|
Tuesday, March 30. 2010
Since my last post it has been an oddly quiet week in this electoral war, with probably no really significant missteps, and so nothing along the lines of "How to lose an election" really printable.
Why is this? Well there are two real reasons. First, the current government announced a budget last week. They said how wonderfully they'd done and announced things weren't as bad as they could be and here were some good breaks for normal tax payers - all very typical pre-election posturing. The other parties stood up and said what a disaster the government made of handling the recession, how much better they'd have done and that they'd have completely different plans if they're elected. Also predictable posturing. And because it was all so predictable, like a well-rehearsed dance where everyone knows their steps, no one really put a foot wrong. Reactions are, equally predictably, split largely along party lines.
The only thing that's slightly unusual in here is that independent figures say that the recession wasn't as bad as expected - unemployment rose but the peak was lower than expected and on several other measures things were better than expected. That makes it awkward for an all-out attack of mismanagement to be made. Of course, on other measures such as public debt, we're worse off than we've ever been since WWII, and whilst that might seem to be an issue that will critically wound the government, it is a question of degree rather than complete disagreement. The fact that every major economy in the world basically used the same plan also makes it hard to say how bad the current lot were and make it stick - there's nothing to really compare it to. Doubtless that is helping keep the attacks down too, and the chances for missteps.
We've also had the MPs' expenses row floating along and today there have been new rules published. You can read them on the BBC's website. That's not really causing any huge outcry yet, but it was a series of revelations that hurt all sides when new and which has been making politicians cautious and the public angry. Speaking personally I don't think the rules go quite far enough but they are a lot better than the old rules. They are, however slowly, moving towards a moderately reasonable structure that is not hugely dissimilar to many other jobs. For example, you can claim (with a receipt) up to £15 for an evening meal if work keeps you later than 7:30pm; many jobs have some sort of similar deal built in. If you live within 20 miles or 60 minutes travel time, you can't claim housing expenses - again fairly reasonable and not dissimilar to some other jobs. This affects about 1 in 6 MPs. I would have a larger radius, 90 minutes travel time at least, but it is a step in the right direction. My gut feeling is that it's not quite a big enough step but it is a lot better than it used to be.
Then, tonight, we've had a debate between the current chancellor, his conservative shadow and the Liberal-Democrat's treasury spokesperson (who would be chancellor if by some miracle the Lib Dems win). There were a number of predictable things:
Labour and Lib-Dem rounded on the announced Tory plans saying they are (in more diplomatic terms) stupid and poorly thought out. An easy (apparently they're going to not raise taxes but they're going to find more money to pay off the debt faster at the same time... um what?) and all too predictable reaction.
The Tory again accused Labour of inheriting the strongest economy and leaving us with the weakest in Europe (possibly true but depends on the measure used and also very predictable).
The newspapers are divided along party political lines in their reactions (again no surprise) and neutral commentators are saying that the Lib Dem did the best as measured by audience reaction, Labour looked nervous, Conservative blustered and didn't impress. This isn't really a surprise because the Lib Dem treasury spokesperson is a confident, charming, engaging speaker who has a long track record of wooing the crowd, the others are glib enough, but not really liked, in both cases not even really liked by the party faithful broadly speaking.
TV debates like this are new for us. We've had election broadcasts on TV for years, but this is the first time we've had a TV debate in the build up to an election. We are also, sometime, having 3 debates between the big three party leaders (much to the distress of Plaid Cymri and the SNP in Wales and Scotland respectively, who are being excluded despite their strong national showing within their respective borders). They're a staple of US elections I know. I rather suspect that all three parties will be analysing this debate closely, working out what worked well and what worked badly so they can (try to) do better in the leaders' debates.
And, of course, despite a lot of speculation that we're having an election on 6th May, with no official announcement yet it is all rather a phoney war - all the sides are taking pot-shots and some have certainly made missteps but they're saving their real effort for the time between the official announcement of the date and the actual election. This, doubtless, has something to do with the fact that all the parties are in a rather precarious financial position... so short campaigns will help with that.
Sunday, March 28. 2010
In this piece I'll roughly describe the games and how they relate (if at all) to US sports. I'll stick with the British nomenclature (so remember Football is Soccer, American Football is what you call Football etc.).
Football
Of your sports in the US, Football is most like Ice Hockey (or Hockey as you call it). It's bigger, slower and less physical, but structurally it's quite similar. Each team (of 11 players on the pitch) has a goalkeeper, some defensive players, some midfield or centre players, and some forwards. The goalkeeper has some special rules about what he can do - he is the only player that can legally use his hands and arms for example. All players (except usually the goalkeeper) move forward in attack and back in defence. Forwards score more goals than backs, but backs often support the forwards and do score goals of their own too.
Of course, being played on grass, and on a pitch the same length as an American Football pitch, but appreciably wider, and with a big ball, it's much slower. The fact there are no rolling substitutions (in fact often no substitutions at all) also makes it slower because you can't give your all for 30s and get replaced.
Football is largely, also a non-contact sport. It's not as no-contact as basketball, but it is certainly low contact.
The aim of the game: to score goals and stop the other side scoring them.
Cricket
At first glance Cricket looks like Baseball gone mad. There are players with bats, trying to hit a ball that is "thrown" at them and score runs. If you hit the ball in the air and it's caught cleanly you're out. In the traditional form of the game there are even innings. However, there's no diamond - you can hit the ball all around the park. It's hard to hit it straight backwards, but that happens too. And since there are only 11 players, it is (relatively) easy to score runs - good batsmen average 40-50 runs per innings and scores in excess of 200 runs for an individual player are uncommon but not unknown, scores in excess of 100 are fairly common.
