Phones, Blogs, and Baseball

First a disclaimer: in 2008 I left Sprint,after a tumtuous 9 year relationship with the pin-dropping company. I left because my Motorola Q would’t last past 9:30pm, and there wasn’t much better available in their line. I tried Verizon, but I couldn’t hear anything, AT&T I hated the Pearl, T-mobile I couldn’t get service at the desk in my home office (ok, bedroom), so with a sigh and a stack of abandoned phones, I returned to Sprint, reasonably pleased with their new team player, the Blackberry Curve.

The highlight was when I called T-Mobile to cancel my service. I explained my issue and the customer service rep offered to–get this–send a technician *to my house* to help determine why my service was so poor. As much out of genuine shock at the suggestion as anything else I responded, “Are you serious?!” The T-Mobile rep clearly didn’t like my tone and shot back, “On the other hand, I don’t know why we would. You’re coming through just fine now!” I very simply replied, “I’m calling you from my Sprint phone…”

But I melted when the iPhone 3G came out. GPS, high quality pictures, and apps that could tell me (and sell me) the great tune booming over the speakers in the bar at Cambridge 1, help me and my friends figure out how the heck to split a dinner check 7 ways with an 18% tip (::shrug:: service wasn’t 20% caliber), and record my lengthy brlliant thoughts while I walk down the street, looking like I’m talking to someone on the phone, instead of just myself. I Loved this thing.

And I still do. Heck, even with a laptop in the other room, I’m sitting on the couch, celebrating another Red Sox win, listening to NESN’s T.C. break down Beckett’s performance with a “Look Ahead” to Wakefield’s next outing, while I sit here tapping out this blog entry letter by letter… on my phone.

What’s love if you don’t make the most of its benefits?

You can edit this ad by going editing the index.php file or opening /images/exampleAd.gif

Always Eat Lunch Alone. (Surprised?)

flickr: by Ian Fuller

flickr: by Ian Fuller

I’ve written it, and I mean it. Why?

1. Lunch meetings, business or social, take too long, and feel too short. Time is lost figuring out and placing orders, only to end up losing more time negotiating the check. There is rarely much “quality” time at a lunch meeting.

2. It’s awkward. Let’s be frank, it is hard to eat and talk. If you find it easy to eat and talk, something is wrong. Please consider reviewing your table manners. ;)

3. YOU NEED THAT TIME TO THINK. Lunch is the only time when everyone agrees it’s ok to be out of the office, store, or attic (if that’s where your business is). Your best thinking happens when you are away from your desk, and having uninterrupted time for creativity. Minds need to wander. Robert Mankoff, The New Yorker’s Naked Cartoonist, explained it like this:

Trying to get ideas is like trying to remember a name that’s on the tip of your tongue. The harder you try, the more it eludes you. When it comes to ideas, conscious effort is conscious interference. The only way you can approach the task is obliquely.

Lunch is a valuable opportunity to let go of your directed “what’s next on the list” activities and just let your mind browse over ideas in a relaxed way. Manage projects over the web, not lunch. You will go further on the brilliant ideas you generate in that hour than you will by hammering out details for an existing project while trying to eat. Make way for inspiration!

I am still old school enough to believe that face time is critical for collaborative creativity, I just don’t think it should be at lunch. The next time you’re planning a lunch meeting for business, consider asking for a coffee date instead. Like lunch, it is also an acceptable reason to be away from your desk. The process is much more straightforward: “I’ll have a grande soy no foam 4 pump Chai, please.” (For me that is straightforward!)

My point is, everyone knows what they get when they go for coffee. You pay at the counter and then that’s done with. You can enjoy it indoors or out, or on your way back to the office, if you’re trying to be really efficient. Now you’ve gotten out of the office twice in one day, generated a brilliant idea during your lunch hour, and–over coffee with a co-worker or friend–shared your idea and started laying groundwork for making it a reality. Most importantly, you’ve also re-charged on the caffeine front to get through the next couple hours of the day. Amazing!

Why We Still Need the Boston Globe

The Boston Globe is currently running a 7-part series, “Ted Kennedy,” chronicling the history of Sen. Edward Kennedy (D, MA).

The special on Ted Kennedy demonstrates the unparalleled resources of a major newspaper. The institutional history and the access it took to produce the series remain the province of the Fourth Estate, something that must not go unnoticed in this time of “the great print struggles.” More so, the piece shows how, with carefully allocated time and resources, the Globe and other newspapers can take full advantage of the platform of the web.

