[MUD-Dev] To Kill an Avatar

[Ren Reynolds]

On 11 July 2003 at 21:26 David (kennerly at sfsu.edu) wrote:

> The only "law" that code is analogous to is physical laws, which
> nature enforces without human effort. Code defines the
> machine. It doesn't define the mores, customs, or policies.
> These are all done the old fashioned way.

I think there is a fairly strong analogy between code and civil law.
Lessig's point, as I understand it, is that code like civil law is a
form of control i.e. a limit on the scope of free action. This is
certainly the case. In, say, a game environment, the fact that one
can communicate with one or many people is a manifestation of
code. Now you may argue that the code does not control speech, but
in a given context code does control whether speech is possible or
not - to take the counter example the single player game of chess
that I have on my PC does not permit speech as its not even network
aware code.

There is also the point that complex sets of code tend not to be
fully self consistent - this is analogous to civil law and
dis-analogous with the underlying laws of nature (as opposed to the
mathematical models with which they are expressed).

Lessig's main point I think is that with the internet we should be
conscious that it is not simply there, it is designed, and the
nature of that design controls what we can and cannot do. More over
code makes possible only certain intersections with civil laws. For
instance, if anonymity is fundamental to the internet then the
nature and control of speech on the net is very different from if
strong indicators of identity are fundamental. Lessig I believe sees
a shift away from what one might call libertarian design principles
(end-to-end is often evidenced as one of these) to principles of
code that control and constrain.

Oh and the fact that code might be law in the sense I've tried to
describe above does not exclude the fact that laws, social norms etc
are formed the 'old fashioned way', though in the context of the net
or say a virtual world code does prescribe the scope that those
norms might take (though in many cases this is very wide).

Just to take a final example of the this code \ civil law nexus, and
this is one that Lessig shows in his presentations: if we take a
works such as Aristotle's politics this is not in copyright, it is
part of what is called the commons, you are free to read it, copy it
even publish it if you want. However, if it is held in certain
electronic forms say for a type of e-book reader, then what you can
do with that text may be limited. The reader may, thought code, stop
you from making copies of the text. Moreover if encryption is used,
then (if you are in the US) under the DMCA it is a serious offence
to try to crack the encryption even if you are trying to do
something e.g. copy the text, that you have (or had - the wider
concern being that more and more is being excluded from the commons
through this type of process) rights to do. Here we have an example
of code limiting a pre-existing freedom and civil law backing up
that restraint, but the code is contingent, it did not have to
exist, it did not have to exist in the form that it does etc, here
code really does seem to be law.

> However the article continues to look at the communities as
> somehow a "virtual world."  But we don't breathe, eat, defecate,
> have children, kill others, or do any other of the routine
> activities of the world we're living in.

Term that we use for these things and the way we define these terms
is highly problematic. First there is what I tend to call the Level
of Abstraction problem - if we are being reductionist we can talk
about MMORPGs as bits of ferromagnetic material on spinning platters
and gate sates in silicon, and I'm sure we could make many true
statements at this level, however they would miss a lot of the
functions, concepts and values that we ascribe to an MMORPG. However
as we go further up in the level of abstraction we add more
conceptual components that are in people heads, we also start to
load values into the discourse that tend to shape that
discourse. Indeed if we describe something as a game we have to take
into account the intentional stance - which some people characterize
as a rhetorical stance of the person to the artefact as the state of
being a game does not reside in the artefact (in this case code) in
and of itself.

I happen to think that there is enough in an MMORPG and the practice
of interacting with one for the term 'virtual world' to have
meaning, however taking the term of face value can force us into
certain conclusion about what it is we are discussing.

To take and example, my research is into the nature of avatars and
the legal framework that should surround them. If I define an avatar
from an instrumentalist point of view i.e. it is just like a menu in
MS Word as it is a way of acting on a piece of software, then the
conclusions that I may draw are very different from if I assume it
is, say, a token of representation in a social group, or even and
extension of self; however an avatar is to some degree all of these,
the question seems to be which mix of descriptions best fits the
value system that we have and want to relate to them - I think a
similar point is being brought out in the piece you reference.

> With the exception of player-created laws, the "laws" of virtual
> worlds are much more like the "laws" at a retail store or a
> restaurant.  They are customer service policies.  They're a
> limited set of guidelines' whose purpose is to satisfy the
> maximum number of customers with the fewest customer
> representatives.

Sort of, I think that laws, like the theme's MMORPGs are designed to
appeal to specific sets of people and for any given the set the base
line balance is that the game appeals to enough people to: create a
sufficiently strong community for the game to operate (some may
require a clan structure); have enough people to meet of exceed the
financial break even point of the game taking into account at least
the minimum level of customer service (including code maintenance,
quest creation etc etc).

On top of this designers to layer values e.g. player killing; there
is not a simple all purpose rule about this that fits the maximal \
minimal limits you have. A designer will choose values such as this
to appeal to particular sets of people not some general maximum
group, moreover there are different costs bases for game support and
maintenance. What I am saying I think is that these laws are not as
neutral as you seem to suggest, they really are values and they
really are chosen.

But this might be what you meant with the shop analogy as there are
different shops that appeal do different people and ones that have
different levels of service at different costs.

However I think that the argument is extending further than this. If
you have a shop then within the shop you cannot have just the laws
that you want. You have to follow laws of contract, heath and safety
etc etc. I think this type of argument is extending more into
virtual worlds. One are, and one that I study, is the whole avatar
value thing.

The set of rules that make up MMORPGs are such that real world value
is being attributed to virtual items. I think that this was viewed
as some what of an aberration, however I now think that there is
enough evidence from the likes of E Castronova to support the idea
that external economic value is a consequence of these
structures. By virtue of this it seems that there are an emerging
set of duties that MMORPG creator have in respect of this value.

Now I'm not sure what these duties are, however I sure that they
will apply irrespective of what the MMORPGs creators happen to think
about it. I don't think they (or give that this is MUD_DEV 'you')
will have the legal or moral right to say that they you don't want
to respect these rules (and I'm not suggesting that anyone here as
an individual is). This I think is the hard point that Hunter and
Lastowka were making and is certainly a point that I try to make in
my papers.

However I am aware that if we enforce legal duties (which will
inevitably have financial penalties applied - at least in the US
system) then we may end up in a situation where the risk reward of
creating interesting and rich virtual worlds becomes simply
un-economic, hence I think that there does need to be detailed
investigation of the structure of rights and duties that supports
progress, and at the moment I happen to think that property rights
are NOT a solution to this.

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