Slashdot Mirror
Restart, Restore, or Continue Creating Democracy?
The Importance of writes "LawMeme's James Grimmelmann, whose work has previously been noted on Slashdot, has written a new piece about virtual life and death in MMORPGs, and what that means for online democracy. Any serious discussion of democracy online that features comments on "The Secret of Monkey Island" has got to be good."
I don't mind playing a good LAN party game with people I know, but back when I was pretty good at Quake II, and started to try out MMRPG's like the "Ultima Online" beta, I realized that I just didn't enjoy playing the online games for one simple reason:
Most of the people online acted like assholes.
Too often, I'd log into a Quake/Quake II server, and get some punk calling me a MotherF---er because his team was losing at Capture the Flag. I got tired of Ultima Online when, during the beta, some jackass got in the way of the door and wouldn't let me walk out.
Diablo? Town killed by someone who thought it was fun to use the cheats to kill people.
On the whole, I tend to like the gamers I know in person and through my writings. But in online games, it seems that there are hordes of people who never learned to act above the age of 12, and need a good kick in the ass - or just never be allowed to play with anyone else online again.
It's probably the #1 reason why Nintendo still hasn't moved into online gaming in a big way (so far, Sega's Phantasy Star Online is their only online experience) - they don't want Jimmy's parents complaining about how their child got ragged on as a "Pikachu-f---er" during Pokemon Online.
The author's right - the penalities for "bad" behavior in an online format might work with some who have a community in the game, but for those who just want to be a dickhead, it's hard to do much other than ban them, since they have little emotionally wrapped up in the game.
Eh - just my opinion, and I could be wrong.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
On every forum on games, music, sports, or anything not directly related to "our continued survival as a race", there'll be some idiot who chirps up some "this is a waste of time, think of the children!"
Today, you're that idiot.
There's plenty of places to out your insightless politic - games.slashdot.org isn't one of them.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
I think there's a larger point here too -- destructive forces usually come either from outside a community or from someone who has voluntarily withdrawn from that community. People within the friendship network cannot attack that network without attacking part of themselves, and are reluctant to do this. It's why real-world wars occur between groups that don't understand each other or have chosen to disassociate themselves from each other -- a necessary part of the process of "othering."
And this, like online democracy, is important because people are the same people in different media -- they just have different levels of investment in the community.
The online world provides us with a model for solving real social problems: don't increase the legal threat of punishment (for that depends on being caught) -- increase people's sense of belonging to a caring community, and threaten their feeling of status in that community if they violate its norms. That's the real way to solve real-life social problems.
Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
> I've always wondered what it would be like in the world if barriers for people to interact with people from other parts of the world, whether geographical or language were removed. Would we actually have world peace if people weren't so "isolated" as they are in the real world? And I believe we may soon find out, via MMORPGs.
Unlikely -- the most important demographic feature of MMORPGers is not their ethnic or national origin, it's that they're self-selecting in their desire to participate in an online community. Observing the effects of cultural and linguistic differences in these fora is interesting, but it's a mistake to imagine that they are little models of the real multiethnic world, whose most important demographic feature is precisely the opposite -- nobody self-selects to be born in any particular place, and except for the wealthy, moving is hard, so geographic proximity does not select for willingness to participate.
The point is that while MMORPGs remove some barriers to participation, they introduce others, most importantly the willingness to be involved. That makes them poor models of the real world.
2*3*3*3*3*11*251
Democracy is not the reason why most games fail, its due to the lack of socialism. In every single online game I have played, I have seen a sharp division between the "leets" and the "noobs". The so called elite players will do their level best to create a social system that is beneficial to themselves, whilst the noobs quit in disgust due to the inequality. The very nature of PvP is that the strong survive and the weak find other games.
:)
Now since the problem has been identified, whats the solution? Some games have taken out Player vs Player aspect, for example Horizons (www.istaria.com) or a game called Shattered Galaxy (www.sgalaxy.com) has something called a power rating system, the stronger the player the more noobs he has to fight.
Attaining equality is easy, however, attaining it whilst still allowing people to get on the levelling treadmill is hard. I am sure that developers all over the world are looking at ways to appeal not only to their most loyal hardcore fans but also to the travelling lowbie.
Misquoting someone important - "With great power comes great responsibility", If the gameplay was set in a way that it is beneficial to help lowbies, then I am quite sure most games problems will be solved, till then I will keep dodging the "I ownz joo, noob" comments
"Democracy is inherently evil"
You seem to have a rather negative view of people. The fact is, I'd rather have Mob Rule than Elite rule, which is what we (oh so Ameri-centric, I know) have right now. I can talk to the mob.
Places that have attempted real and wide-spread democracy (not just in government, but elsewhere, in schools, workplaces, etc.) have had pretty fair success. Granted, the best example I can think of right now is maybe the Zapatistas in Chiapas (though there are plenty of others, Paris in May 68, the anarchist part of Republican Spain, the aarchs in Agleria, Italian social centers, etc.), but that doesn't mean it couldn't work.
I really think the only way that people will get engaged with the rest of the world and maybe be a little less alienated (again, Americentric), is to spread democracy everywhere.
And as for tempering mood swings, psh, if that was true we wouldn't have the Patriot Act, for instance.
Abstraction.
