Slashdot Mirror
Sims Online Presidential Campaign Shapes Up
Ant writes "Wired News has an article on a campaign for the presidency of Alphaville, the biggest city in The Sims Online. Two challengers will square off in a final primary for the opportunity to unseat Alphaville's incumbent president, the appropriately named Mr-President, in next month's general election."
The fact is, in The Sims Online, power doesn't lie so much with the presidents as with the houses of the most popular people. And, as in real life, the most popular households in TSO are those which are general bacchanalia houses bordering on brothels. So the presidency is more of a figurehead as opposed to an actual powerhouse.
Democracy - Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives
Democracy seem to be VERY entwined with free speech. The important word in the above definition is -exercised-. It is very difficult to exercise your will without a certain measure of free will, yelling fire in a crowded theater not withstanding.
Sounds like some people are taking these virtual life games a bit too seriously..
They are JUST games people....
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I certainly hope that someday game developers agree on a way to tie disparate titles together such that a single persistent universe contains nearly everything. You should be able to have a sims character who owns a rice burner and race it in NFS underground. His job could be military, and when he gets called, you play Doom (as he gets sucked into space or whatever) :)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I don't know, somehow this fascinates me. I don't claim to be a psychologist, or sociologist, but there are some interesting ideas at work here.
First, why has a significant portion of TSO (or any other online game) gravitated toward general elections? I know when I play games (and I rarely do), that one of the first things I try to do is find the bounds of the game. I try to shoot my team memebers, or drive through the buildings, or contruct buildings that spell out my name. I haven't played The Sims, but if I did, I would probably try to randomly attack someone, or see if they'll have sex with one another. And I think that's human nature -- to experiment.
So why is it that the players discussed in this article are trying to graft the rules of our "the real world" onto a game? Is it experimentation? Have these players become bored with toying with the absurd limits of the game and are instead interested in finding the practical limits?
Or are people trying this out of a feeling of detachment from the real world? Are people so frustrated with the current state of affairs that they are trying to establish a utopia of sorts in their online world?
Is this a case of politically-minded people asserting themselves on an online world? And if so, are they politcal rejects (or the politically inexperienced) that would not otherwise flourish in the real world? And if either of those is the case, what of the participants of these elections? Can you then say that some people are comfortable plugging in to "the system?"
I could go on and on. It's these questions that make me want to take a few psych classes. And it's these questions that prevent me from enjoying gaming. I can't help but analyze my every move. And by that time, my city has crumbled, or someone has shot me, or my unit has been outflanked. Kind of annoying!
While it is true that CA, NY, FL, etc. have a large number of electoral votes, it is actually the voters in the small states who have a greater influence. Even the Wyoming has only 3 electoral votes and California has 52, individuals in Wyoming have a great "share" of an electoral vote.
3 electoral votes divided by poplulation of Wyoming, is greater than 52 electoral votes divided by the population of California.
It would be interesting to see in which state voters have the greatest influence.
provolt
You're both right... and you're both wrong.
Parent is right in that less populated states have (in theory) proportionally less electoral votes, in an effort to make every America have an equal state size:electoral vote ration. Grandparent is right in that it is technically still unequal. All states with 2 electoral votes (the minimum) do not have equal populations, this there IS discrepency in the voter:electoral vote ratio.
But it's all semantics. If I had to go with 1, I'd say the parent is more right. Electoral votes are (in theory) proportional to state population size.
Seriously, I think your just tripped over the future of entertainment.
Quack, quack.