text:
Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament)
The Documentary Hypothesis, and the
identity of the Pentateuch's authors
History of the Documentary Hypothesis:
Both Judaism and Christianity assumed that the Pentateuch -- the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) were written by Moses, as the Bible itself states. However, in recent centuries, alternative authorship has been proposed. The documentary hypothesis is now accepted by essentially all mainline and liberal theologians.
11th Century CE: Isaac ibn Yashush suggested that the list of the Edomite kings in Genesis 36 was added by an unknown person after Moses died. For this assertion, he became known as "Isaac the Blunderer." 1
15th Century: Bishop Tostatus suggested that certain passages were written by one of the prophets, not by Moses.
16th Century: Andreas van Maes suggested that an editor added additional material to some of Moses' writings.
17th Century: Thomas Hobbes prepared a collection of passages that seemed to negate Moses' authorship.
18th Century: Three investigators (Witter, Astruc and Eichhorn) independently concluded that doublets in the Torah were written by two different authors. A doublet is a story that is described twice, as in:
the two creation stories in Genesis;
two descriptions of the covenant between God and Abraham;
two stories about the naming of Isaac;
two stories about the renaming of Jacob;
two versions of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20 & Deuteronomy 5);.
two accounts of Moses' striking the rock at Meribah
These doublets appeared to contradict each other. In most cases, one referred to God as Yahweh while the other used the term Elohim.
19th Century: Scholars noticed that there were a few triplets in the Torah. This indicated that a third author was involved. Then, they determined that the book of Deuteronomy was written in a different language style from the remaining 4 books in the Pentateuch. Finally, by the end of the 19th Century, liberal scholars reached a consensus that 4 authors and one redactor (editor) had been actively involved in the writing of the Pentateuch.
20th Century: Academics have continued to refine the Documentary Hypothesis by identifying which verses (and parts of verses) were authored by the various writers. They have also attempted to uncover the names of the authors. In 1943, Pope Pius XII issued an encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu in which he urged academics to study the sources of Biblical texts. Recent archaeological discoveries and new linguistic analysis tools have facilitated the research into the hypothesis.
Belief in the documentary hypothesis was triggered by a number of factors, such as:
Anachronisms, like the list of the Edomite kings;
Duplicate and triplicate passages
Various passages portrayed God in different ways;
The flood story appears to involve the meshing of two separate stories;
The belief, centuries ago, by archaeologists and linguists that writing among the ancient Hebrews only developed after the events portrayed in the Pentateuch. Thus, Moses would have been incapable of writing the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures.
These factors led theologians to the conclusion that the Pentateuch is a hybrid document which was written well after Moses' death, and much later than the events portrayed. The authors and redactors are unknown, and are commonly referred to as authors J, E, P and D.
As it happens, their belief about Moses being illiterate is probably wrong. Archaeological evidence has since been found which shows that all of the major civilizations surrounding the Hebrews were literate at the apparent time of the Exodus. So one can assume that Moses knew how to read and write.
Writing by various authors, according to the documentary hypothesis:
J: a writer who:
focuses on humanity in his/her writing;
might possibly have been a woman. His/her writing shows much greater sensitivity towards women than does E;
regularly used "JHWH" as God's name;
describes God in anthropomorphic terms: God formed Adam from clay; he walked and talked with Adam and Eve in the garden; he spoke to Moses;
lived in the southern kingdom of Judah, during an early period of Israel's history when they followed a nature/fertility religion. May have been a member of the Judean court;
wrote a more or less complete story of the history of the Israelites from a Judean perspective;
J was probably written sometime between 848 BCE (when King Jehoram gained power in Judah) and 722 BCE when the Assyrians destroyed the northern kingdom Israel and took its people into exile. Some scholars date J to the 10th century BCE.
E: a writer who
writes about religious and moralistic concerns;
in all probability was a man;
consistently used "Elohim" as God's name;
lived in the northern kingdom of Israel;
wrote a more or less complete story of the history of the Israelites from the perspective of the northern kingdom, including that version of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20;
probably wrote between 922 and 722 BCE;
may have been a priest from Shiloh who viewed Moses as his spiritual ancestor. 2
D: a writer who:
lived after J and E, because he was familiar with later developments in Israel's history. He lived at a time when the religion of ancient Israel was in its spiritual/ethical stage, about 622 BCE.
wrote almost all of book of Deuteronomy, as well as Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings. A second writer edited the original text after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 587 BCE. He added the last two chapters to 2 Kings and inserted short passages elsewhere to reflect the change in circumstances brought about by the Babylonian attack.
lived in Judah - probably in Jerusalem;
was probably a Levitical priest - perhaps Jeremiah.
P: a writer who:
focused his writings on God;
added material from a priestly perspective. It discusses priests' lives, religious rituals, dates, measurements, chronologies, genealogies, worship and law;
was a priest who identified Aaron as his spiritual ancestor;
views God as a distant, transcendent deity, less personal than in J and E; sometimes harsh and critical. The words "mercy," "grace" and "repentance" do not appear in his writing. In contrast, they appear about 70 times in J, E, and D;
was displeased with the work of J and E and wrote P as an alternative history;
rejected the concepts of angels, dreams and talking animals that are seen in J & E;
believed that only Levites who were descended from Aaron could be priests;
lived after J, E and D because he was aware of the books of the Prophets which were unknown to the others. Lived when the country's religion reached a priestly/legal stage, before the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE;
patterned his writing after the topics in J and E.
R: a redactor who:
was an Aaronid priest and thus definitely a male.
joined the writings of J, E, P and D together into the present Pentateuch.
We have prepared a copy of the first ten chapters of Genesis which identifies the passages contributed by J, P and R. Each of the authors' writings is shown in text of a different color. In the case of the creation stories, the first legend was written by P. Part way through chapter 2, J takes over and describes a second creation story. In the case of the Noachian Flood, from Genesis 6:5 to 8:22, the redactor has taken a different approach. He alternates between short passages from P and J. One can start at Genesis 6:5 and read the contribution of J; it is a complete story. One can then restart at the beginning and read P's text. Again, P has written a consistent account - one that differs significantly from J.
How the Pentateuch evolved, according to the documentary hypothesis:
Friedman 3 suggests that when the Assyrians conquered the northern kingdom in 722 BCE, many refugees streamed south into Judea, bringing their sacred writing "E" with them. Subsequently, E and J were combined into a single document, referred to as "JE."
D was written perhaps a century later. It was conveniently "discovered" in the temple by the priest Hilkiah in 622 BCE, shortly after it was written. D was then joined with JE
P was written before the death of King Josiah in 609 BCE, probably during the reign of King Hezekiah. It was written as an alternative to JE.
R combined J, E, P and other documents together into the first four books of the Hebrew Scriptures. To this, he added D's writings, the book of Deuteronomy, to complete the Pentateuch. By the time that he did the editing, the JE, D and P documents were in wide circulation. Each was supported by various factions. R saw his task as attempting to join these sources together into a more or less cohesive, single document. Friedman suspects that Ezra was the redactor.
Of course, the various writers often incorporated into their writings earlier material obtained from Pagan sources outside of Israel and Judah. Friedman writes:
"From the texts found in Mesopotamia, it is clear that types of literature parallel to what is in the Old Testament existed during the period from the third to the first millennia BC. We know of law codes, creation stories, primeval histories, epic stories and the like from various periods of Mesopotamian history." 4
One might add a flood story with many parallels to the Noachian flood.
Misuse of the Documentary Hypothesis:
By the year 1919, when the German Nazi party was founded, the Documentary Hypothesis was widely accepted among German theologians. The Nazis used the Hypothesis to promote their beliefs that the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) was a collection of legends, myths, hero stories, and fictional material. According to author Ken Collins:
"The Nazis promoted a revised form of Christianity called Deutsches Christentum, in which they replaced the Old Testament with Germanic myths and legends. Deutsches Christentum never caught on with the public, but since it epitomized the beliefs of the leadership of the Nazi party, it contributed to the martyrdom of a number of famous German Christians." 5
R.E. Friedman, "Who Wrote the Bible?" Harper Collins, San Francisco, CA, (1997).
Ibid, Page 79
Ibid, Page 87-88
P.C. Craigie, "The Old Testament: Its Background, Growth & Content," Welch Publ. Co, Burlington ON Canada, Page 121.
Ken Collins, "The Torah in modern scholarship," at: http://www.kencollins.com/
Latest update: 2011-DEC-31
Written by: B.A. Robinson
Go to the previous page, or go to the Hebrew Scripture menu, or choose:
-Christian definition
-Shared beliefs
-Handling change
-Bible topics
-Bible inerrancy
-Bible harmony
-Interpret the Bible
-Persons
-Beliefs & creeds
-Da Vinci code
-Revelation, 666
-Denominations