The videos are excellently produced, and the links to archive photos, headlines, and related documentation serve the goals of the story admirably. A community discussion forum would have brought the piece full circle and made for a resounding win, but I still see the piece as a triumphant display that the newspapers do “get it.” It’s a matter of bringing the financial models in line with a new approach to doing news, os that features like this appear with greater frequency.

I am not, in any way, trying to diminish the importance of citizen journalism. Its contributions to the way we understand our world cannot–and should not–be dismissed as in some way ‘limited,’ or as wobbly in its journalistic commitment or ethics. It is simply a different, equally significant process. Putting it into ‘competition’ with traditional media does neither form justice. I think at times it is easy to embrace citizen journalism as the underdog, and to champion it, at times, to the detriment of the respect for traditional press. The Boston Globe’s Ted Kennedy series, however, reminds us how very important traditional news outlets are to our history, and that, when given the appropriate resources, they can get it right. Ultimately the series demonstrates the rich potential for the news to unite its unique (reputation-based) level of access and traditional models of reporting with new media tools to educate and preserve in a way that, quite simply, no other institution can.

Aesthetic and Academic Appreciation: Jeffrey Lipsky

Amberly's Room by jeFF Lipsky

Amberly's Room by jeFF Lipsky

JeFF’s work is fascinating from both aesthetic and academic perspectives. My introduction to jeFF’s work was via Second Life, an online Virtual Community. His art collection was the subject of a critical review I wrote in my studies as a Graduate Student at Emerson College. The paper, “Filthy and Digital Art,” examined notions of “high and low art,” in the digital medium.

My attraction to JeFF’s work was never purely academic, however. I chose his work as my subject because it was visually stunning, intellectually stimulating, and fascinating in its social context. JeFF’s art has a very physical form of depth, as he works in layers to embed beauty and meaning in each piece. Sometimes the inspiration of the work is visually apparent, sometimes it is not. I’ve heard others say they like when they can visually connect what they’re seeing in his art with objects or locations they’ve seen in real life. I like when I look at his work and, instead of seeing ‘things,’ per se, I am moved to simply… connect. I can look at JeFF’s work and feel events, moments, memories, and life. I take in each of the layers separately and, at the same time, all at once. It is as though faith is bringing the seen and unseen together, creating a sensation of being swept through the canvas and into the emotion that inspired every color choice and every stroke of pastel that created the work. It is still and yet in motion, it is physical but significantly emotional. JeFF’s work is compelling, in every sense of the word.

His work, and it’s role in the social context of Second Life was also the inspiration for a paper I wrote at Emerson. The general thrust of the argument was that jeFF’s artwork in its original state (abstract pastel) carried connotations of “high art,” because the medium uses “fine art tools,” a canvas and pastels.

Interviewing Jeffrey Lipsky (photo credit, Colin Rhinesmith)

Interviewing Jeffrey Lipsky (photo credit, Colin Rhinesmith)

Under current social art norms, jeFF has chosen a perceived “low art” medium (the computer, the internet) as a source of inspiration for his work and as a means for exposure. The presentation of his art in a self-curated online gallery arguably changes the nature of his work. The debasing of fine art because of its existence in a digital form is a social notion that *must* be re-examined in the information age.

That paper inspired another project on how the nature Second Life builds community. JeFF has shown an active interest in the advancement of artists from around the world by coordinating Second Life workshops for artists to share their work and offer the kind of critique process that is often missed after an artist leaves the art school setting. The quality of jeFF’s art, what he is doing to help change notions of “high” and “low” art, and his emphasis on building community is a model for other artists and an inspiration to society on how to develop the potential of virtual worlds in all layers of cultural production and exchange.

In with the Old

I recently made as my Facebook status, “Aubree Lawrence misses honest status updates.” A former student commented on the status and asked, “Aubree, what do you mean? Just curious. Does it have to do with the ‘old’ vs ‘new’ facebook?”

A quick question that prompted a lengthy response from me. (Surprised? I didn’t think so.) Facebook has a limit on comment length, and it took four full response boxes to reply to Rachael’s question. My response, in full, is reprinted below. My mind is still whirling around the topic. My friend and colleague Vanessa Rhinesmith has been blogging about managing the Social Media in her life, raising some great questions about how to integrate social media to complement her life… and not invade it. Her blog entries, my midnight status update and Rachael’s subsequent question reflect the anxieties we have about Facebook, how it is changing and how it is changing us.

