[MUD-Dev] The Root of the Tree (was NEWS: Why Virtual Worlds ...)

[neild-mud at misago.org]

--<cut>--
Note: This message was written via the list web archives.  There is
no guarantee that the claimed author is actually the author.
--<cut>--
Original message: http://www.kanga.nu/archives/MUD-Dev-L/2004Q4/msg00342.php

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 23:03:02 -0800
"David Kennerly" <kennerly at finegamedesign.com> wrote:
> Damien wrote:

>> The usage of CMC that I'm accustomed to includes things like IRC
>> and AIM.  It's a more inclusive term than "MUD" and "virtual
>> world".

> By CMC, are you referring to computer-mediated communi~cation or
> computer-mediated communi~ty?  Certainly IRC and AIM are the
> former (chat).  Wouldn't the system need a set of persistent
> public goods to be the latter (community)?  And, if an
> implementation had communal goods, wouldn't such a system be a
> descendant of the overarching category of what this list designs,
> develops, and implements?  If not, what's the fundamental
> distinction?

Hmm.  FOLDOC expands CMC to "Computer Mediated Communication", so
probably the former.

However, I don't see what public goods have to do with communities.
There are numerous examples of communities which have formed around
communications systems--The Well is probably one of the better known
ones.  I'm a user of a chat system/CMC which has a community going
back over 18 years.

> Certainly such an online community need not be a MUD, an online
> game, or a virtual environment.  But we're talking about an
> inclusive term that describes root of the taxonomical tree to
> which PSWs, MMOGs (or MMPs), MOOs, and MUDs belong.

I'd certainly say that MUDs, &c. are all CMCs.  If you're looking
for a generic term which encompasses them, as well as IRC &c., then
CMC is it.  It's not the same concept that "virtual world" is trying
to express, however.

> A unifying term implies a unifying model; a system of unified
> theories.  Does a unifying model have utility?  I think it might.
> There are enough varieties to populate the domain and there are
> sufficient microtheories and hypotheses to at least set a goal for
> a unified theory.

> Now, I'll hint again, through your example, why I don't think
> virtual worlds is a meaningful title of this unification:

You snipped my main point--it *doesn't matter* that "virtual world"
or "virtual friend" are poorly descriptive of the concepts they
express.  If you look at the roots of a word, they almost never
agree perfectly with the actual meaning.  (e.g., "polymorph" or
"camera")

What matters is that people understand what a word means.

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