text:
McCaffery Hires Sherman Dillard
Written by Jon Miller
IOWA CITY, IA – – University of Iowa Head Basketball Coach Fran McCaffery has named Sherman Dillard an assistant coach on his Hawkeye staff. The hiring of Dillard was announced Wednesday and becomes effective immediately. The hire completes Coach McCaffery's full-time staff.
"I am thrilled beyond measure for this opportunity to be a part of Coach McCaffery's staff at the University of Iowa," said Dillard. "Coaching collegiate basketball has been a strong passion of mine for decades, and although my experience with Nike afforded me the opportunity to stay in the game, I simply missed the intrinsic rewards of coaching and developing players at the collegiate level. I simply do not have the words to express how excited I am to be back in the saddle again, doing what I love the most."
"We are very excited to have Sherman Dillard join our staff," said McCaffery. "I've known Sherman for 30 years and have always had tremendous respect for his professionalism and success. He comes to us with a broad-based experience level, both as a head coach and an assistant, and has been successful at the highest level. He will have a great impact on our program."
Dillard has over two decades of coaching experience, serving as a college assistant or head coach for 25 years. He spent his first 15 years as an assistant coach at three institutions. Dillard began his coaching career under Head Coach Lefty Driesell at Maryland, spending five seasons (1979-85). He helped coach the Terrapins to four 20-plus win seasons and five post-season appearances, including four NCAA Tournament berths. Both the 1984 and 1985 squads reached the Sweet 16, while the 1984 team won the ACC Tournament.
He then spent three years at California (1985-88) under Lou Campanelli. The Bears posted two third-place Pac-10 finishes and two NIT appearances during his tenure in Berkeley. After three seasons at California, he returned to the ACC and Georgia Tech for six seasons (1988-94). While in Atlanta, he helped Head Coach Bobby Cremins lead the Yellow Jackets to six winning seasons and postseason appearances. Georgia Tech played in five NCAA Tournaments, including the Final Four in 1990 and Sweet 16 in 1992.
Dillard received his first head coaching opportunity at Indiana State of the Missouri Valley Conference (1994-97). During his three seasons in Terre Haute, the Sycamores posted a 29-51 record. He then left Indiana State to return to his alma mater, James Madison. He replaced Driesell, who served as head coach the previous nine seasons (1988-97). Dillard was the Dukes' head coach for seven years (1997-2004). He posted a 93-106 record, sharing a league title and recording three first-division finishes in the Colonial Athletic Association (CAA). During his tenure, he earned CAA Coach of the Year and NABC District Coach of the Year laurels. His 10-year head coaching record stands at 122-157.
"I have known Coach McCaffery for close to 30 years, dating back to our days as counselors working the University of Maryland basketball camps, and I couldn't be happier to join him now in this capacity," added Dillard. "Fran is a proven winner and, without a doubt, he is the consummate coach, with the expertise, professionalism, and energy that is sure to bring success to the Hawkeyes."
Dillard, an academic all-American, played guard at James Madison (1973-78). He racked-up 2,065 points while on the Dukes' roster. After his collegiate career, he was drafted by the Indiana Pacers in the 1978 NBA Draft. Additionally, Dillard is a member of JMU's Hall of Fame and was honored as a CAA "Legend" in 2009.
Since 2004, Dillard has worked as a basketball marketing representative for Nike. He served as Global Camp Director, responsible for administrative and operational facets of a series of highly acclaimed camps and academies sponsored by Nike. Those camps included the Nike All-America Camp and select skills academies hosted by NBA stars such as Kobe Bryant, Steve Nash, Vince Carter, Amaré Stoudemire and LeBron James (until January, 2009).

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
P-05-1086 Create a National Museum for Welsh Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic History and Heritage
This petition was submitted by Yasmin Begum having collected a total of 490 signatures.
Text of Petition:
We, the undersigned, petition Senedd Cymru to create a museum to celebrate Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Welsh history.
As part of the national establishment, we hope that the rich heritage of Tiger Bay will be preserved and offer a home for the Tiger Bay Archive.
The Committee considered the petition and noted that while there has been no progress in the finding a permanent home the collection, it is currently with Glamorgan Archives, and can still be viewed by members of the public. In light of this, there is little further that the Committee can do on the issue, therefore Members agreed to close the petition and thank the petitioner.
Cardiff West


Start any time, classes are offered on an ongoing basis.
Look around our website for sadhanas, meditation, teacher training, workshops and specialty classes.
New students only. Beginner and Intermediate classes only, certain restrictions will apply.
Classes taught at the Yoga Centre are not specially designed for children under the age of 12 permission must be given from the instructor before attending.
Passes cannot be extended, refunded, or transferred.


text:
Ramaya Tegegne at Istituto Svizzero
Artist: Ramaya Tegegne
Venue: Istituto Svizzero, Milan
Exhibition Title: I is we, we is them, them is us, us is I, I is you and you is I
Date: September 13 – October 26, 2019
Click here to view slideshow
Full gallery of images, press release, and link available after the jump.
Images courtesy of Istituto Svizzero, Milan
Questioning authorship for Ramaya Tegegne is a way to reveal the mechanisms of a dominant model within the art world. This central notion in the creative field, which potentially transforms all of us in speculative individuals, serves as a starting point to question our place and role in this world. Our perception is generally considered as dependent on stories that are different for each individual, at the crossroads of many others: the ones we have been taught, the ones we share in our community, our family, as well as through our intimate and individual experiences. Also, most of the stories are often built on the margins of established discourses, where discussions and information sharing are not regulated: conversations, disseminations, social networks, gossips, etc. This is where the works by Ramaya Tegegne act, by taking our convictions in reverse, and revealing some of the hidden aspects of our perception.
The artist takes into consideration some well-known artists of the last decades, insinuating doubt into certain dominant narratives, forcing us to look differently at or adjust our focus on existing works. As the discourses surrounding them are never unequivocal, they are used as conscious or unconscious vehicles to denounce a certain ideology. Ramaya works on intersectionality, rethinking some of these models that force us to share this knowledge in a critical and collective way, based on feminist activist theories; like the iconic Nefertiti's portrait, projection medium par excellence, beauty icon that embodies the feminine power in its most superficial representation and which is still today the subject of all fantasies.
Often portrayed as a white woman by Hollywood, it turned out that she was actually black—this issue is an ongoing debate in the intellectual community. Nefertiti is considered as a symbol of pride by the Afro-descendant communities. This sculpture—currently exhibited at the Neues Musuem, Berlin—raises, moreover, the central question of cultural spoliation in favour of colonisation and imperialism, object of raging discussion between Germany and Egypt. The latter, since several years, has been demanding its restitution to the Cairo Egyptian Museum. By bringing together the works of German artist Isa Genzken, "Nofretete" series (2012-18), and American artist Fred Wilson, Grey Area (Brown version) (1993), Ramaya readjusts the place of this iconic sculpture in our contemporaneity between cultural appropriation, economic politics of the institution and black feminist interests. This work calls the governing discourse of art history to make itself accountable for the history of race and to rethink the foundational structures of how modern and contemporary art has been constructed.
The work The Dinner Party is an example of the paradox of authorship. In representing a universal feminist history, Judy Chicago forgets to take into consideration patriarchal and dominant history patterns, the same ones that excluded most women. This masterpiece, exhibited permanently at the Brooklyn Museum in New York since 2002, is the result of a collective realization of 400 volunteer women whose work has never been recognised at its fair value. By trying to give women their rightful place in the historical narrative, Judy Chicago reproduces some schemes that seem to denounce unpaid work, exploitation, authorship and, last but not least, omission. Out of the thirty-nine great women guests of The Dinner Party, only two of them were women of colour, the ones most affected by these practices. By re-enacting The Dinner Party, Ramaya restores value to the artist's intention—to gather around the table a number of black women and women of colour with whom she would like to share this dinner—replacing it in her individual story.
Ramaya examines the universal story of women bodies in the publication Our Bodies Ourselves. First published by American feminists in the late sixties, this independent bestseller and well-illustrated book contains information related to many aspects of women's health, sexuality and agency, including sexual orientation, gender identity, birth control, abortion, pregnancy and childbirth, violence and abuse, menopause, reproductive rights, lesbian sexuality, and sexual independence. The artist is interested in the collective effort that led to the making of this book "for women, by women", while also stressing that such imagery is not part of our collective education, and that women-centred representation in the art is rare. By dissecting and exhibiting this book, Ramaya immerges us in the core story of our intimacy as woman-identified bodies.
This reversal of perceptions is directly linked to a central concern of Ramaya's practice, the sharing of knowledge, as slogans, quotations and texts, through dissemination of editions and printed matter, stickers or booklets. The focus is not only on where this knowledge comes from, but also on how it echoes in our lives, as different human beings—women, men, children, older or younger person, black person, trans person, lesbian, etc.—thus questioning the power of artistic institu- tions and inclusiveness as a cultural vector of diffusion. In this context, the publication is often a way to escape the limited time and space of the exhibition framework, and the exhibition a pretext to focus on current research of a much wider multidisciplinary practice.
Tiphanie Blanc
Link: Ramaya Tegegne at Istituto Svizzero
Tags: Institution, Istituto Svizzero, Italy, Milan, Ramaya Tegegne
Share: Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest
x<>i
Contemporary Art Venues Sponsored Listings


text:
Algorithms and Complexity
Designing quantum software for future quantum computers, using fundamentally different techniques and approaches based on superposition, interference and entanglement.
All Research Groups
Computational Imaging
Developing the next generation of 3D imaging – enabling scientists to look further into objects of all kinds.
Studying how to secure computational environments in the presence of strong adversaries where we formally model security guarantees such as privacy, integrity, correctness, and more.
Investigating how cryptologic methods can contribute to solving security issues, for example through encryption, digital signatures and secure computation.
Database Architectures
A leading data systems research group, active in the broad area of data (management) systems and infrastructure for supporting data science.
Distributed and Interactive Systems
Facilitating and improving the way people access media and communicate with others and the environment, in areas such as wearable technology and smart textiles, immersive media, languages and infrastructures.
Human-Centered Data Analytics
Developing methods and techniques to better support users in accessing information. Working with social scientists and humanities researchers on technology to better interpret complex data.
Studying generic and fundamental mechanisms that enable the emergence of various degrees of organization, intelligence and autonomy in complex systems, and apply them to concrete problems of societal relevance.
Designing and analyzing models and algorithms focused on their direct application to important challenges in the life sciences and health.
Focusing on how computer programs can learn from and understand data, and then make useful predictions based on it, using insights from statistics and neuroscience.
Multiscale Dynamics
Combining scientific computing with model reduction and machine learning, with particular focus on plasma dynamics in lightning and space weather, and in high voltage and plasma technology.
Developing algorithmic methods to tackle complex optimization problems by combining techniques from mathematics and computer science, with applications in planning, scheduling and routing.
Scientific Computing
Investigating and developing mathematical methods to simulate and predict real-world phenomena with inherent uncertainties, targeting applications in climate, energy, and finance.
Software Analysis and Transformation
SWAT studies software systems: their design, their construction, and their inevitable evolution. Our mission is to learn to understand software systems and to improve their quality. We focus on complexity as the primary quality attribute of software systems.
Stochastics
Developing and studying probabilistic, operational and statistical models to model, describe, and improve communication, energy, information, logistics, and transportation systems.
Bringing Quantum Computers Closer to Reality
Making The Invisible Visible
AI Calculates Best Treatment Plan
CWI is closed from Friday 25 December until Monday 4 January. We wish you a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year
Merry Christmas & Happy New Year! - Read More…
Getting ready for 75th anniversary of CWI
The countdown has started for CWI's 75th anniversary. On various occasions in 2021, CWI will celebrate 75 years of ground-breaking research in mathematics and computer science.
Getting ready for 75th anniversary of CWI - Read More…
Pablo Cesar named ACM Distinguished Member
The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), has named Pablo Cesar as one of the 64 Distinguished Members 2020. ACM distinguished members are recognized for their individual contributions to the field of computing.
Pablo Cesar named ACM Distinguished Member - Read More…
« Previous 3 items
CIDR 2021 11-01-2021 18:00
(Europe/Amsterdam)
PhD Defence Bernard Zweers - ST 19-01-2021 15:45
(Europe/Amsterdam) — Via live stream
Women in Quantum Development (WIQD) New Year's event 25-01-2021 15:00
Dutch Seminar on Optimization (online series) 28-01-2021 16:00
NMC 2021 (Dutch Mathematical Congress) 28-01-2021 16:00
(Online) celebration of CWI's 75th birthday 11-02-2021 14:00
(Europe/Amsterdam) — Zoom
CWI serves as the Dutch national research institute for mathematics and computer science. By creating a synergy between those fields, we pursue fundamental and long-term innovation.
CWI videos
Network & collaborations
Quick Links - More…


