[MUD-Dev] dealing with foul language

[Koster]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ola Fosheim Gr=F8stad [mailto:olag at ifi.uio.no]
> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 11:36 AM
> To: mud-dev at kanga.nu
> Subject: Re: [MUD-Dev] dealing with foul language
>=20
>=20
> "Kristen L. Koster" wrote:
> > on 4/9/2000 9:32 AM, Ola Fosheim Gr=F8stad wrote:
>=20
> > > Which suggests that creating an access-for-all=20
> environment is not a good
> > > idea?
> >=20
> > It certainly is, if a certain level of civility and clear=20
> social norms is
> > your principal goal.
>=20
> 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=20
> 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=20
> 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.
>=20
> Well, I tried to communicate several things... If people=20
> 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=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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=20
> 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? :)=20

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. :)=20

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.=20

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=20
> just keep on
> because not replying might not portray the self-image we'd=20
> like to see.
> Or maybe because we had some hope that something would=20
> 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=20
> 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=20
> 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=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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. :)
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Ehehe, so you don't design, but slap random pieces together, right?=20

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=20
> 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.
> >=20
> > Naturally. The inverse is also true: narrowing scope costs you =
audience,
> > until too narrow a scope may leave you with no audience.
>=20
> 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]
>=20
> [my "good things are produced within a narrow scope" snipped]
>=20
> > 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.
>=20
> 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."
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> I don't know anything in norwegian culture that has been stagnant.=20

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.
> >=20
> > 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?
>=20
> Compared to the timing and resources (skilled people) made available:
> YES!  And that's from someone who really dislike pure text muds! =3D)

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 at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev