MUD-Dev
mailing list archive

Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]

Date:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Thread:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Index:  [ Author  | Date  | Thread  ]

RE: [MUD-Dev] dealing with foul language





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ola Fosheim Grøstad [mailto:olag#ifi,uio.no]
> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 11:36 AM
> To: mud-dev#kanga,nu
> Subject: Re: [MUD-Dev] dealing with foul language
> 
> 
> "Kristen L. Koster" wrote:
> > on 4/9/2000 9:32 AM, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> 
> > > Which suggests that creating an access-for-all 
> environment is not a good
> > > idea?
> > 
> > It certainly is, if a certain level of civility and clear 
> social norms is
> > your principal goal.
> 
> Shouldn't it be the other way around: access-for-all is a good idea if
> you don't want to deal with civil behaviour? (IRC, USENET 
> etc)  Maybe I
> got you wrong, my interpreter failed to parse "obstreperous".

Sorry, I mistyped. To be clearer: yes, it is a bad idea to create an
access-for-all environment if your goals are a given level of civility and
social norms.

> I personally think an extension of the IRC model is one of the better
> ones: let the users manage their own subspaces + trust 
> networks.  Admins
> are then left with administering newbie areas and infrastructure (if
> they insist).

Quite agreed. This is what is interesting about Bioware's new Neverwinter
Nights game--a distributed mud server, instances of which can be hooked
together to make one large game world. Character persistence handled by
Bioware, all content handled by individual servers within the constraints of
the well-known AD&D ruleset. no subscription fees.

> > Ola's New Law: the broader the focus of your virtual environment, the
more
> > ill-mannered behavior you will see.
> 
> Well, I tried to communicate several things... If people 
> don't know what
> matters ("this is not reality") then people will complain more about
> things that really isn't all that important, as they will single out
> something as their focus? So I don't think this is only about
> ill-mannered behaviour, I think this is also about interpreting things
> as ill-mannered. You don't complain about people picking 
> their nose, if
> there is a circus passing by, or if the next person is being raped, or
> if you are engaged in a really interesting discussion.

There has probably been a culture somewhere at some point in the world's
history, where picking your nose in front of the wrong person could get you
summarily lynched or executed. :) Societies define their own norms, and many
of them can seem extremely quirky or "square-headed" as you put it.

By saying "this is what matters, objectively" you are imposing a value
judgement on the norms established by a social group other than your own.
Given how the world works, you are likely to have arrived at your value
judgement by unwittingly imposing the norms of your society on the people
you are judging. There is nothing wrong with making said judgement (in fact,
it is one of the chief ways in which YOUR society is strengthened) but one
should be aware of the fact that some things YOU do are liable to be viewed
as equally ridiculous by others.

> > Given a choice of multiple virtual environments in which to participate
> > (including IRC, email lists, etc etc here) I think it is safe to say
that
> > whichever one a person chooses and sticks with does, in fact, offer
> > something substantial and unique to them, and likely matters to them.
> 
> I just think they found a safe reassuring place to escape to, or
> happened to invest in a game they cannot afford to get out of. :P (a
> destructive spiral or slumbering backwaters (or whatever it 
> is called))

An awfully cynical view. Allow me to counter with something I wrote
regarding players buying and selling UO goodson eBay:

start quote--->
If RL is more worthwhile and fun than UO (and I wouldn't dispute that it
is), then what are you doing here, arguing the point? :) 

We cannot judge whether someone is a loser just by their actions on one
auction. What do you know? Maybe someone is buying it as a special gift for
a dying kid. Still a loser? Maybe they are buying it because they hate the
person and they want to carefully demolish everything that account has
achieved. Loser? Probably. :) 

Either way, nobody is going to spend that amount of money on something they
are not passionate about. And lemme tell you, if their life in UO is
passionate, and their life in the real world is dry and gray, then maybe
it's the virtual life that is worthwhile and valuable, not the real one.
Maybe that's where they touch more people, where they influence lives, where
they make discoveries about themselves and others, where they do good deeds,
learn lessons, and take risks. 