In cricket, however, the ball is bowled, that is thrown with the arm kept (nearly) straight in an action that comes from the back and shoulders. The bowler usually runs up to deliver the ball, although for some bowlers this is more a token 3-steps, for others it can be 20+ paces at the sprint. Equally the bowler usually bowls in such a fashion that the ball hits the ground and bounces up - indeed a full toss above waist height (a "beamer") is an illegal delivery in cricket. The aim of the bowler is theoretically to hit the stumps, which are a collection of bits of wood stuck in the ground, roughly analogous to the strike zone, but in a different position. That doesn't explain why certain bowlers pitch the ball very short, causing it to rear up towards the head of the batter. Batters regularly wear helmets more like American Football helmets to try and stop the ball injuring them.
There are a lot of other intricacies, but if you think of it as slow, high-scoring baseball, with its own set of intricacies just like baseball has, then you will at least start to have some idea.
One other thing - in cricket playing for the draw can be a heroic thing. The traditional form of the game is played over 3-5 days and once time is up, that's the end of the game. If there isn't a decision BEFORE that time, the match is declared a draw. You could be on the brink of winning: 200 runs ahead and only needing 1 more wicket (similar to an "out") but if time runs out, that's it. Match drawn.
Rugby Union
Although it might not look much like it, Rugby Union is the parent, or maybe the uncle, of American Football. It is also, much more clearly, the parent of Rugby League. League and American Football are much more similar to each other than Union is to either of them.
However, you can describe all three sports as moving from tackle to tackle situation as you attempt to move the ball down the field and get it into the scoring area, the ball being moved by carrying it and running and passing. You can also kick the ball, either for points or for position, kicking usually results in handing the possession of the ball to the other side. Suddenly they sound more similar.
In League you have 6 tackles to move the ball to the other end of the pitch and score your try (roughly the same as a touchdown, except in a try you must actually touch the ball to the ground rather than just cross the line). In Union you theoretically have no limit to the number of tackles you can use up, but it is rare for it to go past about 10 such phases without either a mistake, a kick or a score. It does happen, famously one game 2 years ago finished after a drop goal after about 35 phases, most of them taking place in "referee's time" - after the 80 minutes were up, but the game doesn't end until there is a mistake (or a score) that forces a stop to the play.
In League, more like American Football, each tackle allows both sides to reset and start again, although the stop-start nature of League is not as pronounced as in American Football - the tackler must release the tackled player who then gets to his feet and plays the ball, if players are out of position etc. then tough. (If they don't interfere with the play, then it is not illegal either.) In Union the situation is appreciably more complex. Once a player is tackled, players (other than the tackler usually) from the defending side swarm to the tackle and try to either grab the ball from the tackled player, drive forwards and get their line over the ball so their side can play it, or at least stop the attacking side getting the ball quickly. Simultaneously some of the players from the attacking side swarm to the ball and try to stop the defenders stealing the ball or driving over it and try to get it back quickly (unless they're England, where getting it back slowly seems to be preferred for no good reason). Once the ball is out (for either side, the new side is now the attacking side) they can kick, run or pass the ball and try to move the ball the way their prefer.
In both codes of rugby, the ball can only travel forwards if kicked or carried (no forward passes!) - if you fumble a catch and it goes forward, you are penalised (by a scrum which usually results in loss of possession). You can, however, kick the ball in such a way that a member of your team catches it (or tries to) and this kick-pass is a common tactic in some situations. Usually kicking the ball away is done for safety - if the ball is near your goal line you will kick it away as far as possible to try and make sure they don't score. The current interpretation of the rules makes "rugby tennis" more common where teams kick more in the hope that the other side will make a mistake first - such as dropping the ball fowards - so they can move down to that part of the pitch.
The look of the game is very different to American Football, but structurally it is broadly similar. Like American Football, you can get big scores quite easily, the scoring system and the fact that small differences in quality can result in quite one-sided games, draws are uncommon in Rugby.
Thursday, March 25. 2010
Shutter Island is a disappointing movie in my opinion. As you may have seen in the advertising the US Marshall visits Shutter Island, home of a prison for the criminally insane to investigate a disappearance under mysterious circumstances.
If it's not obvious from the start it soon becomes blatantly obvious this is a film which is going to question whether the lead character is seeing the truth or is actually mad. And therein lies part of my problem with the film: there is a massive ensemble cast - guards, nurses, doctors, patients etc. who, if this is a movie where he's mad have to be in on the act, at least enough for him to misinterpret what they're doing and why whilst in the persona of a US Marshall. It's pushing it's luck for me.
Add to that a really overplayed series of flashbacks to the liberation of Dachau, in which the lead character is supposed to have been involved, combined when moments when the score is about as subtle as an over-eager Great Dane jumping in your lap and I, at least, came out of wondering where the subtle touches of the master film maker that Scorcese can be had been applied to this particular movie.
And, final nail in the coffin for me, it doesn't do anything new and interesting with the type of story. It's not a bad film, I've certainly seen worse, The Road and Where The Wild Things Are that I've seen this year both spring to mind as appreciably worse, but it's an overlong, quite average movie from a cast and crew that you can't help feeling should have done better.
And, as an aside, a lot of the details in the flashbacks to Dachau seem to be real. Except... April 29th (when Dachau was relieved) seems like a really late date for the amount of snow and ice and depicted in the film. It niggled me during the film, and finding the date and the pictures from the time when I got home just reinforced that.
Wednesday, March 24. 2010
I’m not sure why I got lumbered with this but a friend asked about it and it grew into a massive blog post...