text:
Home » Courses » Comparative Media Studies/Writing » Game Design » Audio Lectures » Lecture 3: Where Do Game Ideas Come From?
Lecture 3: Where Do Game Ideas Come From?
Download the track from iTunes U or the Internet Archive.
About this Track
Description: The assigned readings introduced two frameworks for designing games: formal abstract design and MDA (Mechanics-Dynamics-Aesthetics). Students play a primitive board game and apply these analytic tools, then modify the rules and repeat the exercise.
Instructors/speakers: Philip Tan, Jason Begy
Lecture 2: Iterative Design
Lecture 3: Where Do Game Id...
Lecture 4: Prototyping
Lecture 5: Assignment 1 Bra...
Lecture 6: The Social Funct...
Lecture 8: Strategy, Skill,...
Lecture 12: Knowing Your Pl...
Lecture 18: Puzzles
Lecture 19: Abstraction and...
Lecture 20: What is Intelle...
Lecture 21: Games as Teachi...
Lecture 23: Creating Sequels
Lecture 25: Fiction and Sto...
Lecture 27: Games as Art
Lecture 30: Clients for Ass...
Lecture 31: Assignment 3 Br...
Lecture 32: Live Action Games
Lecture 33: Ethics in Games
This section contains documents that are inaccessible to screen reader software. A "#" symbol is used to denote such documents.
[CGD] Chapter 2
Hunicke, Robin, Marc LeBlanc, and Robert Zubek. "MDA: A Formal Approach to Game Design and Game Research." In Proceedings of the Challenges in Game AI Workshop at the 19th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. San Jose, CA: AAAI Press, 2004. (PDF)#
Church, Doug. "Formal Abstract Design Tools." Gamasutra, July 16 1999.
The following content is provided under a Creative Commons license. Your support will help MIT OpenCourseWare continue to offer high quality educational resources for free. To make a donation, or view additional materials from hundreds of MIT courses, visit MIT OpenCourseWare at ocw.mit.edu.
PROFESSOR: Welcome back. Thanks for not dropping the class yet.
AUDIENCE: I'm going to do that right now.
PROFESSOR: Funny you mention that. Let's see, just a reminder. Actually one big reminder for folks who weren't here on Friday is that we swapped around Friday and Monday's--
AUDIENCE: Yeah, I think 17th and the 20th have been swapped.
PROFESSOR: Yeah.
AUDIENCE: In terms of reading that we're going to do in the class.
PROFESSOR: So, we're still going to be playing the games on Friday. But the brainstorming activity that we had scheduled for Monday is going to be on this Friday instead. And then later on in the course. Anyone manage to get through the reading? Let's see, where should we start.
So there was a Doug Church article that was on Gamasutra. And if you're familiar with Gamasutra, or if you're not actually, it's a fairly well-read news and industry news blog for the video game industry. That particular article, I think, was originally written not for the website but for the magazine that the associated company publishes, the Game Developer magazine. And Doug Church is actually an MIT alum. The other article that was read, Mark [INAUDIBLE], they're both MIT alums. So that's one thing.
So Doug Church proposes a set of tools. And remember what they're called?
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
PROFESSOR: So, and Mark's framework which is--
AUDIENCE: M-A-D?
PROFESSOR: And we covered mechanics and dynamics on Friday. And today we have a little bit of time to talk about aesthetics. But the reason why these two essays were put right next to each other was MDA is an example of what Doug Church was describing as [INAUDIBLE]. In fact, at the time when MDA came out it was pretty much the only one that caught on.
Everybody, all of the problems that Doug Church lays out in his article about the problems that we don't have a vocabulary, a consistent vocabulary, to talk about our craft and thus we can't actually deal with it. And thus we need some formal tools that everyone uses. Unfortunately not much has caught on.
MDA being one of the few that has. For a number of different reasons. First of all, it actually is a useful framework. You can think of many, many, ways to properly look at games but for a designer you need to think of something where you can actually apply it to help improve your games. And MDA actually gives you a reason why design is hard. So if nothing else, designers like it a lot because it says this is why their job is hard.
The reason being, you get to control the mechanics. But that's not what you're going for. You're not going for really interesting mechanics. They're going for really interesting aesthetics. They're going for a fun, engaging, play experience.
There are mock-- in the MDA paper, this lists eight kinds of fun. And I've asked him about this when we give this presentation here in MIT. Those eight were not meant to be comprehensive. They were meant to be, these are the eight that I could think of at the time. After this I'm going for [INAUDIBLE] that's a bouquet of different kinds of fun.
Different kinds of experiences that people are trying to get out of playing games. That's what a game designer is trying to get. The only problem is that a game designer doesn't actually control that experience. The game designer only gets to upload mechanics.
Depending on what company you are, maybe you have the title of game designer but you're also in charge of the art. You're actually also the lead programmer. It's possible that you also have more control over things than just the mechanics. But most designers, mechanics is what the job still is.
So they write the rules, the rules interact in some sort of like ridiculously hard to predict way, and then you get the experience of playing the game, the aesthetic. And you hope that's what you were going for. It usually isn't. And then you make a change to the mechanics and try again.
The nice thing about that, is that works really well with the rate of design. In fact, without a rate of design it becomes really hard to control this kind of process. Because basically, we are two orders removed from the experience that you're trying to create. It's like trying to draw on a piece of paper where not only can you not see the paper that you're drawing on, you're also controlling the brush or the pencil tied to a stick, or something like that, blindfolded. That's kind of what making game designs are like.
So that's the experience of the game design side. You can control the mechanics, and they're going towards some sort of aesthetic. And from the other side, the player is experiencing some kind of aesthetic and they can sort of work their way back. It's like, I'm getting this kind of experience. Why am I getting this kind of experience?
If you've got a particularly insightful game player, maybe they're taking CMS.300 Introduction to Video Games, and you're analyzing games. And you're trying to say, how did we get here? If anything in this class, you're going to be doing that a lot. This game, Heroes Might and Magic 3 for instance, has-- give me a particularly-- a sensation. Describe a sensation that you got when you were playing that game, that you recall.
AUDIENCE: Strategic. Out-smarting. To saying to friends. Outsmart them. Stump me.
PROFESSOR: Seem smart, make you have to think really hard and everything. So then you think about what dynamics might have resulted in that.
AUDIENCE: Fog of War.
PROFESSOR: For you to figure out is behind the areas you can't see. But it has some information that you can see that will give you clues. And then, Fog of War might already be a mechanic. The idea of, there is information that you can deduce even though you can't actually see it. And there's some probability of getting it right based on their experience with games. Fog of War being one game that gets you there.
So you can analyze it backwards. And figure out, OK that's one thing Fog of War gets you. Sometimes Fog of War just confuses you. There could be anything behind this corner. I mean technically, Final Fantasy random combat system is like Fog of War. I don't know if there is a random encounter here, I will walk into it.
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE].
AUDIENCE: That's where Unix merger is complete-- Plan to the classic Final Fantasy one with slides and the classic [INAUDIBLE].
PROFESSOR: But there is actually a problem-- actually, I don't need to write this down. There is a problem with-- well, maybe it's not a problem. There is an issue that I have with [INAUDIBLE]. Doug Church uses it specifically to say, well it should be sort of a serious business right? It's formal with a capital F. We're not talking about how cool this game is, we want to be very precise in our vocabulary. We want to treat it like a serious business with a capital S, capital B.
However, the other assumption with the word formal comes from [INAUDIBLE]. You are thinking about the form of the game. In a way that if you were trying to apply the same technique to talk about art you'd be talking about the form of visual art. The form of cinema.
And that is actually a very narrow way to look at something, at a topic, that is as broad as a game. It is as if we were trying to analyze something like [INAUDIBLE] and completely ignoring the fact that you were playing it with friends from French class.
That would be an example of, well that had nothing to do with the game. Well actually, it probably had a lot to do with how you experienced the game. Play, that's the rules of chess. And you could just look at the game based on the rules of chess. You could also look at the history of chess. You could also look at who you're playing it against. Are you playing against a random person or against your dad? Big difference, or in my case my mom.
Are you playing it in a club? Are you playing it against the chess master in Harvard Square or something like that? What does this game mean? Are you using the game metaphorically in speech? My opponent wasn't checking his position. Doesn't necessarily mean that you were playing chess with someone else in order to get your point across. There's a whole range of different ways that you can look at games, even as a game designer, that isn't specifically formalist. That isn't specifically just looking at the form of the game.
Just understanding what context people are going to be playing the game in. While a lot of the games that you guys are going to be designing this semester, specifically in this class, you have to think about the fact that a lot of these games are actually going to be played by your instructors. Are going to be played in a setting very similar to this by your colleagues. Are probably going to end up being tested by dorm mates, fraternity friends, folks around campus. And all that is going to vividly influence the kind of game that you make.
For better or worse, you are pretty much making a game for an MIT audience. I am trying to change that a little bit for the last assignment. But keep in mind that's not necessarily every single game that you're going to make in the future. And that shouldn't be. But, knowing that, you can try to cater to the audience that you've got.
That has very little, in some ways, this is going to effect the design decisions that you make in your game. What will be perfectly acceptable to a competitive MIT audience might not be perfectly acceptable to your average working buyer in Target or something like that. And so what may be a perfectly engrossing game, mechanic, dynamic, aesthetic experience, that you will get.
But just like looking at the formal aspects of one game, this will be really cool if you understood the mechanic, played it out in the way the creator designed the dynamic to give you the aesthetic experience. But if you don't have the standard context when you're playing the game, as an example, then your player may not even get that far. Your player may look at your game and say this game is not for me and just walk away.
It might mean that you might-- I'm thinking of things like we just had this good discussion over lunch about the sort of games that you find on Facebook for instance. And a lot of social games-- I might have already made this point, but it has been argued that social games aren't all that social. All you do is really beg and scam your friends. That's the whole point-- In many ways, it's also the same to your friends who are doing the same thing.
And we may be separated by time, and separated by distance, we're all doing the same thing. And we could be playing this game, we could be talking about a show that we are watching in our apartments and get to discuss it, but in many ways this is just me telling you we're doing the same thing, that we're part of the same group.
And that serves a function that has almost, that really doesn't have anything to do with the formal analysis of how a game mechanic works, but it's still incredibly crucial to the popularity of those games. So keep that in mind, that even though Church makes his point-- I think a lot of designers actually ignore that when you read his essay-- that it's only one set of tools. The formal tools are only one set of tools, even.
That our tools at looking at games culturally, personally, and other things that video games cast into light-- that will effect how people experience a game and how much pleasure they're going to get out of a game. To understand video games doing what it does right? That aren't, that don't have anything to do, necessarily, with just by looking at the self-contained system of the game.
Just as a side note, how many of you folks have heard of the narrative versus ludology debate? How many of you are sick of this? I'm sick of it too. But I bring it up for one reason, there is an interesting case that if you actually look at narratology as a study and ludology as a study, they're both formalist studies.
In fact, they're more accurate more precisely, they're both structuralist. If you look at philosophies as a sub-sect of formalism, or at least a more recent version of it, they're both basically focused on these are the elements of this art form. And this is how they interact to produce some sort of effect. And all that matters is what's contained in this art form. What's outside this art form doesn't matter.
That's what narratology does for stories. That's what ludology does for games. That's, in fact, probably why most people who study games have walked away from ludology because it's not that interesting. You just study what's inside a system. People want to see what's outside.
And so when you compare structuralistic and structuralism wins that's one case. And you only have, you may not realize that you're actually looking at your game through a very, very, narrow lens. So I'm trying to broaden the range of tools that you've got. This class is going to give you a small set of them. And it's not by any means the be all and end all of every single way and that you can look at a game. And again, you're not just restricted to the tools that I specifically teach you in this class. So keep looking out for all the new ones.
Let's see. Any questions so far? That was my rant. OK, no more ranting.
We have an activity. Do you want to run through?
GUEST SPEAKER: OK I'm going to pass around-- this is my crappy race game. So you're going to be getting one copy per pair. There's also some nifty set of dice. You'll need one copy per, one die per. And then, each person's going to need three of these poker chips. It doesn't matter the color so just grab three. You're each going to need a marker to indicate yourself. And I recommend just grabbing any given value-- There should be more than enough copies.
So you only need one board per group.
PROFESSOR: So one die for every two people?
GUEST SPEAKER: Yeah, one of those six-sided die for every two. And then you need markers for yourselves and then bonus markers. And that's what the poker chips are for. So keep the poker chips circulating.
AUDIENCE: Three per person?
GUEST SPEAKER: Three per person.
AUDIENCE: One playing piece per person.
GUEST SPEAKER: You can use coins, you can use die-- [INTERPOSING VOICES] paper, whatever you want.
PROFESSOR: So we have three of the important questions [INAUDIBLE].
AUDIENCE: How many [INAUDIBLE] take back?
GUEST SPEAKER: If you need markers for yourself, you can try one of the multi-sided polyhedral dice over here. I guess--
AUDIENCE: OK, OK, what now?
GUEST SPEAKER: I'm more well-versed in the--
GUEST SPEAKER: The die is to roll
GUEST SPEAKER: OK, so can everyone hold on for a second? So what we're going to ask you to do is just play through this game a couple times? Then we're going to come back and apply the MDA framework to the game itself. And then if we have time, I think we're going to spend some time tweaking it? OK, cool. So we'll interrupt you guys-- actually, ten minutes probably. It's a pretty quick game.
This has sort of gone flat. So what we'd kind of like to do is hear about-- I guess we'll just go around the room in pairs and ask you to talk. Or do you want a minute to talk, to apply MDA to this and focus on some things? So I'm not like calling anyone on the spot.
PROFESSOR: Anybody want to volunteer what, how they felt? What was the aesthetic of this game?
AUDIENCE: There is none.
GUEST SPEAKER: There's no emotional affect.
PROFESSOR: It felt competitive.
AUDIENCE: The thing is, it's a very simple aesthetic. So in the paper they say you're going to the pleasure of using the aesthetic, but here you go straight to the mechanic and you're wondering about it.
PROFESSOR: You, it definitely is easy especially because especially for board games the mechanics are written down right in front of you, it's really easy when you look at that. But how did you feel while you were playing this game?
AUDIENCE: There was a sense of tension. There was maybe a sense of [INAUDIBLE] perhaps? There was a sense of-- I mean there was the intellectual challenge of working out is there really a meaningful decision to be made here? And if there is, what is the correct decision?
PROFESSOR: So thinking can I optimize this? Especially with this crowd, I think there was an immediate try to figure out what the right thing is. And I know you were trying to figure it out.
AUDIENCE: I think he correctly figured it out.
PROFESSOR: So is there an optimal way to play this game?
AUDIENCE: Yeah, OK, so if you're losing-- If you keep putting tokens down you're going to lose anyway. So you want to be rolling in order to increase the variance. And if you're winning, you want to be putting tokens down in order to move the variance. You can imagine if it's like a distribution. If you're below the winning line you want to widen it out as much as possible so as much of that distribution is above the winning line. And if you're above the winning line you want it to be as narrow as possible so you stay above the winning line.
PROFESSOR: So your strategy is basically based on what's the currency of the game.
AUDIENCE: Yeah, until the last turn where obviously you don't want to put a token down if you're two from the end. As long as no one can win on this turn, if I'm behind him I'm rolling the die. And if I'm ahead of him I'm putting down a token.
GUEST SPEAKER: Did anyone prefer a strategy before you started thinking about what was the best one?
AUDIENCE: I'm too lazy to use the tokens so I just keep rolling.
GUEST SPEAKER: And that's also part of the aesthetic of it right? You just happen to prefer the die roll.
AUDIENCE: On the first three spaces you should be getting the average if you roll [INAUDIBLE] if you put a token down. I personally like being conservative.
PROFESSOR: You win no matter what.
GUEST SPEAKER: I'm sorry what?
AUDIENCE: That's more exciting because it does different things.
AUDIENCE: The token gives you the illusion that you're actually playing.
PROFESSOR: Did anyone like get in the situation where they are really far behind in a different color?
AUDIENCE: No.
PROFESSOR: The actual difference-- one of the things that you do get in this game is the perceived distance between players. It's actually not that far. If the one behind actually has to still get in. I think people refer to this as the American Gladiators effect. You know how, American Gladiators-- actually, is this your example that I'm stealing?
GUEST SPEAKER: I don't remember, honestly.
PROFESSOR: Someone I can't help from stealing.
GUEST SPEAKER: I think it's in the book at some point, but I think we had applied it to this.
AUDIENCE: Plagiarism!
PROFESSOR: Yes, yes, well I'm crediting someone for this question. Citation needed. The basic idea being-- who's seen American Gladiators?
GUEST SPEAKER: They might be too old.
AUDIENCE: No, no, we had American Gladiators.
AUDIENCE: I've never-- I don't know what it is.
PROFESSOR: OK, there are also a number of Japanese game shows which are similar to this.
The basic idea of American Gladiators is that it's basically an obstacle course where the obstacles are people. Happen to be these athletic dudes and women who are either pummeling you with waffle sticks or shooting tennis balls at you out of a gun and stuff like that. And you basically have to get from the beginning to the end faster than the other team. Actually, faster than the other player. So it's two regular dudes and a whole bunch of athletes who are throwing things at you. Every time you get hit you have to go back a little bit.
