the folks at Game Talk Live invited me on the program to give an interview about the charges. You can see an edited version here:

This was my first live talk show and I didn’t do too bad considering. My biggest gripe is that my wifi signal was too weak in the original place where I planned to give the interview so at the last minute I moved somewhere with good signal but bad lighting. Lesson learned. The sound delay also threw me a bit (there was a quarter-second delay Skyping in from Hong Kong), but the end product looks pretty good all told.

And hey, they used my Indiana Jones picture from Halloween! Sweeeet.

That was fun, hope to do it again.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,614 other followers