3/3 Bogost, Walker and Sack.

            Walker and Bogost’s writings for these week focus on different applications of an online sense of community and the individual role within that community. Sack’s technical work analyzes how such environments can be viewed visually, and organized in order to simplify that visual representation in order to use the collected information.

            I found Sack’s work to be the most applicable to religious ritual of the three, as it was able to give a visual reference point from which to analyze the effectiveness and fluidity of a virtual conversation, and in doing so, can give insight into how an online church or religious ritual can be effective or ineffective.

            If one were to analyze the content of the other pieces; “Online Caroline” and the Howard Dean online campaign through Sack’s “conversation map” two very different images would appear. “Online Caroline” is very limited in scope, as Walker points out. There is very little two way interaction between the digital character and the user, rather the majority of the procedural substance lies in the users initiation of and reaction to the events unfolding in the ‘life’ of Caroline. It is very similar to a cyber-drama in the sense that the participant is little more than a bystander to the events taking place. If one were to map the conversation between Caroline and the user using Sack’s software, it may look similar to figure 20.7a. Where there are distinct hubs of response, these being Caroline’s actions. It may be obvious that in fact online Caroline is not a multi user networked conversation while the user is participating, so the Sack software may not be completely applicable. However, it is interesting to apply the lens of Sack’s conversation map in order to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of the procedural aspects of the game. As walker points out, “there is no space for [one] to act on [their] own initiative in ‘Online Caroline’(304), and ‘Caroline doesn’t necessarily take my advice…”(306).  These shows that while ‘Caroline’ may appear interactive; it is only activated by the user’s presence. This is where I have a problem with Walker’s interpretation of the experience. In the end of the experience, Caroline mysteriously disappears, perhaps even dies. In summation Walker states “If I hadn’t have read, she’d have lived.” (308). I argue that if walker hadn’t have read, Caroline wouldn’t have lived at all, and stopping the experience half way through would have suspended her existence. The experience was completely dependent on the user to move.

            The Howard Dean experience would have looked very different through Sack’s Conversation map, similar to figure 20.3a. In which a large amount of discussion topics were highly interacted between many users. The problem with the procedure, as Bogost’s points out, is that it remained little more than that; a procedure. The aspects discussed were little invested in, and as a result the campaign failed. This failure is visualized in Sack’s figure 20.6a, a “shallow conversation” in which many topics were discussed, but with limited interaction, not thoroughly explored.

            Using the lens of Sack’s conversation map could be a very useful tool in fine tuning an e-church service similar to one I have looked at in a previous article. Its essential flaws were a lack of central focus and the infiltration of disruptive outsiders. A conversation map could visually plot the semantic flaws within the service which allow such outside intrusion, and the social network and theme schematics would allow the programmer to tune the points at which diversion occur, and not allow them to exist within the social frame.