In the UK there are three (or four) big televised sports. These are football (what you’ll call soccer), cricket and rugby. Rugby is a little more complicated because there are two types of rugby, union and league, with different rules, fan bases and the like; these days they are also played at different times of the year and that gives us our big three or four.
All of these sports are structured into a league. Despite some silly naming, there is a single league for each of these four - although football sounds like it has 3 different leagues. Unlike US sport these leagues are meritocracies rather than geographical divisions and there is promotion and relegation. The fine details differ, but essentially if you finish at the top of any division except the top one you get promoted to the higher division next season, if you finish at the bottom you go down a division. Promotion and relegation can have massive financial implications but our leagues do not offer a fixed number of franchises, rather our clubs tend to be geographically located (the Calgary Flames are apparently so-called because of the fires in Atlanta... um what?!) and largely rise and fall on merit. That is no longer completely true - there are sides such as Chelsea in football that are just so well funded it is inconceivable that they will get relegated this year. However, 30-odd years ago Leeds United were in the same position and today they are playing in the third tier of professional football (which is confusingly called Division One these days - the Premier League, the Championship, Division 1, Division 2 have replaced the old First, Second, Third and Fourth Divisions from my childhood).
One thing that often confuses Americans watching our sports is that most of them have very limited substitution. You field your side, comprised of a mixture of players with different skills (in football a goalkeeper, a number of backs (defensive players), a number of midfielders (mixed offensive and defensive roles) and a number of forwards (mostly attacking players), in rugby union it could be argued that each of the 15 positions in the team is specialised, although there are 8 groups of positions where overlap or interchange of players is quite common - props, hooker, locks, back row forwards, scrum half, fly half/fullback, centres, wings/fullback) and whilst these players have specialised roles they all contribute to both offence and defence. Substitutions were initially allowed only for injury but most sports (except cricket according to the laws of the game) now allow tactical substitutions (cricket theoretically only allows substitution for some sorts of injury but in practise temporary swapping of players for comfort breaks etc. is quite common today. However, these temporary substitutes in cricket can only field, not bat or bowl and should be placed in non-critical positions according to the spirit of the sport.).
Cricket is probably the sport that has the largest impact on our culture and language, despite football being the most widely supported. Terms such as “It’s just not cricket” and the like are fairly commonly used, even by people who don’t like cricket, because cricket has a reputation for being scrupulously fair. Football has a large impact on our behaviour but this more in tribal support and although less of a problem these days, acts of hooliganism. It is still common, near large football grounds, for shops to shut early on a home game day, even if they are open 24 hours a day the other days of the week, and for the windows and doors to be protected with heavy mesh, shutters or similar.
For most of these sports people inclined that way support a club side and their country - Llanelli Scarlets and Wales for example. Or perhaps Rangers and Scotland if you are otherwise inclined. Cricket is the exception to this. Although there are regional sides and divisions, the typically support (rather than the true fans) support England (which is actually a GB side despite the name). This might be because international cricket, at least for England, has a year-round impact - as I write this, they are playing Bangladesh in Bangladesh, there will be a short break, then they will play one or two sides this summer in England, then one or two sides next winter away and so on.
Teams in each of these domestic competitions play for at least two trophies each season. There is a league (home and away, best record at the end of the season wins) and a cup (knockout, beat all the opponents you are given, last undefeated team wins) contest. Most of these sports also have one or more European competitions. These may be leagues, cups or combinations (the Heineken Cup for example starts with 6 pools that play a league like structure, the winners of each pool and the two best placed losers then enter a draw for the knockout stages where it plays like a cup). International cricket is the exception to this - there is a trophy per series, most famously The Ashes for contests between England and Australia, and each of these is a “best of X” contest. For example, the match in Bangladesh is the second of a two match series.
Finally, all our sports allow and often encourage draws as a result. There are incentives to encourage you to win, but in a home and away league, winning and home and drawing away is better than winning at home and losing away - home teams expect to win although the home field advantage is not as big as it seems to be in some US sports from what I read.
If there is sufficient interest I can probably write bluffer’s guides to the rules too. Whether from the person that first asked or anyone else.
Tuesday, March 23. 2010
Sorry, couldn't resist the pun!
The SLim client is officially no more. You might not even have known about it - it seemed like a real flash in the pan. The idea was to hook your SL client up to an IM tool. I vaguely remember it being really fairly complicated to set up - download a new client, then go somewhere on the Second Life website, then somewhere on someone else's website, then something else. If you want to read my thoughts at the time they're here.
And then, if a friend was also using the SLim client you could find some way to IM them.
Or, of course, you could sign up to your choice of ICQ, gChat, YIM, AIM, etc. and chat to them anyway...
Linden Lab claim they've learnt valuable lessons from the process and have new plans on the table. Personally I'd be surprised... although something that hooks your client up to IM tools associated with your registered email address might be interesting. Would I use it? Not sure. I never really used SLim because of all the reasons I put forward in that original post that still stand now.
I found myself then and now wondering what problems it was a solution to... but maybe that's just me.
Monday, March 22. 2010
Today's exciting (or maybe not) story is that various politicians, mostly Labour ex-Ministers seem to have been trying to make money by lobbying for various causes. This might shock some Americans, where lobbying is big business, but in the UK, whilst you can take money for general advice it is illegal for MPs to receive money from specific individuals or companies to promote their interests. Just how that actually works is... unclear would be polite!
In my quick survey, this seems to play out along non-party lines for most: if you think all politicians are just in it for themselves, then you're not surprised to hear more politicians are bending or breaking the rules for extra cash. If you think politicians are, en masse, OK, but individuals can be rotten apples, this either comes across as that, or to some extent as "He's a self-aggrandising moron."
