Topic

A Potentially Terrible (or Not?) Hypothesis: On Glitch as a Social Experiment, the Early Life of Stoot, and Recent Game Developments.

Today, Gentle Reader, I acquired a Wittgenstein doll. Deeply delighted by my new toy, I pulled its string and catalogued its issuances. Most of the quotes seemed to be from Wittgenstein's later work, more mystical and reassuring than not, while still firmly committed to logical positivism. Interesting. 

As will happen when one is delighted by a new toy, I thought I would put my mind toward the acquisition of a Nietzsche doll. The trouble here is that I had spent all of my currants (quite literally, in a trade with a kindhearted Glitch who had an extra and I think was bemused and amused by my offer of ALL THE CURRANTS: "You traded SideBurns 237,637 currants for 1 Ludwig Wittgenstein Doll"). Discussion with friends yielded an amusing anecdote: epid acquired an Ayn Rand doll from a Glitch who loathed her and said "I pulled her string a few times. @#*& be crazy." As I also loathe Ayn Rand, I found this very funny. 

Wittgenstein. Ayn Rand. Nietzsche. Sunny, Glitchy sorts? Not even hardly. I love some Wittgenstein, and Nietzsche too - Ayn Rand, well. Let's say that I'm a medievalist (because I am) and let's say that I see Rand's antinomian stance as lacking almost entirely in grace. Personally. Let's not fight about Rand. Here's my point(s):

1. Observation: Stoot read philosophy at Cambridge. 

2. Hypothesis: these are Stoot's favorite philosophers. Because it's not like they're the most generally cuddlesome and doll-able. Stoot likes a tiny bit of signature Stootness in game. You would to, if you were the Monad of an undeniably created world. (The demiurges are red herrings, really.) Viz: the SB-1 block - I'd hazard a guess that other stuff you pass every day have tiny signatures in them. [Pratchett fans: cf., Hogfather

2a. Postulate (because of impossibility of testing hypothesis): These are Stoot's favorites. [ETA: ok, maybe not: but they were chosen]. 

3. Corollary: These philosophers do not have a particularly sunny outlook on human nature  - to say the very, very least. 

4. Observation 2: Glitch is a social experiment. 

5. Hypothesis: the experiment's hypothesis is "People are basically good, and if you give them a chance to build a world they will generally behave well in it." It strives not to impose on the behavior of others. No moderators, some staff but as a general rule they aren't particularly prescriptive, etc. People are essentially free-range in Ur.   

6. Hypotheses about predicates such as "people" or "most people" are neither confirmable nor falsifiable for reasons way too tedious to get into right now. But I can if you make me. 

7. This experiment is nevertheless generating massive amounts of data, possibly because someone doesn't agree with #6, [or possibly because I don't know jack about sociology and the data can be usefully digested after all].

8. The subjects of this experiment (Glitches) were recently subjected to three stressors: a) impending displacement (personal destabilization);  b) the introduction of a skill-set which requires highly restricted and now wildly inflated resources available to most only in a communal setting (economic); c) return to beta (all playing voluntarily surrender any assumptions of stable game mechanics (metasocial).

9. As many others have observed, the social fabric of Ur has become both itchy and scratchy since the game was quietly, subtly, and not particularly lethally... Nuked? Not to be too dramatic or anything completely typical of me like that. 

It's a game and it's not even a "real" game, so the stakes are vanishingly small if they exist at all - but in essence, what happened was that God told you that a) your home would be taken away at some point in the next year and promised you'll really love the new one, which you'll have to build out of presumably the same resources as the other 300,000 (or whatever) players from a limited pool of said resources and then b) demonstrated to you what competition for those resources would look like by introducing the herb megillah as a kind of wargame, and c) you voluntarily relinquished any expectations that any other part of the game would remain stable. 

It's like the Carebears Go to Thunderdome in the freaking herb gardens, you guys. What is housing construction going to look like? It's going to be postapocalyptic survival of the fittest cutie sprites. Am I the only one who looks at the herb situation and sees the shape of things to come? Don't tell me I'm just some kind of Nervous Nellie Sings The Jeremiads because seriously: Ayn Rand. Wittgenstein. Nietzsche. So just don't. 

I just wonder if all of this happened (and don't think that I'm not hearing the other half of that sentence like it comes out in the Book of Pythia) for a reason. And I'm wondering if that reason might not be connected in some respects to a potential philosophical underpinning to a social experiment being conducted in the form of a game - which assumes that people are basically profoundly self-serving egomaniacs who live in a potentially fabulous world where the only rules are the ones that we inscribe with our assumptions and behaviors. 

It would be totally fair to say "You're thinking too much" or "reading too much into this" or "it's only a game"... But I'm pretty sure that the speaker would also be wrong. Game designers often think more about this stuff than people give them credit for.

