Game Design as Cultural Practice

Online Marriage isn't Marriage

I've explored bits of Second Life before, and did more again in preparation for this post, and the experience has been relatively the same both times. I am not a fan of online social constructs. I would personally only use them for interacting with present friends of mine or people I was doing business with. It all comes from the commitment one must put into the experience, and I avoid these for my lack of enthusiasm in learning their rules and my potential for getting hooked into them, possibly neglecting other parts of my life already too thinly spread.

Second Life was very interesting at first, learning how to interact with the world I ran into other newbies trying stuff out and wound up on the first area. It wasn't so much the metropolis of the Metaverse, though it did have all the nudity described. Without a knowledge of anyone I was uninterested in breaking the ice with conversations about avatars and quickly became bored. I was also generally unfriendly, especially with my dinsaur-like avatar specifically designed to be a reptar-human hybrid.

My opinions on online cultures come mostly from past experiences. As an active member of a gaming forum, I remember the digital friendships and excessive drama, as well as the anonymity and occasional comical perversion. Bullying was rampant and often encouraged, with very rational "if you can't take the heat" type of arguments. I participated almost religiously in these groups during a time where I felt generally insecure towards my place in my RL social circles. The differences in etiquette, behavior, and social values between these worlds always fascinated and frustrated me. The groups organized to take advantage of the "social capital" mentioned by Taylor. Though here, there's no organizing principal other than "play nice." One symptom plaguing the community was the impermanence of user identity. Users would disapear when issues arose in their RL, and online friends would have no way of knowing their status if anything serious had happened to them. Also, alts remove accountability from actions. IP checking and general social value through post count and recognition scale these issues, but bring up new ones by preventing the cream to rise to the top when all new users are relatively ignored. Then, when Bartle's killer personality type appears, they exist only to frustrate other users, often creating totally false identities, the funniest of which lure users into simulated sexual experiences to just act strangely. "I put on my wizard's robe and hat" is perhaps my favorite quote of any cyber-sex encounter. In addition, sexual predators and identity thieves put real danger in these fantasy realms which may not be worth the risk.

These issues create a wall blocking potentially great users from interaction. This problem also exists in RL, though the scrutiny provided and actual consequences make for a more meaningful experience where more can be learned from. One can royally upset his group online as well as off, and though it feels just as bad when it happens, there is no absolute consequence on the user, he can just move on and continue the tantrum or start anew. It makes for less genuine personal ties in my opinion. Online cultures have connected people living thousands of miles apart, but has also distanced next-door neighbors, constraining them to the same systems. I hold a Ludist view that online relationships are inherently less valuable than face-to-face relationships, and they can only reach similar realms when we we no longer cross these lines of differing identity. I'm not saying to do away with them, I just don't believe they are of the same worth.

Strangely, comments left on a website actually bear me more psychological impact than those said to my face. With a person I can listen, respond, and create an understanding.  With comments, however, the dissenting opinion stands like engraved stone. And although many users are skilled at communicating clearly through text, quite often a messages intentions are never appreciated unless profoundly negative or positive. Perhaps my view is scaled by wanting to remain in a realm where i am successful rather than starting over anew. Regardless, there are definite benefits towards gaming and interaction in meatspace that virtual worlds can not provide (today). Solutions, in my opinion, all come from further established credibility and consistency in identity. Moderators do a decent job at upholding the community values. Yet, I don't believe the benefit is worth the cost in working one's way up in an online community.

Kaneva

Kaneva, a social network and a virtual world featuring 3D entertainment, can certainly learn from the lessons of earlier multi-user social game-worlds. Kaneva is marketing entertainment which consits of experience ("fun and exciting things to do") such as shopping, dancing, chating, playing, and hanging out with friends; interaction(chatting with people from around the world), attending online events and connecting with others); and creative activities (the users can decorate their 3D home, design and sell clothing, build community hangouts). Kaneva's advertising appears to unleash the power of imagination with slogans such as "Imagine What You Can Do." Well, what can you do? Below follows the suggestions intended only to provide a fresh breath of criticism and the direction for improvement.

