In my opinion, no, this will not/should not have a chilling effect on ARG developers at all. I’m pretty much in agreement with Brooke on this one.

Every live event should not only have the implicit permission of the pertinent property owner and city permits, etc. if necessary, but there is pretty much a standard in the industry of sending out media alerts to city offices whenever something is planned. This is pretty much standard operating procedure, as far as I’m aware (and by the way, it’d be a really interesting thing to find out if this was done in Boston or not).

It might better be said that, yeah, this might have a chilling effect on developers who haven’t heard of due diligence, and that might not be a bad thing. :)

The discussion, though, is good. (and fits with my half glass full theories ;))

I’m glad you’re enjoying the netcasts. I expect you’ll find some ironic humor in this next one. I expect you’ll hear me talking about how we have to consider how we design public play. We were talking about the absurdity of it all and I just don’t quite feel that way about the situation. I do think that we need to look at it the reactions (both the police and the aftermath) – there’s a lot to learn from it.

In my post, I speculate about *what might happen* as a result of a Mayorial ban on guerrilla marketing. Additionally I ask “What would happen if other city Mayors jumped on Menino’s bandwagon?” You seem to be attributing more to my post than is actually in the text, both in your earlier comments and your most recent one. Obviously if I had written my post better, it wouldn’t be open to interpretation. I’m disappointed that given the room, you’ve interpreted my post not just as a personal insult, but as “short selling” the entire ARG development community.

As you point out in your last comment, more good can come of the Boston incident than I account for in my post. But I still think the incident casts a pall over what is a “safe” way to surprise the public–that even well-planned efforts are a little more risky than they were before, at least in the short term.

I don’t think we’re likely to agree about what constitutes a chilling effect any more than Boston’s Mayor could effectively establish a ban against guerrilla marketing.

Thanks for the discussion, I look forward to your next ARG Netcast.

In the past few days, I’ve come to see this as a great opportunity for ARGs and public play. It’s a great reminder that we need to consider our plans – especially those that include public play. But it’s a reminder of the purpose behind what we have been doing, not something that we need to start doing now. Also, it’s opening a great discussion on playful behavior which, in addition to showing how hungry the public is for play, we can learn from. These things can result in better campaigns that provide the players and public with more confidence in their participation. Is that so chilling?

I’m sorry you felt I implied designers do not fully consider how they are engaging the public. In the second-last paragraph in my post, I write: “I can only speak for myself and those I’ve worked with, but public safety is always a major consideration in these efforts. So too is the potential for overreaction or misinterpretation by local authorities.”

What I intended to communicate here is my own personal experience, rather than disparage all other developers. I don’t know what other ARG developers do or don’t do with regards to public engagement considerations–but I wasn’t talking about others because I didn’t want to be presumptuous.

Your post is useful in broadening my understanding of what other developers have done in specific situations. Thanks for that. As I wrote in my post, I think public engagement will be more carefully considered after the Boston scare. I didn’t intend to imply that public engagement wasn’t a consideration at all.

I think that if more major cities supported a guerrilla marketing ban, it would affect how playful public engagement is planned and executed. At the very least, planning and execution will be more carefully considered. Is that so reactionary?