I think there are easter eggs (like the philosopher dolls, like the Lovecraftian nature of the demiurges, the postapocalyptic backstory of Ur, all kinds of stuff like that) in the game that could potentially allow the Glitches to become aware of how their own actions are being designed by the way the world is being designed. To become self-aware. Not in some kind of creepy Tron-like user/program way, I'm not crazy ("I'm just doing philosophy here"), but in a "Let's get out of this allegorical cave and demonstrate some personal agency" way. 

This whole thing is not intended to be reduced to "And so don't be such assholes to each other in the gods-damned herb gardens" but if that's all you get out of it that's ok with me too. 

Thoughts? 

Posted 12 months ago by Aviatrix Subscriber! | Permalink

Replies

  • Obligatory: I can name a few people who would touch Ayn Rand with a pole.
    Posted 12 months ago by Sloppy Ketchup Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Everywhere I've been, Wittgenstein was in pretty heavy rotation, particularly among the epistemologists... But I'm mostly in contact with philosophy of science, so my perceptions of curriculum standards are constrained. 

    Nietzsche probably belongs in German Studies. 

    Ayn Rand, feh. I can't even count her as a philosopher, and she was a terrible, terrible writer. I can also name a few people who would touch her with a pole, but it's mostly 19 year old libertarian boys who want to validate and retain the last of their infantile sociopathy through quasi-intellectual justifications of antinomian BULLSHIT. Not to put too fine a point on it. Apologies to stoot if he lobes her I guess, but she's probably the best evidence that these philosophers are not in fact his *favorites* but that they're supposed to be telling us a secret (small? inconsequential? not?) about the design of the world of Glitch and its telos. 
    Posted 12 months ago by Aviatrix Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I'm reminded of a quote from that most wonderful of movies "A Fish Called Wanda."

    Wanda: But you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?
    Otto
    : [superior smile] Apes don't read philosophy.
    Wanda
    : Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it!

    I'm not sure which category I should place myself in...  :D
    Posted 12 months ago by Rusty McDusty Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Well, we *are* all Hominidae, with the chimps and the apes. There's not much getting around that.

    You can be an ape, an intellectual, AND not understand philosophy. Campuses all over the world are full of proofs of that. (Including me, btw - I'm terrible at math and once nearly had a nervous breakdown in a grad propositional logic seminar and begged - like literally begged - for people to stop talking about P and p and start instantiating their examples with anything, ANYTHING but P and p).
    Posted 12 months ago by Aviatrix Subscriber! | Permalink
  • this topic has been enlightening and thought provoking mixed with a touch of epiphany. i agree that there is more than meets the eye here and i am ok with that. i don't know the answers but i would like to add a simple suggestion, while it may not solve the key snatching or herb stealing, it may offer some relief. please create more in-game games to allow people, who need to compete and win, that kind of outlet. glitch as a social environment is so contrary to a gamer mindset, that they naturally gravitate towards griefer behavior in order to make sense of things or to have fun based on past experience in other games. i'm not looking for warm and fuzzy at all times, but don't treat me like an adversary or i will be one, and here is where the trouble starts. so please create a steal the key game or race for the herb game within glitchs' current side game/ticketing system (not as an achievement). you get my drift. not only will this give them competitive outlets, a more recognizable gaming experience, they will have fun. and hopefully that will create experiences that result in them becoming a part of the community of glitch in positive ways.
    Posted 12 months ago by glitch4ever Subscriber! | Permalink
  • pixeldust, those games have always existed in Glitch (Game of Crowns, various other races). They're just not that popular, and the reasons for that might be interesting to speculate on. 
    Posted 12 months ago by Aviatrix Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "You can be an ape, an intellectual, AND not understand philosophy."

    Oh, *breathes a sigh of relief* that is SO good to know!  ;)
    Posted 12 months ago by Rusty McDusty Subscriber! | Permalink
  • In the context of this thread, I suspect that Glitch, if not primarily a social experiment, (meaning that while that is an aspect of the game, other elements are considered goals above the experiment, for instance, selling subscriptions), is designed to be as neutral as possible. 

    There are literally no rules when it comes to game play, except to prevent cheating within the technical framework of the game. So, in other words, the world itself is free to play in, enabling the user to play as freely as they choose with little consequence. This only changes when the fourth wall is broken - e.g. users utilize scripts or cheats to give them an unfair advantage in the game. An advantage that is not reasonably attainable by playing the game as a single avatar.

    There are exceptions of course, but they seem to be based on the community morality, rather than a pre-set game morality. Some overlaps have to occur to get the ball rolling, initially, but the emphasis seems to be on curbing troll behavior to better give the community control over how behavior that is deemed inappropriate is dealt with.

    What's interesting now is how the community takes those reigns. There's this conflict currently in terms of power and freedom and how we reconcile that. We all individually don't have a lot of power. However, as a group, we are extremely powerful and can directly and immediately influence game policy.

