[MUD-Dev] dealing with foul language

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad <olag@ifi.uio.no>]

"Kristen L. Koster" wrote:
> on 4/9/2000 9:32 AM, Ola Fosheim Gr=F8stad wrote:

> > Which suggests that creating an access-for-all environment is not a g=
ood
> > idea?
>=20
> 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".

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).

> > Whether it is MUDs or mailings lists or newsgroups, a major source of
> > "unpleasantness" is the tendency to provide definitions of other peop=
le
> > rather than topics, issues, policies etc. In order to create a good
> > constructive environment I really think one should strive towards mak=
ing
> > attempts at such definitions irrelevant. One way to achieve this is t=
o
> > create a strong focus on something that matters for most users (thus
> > marginalizing those that are concerned with more trivial matters).  O=
r
> > so I believe.
>=20
> Ola's New Law: the broader the focus of your virtual environment, the m=
ore
> 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.

I could be wrong of course, sometimes people are excessively
square-headed.
=20
> 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 th=
at
> 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))

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")

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).

> Timothy's research, for example, would be harmed by always dealing with=
 a
> small, homogeneous sample. Any area of endeavour that relied on small s=
ample
> 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?

> 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. ;)

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

> 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.

> 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 judg=
e
> that.

Ehehe, so you don't design, but slap random pieces together, right?=20
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?

> > 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.

Unless you are able to create enthusiasm for a unique vision (that
matters, religious movements etc)?

[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.

> Many things
> that meet your definition of a "good thing" have gone on to trememdous
> commercial success.

Often by somebody else! Yes, it can be a commercial success even if it
is a good thing :). The strive for commercial success itself rarely
produce new good stuff, just optimize old ideas for profit (which means
broader scope, lower quality). :P Companies does not produce good
things, people that love (mankind) produce good things. There are plenty
of examples in the computer industry. (unix, hypertext, etc)

> That happens to be one of the current fashions. But studying past aesth=
etic
> currents will show that there are numrous cultures and even moments in =
the
> main Western tradition where being sufficiently different to be fresh w=
as
> "bad art."

Dunno what you mean by "bad art", but nevertheless, like when?  Fashion
also have to do with maintaining borders between generations, which is
useful for challenging norms, coping with changes in the environment
etc?

> We, in our curren cycle and in our prevailing aesthetic, regard
> those as stagnant.

I don't know anything in norwegian culture that has been stagnant.=20
Well, they are now, because we have invented museums and use folklore
stuff as museum pieces.  Techno and dance is, for instance, the folk
music of today and is evolving like it always has. (of course, if your
culture is a hierarchical ritual prison then you don't really have much
space for breathing).

> > 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 t=
han
> 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! =3D)

(Not all commercial enterprises are run by corporate mass-market logic
though, some are just happy to stay in business)

> > _disqualify_ the interpretation. If everybody are forced to taking on
> > female characters then I expect that the invalidity of the surface
> > becomes much more pronounced.
>=20
> I would agree there. That's why it'd be a worthwhile experiment: to fin=
d
> out!

Never said you shouldn't. I actually think there is a lot to learn from
role-playing the opposite gender, and it could at least get some guys
(and grrls) over the threshold...
=20
> I agree with that too. However, eroticism as opposed to rape) also depe=
nds
> on a high degree of civility. So if this is what players are going to g=
et
> into, then I suspect we'd see complex social conventions forming rather
> quickly. Furry muds and even some sections of Dibbell's "My Tiny Life"
> attest to this.

No experience with furries :((.  (not silly enough).  Never read Dibbell
either.  Maybe you just get lots of repressed female miners...  How sad.
 =1A=1A
--=20
Ola
(So that's why he is talking in Kristin's cloths... Behave?! Me??
*pinch*)




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