Editor's note: Read on for an illuminating discussion vis-a-vis the gender politics of Mario and -- oh, wait, that's not what this post is about. -Demian

Disclaimer: This is all for fun, don't take it more serious than it should be. And yes, I consider it a failure of my writing that I have to post this disclaimer.

By now you've heard about film critic Rober Ebert's ranting about why games can "never be art" (never!), and you've probably either read or ignored about two dozen "open letter" responses that each out-reason Ebert in just about every way. The debate almost immediately spilled over onto Twitter, where the film-critic-turned-video-game-disliker spends a majority of his time. I've been paying stupid-close attention to the fracas, and I've noticed three distinct personalities that pop up over and over again in response to Ebert.

I'm not going to try to deconstruct Ebert's silly arguments here. His lame points are painful to read, especially when contrasted with the well-thought-out arguments you can find on websites like Bitmob. No, with this article I'm going to shine a light on three personality types that Ebert and Ebert-related arguing brought to the fore. Please find enclosed the Roger Ebert Personality Test.

The Pretend Plato

This first personality is the most prominent and most natural. This is a person that reads -- or hears about -- the lunacy that Ebert coughs up and feels obligated to set him straight. There are more than a thousand comments on Ebert's blog, all trying to convince him that he is wrong. These people plunged head first into the troll's den, thinking they could talk him out, but they only managed to embarrass themselves. 

In this particular instance, Ebert hasn't even played the games that he brings up in his article -- yet that doesn't stop hundreds of people from each suggesting a game that they believe will change his mind. But he obviously doesn't care to see it from anyone else's point of view. It's much more fun to watch the hundreds of people piling into his comments section while he sits back and LOLs.

Still, several days after the initial episode, many continue to embarrass themselves in an attempt to engage Ebert on Twitter. If he hasn't broken by now then there is very little chance that he will.

An example: 

From my Twitter -- "@ebertchicago If we were to go by Plato's definition then there is no greater art than games. The code imitates and alters nature."

Right? How stupid do I sound? That is a seriously desperate thing to try to convey over Twitter. It was in direct response to one of the arguments that Ebert made, but I'm the one who feels like a jackass right now.

The Disillusioned Pretend Plato

This is what happens when -- over time -- crushing resentment replaces the Pretend Plato's youthful optimism. He realizes that this supposed dialogue is actually a monologue, so he weakly points out that the argument is ridiculous and then tries to ignore it. The DPP certainly used to be a PP, but the trolls finally beat him down. Not literally.  

An example:

From a DPP's Twitter -- "@pkollar though I love @nsuttner too, @ebertchicago 's dreck doesn't even warrant a response anymore."

I feel sorry for him, but mostly I see that I will inevitably become him. The worst part is that his arguments in the past may have been brilliant, but it won't matter, because he was essentially arguing with a wall. 

The Faux Intellectual

This personality type is essentially an Ebert wannabe who wants to get in on the trolling action. He attempts to make the Pretend Platos feel stupid by thumping his chest and reasoning that only his mind is properly equipped to deconstruct an argument as pure as the one put forth by such a great intellect. A PP will try to point out to the Faux Intellectual that Ebert's position is anything but pure, and that it is actually quite silly. The FI will counter by insulting the PP's intelligence and insinuating that the PP is incapable of seeing the genius of the original argument.

FIs survive on attention, and the only way to deal with them is by ignoring them.

An example:

From a Faux Intellectual's Twitter -- "to be completely honest, I have yet to read a well reasoned retort to Ebert. I might have to work on that this weekend. Insulting Roger Ebert's intelligence or general coherence as a human being isn't arguing with him. It IS killing your credibility though." 

He doesn't side with Ebert based on what Ebert is actually arguing, but on the grounds that they are intellectually equal and should discuss this privately while smoking a pipe.

The Arrogant Jackass

Finally, we come to the Arrogant Jackass. These types possess an arrogance so ripe that they sweat it from every pore. They have no reaction to Roger Ebert, because they settled the "games as art" debate ages ago. So when they read or see someone else attempting to broach the subject -- whether it be Ebert or the legions he inspired  -- they have no patience. The AJs operate under the assumption that they have already thought of every new idea relating to the subject and that it is absurd for all these other people -- who obviously aren't as smart as an Arrogant Jackass --  to even attempt to discuss it.

It takes a very special kind of person to discourage others from openly debating something, but the AJ is just that special.

An example:

From a Type-C's Twitter -- "Can't believe people are trying to have the "games as art" discussion again. UNSUBSCRIBE"