[MUD-Dev] Community Relations

[Lovecraft]

J C Lawrence wrote:
> Dave Kennerly wrote:
> >  This is not to say the simple model is
> > bad, but that it needs a few buttresses to counter act cronyism.

> I'd argue the other side: Actively encourage cronyism and the like,

> and then once it gets bad enough, start shoring up the capabilities

> for the system to then swing in some other direction ("expressive

> fertility"), and see what happens on the other end of the swing.

> Then just repeat the process ad infinitum, keeping on throwing

> capabilities and supports in there for players to build organisation

> without actually (you) ever defining how those organsiations should

> be structured, built, organised, or function (ie leave that to the

> players).


Sounds like international arms/defense dealing.  I think I see what you
mean: Continue adding features for and against the political powers until it
feels good enough or best that can be afforded.  I wonder about having
enough beta-test time.  After beta-test, it hurts.



> We need polotical revolutions, assinations, coups etc.  I realise

> that this is not a popular position (it means that a large number of

> players will be very upset and uncomfortable for extended periods),

> but I'd rather get the pain over with quickly than a more protracted

> experience.


In beta-test I can imagine it.  Out of beta-test:

1. Online worlds are the one place where I've seen two sides of a battle
beat each other up and they both blame the administration for the loss.
Responsibility, for enough players to impact, is alien.

2. It may not be fun.  If this is a social experiment, o.k.  But if this an
entertainment mud, a non-fun in-game war damages the game company.

Politics, at least as best as I've bungled, is usually not fun to fight in.
The system I described has moments of excitement, but hatred is not fun.
Receiving a nasty letter discourages playing and almost always meant and
taken out-of-character.



> > Yes.  Several voters do not consider their vote seriously[1].
> > It's tossed for poor political criteria[2].

> Are the "poor political reasons" your judgement, or their's?

Judgment of the overtly community-minded.  About 20% of the players.  I'm
overtly and sincerely community-minded.



Raph Koster wrote:
> Check out "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond,
> which argues cogently that this stage is social development cannot be
> improved upon without certain population densities and ratios of available
> resources to caloric consumption.

Thank you for the reference.



J C Lawrence wrote:
> http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/kollock/papers/design.htm

This, too.  It's good to see references to academic game theory (Axelrod,
Evolution of Cooperation).


Dave Kennerly
Game Director
www.darkages.com




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