1. Exdend the conceptualization of culture. Some may be ready to dismiss virtual worlds and particularly social networks by arguing that they are neither games nor they are productive activities. Using Pearce (2006) notion of "creative production for its own sake," I would argue that players experiences can be improved by expanding the universe of assets what can be produced by players. By producing players generate their own entertainment (Pearce, 2006). Such form of cultural production is a form of "folk art" (Pearce, 2006) of that social community. In Kaneva currently players can produce clothing, decorate their apartments, build their own living space and community hangouts. These experiences can be extended by offering the players the experience of creating clothing for NPCs, creating parts of the town, creating their own shops and world objects for entertainment and shopping (besides clothing and shoes, and home decorations). It is these new objects: cars, hovercrafts, bags, banners, ticklers that can push players imagination.

2. Implement better ways of communicating human behavior. One of the main lessons one can learn from games such as Lucasfilm's Habitat, is that "cyberspace is defined more by the interactions among the actors within it than by the technology with which it is implemented" (Morningstar & Farmer, 1991). Game-world designers need to provide the means to communication human behavior. Kaneva at the moment offers extensive and well implemented repertuare of Emotes, Gestures, and Dance moves, and even voice chats(for $s). Morninstar's and Farmer's (1991) lesson for other developers is to define "a virtual environment in terms of the configuration and behavior of objects, rather than their presentations." In comparison with Habitat from 1980s and 1990s where players could play games, go on adventures, fall in love, get married, get divorced, start businesses, found religions, protest agains religions, self-govern (Morningstar & Farmer, 1991), Kaneva offers limited set of behaviors (create specific things, dance, shop, play limited number of games, talk/interact). As such, the message for Kaneva is to focus more on behavior of avatars than on their looks. Looking good is certainly important as evidenced in the variety of good-looking, well-dressed avatars. But what do they do? Run from one hang out to another, look cool and show off themselves with a series of dances? While it may work for teenagers and cross-dressers, it is less likely to work for more mature or demanding players. And this brings us to my last point about the difference between the players.

3. Allow the exploration of the boundaries of possible, emergent rules of behavior. Any sociologists would tell you that deviance is normal and functional for society. Deviance defines, clarifies, and outlaws certain behavior. Deviant acts help to bond, unify society against such actions. LambdaMoo, for example, offered a chance for imaginative space in terms of social structure and legal mechanisms to control deviance (Mnookin, 1996). Management of behavior and community life in Kaneva (as in many other social worlds) worlds appears to be static, under the eye of the godly providers, and hence, not evolving and not allowing the community to unite. Certainly, abuse, verbal and text-based rape are serious matters and have to be prevented. World keepers are dreading the appearance of Mr. Bungle/Dr. Jest and committing the crime against the "emotional true," dirty crimes against the minds of others (Dibbell, 1993/1998). Yet, little can be done to prevent it. The sacred privacy of players and insistence on "a strict separation between real life and LambdaLife[in our case, KanevaLife]" (Mnookin, 1996) is indispensable. This privacy makes possible "creative self-fashioning". Tough, socializing, dancing provocatively next to another avatar who may be very young or very old is rather uncomfortable experience. Many players in Kaneva have RL profiles, yet, who knows how real they actually are. To summarize, Kaneva's new direction can be to offer activities for all age groups. The challenge of community and behavior management, I'm afraid, is there to stay.

Webkinz: A Virtual Worlds for Kids

Webkinz is a great example of a company trying to create a virtual world for kids. This is a hard task to tackle, as we all know that virtual worlds do not come without their dangers. This becomes more obvious when we read an article such as "A Rape in Cyberspace," by Julian Dibbel in which she discusses sexual assaults that occurred within a virtual world. It is natural for parents to have fears in regards to their children exploring the internet and in particular participating in virtual worlds. 

