Category: Rants

#oneaday, Day 28: He Seems Nice

Fellow #oneadayer @Bungiesgirl wrote an excellent post the other day about "The Curse of Mr Nice Guy". She hit the nail bang on the head; there are times when it almost seems that it doesn't pay to be a nice person, for a guy at least.

Thinking about it, I'm not actually sure I've ever known anyone who's used the oft-quoted "I love bad boys" line. But I certainly know a couple of people who have consistently ended up with people who make them miserable when it may be that there is, in fact, someone standing right in front of them who would provide them with what they want out of a relationship. Only, because they're one of the proverbial "Mr Nice Guys", they're not even in the running for that person's affections. At least, not in the "anything more than friendship" sort of case.

Some people call this "friend-zoning", where Mr Nice Guy has become too good a friend to even be considered relationship material. I'm not sure where this phenomenon or the term to describe it originally came from, but it happens all the time, and adds an interesting twist to the age-old question of whether or not men and women can possibly be friends with each other without the desire to insert parts of each other into various orifices getting in the way.

The simple answer to said age-old question is, of course "Yes, don't be silly". Take stock of your friends for a moment and there's probably a good balance of both boys and girls there. And there are probably some people of the opposite sex (assuming heterosexuality for the purposes of this argument) that you don't want to jump at the first opportunity. Even when drunk. The reasons for this could be many; maybe you don't fancy them, maybe you value your friendship too much, maybe you've even had a relationship with them in the past. But the fact is, opposite-sex friendships can and do happen.

It's when they're a little lop-sided that difficulties happen, and such is often the case with Mr Nice Guy.

Let's take a hypothetical situation. Ms Ladygirl is having a tough time of it. Her partner, Mr Wrong, isn't what she wants, but she doesn't want to leave him—either she doesn't want to be alone or she has somehow convinced herself that she "loves" him. She confides in Mr Nice Guy, who 1) fancies her and 2) thinks it's blindingly obvious that he could do a better job of providing her with happiness, cake and orgasms than Mr Wrong could ever do. Mr Nice Guy, being a decent, upstanding sort of chap, though, also generally does not like to exacerbate situations where emotions run high by throwing his own, possibly unexpected, feelings into the mix. So he listens to Ms Ladygirl, offers her support, takes care of her, holds her hair out of her face when she's sick, carries her home when she gets wasted and then leaves her to sleep while he walks home to go and have a biiiig wank and cry into his pillow.

It's a difficult (and, I hasten to add, completely hypothetical) situation. But what should Mr Nice Guy do? If he says nothing, then obviously nothing will happen for him. If he says something, though, Ms Ladygirl may interpret it as a selfish act—"I want you. So get rid of him."—whereas he in fact meant it more as "You're not happy. I want to see if I can make you happier than he does."

Of course, there's always the chance that Ms Ladygirl would correctly interpret his advances, cast aside Mr Wrong and happily live forever after with Mr Nice Guy. But due to the nature of your average Mr Nice Guy, that doesn't happen that often.

Which is a pity, really, because Mr Nice Guys, as their name suggests, are in fact very nice guys. They're not boring, they're not clingy, they're not any of the assumptions you might care to make about them. They're people too; people who like helping others and hope that one day their caring, considerate, compassionate nature will bring them a partner who truly deserves their attention.

So if you're a Ms Ladygirl and you're clearly dating a Mr Wrong, I'd strongly urge to to pay attention to those non-spoken, non-obvious telepathic signals that the Mr Nice Guy you inevitably know is highly likely sending you.

Do the guy a favour. Grab him by his lapels and kiss him. Neither of you will regret it.

#oneaday, Day 27: To Whom It May Concern

Dear God/Cthulhu/Nyx/Nicola from Girls Aloud/Kefka/Des/Mr Denton/GLaDOS/G-Man/Bhaal/Fate/whoever is actually in charge of everything,

I'm not a praying man. You know that. I'm not even a religious man. But I'm asking for a favour. One little favour. That surely won't be much for someone of Your calibre of magnificence/horror/weirdness/hotness/badassness/system specifications.

Said favour will only take up one day. One day. 24 hours on this Earth. You can spare a day, right? I don't mind what You do on the day after. You can rain down locusts, devour the planet, send forth Your spawn into the wilds, ruin the world, remake it in Your own image or hire a guy with a crowbar to kick some ass. I don't care.

