Working on Lucky

I just don't have any luck with weight. Like, I was at the grocery store the other day, going through the produce section. All the vegetables looked so good but I didn't know what to do with any of them. What would I do when I got home with a head of lettuce? Or some ripe tomatoes? I don't even know how to get started.

It was the same thing all over again at the gym. All my friends told me that it was a great place to get started, and I know it is, but it just didn't feel right. The clothes felt funny, and when I got inside, it felt like everyone was staring at me. I spent about five minutes on the treadmill, but when it felt like I was out of breath I got off and went home.

Overall, even though I tried something new, I didn't make any progress. Some people have all the luck.

If any of us heard a friend or relative talking this way, we would challenge these assumptions. Clearly, that sort of half-assed attitude is no way to make progress. But how often is this an 'appropriate' way for people to pursue pick-up?

This is also no endorsement of the ritualized (and monetized) systems out there today that force acolytes to learn routines and patterns just to number close. But the next time you see a friend give a girl a second glance, make sure they go over and take the shot. If they miss, help them with the breakdown, understand where it went wrong. If they hit, do the same. If you see chronic patterns that guarantee failure, help them do the work that needs to be done so they can be successful.

No matter how good you are, your pick-up muscles can always use a workout.

The Value of a Caricature

Want to know what advantage seeking behavior looks like? What about ironclad internal framing? Then take a look at this.

Barney is a caricature, but his bombastic, aggressive style of game holds lessons for us all - stop being sad.

Mood is in large part a choice, and Barney has made his. What's yours?

AMOG the Carp

While the system goes back to the 1800s (and probably further back in various forms), the "Race to the Bottom" has seen a resurgence in American Politics recently. When you combine a sharp economic downturn that decimated state budgets and Tea Party politics, it was inevitable that this idea would come roaring back. Since they want us all to head down to the bottom and feast on the bounty we'll find, I'm going to call these folks Carp (like the bottom-feeding fish).

The quick and dirty on the Race to the Bottom - states (or countries) compete to lower taxes and reduce regulation on businesses and individuals in hopes of luring them to their state (or country) to reap economic gain.

Like so many pillars of conservatism, it seems rational at first glance, but the situation clearly echoes the prisoner's dilemma. As states compete, the only endpoint for the game is zero taxes, environmental or consumer protection, since there's always a short-term incentive to undercut your competitor.

But then everyone hits bottom.

If taxes and regulations are really what make businesses successful, we'd expect to see our most successful companies in the states with the best tax climate. So is that what happens? Here are Fortune 500 companies by state (2011) and here's the Tax Foundation's State Business Tax Climate Index (2011). Notice anything odd?

The ten 'worst states" according to the Tax Foundation?

50. New York (57)
49. California (53)
48. New Jersey (20)
47. Connecticut (12)
46. Ohio (27)
45. Iowa (2)
44. Maryland (5)
43. Minnesota (20)
42. Rhode Island (2)
41. North Carolina (15)

The numbers in parenthesis are the number of Fortune 500 companies located there. So roughly 43% of the 500 biggest companies in this country are in the ten 'worst' states - 213 companies.

How many are in the ten 'best'?

1. South Dakota (0)
2. Alaska (0)
3. Wyoming (0)
4. Nevada (3)
5. Florida (16)
6. Montana (0)
7. New Hampshire (0)
8. Delaware (2)
9. Utah (1)
10. Indiana (5)

27 companies, just above 5%, with Florida the only state in the double digits. Not a lot of economic migration for so much tax code engineering.

So why is a lesson in comparative economics on a game blog?

PUAs are taught to view the dating world as a sexual marketplace and assign values to the options present in it. But just like in other markets, the sexual market is manipulable, and those making deals on the trading floor are prisoners of their own biases, like everyone else.

Remember that a market is a group of people who have collectively decide the absolute value of a commodity - nothing more. And remember that just as one person can make an error in judgment, so can groups of people.

The Fortune 500 example had two purposes.

• One, to inject some progressive politics into game discussions to open the marketplace for ideas up (it's fair to say that more of the politics discussed on most game blogs runs to the arch conservative). New schools of thought carry with them new assumptions about the world - new framing - and have the potential to provide unique value. Anyone who insists on one creed only in their analysis is a close-minded fool.
• Two, and much more importantly, to show you that a 'market' often makes decisions at odds with 'objective reality.'

