[MUD-Dev] Introduction System

[Eli Stevens]

----- Original Message -----
From: "J C Lawrence" <claw at kanga.nu>
To: <mud-dev at kanga.nu>
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2000 7:29 PM
Subject: Re: [MUD-Dev] Re: Introduction System


> One of the aspects I liked in my approach was that there was no
> concept of a "real name" as supported by code.  The name something
> carried was the name the viewing cahracter had assigned it, and that
> name had no necessary relation to any name that other character
> preferred.

[snip example of name swiches, etc.]

> Any questions?

Yes, a few.  :)

1. What is the worth of the namespace virii as described?  Does it perform a
function that would map to a real world phenomenon?  You mentioned
amnesia/insanity, how might you tie those together, and do you see the
result as being fun?

2. What is the feasibility of incorporating a "describe someone to a 3rd
party" mechanic, using recognizability decay?  How might conflicting names
for the same object be resolved (i.e. you call someone "Spammer" while your
friend Boffo has described the same person as "AnnoyingNewbie")?

3. Could such a description system be automated, using an Advogato-style
system?  What would be the implications of your namespace automatically
being propagated throughout the network of people you associate with?
Should the source of a given description be displayed as well?

<URL: http://www.advogato.org/trust-metric.html >, it was discussed
previously on the list.

4. What are the implications from all this as relates to where the
information should be stored?  Might an object own all the aliases for
itself (and, if able to read them, gain a sort of "what are others thinking
of you" telepathy)?  Or should an object store all its aliases for others
(and perhaps have access to the object's "true name")?  Is this too low
level a question?

And some rambling, thinking-aloud (aloud?) answers (just my ideas, I would
like to know what others think):

1. If of limited duration and/or scope and reletively infrequent, I think
that such a system could provide a lot of interesting options for
role-playing in a non-consensual environment (and in others, when used in a
more means-to-an-end game mechanic sense).  Head trauma resulting in a
witness not being able to identify a criminal, etc.

2. Instead of presenting the information transfered as "names", it could be
presented as "descriptions".  That way, multilple and/or conflicting
descriptions would be more palatable to the user (or I presume they would
be).  Also, if the descriptions truely do describe the target, I think that
they would be much more useful to others than something simpler like a
"name" (a one word name is less likely to be informative than a one word
description, I think).

3. Perhaps names could be kept private, as was discussed previously, while
descriptions could be propagated automatically?  Descriptions could be
presented as "what you tell your friends about this person", and I think it
might work.  I only have a rudimentary understanding of the system, however,
so wiser minds than I may be able to do more with this.  :)

4.  Yes, I think it is too low level, but for the record, I believe that
having the "true name" for an object in a system such as this can be
dangerous (proper controlls need to be in place to make it work).  That
said, it seems to be much more computationally feasable to store Buffy's
aliases for Boffo with Buffy (as it keeps the data closest to where it will
be needed).

<//> Silence is golden           RUIN, v.  To destroy.            <\\>
 ||  Eli                         Specifically, to destroy a maid's ||
 ||  wickedgrey at wickedgrey.com   belief in the virtue of maids.    ||
<\\> www.wickedgrey.com            -- Ambrose Bierce              <//>







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