[MUD-Dev] Trouble Makers or Regular Citizens

[Jon Lambert]

I bundled all my replies into one big fat post...

Raph Koster wrote:
>
>I was with you until the "less productive" part. A community can still b=
e
>highly productive with a very diverse population and just a few basic sh=
ared
>values. The most obvious are the ones that are most basic in Maslow's
>heirarchy. Survival and shelter alone are sufficient to make an extremel=
y
>diverse community extremely productive. So are other basic motivators su=
ch
>as greed or social standing. The latter are interesting because they do =
not
>require high investment in the community values per se, merely in the
>product of the community or the community's mere existence.
>

Certainly large diverse communities are productive.  I meant to say somet=
hing
about the value of what they produce.  What, I'm not exactly sure how to =
put
words to...  It seems to me that a large diverse communities when they've
reached a point where they hold few to no common values lack the vision
to produce anything but pabulum in mass quantities.  And yes while pabulu=
m
(or survival and shelter) is crucial  to a community,  it's value as meas=
ured
in artistic, aesthetic, inventive or technological terms is nil.  That is=
 its
products are uninteresting.

>Of course, diversity inevitably increases with size--not necessarily in
>parallel, as you point out, but certainly in correlation. It's pretty ea=
sy
>to do a Venn diagram for it.


You are quite correct.  If the diversity introduced has little to no effe=
ct
on the _vision_ then it scales with size.

For instance a GOP/HnS community can scale incredibly with size,
because it can handle social diversity well, because it largely ignores
it.  It scales like chess or checkers.  A story-telling RPG community
cannot handle the infusion of social diversity well.  It's predicated on
commonly shared values of protocols of communication.   A software
project does not scale well.   Competing visions or competing diversity
are fatal to a project.  It cannot handle the diversity of competing
specializations or scope.  (i.e. Marketing/networking/database/platforms)
We know the role scope plays in software development.   If you view
expanding scope as akin to expanding audience diversity, does it play a r=
ole
the quality of a community?  Or have I picked a poor analogy?

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D
Ola Fosheim Gr=F8stad wrote:
>
>I mostly agree, but don't you think that a common and highly valued
>purpose can be enough?

Yes it can in some instances.  A real world example.
..and rant...
Take NASA, the NASA of the 60's which had a single-minded dominating
vision to reach the moon at any cost.  Diversity of purpose was not toler=
ated.
IMO, It accomplished a feat equivalent in relative scale to building the
Great Wall or the Pyramids.  NASA today tolerates a wide diversity of
purpose and actually demands diversity within it's projects.  The kind
of diversity that has nothing with science.   It has no vision.   Today's
NASA sees something "wrong and shameful" in that the Apollo project
merely because it was largely accomplished by white men and perhaps
a few ex-nazi's.  NASA hasn't accomplished anything in 30 years hence.
And I mean that.  Everything has been in the realm of the "easily" possib=
le,
scientific pabulum.  The last press conference on the Mars fiasco exhibit=
ed
the project manager talking about the "feelings" of his "diverse" project
team, and how he took full responsibility for the problems.  What does
"full responsibility" entail?  Nothing?  Not even a tendered resignation?
...end rant....
a tangent I know, although this may be related to muds and how culturally
incoherent (youthful?) administrators and players view "responsibility" a=
morally.

>Resistance during a war for instance.

Aye.
Best summed up in the adage. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

> I also
>think one should open up for thinking about multiple layers. You may
>have diversity on one level, but common social mores on another. For
>instance, you may create a liberal anti racist flower-power MUD, but
>allow a lot of cultural diversity. Maintaining borders towards the rest
>of the world (that which exists outside the MUD) may be just as
>important. This MUD is THE place for exchanging liberal flower-power
>thoughts.

Is the game primary or the social space?   Or does the nature of mores of
the social space has an impact on all layers of the   game?
Would you rather play checkers with Benito Mussolini or Mark Twain?
It needs to be said, that it's OK to _not_ want to play with some people.
To actively resist it...from an administration view as well as a user.  T=
o
instead visit social spaces where diversity is not tolerated.  This could=
 be
along the lines of behavior, language, politics, religion, sexuality, etc.

>The more diversity, the less _cooperative_ productivity you get.
>Defines mud-dev and most mailing lists pretty well.  We don't share a
>common vision/values to the extent that we cooperate on one platform,
>but we "all" face the gross challenges presented by design,
>implementation and maintenance. So we stick together for social comfort
>because of a common enemy, not because of common values.

There are forums on the Net, mailing lists and such, which are issue-
related and tightly cohesive with a very clear vision.    Disagreement
with the vision is disruption...Such lists bulk of communications are
preaching to choir, exhorting the troops, and very "productive".  I've
seen thousands of people mobilized and motivated to appear at a given
place and time in a matter of 2 or 3 days.

I think the most interesting social communities will be created by person=
s
with a manic and zealous adherence to a given vision.  Certain people
will thrive in these spaces that have a high cost of entry, and high cost
of leaving.   The D.D. Harriman's of the internet (cf. Heinlein).