Webkinz does a great job or trying to tackle these fears while still allowing kids to express themselves within this world. Children who participate in Webkinz must first create their own account. A webkinz account asks for such information as first name (used when the virtual world addresses the user), gender, birthday, and the country and state in which the child lives. In addition, the child gets to choose a screen name (used to represent the child as they interact with other users) and will have a Webkinz animal (likely also of their choice) to represent themselves. (Though it is not required that a child specify a gender) As Curtis states in “Mudding: Social Phenomena in Text-Based Virtual Realities," players can express themselves through a choice of name, gender, and self-description. Webkinz is clearly trying to allow children to express themselves despite having to interact in what needs to be a very closed and monitored virtual system, as children are able to reach two of these three objectives. Each child is able to use his or her own name and his or her character to represent themselves in this virtual world. In addition, the child gets to use a screen name which they can use to express themselves (ex. soccergrl8 baseballboy12), and the world sends the users 'gifts' on their birthdays. 

All in all the world seems very personal to the children while maintaining,  but must also stay secure. It does this by severely restricting what children can do in the virtual world. Children are able to interact with each other in three ways: your friends can come in your 'room' and each or your pets can play, you can play games with your friends, and you can 'chat.' The only way in which the kids are allowed to chose the content is in 'chat,' which is severely restricted. Webkinz allows young children to chose only pre-set questions and answers in chat. Older kids are able to choose what they say, but there are extreme filters placed on their input. 

Over-all Webkinz is able to provide children with their own identity, their own virtual space, and the ability to interact in a safe and effective manor. It tackles the difficult task of creating a webspace for young children in a very effective manor.

Blogpost 7: Virtual Worlds/Lessons Learned.

I have to admit, I have never gotten virtual worlds. I enjoy simulation games such as The Sims, Sim City, Spore, etc. I enjoy MMOs such as Kingdom of Loathing and have been experimenting with writing my own. When I was ten I even enjoyed text based games and adventure MUDs. I like coding and content creation so I should obviously like virtual worlds such as Second Life. I just don't get them.

These virtual worlds provide people with a blank forum and engine to create objects, interactions, and societies that are different and unique from the real world. Early pioneers in the though of these world's such as Dibbell and Curtis argue for the needs of rules and enforcers of rules. At they same time, they recognize that the citizens have to be involved in the process otherwise the game falls apart.

That, I accept, is one of the draws of these worlds. Often the community is small enough and disparate enough that very little effort leads to a big impact in the way the world woks. For people who are interested in doing these things they can quickly become part of the lore of the game.

Habitat proved to be a more interesting story. There was combat between players and the admins played as villains against players. In their recount, Farmer and Morningstar write about their adventures as The Shadow and Death in Habitat. One time, when a player killed their characters and stole a one of a kind weapon, a developer threatened the player with banning if they did not return it. Feeling that this broke the game world, when it happened again, the admins ransomed the gun back in a large spectacle. This proved to be more popular.

Apparently, the concept of fairness is a big deal to players of MOOs. Some get it and embrace it, others do not. Mnookin describes the system of law that was created for LambdaMOO and its evolution, successes, and failures. Meanwhile, other games such as Habbo Hotel face charges on their Wikipedia page of moderators being unfair and arbitrary. It is interesting, however, that Habbo had a volunteer admin force until its parent company decided that they should be employees instead.

In Productive Play Pearce claims that virtual worlds are more fun when players are able to produce and create. Maybe I would enjoy these games better if there were mechanics involved which encouraged me to craft and build instead of having to find my own way and meaning. This is something that combat muds such as World of Warcraft have inherently over virtual worlds such as Second Life. Everyone understands hit the boar in the head until it gives you XP.

Virtual worlds give you what you put into them. It seems fitting that real life, which has no purpose other than what one creates would translate into an open virtual world. It also seems fitting that in such an open system relationships, societies, governments, and cultures will form as well. However, I do not find having to find my own meaning as much fun as playing a role which has meaning assigned to it. That is the difference between a MMO such as WoW and a virtual world such as Second Life. In one, my goals and meaning are clear, kill bad guys and loot. In the other one my goals are less clear. At the end of the day, people must find their own enjoyments.

Experiences Inherent to Virtual Worlds

John Michael Courson

Second Life is a virtual world that provides many player experiences and social interactions. Virtual worlds like Second Life owe a lot to their predecessors, text-based adventure games such as Zork and more specifically Multi User Dungeons (MUDs) such as LambdaMOO. Despite the huge focus on graphics that accompanies virtual worlds today, there is much to be learned from the earlier iterations of virtual worlds in order to improve the playing experience. In fact, many aspects of social interaction remain unchanged and oftentimes the same sorts of problems exist today as ten or fifteen years ago.

