[MUD-Dev] Life

[Jeff Kesselman]

At 08:30 PM 6/4/97 PST8PDT, jc lawrence wrote:
>>Would it be dodging the issue fro me top say its become a whoel brave
>>new world out there in the last 2 years?
>
>Nope.  You could also profitably observe that they were all in
>England, a country whose culture and educational base is significantly
>different to the US'.  

lol!  I didn't know this.
IMo the Briittish are a FAR more civilized culture then us in almost every
way.  if the majority of the players were brittish I think that definately
had somethign to do with how they played.

>
>>I almost fgeel I owe you all an apology for that...
>
>What's happening instead is that the 'net is attempting to preserve
>its cultural forms by balkanising and stratifying its mores.  Thus you
>having mailing lists such as this one taking the place that newsgroups
>once did.  Culturally is an incredible if sad process to watch.

Yeah i know.  On the oterh hand I can't deny that USENET HAS deteriorate
dsoemthign awful, much as I in my earlier less cynical life hoped that the
newcomers would add to the community positively.
>>>A subjective standard impossible to judge impartially.  I can write
>>>best here on SX MUD and Shades.  
>
>>Hmm. And you did not have the grousp factioning and fighting over
>>what they wanted to make of it? Interesting.  
>
>Yup, there sure was.  That was implicit in the games and I'd argue was
>one of their strengths.  There has to be significant perceived value
>before players start to commit that sort of emotional energy to
>championing such a faction.

Hmm. Not with MY customers :)  If there is no other direction they
factionalize, fight dirty, and piss each other off to the point where they
start leaving.  Ofcourse these ARE americans ;)

>
>>This would make it a
>>counter example to everything ive seen in the commercial domain. Can
>>you give me a port and machien that I can go loo kat?
>
>Shades can currently be found at, err, games.world.co.uk 18088. 

Thanks, ill go take a look first opportunity :)

>>>If they wish to determine that certain things are "unwelcome" and/or
>>>"crimes", then that is their choice.  Neither I nor the game will have
>>>anything to do with that (tho I (not the game) may try and discourage
>>>it).  If they wish to define various guild forms, social strata,
>>>status structures etc, they are perfectly capable of doing that. 
>
>...
>
>>My experince in teh commerical online world is that most peopel are
>>NOT "capable of doing that".  Which is my fundemnetal point.  But
>>hey, prove me wrong :)
>
>I agree absolutely.  Most people are NOT capable of doing that.  I
>don't expect otherwise.  However I know that a small percentage are,
>and a percetnage of that elect group will attempt to set up such
>structures.  Once that's done, some of the sheep will attempt to adopt
>the structures.

Okay, well, the problem Iv'e seen coems down to an age old observation.
Construction is hard, destruction is easy.  The end result is that
anarchists win unless you stack the deck.  Again, my own personal view
based on my own limited experience.


>Ahh!  But that would be an ideal circumstance!  The players at that
>point will have done exactly what I've hoped for: they will have
>examined the game and defined their own various goals with sufficient
>conviction to fight for them.  Emotional involvment!  Excellant!  That
>would be quite perfect.  My job at that point would be to ensure the
>pot keeps being stirred and that the minor factions don't die out.

Hmm.  Again I geuss we have different goals. I'm buildign recreation. An
envrionment in which it is constantly tense will burn out my players and
drive them off. They have enough tension in the real world.  A certain
amoutn of tension is important to enjoyment, but it needs to be built
towards and then released.  The actual majorly tense period has to be
farily small. (Basic film/novel theory.)

JK