Without further introduction, our exchange:

Status Update: “Aubree Lawrence misses honest status updates.”

Rachael: “Aubree, what do you mean? Just curious. Does it have to do with the ‘old’ vs ‘new’ facebook?”

Me” “Hi there! It depends, in this case, what you mean “old” vs “new,” which seems to get used at least two ways.

Old vs New can mean the formatting changes instituted about 4-5 months ago. The updates caused a lot of confusion and upset, spawning many groups with names like “Facebook, change it back or I quit.” (I made that particular one up, but you get the idea…)

But Old Vs New can mean something else. Social Media, in particular, is in constant flux, changing as the users who engage with it change. Facebook exploded past its origins as an online “who lives in my dorm” tool and became a means of community organizing and a quasi-professional tool. Its membership base grew, and the dynamics of Facebook (in my anecdotal opion) changed accordingly.

My own observation is that the “old” Facebook (”old” is such a relative term) had a degree of freedom and self-expression now missing from the Facebook experience.

In the “new” Facebook experience, one must consider the audience at large when posting… anything. Pictures, even quotes and status updates. There are tools to help manage what goes out to who, no question, but what you don’t let others see can raise suspicion among the denied. You can “de-tag” yourself from images, but your image is still out there posted indefinitely in the most navigable manner possible - a visit from a friend of a friend.

Even your profile can be problematic. I’ve recently been reconsidering my “Religious Views” profile item, which reads right now “Religious Views are lamer than scenic ones.” While early on this got a lot of chuckles, I’ve worried as my number of friends went from 30 to 170+ that I’ve been retro-actively offensive to some people. It’s hard to know what people will take seriously when they aren’t your most inner circle.

Most specifically, however, I was referring to my own status updates, which have gotten very… bland, I guess… since my Luddite boyfriend joined the Facebook party. Love him as I do, I’m sensitive to his feelings. I felt bad recently when he brought up that I posted “is bored” on New Years, when he was one room over.

I struggled Monday night to articulate my feelings into an appropriately “cathartic yet cryptic” status update. The thing is, Steve knows me very well. He’d see through “would rather be dancing” to the relationship anxieties I (and everyone else, let’s be honest) go through from time to time. He’d know it meant I wish I could turn the lights on and listen to music and make an idiot of myself dancing in the mirror at 1:30am… all things I can’t do since he lives with me. In that moment, I was remembering loving living alone. And, at 1:30a, I worried that that might hurt his feelings.

Of course, Steve is Steve, and he not only wouldn’t mind that I wrote it, but I’m sure he’d understand, and even sympathize. I can’t imagine he finds living with me all roses either! So, at 1 in the afternoon here I don’t mind spelling out word for word on my wall what, at 1:30 AM I thought might hurt his feelings. (He also would never bother to read this long of a post, so I have that going for me too.) ;)

Still, it was a moment that magnified for me personally an anxiety that I know many of my close friends feel about the way we “used” to be on Facebook. Facebook is growing in usefulness, but declining in personality. We can only wear one mask at a time, and we change masks according to our audience. On Facebook, we must try to wear many masks at once, morphing us into an “average” of all our various masks and personalities. The look (and outlook) is pretty bland. Its inevitability (the bland morphed mask) is somewhat ironic on a tool called “Face”book.

::laugh:: Does that answer your question? :)”

Is there a paper in here somewhere?

The (Facebook) Arc of Despair

I heart Facebook. Not ashamed to admit it, I really do. The “why” I offer to n00bs is this: I have two half-sisters by my father and one-half sister by my mother. The math on this is irrelevant, what is relevant is that despite being separated across three states and in one case a total lack of blood relation, my three sisters and I are ALL constantly in touch. Despite the fact that they haven’t seen each other in four years, my mother’s daughter (Joy) knows as much about my father’s daughter’s (Hannah’s) first semester of college as I do. I think that’s pretty amazing.

But, the truth is, I’m just pretty much the same exhibitionist that all other Facebookers who bother with status updates are. Somehow messaging the Facebook world of something in my life brings a validation I didn’t used to lack, but somehow, apparently need. As much as I love hearing about how my sisters are doing, I’m equally eager to keep them in the loop of “what’s up with Aubree” via status updates and posted links. But I need to be mindful of my larger audience, as the private life of me and my sisters gives way to a larger audience on Facebook. Vanessa Rhinesmith in her blog Left Behind Bottle Caps writes:

How do you define [your] space - public v. private, physical v. virtual? This is something that I’m continually pondering as I reassess my involvement in various physical and virtual communities. [...] Take Facebook, in some ways it is very easy to control how I navigate within this space - I control who I friend, which requests I accept and the options that are selected for the account. However, I am aware of my responsibility as a participant and am mindful of how I want to be perceived within the space.

Defining those spaces is difficult, especially when one begins to realize you cannot “have it all,” despite the promises of technology. I too, am mindful of how I want to be perceived within these virtual spaces… the problem is that how I want, or more to the point - need - to be perceived it is constantly changing. My Facebook profile once had 15 friends who I bored and entertained with alternating lame and revelatory status updates. Now I boast many more friends, many of whom are more like ‘friends’ than friends (more like acquaintances) and even some “friends” (sometimes I’m just too polite to decline a request). Originally I wanted to have fun with Facebook, after all, it was 15 people I knew, loved, and couldn’t offend even if I tried.

But now there are these ‘friends’ and “friends” to consider. My famed weekly 11pm “is a karaoke superstar” update no longer seems appropriate, especially if I owe a Facebook friend overdue work, or work with a FB friend who expects me to have my game on for a 9am meeting the next day. Recently I have been ill, and although Facebook would have been a convenient way to keep close friends posted on my progress, I simply knew I’d be unable to respond with “thank yous” to the many acquaintances who would, by some bizarre social power of the internet, feel obliged to write “What’s wrong? Hope you feel better soon!” on my wall, or drop me a FB message. Worse, it could be perceived as a broadcast excuse for something, or a pathetic cry for attention.

It is the pending “next shift” in how I use my Facebook profile that is the most saddening. Not only do I feel I can no longer be too outrageous (”is hula-hooping to ‘Genie in a Bottle’), nor personal (”is struggling through the pain to go outside for a bit”), but now I have a new impression I want - nope, not want, NEED - to convey: A professional one.

When I graduate in May I will be starting a business managing social profiles for artists and business people who understand that they need to have an active online social presence but have neither the time, energy, nor interest to do so. Like wearing make-up to sell Avon, my own sites must exude the fullest potential of social media networking. My hopelessly unattended LinkedIn page, my neglected MySpace page, and this here blog need to be flourishing, shining examples for my (potential) customers to envy. And my Facebook page? ::sigh:: My Facebook page. No longer will this be a place where I can celebrate and whine about life’s ups and downs; no longer will I be able to use my status updates to send cryptic messages and inside jokes to friends; no longer will this is a place of personal expression, but, instead, a place of professional projection. A clean and pressed suit to go along with the rest of my presentation.

I sense the pending shift and mourn, already, the loss of my whimsical Facebook profile. Yes, I am mindful of how I want to be perceived, and even moreso of how I need to be perceived. As time goes on, my awareness and ability to control how others perceive me is turning out to be this entrepreneurs’ goldmine… and also a bit of a bummer.

She Works Hard for the Whuffie: Free Labor in the Age of Peer Production

It’s a title possibility for my thesis. Maybe I’ll change my mind. If I do I’ll simply come back and delete the entry altogether. How very 1984.

Thankfully the title, according to the Emerson College Department Handbook for the Master of Arts in Media Arts Program, 2004-2005 (my official catalog year), is open for redevelopment during the writing of my thesis.

I have decided that for my thesis I absolutely want to look at the economics of peer production. Almost everyone who knows me has heard my tirade on Amazon reviews (Short Version: On the whole, reviews increase sales (otherwise Amazon wouldn’t allow the system) people who take the time to write reviews are doing free promotions for Amazon products “to help educate others,” while increasing Amazon’s bottom line without compensation, etc…). Peer review systems, contests with consumer winning prizes for designing ad campaigns, corporate-sponsored play… these are topics that I’d wondered about in the abstract for but started being able to articulate after reading a Wired article by Long Tail author and longtime Wired editor, Chris Anderson, who writes:

Today’s peer-production machine runs in a mostly nonmonetary economy. The currency is reputation, expression, karma, “wuffie [sic*],” or simply whim.