    The challenge for us within this environment is to choose how we want to evolve the community and control how we, collectively, respond to behavior we dislike. How do we moderate ourselves, in other words. We have TS to back us up on some stuff, but the day to day things that aren't ban worthy need to be addressed.

    Saying this isn't going to give everyone a eureka moment, even if it is true. Social change in a community like this takes time and patience and a lot of leading by example. People who want to initiate change need to demonstrate that change and also demonstrate that it works. 

    The group as a whole is disinclined to follow leadership for the sake of leadership. However, they will emulate behavior they see as effective. That's what leadership in a community like this is. I for one, am very interested to see how it turns out.
    Posted 12 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Aviatrix- absolutely wonderful post and subsequent discussion.   I have wondered myself if this wasn't just a MMO experimental petri dish dressed up with cotton candy, happy music and butterflies. The herb situation and chicken-little fallout from going back to beta are interesting to watch and analyze...are we "eating to live" or "living to eat" in the game?  Also, wonder if we will ever see a Spinoza doll?  
    Posted 12 months ago by Flirty Gertie Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Kookaburra - I have some bales I'll be glad to contribute.

    @Aviatrix - In the Milgram experiment, in a designed situation where the majority complied, a significant minority of people refused to administer what they thought was a painful shock to another person. Also, when the designed situation was changed so that subjects saw another person refuse to go along, most subjects then also refused.

    @Aviatix - Metophorically, philosophically, you ARE a cat.  And, IMO, there are enough "cats" in the game to screw up the data. But it's important to remember that real cats are predators. Felix domesticus works as a pet due to small size and permanent retention of juvenile characteristics. Like all predators, though, our little cats must be constantly wary and reluctant to show what might be considered weakness.

    Humans can function as predators.  Humans can function as parasites.  In either case, however, doing so may deprive them of the benefits of sociality. It is our sociality, in combination with our capacity for open-ended creativity, that leads to culture and civilization. Cutting yourself off from that is selling your birthright for a bowl of pottage.

    Humans are social and collaborative by nature.  That's why people will participate in what they know to be an experiment without fully knowing the protocols.  Of course Glitch is an experiment!  That doesn't necessarily mean it's an experiment in the classic sense of systematically manipulating variables to examine outcomes.  But it is an experiment in the sense of trying things out and seeing what happens, and it's an experiment in which we all can participate.
    Posted 12 months ago by Splendora Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Hm.  After reading a lot of this, all I have to say is:  points to ponder.
    Posted 12 months ago by Kirnan Subscriber! | Permalink
  • All I can say is:
    1) I loved your post and it made my day.
    2) I always like to ask the same questios.
    3) I've thought mostly the same myself.
    Thank you.
    Posted 12 months ago by Tamarnouche Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Think of it less as an experiment in the sense that we, as a collective whole, are easily manipulated, (hold on to that thought - I'm not saying we aren't), and think of it more like a group of smart people created a game for smart people and wanted to see what would happen organically if very little in the way of rules and restrictions were set.

    In this way, Glitch is undeniably a social experiment. We are part of an organic community, growing, evolving and figuring stuff out. That's not manipulation. In fact, I'd say that the cat analogy has very little application in this context. The variable here is us.
    Posted 12 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Someone in game once told me "Glitch is Glitch".  I'm pretty content with that. :) 

    also?? "Herb Gardens = Carebears go to Thunderdome" makes my day.
    Posted 12 months ago by Feylin Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Xev: 

    "However, they will emulate behavior they see as effective." <--- Effective defined as what? Part of what's interesting about this is how players define game success. See Pascale's response above on this, for one. 

    One of the things I find interesting is that TS's attempt to foster a necessity of cooperation by limiting resources in a way that precludes the ability of an individual to "have it all" have ended up fostering intense individual competition, the creation of alts in order to create hive individuals, and post-hoc attempts to ban that practice after it was initially approved by staff. 

    I think that there is some truth to "however, they will emulate behavior they see as effective" if we define success as the in-game satisfaction of Maslow's hierarchy when it comes to social needs and approval-seeking, but other than that... Effective is a highly contingent term. 

    This also speaks to some extent to Splendora's astute observations about sociality and insulation/isolation. Observing the choices people make in this game (such as increasing wariness of those who ask for help - forum discussions about that have been interesting) is, and will be, interesting material for discussion. (Plug: Inveniemus!) 

    I think Glitch is an experiment AND an experiment. This isn't an ant farm, wherein a world is started up and then simply observed. It is under development. And those choices are not purely economical (drive subscriptions), as we've all seen. It's player-driven to some extent (the high degree of adoption of player suggestions) and very much not in other ways. I think there's a metagame wrapped around Glitch, and the game is afoot! This isn't a conspiracy theory, it's really just game metaphysics. What is the purpose of the world? What is the nature of man? (glitch?) ;-) And above all, it's still just for fun
    Posted 12 months ago by Aviatrix Subscriber! | Permalink
  • The problem with the game using us as a social experiment is that some of us might be using the game as a social experiment...
    Posted 12 months ago by dr_loplop Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Xev - I agree with you about the nature of the experiment.  The point of the cat analogy was just to say that IF anyone had in mind to do experiments of the manipulative sort with Glitch, they might want to think again.

