Comments on: Apple’s App Store: The Paranoid Theory

By: Jesper

Jesper — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 14:00:43 +0000

Ah, now I see what you are saying, Olivier. True – it does seem to be fundamentally unpredictable.

By: Olivier Lejade

Olivier Lejade — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 15:56:11 +0000

Actually, I was trying to say that Apple’s ambiguous rules allows for *some* weird content to slip through and get on the iPhone while I’m not sure I can say the same about other distribution channels…

By: Jesper

Jesper — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:40:14 +0000

Olivier,

Good point – ambiguous rules and arbitrary punishment are surely hurting games across all controlled distribution channels.

The App Store is just a particularly high-profile example, but it is perhaps especially interesting because most everyone seems to have interpreted as incompetence on Apple’s part, rather than a deliberate policy.

By: Olivier Lejade

Olivier Lejade — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:49:28 +0000

Hey Jesper,

I agree that ambiguous rules + arbitrary punishment = self censorship and that there is not enough objectionable/offending/subversive content going around in games. But why single out Apple? Isn’t the same thing going around everywhere in the industry? Seen anything worthy of mention on Nintendo/Sony/MS hardware? I mean apart from the glorified ultra-violence which seems to benefit from a weird consensus that it’s okay. In games you can kill cops and steal cars anytime you like but if you ever happen to have sex with a prostitute, there’s a class action suit waiting for you… There’s a puritanical straitjacket restraining games and it’s in people’s head not just because of a single company. I think Apple policies are stupid an unfair but no more than any other proprietary hardware maker. In fact, there might even be more racy content on the iPhone than on any other gaming platform…

By: Jesper

Jesper — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:10:08 +0000

And that’s why dictators enjoy ambiguity – does wonders for self-censorship.

By: Brennan Young

Brennan Young — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 19:25:11 +0000

I think you hit the nail on the head, but you missed the most important clause of all: We do not discuss the existence or non-existence of any rules of exclusion.

(Inspired by R.D. Laing, who put it thusly:)

Rule A: Don’t.
Rule A1: Rule A doesn’t exist.
Rule A2: Do not discuss the existence or non-existence of Rules A, A1 or A2.

By: Jesper

Jesper — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:20:54 +0000

Full disclosure: I got the argument about excessive random punishment from a Raph Koster talk a few years ago. I am pretty sure the data is out there for humans. Looking for it.

By: Philip Tan

Philip Tan — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 03:07:54 +0000

Martin Seligman did some experiments in 1967 on dogs that showed that, when subjected to seemingly-random electric shocks that they could not control, the dogs demonstrated learned helplessness. Even when introduced into a situation when they could escape the shocks, the dogs would just whine and bear it.

It works the other way too… I think B. F. Skinner did some experiments in the 1950s that in which random rewards were pretty effective in producing systematic behavior in lab animals.

However, I’m not sure if there exists any material that proves that such findings are applicable to humans.

By: Izdelava spletnih strani

Izdelava spletnih strani — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:20:16 +0000

I don’t agree Jesper that the strong punishment is the best to change ones behaviour. Have a 3 year old and did some punishment tricks and they weren’t succesfull.

As of Gaming policy. I always was confused how US government can be calm at guns, crime and so, but when i comes to nudity, all hell broke loose. I think here in Europe we are more tolerant towards nudity and sex.

By: Jesper

Jesper — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:29:31 +0000

Ooh, you are asking for such precise terminology.

I certainly recall that there is research saying that semi-arbitrary but strong punishment is the best way to shape people’s behavior – this seems to be such a case, doesn’t it?