User talk:Cat the Colourful/Lootboxes

Scoring for Happy Monkey 2021 Competition

(see full scores here)

Scores and review from Shabidoo

Originality:	8/10	Highly original. I certainly haven't read an article quite like it. The Luther section was particularly original, I never quite thought of Luther in relation to loot-boxes in my life.
Creativity:	8/10	Very creative use of the topic. A sort of angst y relation of loot boxes to numerous political problems and the modern condition. The give a man a fish bit was very clever.
Humour:	5/10	While the article is overflowing with originality and creativity it wasn't as strong with humour in my opinion. I have often found that less is more, and while it is true that those who pontificate and deconstruct are wordy, it might be a good idea to tighten the narrative a little. It's painful to make cuts but I believe that it would seriously add the the humour. Points for the funny use of images! So how to convince the modern man to pawn his house and wife for a good old game of poker? yet simultaneously also promising everything With his pockets full of Catholic cash gacha games primarily deal with randomly generated girls stuffed inside circular objects as prize
Final Score:	21/30
Suggestions:	I really like the concept and your original take on it and some moments of humour. Having said that, it is really wordy and as, if you remember, TheKillerFroggy once said: Less Is More. So while the tone is great (verbosity, intellectualism and stuffiness) I really think you can cut down on a lot of that text and still keep the tone and humour alive. For example: In the context of furiously overthinking about the surreal modern reality of the human condition and its many components, the act of gambling is a source of infinite cosmic terror and mystery”. I think you can cut that in half and gain something. How about: "Contextualising overthinking the surreal human condition, gambling is a source of terror and mystery". We've well established the academicness of the text, the over use of terms but we haven't bored the audience. In fact you could probably shave a few words off here. That doesn't mean that you can't recycle the stuff that you've cut but, if you work on the article (which I think you should) you could put all those adjectives and terms elsewhere. One particularly good part of the article is mixing casino owners, Russian mafia and uncyclopedian moderators. It's not only funny (the juxtaposition of these three rather different things) but its also a lot more concise while still maintaining the same well written tone. It wouldn't be a bad idea to throw in some overarching idea into the article (stick to a concept or two) like bashing over the head of the reader that lootboxes are evil ways to get kids to give their parents money just to get a meagre graphic or accessory for their character. Also...the random nature of the loot-box, how can you entice kids to gamble without saying that they are actually gambling. That would mean adding some examples and explaining how they actually work. I know you are going for a stuffy post-modern tone but I think you can do both, endlessly mock the gambling/non-gambling nature and immorality of getting kids to "gamble" while still making it seem like a rambling academic rant. For example in the section where you start: One may think that lootboxes are mere scams hidden beneath a layer of false abstraction ... you may finish it by actually admitting that it really is pointless manipulative gambling (without explicitly saying so). You could try: "One may think that lootboxes are mere scams hidden beneath a layer of false abstraction but that is missing the point, it is really an exploration of spiritual reckonings, where the spirit parts with their property for the sake of consumerism that benefits the corporate nuances". In that case, you're saying its not just mere gambling but then concluding its actually mere gambling while maintaining the facade of deconstructing snobbery. The last section was really creative and original. It may have been a good idea to bring loot boxes back to Greek history and give a classical rendition of the concept. Post-modernists like to hark back to the classics (even if they put their own spin on it). It could be a great place to discuss things in a more matter of fact way and then add a fancy layer to it. Think: The greeks through their mystery religions created the first concept of risking ones own identity for the seeming prize of a new unexpected ideology. The box was their new faith, what they gambled was their selfness. How that became a digital gambling box for the masses is a long and interesting journey through the so called "dark ages", to modernity (with green gambling tables in hyper-real Vegas), post-modernity "where you could wager you own university degree" into "post-post-modernity" where gambling is the inter-conceptuality of loss into "hyper modernity" where credit card numbers lose their intersectionality.” It’s a sort of history of the different ages framed in each ages intellectual tone. In any case, I think the article was really well conceived, quite original and creative with some funny moments. By all means work on it, perhaps make some cuts, thematise it and finish it. It really ought to be featured. Don't hesitate to hit me up for specific ideas or suggestions.

Scores and review from Sarah_Baldewijns

Originality 8/10

Creativity 8/10

Humour 7/10

Total= 23/30

Comment: You make some very interesting digressions, like with Luther and the japanese girls.

Scores and review from JJPMaster

Originality 10/10

Creativity 7/10

Humour 6/10

Total= 23/30

Comment: This one's pretty good. I feel like the narrative of a loot box being a physical box is already quite creative, and its humor is quite interesting. The Martin Luther-based tangent is another great part of it. The see also section was also surprisingly nice.

Scores and review from Cassie

Originality 6/10

Comment: Starts black-and-white, ends in a rainbow.

Creativity 10/10

Comment: Eh.

Humour 5/10

Comment: The humor, despite being definitely quite good, was difficult to understand. I couldn't exactly understand much of where the humor is supposed to be derived from; instead of feeling like one coherent joke, it feels like a few dozen of them, unevenly blended together.

Total= 21/30

Total Score: 88/120