While a corporate relocation would be costly, it would be fairly simple to move a company from California, a state in turmoil, to Nevada, which has extremely low taxes. The incentives that would come from Nevada for thousands of new jobs would be extremely robust. So why don't these companies move?

Simply put, most of these companies view the world with an Abundance Mentality - they are more concerned with potential opportunities than potential costs. Yet another term that game has borrowed, (coined by Stephen Covey in 7 Habits of Highly Effective People) having an abundance mentality means that one views the world in terms of potential gain, and views resources as plentiful enough that competition can remain friendly and failure is a learning experience (rather than a serious threat to one's security). This also means that a person feels free to take risks, since failure is less of a penalty, leading to greater innovation and creativity, rather than following 'tried-and-true' paths.

Abundance Mentality is contrasted with a Scarcity Mentality, where every conflict is fought over a small, finite pool of resources. This leads to less risk taking, and fiercer competition.

The companies are in high tax states, but high taxes aren't an end. High taxes are a means, just like low taxes. Even the institutions, programs, and investments created from taxes aren't the entire end product - like mice in mazes, our view of the world and path though it is crafted by our surroundings. When you see world-class government institutions around you helping people, government and public investment are vibrant partners and protectors. The opposite scenario is true as well; when you see poorly funded institutions that don't serve the public, government appears impotent and private industry must take up the slack.

Just like every other entity, when governments act, they create more than just end products. Behavior creates belief. So there's a culture that is created in abundance states that is different that scarcity states, of investments in shared goods that hopefully pay off in the long run. In scarcity states, people see no value to pooled resources, as their institutions provide little value (doing this deliberately this is the essence of Norquist's "drown it in the bathtub" quote).

There's another point to make here. Some impressive companies are successful in low tax states, and some are successful in high tax states. The important thing is to know who you are, and control the frames within which you will act. Fencers don't race cars, bakers don't make microchips, and novelists don't sing. That's why California isn't going to act like South Dakota with respect to their tax code or public investment, and expecting them to is moronic.

Contrary to what most game bloggers will tell you - there are millions of ways to be a successful PUA. This is one place that it is imperative you have an abundance mentality. Your goal should be to find out what makes you the most successful without losing your soul. That's the strategic lesson to take home here.

But there's also a tactical lesson - don't fight on bad terrain. Don't sacrifice your own frames just to win a point. This again goes back to the abundance mentality; know that you will remain an attractive option, regardless of whether someone else is an attractive option in a different way. Only if you see value in competing with the other option (see the dance scene in Get Smart) should you engage, but never be afraid to take a smart risk. Otherwise, let the fight come to you on solid footing. Remember, success is as much not fucking up as it is succeeding.

I learned this lesson the hard way when I started out - constantly competing for every point, sucked into the heat of the moment and living for the constant stream of IOIs and kino. But the discipline to be yourself helped elevate my game to a whole new level - armed with unshakable frames and infectious narratives, it was as if I were playing with cheat codes.

So take a lesson from the two worst tax states in the US that also have the two highest number of Fortune 500 companies (over 20% of them, actually) and game the way you know you'll be successful, rather than swim with the Carp.

Sabermetric Game

The metaphor is a powerful tool, allowing us to glean insight from unrelated fields. As PUAs we learn lessons from warfare, from sports, from game theory, from psychology, from business, from the animal kingdom. But this expansive set of influences doesn't immunize the discipline from stagnation.

I'm going to drop some background information into the block quote - if you're just looking for tactics and advice, feel free to skip it. But if you're new to the school of thought, or enjoy thinking about the art of attraction, then dig in.

Backing up for a moment for the neophytes - proper game is science in theory and art in practice. Situations are studied and plans of action are generated and this process can take hours (days, weeks, months) of exhaustive logical extrapolation. Then, when presented with the right situation, we spring into action, controlling tone and volume, body positioning, word choice, joke timing, eye contact.

When we start out, yes, the goal of this is to get the girls we like to sleep with us. But along the way, it becomes clear that being debonair (not acting debonair, actually incorporating that into our identity) is riotous fun. It's not about sex anymore, it's about attraction.

Game is easier to study without the distraction of wanting sex. The drive to 'close' (getting a number, a kiss, or an invitation into bed) often leads to poor choices. Better understanding comes from studying the attraction, not the close.

