Difference between revisions of "Hofstetter-Robles2019"
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
|Author(s)=Emily Hofstetter; Jessica Robles | |Author(s)=Emily Hofstetter; Jessica Robles | ||
| − | |Title=Manipulation in | + | |Title=Manipulation in board game interactions: being a sporting player |
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Games; Manipulation; Morality | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Games; Manipulation; Morality | ||
|Key=Hofstetter-Robles2019 | |Key=Hofstetter-Robles2019 | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
|Pages=301–320 | |Pages=301–320 | ||
|URL=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/symb.396 | |URL=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/symb.396 | ||
| − | |DOI= | + | |DOI=10.1002/symb.396 |
| − | |Abstract=Deception and manipulation are expected in strategic gameplay, but how do players negotiate what counts as acceptable kinds of manipulation? We compare three examples from a corpus of 30 hours of competitive board game play, using conversation analysis to examine how players orient to the reasonableness of manipulations. We show that contingencies of timing of the attribution and receipt of the manipulation are as morally concerned as manipulation itself. Players organize their negotiations of acceptability around the concept of a “sporting” player or move. The “sporting” resource shows one situated members' method for collaboratively managing fairness and morality in play | + | |Abstract=Deception and manipulation are expected in strategic gameplay, but how do players negotiate what counts as acceptable kinds of manipulation? We compare three examples from a corpus of 30 hours of competitive board game play, using conversation analysis to examine how players orient to the reasonableness of manipulations. We show that contingencies of timing of the attribution and receipt of the manipulation are as morally concerned as manipulation itself. Players organize their negotiations of acceptability around the concept of a “sporting” player or move. The “sporting” resource shows one situated members' method for collaboratively managing fairness and morality in play. |
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 01:23, 19 January 2020
| Hofstetter-Robles2019 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Hofstetter-Robles2019 |
| Author(s) | Emily Hofstetter, Jessica Robles |
| Title | Manipulation in board game interactions: being a sporting player |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Games, Manipulation, Morality |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2019 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Symbolic Interaction |
| Volume | 42 |
| Number | 2 |
| Pages | 301–320 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1002/symb.396 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Deception and manipulation are expected in strategic gameplay, but how do players negotiate what counts as acceptable kinds of manipulation? We compare three examples from a corpus of 30 hours of competitive board game play, using conversation analysis to examine how players orient to the reasonableness of manipulations. We show that contingencies of timing of the attribution and receipt of the manipulation are as morally concerned as manipulation itself. Players organize their negotiations of acceptability around the concept of a “sporting” player or move. The “sporting” resource shows one situated members' method for collaboratively managing fairness and morality in play.
Notes
