Rough Draft w/o comments: Berg_Task2_RoughDraft
Rough Draft w/ comments: Berg_Task2_RoughDraft – Ho
I felt that my interviews were the most successful points in my draft because of the amount of information I was able to pull from them in order to answer one of my major research questions, or in one case two of them. This one case was my interview with Camshaft73, co-leader of my clan. He noted on how the interactions between members and their involvement in discussions aids in strengthening the clan in all aspects, which I was able to use to answer my questions on how communication fosters success for the clan and on how members contribute to preparations for war by aiding and giving input in a clan discussion on war tactics.
I personally believe my textual analysis on the chat was somewhat underdeveloped. I was unsure what to look for and just went with analyzing the differences between communication standards based on rank and social status in the clan. This is actually fairly apparent when I shift halfway into my analysis to that comparison, as it seems unwieldy and strange to jump from “we help each other” to “we selectively neglect one another” in the same paragraph. I do plan on making this seem less drastic and improve the transition, as well as make an even deeper analysis to provide more examples of varying communication standards and response frequencies.
One of the prime terms I needed to understand was the focus of my draft was “community,” for observable variants and standards of communication can be found in communities more often than between, say, two people (which is where we often pin the “discussion” term). I needed to use this term in order to maintain a strict focus on multi-member intercommunication and not the conversations between two people. I also needed to understand genres as described in one of the class readings (I don’t remember which at the present moment) as there are specific genres that each player uses and unanimous genres that every member uses that make up personalized systems for the individual clan members. I needed to know this in order to compare the differences in dialect from individuals and the similarities in large group discussions.
I found much of my benefit came from Dat this time around, as he was more capable of inferring rather than pointing out an issue one sentence that was explained by the preceding or following sentence. I also utilized his feedback because he is an avid gamer, much like I am, and he understands that communication is key to success within the game. This, I believe, allowed Dat to focus on what I was missing and needed clarification, rather than what was misunderstood on the surface.
I think all of my work from this task will play a huge part in my writing of Task 3, as it is from what I will record my sources. I don’t exactly know how to explain precisely what the benefits are of Task 2 to Task 3, but I do know that I will be using Task 2 extensively.
Final Draft: Berg_Task2_FinalDraft
Final w/ Revisions: Berg_Task2_Revised
As per the usual way I write my essays, I wrote Task 2 while editing, making sure to capitalize and punctuate when necessary and verifying my spelling and grammar. This often makes my writing process take a bit longer than the rest of my cohorts, but it is a lot easier to fix problems when I know what I was trying to say. I chose my methods as I did–one observation, one textual analysis and three interviews–because Clash of Clans does not have much in the way of text to offer, let alone observe. These methods did, in fact, help out with answering my research questions, and created a new one to be swapped with my current least effective research question. My three interviewees are actually good friends of mine, and they were extremely helpful in providing thorough input about communications.
I think the most difficult portion of Task 2 was organizing and summarizing the results of my research. In order to overcome this issue, I tried to keep as organized as possible by giving the answers of my interviewees in the order they were given, and then analyzing their meaning–this did not turn out well, however, and I must still revise it. I will be taking the answers and analysis of said answers and making separate paragraphs for each, in order not to confuse the reader. One other hurdle I had to overcome was the content of the introduction, as I had many faults of discontinuity and lack of information.
So far I have only done about half of the revisions I planned on doing, simply because there is a lot to do. The most important revision will take me a few days to complete: fixing the Results organization on every interview. This will improve the readability of those paragraphs substantially. Other revisions I have already made include content addition, clarification and reorganization of small areas, all of which were creating a bad read of the final draft rendition of Task 2. I hope these revisions will impact the results of Task 4 in that they will have continuity with the general flow of it, Task 4. If I were to choose one thing to revise, it would be the observation since it has a few too many issues regarding images, analysis and organization. I may or may not create appendices for the images and simply cite those.