Sign In

### 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 | Permalink

### Replies

Previous 1 2 3 Next

- It seems to me that while the admins do see the potential for such an experiment, such things as the dolls are merely examples of ironic humor rather than the twistings of Machiavellian moustaches. Ur isn't a free enough environment to truly display human nature; we don't have much opportunity for harm. Other MMORPGs have much greater potential as a social experiment, and have already produced much better results, as these two links illustrate.
  http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-7-biggest-dick-moves-in-history-online-gaming/
  http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-7-most-elaborate-dick-moves-in-online-gaming-history/
  Posted 12 months ago by Fitzibitzin | Permalink
- Floppy - yeah, I'm not suggesting anything that structured or far-reaching at all, as far as stoot having an endgame beyond "Can this kind of world work?" which I think he's been pretty open and clear about. Is there also a constructed (or incidental) theoretical or philosophical underpinning? Yeah, of course. I don't think that's controversial, nor that it constitutes a conspiracy theory, but I do think it's interesting that some people call the speculation exactly that.
  I think if anything this universe runs on the old divine watchmaker cosmology than the active daily god cosmology. It was designed; it was set into motion; maybe we can figure out what the design was by looking carefully at the world. That's all. It's just philosophy. Meta. Plus we KNOW this world was designed, a luxury we don't have in the real actual ontic world! And we know the world was designed by someone who thought about it - it's not purely creative and running on nothing but subconscious juice and zeitgeist. So that makes the speculation even less crazy, IMO.
  What's the GAG incident with Massively?
  Posted 12 months ago by Aviatrix | Permalink
- @Aviatrix (& others): The Bartle paper is here (http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm) and is an interesting read for those interested in game theory. He splits players into four basic groups: Achievers, Explorers, Socializers, and Killers (Diamonds, Spades, Hearts, Clubs). He also proposes subtypes, which are more specific, but not necessarily required for understanding players.
  This has been used by game designers to help understand how to engage and motivate (and thus retain) different player types.
  @Lucille: Exactly. While some clubs may have a limited amount of satisfaction from manipulating the auction and playing some of the games, a LOT of the interaction they create for themselves results in what other player types see as "griefing"...
  (Also, the current auction system and the relative "irrationality" of the market tends to tick off both the Clubs and Diamonds, who may have a vested interest in either "winning" over the other participants or amassing the largest possible sums in as short a time possible.)
  More later, including answering the Nash question (short answer: No. Yes. Maybe, but probably not how you meant... :-D). I'll add to the chorus of "I should be working, but..."
  Posted 12 months ago by EnnuiStreet | Permalink
- @Fitzbibbin - I swear, I'm not seeing evil or Machiavellian. Maybe my comment to Floppy (after your comment) will help clear up my own motivations.
  That said, I love those links. I don't play a lot of online MMORPGs (3 months in LOTRO and this, that's it) and the only dick move I was aware of was LEEEEROYYYY JENNNNNNKINS because of the high rotation of that clip on facebook a few years ago. And that lacked considerably in scope compared to the ones you posted links to - those are truly epic dick moves indeed. And it makes me pretty glad I never felt interested in the games they happened in. I'm still pissed off about the dick moves in the Superbowl from like, three years ago. And I wasn't that big of a football fan. My head would have exploded if I'd seen any of that happen in a game that I was playing.
  And I think the point still stands that this is a different kind of experiment, the outcome of which none of those events have any use in predicting. All of those games had combat. This one has none.
  Posted 12 months ago by Aviatrix | Permalink
- Aviatrix, Xev = she :)
  Posted 12 months ago by muffin | Permalink
- "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)."
  Sure, I've seen the giants - they're ... alien, in a kind of Lovecraftian way. More Elder Thing than Cthulhu, though. And I guess I don't see the eschatology inherent in the Rook Museum. I will gladly return there with you though - little party?
  Posted 12 months ago by Yarrow | Permalink
- Ah! Thanks - maybe she'll drop back in and clarify the splanking thing, esp. wrt to the Bartle stuff, what she thinks about all that.
  Posted 12 months ago by Aviatrix | Permalink
- @Yarrow - yes, let's go to the Rook museum! It's a complete eschatology! I mean, that's where the ancestral ruins came from. Ur as it is now is literally a post-apocalyptic world, as the earlier one was destroyed by the Rooks. I've been meaning to go back there, I'm going to jump in game and try to find you. I love love love the museum tour with the video and the sound effects and the headphones, holy crap. It is seriously the most awesome thing in the whole game IMO.