Perhaps one of the greatest examples of a MUD is LambdaMOO, founded by Pavel Curtis in 1990. Just as in Second Life players control a character and may move their character around an environment. An important aspect of this virtual world is that players can interact with each other using various commands and social interaction is one of the motivations for continual visits to the virtual world. Curtis describes three ways in which players can most easily express themselves: through the choice of their name, their gender, and finally their self-description (Curtis). These three expressions are still readily apparent when playing Second Life. Each player is allowed to choose a name and gender, though gender options are limited solely to male and female and no two players can have the same name. Most player's no longer have a self-description, however this has been replaced by an actual depiction of one's character. This convention is almost as powerful as a self-description as players in Second Life can take the form of humans, animals, vehicles, or even tacos. The form of a character is simply limited by the player's ability to create within the virtual world. These expressions are very important to players and they often define how they interact with others. The choice of a name and appearance has not lost it's importance over the years.

Other conventions of virtual worlds have also remained unchanged. For example, players tend to gather in zones where there are an abundance of other players. I myself find it extremely boring to remain in zones where there are no other players. Curtis describes this phenomenon as 'social gravity' which is comparable to the real world where people are interested in strange crowds (Curtis). Unfortunately, many of the problems inherent to virtual worlds have not changed either. Julian Dibbel describes in his paper A Rape in Cyberspace an event in which one player sexually assaults several other players (Dibbel). These kinds of actions eventually led to the necessity for laws within the virtual world. A legislative system was created in LambdaMOO in which players could petition about various things (Mnookin). This led to special abilities such as being able to boot guest characters and the ability to petition a ban on members. The virtual world Habitat had similar problems. One such problem concerned the ability to kill and steal from other players. The solution was eventually to limit these actions to a wilderness zone (Farmer/Morningstar). Similar problems exist within Second Life. In order to enjoy the playing experience, players should be aware that other players can be reported to moderators. Sexual content is readily apparent in Second Life and while I never frequented zones in which sexual activity was present, I have been approached by a few people who said vulgar things. If anything, Second Life provides an even more dangerous environment in which rape could be physically depicted using a variety of objects and animations. It is important when playing these games to know what administrators consider acceptable and what may be reported.

Finally, despite the plethora of problems inherent in virtual worlds there are many positive effects. Second Life provides an atmosphere that is chock full of user-created content whether it be clothing, vehicles, real estate, guns, or other objects. This user-created content allows for productive play. Many users spend countless hours creating content to sell to other users. Some users sell content to make an actual profit, while others make their content free perhaps to improve the virtual world as a whole. I was surprised to find a multi-level shopping mall full of free items in the game. I didn't have to spend a dime to find clothing and vehicles that appealed to me. It was exactly this sort of thing that I liked about Second Life. In addition to the creation of objects, entire zones are being created such as an Uru environment in which players can come and socialize in an environment that appeals to them (Pearce). These kinds of productivity allow for a diverse game world. I believe that with continued productivity, people of many different ages and cultural backgrounds could find something about Second Life that is enjoyable, even if it doesn't influence them enough to come back for more.

References

Curtis, P. “Mudding: Social Phenomena in Text-Based Virtual Realities.” http://www.eff.org/Net_culture/MOO_MUD_IRC/curtis_mudding.article

Dibbell, Julian. (1993/1998). “A Rape in Cyberspace.” http://www.juliandibbell.com/texts/bungle.html

Mnookin, J. (1996) Virtual(ly) “Law: The Emergence of Law in LambdaMOO.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication: Volume 2, Number 1: Part 1 of a Special Issue, June, 1996. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol2/issue1/lambda.html

Farmer, R. & Morningstar, C. (1990/1991) “The Lessons of LucasArts Habitat.” http://www.fudco.com/chip/lessons.html

Pearce, C. (2006). “Productive Play: Game Culture from the Bottom Up.” Games & Culture. Volume 1 Issue 1, Winter 2006. http://lcc.gatech.edu/~cpearce3/PearcePubs/PearceGC-Jan06.pdf

Lessons for Second Life

I've dabbled in Second Life for a few years, now. Every month or so I'll log on and fly around, searching for whatever strikes my fancy. I'm always pleasantly surprised to find that, regardless of what I search for, I find a place where it's been re-created in-world. Rough around the edges, perhaps (often harshly so), but present all the same.

