[MUD-Dev] Has the circle gone rusty? (fwd)

[Ren Reynolds]

Chris cwstewart at csupomona.edu wrote:
> "J C Lawrence" <claw at kanga.nu> posted a forward of a message from "Ren
> Reynolds" <ren at aldermangroup.com>:

>> At this yeas AoIR I presented a paper on the ethics of cheating
>> in multiplayer games (for those that were there - sorry I really
>> was on death's door, but I hope the pics looked nice).

> Can you post a copy on the list or link to it for those who
> weren't there (or dont even know what it is in my case =)

I will load the power point onto the conference site. I am going to
submit the paper so I'm not sure I can distribute it. However I can
give a summary of the Magic Circle an how I was using it.

CY has provide a quote from Huizinga, but he goes on and adds other
aspects to the idea of the circle, then other I guess use the basic
idea how they need.

For me the core thing is that we are talking about a 'space' or
'state' in which play is occurring. The Circle might be made up of a
range of stuff - it might not be physical at all (playing mental
chess), it may be technologically bounded or on a field of play. All
of these seem pretty contingent to me, what seems necessary are a
set of things that one might say are social / psychological. For me
there is some intentional stance to playing which is
necessary. What's more when two or more people play together then I
believe that they have, in effect, made a promise (a social contract
if you like that language) to be in a state of play. Here I'm not so
bothered about the particular rules they happen to use but the
engagement in play itself. Ultimately I argue that when cheating
occurs it is breaking this promise - so it's bad (in an ethical
sense).

But, Huizinga says: "Play lies outside the antithesis of wisdom and
folly, and equally outside those of truth and falsehood, good and
evil."  If we believe this about the magic circle and cheating is
part of it, then it cant be bad.

Caillois (another big play theorist, see: Man, Play and Games) says:
"The cheat is still inside the universe of play." And goes on to say
that cheating re-enforces the rules by standing in a relationship to
them.

This is of course totally abstract stuff - I don't get into things
like what an actual act of cheating might be, what grief play is,
there are lots of good people that research that stuff (such as CY
Foo).

However, as noted in my GAMESNETWORK post, the very idea of 'play'
or The Magic Circle, even being a thing that we can sensibly talk
about does come under attack, if these attacks are successful then
my paper may be groundless in even the most abstract of terms.

People argue that play is so situated in other things that its rules
are so negotiated, that it really does not make sense to talk about
it as a state that can have the sort of properties that I include.

My argument here is pretty simple - there are at least some
occasions when people do know when they are playing together;
calling someone a 'cheat' does seem to have moral and social value
for the accuser and accused. Lastly, I don't see why we cannot be
constantly transitioning between different negotiated play states.

Lastly - to actually touch in on the Virtual Worlds (my fave generic
term that covers MUD1 to Second Life). I have started to think of
thing in terms of stuff like Social Contract theory as a way of
understanding possible ethical takes on what goes on there -
something like this,,,

Many laws are arbitrary e.g. driving on the left / right. If we take
the contract line - they gain moral force through social contract
stuff.  This seems a good model to apply to Virtual Worlds and
rules. Partially because there are some common issues. For example
(and this is just one way to look at this not a model I'm
proposing): if we assume that a virtual worlds needs all Bartle
types to be a successes and that some of them will be in the
minority, then there seems to be a parallel with issues such as
persistent minorities in democratic societies i.e. it may be the
case that there are rules created by the majority that are always
going to disadvantage the minority; but does the society have the
right to change / exclude that minority.

Where I am at now is really looking at the difference between the
assumptions we make about 'society' and those that we make about
multi-player games to see to what degree established theory and
argument would apply - I have not done any of the actual applying
yet.

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