On the whole, the article presents a far more idealistic view of peer production than I generally embrace. His line “It’s a mistake to equate peer production with anticapitalism,” left me with a riddle to solve. I’ve been in the process of temporarily moving out of my house (long story, happy ending) and, as I was packing and unpacking my library I took inventory of the number of books I’ve accumulated trying to answer this question, ‘with what, then, should I be equating peer production?’ (One hopes the answer will be less grammatically awkward than the question.) Anderson writes, “This isn’t amateurs versus professionals; it’s each benefiting the other,” but I have a hard time swallowing such a Utopian notion.

So, that’s what I’d like to drown in, I mean, dive into, in the next 9 months. The water is a choppy as it ever is with me, but it’s my last two semesters at Emerson. To keep with an already painful metaphor, it’s time to sink or swim. I invite anyone out there who has similar questions, or insights they’d like to share… or even just a good cookie recipe, to jump on in. I swear, the water’s fine. Join the Coast Guard and help me be the best that I can be! (As if the metaphor wasn’t bad enough, now I’ve gone and mixed it. ::sigh::)

My jump-start of a reading list is on the Works Cited tab above. Thanks for reading.

(ok, ok, that was more like 6 hours than 15 minutes of writing. 15 is a minimum, 24 the max in any given day. Deal?)

*The spelling of the word has it’s own “the day Aubree edited Wikipedia” story that ends in my wuffie entry being redirected to the “h”-bearing “whuffie“.

Particitainment. Not a Typo.

The most powerful hybrid of communications and entertainment is “particitainment”—entertaining communications that connects us with some larger purpose or enterprise. - Futurist Paul Saffo, Consumers and Interactive New Media: A Hierarchy of Desires, 1993

I like this term “particitainment.” I can already hear my peers groaning at the introduction of another term to describe participatory culture, convergence culture, participation as the new consumption, and so on. But it’s clear from the getgo, Participation as entertainment. It’s not a new concept on the whole - for instance, one must participate in a roller coaster ride to get the entertainment or thrill. But in this era of user-generated content particitainment takes on a more specific tone of production and, from where I’m heading with this, labor, as a means of entertainment.

Saffo ties this notion of participation as entertainment to an even larger concept, defining particitainment as “entertaining communications that connect us with some larger purpose or enterprise.” Here it is the word enterprise that stands out to me. Written in 1993, Saffo could have meant anything by this (a prerequisite talent of Futurists), but looking at it now I jump to the bungling oft-maligned enterprises of Corporate America* and consider particitainment as those participatory acts of cultural production, largely enabled by the digital revolution, that entertain the user/consumer while producing a product of direct value to an enterprise. This leads me to my questions about labor/economy/user-generated content, wondering if there is a free labor market, slaving, under the delusion of entertainment, to the financial gain of those smart corporations that have begun to embrace the new participation as consumption model.

15 minutes up.

*must concede that Corporate America, in the all-initial-caps-sense is a diminishing notion in our ever advancing global economy.

Lessons from a purple alien fetus

“I’d say it was a setup for disaster, but, it’s so much more than that. It’s my routine.”

Last Friday I fell. I fell hard.

I was sprinting down the stairs of the Central Square subway station when it happened. In typical Aubree Lawrence fashion I was listening to my iPod, reading an academic paper (marking it up with my favorite red pen), and hurrying down the stairs on my way to a meeting at Emerson. Yes. Listening to music, reading, writing, and hurrying. I’d say it was a setup for disaster, but, it’s so much more than that. It’s my routine.

I’ve pretty much pieced together what happened. At the bottom of the stairs I took a long stride toward the gate—not realizing I still had (at least) one more stair to go. When the floor didn’t meet me with it’s usual timing I pitched forward out of control. My confused right foot twisted on impact, bringing the rest of me down off-kilter. The resulting blow to my left knee has since blossomed into something resembling a subcutaneous purple alien fetus—summer fashions are on hold. My body stressed every muscle in panic. The next second I had the first of many sharp chest pains that (after stopping into the meeting to “touch base” first, of course) sent me to MGH fearing a (fourth!) lung collapse.

I don’t need to learn the same lesson twice. I’m done rushing. Rushing, scrambling, hurrying, hightailing it—whatever you want to call it, I’m over it. Yes, this means I will need to learn to leave on time. If I fail and end up being late somewhere then it will just have to be an (albeit public) important reminder to practice diligent time management. Not only that, I’m DONE multitasking as I walk place to place. True, I was harried, but with my adept skill paying attention to everything other than my surroundings the fact is, this accident could have happened at any time. (I must admit, though… for dramatic purposes I’m rather glad I was at least nobly risking life, limb and, um—knees, to get to a meeting when it happened. ::sigh:: Anything for a good story.)