>This is, I guess, what I dislike about MUDs as well, people stick
>together because of the common enemy (anxiety, boredom, the larger
>society) not because of a vision about something good. To a large extent
>this can be attributed to the unsustainable goals of the designer/admin
>which doesn't address what matters to users... or fail communicating the
>vision...
>
>Of course, if diversity is something that should be controlled then
>there is little reason to go for JCL's fertilizer vision. My opinion is
>that you need at least one strong vision, then you can have diversity
>spinning around that axis.

Ah... but JCL does control diversity on the list.
But not in the same way as one would if producing a particular product.

>I've been fascinated with the idea about the virtual church for several
>years.  Of course, by now, this is happening at least in chat groups.
>Read a paper on online ceremonies some time back...

I haven't heard of online ceremonies.  There are interactive real-time
chat forums that engage in activities that are direct extensions of the
church.  They are certainly capable of also conducting services if they
wished.   However my government punishes such activities if done in
openly in concert.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D
Matthew Mihaly wrote:
>
>This is an excellent point I think. What comes immediately to mind is WW=
II
>Japan. The country as a whole was an  _extremely_ strong community even
>though it had 100 million people. The trick, as you correctly point out,
>is that there was very very little diversity. Beliefs, etc came down in =
a
>hierarchy from the Emperor and the country was united as has rarely been
>seen in history by this fact. Peer pressure was extreme enough to cause
>suicides, etc. The US forces often had to wipe out every last Japanese
>soldier on the islands they assaulted, because the japanese simply did n=
ot
>believe in surrendur. There were numerous reports of hundreds of japanes=
e
>civilians on these islands leaping to their deaths, sometimes holding
>their children, from island cliffs upon the US takeover. There was
>essentially no questioning the Emperor and His wisdom, and very very
>little deviation from that mandated norm of behavior and belief.

I don't know a lot about Japan.  I do know that Japan had quite a diverse
enough culture with Shintoism, Budhhism, oriental feudalism, and other
competing philosophies that precluded it from in engaging in large scale
endeavors prior to the 1890's.  Japan did in fact perform great
feats of engineering and technological advances during a very short
period of time (1905-1930)  I don't believe the Emperor had a lot to
do with setting the agenda in Japan.  I could be wrong, but I was under
the impression that Japan's emperor was merely a figurehead or puppet
of much larger forces.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Par Winzell wrote:
>
>Well, if you define diversity as lack of common values, then your argume=
nt
>cannot help but be true... it is more interesting to presume the existen=
ce
>of common needs -- survival, say -- and consider wether or not people wi=
th
>diverse values can work together. Many MUDs attempt to configure themsel=
ves
>so as to reward symbiosis between different guilds/skillsets, in combat =
or
>trading or whatnot. Gaining the respect of somebody you admire can be ju=
st
>as rewarding, or more, even when they seem somewhat alien to you. It cou=
ld
>be argued that if two people respect each other, they -do- share common
>values, but that seems to dilute the concept needlessly much.
>

Certainly it does... A warrior caste can have respect for its enemies
based on a shared value of skill-at-arms.  Then go out and happily kill
each other.   But that's not a community, it exists in the most temporary
context.   Neither does an artificial shared symbiosis based on game
mechanisms form a community.  I think it encourages sub-community
formation.   Those who find out they share a common _social_ viewpoints
of the game begin to start characters and obtain skills that are needed t=
o
solve/win the game in a communal organized way.   I don't believe it make=
s
them predisposed to association with those they determine to be too unlik=
e
themselves.  If the mud space is too small they leave, because they just
"don't  like the people there", or they solo if that option is available.

>"Need" in a Mud usually translates to averting immediate danger, which c=
an
>produce the kind of adrenaline camaraderie that mellows into friendship.=
..
>In fact, I wonder if adrenalin is not the fastest and most useful means =
of
>hooking a player into the inter-respect network, especially for people w=
ho
>do not come into the game pre-equipped with an urge to fit in.

Perhaps...shared experience may mitigate social differences assuming
they weren't that large to begin with.

>Once a player is so much
>in-role that he walks the land and behaves well simply because he's amon=
g
>his own people, we have nothing to worry about.
>

Actually that's a nice thought.   I think many muds have a cadre of such
players, they form the "peerage" of the mud so to speak.  It's just these
players who set the tone in behavior and ultimately their diversity is th=
e
measure of what are the boundaries of the mud's viable "community".
Unless of course the administration screws it up, because its vision is
not in synch with the player "peerage".

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Tess Lowe wrote:
>
>In my experience a community only requires one 'thing' in common to form
>itself around. This could be anything from a common location, to common
>values or goals, or even purely the desire to build and experience
>community. This 'thing' in common defines the boundaries for the communi=
ty.
>Some people will be 'in community' and some will not.

I maintain the weakest and least useful communities are the ones held
together by the tenuous threads of 'holding just too few things in common=
'.
The most useless ones are those that enforce the doctrine of diversity
in order to prevent formation of sub-communities, attempt to control
entry into sub-communities, or view them as competitive with the
larger community.