Who are you (or me, or anyone) to judge that?
<---end quote

> If this thread continues then we will be in the same situation, we
> started out with something that had potential, but then we 
> just keep on
> because not replying might not portray the self-image we'd 
> like to see.
> Or maybe because we had some hope that something would 
> materialize (like
> getting the final word, or coming to an agreement). Or maybe (God
> forbid) we keep on to get revenge over past actions. ("You made this
> place inhabitable, and I am not going to let you enjoy what I had")

Possibly we continue in order to persuade the listening audience (currently
over 600, I understand) to one of our various points of view. Or to, through
argument, clarify our own positions on the matter. Or because there is
enjoyment to be derived from the play of ideas between two educated minds.

> Of course, your argument doesn't hold in the context you 
> replied to: the
> players don't have to stick to one place. They could all be channel
> surfers who know that the place does not offer something they couldn't
> get elsewhere. If you offer something substantial and unique then you
> cannot get a substitute elsewhere. If players are aware that they can
> thrive somewhere else then they are inclined to be loyal to 
> their group
> and not the system/society. Say, if they are both playing EQ and AC,
> then they might be willing to risk more in EQ than perhaps in AC
> (assuming that AC has more unique stuff that matters to 
> offer, something
> I know nothing about).

This is all true, but I am not sure what point you are trying to get at--it
feels tangential to the main point. I am saying that IF they pick one, and
stick with it, it likely matters to them. And yes, if they pick more than
one, one may matter more.

Your contention as I understood it was that it probably didn't matter to
them, or didn't matter in some broader, ill-defined way?

> > Timothy's research, for example, would be harmed by always dealing with
a
> > small, homogeneous sample. Any area of endeavour that relied on small
sample
> > size.
> 
> Do you design MUDs for quantitative research? Maybe Timothy could use a
> qualitative strategy. (Which is most suitable for MUDs anyway.) Is it
> ethical to sacrifice the quality of the userspace?

"Quality of the userspace" is a subjective thing in the first place. And
yes, any commercial venture and for that matter any hobbyist venture that
seeks to grow its playerbase does in fact rely either explicitly or
implicitly on research of both kinds. In fact, we hereon this list who seek
to advance the state of the art are implicitly engaging in research by
trying to effect such advancement.

> > It may not be about the users' needs in the first place. :)
> 
> Spooky... That comment could foster a lot of comments in UO's
> population. ;)

I suspect that UO's population is aware that the game administration has
clear financial goals. ;) The designers' and the players' goals may coincide
on many points, but they are also going to be different on many points.

> > As far as whether it's something that matters to the users, well, that
> > depends on whether diversity (as Jon points out), and all the
concomitant
> > issues and benefits, are something that matter to the users.
> 
> When I wrote "matters", I meant stuff that matters even when they are
> offline, and have left the world etc.

Can you define "matters" here? Because I define it in terms of whether the
user feels it matters. I won't presume to say that "it doesn't matter in
some broad sense even if they feel it does."

>  I don't mean stuff that matters
> because it annoy and distract the user!

Or because it thrills and delights the user? Some (many!) users enjoy the
fact that they meet a diverse array of people from many cultures and
backgrounds, when they participate in an all-access environment.

> > So in itself, short-term escapism can indeed matter, a lot.
> 
> Not if that is all you do, and if there are more effective ways to do
> it.

I am not sure what you are referring to--online game addiction, perhaps?

> > Beyond that, there's a more fundamental issue here: you're presuming to
> > judge what "matters" to other people. I am not going to presume to judge
> > that.
> 
> Ehehe, so you don't design, but slap random pieces together, right? 

No, my design is based, generally speaking, on my personal interests in
terms o the goal of the space; on my backer's interests in terms of the
space (and for hobbyists, these two might be the same person of course);
what I have determined (via research, personal experience, and anecdotal
evidence) large groups of people tend to enjoy and respond to; and on my
best guesses on what other elements that might also achieve that goal. I
suspect that's what everyone bases their designs on.

