[MUD-Dev] Semi Graphical Muds

[geoffrey at yorku.ca]

Man, I'd wish I'd come to this discussion earlier, but the technical
subject line kept me away.  At any rate...

Raph Koster wrote:

> Usually a community has shared goals of some sort, interests in
> common, some background to define themselves against, and some sense
> of identity.

Leland Hulbert wrote:

> A community is a group of people sharing common interests or
> experiences.  As such, communities differ as widely as the experience
> or interest is defined.  No communication is truly necessary for a
> community to exist.  There is a community that consists of all
> survivors of train wrecks.  They may not know each other, but they
> share a similar experience.  The essence of 'community' is having
> something 'in-common' and the size of a community is directly related
> to the frequency of the experience associated with it.

John Buehler wrote:

> A community involves active participation about a
> shared interest.  The MUD-Dev list consititutes a community because
> folks in it actively participate.  The survivors of train wrecks are
> not in a community unless they actively participate in some way.

Whether it's realized or not - you guys are essentially playing out
the contemporary debate regarding the nature of participation within
society.  It comes down to two opposing theories - the unencumbered
self vs the radically situated self.  They have to do with the level
of conscious thought involved in notions of membership, belonging, and
participation.

The unencumbered self is the one primarily represented by liberals.
In order for a theory of participation based upon individuality to
work, the invidual actors must be free to act in the present,
regardless of historical or other context.  If someone is
fundamentally restrained by their worldview, they are not able to
behave as free actors to the degree required for the true exercise of
liberal society.  John's definition follows this perspective, because
he views community as something that must be actively sought and
cultivated.

The radically situated self is the one promoted by communitarians, who
view any attempts to differentiate the individual from their community
background as fundamentally flawed.  Communitarians believe that we
are radically situated within our community.  The 'radically' refers
to the fact that try as we might, we are not able to divorce ourselves
from our context (read community ties), and therefore community
membership is something that operates on a plain above individual
choice.  We belong where we belong, and no degree of behaviour to the
contrary can change that.  This argument is primarily used to justify
communal rights as legitimate factors within democratic decision
making.  Lee's arguments fall into this category, because he claims
that no individual action is required for the community to exist -
once formed, community ties are given, and cannot be broken or
ignored.

IMHO, their is no all-encompassing MUD community by the liberal
definition, and there can't help but be one by the communitarian
definition.  And similarly to John's remark about angels and pins -
the discussion is subjective to the point of irrelevance. :)

Cheers,

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