All I ask is that for one solitary day, all of the Nice People get to have a Good Day. A Good Day together that they can all enjoy at the same time. Maybe down the pub. Because inevitably, what happens right now is that Person A has a Bad Day, Person B has a Fucking Terrible Day, Person C has a Great Day and Person D is "meh" about the whole thing. Person B is thrust into the very depths of depression. Person A moans about their day, but then feels guilty as soon as they come across Person B's problems, which are clearly worse than their own. Person C wants to celebrate their Great Day but doesn't want to make Person A and B feel bad or envious, while Person D gets all the shit from the other three lumped on them as they all vent their frustrations on the one truly neutral party in the whole debacle. And then no-one wants to go down the pub.

This is clearly a Very Silly Situation. Now, Your own personal ideology may not be particularly compatible with the concept of a Good Day. But look at it this way: if You're the type to go devouring worlds, covering them with fire and/or making things "fall into shadow" (whatever that means—surely you can just turn on a light) then surely won't it hurt more if You fuck shit up immediately after everyone has had a Good Day? Yeah. Now we're talking, right?

If, on the other hand, You're the benevolent type, then think how much good spiritual-currency-of-your-choice You'll acquire from the provision of a universally Good Day. People will be happy and they'll be inclined to thank You for said provision. That'd be nice, wouldn't it? I played Populous. I remember how it works. More mana means MOAR VOLCANOES. You know You want to.

Now, there are, of course, some flaws in this plan: namely, that one person's Good Day may well cause someone else to have a Bad or even a Fucking Terrible Day. But I trust that You, in your infinite wisdom, will be able to sort something out. If it helps, You can limit the Universally Good Day to people that are "nice", haven't pissed me off recently and aren't likely to. Or just my friends. I'm cool with that.

Basically, what I'm saying is: sucky things keep happening to Good People. Please, for one day, stop it and let people just enjoy life for once. I know that I'd be very grateful. And I know there are plenty of others out there who would too.

So at least think about it, huh?

Amen/Ia! Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!/May you always draw the right cards/You are well sexy/Synthesised laughs are the best/You're a twat but I like you despite yourself/I like your sunglasses/This was a triumph/May you always be a Free-Man/FACE ME FACE THE NEW LORD OF MURDER/Korah matah korah rahtahmah/Yours faithfully,

Pete

#oneaday, Day 24: Your Over Their

The T-shirt in the comic above actually exists. So we've arrived at a situation where people don't even proofread clothing.

Actually, I remember a friend who works in the printing business telling me a while back that it's not the responsibility of the printing company to proofread or correct things like this; it's the original designer's fault. And it's true—it is the original designer's fault and they should be ridiculed for producing it (especially as it's a pretty shitty design anyway), not to mention the idiots who pay money for it. I know for a fact if I was asked to print the T-shirt above I'd find it incredibly difficult to not correct it, though.

The reason? I believe in the sanctity of language. That's a pretentious way of saying that I believe strongly that we should continue to spell things "correctly". I know, I know, language changes over time and all that. But the reason we have certain rules in place with today's modern form of English is to aid understanding.

Take "your" vs. "you're". We have two forms of "your/you're" to prevent ambiguity. "You're", as everyone knows* is short for "you are", with the apostrophe denoting that at least one letter has been removed to form a contraction. "Your", on the other hand, is simply a possessive pronoun used as a an attributive adjective showing when something belongs to "you". "If your single, so am I" doesn't make any grammatical sense because, assuming that "single" is being used as a noun (which it should be if it's following the word "your") it needs a verb, otherwise the response to the T-shirt's slogan is "If my single is what?". "If you're single, so am I" does make sense, however, because it's saying "If you are single, so am I". Which is a stupid and somewhat sluttish statement to make, but grammatically correct.

Unless, of course, they were going for a very heavily-buried programming joke. You know, like when you're programming in C or something similar and instead of saying "if (single = true) { haveSexWithMe(); };" you can instead say "if (single) { haveSexWithMe(); };". Essentially, then, suggesting that the full slogan is in fact "If your single status is firmly confirmed without any possibility of you being a cheating skank-basket, you can assume I am also single, even if I am not in reality", but shortened to fit across someone's boobies. I somehow think this scenario is unlikely, however.

Some accuse people who get riled about this sort of thing of being snobs. And perhaps we are; but to my mind, there's not really a good excuse for using the wrong "your". It's two extra keystrokes to type "you're", a couple more flicks of the pen. We're taught how to use "your" and "you're" in primary school. I know plenty of people who have difficulties such as dyslexia who still know how to use the correct form of "your" and do so.

The only explanation I can come up with, then, is either laziness, ignorance or both. In an environment such as the Internet, your (yes, YOUR) written words are how you make your first impression. In reality you don't walk into crowded rooms shouting "HERP DERP HERP", belming and masturbating furiously, do you? So make sure you use the right word once in a while, hmm?**

* Well… apparently not.
** I am not for a second saying that using "your" instead of "you're" means that you're the sort of person who enters a room belming, masturbating furiously and shouting "HERP DERP HERP". Although you might be. In which case you quite possibly deserve everything you get.

#oneaday, Day 22: Make Love, Not Hate

On the Internet, opinions exist in a binary state for many people. There is your opinion (1), and there is everyone else's opinion (0). Sometimes other people's opinions coincide with your own, meaning they can join you in the happy 1 gang, while the 0-toting losers get to stand over there being Wrong.

It's strange, though, really, isn't it? People develop such strong feelings about particular issues, and these opinions spread virally very quickly via all forms of the media. I remember reading about this in A-level Sociology and forget all the names and dates of studies concerned, but since this isn't an essay I'm not going to go and look them up. What I do know is that nowadays, such opinions spread far quicker than they have ever done before thanks to the immediacy of online social interactions, meaning that in some cases people may end up feeling that they should change their opinions on things in order to remain somehow "credible".

'Twas ever thus, of course, with the school bullies always listening to the most badass music out there whilst the flute-playing pansies amongst us voluntarily listened to—or even played—classical music. (Guess which of the two categories I was in, though I didn't play the flute. Flutes are for girls.) One group tended to kick the shit out of the other on a fairly regular basis, and it was usually a pretty one-sided battle.

You shouldn't start actively hating something just because other people say so, though. You should take pride in your tastes, however idiosyncratic or separate from the supposed "norm" they are.

Let's take a few examples of Things I Like That Should Be Embarrassing To Admit But Really Aren't, Honestly, No, Stop Looking At Me Like That And Please Don't Unsubscribe, Think Any Less Of Me Or Be Any Less Likely To Do Nice Things For Me (Like Buy Me Cake, Give Me A Big Wet Snog Or Make Me A Delicious Roast Dinner) Should The Opportunity Come Up.

Okay. I can do this.

(takes deep breath)

I like Robbie Williams. I also enjoy the comedy of Michael McIntyre, the radio show of Chris Moyles, the bubblegum pop music of MIKA and think Ke$ha's album is a work of quirky genius that I believe I have described as "sounding like Kelly Clarkson being forcibly inserted into a NES" on several occasions. I voluntarily bought both Dead or Alive Xtreme games and played them a lot, and not just for the bazongas involved, I enjoyed the dumbass illogical "dating sim" mechanics that were in there too. I follow Katy Perry on Twitter and find her music cheerfully uplifting. And I own two Spice Girls CDs.

Tastes change over time, of course, but who's to say that I'm "wrong" for liking any of those things just because the popular opinion is to hate them and deride those who enjoy them? I'm just as guilty as anyone else, of course; I find myself hating shows such as The X-Factor, Strictly Come Dancing and the like irrationally and automatically. I loathe Call of Duty. I would rather gouge my own eyes out than watch anything involving Piers Morgan (I think we can all agree on that one, surely).

The world would undoubtedly be a nicer place where everyone could feel more confident in themselves if our personal preferences stopped being scrutinised so much, and assumptions made based on those preferences. Take the recent announcement of Final Fantasy XIII-2, for example, a sequel to one of the most controversial Final Fantasy games there has ever been. Not because of the content, but because of the gameplay, which wasn't to everyone's liking. There are people out there who assume that because Final Fantasy XIII wasn't to their taste, XIII-2 is going to be shit as well. Justifications range from "Square have lost their way" (well, perhaps, but can't they pick it up again?) to "it's the same team, of course it's going to be rubbish" (because everyone is always universally good or universally bad?) and it's nonsense. Nonsense I tell you!

