I remember watching TossGirl's stream on Afreeca a few months ago where she talked about first meeting up for dinner with Cadenzie. I can't remember a lot of it, but Tossgirl did say how difficult it was to find a Scottish restaurant. She seemed worried Cadenzie wouldn't like the food but wanted her to feel at home. I could be wrong, but I think it turned out the they didn't like the food there anyway haha. She also mentioned she didn't think Korean food matched Cadenzie's palette either. Might have been the spice-tolerance thing. She also said communicating was difficult but they were able to communicate with lots of hand gestures and things like that
On March 02 2019 03:00 chaosTheory_14cc wrote: I didn't realize she was so popular on afreeca that she gets recognized on the street, that's amazing. Good job Cadenzie and thanks for the interview.
it's a small country
Big enough... and 50 million people, but being a foreigner surely helps to get recognized, lel.
On March 08 2019 00:44 Cheesefome wrote: One would think that in this day and age this interview would be done via video considering every human being alive has a camera in their pockets.
I get that you probably just want a bit more convenience but:
An interview held face-to-face (in person or via camera) is different to a written conversation and it's not per se better or more authentic because it's via video. The form in which you communicate influences the content in different ways. It highly depends on the interviewers/interviewees preferences and traits how well it will turn out in either form. Generally speaking, answers (and questions) will be more spontaneous and less thought through if you have to answer verbally. Obviously this adds a certain liveliness and maybe even thrill sometimes, but it does not always benefit the interview's accuracy and validity. Also, speaking face to face comes with all kinds of effects on how people feel and behave (discomfort, antipathy, shyness, awkwardness, rudeness, subtle ways of exerting influence) that can lead to a less honest, less fruitful interaction that is not intended. For these and other reasons, many interviews that are intended to be a bit more in-depths are being held in written form or, if held verbally, are being reviewed after they were held - not to cover or polish things up, but because we don't always talk in our right minds.
On a sidenote: You're probably exaggerating intentionally, but not every human being has cameras in their pockets, not even all of those who could afford it. (Just a general reminder: half the world's population or so doesn't have a smartphone and you exclude them from "humans alive" in your sentence, and maybe in your everyday-thinking.) In this case though, they had phones in their pockets, probably. Admittedly, most people who have a camera in their pocket probably never asked themselves, in serious time, whether they should or not. More importantly: even a streamer might not want to be filmed in all situations.
On March 08 2019 00:44 Cheesefome wrote: One would think that in this day and age this interview would be done via video considering every human being alive has a camera in their pockets.
I get that you probably just want a bit more convenience but:
An interview held face-to-face (in person or via camera) is different to a written conversation and it's not per se better or more authentic because it's via video. The form in which you communicate influences the content in different ways. It highly depends on the interviewers/interviewees preferences and traits how well it will turn out in either form. Generally speaking, answers (and questions) will be more spontaneous and less thought through if you have to answer verbally. Obviously this adds a certain liveliness and maybe even thrill sometimes, but it does not always benefit the interview's accuracy and validity. Also, speaking face to face comes with all kinds of effects on how people feel and behave (discomfort, antipathy, shyness, awkwardness, rudeness, subtle ways of exerting influence) that can lead to a less honest, less fruitful interaction that is not intended. For these and other reasons, many interviews that are intended to be a bit more in-depths are being held in written form or, if held verbally, are being reviewed after they were held - not to cover or polish things up, but because we don't always talk in our right minds.
On a sidenote: You're probably exaggerating intentionally, but not every human being has cameras in their pockets, not even all of those who could afford it. (Just a general reminder: half the world's population or so doesn't have a smartphone and you exclude them from "humans alive" in your sentence, and maybe in your everyday-thinking.) In this case though, they had phones in their pockets, probably. Admittedly, most people who have a camera in their pocket probably never asked themselves, in serious time, whether they should or not. More importantly: even a streamer might not want to be filmed in all situations.
signed: prolly stoneage nerd
You're wayyyyy overthinking it. She's a streamer, i'm pretty sure having a camera in her face is the least of her concern or worries. She literally does this for a living and has been for years. If shyness was the issue she wouldn't be using a cam in the first place.
Obviously not every single human being has a cell phone. Did you actually waste time explaining that? What we know is that these people being interviewed own PC's and phones that was my point.
Personally would prefer to see her express her experiences in a video vs reading it.. Actually think it would be more authentic and also I'm sure people could appreciate the gamers personality. BTW you can edit the videos if something was said that the interviewer or interviewee did not like.
To be clear, I'm not complaining about the interviews in fact i love them and appreciate them.