The overwhelming feeling garnered from this posts' readings is one of user-created content, both in a “physical” sense (buildings, objects, etc) and in a more metaphysical sense (laws, codes of conduct, punishments, etc.). I see this as being both a natural and net positive direction for multi-user virtual environments to evolve in, and I will now argue my case.

In the beginning of LambaMOO there was no legal code. Players did pretty much what they wanted, with only polite social guidelines to govern player behavior [Dibbell]. It was only after a series of virtual rapes that the members of LambaMOO gathered together and began seriously contemplating some form of legal structure to deal with such heinous (and similar) acts [Dibbell, Curtis, Mnookin]. Since then, players have taken the hard-earned lessons of that proto-world into every virtual world created thereafter, in some form or another. Codes of conduct range from the simple to the complex and arcane, but most if not all virtual worlds now contain protocols and regulations governing player behavior and punishment for odious, malicious, or excessively disruptive play.

This development, both originally and since, represents the player's wish to be involved with their virtual world experiences. It is not enough for them to play the game – users wish to interface with their game worlds as deeply, if not more so, as their “real” lives. Where many people feel themselves under-represented in governance or unable to affect their real-world environments due to monetary or physical limitations, virtual worlds offer little to no such barriers. LambdaMOO, like so many of its spiritual successors, gave considerable freedom to its players in terms of what they could create within the game [Curtis].

My personal choice of game for this blogpost, Second Life, is quite possibly the epitome of this mechanism. Second Life gives its users nigh-unlimited control of in-game assets. Land purchased by players can be sculpted to any desired specification, and can be populated with items, events, and buildings that are unlimited by anything aside from imagination. As detailed by Pearce, environments from entirely different games have been recreated, either totally or spiritually, within Second Life, There.com, and other virtual worlds [Pearce p3-4].

My personal experience in-world with Second Life has been limited, but has nevertheless been educational regarding the powers given to users. I've struggled with the 3D modeling tools and have only a few modest creations to show for it. Though enjoyable, the experience can be quite frustrating. The learning curve is impressively steep, and despite my own skills as a graphic designer and 3D modeler, I found SL's tools to be lacking.

With this in mind, I suggest that content creation tools be streamlined and more adequately defined within virtual worlds. Some game publishers blanch at the idea, wanting to keep a tight reign on user experience and the rewards of play. Blizzard Entertainment, creators of World of Warcraft, are an excellent example of this hegemony of play [Pearce p.2-3]. By limiting what their players can do, Blizzard, and similarly-minded game publishers, control their user's play experience. This can be enjoyable, as WoW most certainly is, but for many players (this author included) find WoW and other games to be restrictive and unengaging beyond a certain point. Second Life offers players the ability to create their own house, while WoW has yet to offer even the most rudimentary player housing (despite that being a launch feature, way back in the day).

LambdaMOO and Second Life, along with many other virtual worlds, have given control of game-world assets to their players. The results have not always been positive. Indeed, given the power and anonymity of these virtual environments, many players choose to embrace the darker aspects of humanity [Dibbell]. But the responses to these events, both after and before, speak of a more powerful, universal drive towards community building. As one who despises the practice of griefing, I yearn for the day that such players will never again be able to ruin my, or anyone else's, fun. Player-driven and player-controlled content creation is the best feature new virtual worlds can offer to consumers.

--Nigel

Bartle Taxonomy in World of Warcraft

Humans tend to bring order to their surroundings. Logic and organization bring relaxation and a sense of accomplishment to people, to varying degrees. Even packrats like myself find an odd comfort in their messy rooms – we know where things are (or should be) according to our own, unique organization system.