Basically, do your blood pressure a bit of good and start concentrating on the things you like a bit more. Tell people how much you like them, by all means. But let's all make a pact to stop making people feel bad about things that you, personally, "hate".

Unless it's terrorism, AIDS or Piers Morgan. You can hate those as much as you like.

#oneaday, Day 14: Is A Tardy Person Called A "Tard"?

Some people are habitually late for everything they do. Some more so than others. Some of them justify it under the guise of being "fashionably late", that obnoxious concept where people, for some inexplicable reason, believe that the time on an invitation is open to negotiation, particularly if the event in question doesn't involve people talking, singing, dancing or stripping (forget that last one) for your pleasure on a stage.

Where has this concept come from, though? eHow gives a frankly unnecessarily detailed five-step guide of how to be fashionably late. Urban Dictionary defines it as anywhere between 5 and 45 minutes depending on the event. But then they also define it as "showing up 5 minutes late with a supermodel on your cock", so perhaps take their word with a grain or two of salt. The ever-reliable Ask Yahoo! fails to come up with any conclusive answers whatsoever. And no-one seems to be able to quote a reputable source pointing out where this concept came from in the first place, besides something vague about "rich and famous people at parties".

So why do people do it, and where are they taught to be this way? I'm typically on time for things, unless it's something REALLY IMPORTANT, in which case I will usually arrive three hours early, get bored, go and find somewhere that sells sandwiches, eat them, realise I'm going to be late if I don't hurry the fuck up and end up rushing to get to the place at which I arrived exceedingly early in the first place. But social occasions? If I say I'll be there at 8pm, I'll be there at 8pm.

Many embittered experiences and mournful tweets from a lonely booth in the corner of a bar haven't taught me my lesson yet. I turned up on time for my own stag night and my guests waltzed in the door approximately two hours later. I'd been having some fun on Twitter in the meantime, of course, but that meant by the time we were all drunk enough to collectively pretend we were a hot 18-year old virgin on Omegle my phone battery was almost flat. We went on to have an awesome night, incidentally, but it could have been two hours longer had people showed up when I'd asked them to.

People don't change easily, so there's no real sense complaining about this in the long run, though. So with that in mind, I think I'll just keep on being the barfly for two lonely, Twitter-filled hours while I wait for people to show up. And the rest of you can take your time washing your balls, applying supposedly-attractive smelly liquids, polishing your shoes, swearing at holes in your trousers/pants/tights, realising that your boots don't fit any more, finishing watching that hilarious series of 200 cat videos on YouTube or having a nervous breakdown in the meantime.

I'll see you at the bar! (And just because I got there first does not mean I will be getting the first round in, just so you know. Actually, it does. I will have got the first round in. A round of one drink. For me. Yeah.)

#oneaday, Day 9: Mild Irritations: aolsystemmsg

The trouble with mild irritations is they have a habit of repeating themselves. And the more they repeat themselves, the greater the effect they have on you.

Such is the case with instant communication's best friend, "aolsystemmsg".

If you're unfamiliar with this robotic twat (ably played with aplomb by Money-Bot above), let me educate you.

If you use instant messaging services like AIM, Skype, MSN, Google Talk or Yahoo! Messenger these days, you're undoubtedly delighted by the fact it's possible to stay in touch with your friends/colleagues/people you fancy wherever you are thanks to the wonders of smartphones. And sure enough, it's great to be able to sit in Starbucks, or indeed the middle of a field, and chat with someone who might be thousands of miles away.

If you've popped out and left your computer on, however, there's a chance you may have left your instant messaging client of choice switched on back home. No big deal, you might think. And, if you're using Google Talk, it is indeed no big deal whatsoever. If you're using MSN or Yahoo! Messenger, then it's a mildly bigger deal; they insist that you can only be logged in on one device at a time, and so they log your other device back home out automatically. Fair enough—it's a simple matter to log back in later.

AOL Instant Messenger, though, does not like this at all and gets very jealous of your other devices. Dare to log into another device while your first one is still logged in and you'll be bombarded with IMs from the mysterious "aolsystemmsg" helpfully informing you that you're logged on in two different locations, and that if you'd like to log the others out then would you be kind enough to type the number "1" now, please.