  P.S. I can't remember if all that stuff I saw was an instance generated by completing Piety or not, but I'm pretty sure anyone can go in there? We'll find out.
  Posted 12 months ago by Aviatrix | Permalink
- I think Glitch represents good practice for the future (providing we survive as a species without hosing the planet completely).
  As Pinker argues in his most recent book, humanity as a whole is becoming less violent and violence is increasingly socially deprecated as a means of solving disputes or gaining influence. Admittedly, it's not happening fast enough to benefit huge swaths of humanity right now, but the trend is pretty impressive.
  Similarly, trends in cheap nutrition, access to high-quality education, and unimpeded peer-to-peer communication are on their way to what seems likely to be near ubiquity. Again presuming that we manage to not screw up our environment or derail ourselves with a nuclear war, the end point may well look very much like the economic and informational underpinnings of Ur.
  Although I think it will take a very long time to outgrow the pernicious legacies of social inequity and tribalism—and the concomitant coercion and exploitation—that have been the engines of both creativity and destruction in human social and technological development.
  Of course the resource sink that is religion in Glitch bears further discussion too!
  Posted 12 months ago by Fluxan | Permalink
- Of course we aren't monkeys or apes. We're chimpanzees! Honestly, you're killing the anthropologists. ;)
  You can go back to the rook museum once you've been invited, but I don't believe you can go inside before the quest. There are multiple ways to trigger the quest, though, so it shouldn't ever take anyone all that long to get it.
  The connection between those 3 philosophers, btw, is that they all espouse the primacy of the individual over the good of the group, largely maintaining that things like charity and benevolence are dangerous evils.
  Here I'm speaking as someone who, as an undergrad, did some of the very first research in to cooperation and conflict in the gaming subculture (because back in the bronze age there weren't *massive* multiplayer games, so I studied LAN parties, but I digress). This game looks very very much like a sociological experiment (or if you prefer, cultural anthropology, the distinction is a muddy one). For those who missed the other thread on the issue, you don't have to get informed consent for cultural studies if people aren't being identified (and aren't identifiable). If this somehow isn't already an experiment, I've been considering a few more years at a university...
  Posted 12 months ago by Magic Monkey | Permalink
- Additional darkness includes the Ancestral Lands in general; the Notice the Unnoticeable
  quest with its very sad ghosts and that gruesome faded heart; and the sorrowful tale of Gwendolyn in the Jethimadh Tower: Base quest, along with it's pain-filled Area 42 hotness
  Posted 12 months ago by Credulous Ralph | Permalink
- The old Rook quest was fairly macabre as well. I expect it will continue to be so whenever it's reworked and returned to us. Also, for the brief period of time that everything talked to people back in Original Beta, there were definitely some hints that not everything was sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows everywhere.
  Posted 12 months ago by Magic Monkey | Permalink
- @Aviatrix & Ennui - My understanding of Bartle clubs is that there is a genuine desire to cause another player distress and anger. The closest I get is "Take that, you [insert expletive]!" when I land a good hit in a PvP battleground. Blizzard brilliantly let all the corpse-camping clubs roll on PvP servers, separated from the carebears like me. There is very little a player can do to grief another on the PvE servers, short of competition for herb and ore spawns and there are plenty of spawns. It will be intersting to see how TS removes non-consensual PvP style behavior like the community herb gardens.
  Posted 12 months ago by Lucille Ball | Permalink
- I have not read this whole thread (but it sure makes for good skimming)!
  However: I did not come up with all three of those and they are definitely not my three favorite philosophers[1] (it's hard to have a favorite philosopher who was alive after the 19th century, IMO — if I had to choose three, it'd be Aristotle, Spinoza and hmmm … that's tough).
  I think it might have been Eric who came up with the idea of an Ayn Rand doll (Game Neverending had a "Janet Reno action figure" because it was a decade ago and this seemed to have a similar flavor). I believe Beefcake proposed the Nietzsche doll and since we made them, I wanted to make a "Ludwig Wittgenstein Action Figure" because I thought that such a thing would be a triumph of actionfigurehood ("with detachable fire poker!").