No harm intended, this was not meant as some fundamental personal critique or something, just commenting on what your sentence seemed to imply - and your answer gave me a good idea that I was not that far off.
No harm intended though, just that I tend to try. I just think a little more subtlety and questioning in conversations can be enriching sometimes but it's so off the usual tone, especially on the internet, that people take it for pedantism.
On March 08 2019 00:44 Cheesefome wrote: One would think that in this day and age this interview would be done via video considering every human being alive has a camera in their pockets.
I get that you probably just want a bit more convenience but:
An interview held face-to-face (in person or via camera) is different to a written conversation and it's not per se better or more authentic because it's via video. The form in which you communicate influences the content in different ways. It highly depends on the interviewers/interviewees preferences and traits how well it will turn out in either form. Generally speaking, answers (and questions) will be more spontaneous and less thought through if you have to answer verbally. Obviously this adds a certain liveliness and maybe even thrill sometimes, but it does not always benefit the interview's accuracy and validity. Also, speaking face to face comes with all kinds of effects on how people feel and behave (discomfort, antipathy, shyness, awkwardness, rudeness, subtle ways of exerting influence) that can lead to a less honest, less fruitful interaction that is not intended. For these and other reasons, many interviews that are intended to be a bit more in-depths are being held in written form or, if held verbally, are being reviewed after they were held - not to cover or polish things up, but because we don't always talk in our right minds.
On a sidenote: You're probably exaggerating intentionally, but not every human being has cameras in their pockets, not even all of those who could afford it. (Just a general reminder: half the world's population or so doesn't have a smartphone and you exclude them from "humans alive" in your sentence, and maybe in your everyday-thinking.) In this case though, they had phones in their pockets, probably. Admittedly, most people who have a camera in their pocket probably never asked themselves, in serious time, whether they should or not. More importantly: even a streamer might not want to be filmed in all situations.
signed: prolly stoneage nerd
You're wayyyyy overthinking it. She's a streamer, i'm pretty sure having a camera in her face is the least of her concern or worries. She literally does this for a living and has been for years. If shyness was the issue she wouldn't be using a cam in the first place.
Obviously not every single human being has a cell phone. Did you actually waste time explaining that? What we know is that these people being interviewed own PC's and phones that was my point.
Personally would prefer to see her express her experiences in a video vs reading it.. Actually think it would be more authentic and also I'm sure people could appreciate the gamers personality. BTW you can edit the videos if something was said that the interviewer or interviewee did not like.
To be clear, I'm not complaining about the interviews in fact i love them and appreciate them.
Just to add to this conversation, it's pretty interesting how the format of the interview affects the answers you receive. Generally I've found that text (dialogue) interviews are very...constructed. They give the interviewee plenty of time to think through their responses and choose the best words, and as a result, you get both a more precise point but also potentially a less sincere one. Audio and video interviews definitely present more candid moments but can often lose some meaning as the interviewee rambles or tries to cover up the silence when they're thinking. It's a give and take, and I think both have their merits.
In our case, Ty2 chose to go for a text interview because 1) Korea is on the other side of the world and time zones create issues with audio or video interviews, and 2) text interviews are much much easier.
EDIT: Q&A interviews (you send a list of questions, the person sends a list of answers back) are awful unless it's literally like 3-4 questions and you're mostly just doing it for a few quotes.
As someone who has done many phone interviews with various Korean players, I have to say that it is an enormous pain to do. The scheduling is nearly impossible because of the time difference. People flake out when you schedule them. Some people won't bother unless you pay them.
The reason such "live" interviews are better in quality (IMO) is because the first answer you get often doesn't answer your question or doesn't give you enough. So doing it live lets the interviewer to have a conversation with the subject instead of just reading the questions. You sometimes even massage their egos to make them open up a bit. It is a major pain, especially since VOIP quality often varies. I am glad I don't have to do these anymore now that my passion is dead.
Everyone who writes for TL pretty much has a RL job and family obligations. I hope people will be more understanding of these text interviews. Let me tell you, these are not easy to set up either.
Granted, cadenzie speaks English, so this was probably easier than dealing with Koreans, but the answers are pretty informative from what I can see. Heck they're better than answers from some live interviews. Looks like Ty2 got some good answers. I would be thankful that we aren't getting more interviews that are one liner spams.
Nice one! I didnt expect such a big understanding of the game ... the part where she talk about korean foreigners difference is very interesting. Something about her romance life would have add some spice to the interview Is she going out with Shine ... is she secretely in love with Larva ... or other way around with ... Tossgirl?