Well, all right, "bombarded" is perhaps a little strong. You get one IM. But you get this one IM every single time you change devices. If you're like me and you hop back and forth between desktop computer, netbook and iPhone quite a bit, this can become extremely frustrating very, very quickly. "aolsystemmsg" takes on its own personality in your mind, a robot sitting there copy-pasting the same message to you over and over, cackling maniacally at your growing annoyance because he's not actually causing you any harm and therefore isn't breaking Asimov's First Law of Robotics.

He's still a complete cock, though. And there is no way to turn him off. At least, I'm not aware of any way to do so. Short of throwing your phone down the toilet. Which will make it ultimately quite useless as a means of communication for the sake of dealing with what is, essentially, a minor annoyance.

So, there's a lesson to be learned here then, perhaps. Use Google Talk. Don't let the robots win. Because we all know what happens when the robots win.

That's right. Eternal servitude in salt mines. And you don't want that, do you?

#oneaday, Day 6: Public Service Announcement

I should stop being surprised at this, but I still am.

People on the Internet are dickholes. Well, not all of them. I know a lot of very nice people who live in the Internet. Many of them are writing blogs like this one—hello!—but then there is another breed out there—the breed who thinks it's appropriate to hurl unwarranted abuse at others. Others that they've never met or spoken to, in some cases.

Ever been on Formspring? It's pretty fun. People can submit questions to you, either anonymously or under their username, and then you can answer them. That is the sole purpose of the site. I've had a lot of fun with it, thanks mostly to my very creative friends who are excellent with coming up with bizarre, thought-provoking questions. And somehow the questions are much more fun when you're not quite sure who they're from. It becomes a game in itself to work out who submitted the bizarre question about the robots and the cabbage.

Unfortunately, as we've seen many times by now, the potential anonymity that the Internet offers causes some people to think that they can say absolutely anything. So it was earlier on when my lovely Twitter-friend @Cilllah was bombarded with violent and pretty offensive nonsense from some nutjob banging on about his "garden" and about how he was going to rape and kill her.

Now, given all the nonsense over the #TwitterJokeTrial a while back, I don't for a second believe that this moron was actually going to do these things. But how is it in any way appropriate to say things like that to someone who's just going about their business on the Internet? Hiding behind the veil of anonymity to throw out abuse to strangers? That's kind of pathetic.

This sort of thing shouldn't annoy me so much—it's been going on for years after all. It doesn't make it right, though. I've been using the Internet and related technologies since the early days—a 300 baud modem on an Atari 8-bit, then on the Atari ST, then CompuServe under Windows 3.1, up through various incarnations of the "proper" Web to the stage we're at today. And at no point have I ever felt the need to pick on some poor person and be an asshole to them.

Perhaps I'm just too nice of a person to understand why people do the things they do. But I can live with that; I'd much rather be a person that the vast majority of people like and respect (and perhaps a few assholes think is a bit of a pussy) than someone who gets their kicks from threatening rape and violence on strangers.

The joke's on them, of course. The mental image that springs to mind as soon as anyone starts trolling like that is one of a Jabba-esque freak in his (you know it's a he) piss-and-cum-stained pants, probably with their semi-erect penis clasped firmly in their left hand (right hand is for mousing) and a folder called "HOTTYZ" on his desktop containing profile pictures of all the women he's harassed.

And if you're not that person? You can feel pretty good about yourself.

#oneaday, Day 2: Flubag

I can always tell when it's the holiday season. Because the holiday season is the Time To Get Ill. Almost without fail every single year, at some point around Christmas/New Year, my body goes "Nope! Had enough. Here's some snot. Happy Christmas!" and buggers off for a few days.

This year is no exception. I thought I'd escaped, because for the whole time I was over in California visiting my brother for the holidays, I was fine, despite everyone around me gradually sinking into a mire of barking repeatedly like someone with Spatchcock's Ever-Coughing Syndrome. Including the dog. Who was actually barking, not coughing.

On the plane ride on the way home, though, I felt the illness hit. Several other Spatchcock's sufferers on the flight coupled with yummy delicious recycled air being pumped around the cabin meant a breeding ground for germs. And sure enough… "Had enough. Here's some snot. Happy Christmas!"

Well, you're late, illness glands. And, you know, you really didn't have to get me anything this year. I just got you a bunch of pills, and I know you don't really like them that much.

The most irritating thing about suffering with Spatchcock's Syndrome is how difficult it makes sleeping. When you lie down in bed with Spatchcock's, you are constantly in one of two states: mouth-breathing, or coughing.