But the thing about American Gladiators is that you have this long obstacle course. In fact, this was one of the events. This was always the final event of the entire TV show. Is that, you will have two people doing the same course. They will have to climb up a wall and then they will have to go down a zip line.
GUEST SPEAKER: But it was a cargo net specifically. So it was really difficult to climb up it.
PROFESSOR: Yeah, the big webbing kind of thing. It was like climbing the rigging off a ship. It was really, really, difficult. So what happens is that if you have two people who are really, really, far apart-- one person is way ahead-- and that person starts climbing the cargo net? It takes that person forever to get to the end of the cargo net, because climbing up cargo net is really, really, hard no matter who you are. That gives the person behind plenty of time to catch up and start climbing the cargo net.
But then, the person who was the leader in the first place hits the zip line. And all of a sudden there's a huge increase in distance. So this whole idea that they never really were all that far-- they never really changed their position. For most Gladiators games the winner has already been decided by their points. Because the first person who reaches the cargo net tends to win the match. But it looks like the lead just shrank because suddenly you've got both of them in one camera shot.
And then you've got that cute-- mom likes to call that dramatic tension. Which I think is a better description than it's other term for the same thing which is drama. Because it's not drama. It' s just tension really. But that's an aesthetic. You're going for the aesthetic of tension and coming up with a game that makes you feel like the fight is closer than it actually is. Or allowing someone to close the gap quickly because, many of you have pointed about, these things probabilistically mean exactly the same thing as a die roll.
Let's see. But the ability to increase a awkward gap to open up and then to close, that's actually a dynamic. That's actually a result of a number of different rules that are in the particular of the game. It's not written down that it's going to happen. But it's pretty much going to happen if you have two people playing those particular strategies, and one thing that happens pretty often.
What are the constraints that you're seeing in the design of this game here? What did this game have to do in order for it to be a viable in-class exercise?
AUDIENCE: Fit on a sheet of paper.
PROFESSOR: Fit on a sheet of paper. That's a huge one actually. Because first of all, it limits how many spaces you've got. Assuming everyone's using something like a die or a coin or something.
GUEST SPEAKER: I mean, you can laugh at that but it's literally how it went. I wanted it to fit on a sheet of paper and the spaces had to accommodate a die. So the number of spaces is a result of that.
AUDIENCE: It was almost like an accident.
PROFESSOR: Well you probably could have fit a few more squares in there.
GUEST SPEAKER: Probably, but you place some margins.
AUDIENCE: The rules have to fit on one sheet of paper as well. So the rules can't be that complicated.
PROFESSOR: Most of these rules are single sentences for the most part, because we are more than [INAUDIBLE]. It had to be quick. It had to work within 10 minutes. In fact, it had to work so you get through a few games within 10 minutes. Anyone only manage to get through one?
AUDIENCE: That'd be really hard.
PROFESSOR: So different aesthetics. So, this game tries to get really, really, tense. But obviously, the decisions that you're actually making in this game is minimal. You get to say, well if you are already losing, that has [INAUDIBLE]. One rational thing to do. But if you were playing this game, as Jason recommended, if I were playing this game against myself there really is no optimal strategy. I could pick two different strategies for each side.
AUDIENCE: It's whoever plays first basically. Whoever plays first is by default going to win.
PROFESSOR: On average.
AUDIENCE: I won every game but one. I did bad rolling dice.
GUEST SPEAKER: Because if you roll them now--
PROFESSOR: So I would like actually, folks to try mixing this up a little bit. Pick a rule in here, any rule, and alter it. You can do things like adding more squares. You can change the movement chart. One idea that I had, and someone was thinking probably more recent than me, which is what happens if you use the higher of two dice rolls instead of just one? [INAUDIBLE] to the probability. Play around with that. See what that feels like. And if that feels just boring try doing something else. So we've got 15 minutes?
GUEST SPEAKER: Yeah, that's reasonable.
PROFESSOR: And then, you'll tell the class about what you changed and how that changed the feeling of the game. Cool?
So, every two people, work with a team. Explain how your game, how your version works, and have the other group play it and vice versa. And what we're going to do once everyone's done, you will tell the class what you felt the other group's game felt like. So let someone else figure out what your game aesthetic is.
So, does any team want to just go first in describing the other team's game? OK, starting with you.
AUDIENCE: Do you want us to describe the rules they changed?
PROFESSOR: Uh, sure.
AUDIENCE: Or just say-- the main change in this version was that it's modular. So you have to land exactly on the end or otherwise you wrap around. It changed the aesthetic a lot because it stopped being a race against your opponent and became more of trying to figure out how you can use your tokens to precision just hit the end.
PROFESSOR: Oh, OK.
AUDIENCE: More methodical and thoughtful. You decide whether or not you're going to stockpile tokens to give you more winning squares and then you just waited until you landed on a winning square.
PROFESSOR: So you get a dis-computational motive to the game?
AUDIENCE: It was not as competitive.
AUDIENCE: So one of the discussions we had was, what if you had three tokens you could just get to the end. Because we made our tokens move four spaces.
PROFESSOR: OK.
AUDIENCE: But I just realized, you have to do the die roll after that.
AUDIENCE: Oh, yeah.
AUDIENCE: They had a really creative role where they had a 10 here. So it goes from 0 to 9. And you roll under a cup and that's the number of spaces away from the end. So from 0 to 9 that the winning point is. And at your turn you can either play normally or you can check to see where the winning point is.
If you've won, that triggers you winning. But you cannot win unless you physically check and confirm that you've won. So it eats up a turn, but it could be that after two rolls of two and this was a nine you've won. And it was a lot of fun basically because we had to figure out the optimal strategy but it was just fun.
PROFESSOR: So what's it feel like when you're trying to figure out what you're going to do?
AUDIENCE: He beat me by checking when it was far away and being lucky.
PROFESSOR: So if you don't check you have to reach the end to win. So you have to check, usually, anyway.
AUDIENCE: One thing Alecia had in mind when we were thinking about the rule was there ought to be information that you can get from how your opponent reacts after they look under the cup. So if they then go and start rolling again or what have you, or they then start options. But there must be some way that you can get a leak of information from their behavior which makes it interesting in a different way.
AUDIENCE: If you've have already seen the cup, and you get past the point, do you have to check to win?
AUDIENCE: Yeah, we played two different variants. One where you did. One where you didn't.
AUDIENCE: Oh, I see.
AUDIENCE: Well, you don't have to check the second time. If you check the first time and then you pass it you win.
AUDIENCE: So that's why there's one way of playing it.
PROFESSOR: So the person who checks could win even they're already passed the point? Am I understanding this right?
AUDIENCE: Well, if he's the first past the point. If you don't have check to win, so if you just need the knowledge of what the endpoint is, then if he passes it first he wins. If when he checks both players are at that spot then it's a tie.
AUDIENCE: But since it's a sequential game it's impossible. Other than, at the moment of the check if both players are at the same spot is it possible for them to win at the same time. So that's not really an issue.
AUDIENCE: What if I check, and you're past me, and you have passed the check spot?
AUDIENCE: I don't win.
AUDIENCE: OK.
AUDIENCE: Because I never checked. So as long as I don't know I don't win.
PROFESSOR: Hey, he makes me think of a different variant. But OK.
AUDIENCE: So what they did was they introduced a couple new rules. The first rule being that, the person who rolls first on their first turn they cannot put down a token. So they actually have to roll. The second rule is, whenever you roll if you have a bonus token on the stockpile you have two options after you roll.
One is, you can take it off and move two spaces like normal. The second is, you can choose to make that block impassible. So what this does is your opponent cannot land on that block. If they are already on that block they get pushed one block back. If they are behind it, and they roll and they move to that block, they get pushed one block behind it.
PROFESSOR: So they're changing the block while you're playing.
AUDIENCE: Yes.
PROFESSOR: And how did that feel while you were actually playing?
AUDIENCE: We didn't actually use it that much.
AUDIENCE: I felt like the penalty for the impassable block should have been more. Because if you land on the block that they're on, and make them move back one, that token would otherwise have made you move forward two. So it doesn't really reward you for that. I felt it could have been really awesome if the penalty was significantly more severe. Because it's hard to get in front of them enough to actually make a block impassable and have them land on it later.
AUDIENCE: Probably to all the way back or something.
AUDIENCE: Yeah exactly.
PROFESSOR: So try multiplying it by two and see what happens.
AUDIENCE: Yeah, and then you can always go land on it.
PROFESSOR: If you're like, hmm, that should have changed the game play but that didn't. One of the tricks in chapter one was just make it bigger and see what happens. If nothing else it will just give you more information on whether you should be spending any more time with this direction. Or whether it really isn't going to affect the way how people play because people don't end up caring about it.
So the rule of twos is just multiply something by two, or half it by two, and see what happens. Obviously halving by two would not in this work. Who else?
AUDIENCE: So actually they had these tokens as power-ups. And you would never actually take them off to move more spaces. You would just keep adding tokens and you could roll. So you can spend one turn to put a token on and in consequent rolls you could essentially say, I have N tokens therefore I roll N plus 1 dice and subtract N.
PROFESSOR: I think that's one dice.
AUDIENCE: --and then you roll a die for each token you have, and then you move back one space for each token you have.
PROFESSOR: Interesting.
AUDIENCE: So it moves your average and your maximum up each time.
AUDIENCE: So you could act it as a power yourself up.
AUDIENCE: And you could also remove tokens to take away tokens from the other guy, right?
AUDIENCE: Which we never actually did.
AUDIENCE: I guess we forgot to go into that, you don't take out all the tokens when you do your special move. They stay in there. Because, mathematically speaking if you take them off it makes it worse.
PROFESSOR: So, I mean, that's an important object lesson in how to explain the rules to the people. How'd it feel while you were playing their version?
AUDIENCE: It made my mind tired, being N plus 1 minus N. But, it was interesting. I actually used it. Before I said I would only use the die, but this time I actually used tokens.
PROFESSOR: And what happened when you actually used the token? Was it like yes!
AUDIENCE: Like I said, the math made it too hard.
PROFESSOR: Well something happened. It made you use the tokens as opposed to ignoring them.
AUDIENCE: It was interesting.
AUDIENCE: So, the rule that they gave was that if you are behind the player-- by behind, they mean if your piece is behind the other one.
AUDIENCE: Losing, in second place.
AUDIENCE: Right, but not in the imaginary sense. Well, whatever. If you're physically behind them then when you use a token you get to use one extra space ahead.
PROFESSOR: OK, if you use two tokens do you end up getting?
AUDIENCE: It's still one space.
PROFESSOR: So how did that feel?
AUDIENCE: It actually changed the strategy a little bit because in the beginning you basically don't want to be the person that moves first. Because then your opponent can just use all their tokens and get a lot better than you.
PROFESSOR: Oh, I see.
GUEST SPEAKER: You may want to talk about tokens and what it feels playing it ahead of you so that you can use them, you can--
AUDIENCE: Rather then you just sit at the start point every time.
AUDIENCE: So pretty much the person who goes second?
AUDIENCE: Is at an advantage.
PROFESSOR: So that should be a negative feedback loop, which we'll we get to I guess in the next class, but the whole idea being there is a gap between players. And you have game mechanics specifically designed to narrow the gap. Those are negative feedback loops.
AUDIENCE: Mario Kart!
PROFESSOR: Mario Kart's blue shell, it's the other direction right? To knock back the person who's leading rather than helping you catch up. Actually, a lot of Mario Kart's mechanics are basically designed to help reduce the lead. All right, cool.
AUDIENCE: They add one rule in keeping everything else equal. They add a second die and then the way it worked was you arbitrarily assigned people odd or even numbers. And then you roll and would go on that particular turn. And then that person, whoever it was assigned to, would play. And then you would roll again to see who would went the next turn and so on and so forth?
PROFESSOR: How'd that feel?
AUDIENCE: I got a tad memory with Mario Kart.
PROFESSOR: It's like what, again?
AUDIENCE: Many mechanics describe as very Mario Kart.
PROFESSOR: Well, Mario Kart is actually a collection of a lot of fairly fundamental mechanics.
AUDIENCE: I felt like just rolling to see who'd win. The sense that you were just playing for luck.
PROFESSOR: So it amplified the randomness basically?
AUDIENCE: Yeah, which I actually detest personally.
AUDIENCE: That rule is like initiative rule in Star Wars Miniatures and Dungeons and Dragons. And like in that case where there's actual strategic decisions to be made it's actually cool. Because it means that you never know whether you're going to be able to capitalize on the position that you're in at the end of the turn.
AUDIENCE: But since we both know optimal strategy for the original game it was just pure luck. So there was no strategy.
PROFESSOR: So it almost becomes like a gambling game or a game of chance. Cool.
AUDIENCE: They added different dice you could roll for different effects. Such as, if you roll the D20 you can go 10 spaces. If you need to go 17, 18--
AUDIENCE: Or 18, 19, 20.
AUDIENCE: -- Or 18, 19, 20. So they added the D10 which also had similar effects and deviate. So Patrick and I pretty much experimented with-- well, he just rolled D20 the entire time. And I experimented with rolling the D8 and the D10.
AUDIENCE: Why would you not roll the D10?
AUDIENCE: I started feeling impatient. I would forget everything about Alec and what he wanted to do. And every turn I would roll the D20 hoping to get 18, 19, or 20.
AUDIENCE: By the way, with the D20 if you don't roll any of those you go zero spaces. So that's actually the risk.
PROFESSOR: So you could either win the game or go nowhere.
AUDIENCE: So I roll the D20 wanting to get 18,19, or 20. And not until I roll the 18, 19, or 20 would I care where he was on the board.
PROFESSOR: It's you and the dice. It's just you and the randomness.
AUDIENCE: I rolled twice too.
PROFESSOR: Like what you described earlier is that whether you're behind or in front of someone changed the way that you would play in the original version. Now, no longer really matters anymore, right? It's just you and the dice. And when the universe loves you, you just automatically win.
AUDIENCE: The intention was to have the D20 for when you were way behind and the other one if you were only slightly behind. Apparently that's not how it was used. [INAUDIBLE] design, right?
PROFESSOR: Well, a good example of the aesthetic you were going for not being the aesthetic that was actually experienced. So, it's still a powerful aesthetic it's just a different thing than what you planned.
I think I might have skipped you guys? Sorry about that.
AUDIENCE: So their new rule was, if you are physically ahead and you roll a six instead of only going three you would go four.
PROFESSOR: If you're physically ahead and you roll a six you go? Oh, OK.
AUDIENCE: At first, we tried playing it in a similar way of how we did before. And it really felt like the person who was ahead was ahead even more. And now everyone's rolling, because as soon as you roll you get a higher expectation value.
PROFESSOR: So you prefer the low-ball luck rather than the?
AUDIENCE: So the problem is if you put a token down and they roll at least a one so you're guaranteed you're going to be the high. And then they have a higher expectation.
PROFESSOR: How does it feel to play? Mathematically that's what it means, but--
AUDIENCE: Actually, in playing the first game I don't think it actually came up at all.
AUDIENCE: And then in the second game, I believe it did? And to me it didn't really feel like it changed.
AUDIENCE: For me, the entire time I felt like the person who was ahead was more ahead.
AUDIENCE: It would come up more if your board was longer. It really encourages you to stockpile for the first few turns. But if you're encouraged more than you might want to search. That's contrary to--
GUEST SPEAKER: When you guys were going over mistakes did you feel like it changed your strategy?
AUDIENCE: It made rolling feel like a [INAUDIBLE]. Which was the point right? That's what you guys were aiming for?
AUDIENCE: The alternate rule that we had toyed with was, if you're ahead and you put down a token you have to roll. And if you get a six you have to move one step back. So there's a one in six chance that there'll be a penalty for [INAUDIBLE]. Because precisely what you mentioned, which is that when you're ahead the dominant strategy is to reduce the variance. So we were just playing with stuff to make you want to roll more basically.
PROFESSOR: OK, so dynamically that tells you to roll more. I would say aesthetically you have the whole Monopoly situation where the person who's winning just keeps winning. And there are times when you actually want that feeling.
Especially when it came to the game of Monopoly, the whole point of the game was huge financial embarrassments. And it's like, wow I have no money and I'm just going to keep losing money. That was the point of the game actually. That's why it's called Monopoly.
AUDIENCE: The thing about it is, the person who's physically ahead may not actually be ahead in terms of absolute game play because the other person has stockpiled tokens. And we weren't sure whether determining who was ahead by counting the tokens in the equation or not was a better game rule if we didn't have that type of test.
PROFESSOR: Give it a shot [INAUDIBLE]. The one thing we came up with was-- at first we thought it wouldn't change the game at all I guess. Which was basically, instead of spending tokens to go forward two steps you spend tokens to knock your opponent back two steps. Completely changed the game play.
AUDIENCE: We tried that. It sucks.
AUDIENCE: Stock piled first and then you knock people back so you didn't go anywhere for the first 10 turns. And then you realize that nothing is going to happen.
AUDIENCE: And then we just kept rolling.
AUDIENCE: Rolled the rest of the time.
PROFESSOR: Which is a completely different way to play the game. That whole process of stockpiling right at the beginning is-- sure, we could have both started with a stack of three each because that's really what happened three turns in. But the whole act of-- that felt really like, OK clearly you're setting out to kill me.
AUDIENCE: Can you move?
PROFESSOR: No, we had it so it wouldn't be a point spending it when you're right at the beginning. But there was that whole arms race feel that really didn't happen the first game. All it did really was make the game longer, but it felt mean.
OK, that's pretty much it for today I guess.
GUEST SPEAKER: And we need the poker chips and all the dice back but you can keep the game boards if you're really happy with them.
AUDIENCE: How long did this game take you to make?
GUEST SPEAKER: It took longer to make the board than to make the rules.
iTunes U (MP3 - 11MB)
Internet Archive (MP3 - 11MB)
English-US (SRT)