    I think the folks as TS are smart enough to know this already, so I was kind of being a smart ass.  However, I also think that certain design features of Glitch may lead to more predictable outcomes than TS realizes.  (As a consultant, I give advice to very smart people who are sometimes caught unawares -- so I know it can happen.)
    Posted 12 months ago by Splendora Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Dr. Lolpop: "some of us might be using the game as a social experiment..."

    Pretty much everyone is using the game as a social experiment, whether they're aware of that or not. What the game feeds is Maslow's hierarchy of needs; it provides (as most of these sorts of games do) an opportunity to satisfy those needs outside of the more complicated and variable-driven outside world. That's why people still get totes stressed out about game changes even though "it's just a game."
    Posted 12 months ago by Aviatrix Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Splendora: " IF anyone had in mind to do experiments of the manipulative sort with Glitch, they might want to think again."

    I'm not so sure about that. I think the array of responses (especially in the early hours of the thread) indicate that the gamers of Glitch are actually pretty normal slice of humanity as far as asking the Big Questions are concerned (to wit: some are, some aren't, and what that ratio is I can't know, but I suspect it's more "aren't" than "are"). 

    In the alpha and beta stages of the game, a certain type of participant was guaranteed (comfortable with instability, play to play, love of development, interest in raw gaming). Then Glitch launched, and there was a big influx of regular folks (like me) who don't have the beta mindset. Then Glitch UNlaunched, while retaining a big slice of people who didn't participate in the game with beta as an assumed condition; that is also interesting. The reaction to the housing change, the herb megillah, etc., etc., recent developments - you think the general reaction to that would have been different if the participant pool had still been 100% volunteer beta testers? Because I'm guessing no. 
    Posted 12 months ago by Aviatrix Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Effective is indeed a highly contingent term. In that instance, I was referring to the current rash of complaints about inappropriate or rude behavior. Effective behavior would be that which is selected by the group at large as the best way to curb behavior perceived as rude.

    I hypothesize that the most effective way to curb perceived negative behavior is through assimilation. Either you are a part of the group or you are not a part of the group. In essence, yes, it does boil down to, "you are either with us, or you are against us."  

    However, the current implementation of this theory is by drawing extremely divisive lines in the sand. "They" are awful and a scourge on our once happy, idyllic little group (this is a fallacy; our group has never, ever been idyllic), while "we" are good and patient and kind but growing increasingly fed up.

    The issue isn't so much negative behavior itself, but our acceptance of negative behavior from a specific source. We are inherently more tolerant of behavior we deem objectively negative from sources we already know and trust (assimilated). Behavior that is milder in offensiveness, but perpetrated by people we do not know and trust (noobs) is arguably more offensive than the same or worse behavior from people we know.

    I have a pretty good idea of what it must be like from the perspective of the person who is new or not yet integrated into the group. The bottom line communication from "us" to "them" is this: "We don't like you. You do not belong here." Likewise, if I am faced with a big group of people who aren't treating me particularly nicely, I have two choices: Become a part of that group, or become even further removed from the group (perhaps even finding others who are irritated by the larger group and creating a sub-group). 

    Coming back to my hypothesis, the goal for the larger group to better deal with and eliminate this divisive behavior from newcomers is to stop engaging in divisive behavior towards newcomers.

    While all of this tends to go unspoken (at least in so many words), in established communities there's an element of groupthink in how issues are dealt with. There's the appropriate (as designated by the group as a whole) way of dealing with negative events, and there's the inappropriate. What's fascinating right now is seeing how we determine which is which, and how we collectively adopt those methods.
    Posted 12 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Xev: definitely. I think the Battle of Wickdon Mood and its forum-based aftermath would make a particularly interesting case study. It's interesting how that whole situation is still reverberating throughout the forums (and I'd say that while the forums are a tiny, tiny slice of the gaming population, it is predictably also be the place one is most likely to see metagame discussion. Even "Let's not talk about metagaming" is a metagame decision. 
    Posted 12 months ago by Aviatrix Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I love this post.  +1 to you.  Maybe even +1001.  Also +someothernumber to the other interesting responses in this thread.

    However: There are two #2s in your list!!  I think my brain exploded while trying to reconcile this ;-)

    And: Even if it's not an intentional 'conspiracy' as you wonder, you are certainly correct that the game can certainly be analyzed this way.  Regardless of intentionality, it's happening.  That's all that matters.  Lots of artists use clearly stated intentionality, but lots of them allow it to come out through subconscious associations that even they don't realize are being made at the time.  But the fact is that you're (imo) correctly correlating related points in a very convincing argument.  Whether Stoot knows he's doing it or not, it's still happening.  Intention doesn't have much to do with it.