  [1] I was fascinated by Wittgenstein for a long time, don't know enough about Nietzsche to have much of an opinion (though I am pro-aphorism as a rule) and the little I know about Rand/objectivism makes me sad for our species.
  Posted 12 months ago by stoot barfield | Permalink
- @Magic Monkey - bear in mind that I was mimicking the people who hated evolutionary theory! They most commonly resorted to the (inaccurate) monkey and ape epithets. All those terrible cartoons, and then there was the whole Huxley vs. Wilberforce debacle in re: apes and grandmothers... :-) I know better myself, promise.
  Also! I need to reread Wittgenstein, because I don't think of him like that. Rand and Nietzsche, yes. Wittgenstein, no. If anything, Wittgenstein had transparent contempt for "the individual." This is where a collation of the doll quotes might be telling, also. If anything, I think that Wittgenstein might be the patron saint of the "spirit of system" part of Glitch. What a dreadfully mixed metaphor. It stays. :-) Could we talk about this some more in Inveniemus? I think General might not mind if we wandered off to kaffeklatsch it.
  Posted 12 months ago by Aviatrix | Permalink
- @Aviatrix: Well, that's kind of my point, which was not meant to refute yours but add on to it. The social experimentation you assert is possible, I just question how effective an experiment would be in Ur as opposed to any of these other games.
  We could wander into theological areas with this conversation, but I'll keep it simple with my assertion that there isn't quite enough free will to make for a decent experiment past "how creatures respond to their own deistic fate in a clockwork universe". We're too bound to the conditions you've identified (lack of resources, uncertain futures, etc.) to be able to do much about it.
  Posted 12 months ago by Fitzibitzin | Permalink
- Yes please wander off guys. This is more becoming a chat about philosophy than the actual game.. can we have this placed in Off Topic perhaps?
  Makes me feel a bit creepy to think the makers of this game would see us as lab rats and monkeys for a social experiment rather than a game to have a bit of fun with.
  Posted 12 months ago by Casombra Amberrose | Permalink
- Fitzi - I wouldn't mind wandering into theological areas, as long as you don't mind that the only theology I know is 4th c. -15th c. and no Protestants whatsoever.
  If anything, limiting free will with constraints to action makes for a better experiment (if you define experiment as controlled, replicable conditions).
  Posted 12 months ago by Aviatrix | Permalink
- Casombra - you're a sweet girl, but I really think you'd be happier not opening this thread up anymore, it's clearly upsetting you a lot. Exercise that free will!
  Posted 12 months ago by Aviatrix | Permalink
- Clarification on my earlier point: The three philosophers in question run along a continuum of denying that there is any inherent goodness or meaning in the world -- Rand and Nietzsche move to the point I noted above, while Wittgenstein held rather complicated views on ethics and morals that I don't think I'm up to distilling effectively here. The best I can manage on short notice that has a chance at being intelligible to non-philosophers is that he considered that "good" and similar words have no set meanings, and that the individual has to determine for themself what's ethical. Any attempts by someone else to teach them ethics would be giving a list of reasons rather than establishing a foundation. This is probably why Wittgenstein gets an action figure while the other two get dolls (which needs a whole other linguistic/acculturation breakdown).
  Posted 12 months ago by Magic Monkey | Permalink
- Woah, I just saw that stoot replied! And that stoot likes Aristotle. And Wittgenstein. Which is nice, because Wittgenstein is really the only one of that lot who doesn't make me want to throw myself out of the airlock.
  And did not choose the three dolls, which means my postulate was wrong (it happens - those are risky).
  I can say that I was deeply relieved to read this: "The little I know about Rand/objectivism makes me sad for our species."
  That is kind of a BIG whewsh, because it was Rand and Nietzsche who were making me the most concerned that the game might be curious about the limits/parameters/nature of human goodness in a test tube. The Wittgenstein quotes are pretty lovely, especially compared to the Ayn Rand doll talking about the complicity of victims in their own victimhood and whatnot.
  Thanks for sharing, stoot!
  Getting the back story has a way of calming the hyperactive reader of runes and sigils. I'm one of those people who always watches the movie twice: with the director's commentary track the second time. I just love those. ;-)
  Posted 12 months ago by Aviatrix | Permalink
- @Magic Monkey - but didn't Wittgenstein also say that the individual could NOT render language outside of a social matrix? I mean, I think he was basically pretty pro-social. Let's have a book club? Seriously. Or a blurb club. Or something.