The mouth-breathing comes because your nose is so full of juicy snot that if you didn't mouth-breathe you'd suffocate and die, and suffocating and dying because of snot would just be embarrassing. If you do happen to get to sleep whilst in the mouth-breathing phase, your snores will qualify as some of the most disgusting noises on the planet and will probably involve bubbling. If you are sleeping with anyone at the time, this is a sure-fire way to find out if they really love you or not.

The coughing usually comes when you manage to clear your nose a little bit, and inevitably brings up more snot to join the party. The noise and the irritation in your throat wakes you and anyone in the same building up, and once it passes you're back to mouth-breathing again.

So you probably end up not sleeping until your brain is so devoid of power that it goes into laptop-style hibernation mode and fails to wake you up until lunchtime the next day. And because you slept at a weird time, you end up feeling crappy the next day, which compounds the whole situation further.

Eventually you just decide to not sleep any more until this dratted pox departs your system, during which time you gradually slip into a hallucinogenic fantasy which you can't quite decide whether is good or bad or somewhere in between and then you die. Possibly.

I am grateful for one thing, though: at least it's not full-on achey joints flu, which I've only been struck down with once at a time that happened to coincide with a Christmas I was set to spend alone in my house due to holiday retail work commitments and the rest of my family doing other things. Elsewhere. Without me.

Remind me why I want to get a job again?

#oneaday, Day 348: End of the Year Show

So, 2010. Here we are. Your last day with us. You have a lot to answer for.

Actually, let me start.

Fuck you. I remember at the start of 2010 thinking "2009 sucked. 2010 will kick ass." I can't even remember why 2009 sucked so much now, such was the order of magnitude that your suckiness dwarfed it by.

Let's keep score, shall we?

I started the year in a job that I wasn't sure I wanted to do—an ill-advised return to school teaching on the suggestion of several people who thought I'd be good at primary school teaching, and that it might be less stressful than the horrors of secondary education.

They were wrong.

Given that the school I worked at was in what can politely be termed a "difficult area", there were plenty of what can politely be termed "challenging pupils". Most notable among them were a child who decided to spend one early morning Guided Reading session lying face-down on the floor screaming "PLEASE STOP THE PAKISTANI INVASION! PLEASE STOP THE PAKISTANI INVASION!" in a school that was probably made up of a good 60-70% of ethnic minority children, and the kid who liked to tear down wall displays, run out of the classroom and climb trees. It's amusing now. It was less amusing at the time, and it should be pretty obvious that those kids have no place in mainstream education.

Also at the school, I went through an OfSTED inspection, where the school was judged to be "failing". This is because it was judged on the same criteria as schools in affluent areas and therefore, unsurprisingly, came up somewhat short. I was referred to as "inadequate" by a person who had spent approximately ten minutes watching me teach, and I knew that I had to get out.

Fortunately, an ideal excuse for getting out came along in the form of PAX East in Boston, MA. I had never been to Boston, and I had never been to a video game convention. This was also going to be an opportunity to meet a huge number of the Squadron of Shame members face-to-face for the first time. I wasn't about to pass that up, so I bought a ticket even before I'd quit my job.

I quit said job just in time to avoid having to go on a residential trip with the kids I'd come to resent so much and spent a blissful few days amongst my fellow nerds at PAX East and can honestly say that there are few occasions that I've ever felt happier than when I was there with my "people". I wished it could go on forever, but sadly it couldn't. And things were only going to get worse from hereon.

I worked for a few scattered days doing supply teaching, but wasn't enjoying it at all, least of all the whole "get up early just in case there's any work" arrangement, where every day led to the weighing up of emotional wellbeing and financial stability.

In late April, I turned 29. I was not in a good place mentally, so I didn't feel much like celebrating at the time. I still don't. Then in early May, everything changed. The one thing I thought I could count on—my home life, my marriage, the love I had—went away. There were many reasons for this and at this point it doesn't do anyone any good to assign "blame" either way because things on both sides led to this point. I wish they hadn't, but it seems that some things are supposed to happen, however painful they are.

And painful it was. The experience damn near destroyed me. I had whole days where I was completely unable to function. I had plenty of times when I wished everything would just go away, that I wouldn't have to face these things any more. I went through all the however-many-stages-of-grief-there-are several times and am still jumping back and forth between them now. I resented everyone who told me that it would "just make me stronger" and put on a brave face for the public (and this blog, which I kept plugging away at even through those dark times) but appreciated those people who showed themselves to be true friends more than they could ever realise.