This last result is helped by the fact that on at least one accusation ALL of the parties (including the company he is supposed to have helped) have said "We never talked to him." On another, things panned out as he said they had but he was talking about it after the event. Evidence that what he said he did to cause this is lacking and it's pretty easy after the event to say "Oh, I caused that" when you know what the outcome was!
Older voters who haven't completely given up on the whole lot also remember the reason for the current rules is that the last Conservative government was responsible for the no-lobbying law being passed because they were ALL at it.
Again there's no news about how this will play out in the polls but first reactions seem to be along the lines of "It's dirty politicians" rather than "It's dirty Labour politicians" so another place where the Tories could be making political capital seems to not be there for them.
And, in a side note, today the US passed the law about widening healthcare. As I've commented before this is met with bemusement and amusement over here - nice to see you finally catching up! But tonight the news carried this article and finished it with "At least 30 Republican states are considering legislation to block the bill." This has me confused. Over here, if a government is elected with a given manifesto pledge the House or Lords is legally forbidden from blocking its passage. It can, and often does, modify the law to make it better, but it can't stop it. The idea of saying "We don't like that law, so we'll pass local laws to stop it" is completely alien to us. Does the idea of democracy not actually mean anything in the US? Why do you bother to believe you're united if you're going to do this?
Thursday, March 18. 2010
I'm writing this before we can see the impact in the polls. Why?
Well for the first time Labour have put what might look like some feet wrong. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of people who will not vote Labour this time regardless, as well as many who will equally or possibly more thoughtlessly.
But last week Labour announced tough new ideas about dogs in public in response to an incident, and this week the idea went away with a bit of a whimper. Ideal time for the other parties to attack, "You can't govern," "Clueless and lacking conviction" and so forth. Instead... well nothing really. Is this because they're worried the response of "We changed our minds in the interests of the legitimate dog owners" would hurt them more? Or a response of "It takes one to know one!" would stick? Not sure but it appears that what you would normally consider a golden opportunity has gone begging.
Also, Gordon Brown gave evidence to the Iraq War enquiry recently. This seems to have done his public image some good in my impromptu research: he came across as remorseful, and an odd mixture of considering that it might have been a mistake yet proud he'd done the job that was asked of him and trying to make the best of the mess he inherited. He also, in an environment where the bon mot and the witty banter is not rewarded, seemed to come across as smart and thoughtful - an image that various Labour spin doctors have tried to assure us is him in private yet we rarely see. Yesterday he was forced to admit that part of the evidence, a fairly important part albeit quite a technical one, was not exactly correct. Another chance for an attack? Well, apparently not. In fact, even my mum considers he's come out of it ahead, because he stood up, apologised and said he would sent a letter to the enquiry formally correcting his evidence. It was a moment that could have been real ya-boo politics but it made Brown again look like he is a different sort of man - he has come across (however heavily coached for this) as repentant for making a mistake and taking urgent steps to rectify it. In light of my last post about rebuilding trust, this simple step may have done it to a small extent. Politicians rarely admit to making mistakes, saying sorry so publicly and appearing to actually be sorry - seems to have worked.
The other thing, of course, seems to be that the Tories are in a right pickle about Lord Ashcroft. It emerged today that William Hague, former leader and close advisor to Cameron, gave assurances in writing in 1999 that Ashcroft would become a resident and pay "millions more in tax" to the UK. He didn't and it seems like Ashcroft has simply refused to answer questions on his residency status as "none of your business" and been allowed to get away with this by the former and current men who would be PM. Why is this an issue? It goes back to that trust thing, in combination with lots of money. It seems that if you're really rich and giving huge amounts of money to the Tories, you can get away with not answering awkward questions about whether you've followed through with your promises. The defence of "Labour has lots of non-dom peers and donors" isn't holding up because they have (well at least the ones I've heard about) never made any secret of this, never said that they would voluntarily change their status and so we don't, generally, feel like they're lying to us. It apparently takes a political genius to realise that saying "This is my status, it's legal although some consider it to be ethically grey and I don't plan to change unless the law is changed to make me" is hugely different in how it plays in public when compared to "This is my status which is legal although some consider it to be ethically grey but I promise to change it to be ethically sound too" and then 'forgetting' to do so for 10 years! And it appears that the Tories don't have any geniuses to hand to spot this. Add in the fact that it appears Ashcroft got his peerage because he's a close friend of Hague and the old boys network seems to have been hard at work and suddenly we're back into Tory sleaze territory, as well as rather undermining the trust in the Tory leadership. If they won't ask their mate a hard question that could really embarrass them, will they do a good job of asking hard questions about other things? Things that could be critical to our future?
It's not at all clear, yet, how this will play out to the wider public - hopefully we'll get polls soon (Sunday seems likely). But the initial impact seems to be that Labour has got away with it - and it might just be that they've found a public face for Brown that looks good and plays well... despite the potential for messing up that has been there.
Thursday, March 18. 2010
One way that seems to have been overlooked for losing this election, including by me, is simply not being in touch with public opinion.
Our MPs have been, rightly to some extent, accused to snout-in-trough syndrome. They create a set of rules for what expenses they are allowed to claim, then claim them to the full and beyond - to the point of taking the piss. Don't get me wrong here, I think MPs should have a certain level expenses reimbursed to them - people in other jobs who travel for work are often reimbursed, either expenses, company cars and petrol allowances or a "London weighting" to their salary for example. And some MPs have really long travel times between home and work - Shetland to London for example can't really be done in less than 24 hours. And some of the really public disgraces sound like stupid mistakes - Jacqui Smith's husband claimed for an entire hotel bill that included the adult film he'd watched whilst staying with her. He shouldn't have been able to claim for it but it's pretty hard to believe that he did this deliberately too, expecting to be reimbursed for it. Mistakes do happen and in my opinion that was a mistake, although it was also the wedge that opened the door to much wilder and clearly unethical abuses of the expenses system - repairing a bell tower and building an island for ducks in the moat being two of the more egregious examples.