    Finally: "It's like the Carebears Go to Thunderdome in the freaking herb gardens, you guys."

    BEST. QUOTE. EVAR. 
    Reposted as my status.  Thank you for the full-body guffaw I let out upon reading it.  It was quite soul-cleansing =)
    Posted 12 months ago by Sprockett Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Love this thread - the most interesting I've seen for some time. Thanks @Aviatrix. Lots of food for thought...
    Posted 12 months ago by geekybird Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Ha, Sprockett beat me to it. Why are there two #2's. WHY.

    *twitches*
    Posted 12 months ago by Sirentist Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Aviatrix, well said.

    The game pretty much annpunces itself as an experiment, so no real surprise. But, what sort of experiment reveals itself as such?

    Personally, I hold to the idea of a controlled environment to host a philosophical cage match.

    In the meantime, I am going to drop some Purple and embrace the cryptic and amusing, though ultimately meaningless, words of the Scion.
    Posted 12 months ago by MrVolare Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Aviatrix - I would caution against attempting scientific experimental manipulation of any human community, whether that community is self-selected, representative, etc. or not. Humans have both a concept of self and a sophisticated ability to model the minds of others. They are capable of recognizing and reacting to attempts at manipulation in ways that go far beyond the flattening of ears or the twitching of a tail.

    Observation and ad hoc experimentation are different. You watch me.  I watch you. You watch me watching you. I watch you watch me watching you. We try things. We see how others react. We are humans.  It's what we do.
    Posted 12 months ago by Splendora Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Conspiracy theory! Outstanding!  We needed a good conspiracy theory around here.  Given Stoot's philosophy background, I suspect he is laughing so hard at this point that his staff has to pick him up off the floor.

    I'll second Sprokett's motion for "Carebears go to Thunderdome" as best quote ever!
    Posted 12 months ago by Lucille Ball Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Splendora - you can caution against it... But isn't that "scientific experimental manipulation of [a] human community" the very core of game design? And since participating in the game is tacit consent, I think people don't always perceive it as frank manipulation. For me, I'm just interested in the meta of the game design and its formative assumptions and hypotheses, and how they might or might not be unlockable based on clues in the game. 

    What the designers do and what the players do as "experiments" aren't the same things, imo.

    P.S. I fixed my two #2s. The postulate is now 2a. :-)
    Posted 12 months ago by Aviatrix Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Lucille Ball - the notion that there might be a philosophical underpinning to the game design captained by a guy who did philosophy at Cambridge is hardly a conspiracy theory. It's more like a "really obvious theory." 

    I'd be willing to bet that stoot gets many a chuckle out of the antics of the ants in the ant farm which is game! It would be fun to hear from him on this, but it's kind of like a literary critic (literary critics interpret, it doesn't mean "criticize") hoping an author will tell them they're right or wrong or something in the middle. The act of interpreting is creative, and most authors just ignore the academic musings on their work as ancillary at best and parasitical at worst. You can be Alice Walker, or a professor who makes a living writing about Alice Walker. Both are just doing their own thing. 

    Still, if stoot did have anything to say about this, I suspect that it would be something along the lines of "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." 
    Posted 12 months ago by Aviatrix Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Philosophical underpinning, yes.  Sociology experiment with massive data collection?  Probably not.
    Posted 12 months ago by Lucille Ball Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I see what you're saying. I never suggested that the data was being collected, aggregated, or analysed with a scientific apparatus or academic intention by TS. I just said that data useful for this sort of thing was being generated - that's not particularly controversial. And some day, many years from now, or centuries... I wouldn't be surprised if someone wrote a dissertation on it.  Dissertations have been written on Buffy and Trekkies, after all. Media, mass comm, cog sci, sociology - all might take an interest. And some have. :-) 

    If I was going to turn this into a conspiracy theory (and I have no intention of doing so) it would be something like "Welp, evidently stoot decided to write a totally freaking epic dissertation and get his Ph.D., and since he has the time and resources to make a world as a text... He did."  Now THAT would be a conspiracy theory involving dissimulation and hidden intents. But I definitely don't think that's the case. Mostly because you'd have to be utterly insane to decide to write a dissertation unless you really wanted to be a professor. Otherwise they're fairly useless and will drive you batshit, which is a lousy ROI. (Said the girl writing a dissertation on medieval philosophy of science.) 
    Posted 12 months ago by Aviatrix Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Gotcha.  The words "subject" and "experiment" lead me astray.  :-)  (Said the girl who wrote a structural biology dissertation.)
    Posted 12 months ago by Lucille Ball Subscriber! | Permalink
  • 1. +1000 for this great post
    then I suppose there is no conspiracy theory but surely is going on an experiment on player reactions due to changement after the "unlauched" annoucement.
    One of the book who inspired this game was The Grasshopper: Games, Life and Utopia, at least that was said during the 1st beta (lol at 1st).
    I have read most of the book and surely here there is a social experiment on how a game can/could reflect the RL of a player and how a game can break into oneself real life and viceversa, so no big surprise I am quiet aware to be a glitchen experiment.
    What I really would like is that this kind of awareness will be spread more to new players as the original ideas and purpose of some new improvement released.
    There is always a thin line between real life and online games and is so easy to cross that line often, that's why I hope there will be more awareness that Glitch is not just a "click away" game but really really more.
    Posted 12 months ago by babi Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Some really brief thoughts:

    A) @Aviatrix: Thanks! I was alternately amused, entertained, and be-thought-ed by your post.

