Core Value 1. My work demonstrates that I used a variety of social and interactive practices that involve recursive stages of exploration, discovery, conceptualization, and development.

My work in my paper “Digital Distribution and the Preservation of Entertainment Software” started when I was talking to my friends about how I recently purchased a special physical version of a digital-only game and stated it was “worth it.” Yes, I waited an extra two months and I spent a little more money, but the concept stuck with me. They talked things out with me, arguing for multiple points, regardless of their stance on the subject. Talking through a subject and creating concrete points for everything you would like to talk about helps make a better paper. Keeping all the points in your head could be straining, especially if there is a lot to talk about. It took multiple angles to get what I wanted to say onto paper, but it managed to happen.

Core Value 2. My work demonstrates that I read critically, and that I placed texts into conversation with one another to create meaning by synthesizing ideas from various discourse communities. 

Once again, my paper “Digital Distribution and the Preservation of Entertainment Software” is a good example when discussing the Causal Argument within it. Within the paragraph explaining digitization, I use multiple quotations on similar subjects to support a point on another subject. In fact, the quotations lead right into each other with some of my own transitioning. Both sources discussed digitization on the music industry front, but my paper mainly discussed the effects of digitization and digital distribution of video games. The sources in question are both law journals, which needed a bit more out of me to fully understand. I only needed to understand a few parts of the full journals to get what I wanted to use out of them.

Core Value 3. My work demonstrates that I rhetorically analyzed the purpose, audience, and contexts of my own writing and other texts and visual arguments.

Within the post “My Hypothesis” I came up with the argument that soup is the superior food. While I eventually dropped this argument for another due to the lack of research and how simply logical it is. I also couldn’t keep myself from making soup puns. I’m sure I did everyone a favor by forgetting about this topic. With this idea, however, I was able to make a whole hypothesis that did not need to exist. Personally, I think this argument could turn into an argument on human perspective, if I wanted to think of the big picture. The topic, while about soup, was flexible enough to warrant a wide string of topics after talking about the main event, being soup.

Core Value 4: My work demonstrates that I have met the expectations of academic writing by locating, evaluating, and incorporating illustrations and evidence to support my own ideas and interpretations.

Once again, “Digital Distribution and the Preservation of Entertainment Software” shows my research and knowledge on the topic discussed. The subject was all around digitization. My research included law journals on digitization of music, journalists’ points of view, and actual research done and recorded for me to look through. I chose my sources and incorporated them into the document meticulously. All sources used are cited in and out of the text with academic integrity in mind. Some flow smoothly, some need introduction and analysis, it all depends on where I use the source. With the use of Rowan University’s databases as well as Google Scholar and the links at the bottom of Wikipedia pages, finding what was needed took time, but it was not hard.

Core Value 5. My work demonstrates that I respect my ethical responsibility to represent complex ideas fairly and to the sources of my information with appropriate citation. 

For this core value, I’d like to take a look at my Causal Argument. While I did not have any sources that I had faith in at the time, I still understood the power of my writing. I used logic and reasoning from my own mind to cover everything I needed to say. Using the Iron Man example was genius in my eyes. People accepted the 2008 film because it did not feature a numbered issue as reference, therefore making it less subject to criticism for not being one-to-one with the original work. I was proud of myself for that point. Even without credible sources, that statement and explanation could be good enough to persuade some people. If points are made with logical reasoning, anyone could agree or disagree without evidence. In high school I logically came up with the idea that Napoleon Bonaparte’s actions in Europe indirectly caused World War II. My voice and my thoughts are easily understood, explained, and identified in all my works. And, with anything, writing and words can make people swarm you with praise or pitchforks.