As you might expect, this has eroded the level of trust in our politicians to an all time low. There is a massive public feeling that the system has to be changed, and changed radically. Of the big two parties, one is looking at timid change, one is looking at practically no change. The third party is standing up saying "we want big change" but is apparently not doing so well.
Now, it happens that the Conservative party is also the conservative party in this case: a former Tory MP and pro-Conservative political commentator was recently interviewed and repeatedly and extensively said "The current lack of trust does not mean the system is broken, and so we shouldn't change it." He isn't the official voice of the Conservatives, but he is a familiar voice for them and represents their views pretty much.
Um, hello... you may be right that the systems are not significantly more broken than they have been for some time, but the public at large is now really aware of how broken the systems are and is chomping at the bit for a change. There are, undoubtedly, changes that could make things worse. We could elect me as dictator-for-life with absolute control of the country for example! There are suggestions on the table that look attractive at first but which seem to fall down on closer examination - the ability for an MP to be recalled by petition from constituents for example. Whilst this is attractive, it is silly because political activists of the other parties will abuse the system and nothing will get done. That doesn't mean that some system of recall should not be present - an "activity monitor" system and missing say 10 votes in a month without a sicknote gets you recalled, being charged with criminal offences gets you recalled etc. might work rather well AND be an improvement on the current system. Would it also increase trust in politicians? Hard to say but it's hard to see it further decreasing trust.
Requiring public statements - which we would pay for via taxation - could be required. We require it of our companies for example, although many ignore them. But something like a monthly statement of voting patterns issued electronically is not expensive and could be done automatically. Requiring all MPs to maintain a work-blog with at least weekly updates is not expensive - just add it to their list of duties. Offering an opt-in postal service to receive weekly updates, as well as printing copies at council offices, libraries etc. would be simple enough and whilst it would increase the costs somewhat, it shouldn't make it stupidly expensive. There are a lot of fine details in there to make it work, but suffice it to say the can be made so that genuine spam is filtered and blocked but dissenting political opinion is allowed. However, when a genuine local issue comes up and the MP's party line is strongly at odds with the local wishes, the MP should be able to get a clear indication of this and consider how they should vote. It's not clear to me how many votes this would change, nor how many bits of legislation. But it is cheap to implement, builds bridges: change for the better.
Changing the House of Lords? Now, here I'm split. I think a second house needs to have a different system and role to it than the lower house. The American system, French and sometimes even German systems are not always effectual. Mind you, neither is the ours. Whilst I have some specific ideas they get quite long and involved and they're tangential to this blog post (they might make a reappearance sometime though). Let's just leave it with the notion there are ways I think the second house could be reformed in a way that makes it more useful for reviewing and moderating the laws as intended, would rebuild trust and participation in the political processes and that's the thrust of the plan after all.
And, with apologies for the length, there is one more thing to say on this. We have a voting system that will be familiar to most Americans, but not necessarily readers from other countries - get the most votes and you're in. First past the post as it is called. However, this system gives parties potentially large majorities in parliament whilst winning a minority of the votes overall (remember we have more than two political parties, one of them has the unfortunate tendency to come second in a lot of places and so acquire a lot of the votes by proportion but far fewer seats in parliament than the votes it garners). The answer to this is some form of proportional representation - where you get seats in proportion to the total votes cast. Our politicians, particularly those that believe they will get a big majority next time, tend to try and scare us with two thoughts: Italy has one version of this system and has had a lot of different parliaments, something we'd rather avoid. Of course this overlooks the fact that Germany has a variation on this system too, and for all of my life has been the powerhouse economy of Western Europe, and has a stable government. Second, a PR system would, probably, reflect some ugly parts of our national make-up - things like far right racist parties having MPs elected. This may, or may not, be true - but I'm not convinced that, in the longer term, it's a bad thing. We don't, on a national level, have many radical racists, but there are a few significant pockets of it. The current system more or less guarantees that they won't get elected. If they do have enough support that a PR system will get them an MP then we'll have to deal with it. Whether we accept that some of us are racists, or we change the rules and/or work out some way of rooting it out once and for all is open for us to really see. I, inevitably, have ideas about how to implement this reasonably - for example at first joining a number of geographically close existing constituencies together, say 6-10, and work out a simple system to represent the votes. Why is this important? There's been a lot in this post about reconnecting the politicians with the electorate. A truly national election on PR strikes me as being unlikely to do that - you never really see your MP. Having regional MPs, having 6-10 MPs in fact to represent you, means they're still reasonably tied to the location and their constituency but also lets you make the effort to see an MP you like if you don't like the first one you see. I'll freely admit this part of the suggestions could back-fire the most spectacularly - rather than being a reform of the ways politicians relate to us, it would be a root-and-branch reform of how we choose them. Maybe the system can be repaired without going this far but what the heck - do it all at once and try to fix it big time. Why not?
The point is, there are changes that could be made. The fine details would take a lot of sorting out and I'm sure that my suggestions aren't the best there could be. But a number of changes that could be made that enhance trust and involvement in the political process. We might not be articulating that clearly but we are really articulating the fact that the current system is bust and needs to change. The tories seem to be ignoring that, adopting an attitude of "We know best, just trust us" at a time when we don't trust any of them.