text:
Time for global leadership, Japan-style
4 Feb 2019|Shiro Armstrong
Japan has taken up the G20 presidency at a key time in global economic affairs and has the opportunity to shepherd the global economy through a period of greater uncertainty than there has been in decades. But the task is tough. Not only are the issues on which progress must be made substantial, but Japan's G20 presidency will effectively be one of the shortest ever, with leaders meeting in the middle of 2019.
The World Trade Organization, at the core of the multilateral trading system, is in crisis. With only three out of its seven possible appellate court judges, the WTO's dispute settlement body is down to the minimum number of judges needed to function. If one of the three judges has to recuse himself or herself from a case or becomes unable to serve, the enforcement mechanism of the multilateral trading system will cease to function. This is the system that holds countries accountable to the world trade rules and, without it, a core function of the WTO will collapse.
It's the United States that is vetoing the appointment of new judges because it says it wants changes to the system.
The importance of the multilateral trading system and dispute settlement mechanism is more hardwired into Japanese strategic thinking than perhaps that of any other country. Japan's post-war reconstruction and rapid rise were made possible by reliance on open international markets underpinned by the WTO's predecessor, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The WTO entrenched the dispute settlement process that has avoided much conflict over trade issues. Recently, for example, the dispute over the cutback in Chinese exports of rare-earth metals to Japan and other countries was resolved in a WTO dispute settlement case. China accepted the ruling against it. Japan didn't retaliate and the matter was settled peacefully. For Japan and other countries, the WTO dispute settlement system works.
The WTO, of course, is far from perfect and is in need of some reform. The failure to conclude the Doha Development Round—the most recent negotiations on multilateral liberalisation, which started in 2001—has meant that some rules are out of date or do not exist for new areas of commerce relevant for the 21st century. Gaps in the rules have become issues of contention between the major trading powers.
The leaders of the G20 recognise the importance of reform and, for the first time, in the communiqué from last November's meeting in Argentina, they committed 'to work together to improve a rules-based international order that is capable of effectively responding to a rapidly changing world'.
There is now an opening for G20 leaders to set the strategic direction of reform for the WTO. As the president of the G20, Japan has a responsibility to develop a framework to help prioritise reforms and catalyse action on those that are most urgent. A clear direction needs to be set during Osaka's G20 summit, or else momentum will be lost.
Of all the areas in which the WTO needs to change, priority must be given to those that help to settle the trade tensions between China and the United States. The trade war has already affected global trade and shaken confidence in global markets, disrupting investment and reorganising some supply chains. Confidence in the multilateral trading system is at stake. Trade wars can easily spread as countries incurring direct or collateral damage seek to 'protect' themselves or retaliate by putting trade barriers up.
A G2 deal between the US and China that eases trade tensions may seem a positive outcome but will do little to calm the now bipartisan push in the US to contain the rise of China. There is also a real chance that a bilateral deal would undermine the multilateral trading system. The proposed packages of massive Chinese purchases of US energy and agricultural goods may temporarily ease bilateral tensions but will likely be outside of the established rules and potentially divert trade from others.
The global economy will be better served by a US–China deal that is done within a multilateral framework, extending market opening in China to other countries on a most-favoured-nation basis. That would serve Chinese interests as well, even though the instinct will be to do a narrow, bilateral deal to appease the Trump administration. This is where countries like Japan are crucial for marshalling support from other countries to encourage China in particular to avoid a narrow, bilateral settlement and frame a multilateral settlement.
Japan has the ability to mobilise and work with like-minded countries in Asia and around the world to preserve the open, liberal rules-based order and to set a direction on strengthening it. Such an approach will make it easier to avoid a bilateral game of divide and conquer played out of Washington or Beijing.
There will be plenty of distractions for Japan as it negotiates its own bilateral deal with the US, manages a successful G20 summit and continues to improve its relations with China while managing all the attendant risks. But these challenges will be made easier if Japan works with a coalition of middle powers that share the same core interest in an open, rules-based multilateral order.
The success or failure of Japan's G20 presidency ultimately depends on whether that is the defining strategic outcome of the Osaka summit next June.
Shiro Armstrong is director of the Australia–Japan Research Centre and the Asian Bureau of Economic Research in the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University. This post, adapted from a longer article originally published on REITI, first appeared on the East Asia Forum; it has been republished with kind permission. Edited image courtesy of the PM's Office of Japan on Flickr.
US–China relations
Globalisation at a crossroads
Australia's diplomatic course between China and the United States
One dinner won't fix the US–China relationship
China, Japan and Trump's America
How to avoid a trade war