> Actually, I don't think you can avoid it. And I don't see why 
> you should avoid it?  Why are you doing whatever you are doing?

If you mean, you don't think I can avoid thinking about what "matters," I
don't try to think about it in terms of a large abstract. If I am preparing
designs oriented around "community" it isn't just because community
"matters." It's because it matters to a lot of individual people who are
likely to play the game. It's because it matters to me personally. It's
because it's likely to retain players, leading to greater revenues, leading
to my getting to make another game. But I am not going to make a value
judgement about it. For example, I am not into PKing in muds. I've engaged
in exactly two PK fights in all my years of mudding. Yet I put PK in my
designs. Not because it "matters" in the abstract. Because it matters to
people in the audience.

> > > Clearly if you widen the scope in order to get a larger audience then
> > > there is more risk for loosing direction.
> > 
> > Naturally. The inverse is also true: narrowing scope costs you audience,
> > until too narrow a scope may leave you with no audience.
> 
> Unless you are able to create enthusiasm for a unique vision (that
> matters, religious movements etc)?

Then the scope is likely not narrow. Religious movements tend to have a
pretty broad scope, for example. Otherwise they get called "cults". ;)

> [skipping multiple goals stuff]
> 
> [my "good things are produced within a narrow scope" snipped]
> 
> > This in itself is an aesthetic judgement. I'm not going to debate it as
I
> > think it's off topic for the list, but it's a "vision" thing.
> 
> You don't want to discuss it because the closure of said statement is
> unpleasant. ;) I think it is rather factual, and it can be explained. It
> has to do with coping with complexity, getting beyond the local maxima,
> controlling risk etc.

I also think that it's going to be entirely subjective to argue "good" and
"narrow." :) Hence not a very fruitful discussion for the list, so I'll drop
it unless JCL chimes in here and says, "No, argue away, please!"

[snip "companies cannot produce good things"]

> > That happens to be one of the current fashions. But studying past
aesthetic
> > currents will show that there are numrous cultures and even moments in
the
> > main Western tradition where being sufficiently different to be fresh
was
> > "bad art."
> 
> Dunno what you mean by "bad art",

I mean that the cognoscenti of the time declared it to be "bad art."

>  but nevertheless, like when?

French Academy painting vs Impressionism, birth of jazz, the riots at "Rite
of Spring," Van Gogh, birth of rock 'n' roll... yeesh, I could go on for
hours. Hellenistic art. The well-tempered scale. The graphical adventure
game. The invention of the comic strip. The graphical mud. :)

>   Fashion
> also have to do with maintaining borders between generations, which is
> useful for challenging norms, coping with changes in the environment
> etc?

Yes, which is why we also tend to see a pattern of swings between Dionysian
and Apollonian artistic styles. This is increasingly off-topic however. :)

> > We, in our current cycle and in our prevailing aesthetic, regard
> > those as stagnant.
> 
> I don't know anything in norwegian culture that has been stagnant. 

No, what I mean is that we now see the French Academy (for example) as
stagnant because it couldn't recognize the brilliance of "Impression: A
Sunrise." On the other hand, we see stuff that is highly traditional as NOT
stagnant sometimes--blues music today, for example. It's a cultural thing
that varies depending on where we are standing.

> > > You
> > > cannot aim for a wide scope in the commercial sense and still make
> > > things that matters.
> > 
> > To bring this back to mud-dum, do you feel that the commercial muds
> > therefore matter less, innovate less, or are somehow less significant
than
> > the text muds?
> 
> Compared to the timing and resources (skilled people) made available:
> YES!  And that's from someone who really dislike pure text muds! =)

My reply to Brian pretty much covers my points on that front.

> (So that's why he is talking in Kristin's cloths... Behave?! Me??
> *pinch*)

Heh. Actually, my new email address at home is now set up, so you can expect
me to pretty much do all my mud-dev traffic from home now, at an address
that shows my name. :)

-Raph



_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev#kanga,nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev



Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]