Being a person of intelligence, and bearing the bruises (to knee and ego) of my fall from grace (sorry), I am henceforth resolved:

  1. I will not listen to my iPod for walks under 10 minutes long.
  2. I will no longer read papers, books, Spare Change News, or the Improper Bostonian while walking.
  3. I will not check my email on my cell, nor reply to text messages. (I still need to check texts in case someone is writing to say “meeting’s canceled, go back home and finish that half-eaten yogurt,” but I’ll stop and step to the side to do so.)
  4. I will not place phone calls. I hate talking on the phone anyway.

Only maybe worth noting: I will probably continue to drink coffee while walking; I am still a grad student/”human” after all!

Up until now I just cruised through the world in hopeless distraction. And why? “Efficient use of time! Productivity!” goes the argument… But seriously, could I really take good notes while walking? Compose a respectable email? How many times have I had to reread a paragraph after a near-stumble? Gods and callers alike know I can’t hear a damned thing on the phone with all the city’s street noise in the background!

I’ve been practicing my new walking-life philosophy for three days. I’m shocked to realize how much of the world I was missing, everything from the lilacs I didn’t see because I was always looking down, to snippets of some seriously eves-drop-worthy conversations that now leave me alternating between laughing and realizing humanity is a lost cause (which is to say alternating between laughing, and laughing even harder). The change has been surprisingly rewarding.

I suppose I shouldn’t make it sound so simple. It’s rewarding and all, but it’s also really hard. At this point I’m fighting well-honed habits, acts in which I once took pride! Seconds after I exit to fresh air I instinctively reach for my cell to have it fetch my email. The phone buzzes with a text message (most likely a Facebook Mobile status update) and I have to resist. I no sooner correct myself for going for my cell, and I’m already I’m shifting my bag to reach my iPod. But I have stay strong. I have to be patient and just keep reminding myself: Slow down. Breathe. Look around. Listen. Take notice of the world. Be radical and give a go at actually participating in it. And most importantly—don’t fall down.

Learning a Second Language in Second Life

Teaching SL/RL
(Above: (top) Ms. Chianti Carmichael hangs out at an assessment station on SL English, while (bottom) Ms. Aubree Lawrence instructs an ESOL class for BA&CE, circa 2005)

Second Life is has incredible potential as a learning platform. I was excited to read on Forbes.com that an English language school in Germany has launched an island “Second Life English.” The island is dedicated to offering FREE (yes, you read that right, FREE) resources for learning English, including virtual ESOL lessons. According to the article, Educator (and island owner) Kip Boahn “feels a new medium calls for a new way of teaching language. Even using the game’s English interface gives students a chance to practice what they’ve learned.” I couldn’t agree more! I enjoy his approach:

During workshops, he uses a team of teachers to present students with different linguistic tasks, which could include anything from asking for directions to bargaining to buy a knickknack. To do those tasks, Boahn and his colleagues use “holodecks,” rooms that can flip through as many as 40 different scenes at the mere click of a mouse. Want to practice ordering American fast food? Just switch the holodeck to Dara’s Diner and line up at the counter.

This sort of flexibility means that, as a teacher, you can cover a lot of ground teaching culture, in addition to language, by creating situational enactments that are difficult to do in a classroom. I used to teach ESOL at the Brookline Adult and Community Education Center in classrooms at Brookline High School. I laugh to think of the many ways we rearranged the classroom to mimic check-out lines, banks, cafes, and even a car dealership! I can’t help but think of how much more efficient it would be to change one setting to the next with a simple click. On the other hand, there is a lot to be said for group exercises in imagination, not to mention the language exercised just coordinating the effort! It is truly an interesting example of the sort of gain/compromise tensions that arise when you move real life activities into virtual settings.

Examples like Boahn’s are important as more and more people begin to investigate the potential for education options in Second Life and other virtual worlds. It helps to remind people of the kind of good that can come from a free platform like Second Life, and gets us all thinking about the ramifications of adopting virtual education models. It is certainly useful on the broader scale to consider what SL teaching opportunities might exist for CCTV, and the Cambridge community at-large!