text:
New World Records in Skeet Women
06 August 2013 — Views: 189
The Qualification of Skeet Women ended in a tie. All the six athletes who got through to the Semifinal had the result of 70 points. Cigdem Ozyaman from Turkey, Panagiota Andreou from Cyprus, Katiuscia Spada from Italy, Christine Wenzel from Germany, Danka Bartekova from Slovakia and Chiara Cainero from Italy were among them.
The Turkish Ozyaman and the Italian Cainero were the two best athletes of the Semifinal who made it to the Gold Match, both receiving 15 points. The German Wenzel and the Slovakian Bartekova went through to the Bronze Match. Bartekova needed a shoot-off, in which she beat the Italian Spada.
In the Gold Match Chiara Cainero gave no chance to Ozyaman and won the European Championship 14-12. In the Bronze Match the competitors finished with the equal result of 13 points. In the shoot-off Bartekova was the winner again.
Italy became the gold winner of the team competition with the new world and European record result of 206 points. The team consisted of Chiara Cainero (70 points), Katiuscia Spada (70 points) and Diana Bacosi (66 points). Great Britain (205 points) became the winner of the silver medal and Slovakia (202 points) ranked third.
In Skeet Women Junior Natalia Vinogradova from the Russian Federation became the gold winner. In the Gold Match she beat the German Nadine Messerschmidt 13-12. In the Bronze Match Iryna Malovichko from Ukraine defeated the Italian Chiara Di Marziantonio 14-10.
In junior team competition the Russian Federation and Ukraine finished with the new world and European record of 189 points. The Czech Republic ranked third with the result of 187 points.