Ever notice people in their cars waiting in line are a hell of a lot more rude than people *standing* in line? Same principle...when people feel abstracted from the rest of the people around them they tend to give in to whim and emotion to a greater degree.
But that's not going to change. The only interesting question (which was not, interestingly enough, brought up by this article) is "Will the internet decay into a shithole completely devoid of personal accountability or will it slowly evolve into a place where people realize that everyone they're chatting with have feelings too"?
I'm rooting for the latter, but it's too soon to tell.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
And how does one go about examining democracy and its inherent problems? How does one go about changing them without throwing nations into turmoil and playing God with millions of innocent lives? How does even buy a clue about what to change?
Exactly the same way I go about designing a car that's safer, has higher performance and greater efficiency without risking the lives of test drivers and the general populace.
I model it. Virtually. On a computer.
Go figure.
KFG
Regardless of what barriers the internet's nature dissolves (color, geography, etc), my observation is that people will simply find or create some other divide to align themselves upon.
You are currently reading this post on slashdot, a forum dedicated to technology and related issues. Obviously, this is not a place for someone interested in knitting socks. Your interest in slashdot is a kind of communication barrier, as you are unlikely to communicate with someone with interests that do not overlap yours. Is this wrong? No, it is simple human nature. You're simply making the most efficient use of your time by following your interests.
So essentially, the internet population organizes itself around artifically created barriers of interest or ideology.
As for MMORPGs.. they tend to be the underbelly of the internet when it comes to interactions between groups. The rest of the internet, you have what, message boards, chat rooms, etc? The worst you could get there is a ban and a boot. When you give people assets to protect and weapons to smack each other with, guess what happens?
That's right, Shit Happens.
I'd go on, but I think you can work out the rest yourself..
*hoofprint*
The essential problem with all current MMORPGs is not that players cannot be punished effectively, but rather that the companies which host these games do not enforce their own policies against bad behavior. They do not enforce them because they have a vested financial interest in maintaining as many paying customers as possible over the expected lifetime of the game. This is the same reasoning process that companies go through when they decide that the privacy policy is less important than the revenue which could be generated by selling the information in violation of the "Privacy Policy" or "Mission Statement". Thus, the game company is likely to adopt policies which never completely satisfy any one faction of players, but which also never alienate them quite enough to give up what they have already "invested" in the game either. In this manner they continue to receive a stream of monthly payments from the largest possible audience of players/subscribers with the least possible amount of work in maintenance, administration, etc...
The best solution, in my humble opinion, involves the players as a stakeholder in the long terms success of the game not just by granting in game rewards, but rather by dividing the real world ownership of the company that administers the game among the players who support it. The effect of shareholder ownership and market forces would necessarily isolate and eliminate those players who choose to be jerks from continuing to harass the majority of the remaining players, only this time, since the players are owners the enforcement would have teeth. As the article stated, the main problem now is deterrence of bad behavior and the problem exists because of inadequate enforcement due to corporate conflict of interest.
Yes, players need tools. If a game allows a player to build a wall - someone will inevitably trap another player inside a box to torment them.
So the game needs to allow you to also -break- anything that can be built.
If a player can lock or block a door, they will find a way to lock another player on the wrong side of the door intentionally. Therefore the game needs to allow you to -push- such barriers.
the problem of course is that - even with all the right tools, if someone treats you like a complete *sshole, I'll never know it. They could have spent 4 hours trapping people in boxes, and I would treat them like anyone else if I hadn't seen it or happened to be in your immediate circle of friends.
massmog communities are too loose. Only 10-20% of players on any given server are playing at any one time. the odds of an effective server-wide community notification system are pretty slim.
So what's a good solution? karma. an aura. perhaps only visible with a skill or spell.
Every day that a player logs in, they have some karma points to spend on other players. positively or negatively.
you simply institute a law of diminishing returns, so that no one person or small group of people can give you enough karma to undo the negative karma a large group of people gave you - and there you have it. (probably put an upper cap on the amt of negative or positive karma a single person can give you and weight it)
you could even make it so that a person with negative karma themselves has their outgoing karma points reduced in 'worth'. so if an indescriminate killer calls you a jerk - it means even less.
Don't allow karma to gradually return to neutral over time (easily exploited). And most importantly -never- automatically assume any given action in-game is inherently good or bad karma. Leave it up to the players to decide.
You may have started a pvp fight with another player - but they may have stolen from you, or been hassling you. It could very well be justified. The game code can't possibly know - but a witness could.
You may likewise have killed a killer - but you could have done it out of greed or malice or an attempt to game the system. If no trustworthy witness deems it 'good', then there's no reason to assume it was.
The actions themselves can't be coded good or bad (UO's failed notoriety system being the prime example). Only another player has the proper context to interpret that.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
I don't think you understood my post: if you have a jail sentence you would not be ALLOWED to start a new account (after all the billing information would stay the same).
So what you're actually doing is jailing the credit card number, not the person.
What if everyone in the family has an account, using the same number? Do they all get jailed when little Timmy thinks harrassment is fun?
How do you prevent a bigger Timmy from borrowing his friend's info? People do that anyway when they don't have a credit card they can use.
How about game cards? How would you prevent people from using those to start a new account?
The problem is one of identity. Your identity has to be valuable to you in the online world in order for any punishment to take effect. If you can just pretend to be someone else for a while, and evade punishment, what's to prevent you?
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?