[MUD-Dev] off-line pk

[Dave Kennerly]

msew [msew at ev1.net] wrote:

> IRL wars started over something occurring in VR?

Because a war is a resource intensive game, a real war will spread
from a virtual war when the offline-online interaction rate rises
above some critical mass, which is a function of the resources
expected to be committed to the real war.  At this level of
saturation, it becomes cost-effective to retaliate offline for that
which began online.  Examples: Two people playing an online game who
go to the same high school (another common community), compared to two
people playing an online game who live two thousand miles from each
other.

To illustrate, I haven't heard about online-spawned non-cooperation
being as physical in the US.  The physical vector of interaction is
much weaker in the US.  In the US, even if you knew the address of
someone playing, it'd cost too much to visit.  South Korea is small;
frequently enough players can interact for the price of a couple of
hours and two subway tickets (USD $1).  Therefore, a portion of the
resource investment is lowered.  By a twisted use of the economic
term, there is a low "barrier to entry" for real/virtual convergence
in South Korea.

Player conflicts that are analogous to wars do occur in the US.  Since
the physical vector isn't available, they are based on the vectors
easily available: non-physical communication.  They may spread to
harassment like spam, stalking in other virtual spaces, information
war (e.g. password stealing and end-user computer hacking attempts),
written death threats, police investigations and restraining orders.

Offline or online retaliation serves the same purpose: to change the
target player's strategy.  Not just online or offline strategy.  The
online player == The offline player.

When doing so, one or more of the players is taking the game too far.
Lum the Mad echoes a popular anecdotal illustration well:

"And, for an enjoyable game, those players have to follow certain
basic rules. Chess isn? much fun when the other player randomly eats
the game pieces and every so often unpredictably throws the game board
over the nearest wall. Yet that? probably the quickest way to describe
how players behave in MMOs."  

"Playing to Crush":

  http://lumthemad.net/story.php?story=2054

The US's violence usually occurs in sports, instead of MUDs.  As Jeff
Freeman wrote today: "Happens in Hockey ALL THE TIME and no one thinks
twice about it."  Which, under analysis, fits the interaction model:
the real player (the person as a combatant) is just as accessible as
the game player (the person as a hockey player).

> When will VR and IRL blur to be one?

Obviously, there are many interface differences between the virtual
(online) and the real (offline), but there is one constant: The
player.  The player performs the actions.  Therefore, the player is an
agent who is accessible for cooperation or defection in the virtual
and real game, offline and online (see MUD-Dev post "Korea"

  http://www.kanga.nu/archives/MUD-Dev-L/2001Q2/msg01054.php).

Everything else, perhaps by definition, is separable.  Virtual
property does not cross over into real property, although an object
might transfer (see MUD-Dev post "Meta-gaming: (real <--> game)
transfers"):

  http://www.kanga.nu/archives/MUD-Dev-L/2001Q1/msg00350.php  

Still, they don't exactly cross over: A player can't take his Vorpal
Blade, or his +1 Strength with him when he logs off.  Eating game
apples don't satisfy his stomach.

Roleplaying aside, which is a social game unto itself, the player
(also known as the actor, the agent in some social sciences and
ethics), is the bridge.  He is the thing one interacts with.  He is
the thing one may cooperate with or defect against.[1] The online
player == The offline player.  Physical violence occurs because
physical violence also meets the Prisoner's Dilemma criteria (see
topic "Korea":

  http://www.kanga.nu/archives/MUD-Dev-L/2001Q2/msg01054.php


[1] Several philosophers constructed arguments that the player (or
agent) is partially separable from his physical presence in the
real-game (a.k.a. in real life).  For example, Plato implied the real
game is a virtual game, too, in the "Allegory of the Cave". Daniel
Dennett gives a summary of some of the arguments in early chapters of
_Consciousness Explained_.

> http://www.time.com/time/interactive/entertainment/gangs_np.html

The Times article, "Where Does Fantasy End?", is a mild form of
sensationalism.  Except for the educational psychologist paraphrase,
"Besides, says Kwon, the game's emphasis on winning and working in
groups speaks to the Korean spirit," the Times article isn't
well-researched or objectively present.  By well-researched, compare
it to the New Yorker article "Pimps and Dragons", posted by Dave
Rickey on MUD-Dev as "New Yorker Article"

  http://www.kanga.nu/archives/MUD-Dev-L/2001Q2/msg00949.php

Although unobjectively tinted, the Time's article's facts are
credible.  Nexon associates have shared similar stories with me since
at least January, 1999.  As stated in the article, there are at least
a few government unsanctioned, physically coercive gangs that interact
online and offline in South Korea (As opposed to government sanctioned
physically coercive gangs, like some ethically abberant branches of
law enforcement or para-military in the US and, no doubt, in other
countries).

Dave Kennerly


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