    B) While, as someone earlier pointed out, it's not necessarily easy (or even possible) to classify players by real-world social or economic strata, it IS possible to classify players by exhibited motivation and personality online. See, in particular, Richard Bartle's "Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players Who Suit MUDs," as well as some more recent books and papers on online identity (at least some of which are referenced in the "Is My Glitch Me") thread.

    C) By creating a world where:
    1) a "sandbox" approach makes a number of more traditional goals or quest structures less viable
    2) "survival" is not a serious consideration and player versus player (PvP) physical conflict does not exist
    3) it is possible for a player to acquire all skills (no restrictions on abilities)
    the developers have created an environment where a given player type may have to work harder to create "goals" or "quests" and may have to make choices that appear "sub-optimal" to that player due to either innate "player type" or because the self-appointed goal or quest forces a conflict with that player's normal decision-making paradigm.

    D) It is possible to easily and directly measure the effect of new content or content/mechanics changes on the gameplay and motivation of a particular player type, once a large enough sample size has been identified.

    Apologies for the lack of links. Will try to get back and do later.

    ETA: Also, Hobbes! {keanu}...WHOA!{/keanu} YES!!
    Posted 12 months ago by EnnuiStreet Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Lucille - real scientists (such as yourself) often find the way that science groupies (such as myself) use the language of science. I think there are disciplinary shibboleths on both sides. The Sokal hoax really pimp-slapped literary theorists who tried to play with the science ball. It was deeply funny. 

    @babi - any chance you could share the reference to The Grasshopper made in an interview? Interesting! 
    Posted 12 months ago by Aviatrix Subscriber! | Permalink
  • (I'm reading through this while on my lunch break, so pardon if my question has already been asked/addressed, or if I phrase it poorly...s'hard to read thinky posts while shoveling food into your face!)

    Social experimentation, chaos, and carebears aside - what about the fact that this is a game, put out by a company, with employees and investors, that needs to succeed financially?  (I think it was one of Aviatrix's responses about the inability to create social contract that brought this to mind.)  There's a never-ending abundance of raw resources, recycling mechanisms, limited means of 'interaction' between players (sans any violent ones), and we're learning a lot about each other (and ourselves, it seems) by how we play and communicate.  All and good that conflict is being created because of this...but how does that lend to player engagement and monetization?  Before reading this post I would have thought that keeping things warm, fuzzy, and predictable was what would keep people around and tossing ingots at TS, but now I'm not so sure - is that the intent/reason for conflict?  Does conflict create passionate (albeit polarized) users that are more willing to pay to stick around?  The thing though is that you can do all these things while playing for free and I'm not sure the things offered in a subscription really lend to fostering passion.  Clothing items and teleport tokens?  Hrm.  Oh wait, but weren't we also supposed to get votes as well? ;)

    ok, back to work I go!  Love you guys for creating awesome threads. <3
    Posted 12 months ago by muffin Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @EnnuiStreet: I don't know enough about online identity and game design to be able to engage with your ideas, but I do think that this ties in to some extent to the observations that Splendora made about Nash equilibrium. Looking at Nash equilibrium in a closed circuit like AB and NN is one thing, but can it be articulated in the kind of sandbox approach, much less measured as in D)? If so... How?
    Posted 12 months ago by Aviatrix Subscriber! | Permalink
  • The idea of a bloodless Hobbsian war is really on the nose, I think, and rich with implications.  Certainly, there's the features of the game that have been designed to facilitate it, like the scarcities of real estate and time (which is why certain activities will never become faster), and certain dynamics of trust.  Arguably, even the weak Auction House serves this purpose.

    On the other side, It's evidently and understandably upsetting to many players, and the release valves in place are interesting.  Block & report make more sense in this relief, since they constrain where conflict can go: you can't just shout invective at people, and you certainly can't make (potentially actionable) threats against them.

    I'm attracted to Glitch because I'm interested in games and how they work (and work on us).  One thing I always want to know is how a particular observation leads to a break in the game - some dominant strategy that will overpower other play - which is especially interesting in Glitch, since you'll know if you've found one when TS changes the rules to nerf it.

    Hobbes is the fulcrum - where's that lever... 
    Posted 12 months ago by Yarrow Subscriber! | Permalink
  • All this postulating and calling this a social experiment. Get off it. I play this game because I enjoy it, it's entertainment. Nothing more. Just as I play World of Warcraft or Everquest 2, I play this because it is fun. I am not one that likes to make a fortune or "win" the game. I just play because I enjoy playing it.

