<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Ernst Choukula</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mssv.net/2009/01/07/ernst-choukula/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mssv.net/2009/01/07/ernst-choukula/</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 07:46:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Adrian Hon</title>
		<link>http://mssv.net/2009/01/07/ernst-choukula/comment-page-1/#comment-144500</link>
		<dc:creator>Adrian Hon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mssv.net/?p=928#comment-144500</guid>
		<description>@Trippenbach: It was Frozen Indigo Angel, yes. Briefly, we didn&#039;t really have any marketing budget for the game, so we had to do something that would attract attention, hence the whole &#039;I was unfairly fired from the BBC&#039; stunt.

It did get a little bit of traction, but the problem is, people are just too smart these days and the amount of effort you need to put in to convincingly fooling people is just disproportionate to the benefits. Plus I now think there are far better ways of getting attention.

@TS: I think the problem emerges when you try to work out whether someone&#039;s primary intention was to deliberately mislead or not; and whether there is any attempt whatsoever to mark a boundary.

Interesting you mention broadcasters :) I certainly agree that they do not credit their audiences with the sophistication that they actually have, leading to all sorts of irritating requests like huge blaring popup disclaimers on fictional websites saying &#039;BY THE WAY, LONDON HAS NOT ACTUALLY BEEN BLOWN UP BY A NUCLEAR BOMB!&#039;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Trippenbach: It was Frozen Indigo Angel, yes. Briefly, we didn&#8217;t really have any marketing budget for the game, so we had to do something that would attract attention, hence the whole &#8216;I was unfairly fired from the BBC&#8217; stunt.</p>
<p>It did get a little bit of traction, but the problem is, people are just too smart these days and the amount of effort you need to put in to convincingly fooling people is just disproportionate to the benefits. Plus I now think there are far better ways of getting attention.</p>
<p>@TS: I think the problem emerges when you try to work out whether someone&#8217;s primary intention was to deliberately mislead or not; and whether there is any attempt whatsoever to mark a boundary.</p>
<p>Interesting you mention broadcasters :) I certainly agree that they do not credit their audiences with the sophistication that they actually have, leading to all sorts of irritating requests like huge blaring popup disclaimers on fictional websites saying &#8216;BY THE WAY, LONDON HAS NOT ACTUALLY BEEN BLOWN UP BY A NUCLEAR BOMB!&#8217;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TS</title>
		<link>http://mssv.net/2009/01/07/ernst-choukula/comment-page-1/#comment-144487</link>
		<dc:creator>TS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 14:17:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mssv.net/?p=928#comment-144487</guid>
		<description>I think &#039;hoax&#039; is a strong word. You place a fiction against a real backdrop. You mark the boundary, either explicitly or implicitly. What matters to make it a hoax is a primary intention to mislead deliberately, rather than to be playful. Playing audiences are more sophisticated interpreters of boundary-markers than most broadcasters (say) credit them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think &#8216;hoax&#8217; is a strong word. You place a fiction against a real backdrop. You mark the boundary, either explicitly or implicitly. What matters to make it a hoax is a primary intention to mislead deliberately, rather than to be playful. Playing audiences are more sophisticated interpreters of boundary-markers than most broadcasters (say) credit them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Trippenbach</title>
		<link>http://mssv.net/2009/01/07/ernst-choukula/comment-page-1/#comment-144473</link>
		<dc:creator>Trippenbach</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:24:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mssv.net/?p=928#comment-144473</guid>
		<description>I love this. A fine example of satirical craft at work. 

&lt;blockquote&gt;Incidentally, I dislike hoaxes as part of ARGs. I did it once, and it was a mistake. &lt;/blockquote&gt;

. . . Care to enlighten us? Was this Frozen Indigo Angel, mayhap?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I love this. A fine example of satirical craft at work. </p>
<blockquote><p>Incidentally, I dislike hoaxes as part of ARGs. I did it once, and it was a mistake. </p></blockquote>
<p>. . . Care to enlighten us? Was this Frozen Indigo Angel, mayhap?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
