[MUD-Dev] When Will Player-Avatar Integrity Be a Feature ofPersistent Worlds?

[Michael Tresca]

vladimir cole [mailto:vladimir_cole at yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday,
August 16, 2003 6:00 PM

> When will players be able to expect other players to act with the
> same level of integrity that they would act with out of game?

See my thesis, "The Impact of Anonymity on Disinhibitive Behavior
Through Computer-Mediated Communication":

  http://www.msu.edu/user/trescami/thesis.htm

Anonymity is part of the issue.  And the fact that it's a game.

Quite simply, not everyone wants to be responsible for their
actions.  Indeed, some level of play, down to wolf cubs batting each
other with their paws, is the understanding that no permanent damage
will be done.  This is necessary for learning without killing off
our young.

On the other extreme, lack of a real penalty -- a direct way to be
harmed by one's actions -- is an entropic effect on societies.  If
there's no repercussions, if at base I will not be imprisoned and
thus physically retained from doing whatever the hell I feel like,
there is eventually anarchy.  If a game's society can't influence
you when you log off, it's ability to influence you ends when you
flip the switch.  Period.

Somewhere between those two extremes are people with very strong
'Net presences.  These folks have, for all intents and purposes, the
"cross-game Avatar" you're looking for.  Certainly, "Talien" is as
much an identity of what I do online as Michael Tresca.  I have a
vested interested in maintaining some level of that personality's
integrity.  Thus, I'm less likely to be a persistently offensive
jerk (opinions vary >:) ) without regard for the online social
repercussions that would come about as a result of my behavior.

> Think about the cottage industries that would spring up around the
> idea of persistant, cross-world avatars. Numerous companies would
> jockey for the opportunity to provide an online reputation system
> modelled on the ebay seller feedback system.

> Would this ever happen?

No.  Cross MUD compatibility has been around forever.  If it was
such a great idea, all MUDs would be connected in one massive
network of intergame functionality right now.

RetroMUD doesn't do it.  Why?  Because we don't TRUST the other guy.
It's that simple.  We don't trust they have the same ethics, game
development techniques, belief system, etc.  No game company wants
to dilute its brand with another developer that spawns a legion of
twinked "avatars" from CrapMUD, where they give out equipment for
free.

> Is the population of players who want a solid reputation system
> that they can trust of greater monetary value to game designers
> than the segment of players who want simply to escape their
> dullard real-world personnas and act out their psycho-griefer
> fantasies online? (That's harsh -- I know -- so to put it another
> way, would a game developer's support for a persistent avatar
> standard net more accounts than it would lose?)

No.  Because lack of respect for anonymity is often derived from
lack of understanding of one's anonymity of self and others.  In
other words, sometimes I act like a jerk because I don't know who
YOU are and sometimes I act like a jerk because you don't know who
*I* am.  Two very different groups.

In short, I don't think the majority of gamers share your view.  If
the majority doesn't share your view, it's not worth spending money
on.

> When will the first MMOG launch that mandates biometric
> identification in order to control and use an avatar?

I guess this is a rhetorical question because you took a pretty big
leap from the last question to this one.  Who says biometrics are
good?  Who says personal identification for a character that's a
"bad guy" -- hell, even a "gray guy" -- is good?

To put it another way -- if my character kills Chewbacca on Star
Wars Online, should I have to fear for my life (i.e., real life
repercussions) for doing so? Did you know that R.A. Salvatore got
DEATH THREATS because he killed off Chewbacca in one of the Star
Wars books?

Are you going to ensure that if I PK a guy tomorrow, it won't affect
my job standing in my company?  Will it show up in my next
interview?

Anonymity is a deal with the devil.  Too much, and you have anarchy.
Too little, and you are accountable in ways that aren't very fun.

> Biometric verification seems to be a natural choice to quash the
> deleterious effects of ebay on informal, in-game trust
> systems. I'm guessing early 2007 on this just to throw out a date.

Biometrics exist now.  IBM uses them for their laptops, if I
remember correctly.

> When will the first MMOG launch that supports avatar names that
> were created in a different MMOG system? (2015 is my guess.)

I have no idea.  But there must be incentive to do so.  I don't see
that incentive coming about any time soon.

> And when will people feel that it's the right thing to do MORALLY
> to behave in these worlds in the same way that they behave outside
> of virtual worlds?

What's the right way to morally behave? Your way?  My way?  The
majority's way?  Or the people who have the power -- the coding
staff, the guild leaders, etc.?

It comes down to this: games, right or wrong, have a particular way
that the maximum enjoyment will be experienced by the majority of
people.  To achieve this balance, they need people intent on playing
the GAME, not PLAYING the game.

Right now, the ONLY filter to indicate that you want to play a game
is the ability to pay.  This patently does not stop children from
playing, who are often (but certainly not always) griefers. Until
MMORPGs stop accepting anybody with a credit card, the amount of
griefing and immaturity will never change.  When developers
recognize that they are responsible not just for the game's creation
but the formative stages of its social structure, when they realize
you can't just code it into the system but must cultivate it with
the "right" players, then you'll see less griefing.

> Are virtual worlds doomed to this level of disconnection forever?

By definition, a virtual world IS disconnected. If it's not
disconnected, it's no longer virtual.

Doomed?  No.  Likely to be disconnected forever? Yes, at least in
the way you're defining it.  Anonymity is part of the fun, despite
its abuse.

Should you be playing in what amounts to a huge sandbox with a
million strangers crammed into it?  That's probably not compatible
with your style of play. You may want to find another game.

Mike "Talien" Tresca
RetroMUD Administrator
http://michael.tresca.net
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev