The MMORPG 'A Tale in the Desert' is (in addition to a great city-building/RPG game) largley a social experiment where the players have opportunities to decide how the game-society should go about achieving most goals.
The developers have created tests in each of seven 'disciplines' that are flexible enough to be solved a number of different ways. Though blind, malevolent ambition is one way to get things done, the populace seems to have gravitated toward mature, cooperative solutions. This might be partially because of the 'legal system', which allows any citizen to create a legal petition to punish certain behaviour or change certain game mechanics. If 2/3 of the population agrees with the petition (and it's feasible for the developers), that punishment or change is performed or coded into the game.
Respecting the players by giving them this sort of control over the fate of their own society is a risky thing to do for the company, but I think it's paid off. ATITD is by far the most interesting and challenging game I've ever enjoyed.
Probable cause is one of the reasons the Supreme Court is interested in this case.
The other, probably more important aspect is the right of a person to refuse to incriminate themselves. From the policeman's perspective, being able to check a person's history is a great way to tell whether the person is a threat to their safety. Unfortunately, the act of identifying someone can also make it more likely that the officer will suspect them of a crime, and the 5th ammendment gives us the right to remain silent in a situation where what we say may incriminate us.
The legal system the MMORPG 'A Tale in the Desert' formalizes player-generated petitions for game requests, and lets the players vote democratically on whether they should be implemented (within reason).
It seems to require a lot more time to filter and prioritize requests, but I think it's more honest than the 'lobbying' style that most games (and government) use. The citizen most adept at being heard by the developers/lawmakers isn't always the most representative.
At least one online community/game handles speech and offensive behaviour in a novel way: player-created law petitions voted on democratically.
From the 'Rules of Conduct' on ATITD.com:
3. We do not have a policy against offensive behavior, but be aware - if you offend the other players, they have the power to punish you. They can even exile you permanently from the land of Egypt - game over, don't come back. If you choose to behave in a way that is annoying to other players, we will not protect you from the wrath of the other players.
Most law petitions are designed by players to mold society by placing programmatic limits on behavior, but there are also punative laws that have passed to punish those that overstep the bounds of the collective community, such as this and this.
Slashdot Mirror
The MMORPG 'A Tale in the Desert' is (in addition to a great city-building/RPG game) largley a social experiment where the players have opportunities to decide how the game-society should go about achieving most goals.
The developers have created tests in each of seven 'disciplines' that are flexible enough to be solved a number of different ways. Though blind, malevolent ambition is one way to get things done, the populace seems to have gravitated toward mature, cooperative solutions. This might be partially because of the 'legal system', which allows any citizen to create a legal petition to punish certain behaviour or change certain game mechanics. If 2/3 of the population agrees with the petition (and it's feasible for the developers), that punishment or change is performed or coded into the game.
Respecting the players by giving them this sort of control over the fate of their own society is a risky thing to do for the company, but I think it's paid off. ATITD is by far the most interesting and challenging game I've ever enjoyed.
--Owen--
Probable cause is one of the reasons the Supreme Court is interested in this case.
The other, probably more important aspect is the right of a person to refuse to incriminate themselves. From the policeman's perspective, being able to check a person's history is a great way to tell whether the person is a threat to their safety. Unfortunately, the act of identifying someone can also make it more likely that the officer will suspect them of a crime, and the 5th ammendment gives us the right to remain silent in a situation where what we say may incriminate us.
--Owen--
The legal system the MMORPG 'A Tale in the Desert' formalizes player-generated petitions for game requests, and lets the players vote democratically on whether they should be implemented (within reason).
It seems to require a lot more time to filter and prioritize requests, but I think it's more honest than the 'lobbying' style that most games (and government) use. The citizen most adept at being heard by the developers/lawmakers isn't always the most representative.
--Owen--
From the 'Rules of Conduct' on ATITD.com: Most law petitions are designed by players to mold society by placing programmatic limits on behavior, but there are also punative laws that have passed to punish those that overstep the bounds of the collective community, such as this and this.
More information in the Lawmaking Supplement of the manual.
--Owen (not affiliated with eGenesis)