    I hate the fact you feel we are in a test tube. I am not a microorganism to be put under a test tube and observed. I am not a monkey or a rat to be experimented on and rather miffed you suggest we are.
    Posted 12 months ago by Casombra Amberrose Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Muffin - good point about the monetization, and wondering to what extent that influences development choices. I'm not sure I'd buy the argument that making the world itchy and scratchy creates more subscribers, but I'm also pretty sure TS doesn't actually care that much about money - as long as they can keep the ship afloat, that is. And I don't think that's a problem. But if this game was seeking to profiteer, it would look more like Zynga: you could buy success in the game with real money. Instead, the only thing you can buy in the game with real money is cute clothes and teleport tokens: luxury items. I suppose someone could monetize the teleport tokens into success in the game if they wanted to make a glitching (erm, living) off of selling teleport scripts in the AH, but they wouldn't be worth enough to net as much in currants as a round of pig-nibbling in Groddle, so I suspect that's a low risk. 

    At the risk of having it interpreted as a CONSHPIRACY! theory, I think there's a very good chance that this truly is an experiment, paid for by interested parties, to see if a game can be successful at 1) breaking existing models for social gaming (like Zynga), 2) breaking existing models for social gaming (which involves combat), and 3) other models I don't know about. It's just very different. 

    It also occurs to me that there's a wee bit of an analogue between Glitch and the Gaia Hypothesis. Lynn Margulis and Stuart Kaufman hypothesized that the true mechanism of evolution was not competition, but symbiosis (long story). And furthermore, that all individual organisms are more correctly thought of as part of a larger "superorganism" than as discrete units. The way Glitch is constructed creates some barriers to the instinctual re-introduction of rule by force (and winning by ensuring that others are losing) and perceiving the game as a competition instead of a relatively peaceful little sandbox (as if humans in sandboxes are always peaceful, haha), but it's amazing how persistent those instincts are. As others have noted in prior comments. Human nature, or habituated pattern? 
    Posted 12 months ago by Aviatrix Subscriber! | Permalink
  • A trifle disjointed: I should be working.

    @muffin "All and good that conflict is being created because of this...but how does that lend to player engagement and monetization?"

    I think that's a fundamental problem TS is trying to solve.  If there's anything like an intention to build the dark, awful bloodless state-of-nature, balancing that against driving out too many players has got to be trouble, and the block mechanic exists for exactly that reason.  

    I suspect that a larger pattern that will evolve is that that players segregate into self-selected groups that trust one another, and vilify outsiders, using blocks and friendship to denote group membership.

    The more I contemplate Hobbes-as-goal, the darker the whole idea seems.  Especially dressed up in Glitch's whimsy.  And Tiny Speck has made it very clear that we're all living in a panopticon, and that secret justice will be meted out if we break the vaguely described rules - maybe Foucault should be the 5th philosopher doll?

    Taken seriously, the notion is really really awful.  I think of Glasshouse and House of Stairs and begin to wonder if the Rooks are here to save us.
    Posted 12 months ago by Yarrow Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Yarrow - Yeah, the more I think about Hobbes the more I think that's a direction I'd like to mosey (as I idle along) but I have to admit that I didn't read all of Leviathan, and what I did read was about a meeellion years ago in a poli sci class. So hearing more from those better versed in it would be great. {plugs Inveniemus group}

    "On the other side, It's evidently and understandably upsetting to many players, and the release valves in place are interesting.  Block & report make more sense in this relief, since they constrain where conflict can go: you can't just shout invective at people, and you certainly can't make (potentially actionable) threats against them."

    Block and report, IMO, serves to provide players with a game mechanism that they *should* have IRL too; it ups the tolerance back to more "normal" levels - people do tend to behave more badly online than they do IRL, for reasons that have to do with the lack of f2f contact, etc. - again, I'm only peripherally aware of those studies and I'm sure someone else could build that out more effectively. 

    Q. "Hobbes is the fulcrum - where's that lever..." 

    A. Good question! 

    -------------

    Sidenote for those who are upset: many, many people were deeply enraged by the concept of evolution. "I'm not a monkey! I'm not an ape! I resent that you are suggesting this! I am deeply upset by the implications! I am a beautiful and unique snowflake handcrafted by the Almighty, so SHUT UP!" 

    *shrug*

    All I can say to that is: whatever reassures you. I can't force anyone to give up their woobie and I wouldn't want to. If it's upsetting to you, there's a really easy solution: insist it isn't true and go someplace where nobody will argue the point. Time-tested and effective at relieving that anxiety! 
    Posted 12 months ago by Aviatrix Subscriber! | Permalink
  • At the risk of having it interpreted as a CONSHPIRACY! theory, I think there's a very good chance that this truly is an experiment, paid for by interested parties, to see if a game can be successful at 1) breaking existing models for social gaming (like Zynga), 2) breaking existing models for social gaming (which involves combat), and 3) other models I don't know about. It's just very different. 