I believe that quality people seek equals, and seek fulfilling relationships and experiences (of which the duration and intensity are entirely up to the participants). And there are few feelings better than being appreciated for who you are, rather than a person you are pretending to be. To use a game term, it reduces your own cognitive dissonance, and lets you play the role of a natural (someone who can pick-up effortlessly, who compels attention).

And this is where we turn to baseball and Bill James.

Bill James is a name you might know if you follow baseball closely (or if you're a Red Sox fan). James began writing freelance articles on baseball in the 1970's and eventually began to conduct independent advanced statistical research. He started self-publishing the Bill James Abstract in 1977, inventing new statistics and measurements as he wrote.

At the time, the most important statistics in baseball for hitters were batting average, RBI and home runs. James, and other researchers and writers, helped us discover new (and in some cases, better) metrics for measuring individual performance, such as win shares, or runs created. Even simpler advanced stats such as OPS (which adds on-base percentage and slugging percentage together) give us a better picture of what is happening on the field.

These new devices were revolutionary and still face opposition to this day from traditionalists, but they illuminate the game in brilliant ways and allow us to understand how individual pieces interact, rather than try to explain baseball through hunches and blind intuition.

Game (while significantly more sophisticated than the normal dating world) is still in its adolescence. We live in the world where thinkers like James have not yet made their mark, where most PUAs are dogmatic, and where we cling to crude tools because we fear for the time when we had none.

The self-limiting view seen in baseball traditionalists is alive and well in game - I would consider it a dominant view. It focuses on two tactics above all else: the neg and AMOGing. By doing so, we guarantee that we will miss opportunities, and build a worldview that makes pick-up a zero-sum, antagonistic exchange.

The tools I see missing in the field, and misunderstood by the community are social proof and framing. Ignore these at your own peril, because when properly understood, they are far more powerful that anything else.

In fact, framing and social proof are sort of the same thing, when viewed from the proper angle. If you can control how situations are interpreted and understood by everyone involved (framing) you can control how other people feel about you (social proof).

At times, Game approaches sorcery and myth - it can appear to cast a spell over people. The most mystical term in all of game is aura (interestingly, the site even says that it is "difficult to explain in words"). I've read of descriptions of aura, seen it in the field, basked in it more than a few times, but I've never met anyone who could explain what it is or how to reach it. Which is stunning.
Men know that there is a way to reach a state in which any girl is close-able. Men know that we can feel like gods and live out our fantasies. Men have seen it, and write up accounts of it in books and on websites. And they never think to break it down and make it repeatable.

Our failure to explain aura is predictable, if you study Game with a critical eye. Like so many other fields, we are at the mercy of our constructs, our framing, and we have placed aura outside of our traditional understanding. But I think that by calling aura by another name, we can begin to comprehend it.

Aura is Frame Anchored Social Proof (FASP).

Game is nothing more than observing how people respond to your behavior and adapting it in the aim of making them like you better. You frame your actions and words in order to influence their opinions of you, often in relation to other people.

Social Proof is viewed strictly in terms of props, pivots, AMOGs - all relative terms. Cialdini introduced the term as evidence that can compel conformity in others (if one pretty girl is with you, then other pretty girls know it's rational behavior). But Social Proof can be generated without a pretty wingwoman, without a Porsche, without ripped abs (all things that indicate you are desirable).

We take in massive amounts of social data every day, since birth. Fiction is even more potent than everyday occurrences, eliminating the humdrum and only showing the important moments and interactions. That data gives us hundreds (if not thousands) or heuristics, some unique, and some shared almost culture-wide.

I'll give you one right now. No matter how attractive a person might be, if you caught them in public picking their nose and wiping it on their clothes, their suitability as a mate would take a terrible blow.

Another one. Two men, both considered attractive, are in an argument. A challenges B to a fight, and B attacks him. Both are injured in the fight, though A is left standing. A may be viewed as more attractive by some (because he won a fight) but less by others (he started a fight he might have lost, he was impulsive, he gave into violence and exposes himself and others to risk). B obviously loses statute with most people, though he may gain sympathy from some.

One more, almost identical to the last. Two men, both considered attractive, are in an argument. A challenges B to a fight, and B refuses, disdaining A. In this case, B has a huge gain in stature (rigidly defines terms and stands by them, even under threat of violence) and A loses more stature than B in the previous example.