With that in mind, consider Richard Bartle's gamer taxonomy. His creation of an organizational structure for gamers reflects an all-too human desire to bring order to what is otherwise chaos [Taylor, Bodies p.26, 33]. His taxonomy is adequate, though not necessarily fully realized. It is applicable to both online and offline multiplayer games. I will use World of Warcraft as a case study, and will examine Bartle's archetypes not only within that game, but through the lenses of the other readings.

Bartle describes four archetypes: Achiever, Explorer, Socializer, and Killer. WoW holds affordances for all of these identities, and for variations thereof. Achievers are the most well-served of the group, as the game's primary focus is on combat with the ultimate goal of increasing one's level, and thus power. Explorers can enjoy vast continents filled with epic vistas and beautifully rendered landscapes. Socializers can create and explore intricate social networks thanks to role-playing servers. Killers engage in PvP combat, either in PvP zones or on PvP servers.

But what of the other ideas raised by the other readings? Issues of age, race, and gender with regards to these player types? How does WoW afford players outside of the 18-24 white male bracket with engaging play experiences?

Taylor's essay Multiple Pleasures discusses the role of player gender in Everquest. Though older than WoW, EQ shares much with its younger sibling, and the theories Taylor cultivated in that august virtual world will find fertile ground in WoW. Women can, and do, enjoy assuming all of Bartle's four archetypes. Taylor describes socializing and sociability as a predominantly female archetype, in fact [Taylor, Pleasures p.24]. As Socializers, women navigate complex networks of relationships and narratives, often interweaving WoW cannon into the stories they collectively tell.

Women Achievers, in Taylor's EQ and in WoW, garner a sense of empowerment and accomplishment from the growth of their character's abilities [Taylor, Pleasures p.28]. The high-level spells, weapons, and resources their play garners act as status symbols – prominent visual cues speaking for their WoW prowess [Taylor, Pleasures p.29]. Women occupy the Killer role, for much the same reason – the ability to grief, duel, or PvP can be a greatly empowering experience.

Women Explorers are well-sated with WoW's expansive game spaces. With the release of the latest expansion, players can enjoy four continents worth of virtual space to explore, each with dozens of different environments to explore.

Pearce, on the other hand, examines gamers based on age, rather than gender. Specifically, she focuses on gamers belonging to the Baby Boomer generation. Her findings connect well with Bartle's taxonomy. Boomer Gamers tend to not be concerned with levels, power, or other accomplishments [Pearce p.6]. They would much rather play games that tell engaging stories, require mental rather than physical agility, or engage them socially [Pearce p. 13, 15, 18]. Navigating game space, solving puzzles, and helping newbies, all Explorer activities, are greatly enjoyed by Boomers [Pearce p.13]. Furthermore, Boomers use games to connect with one another, forming social networks of similarly-aged people with similar interests to associate with one another [Pearce p.7, 15, 18]. Many find playing with younger players online to be difficult – younger gamers tend to emphasize achievements or reflexes, attributes that older players seldom focus on [Pearce p.14].

World of Warcraft provides a backdrop for these archetypes, and more, to engage with one another. It caters to a specific subset of them, and in regards to the archetypes favored by older and female gamers it is definitely lacking. This is not to say it's a bad game, or one that isn't played by women or Boomers. Those populations exist, and in significant numbers. But their game play experiences would be greatly enhanced, and Blizzard would attract far more of them, if the game's design were altered. Such an activity, though, would be immensely costly, and as such is not feasible, even given Blizzard's immense wealth and talented staff. Other games will come along that will provide affordances for non-standard gamers, and when they do, those players will come flocking.

--Nigel O'Rear

Teleportation, Second Life, and the Art of Doing Nothing

Imagine, if you would, a world where teleportation was possible.  It'd be wonderful, right?  People appearing in places willy-nilly, horrible accidents involving people half-in, half-out of walls, limbs everywhere...

Let's start again.  Imagine, if you would, a world where teleportation was possible.  Not crazy, go-anywhere teleportation, but something where you could head to certain set locations; being able to transport somewhere would be as simple as traveling there and setting down a beacon, or getting the location to teleport to from someone who had been there already.  Sounds useful, doesn't it?  No more travel times, just show up at work, at school, at your SO's place, at the Gamestop, wherever; all you need is a location.