    Yes, please.  Having worked in social gaming this is what I've dreamt of, had oh-so-many conversations with people in the industry about waiting for someone to come in and turn the world (engagement, monetization, and all) upside down and push it in a new direction.  Why change it if you can still make money from it?  Because it makes my poor little soul cry, that's why.  So, yes, please.
    Posted 12 months ago by muffin Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Yarrow again - "The more I contemplate Hobbes-as-goal, the darker the whole idea seems.  Especially dressed up in Glitch's whimsy.  And Tiny Speck has made it very clear that we're all living in a panopticon, and that secret justice will be meted out if we break the vaguely described rules - maybe Foucault should be the 5th philosopher doll?"

    Seriously, have you SEEN the gods? The Rook Museum? (The postapocalyptic backstory of Glitch is actually scary as shit and that museum is BEYOND awesome.  The dark doll philosophers (and Wittgenstein is, if anything, the one that reminds us of what we really need to know - but of course I *would* think that).

    Which suddenly spurs me to speculate that Nietzcshe, Rand, and Wittgenstein might represent potential player typologies. Hm. 

    Let's go on a field trip to the museum together, because I am kind of dying to see what you make of it.

    <3 Foucault. And that mofo was pretty goddamn dark, too. 
    Posted 12 months ago by Aviatrix Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @muffin - "Having worked in social gaming this is what I've dreamt of, had oh-so-many conversations with people in the industry about waiting for someone to come in and turn the world (engagement, monetization, and all) upside down and push it in a new direction.  Why change it if you can still make money from it?  Because it makes my poor little soul cry, that's why.  So, yes, please."

    Yep. I think that's the thing of it (in part). Can it be changed... And still make money? Change requires running in the red for awhile. Glitch may be that experiment - future worlds built on this model (if it succeeds) will learn a lot from how this one worked and didn't. 

    I don't think it's at all coincidental that Ur is a post-apocalyptic world! Field-trip to the Rook Museum! Seriously! 
    Posted 12 months ago by Aviatrix Subscriber! | Permalink
  • This game is played!
    Posted 12 months ago by Crinkle Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Long live the game! 
    Posted 12 months ago by Aviatrix Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Avatrix, The Sokal hoax was deeply funny.

    @EnnuiStreet - the Bartle model fits well here.  Glitch is rich in social interactions for hearts, diamonds are happily chasing badges and accumulating currents, and spades are happily making profitability spreadsheets for various activities. The problem is a lack of activities for clubs (or people who feel "clubbish" at that moment). 

    Most of the activities the clubs find in Glitch are in direct conflict with things other players are trying to do, because there is no formal PvP.  This does have the effect of making the game into bit of a social experiment because a popular form of gameplay is essentially not supported.  Clubs have to find things like the herb garden snatching to get their adrenaline rush, which is creating a lot of conflict.
    Posted 12 months ago by Lucille Ball Subscriber! | Permalink
  • OP i applaud and admire your skepticism or perhaps more accurately your cynicism? ;)

    ive just skimmed the thread as mentally crunching on it would push my procrastination to unacceptable levels so don't mind me if my reply has already been addressed In some way.

    very interesting hypothesis… but it strikes me as implausible. to date tiny speck has received approx. 17 million (?) in funding,  i don’t see how proving or disproving "People are basically good, and if you give them a chance to build a world they will generally behave well in it.” would interest anyone enough or be monetizable to justify multimillion investments. however a more in depth look in to who exactly the investors are could convince otherwise.

    or are you suggesting stoot alone is conducting the experiment? that would be quite the amusing long troll.

    he did seem to be thoroughly delighted by the whole GAG incident (his monologue with massively) so im more inclined to believe he gets his thrills from manipulation of his “subjects” than a true social experiment but that may be painting him with a touch too much megalomania heh.
    Posted 12 months ago by Fur Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Lucille - there are some tongue-in-cheek things for the clubs, like the underground splanking ring... But iirc, the person who was running that suspended it because he (she? Xev?) said that the current climate was way too charged for it to be funny. Something like that. There's a forum post that I can't find.

    Also, it is interesting that the game-in-a-game-games (like Game of Crowns) aren't more popular. GoC in particular is wicked competitive and more PvP than the other mini-games - but evidently it doesn't satisfy. Maybe it's just a matter of small yield rewards for winning it - an herb snatcher is likely to make more on one raid than you could make by winning five GoCs, assuming you can even get opponents. 

    I think Sokal really shut the comp lit people up on science, possibly forever. Last time I checked they had transitioned their trendy thing to trauma theory instead of trying to keep up with science and technology.  Admittedly, that was a pretty long while ago. I have no idea what they get up to these days. 

     
    Posted 12 months ago by Aviatrix Subscriber! | Permalink