When you understand enough of these rules and elements, you can channel them to make yourself attractive (or unattractive); you can social proof yourself.

That is Frame Anchored Social Proof (FASP), using your verbal, tonal and physical framing to play off the social framework that underlies every interaction within a culture.

The meaning of the sister term, Environment Anchored Social Proof (EASP), should be obvious - social proof driven by outside elements. When anyone else in the community refers to Social Proof, what they mean is EASP.

We'll be looking at FASP a lot on this site, since it represents a break from conventional wisdom. But for the time being, just go forward knowing that you now have a tool that the gurus of the field don't know (or won't tell you) about.

Terminology Tuesday

One of the greatest advantages of learning game is the lexicon. Complex social situations can be communicated in simple slang or acronyms (or initialisms - learn the difference). Unfortunately, there are few other sources that provide explanation of complex social phenomena outside of academia. I've met networking tutors who were amazed at the nimble and precise language used by PUAs. So sit back and enjoy the first installment of Terminology Tuesday, which will feature a mix of well worn PUA saws and inventions from my corner of the world.

Sometimes literature provides excellent tools to describe a class of situation. For example, when a girl claims that she is not interested in someone (when she actually is), even acting hostile towards them, rather than explain this with the attendant IOIs, physical structuring, PAI / MAI, and other miscellaneous details, all I have to say to friends is TLDPTMMT.

TLDPTMMT - The Lady Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks: a mouthful to be sure, but it captures a very specific situation that arises fairly often and requires specific maneuvering to resolve - personally I've seen or been through it at least a dozen times. While we are slightly mangling the original intent of the phrase (protest meant affinity [that preceding betrayal]), it is in line with the contemporary understanding of the phrase.

One beautiful term from game is Indicator of Interest (IOI), as it eliminated the need to explain that "dude, I think she might have just winked at you," or say "she just opened her hips to the room inviting you to approach." You can simply say "IOI" and perhaps indicate the most obvious element (arm, head angle, smile, etc). But IOI is crude, since it is nothing more than a bit - 0 or 1.

This lack of specificity drove me to look for something more useful, and when that search turned up nothing, I did what I always do - I invented something.

IOC - Indicator On Contact: any good PUA knows that there is a world of difference between the wink and smile that begins an exchange, and the one that appears after 15 minutes of skilled flirting. This is a green light to follow the 3 Second Rule (approach immediately, before you psych yourself out), but also should let you know to run lower intensity game, and to let the situation play to you, rather than aggressively pursuing and appearing overeager. If this happens on a date - you pick her up and she lights up with a smile - don't blow it, because she probably already wants to take you home (eventually in some cases, patience kids).

LIOI - Latent Indicator Of Interest: you like the girl, you're running your best game, you're having fun, but she's still detached. You let go, stop trying so hard and watch for more signals. And then there it is, out of the blue, a smoldering IOI. This is an LIOI, which comes late in the game and is seemingly inexplicable. My theory is that the LIOI indicates where a target transitions from a intellectual perspective on the date (pick-up, whatever) to an emotional one. When that wall drops, she just might run the tip of her tongue along her upper lip.

Whether or not I'm right about the cause, the LIOI is real, and needs greater study.

IOVC - Indicator On Venue Change: in a way, a combination of the IOC and LIOI. You move from picking her up at the front door to the car, and before you turn the key, you glance over and she gives you a devious smile. You walk into the restaurant and when you stop to talk to the hostess, she leans over to see something near you, brushing up against your back. These are the IOIs that happen at transition, subtle cues that she is enjoying your company and she wants the new venue to conform to that frame.

These are rampant in romantic comedies - see any time the romantic leads sit down to dinner. A brilliant recent example of this occurred in Parks and Recreation, when latent sexual tension ramps up in response to an Al Green song on the radio. The music (and their attraction) was strong enough to constitute a 'venue' change.

There you go, some new verbal ammunition for your next night out. And as always, use them wisely.

The Outside Perspective

An interesting balance to the bravado, brainlessness and sexism of most men's publications and game sites is The Good Men Project. Lately, the site has featured several articles from female bloggers on pick-up:

Nice Guys: Finish First Without Pickup Artistry

Ethical Pickup Artistry

More Pickup Advice for Shy Guys

Go read them, because if you think that the opinions that women have on game don't matter, then your brain is not working. If you are interested in women and you run any game, this provides valuable perspective.