text:
Q: OpenCV: Getting precise differences between two frames with little changes According to this post OCR & OpenCV: Difference between two frames on high resolution images, I am now able to correctly detect differences between two frames of a video with OpenCV.
I'm now trying to tune this algorithm with different data. Typically on the three following pictures I only get the green lines as differences and not the text at all (which is what is the most interesting). I'm trying to understand better how things work for this.
1st image:

2nd image:

3rd image:

As you can see I only have those green lines and never the text (at the best I can have just ONE letter when decreasing the countours[i].size() from the algorithm on the quoted post)
Original PNG images :
1st image
2nd image

A: If you are using code from the answer to your linked question - this is quite expected. The answerer advices you to remove noise, find contours and extract area in the convex hull of the closed contour. But most of your differences, which are small and thin, will be removed after this kind of filtering.
Try doing a simple subtraction of your input images - it will likely be better. If not - post result here and we will try to improve it.
Edit:
This simple code seems to do the job:
#include <opencv2/opencv.hpp>

using namespace cv;

int main() {
  Mat a = imread("a.jpg");
  Mat b = imread("b.jpg");

  Mat diff;
  absdiff(a, b, diff);

  imwrite("c.jpg", diff);
  imshow("diff", diff);

  waitKey();

  return 0;
}

Result:

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Made in Britain: Online photography brand, Picfair.com
By Balmond HyperCategories: Business, Financial, Global Business
Former New York Times writer Benji Lanyado of Picfair.com explains how his company is changing the world of online photography.
Tell us about your business?
I'm Benji Lanyado, the CEO and founder of Picfair.com. Picfair is a photography platform that powers over half a million photography portfolios across the globe. Our free store builder helps any photographer sell their images in multiple formats at prices they choose – with ecommerce, print production and global delivery all neatly baked into the design.
What was the inspiration behind your business?
I used to be a travel writer for the Guardian and the New York Times, and spent a huge amount of time sourcing imagery for my pieces. It drove me crazy that the only options available to me were crappy, inauthentic agency stock images.
I started digging into the mechanics of buying and selling images online and was amazed by how broken it was. Amateurs were almost completely excluded, the licensing systems were a quagmire, and the agencies were shafting their photographers by keeping the vast majority of the royalties to themselves. I became obsessed with creating a platform that allowed any photographer to sell an image to anyone, in any format, simply and fairly.
I quit my job and learned how to code at night classes, then built the first version of Picfair myself. It was initially a marketplace, but the business really exploded when we took the technology we'd developed for the marketplace and baked it into a standalone store product – giving photographers all the tools they need to showcase and sell their images, and doing all the heavy lifting (licensing, print production, global shipping etc) when they make a sale.
We now have over 500,000 photographers from across the globe using Picfair-powered stores, which have become the main focus of the business.
What does your role in the company consist of?
As Picfair has grown, I've generally attached myself to whatever I think the most important part of the business is, before then replacing myself in that role. Initially I was writing code, then I was doing sales, then I was managing product, and then I found people much better than me to do all that stuff. These days I'm focused on performance advertising and brand marketing and growing the team.
What sets you apart from your competition?
Our product is comprehensive – we deal with everything from image metadata enrichment to watermark protection to ecommerce to print production and global shipping. And it's wildly simple to use – the vast majority of our users are launching an online portfolio for the first time. We're also the only platform to offer both a store builder and a marketplace with a single point of upload, and we're the only platform to offer an entry-level product for free (photographers can upgrade their store functionality for a subscription fee).
How do you spread the word about your business?
We've been very active on social media – with almost 200k followers across various platforms. We've also baked viral hooks into the product – the free versions of Picfair stores display our "powered by Picfair" branding on it, meaning every time someone launches a store, they're also launching a little Picfair advert. Recently, we've invested in performance marketing on Facebook & Google, which we do all in-house.
How has business been during the Covid-19 pandemic?
Really strong. A lot of people turned or returned to photography as a hobby during the pandemic and launching your first photography site was a good way for thousands of people to pass the time while locked down. We grew from 100k to 400k photographers in 2020. Encouragingly, the momentum has continued as the pandemic has abated in our core markets (UK, Europe & North America).
How do you see your market evolving over the next few years?
We're most excited about a whole generation of iphonographers starting to take their photography more seriously, as the power of smartphones and mobile editing software improves exponentially. Owning a DSLR used to be the number one indicator that you're a potential Picfair user. Now if you're a young photographer who takes their time choosing the right instagram filter or loves fiddling around with mobile presets and post-shot editing apps, you're just as likely to be a Picfair photographer as someone with a Canon 5D.
What's the hardest thing about running a business?
For me, it has been raising investment while Picfair established our product and market. Raising money is a huge time drain that entails a lot more failure than success, and it pulls you away from the thing you want to be doing most – building the business. It has become easier as the business has grown, as I've been able to move from pitching with my heart to pitching with a financial model (and heart).
We've got an amazing array of investors. There are a few institutions on our cap table but it's mostly angels – including Alexis Ohanian of Reddit (otherwise known as Mr Serena Williams), Anthony Eskinazi of Just Park, and Chris Sheldrick of what3words.
What have been the biggest challenges you've faced?
Recently, it's been onboarding new team members while working remotely. I'm a real convert to remote working and Picfair team members now work wherever they are most productive and happy, but onboarding new starters is really tough via Zoom. So much of what you learn in a new role is via osmosis. It's meant we've had to really double down on how we introduce new team members and support them as they integrate.
What's the best decision you've made so far?
Experimenting with a standalone photography store product to complement the marketplace – it exploded the business. Also hiring a social media intern in the early days of the company who has gone on to become our COO.
If you could go back and change one thing, what would it be?
I wasted a lot of time in the early days of the company trying to raise VC cash because I thought raising VC cash was the cool thing to do. I'm very glad everyone rejected me because it would've been the wrong kind of investment at that stage of the business. In retrospect it was my ego that drove my VC pursuit – I was told that it was impossible for a first-time founder to raise VC cash so became determined to do it.
What has been your proudest achievement so far?
Getting the business off the ground in the first place. I think that's the hardest bit – working out how to make an idea into a real thing that people actually use.
What are your hopes for your business in the next five years?
That Picfair becomes the number one brand in online photography. We want every photographer on the planet to have heard of us.
What Entrepreneurs Can Do to Overcome the Impact of Natural Disasters


text:
Q: Restoring queue state in Tensorflow from checkpoint Context: I am training a model using an Estimator. Without extraneous details, I am using queues to read in a series of input images, which are batched and manipulated using an input function which I am call "read_pics_batch":
with tf.Session() as sess:
   sess.run(tf.global_variables_initializer())
   sess.run(tf.local_variables_initializer())
   coord = tf.train.Coordinator()
   threads = tf.train.start_queue_runners(sess=sess, coord=coord)

   keypoint_regression.fit(
       input_fn = lambda: inp_mod.read_pics_batch(names_train, \
       joint_annopoints_train,num_in_batch,max_num_epochs,'TRAIN'),
       steps= max_steps_per_epoch*max_num_epochs, # max number of steps
       monitors=[logging_hook])

   coord.request_stop()
   coord.join(threads)

The input function has the following form, where I am also randomising the input file order:
def read_pics_batch(names_list,joint_list,batch_size,max_num_epochs,task):

    names_tensor = tf.convert_to_tensor(names_list, dtype=tf.string)
    joint_total_tensor = tf.convert_to_tensor(joint_list, dtype=tf.int32)

    min_after_dequeue = 100
    capacity = min_after_dequeue + 3 * batch_size

    file_pattern = [("...")]

    examples = graph_io.read_keyed_batch_examples(file_pattern, batch_size, \
        reader = tf.WholeFileReader, randomize_input = True, \
        parse_fn = example_to_standard_pic, \
        num_epochs = max_num_epochs, queue_capacity = capacity)

My questions are as follows:
1) Is there any way to restore the queue state from a checkpoint, like any other variable? If "randomize_input" from read_keyed_batch_examples would be set to False, than at each restart of the training_op I would read the same input files over and over, which is clearly not what I want.
2) If randomize_input = True, how exactly does the queue decide which files to enqueue? I see two possible options and I am unsure which is correct:

*

*it selects a short-list of size "capacity" (from the full-list given by all the filenames defined by "file_pattern") and then randomises the order of the names in this short-list

*it randomises the names in the full-list first, and then creates a short-list of size "capacity" out of this
If the second case applies, I don't believe that I would actually need to restore the queue state, since I would in principle read different files every time, but if the first case applies, I would still be reading the same few files over and over, just in a different order.
Thank you for your time!


