Successfully reported this slideshow.
Board: Portrait of a Looking Glass<br />Research performed by<br />Eve’s Humanities Association<br />32480254676775Sometimes it is difficult for us as human beings to recognize the qualities that compose our morphology, and even sometimes it is even more difficult to assimilate these unrecognized traits with those that coexist in this world with us, otherwise we would not have the long history of segregation that humanity has endeavored to impose on itself if that were not the case. That being said, there are many reasons why people would do such a thing to one another. In the case of test subject three forty-seven (who shall be referred in this report by his most recognizable surname, “Board”), appears to share a similar social infrastructure with the subject Wocket (whose inconsistent framework has forced this research facility to call her by the initial moniker she possessed in our first encounter with said subject). With subject Board entranced on a classical state of denial, it is imperative that this report list and explore the various similarities that the subject shares with subject Wocket; not for his sake alone, but for anyone that distrusts our research facility’s studies and scientific prowess, which could use veritable foundlings to advance our goal for human prosperity. Let us commence the examination.<br />Understanding Board<br />Artist's Rendition of Board By all means and purposes, subject Board is sensible man. While he certainly exhibits an ample range of moral assets, he is subjective to manipulation by those that surround him. Normally, subject Board is mild-mannered, critical on his in-game ability, and communicative to those that peak his interest or address him directly. However, when the subject is pushed to his limits, be it by some person making an erratic comment beyond his comprehension of the subject matter or his mother taking his communication device away, subject Board seems to expose a darker turn to his personality. In this state of frivolity, he will reveal prejudices that he would not normally communicate, with little regard towards his intended target. This is only conditional however, as this state solely depends on the target’s ability to counteract. Early in the year 2010, a clan came to the Team Fortress 2 server (which this facility uses as a social-interaction examination project) in which subject Board takes administrational duties, and promptly began to disrupt the relatively peace the server had. Subject Board’s reactions are listed as follows:<br />1. He asked politely for them to stop<br />2. He tried to reason with them<br />3. He muted some of them<br />4. He un-muted the vandals when peer pressured by the friends of said vandals<br />5. He took their insults<br />6. He tried to befriend their vandalism<br />44100752381257. He blended into their chaos<br /> <br />Jewsrule’s administrational policiesOn a different note, a rogue donator-turned-administrator who goes by the name “Jewsrule” is far more aggressive and would have reacted to this conflict with strong convictions and determination, performing on the vandals what we will crudely refer as “ripping them a new asshole” or a structurally superfluous new behind by the researchers’ standards. That being said, subject Board is neither a “douchebag” nor an “asshole” like Mr. Jewsrule, as he generally keeps a sense of cordiality and he shouldn’t be judged by his uncommon shifts in personality. <br />Interaction with Other Human Beings<br /> Keeping back on our main topic at hand, subject Wocket shares subject Board’s integration techniques to what could otherwise become a hostile environment for her. Both subjects also share repulsion to similar subject manners, being it a serious conversation of human sexuality (without slurs or crude language to make it enjoyable for them) or repeated critical evaluations (emphasizing on the critical aspect) and/or demeaning their prowess. It is important to note that while these things do not necessarily shun the subjects away from a server, it will make them take an inactive slot within the server itself, which will lead in to our next investigation.<br />Spectator Motivation<br />Clownfish at work3990975464820For a game that priorities its entertainment in interactivity, the subjects Board and Wocket seem to spent an abnormal time in TF2’s spectator mode. Usually, the service will permit its users to examine player movements like the horrible deaths that follow them or Clownfish’s unbalanced critical-hit killing sprees. However, both subjects appear to approach this state as a bonding opportunity between one another. While it is not unusual to have meaningful conversations in TF2, it begs to wonder why only these two subjects will proceed to perform this ritual when no one else seems to do so. We require more data to find out the specifics behind their rationale.<br />Intellect and Conversation<br />3590925113030 Here we will not delve on the subjects’ reasoning capabilities as the heading might suggest (for the sake of this report and the subject matter) but will rather analyze the way subject Board and Wocket cope with each other. The way they interact with each other often suggests that they share an intimate relationship or common interests, usually with subject Wocket introducing a topic and subject Board remarking on it over and over again, resulting in a conversation most people will find “droning on and on and getting nowhere,” a typical symptom found in the brain disease codenamed “love,” which this research facility will like to state we are not implying between the two subjects (although a few psychological studies suggest that there is an attraction for the opposite gender equivalent of the individual). With subject Wocket talking representing “A” and subject Board representing “B,” our theory is as follows:<br />“As A approaches to infinity, B is more likely to follow”<br />The subject of the conversation, while not far from the casual talk and such, seems to engage subject Board’s interests without putting him over the edge like Mr. Jewsrule’s questionable homoerotic experiences or schizophrenic allusions, which is something quite rare to find in TF2. Needless to say, both of them find common ground share fair amount of interests; examples will be avoided to reduce the invasion of privacy for the subjects in question.<br />Board and Plank<br />While identifiable proof is scarce behind the reasoning of subject Wocket, it seem fairly reasonable to infer that the name change to “Plank” was made as a tribute to subject Board, creating a connection with him that we will like to point out might not be a romantic approach, rather a nod to their friendship or common ground.<br />Voice Patterns<br />While subjects Board and Wocket’s voice pattern are marginally different, the way they vocalize their sentences is not. This would suggest that they either come from a similar topography or that they have familiarized a code dialect over the course of multiple interactions. <br />Sexuality<br />362902512700In a very recent discovery, one of our researchers suggested to remove her apparel for academic purposes, to which subject Board responded “Eugh.” Considering that our researcher is relatively up to standards to attract the common male, it puts Board’s sexuality in a new perspective. It is beyond our research in how subject Board’s sexual tastes deviates from the norm, but assuming he has a taste for masculine anatomy, he might have something more in common with subject Wocket that we would have usually expected. However, that is up to interpretation, as sexual taste varies from person to person. They also share 22 out of 23 identical pairs of chromosomes, with the difference being only one chromosome in the last pair.<br />A Continuing Project<br />Due to insufficient funding, our research has been quite limited. To ensure a complete, more accurate report, we require enough resources to sustain the project. However, this scarce report alone achieves to make a connection with the two subjects, which has been our initial goal since the project began. <br />-666750447040Information on Primary Researcher(s):<br />Artist's Rendition of Hope Hope: Our most enigmatic worker under our employment, this individual has claimed to be various entities in the past, ranging from a puppy pulling levers to twin sisters managing a mouse and keyboard independently from one another. We have concluded that this entity has at least the cognoscente of a well-groomed human being and most likely operates in a group; otherwise it would suggest that he/she/it suffers from a dual personality disorder. Trustworthy on an academic level and very distrustful on the emotional one; approach with caution.<br />