Tuesday, March 16. 2010
 If you will forgive the pun, it would be nice to give this game a glowing review. And there are many features that make it deserve one, which we will come to later. But, as you can see from the picture*, "glowing" is not really a good description of the environment (this is a pretty typical picture of the wilderness with bits of "civilisation" in the background.) If it's not instantly obvious from the sepias and the title Fallen Earth is set in a post-apocalyptic world, a world in which a mad viral disease killed most but caused some to mutate and acquire psychic powers. You play one of these characters, in fact you play a clone with the mutation which is the mechanism behind the resets for your character when you die. Not that, if you're smart, you will die that often, at least not at first. In addition - and something they are working on - the mac port of FE is about as stable as a psychiatric patient off their medication. Sometimes it will jolly you along for a few hours. The worst to date - crashing before I got to the character selection screen!
Structurally there is quite a lot I like in this game, combined with some stuff I don't like so much. FE, more than any game I've seen, starts everyone the same. Identical - in fact if you're not patient enough to get the character portrait screen to work, which is a slow and painful process, REALLY identical, to the pixel! From there, your character is rewarded fairly frequently with "AP" that you spend on improving skills or improving stats as you choose. You can make a melee tank, a rifle-using sniper, a charismatic leader, a healer and so on. There are levels, hit points and so on but they're actually almost irrelevant (well the levels are) except as they increase your hit points, stamina and gamma (equivalent to mana for mutant abilities). They do affect your stats - but it's +1 across the board. There are also a range of skills that fall into two (or maybe three) categories. First there are a batch of crafting skills (11 to be precise) and you can (and will) use all of these over time - although if you're smart you'll keep a few deliberately maxed out (A tank might choose Armourcrafting and Weaponry, a sniper would choose Ballistics and maybe Science, a healer type would choose Medicine, Cooking and Science etc.). Some of the others will also max out - Cooking being a good example. Crafting skills (called Tradeskills in the game) advance (as all skills should IMO) by use. The other skills that I lump together you spend APs on improving, as well as spending APs on improving your stats - this is where you make the choices that define your character's mode of play. Of course this tends to mean you train the stuff you use a lot, but if you outpick the odd thing, because you have a limited number of APs to spend by end-game you either waste the AP you spend or start redefining your character.
One USP of this game is the toggling between modes. Riding around, scavenging, crafting, shopping etc. are all done very much like in any other RPG. But as soon as you click into fight mode, it switches to an FPS system. You have to put the crosshairs (for ranged weapons) or the strike-area (for melee weapons) on the target yourself and click the mouse at the right time. There's some background maths to determine your degree of success and damage (so skill levels in the game still matter), but unlike a lot of RPGs you can't tab through targets and then just let it all go on autopilot. Even in PVE you learn to concentrate and fight tactically, or you die. Mostly great but it does mean you can't play whilst you're half asleep, knowing that mashing the keys will get you through.
So what's bad? Besides the crashing of course.
Well... skills (all of them) have associated abilities. Some have more than others, but that's OK. But to use, say, a heavy crossbow requires level 30 in rifle skill (it covers all long range but bad in melee range weapons). Using a rifle (at all) requires even more skill. Why? For crafting skills there is possibly some justification, but cross-bows, rifles and the like are all pretty easy to use fairly well - but the game system can't allow that so there's this artificial limitation.
The crafting system is quite nice - it's easy to use, and for at least quite a lot of the time to date I've made everything I wear and use - although on occasion I've resorted to buying ingredients I can't get or can't make yet. It does, however, tick over all the time. It's distracting and a little confusing to find, right in the middle of fighting the boss mutant scorpion that you've also just finished making a lovely set of new jeans, or grilling that "chicken" that you will find you cook a lot! It's a nearly right system and I don't know how I'd change it, but it's not quite right - I think it's the fighting and grilling at the same time that gets to me. Whilst we're on it, a lovely little touch: if you're planning to mass-produce and you use the up and down arrows to set the number of items, it automatically caps at the most you can make instead of turning round and saying "You don't have enough resources."
There's a lot to like here, but it's not quite there. If it crashed less maybe but it is fun. And there's a 10 day free trial.
If your MMORPG is the social gamer style you might be disappointed. In a very fitting post-apocalyptic style, the player base is quite low. It makes for an interesting and more fitting feel to the game, although it also makes for it being more like a local game.
* This picture has been tweaked a lot, the brightness and contrast by a mix of just about all the tools available, and I've ended up making a specific colour profile for FE to make it brighter than I like my monitor normally. It REALLY is a dark environment, even at game-noon.
Friday, March 12. 2010
Dear Linden Lab,
I'm sure you'll completely ignore this, but it needs to be said.
The proposed upgrade to SL2.0 contains many features that have a lot of people very excited, including me. It is still in beta, so we'll accept bugs, although some are rather scary. It has a totally redesigned UI which is always going to distress your established user-base; it upsets me because I've got used to the old and have a lot of muscle memory to overcome (or waiting for a 3rd party viewer with 2.0 features and a 1.0-ish interface). However, I strongly believe that the new interface will also reduce churn because it will make new users feel like they are in a more familiar environment.
But please, Please, PLEASE! do something about the communication tools and IM notifications. Bottom right and lots of little buttons is a lousy combination. You and your designers are going to, I'm sure, claim several things:
It's on the "attention-Z' which is true, but it's right at the end and there is always enough happening in Second Life that you're not going to get to the end of the Z.