North Bay artist Tevna comes with a trippy new single "Channeling", which has a clean techno like instrumental.
The single is very different than we expected, Tevna implements a lot of her harmonic singing and some instances of using some rap melodies.
Overall Tevna proves to create a sound and image all of her own. The cover art to the single is provactively fitting for the song, and overall we are excited to see the progression from Tevna.


text:
NFL Nation
Choose Blog...
Choose Blog...NFL NationAFC NorthBaltimore RavensCleveland BrownsCincinnati BengalsPittsburgh SteelersAFC SouthHouston TexansIndianapolis ColtsJacksonville JaguarsTennessee TitansAFC EastBuffalo BillsMiami DolphinsNew England PatriotsNew York JetsAFC WestDenver BroncosKansas City ChiefsOakland RaidersLos Angeles ChargersNFC NorthChicago BearsDetroit LionsGreen Bay PackersMinnesota VikingsNFC SouthAtlanta FalconsNew Orleans SaintsCarolina PanthersTampa Bay BuccaneersNFC EastDallas CowboysNew York GiantsPhiladelphia EaglesWashington RedskinsNFC WestArizona CardinalsLos Angeles RamsSan Francisco 49ersSeattle Seahawks
How DeVante Parker is erasing 'bust' talk, rewriting his Dolphins story
46dCameron Wolfe
Touchdown-maker Antonio Gates set standard for pass-catching tight ends
12hEric Williams
Sean McVay gives up a piece of Rams' offense, grows as a head coach
12hLindsey Thiry
Mike McCarthy happy for Packers, says he's learning from former team
12hTodd Archer
13hAdam Teicher
Chiefs sound drained at mere prospect of facing Derrick Henry again
2dAdam Teicher
Former surfer Raheem Mostert riding the wave as 49ers' X factor
2dNick Wagoner
From Dolphins discard to Titans treasure, Ryan Tannehill had 'to move on'
2dCameron Wolfe
Scott Turner 'a big fan' of Dwayne Haskins, expects to see commitment
3dJohn Keim
Major changes coming for Eagles as they usher in youth movement
3dTim McManus
Pass-rushers wanted: Seahawks enter offseason needing more pressure
3dBrady Henderson
John Elway and the Broncos are changing how they do things
Fortune favors the bold: QB wasn't a need when Chiefs drafted Patrick Mahomes
Chase McLaughlin has leg up to replace Adam Vinatieri as Colts kicker
3dMike Wells
Dale Earnhardt Jr.: Luke Kuechly set 'amazing example' with decision
3dDavid Newton
Chiefs' Chris Jones misses practice, but Travis Kelce works out
Berry: Parker is a 'set-it-and-forget-it WR' (0:56)
Matthew Berry and Field Yates urge fantasy managers to start DeVante Parker based on his production and the favorable matchups over the next several weeks. (0:56)
Cameron WolfeESPN Staff Writer
Covered the Broncos for two seasons with the Denver Post
Graduate of the University of Houston
A native of Jackson, Miss.
DAVIE, Fla. -- DeVante Parker still remembers the social media comments, the ones players try to avoid reading, even though it's nearly impossible in this era.
"You're a bust. Waste of a pick. Injury-prone. Charmin soft," Parker grimaced as he recalled the harshest comments.
This offseason, he used it as motivation. The shirt he rocked heading into the Miami Dolphins' 37-31 upset win against the Philadelphia Eagles -- a game he finished with a career-high 159 receiving yards and two touchdowns -- summed it up. "Do it for the Doubters," it said.
"I was perceived as a bust. Some of [the media] said it, too. Things change now," Parker said.
Parker, Miami's first-round pick in 2015 (14th overall), is right. He's rewriting his narrative in his fifth NFL season, on track to surpass 1,000 yards for the first time, with 53 catches for 854 yards and six touchdowns through 12 games. Parker, 26, is establishing himself as a core piece for the rebuilding Dolphins (3-9).
"I've always had a lot of confidence in DeVante. I remember even when I wasn't even here and coaching at another organization, him coming out -- his skill set -- I thought he had some special qualities for a big player," Dolphins receivers coach Karl Dorrell said. "He's become a really good player by practicing and playing hard. ... I feel good about where his development is, and I know that he's going to get even better."
Remaining healthy, playing hurt
Miami receiver DeVante Parker, in his fifth year, is having by far his best season, with 53 catches for 853 yards and six touchdowns through 12 games. Photo by Michael Reaves/Getty Images
It has been a long journey for Parker, who always had the talent but never lived up to his first-round expectations. There were multiple reasons for that, most of them related to his inability to stay healthy and play at a high level when he wasn't 100 percent.
Parker enjoyed chicken nuggets and other unhealthy foods, skipping breakfast and playing video games into the early morning, habits previous Dolphins regimes tried to break. His decision to start taking care of his body seems to have unlocked the best version of him.
Parker started acupuncture and weekly massages to maximize recovery after games and practices. He improved his eating habits, started hydrating better and made treatment a priority if an injury came up. Strength and conditioning coach Dave Puloka also helped Parker gain muscle and quickness through his offseason workout plan.
Best of NFL Nation
• The 'best man' battle: LaFleur vs. Saleh
• Baseball helped Titans' Brown blossom
• Chiefs sound drained at facing Henry
• Mostert riding wave as 49ers' X factor
• What Browns are getting in Stefanski
"It's up to the player. When you're 22 years old and you're just coming in the league and it's the first time you've ever had any money and it's the first time you're dealing with playing in this league and it's a long season, some of those things that you're talking about -- acupuncture and massages and hydration -- they kind of fall by the wayside," Dolphins coach Brian Flores said. "As you get older in this league, you understand that those things are very important and that everything you do counts."
Dorrell and offensive coordinator Chad O'Shea can't remember Parker missing one practice since the spring. That's a remarkable turnaround for a player who missed game action and practices because of nagging injuries in each of his first four seasons. He missed eight games the past two seasons.
"When you are available and you're at practice, you're going to improve, and I think that's the one thing that he's really embraced," O'Shea said.
Dorrell recalls telling Parker stories of players he coached, such as Pro Bowl receiver Brandon Marshall, and what made them great. The common thread was learning the importance of professionalism, taking care of their bodies and knowing the difference between "hurt" and "injured."
"Most of the great players in this league, they play the game hurt. Sometimes you're not feeling great, and you have to still shine," Dorrell said. "Everybody is sore at this part of the season, but [you] can do it better than most. He's understanding that and building upon that."
What does Parker say he will appreciate most from this 2019 season? "Staying healthy was my top goal," he said. "That has helped change everything."
Securing the 50-50 balls
Quarterback Ryan Fitzpatrick figured the coverage was tight, and it would take a great grab from Parker to secure his fourth-down heave along the left sideline. Even if Parker did that, Fitzpatrick figured, there was no way he could keep his feet in bounds. But Parker did. He "Mossed" cornerback Ronald Darby, tight-roped the sideline and scored the Dolphins' opening touchdown to set the tone for their improbable win against the Eagles.
"That was amazing," Fitzpatrick said. "I talk about him every week as just being a consistent, reliable guy that he really got it going [Sunday] and really fueled us as an offense. He wanted that ball on every play ... when you're throwing to a guy like that that's making plays like that, it's easy to play quarterback."
Fourth down? Just throw it up to @DeVanteParker11 🔥#PHIvsMIA #FinsUp pic.twitter.com/LMEuWAVLCY
— Miami Dolphins (@MiamiDolphins) December 1, 2019
Since Fitzpatrick reentered the starting lineup in Week 7, Parker has 40 catches for 625 yards and four touchdowns. He ranks third among all receivers in yards, is tied for fifth in catches and is tied for sixth in touchdowns in that span.
Parker says he loves playing with Fitzpatrick because he allows him to make plays, adding, "if I see it in the air, it's mine."
The duo's timing has been money since spring. Fitzpatrick, the gunslinger, loves to rip it deep. At 6-foot-3 and 216 pounds, he loves to rip the ball out of a defender's grasp and make a big play. It's the former basketball player in Parker who relishes securing the rebound.
Parker leads the league with four tight-window (within 1 yard of a defender) receiving touchdowns, per NFL Next Gen Stats. Against Philly, he became the fourth player this season with multiple tight-window receiving touchdowns in a game.
"Your ability to win the 50-50 ball really separates you as a player, and I certainly thought he separated himself by winning those," said O'Shea, who was the Patriots' receivers coach for the past decade before he became the Dolphins' playcaller in February.
With four games left, Parker is 146 yards shy of the elusive 1,000-yard season. If he stays healthy, that benchmark should be obtainable for the Dolphins' most consistent offensive player this season.
"It would be amazing to get it. I've never had it since high school," Parker said. "The team is No. 1, but everybody has goals, and that definitely is one of mine."
Clean slate, bright future
Parker was surprised to re-sign a two-year deal with the Dolphins in March. He was coming off his worst season as a pro, it seemed the fan base had completely turned on him, and his relationship with former coach Adam Gase had turned rocky near the end.
"These new coaches gave me an opportunity," Parker said. "They believed in me. They gave me a fresh chance. It's like the past couple of years never happened. It's been a blessing."
Parker has taken advantage of it, and now Dolphins fans can dream of the receiving duo of Parker and rookie Preston Williams for years to come.
"He's developing into the player that everybody thought he could be," Dorrell said of Parker.
Teammates who saw Parker deal with the adversity glow when they talk about how he has redefined himself.
"I couldn't be more happy for him because he's taken a lot of criticism that he didn't deserve in the past, and he's been making a ton of plays," tight end Mike Gesicki said.
Center Daniel Kilgore added: "I heard the stories and narrative about DeVante. But now he's showcasing what he truly can do as a player this season."
Parker is trying to look forward, not back. He is aiming for a long-term extension with Miami and would like to stay beyond his current deal, which expires in 2020.
"I want to be here. I'm glad they want me to be here," Parker said. "I'm glad it's all working out. Things change."