Only - you can't see where you're landing ahead of time.  What if someone invites you to come to their free cake stand, and when you actually take the teleport to the place, you are greeted not by tortes and seven-layers, but by bouquets of intestines and rugs of flayed human skin?  A horrible trick has been played on you, and you may well feel wronged by having gone to see such a thing, but in the end, you decided to go there.  Who exactly is at fault there?

Now, the real world may be a ways away from point-to-point teleportation technology, but virtual worlds, like Second Life, have had the technology, and been using it, for some time now.  As such, there's a very real chance of being given an in-game location which contains an unpleasant surprise for the visitor, and having no real way of actually knowing that the casual user of the world does not actually want to go there.

Why is this so problematic?  In the real world, if you were to go to someone's house and they had something on display that disturbed you, you *might* be able to sue them for emotional damages.  The difficulty in doing so lies in the amount of implied consent involved in going to someone's house; one has to exceed a certain subjective norm of what they have on display before it would really be considered damaging.  Similarly, places such as Second Life ask owners of real estate to flag property as either capable of having adult content or not, and if a place is flagged as having adult content, one is expected to be ready to encounter it when traveling there.  Being unexpectedly shown something offensive is thus presented as less as a clear-cut event of wrongdoing, as the Mr. Bungle attacks in LambdaMOO were considered; it has even become something of a game on the internet, a stark difference from the relative seriousness Dibbell describes the above incident as having.

Then again, Second Life is a very different locale than the real world.  In the real world, one (usually) gets to know someone before being invited over to their place, limiting the chance of something untoward happening; in a virtual space, someone might receive dozens of possible places to go via mail or passersby.  In the real world, one can judge the character of a place before entering; certainly your new friend might have an abattoir for a foyer, but it is likely you would have signs of this before entering.  Most teleportation in-game, at least for Second Life, is done blindly, without any description of what the place you are going to looks like.  Lastly, it is difficult to "accidentally" visit a locale in the real world - about the closest one could come would be getting lost and winding up in a place you don't want to be, which is a very different scenario.  One misclick in a virtual world could send a visitor to Bob's Bunny Den, which would really be better named Bob's Bondage and Beheading Shack.  Clearly, there are fewer natural mechanisms to aid the average person in protecting themselves from these sorts of situations in virtual worlds; why, then, do we consider it even less of an offense than in the real world?

Consider the list of LambdaMOO manners.  One of the points states:

Respect other players' sensibilities. The participants on the MOO come from a wide range of cultures and backgrounds. Your ideas about what constitutes offensive speech or descriptions are likely to differ from those of other players. Please keep the text that players can casually run across as free of potentially-offensive material as you can.

This neatly addresses the issue; clearly players from fifteen years ago cared about this very problem.  The lack of concern amongst internet culture and virtual worlds almost suggests that people have taken a different tact, that they no longer care about this sort of behavior (unless, perhaps, it is happening to them at the time).  Perhaps we should be designing with that in mind.

Originally, I had thought about possible solutions to this issue.  The first that came to mind was a preview image of the area one would arrive in, but not long after, the realization that this would merely move the point of awful discovery even sooner kicked in.  My second thought was that some sort of unmodifiable neutral foyer would be required to be placed as a "teleport landing zone," thus allowing visitors the same sort of checks they might get with a real location, but this would likely be exploitable, would hamper the creativity of designers in the virtual space, and worse, conflate the infrastructure level of the game's makeup with the percipient level.  So...maybe the best choice, the one with what the players want in mind, would be to change nothing.

Changing nothing would still allow players the in-game complaint systems to combat sites they found offensive.  Alternatively, Second Lifers who do not approve of the practice moving to simply inform others of known 'shock' locations.  Interestingly, the presence and growth of such 'productive' play (assuming, as may or not be the case, that society finds these shock sites unproductive) would suggest that the community does care about the issue and thus call for some developer attention on the matter.  Perhaps a specialized category of complaint - something like an entrapment accusation - could be made for people who advertise their virtual space for the sole purpose of shocking people; the question in doing so lies with whether or not the offensive content flag absolves the owner of the space of responsibility for doing so.  Such a debate seems like it would be right at home in the democratic system that LambdaMOO uses (as described by Mnookin); I admit I'm not sure how Second Life would do the same, but given the apparent rift between what seems "right" and what people seem to want, some sort of mass vote seems appropriate.