Facebook does it this way. Also true, but two problems - Facebook has bigger IM buttons and several visual cues that you've got an IM plus an auditory one so the attention is better drawn, plus Facebook doesn't really fancy itself as an IM-service, it is a mass-communiccation service that happens to also offer IM. The mass communication posts take centre stage for attention. Second Life may not primarily be an IMing service but I'm sure you serve GB or more of IM transfer each day - possibly more than Fb in fact. Making it harder to spot you've got IMs than Fb seems a little silly, no?
It's consistent with other IM clients - here I disagree, but it may be consistent with some. Mine tend to have tabs starting from the bottom left, not bottom right, or even top left. Top left is just about the strongest position - that's why menus are up there guys. Bottom left is better than bottom right - you get there fast enough in the Z-scan so you're likely to notice. Bottom right and you're half-flicking up to start again. In addition, the tabs are large - they contain a full or partial name, not a tiny icon. The old interface with a button "You have X new IMs" was a much simpler visual cue, AND it was in a better place.
Whilst we're on that icon, you have trained us for ages to communicate via a list of names, not images. The communicate tab, the old friends list, the calling cards etc. all worked by name. I rarely check the profiles of my friends and to be honest their profile pictures? I don't have a clue. Take "don't have a clue" and shrink it to the point there's no detail? You get a lot of most brownish tiny buttons. Utility? Near nil.
It would be interesting to see how the "accidental ignore rate" has changed. Unanswered IMs I mean. With the small number of people I know who are avidly and continuously using the 2.0 beta client I find I get ignored a lot. Even when a conversation has started it can get ignored in the middle when something else gets done. Of course it happens in the other client too, but this is far too regular and much more often than before - it's hard to believe it's an accident.
I applaud, in general, the steps towards this redesign, but it's hindering one of the things for which a lot of people do and will continue to use Second Life. Redesign should enhance, not diminish usability in general (allowing for the retraining to the new UI) and this is a step the wrong way.
Wednesday, March 10. 2010
Actually I'd noticed this before my last post, but wanted to do some rudimentary research.
There was a big hullabaloo raised about Labour's reported plan to finance care for the elderly by a putative "death tax" of £20,000. If you're not British you probably need to know that in most elections Labour tends to want to tax a bit higher and spend a bit more, Conservatives tend to want to tax lower and spend less. Those rates would still make most American's faint at how high they are, and most Portuguese and Scandinavians faint at how low they are, but that's the routine accusation from each side "You just want to tax and spend" vs "You just don't care and want to slash taxes and slash services." Tied up with that accusation was an interesting one: various members of various parties had been working together to try and find a consensus approach to caring for the elderly.
So in my very impromptu survey I've talked to 25 people from across the political spectrum, and across income brackets. Precisely 1 person (who wouldn't vote Conservative anyway) thinks that paying for caring for the aged by taxing them on death is a bad idea. A further 8 (pretty cross-party) think there might be a better solution but that this isn't a bad idea. The rest of them seem to think it's a pretty good idea. Both my mother and I think it's a decent, workable, clear solution (and we almost never agree on politics). So, attacking a policy that actually people of many political persuasions seem to think is a tolerable solution to a real problem - well that's shooting yourself in the foot somewhat.
The other comment that came out time and again was that they were unimpressed with having secret negotiations and then making them public in such a way. Although most elections have dirty tricks and personal smears (see the comments about bullying in post 1) the public at large remain unimpressed by such tactics, at least outwardly. This one in particular seems to have counted as a very trick and made people wonder what else the tories will get up to in the campaign and more worryingly for them what they would get up to in power. Caring for the elderly is a problem that, after all, affects most of us. We largely have parents (in modern society, step-parents too quite often), and we expect to get old ourselves. A good solution to that problem is worth having, and one that doesn't have a huge amount of public posturing and bickering is well worth it.
This seems, according to a poll that was analysed at length yesterday, to have triggered something even worse for the tories. Floating voters are looking at the election statements from the Conservatives and finding them unconvincing and empty. Gordon Brown is still incredibly unpopular but seems to have plans for what to do now and what to do if re-elected. The tories obviously can't do much now, but seem to be saying "If we're elected, we'll decide what to do then" which is hardly inspiring.
In fact, if you remember my post about the balance of power in the UK an opinion poll conducted there (1500 people) suggests that support for Labour and the Tories is completely even in those critical seats. Labour could actually win the election if this trend continues!
Tuesday, March 9. 2010
I've just read a book that uses this tool, and lo and behold a couple of TV shows that come along with some of those elements.
Reality TV obviously has no real connection with reality - they select people to make a clash and make, they hope, interesting TV. Shame really, because it could be good, particularly for some of these things.
Neither of the shows are classic reality TV - both of them have elements of "mates competing" rather than thrown-together faux companion-rivalries. However, even there, there is a big difference - one of the shows (World's Toughest Driving Tests) features two real friends who compete but who are fundamentally friends. They banter and want to win, but they're also genuinely happy for the other person when they do well. The other (Last Woman Standing) has people who are becoming friendly over time, but in some cases it looks like they might be becoming enemies instead. There isn't really a sense of friendly support present, certainly not during the actual competitions where it's more like testosterone poisoning takes over (interestingly they've done a couple of series with men competing, and the men actually seemed to bond better than the women and to be able to compete whilst remaining friends).
Of course TV has to have mixes of shows, styles and the like. But, speaking for me, I enjoy watching some forms of contest but it works better when there's a real friendship there, it's friendly competition so it's more about the learning and executing the skills and portraying that to us vicariously than the actual competition. Those that engender friendships rather than engendering conflict do better than the conflict model too.
I wonder just how common my views are though. There's a reason the other form of reality TV is popular, as well as a reason I don't watch it!
