Naked Controversy

Scott Hardie | February 24, 2009
Today's goo, Art & Photography (1472), has resulted in a number of complaints over its subject matter. Am I implicitly asking people to research child pornography in order to solve it? The artist himself would probably be happy to know what controversy he can generate just by being mentioned in a little web game.

First of all, I do apologize to anyone offended, whether morally opposed or just grossed-out. There isn't a notice saying "goo.tc is intended for adults only," but that's always been my philosophy. There's been no holding back of profanity, nudity, and adult subjects on the site over the years and I don't see that changing, but it does hit you like a smack in the face if you're not expecting it. Sorry about that.

It's not my intention that anyone have to research child pornography to solve this. From what I gather by reading about FBI stings in the news, it's pretty hard to find actual child porn anyway, even if you were looking. It is not difficult to solve this goo without ever leaving goo.tc, or by limiting your research to safe sites like Wikipedia or NNDB which aren't going to make you look at anything bad. (Wikipedia does have a few adult images depending on the subject, but they're academic in nature instead of lewd.)

As Kelly Lee and other former art majors can tell you, art history is full of nudity and other sexualized images as artists worked out their kinks on the canvas, and you learn quickly to get over your discomfort and appreciate the work academically. This goo is intended in the same spirit: This person is a serious artist, not a pornographer, but if you do go digging into his work, you're going to be confronted with some strong subject matter. If anything, the clue is a warning to that effect.

I hope all of that serves as sufficient explanation for why the goo seemed legitimate to me, and again, I'm sorry that anyone was offended by it. But there's more to the controversy that bothers me, which is that it didn't even occur to me until the goo was live that it had any of these problems. How has the game gotten to the point that such a disgusting figure would be included so arbitrarily, on the site's 11th anniversary even?

For me to keep cranking out 365 goos a year, there has to be some degree of operating on auto-pilot and not over-thinking each creation; tournament goos are often the only ones that I put more than minimal effort into. But even just muddling along without much thought, how could the game have drifted this far out into the weeds? It's one thing to ask you to recognize famous monsters like Jeffrey Dahmer or Adolf Hitler; it's another thing to make you wade through dozens of x-rated artists to find just the right photographer of naked kids. How is this quest any kind of fun? Does this goo serve the purpose of my game? How did things get this way?

I have Kelly to thank for the art-history point above, and she also suggested that I bring this to TC for discussion, since I need perspective from players to get to the bottom of this. One of my core beliefs about the game is that it is not fun when the celebrities are obscure no-names that you have no realistic chance of having heard of before now, or when they come from a field that has no interest to you, like having to look up football players when you have no interest in the sport. This goo has both of those problems for almost everyone, and that's at the root of my frustration today: Setting aside whatever moral objections you might have to the goo, I think it's just plain not fun to solve, and if I'm right, then what the hell am I doing and does my game need to be re-thought? Perhaps I'm not right or there's more that I haven't considered because I'm not a player. If you're still reading after this long-winded rambling, I'd appreciate having your perspective on the matter.

Samir Mehta | February 24, 2009
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | February 24, 2009
I appreciate you saying so. By all means, whatever your reaction is, I want to hear it.

I appreciate the irony that three players have all entered the same wrong guess today, which could mean that there will be an obscene do-over goo to follow this obscene do-over goo which followed an obscene do-over goo to an obscene themed-week goo in the first place. Today's controversy means that I'll either finally break that cycle and end some bad habits, or prolong the tradition knowing now that it's a good thing and having player support for it. Sounds like a gain either way.

Kelly Lee | February 24, 2009
How the hell do you come up with 365 different celebrities a year? And it's not like you can do them all over again in later years? Now I know why you are on the computer all the time...sheesh.

Amy Austin | February 24, 2009
Except for the fact that I was already very familiar with the subject of the goo... and looked long and hard for (and found) the correct answer to the one he is a do-over for -- with similar complaints about the previous search (no different from porn actress goos in my opinion, however -- and, other than equal opportunity*, not a moral/offense issue, so much as a computer protection issue for me) -- before submitting him as my next best guess... I second Samir's comment. (And Kelly's too! ;-D)

*Equal opportunity can include more than the hedgehog, imo...

Aaron Shurtleff | February 24, 2009
I was not offended, but I can see where some were. I don't want to give anything away, but I didn't even use the child part of the clue to figure it out, honestly.

I think that clues like that add to the game, myself. I enjoy that there might be those sorts of people that I do not know, that I might find out about through this game. This particular GOO, yeah, not so much on the wanting to know more about, but I don't know that abridging the game is going to make it better.

And one person's obscure no-name cam be famous to another, it's all about your perspective.

Aaron Shurtleff | February 24, 2009
I am required by law to say, re: Amy's comment...

You said long and hard! heh hehheh.

Tony Peters | February 24, 2009
ell I didn't do much research at all I new exactly who is was just from the clue, my only issue was spelling the name correctly....As for validity of the goo I will wait until it's expired as I have too much to say about it

Amy Austin | February 24, 2009
Aaron (aka Butthead) -- Beavis laughter right back at you...

Tony -- if you re-read what I said, it was that I was very familiar with the current goo and also knew who (as well as spelling) right away... my "long and hard" research was for the preceding goo -- the "do-over"-inspiring one long (and hard) before this.

Tony Peters | February 24, 2009
Amy I know what you meant, I meant that most do overs i end up trying to figure the original goo and then work from there...this was my first goo in some time that my only issue was spelling I actually new it upon reading

Amy Austin | February 24, 2009
ah... yeah, ok

Tony Peters | February 24, 2009
Then again I think the original goo was similar, for me anyway

Lori Lancaster | February 24, 2009
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | February 24, 2009
I doubt it, because you didn't get it -- only four correct guesses. Unless you mean the *original* original.

Tony Peters | February 24, 2009
yeah I was thinking about the original original

Steve Dunn | February 24, 2009
Scott, you'll have to try a lot harder than that to offend me. Please do!

(Hehehe, I said "hard.")

Amy Austin | February 24, 2009
Word... bring it!

Steve West | February 24, 2009
I find the artist somewhat offensive personally. Not his inclusion in the game, just him. I'm offended by the examples you gave - Adolph Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer also but that shouldn't preclude them from being subjects of the game. Celebrity has such a broad definition that it includes people that you don't like or are even disgusted by. Keep 'em comin'!

Tony Peters | February 24, 2009
hold off on the artiste discussion until the goo expires (or until everyone gets it please

Amy Austin | February 24, 2009
What Steve said. But as a person with a fairly extensive art background... what Kelly said, too.

Scott Hardie | February 25, 2009
Thanks for commenting, everybody. I'm relieved that consensus supports the goo and indicates that I'm not as far off track as I thought. I hadn't heard of this celebrity before, and that affected my estimation of the goo's difficulty, which is one reason I have never been good at predicting a goo's difficulty. (And no, difficulty ratings are still not coming back.)

Amy, it's funny you bring up "equal opportunity" among adult goos. In years past, I tried to balance the gender representation in the goo game, but eventually I ran out of famous women in the lesser categories and had to yield to the inevitable over-representation of men. The Sexuality category is one of the few fields where there are many more famous women than famous men, and I think that's even sadder somehow. I will endeavor to find more attractive men than the hedgehog, but given my current aversion to any more adult goos for a while, don't count on it soon.

Tony Peters | March 4, 2009
The goo was fine in that Mapplethorpe was newsworthy but I never found his later work to be all appealing (obviously) or for that matter deserving of an NEA grant regardless of what he did before he passed.