The question of teleportation has brought us to an interesting place.  It presents a clear problem - a crime initially notionally less severe than other online incidents, but which is fueled by the conventions of the medium.  Oddly, the solution to it seems to be to carry on - give it no special treatment at all.  I suppose that it fixing its own problems would make it a rather useful invention, after all.

--Evan

            In the beginning there was the MUD and in this MUD there was words. MUD or Multi User Dungeon is a world made up words created by the people that play in it. Because the players make the world themselves there is an almost unlimited level creativity and diversity that can be put into it. An good example of a MUD is the MUD named LamdaMOO. Though the idea of a MUD has the players creating everything does not mean that there are no rules. In the world LambdaMOO the Lambda law was created in response to the cypercrimes committed by a player named Mr. Bungle. The laws were created by the creators of LambdaMOO and were in the beginning the only creators of the law but then turned the law over to the general populace sitting back to just enforce the law.

 

 The world of Second Life is huge and diverse which many different groups of people that live within it. Much like MUDs there is an almost unlimited level of customizability this is a bit over whelming for most beginning players with little experience of these types of environments. This was hard for me because I am used to more linear play styles.  Those who inhabit it run Second Life. Each player has control over his own domain being able to customize his piece of the world in almost anyway he sees fit. Law works differently in Second Life then in LambdaMOO each area is owned by a player and that player is the admin for there and controls the law of his land. In Second Life there is the trend for people with similar interests to group together and create themed areas that they run around and play in. In these areas one must play along with the theme as well as the owners want their little world to reflect their ideas. Second Life is a amazing world where much is campaple and people can do and be almost anything. 

Order in Second Life

Since the beginning of MUDs, one of the most attractive parts of virtual worlds is the customization available to players.  In fact, perhaps MUDs have had the greatest amount of avatar customization as they do not rely on preprogrammed graphics options—they are only limited by the player’s conceptions.  No graphical MMORPG, for example, would allow for a character such as Mr. Bungle from LambdaMOO.

The virtual world of Second Life is in many ways similar to a graphical MUD.  It allows users to customize their avatars via user-created content.  Furthermore, much like MUDs, users are allowed to create their own spaces and design their own environment.  However, in a MUD, the users have some form of influence over the rules of the virtual world.  From the case of Mr. Bungle in LambdaMOO, we can see that the players themselves are for the most part in charge of the system of law.  The creators of LambdaMOO were originally the sole law makers for the game, but they later officially turned the system of law over to the general populace, acting only as implementers of the law.  Virtual(ly) Law shows us that in LambdaMOO, although the rules were loose, there seems to have been a definite sense of a system of law with a definite means of implementation. 

In playing Second Life, I remember feeling a bit overwhelmed at the freedom allotted to players, and what seemed to me the sheer disorganization of the world.  I suppose this is because I am accustomed mostly to games that do not allow for much customization of the virtual world.  In a game such as Legend of Zelda or Mario, or even an online game such as World of Warcraft, the environment is carefully planned out in every way.  Everything is designed to make interaction with the world easier and to guide the player.  With the user-created environment of Second Life, the world feels very different.  Although there is certainly law, doled out by the game masters, the look and feel of Second Life is very, very free. 

I believe this is due in a large part, once again, to the graphical system.  Although a MUD like LambdaMOO might switch themes and styles from zone to zone just as frequently as Second Life, the graphical interface that Second Life provides emphasizes the changes far more.  There is something about the sudden change of style and quality in buildings from zone to zone of second life that seems chaotic.      

Although incidents like the case of Mr. Bungle are bound to happen in any world where you give players the amount of freedom as is present in LambdaMOO or Second Life, this is part of the novelty of these virtual worlds.  Being able to break rules and social etiquette, even at the risk of punishment, is part of the draw.  It brings the game closer to real life.  Still, do the players want the game to approach real life?

-Anna Coley (acoley3)