[MUD-Dev] dealing with foul language

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

Note: My real interest in this discussion is how to get the equivalent
of comp.graphics.algorithms in a MUD, and if you can get stuff that
matters if you widen up to rec.*  What are the costs associated with
different design moves? And is it worth your while?

"Koster, Raph" wrote:
> > From: Ola Fosheim Gr=F8stad [mailto:olag at ifi.uio.no]

> Quite agreed. This is what is interesting about Bioware's new Neverwint=
er
> 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 constrain=
ts of
> the well-known AD&D ruleset. no subscription fees.

I shamefully admit that I haven't looked at their website for a long
time. One of the main challenges in the IRC model is to "connect" the
different subspaces.  I wonder how they handle this. Is AD&D sufficient,
or will you get lots of traps that drain the characters for resources
(thus need for administration)?

> By saying "this is what matters, objectively" you are imposing a value
> judgement on the norms established by a social group other than your ow=
n.

I don't think I am, but I think I SHOULD! :-)

> 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 peop=
le
> 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 vi=
ewed
> as equally ridiculous by others.

I am less concerned about what matters in a particular moment.  I really
care about what matters after the moment. Yes there is some ethical
assumptions and religious beliefs here, but then again, I believe that
one cannot reason without beliefs.

Something may matter in the moment, but what value is there to this, if
you get this empty feeling when you log out, the feeling of having
wasted precious time?  The kind of nausea that philosophers like to talk
about. (of course, not everybody think about what they do until they get
into some kind of personal crisis)

(Foul language may matter in the moment, but probably not later on.
Cruelty is different. Sugar may matter in the moment, but not really
later on. Gaining energy/insight is different.)

> Either way, nobody is going to spend that amount of money on something =
they
> are not passionate about.

Oh yes, they do. "I can afford to not worry about money". Very mature.
:)

> And lemme tell you, if their life in UO is
> passionate, and their life in the real world is dry and gray, then mayb=
e
> 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 d=
eeds,
> learn lessons, and take risks.

You sound like a prophet here, Raph! :*) I'm not telling people not to
make muds, I am begging them to make better ones instead of jumping on
the quantitative bandwagon. :)

> 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 th=
an
> one, one may matter more.

I had the impression that they either don't stick with it, or stick with
it because they refuse to learn a new system or are afraid of loosing
investments? I'm arguing that the one with wide scopes will end up with
many little mounds that you can find anywhere. With a more narrow scope
you can focus on the mountain tops which you may want to stick with
because of the magnificent and unique view it provides. (not the best
metaphor, but...)

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

Erm... One thought is this: If you cannot provide new definitions then
you have to stick with the definitions they've already got. With a
narrow scope you can have a steeper curve, because you can stick to
fewer definitions, and "other stuff" won't get in the way. Thus you can
provide something that is further away from "the average". If it is to
matter, then it ought to provide stuff they haven't got hold of yet?

> "Quality of the userspace" is a subjective thing in the first place.

If you are conducting research then you try to protect the dignity of
your victim^H^H^H^H^H^Hsubjects.

> clear financial goals. ;) The designers' and the players' goals may coi=
ncide
> on many points, but they are also going to be different on many points.

What about the designers' goals and the corporate goals?

> 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 i=
n
> some broad sense even if they feel it does."

Something matters if it feels like it was a good investment (the best
option) when you are making up status on your death bed. (If one had
infinite insight :)) Potential for positive impact on your
life/interests.  Efficiently learning stuff that you can reuse in other
contexts (that matters). Opening a new world for you. Enabling new
options. Enabling self realization. You get he picture.

This may be contextual too, so designs cannot be judged in isolation.
Maybe UO mattered to many when it came, because it was THE large-scale
social experiment. (There's a difference between "the rape story"
(thought provoking) on the news, and "just another rape" (stigma).)

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

Yeah, but they can get that elsewhere and possibly more?

[escapism]

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

Isn't that what everybody aim for? Without it, players may forget about
your system and go somewhere else? Unless you provide something unique
that matters of course ;->  (Like information on computer graphics)

> "matters." It's because it matters to a lot of individual people who ar=
e
> 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, lea=
ding
> 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 enga=
ged
> 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 t=
o
> people in the audience.

So why did you argue with Matt over ethical issues?

Anyway, this thread has gotten off the rails because "matters" has been
used in several different ways. If you choose a particular viewpoint,
you also make assumption about what is important, and what is not. This
could be arbitrary, but I think it is difficult to avoid assumptions
about players based on your own beliefs if you design.  You are not
working with blind evolution, so...

You will eventually impose your own world view on your victims, unless
you let them do the design, but even then you still influence them by
the tools you make available. *shrug*

> > Unless you are able to create enthusiasm for a unique vision (that
> > matters, religious movements etc)?
>=20
> Then the scope is likely not narrow. Religious movements tend to have a
> pretty broad scope, for example. Otherwise they get called "cults". ;)

Well. The scope may be narrow: "learn to know Jesus and you'll be
saved". Cults are more like "rich people are blessed by God" (limited
appeal).

Maybe I have used "scope" in different ways. :(

> I also think that it's going to be entirely subjective to argue "good" =
and
> "narrow." :)

Then you cannot discuss design. :P

> > Dunno what you mean by "bad art",
>=20
> I mean that the cognoscenti of the time declared it to be "bad art."

Oh no. Art as fashion is a socialization thing (recognition), but art as
art is a cognitive thing IMO. However, if something is too remote then
you don't possess the vocabulary to interpret said work (or indeed what
to look for). I think there is a difference between art as fashion,
fashion as art and fashions in art... *shrug* (off-topic)

--=20
Ola




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