And all through this I was no closer to finding a job. I interviewed for a job I didn't want and did well (though didn't get it) and for a job I really did want and didn't get that either. Eventually, the money ran out and I found myself having to move back home, an act which however you dress it to me and however necessary it was still feels like a punch in the face every time I wake up of a morning.

The holiday season came, and I spent it in the States with my brother and the rest of my family. This turned out to be a positive move, as I had the opportunity to meet up with a bunch of people and do what is commonly referred to as "professional networking". I scored some freelance work out of the whole arrangement—freelance work that pays money, even.

Then I came home to discover a huge bill from the taxman thanks to some uncompleted self-assessment forms which I had no idea I was supposed to do and a podcast to edit whose audio files were ruined beyond repair. A final slap in the face from a shitty year? Let's hope so.

During 2010, despite all this, I made some great friends through the #oneaday initiative, through Kombo.com, through The Big Pixels and through Twitter. I also successfully completed the Couch 2 5K running challenge, and have posted every day since the 19th of January on this blog. Those parts of the year I wouldn't change. The rest can go F itself in the B.

2011 has a lot for me to look forward to. More freelance work, which I really enjoy, even the rewrites. The all-new One A Day Project, which I'm doing my best to co-ordinate. Hopefully a full-time job. And I'm praying for a lift out of the black pit that I've been sporadically stuck in since May. Can you be sporadically stuck in something?

Tonight I'm going down to Southampton to spend New Year's Eve with one of those true friends I mentioned earlier. 2010, I shan't be sorry to see you leave. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Actually, do. I've installed a spike on it, at just about ass-level. I hope you enjoy it. You cunt.

#oneaday, Day 323: A Little Balance On The Gaming Issue, Please

An hour ago, the BBC aired an episode of Panorama, our go-to investigative journalism programme, on the subject of video games. The subject, predictably, was the ever-present "are video games addictive?" question that has been raised and not answered many, many times prior to now.

The programme made a few fair points that are more common sense than anything else. Firstly, those with addictive personalities are prone to becoming addicted to games. Many games have in-built reward mechanics which those who get easily addicted to things will… well, get addicted to. Social games like Farmville, MMOs like World of Warcraft and popular multiplayer titles like Call of Duty all take great pains to ensure a regular stream of rewards and gratification being sent in the player's general direction. Whether it's a "medal", a "completed quest" or simple experience points, there's a constant flow of something that leads the player to believe they're achieving something. Those who become addicted to things easily can use that as a justification.

Secondly, the programme pointed out that parental controls need to be used more effectively. Many children and teenagers are given free reign on their use of video games and as such don't limit themselves on how much to play, to the exclusion of other things. Parents need to get better-informed about the facilities available to them to control their children's playing habits. This is, sadly, something that many parents are very resistant to, despite the fact that the tools are there for use, particularly on the Xbox, which offers some of the most robust family controls that there are—as does the Mac, oddly enough.

There were no concrete conclusions drawn, however. The "conclusion", if you can call it that, was that more research was needed from an independent body.

The thing is, this discussion has been going on for decades now, and no-one has thought to actually do that research in an appropriately investigative and non-biased manner.

I was reading through a few Formspring answers from Leigh Alexander (I think) the other day and she made the very good point that those of us out there who write about games can't be called "journalists" in the same sense as those who write for, say, national newspapers on breaking stories. Our role as members of the games press involves reporting on carefully-disseminated information provided by PR companies, critiquing products on general release (occasionally before general release) and sometimes interviewing a developer from the industry. There's no real "investigation" there, there's no hard-hitting stuff. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but given that mainstream media tends to come down on the more negative side of the fence when investigating gaming, I think there's certainly scope for a counter-argument: someone who does know the industry well investigating the burning issues. And investigating them thoroughly using established journalistic, sociological research techniques.

Who's going to be the first person to step up and do that, though? More to the point, would anyone read it or take it seriously? Gamers, by their very nature, are defensive creatures, having been made out to be "the bad guys" by the mainstream media once too often. And those not "in the know" are often inclined to have their minds made up by sensationalist stories in the aforementioned mainstream media.

What we need is balance. What we need is a hero.

Wait, what?