Tuesday, March 2. 2010
A year ago the Conservatives in the UK and David Cameron were absolute shoe-ins for an election victory. In the latest poll it's not even clear they will be close to winning the election in any meaningful terms and if things carry on like this, they might actually lose in meaningful terms.
I know that "A week is a long time in politics" and all that - but remember they are competing against a Labour government that has been in power for 13 years, a leader who looks up at George Bush's most unpopular rating with envy, a leader who led us into the worst recession in over 60 years, a leader who started off financing the most unpopular war we've ever had, and changed to continuing to prosecute that war despite it becoming the leading loss of service-people's life on foreign soil since Korea. (I'm not 100% sure that fact is correct, but it's been reported that way.) So how do you manage to be sliding in the polls to appear to be unlikely to win this election?
The honest answer is that it's more a string of things than any one. It is, of course, always possible that any single event might overturn this. And, before I go any further I should point out that I can't imagine any circumstances, including threat of imprisonment, that would make me vote Conservative - but I won't be voting Labour either at the next election. Although my inherent sympathies tend more to the left than the right.
It started shortly after The Sun changed from being pro-Labour to pro-Tory. The Sun is, in case you don't know and are still reading this, a nearly nationwide tabloid. Famous for topless models on page 3, it also fancies itself (and the politicians seem to agree, although there's not much evidence that the public do) as the kingmaker... whoever it supports wins the election. (It may have had this much influence once, in 1993.) Having switched sides, they decided to attack Gordon Brown (this is a common tactic) and chose to attack him for misspelling the name of the mother of a serviceman who died in Afghanistan in the hand-written letter of condolence he sent. Big mistake as it turns out for a variety of reasons:
- The public, even my mum who thinks Brown is the devil incarnate, generally think that the Prime Minister should be writing letters of condolence and applaud the fact that he takes the time to do so personally and by hand rather than in a form letter. Those who don't essentially think we shouldn't be there in the first place, and won't be voting Tory anyway by and large.
- Add to that the fact that they printed a copy of the letter and it's really not clear that he misspelt her name (his handwriting is terrible) and more sympathy for the cause evaporated.
- Add to that the annoying little fact that in their outrage The Sun managed to ALSO spell her name wrong on their website. Oops.
- And the final straw for many - Gordon Brown rang the woman to apologise and discuss the state of the world with her. Opinion seemed to be divided on that until it turned out that somehow the entire hour long conversation was recorded in high quality for later dissemination at the grieving mother's end. Suddenly it reeks of trap, and that really made the public in general suddenly feel a great deal of sympathy for Brown.
Things since have muddled along... and then the joy of budgets and plans for our fiscal future came up. The current government produced a plan that seems well laid out and costed. The details might not make sense, but at first look it looks like there really is a plan. (I haven't read the details, but actually although there are a few weird bits, the fine details seem to hang together too according to the serious reporting.) The response from the other party? "We'll wait until we've won, then have a special meeting to decide what to do next." Now, at some remove from an election you can do that - just say "Oh no, that's terrible" but as you get close to an election you have to have some specifics. In the case of the budget, particularly as we're climbing out of recession the public seem to demand that there must be a plan in place for the next months. Not having it... bang, shoot yourself in the foot.
Then we had the most inept attack in the world. "54% of young girls do..." "I think the right honourable gentleman means 5.4%..." oops. 54% of whatever (I think it was poor white girls get pregnant to claim benefits) was pretty damning. 5.4% is still quite bad, but after announcing 54%, 5.4% just doesn't have any impact. Add to that it's the person tipped to be chancellor that is making this mistake - a simple mistake about numbers and percentages in the hands of the person who is responsible for setting tax rates- ouch!
And finally another bungled attack. Gordon Brown has been, allegedly, bullying staff in Downing Street (the equivalent to the White House effectively). Most British people think bullying is wrong... bullying at work included. However... the allegations seem to be that Brown loses his temper and shouts angrily at people and the other allegation that he had to be warned about his behaviour has been denied by both him AND the person who is supposed to have given the warning, which kind of undermined it. I am sure there are a reasonable number of people that think shouting at people is still bullying - I certainly think it can be but I don't automatically think it is. And the real problem for this attack is the location: there are certainly very junior people in Downing Street who probably need protection if they are actually bullied, but most of us seem to think that if you're going to work that close to the centre of power you have to expect some good days and some bad days. Occasionally hearing the boss rant and rave on a bad day doesn't seem to constitute bullying to most people - it's something that most of us experience after all. Bullying seems to have an element of repetition required that just isn't represented. If anything this has made Brown (who has a reputation for being a really dour, self-contained person) appear more human, and appear more British: he does care and in public he tries to maintain a stiff upper lip and a calm demeanour.
It's really not rocket science but someone has really screwed up it appears. If you're going to attack the character and person of the other guy, you make attacks that don't make them look better. If you're going to make attacks on the basis of "bad" statistics, you don't get the numbers wrong!
And just for fun... a little announcement that makes no sense. It's playing to the Tory core vote, but even to them (well as represented by my mum) it makes no sense. Apparently the conservative government will retrain retiring army officers to be teachers to instill discipline into wayward school children. Ra, ra, ra! Oh, but wait... it's not the officers that establish and maintain discipline, it's the corporals and sergeants in the main. No mention of training them. Plus, of course, the army has punishments like cleaning barracks, square bashing, prison and dismissal from the army to hand, depending on just how bad you are. School children to be punished by cleaning the schools? I think not, not safe for one. Square bashing? Fat chance. Dismissal from school? This is meant to be a threat?! Oops.
|
