Session 1: Introduction

Series 1|Episode 1|Session 1 Commencement

The first trial #feralC Session of Series 1|Episode 1 initialized on Saturday, 8 May 2010 at 2:59 PM Sydney time EST. The Session progressed until Session Close at 04:36 PM. There were several Intersessional Communications [interactions between official Sessions] after close. These Intersessionals will be documented separately: they indicate that several of the PCs [Primary Chars] perceive the Study boundaries as largely artificial. This ongoing behaviour is confirmed in subsequent Sessional activity by both the PCs and SCs [Secondary chars]. As there was no substantial discussion of where the chars are geophysically located, no Seize Codes were required.

4 of the PC’s actively responded during this first trial Session. @shadowmcclone was absent. All 4 active #feralC Chars displayed acceptable Range Responses to encountering unknown entities in the FEF [Forced Environment Field]:

1. @gossama:

• employed highly idiosyncratic and gamer inflected language:

Example of @gossama's Game Inflected Language

• attempted to Frame the encounter with indirect and direct questioning regarding the identity of the remaining PCs.
• attempted Distancing via their insistence they were participating purely for the monetary rewards.
• quick to question Placement and request Core Group Identification.
• displayed overt curiosity and fluctuating communication patterns with Power Spiking in evidence.
• displayed Lingual Flocking behaviours.
• displayed high adaptive techniques [by "afking" - temporarily leaving and returning].
• displayed potential altruistic tendencies.

2. @QReada:

• attempted communication once. This attempt was unsuccessful: failures in Translation Framing and QR Code auto-linking has since been corrected. The content of the attempted message was undecipherable [even accounting for the Session-Side errors].

3. @Miss_Stressa:

• displayed curiosity regarding geophysical location: “Are you there? Where is ‘there’?”. They did not attempt to question further when @gossama was unresponsive.
• responded in an assertive manner to SC @O’s provocative communication patterns.
• perceived and responded to SC @O’s communication as deliberately aggressive.
• revealed that their participation in the study is a favour to an unspecified friend.
• framed the Session Close with appeals to authority:
  

  Example of @Miss_Stressa's Timestamping and Authority Framing

4. @HUD_B:

• responded tentatively and reluctantly throughout the Session.
• revealed they had signed up through a “match-matching” [Translation Framing links to "match-making"] survey.
• perceived SC @O’s communication as confusing.
• responded to an Implied Group Dynamic when signing off.
• displayed insecure Status Indicators by self-identifying as “shy” and “promised” they’d “have a clue next time”. They also inquired if they would “be in trouble” if they didn’t consistently respond to all parties involved.

2  SC’s were active during this first trial Session:

1. @if:

• displayed minimal but Positive Engagement.
• self-identified as a “lurker rather than a sec char”.
• suggested practical modifications to one Recording aspect. This modification has been in continual use throughout subsequent Sessions.
• displayed moderate Altruism Levels when replying to a generalised question from @gossama.
• employed Cryptic Engagement with @HUD_B.

2. @o0000O0:

• employed provocative language comprised of hybrid gamespeak and abbreviations.
• displayed Inflammatory Engagement Patterns with no active modification of these behaviours in evidence when identified as such by other chars.
• perceived the Session as principally revolving around themself: “I tweet”/”i am”/”4 me”/”i could”.
• quick to produce text without Verifiable Context or understandable Content.