Visual Communication Online

Social semiotics, named and discovered by Gunther Kress, is the the study of how social-practices and customs influences symbols and ideas as a whole. This idea is important due to it's wide reaching affects across society, for what is more powerful than the ability to influence how a person feels. With social semiotics a person can learn how a wide variety of things interact and influence people's emotion states and knee-jerk reactions.

When boiled down to it however, social semiotics is just another piece in the large scale idea that is face-to-face communication, and is subsequently lost most of the time when it comes to online communication. However I saw 'most' in this instance because there is still some instances of social semiotics in online communication. These instances take the forms of things like emojis, gifs, and general images attached to text.

Some rules associated with the methodology of social semiotics is that placement matters when it comes to a message. When placing an image to be displayed, the area you place it, such as the top, bottom, left, or right, determines the importance of the images in relation to the others.

The first image I would like to analyze is one depicting two individuals in a affectionate pose. The pose can be seen as signifying a motherly role. Additionally the lack of color combined with the blurred background allows for a focused view on the 'perfect' pair of individuals. The mother is staring at the camera while the daughter is looking away, allowing for both areas of interest when it comes to eye-contact to be met.

In this image a woman is shown staring at the camera with a resting expression. However with the lack of chin and top of head the expression can also be seen as judgmental. Eye contact in most images like this can help drive a sense of compassion on the viewer, however with the lacking top and bottom of the head this can give the idea of a more judgmental image.

Work Cited:

Hodge, R., Kress, G. (1997). Social Semiotics, Style and Ideology. In: Coupland, N., Jaworski, A. (eds) Sociolinguistics. Modern Linguistics Series. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-25582-5_7

Online Arguments

 For this week I have chosen to talk and reflect on an argument on the balance of the game 'Dead By Daylight' an asymmetric horror game where one 'killer' must fight against four 'survivors' to win. In the argument the original posted stated that the killer side was too weak when compared to the survivor side.

In the argument the original posted cites that several killers are bad due to a variety of reasons such as a lacking basekit (their tools / unique game mechanics), generous generator speeds (the mechanic survivors need to use to win the game), and map design that favors survivor. 

The first concern of mine in this document is that the poster is largely biased towards certain killers. Their username is named after the killer Legion and subsequently states he is on the better side when he is low on the totem poll balance-wise. 

My next concern is in the fact that several comments imply that the original post was edited to some degree, as many of them mention the 'Hag' killer stating that the original poster talked about them when the post has nothing on that specific killer.

My last concern is in the fact that the original poster doesn't have any concrete facts such as actual generator completion speeds or percentages of survivor escapes, thus there are no reliable sources.

When arguing online here are my 5 rules to take into account:

1. Try to have concrete facts to back up your opinions.

2. Look at current trends to see how your argument will be received.

3. Try to limit bias to the best of your ability.

4. Do not edit your argument afterwards unless it is in a separate comment.

5. Try to think of your own arguments weak points and plan around them.

Work Cited:

The_Real_Legion. "Why Killer is TOO WEAK." Reddit, 12 Sep. 2021, https://www.reddit.com/r/deadbydaylight/comments/pmw0cd/why_killer_is_too_weak/