>It may seem reasonable then to claim that a group with boundaries defini=
ng
>'in' and 'out' cannot cherish diversity, because if they did, they would
>have no such boundaries.

Nod.  That obvious follows.

>Personally I feel it is important to make a distinction between the
>boundaries created by a community self-definition, and those created by =
a
>lack of diversity. So long as the primary raison d'etre of the community
>(values and/or goals) is not violated, increasing diversity is a very
>positive thing, and not antithetical to community at all.

Nod...I called it managing diversity, but I really meant restricting dive=
rsity
at the entry point into you mud space.  Some might use the term as in
ensuring no homogenous groups arise on a diverse mud space.

> However, beyond that, Diversity in all other areas such
>as cultural background, gender, political views, religious faith and so =
on,
>I believe is a Good Thing.

Here's the rub.  I'll posit that you believe it is a _bad_ thing if they =
don't
share diversity (read tolerance) as a cherished value.

>This is because perhaps *the* fundamental feature
>of that elusive sense of community is *not* that its members have a lot =
in
>common, but that they have learned to accept and appreciate Difference.

Au contraire...alienation, unhappiness and low self esteem are the produc=
ts
of such a community in the broadest cultural sense.   In the mud sense, a
community that is merely addicted to showing up!??  I wonder...

>When a group has learned to accept difference, its members can be
>themselves, in these and other areas too - perhaps previously unmentione=
d -
>without fear of ridicule or rejection. This is the point at which that
>awesome sense of truly feeling part of a community really becomes tangib=
le.

I think it merely engenders fuzzy feelings.   There's no cost for entry i=
nto such
a community.  There's no cost for leaving it.

>
>It is my belief that conformity is the antithesis of community, not
>diversity. And peer pressure is the propagation of conformity through fe=
ar.
>

I believe the first statement is unsupportable.  The latter I agree with =
at the
most basic level.

>It's certainly been my experience that where community is formed, confor=
mity
>is disrupted (and vice versa). For example, in Dark Ages, many older pla=
yers
>attempted to impose conformity on newbies to be strictly IC. This commun=
ity
>peer pressure did nothing but destroy the community itself. And what's m=
ore,
>wherever a sense of community prevailed among players, such 'rules' were
>invariably dropped anyway.

As I remarked somewhere above.  If the administration shared the vision o=
f
your player "peerage", the issue wouldn't have been devisive or destructi=
ve.
How many older players left because of this?   I'll bet your net playerba=
se
expanded though.  Strictly IC caters to a smaller audience.

>I certainly fully understand the temptation there is in online worlds to
>impose conformity and discourage diversity in an attempt to preserve
>community. I have succumbed to that temptation myself far too often. But=
 I
>fear that such an approach can only destroy that which it seeks valiantl=
y to
>protect.

At its worst, diversity only requires that individuals conform to the low=
est
possible set of values.  It requires conformance, in that one must put hi=
gher
and nobler visions on a shelf in the interest of what's good for the comm=
unity.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Zak Jarvis wrote:
>
> I could easily go off on any number of tangents about the semantics of
> Community, Value, Productivity and Diversity. One of my failings is an
> excessive tendency towards precise language, and in actively thwarting
> my tendency to do that, I might occasionally be less precise than I'd l=
ike.

You could and you'd be right to.  Admittedly the argument is couched
in the most fuzzy and imprecise terms. :-)

> Most functioning communities have specialized organs for specific tasks
> that face it and often those organs can be quite separate. Chimney swee=
ps,
> shamen, clothes washers, sociologists, game designers, fishermen, teach=
ers,
> mummers, troubadours -- each often represents its own micro-community,
> yet is still linked to the larger community, which in turn is perhaps l=
inked to
> a larger one still. The chain can become fascinatingly long and eventua=
lly
> encompass radically diverse groups.

I think it is interesting to note that several good size muds have admini=
strative
roles that are pointed-directed (or crudely directed) at "maintaining com=
munity".
If it's the thought that a mud community cease to exist or degenerates in=
to
tribalism upon the absence of those PR roles, what does that say about
the strength of the community?   If players immediately take up those rol=
es
upon absence of administration, what does that say about the strength of =
a
community?

A long time ago, somewhere above, I made a poke at the quality of a
GOP/HnS game community vs. a storytelling RPG game community.   These
questions I think in general are answered differently for each.

[snipped rest - sorry this is too long]

I think I get the point though and I don't disagree.  In summary..

There's a natural tendency to subvert or destroy as a form of entertainme=
nt.
The personal cost to us in that it is not _real_, is minimal or at least =
acceptable.
Absent this morbid curiosity to stick our virtual hands in the fire, or w=
atch
others do it, we couldn't very well call ourselves human.  And it is unre=
alistic
for one to expect users to not perform as humans.

--
--*     Jon A. Lambert - TychoMUD Email: jlsysinc at nospam.ix.netcom.com   =
  *--
--*     Mud Server Developer's Page <http://jlsysinc.home.netcom.com>    =
  *--
--* "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferso=
n *--





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