Now that you're back, let's compare notes. I want to start by saying that I admire the fact that these writers have thrown themselves into unfriendly territory and are honestly interested in the facts. That said, I've noticed two problems in their analyses:

• They do not have a very good grasp of what well-run game looks like (or are not interested in representing it, because it would make their articles much harder to write - unlikely, but possible).
• They do not present any alternative system to pick-up or traditional dating.

In the end, I think they are fighting something they don't understand. Their problem is not with game, but with something much more insidious - the influence of the Weaponized Nice Guy (WNG)* - which we'll return to later.

*This term owes a huge debt to the term "Nice Guy (TM)" which comes from Heartless Bitches International. For further explanation / another viewpoint, see this visual aid.

At the very beginning of More Pickup Advice for Shy Guys, Rachel Rabbit White briefly describes a pick-up attempt that begins with a neg that failed. This is like describing baseball to someone and showing them a blooper reel. Like talking about democracy and showing this clip of former Senator George Allen (R - VA).

But we cannot reasonably expect them to know what great game looks like - most pop culture characterizations have been ridiculous (Mystery), oblivious (Zap Brannigan), or unbalanced (Patrick Bateman). In addition to any other personality trait, sexism is a pervasive undertone of their behavior.

It's not difficult to find examples of great game when you understand what it looks like. Cinema provides myriad examples. Think of Bogart in Casablanca, Cary Grant in North By Northwest (among many other films), Harrison Ford in the Indiana Jones Trilogy (yes, trilogy), or Penn Badgley in Easy A for a more recent example.

For the most part, these men do not represent the excesses or failures of game identified in these articles, and all of them adhere strictly to various game principles.

• In Casablanca, Bogart keeps people at a distance, consistently controls strong frames, makes sure to talk to all members of a group.
• In North By Northwest, Grant makes repeated clever innuendos and is consistently teasing his love interest.
• Particularly in the Last Crusade, Ford has one brilliant exchange where he and his love interest are making out while listing characteristics they dislike in a partner - knowingly describing one another in the process.
• In Easy A, Penn Badgley engages when given opportunities, providing his love interest with what she wants without being asked.

All of these are clear principles in game (in order, the freeze-out, framing, acting as the Alpha Male of the Group [AMOG], a Show of Interest [SOI], mild negging, building cognitive dissonance, and advantage seeking behavior). For the most part, I would be surprised to hear a wide cross section of women criticize their behavior.

One anecdote that resonates with me from Neil Strauss' book The Game (which in large part fueled mainstream interest in the PUA community) took place at a seminar. The men in the seminar were told to talk to women about the interesting things they'd done in their lives, anything exciting. One man piped up and said "What if I don't have any interesting stories?" He was told to "go live life for six months," before he tried to meet women, told to provide some value.

At core, game is an act of self improvement: dressing more stylishly, learning how to take control in conversations rather than following constantly, doing interesting things, teasing and playing with women the same way we do with our friends. In short, becoming more comfortable with ourselves, and who we want to be.

And this is where one of these authors begins to hit the mark. In Nice Guys: Finish First Without Pickup Artistry, Amanda Marcotte lists the various pieces of advice she would give men in lieu of the advice in the Pick-up Artist (PUA) community; I've combined several items for ease of analysis. Where possible, I'm going to include articles from reputable game sources that make these same points.

• Be Generous About Women's Motivations / Believe That Sex Is Not A Battle

The first point deals with male perceptions of women; men should not view women as adversaries. It's as simple as that. One of the steps in moving from being an Average Frustrated Chump (AFC) is letting go of any past resentment you might have for women 'withholding' sex, for them making an emotional demand of you that should be placed on a partner. You cannot be successful in a relationship with women if you are angry at women. This article from Fast Seduction 101 (widely regarded as one of the best and oldest game resources on the internet) is general observations on game; so many of the early items make these same points.

• Make a List of Traits You're Looking For In A Woman, Assess To Match That List, Make Changes

The point is two simple questions: What do I want? How do I get it? It's a good system for any problem you might face in life. This is another of the basic steps required to step away from self-pity and blaming women for every romantic failure. You cannot expect to successfully pick-up unless you can undertake (and complete) this journey. The entirety of The Game chronicles this process for Neil Strauss and many others.

• Develop Real Self Confidence

She's totally right here. Combine positive framing with some concrete successes. And it's taught just like this to people learning how to pick-up. Just like the anecdote about the man with no stories, confidence cannot exist without outlook and evidence. The man with no stories needed evidence. Here's an article from FS101 that makes most of these points, though with an emphasis on fashion.

A more exhaustive search could turn up more examples, but for the moment, these will serve just fine.

The examples listed also do a wonderful job of illustrating another point; valuable information can be obscured by ideology. The single-minded obsession with sleeping with every girl seems a bit juvenile, but if we strip that away, we have much of the same advice that these women are trying to teach instead of game. But it is difficult to talk about sex, love and relationships without making assumptions and simplifications; in-artfully made they can appear sexist, even if that is not the intent. And objectification happens to those we're sexually attracted to (and is often a good thing, as long as it's paired with a healthy dose of reality).

However, when ideology becomes so strong that it becomes impossible to discern facts or trust judgments, we enter a new arena. Even worse when the ideology is based on underlying malice. And so we return to the Weaponized Nice Guy (WNG), which has become the underpinning of online game, with a paragon who goes by the name of Roissy. Roissy is a peculiar example of this phenomenon, who I'll leave for another day. Prepare yourself if you click the link, he's a hell of a creature.

The basic ethos of the WNG is "Why won't you sleep with me? I was nice to you!" WNGs can have various back stories - the 'might-as-well-be-gay' best friend, the brooding intellectual, the over-eager bumbler - but what unites them as a group is the mindset that women owe them sex. It's important to note that this frame may seem similar to those who think they are god's gift to women, but the belief that their actions can obligate other actions is deeply troubling in a different way. It's the difference between a dictator and a movie star.

The attitude of the WNG makes an aloof bad boy look that much better - they make choices and expect others to do the same, no obligation, no guilt, no coercion.

And the call of the WNG is alluring to any man who feels he's been 'wronged' by women. They tell you that the problem is all women, for being fickle and manipulative. They tell you to copy the men that you hated, that 'stole the girl' from you. They look for ways to ensure constant control, for methods to make any woman sleep with them.

This is pickup as control. For men who feel they have none, it will remain attractive, and it will work. The price is your soul.

We must excise the misogyny from game, take the elements that let men and women have more fulfilling relationships and build upon them (there are many). These men have little hope and feel they have no control in life. They will follow anyone who will give them more of either - and the WNGs will continue to do so.

It is good to have help on this project, other voices suggesting to men that there are other ways to live and love. So I return to where I started - praising these authors for seeking a new path for men.

It's the aim I have as well.

Long Time Coming

For too long, I've left this land fallow.

This started as a journal, chronicling my first steps away from The United States of AFC. Now I intend to reboot this space, so that stories about my successes and failures take a back seat to larger ideas, systematic thinking on sexual politics, social structure, mores (and more).

But I'm driven back by more than my own ambition this time. The landscape for pick-up has become frightening, riddled with sexism, racism, and classism that masquerade as hard truths that expose "pretty lies." Even worse, the best free tactical advice and training come from those who rely on these crutches the most. Pick-up has become toxic, it has become insular, and worst, it has become shortsighted and ideological. This is exactly what pick-up was designed to circumvent - a set of rules that govern interactions and exclude people because they are not suited to play by them.

Young men read the work of bigots and it makes them more successful. You don't have to be an expert in social psychology to know that shared success breeds affinity, that behavior creates belief, and that compliance is easiest to compel when there are no dissenting voices (see respectively Robbers Cave Experiment, Stanford Prisoner Experiment, and Asch Conformity Experiments).

I will not remain silent while a noble art is turned darker and darker, ruining men and women in the process.

These are the commandments that will rule discussions on this blog:

• Content shall be useful.
• Fact checking shall be rigorous (where possible).
• Honest sex / gender differences will be discussed without sexist rhetoric.
• Honest race / SES differences will be discussed without racist or classist rhetoric.
• Elements will be investigated as part of a system.
• Alternative explanations will be explored.

Pick-up is the combination of sex and the scientific method. The progress of science, of human understanding, has always been held back by our own bigotry. The same is true for game, even though it is a discipline in its infancy. This space will be used to bend the arc of the future of game towards justice.

More to follow.