  Evidently Wittgenstein is an action figure because stoot liked the fire poker story (see above). But I like your explanation.
  Posted 12 months ago by Aviatrix | Permalink
- @Aviatrix - :) I'd love to. If at any point I seem to misunderstand your position (which so far I find merit in and am intrigued by), by all means stop me and correct me.
  The clockwork universe you describe is called "deism"; God made the universe, and then decided to watch the football game instead of tinker with his new toy. We see, however, that Tiny Spark does tinker in an ongoing, push-me-pull-you relationship with the users, which would indicate against a pure social experiment. True, elements still do exist, but the variables of the experiment are no longer control-quality. Why? Because instead of setting up a single variable, testing it, and saying "we're done, here's our results", TS produces successive changes that compile over time into a history. The current herb crisis, for example, is only temporary and will change and/or end over time as game structure changes occur.
  To give a certain amount of background in Protestant theology (because if this convo continues, I'm sure these ideas will come up and since you brought it up), there are two main schools of thought: Calvinism and Arminianism. Calvinism states that God alone decides whether each individual is destined for heaven or hell, but that we still have an element of free will in that while those who are heaven-bound have been chosen by God to ultimately believe, they come upon it in their lifetimes on their own and choose Him for themselves. It's the mom telling the child that their room had better be cleaned up in 10 minutes; the child decides when to start cleaning it. This belief is rooted in the idea the God has ultimate control over every occurrence in the universe.
  Arminians believe that while God does have ultimate control, He chooses not to exercise it to give us the opportunity to choose belief or unbelief for ourselves. God will present opportunities in our lives to come to Him, but the decision lies ultimately in our hands.
  We see both sides represented in Glitch. At the highest level, it is based on an Arminian structure: we can choose whether or not to play. But having decided to play, we find ourselves in a rather Calvinist construct, where we are quite subject to the conditions placed on us by TS, and are incapable of actions outside of their design. If you're not questing or helping others, what is there to do? There are few things that can be done solely for ourselves or to thwart the cooperative intent of the game.
  Whew!
  Posted 12 months ago by Fitzibitzin | Permalink
- This thread is almost like Wikipedia, except nobody is referencing anything to anything, so it's, ummm, less reliable than Wikipedia.
  If it floats your boat, though, sail away.
  Posted 12 months ago by Parrow Gnolle | Permalink
- Of the protestant theologies, they're outlined well on Wikipedia. Of Nietzsche, I've only read Thus Spake Zarathustra, so if I speak to that that's what I reference. I prefer Kierkegaard to him any day though.
  Posted 12 months ago by Fitzibitzin | Permalink
- @Fitzi - I could be wrong about this, but I don't think that all deists would buy into the watchmaker analogy - iirc, this was *exactly* the point of debate over which Newton and Leibniz took turns calling each other an atheist. Newton said the cosmos required the regular intervention of the creator and his continued importance, and that Leibniz' perfect clock universe obsoletized God (so Leibniz is the atheist). Leibniz said that Newton's imperfect universe (requiring God's intervention re: irregularly orbiting celestial bodies) was an implication that God would make an imperfect world (so Newton is the atheist). And they were BOTH deists (deists afaik just all agree that the cosmos is created by a god).
  Anyway - I am going to have to defer to one of our actual scientists (social or otherwise, like Lucille Ball or Magic Monkey) but I am pretty sure that you can have multiple manipulable variables in a good experiment. In fact, having multiple manipulable variables is *essential* to many experiments. But I'm not a real scientist: I am a historian of science. The closest I've ever gotten to doing real science was editing a dissertation on axelotl stem cells and pigmentation. But that one definitely had a lot of multiple manipulable variables in its experiments, and the dude got the phud, sooo. I'm guessing.
  As far as the Protestant material goes, thank you for the summary of Arminian v. Calvinistic theology! I swear, I learned so much today in this thread - if I added up all the stuff I learned between breakfast and dinner on this thread, I'm afraid it would more than outnumber new things learned on campus (yikes). Which I totally appreciate.
  Are our behaviors constrained in Glitch? Yes - it's not QUITE as bad as a Choose Your Own Adventure (turn to page 46!) and there is really rather a lot of freedom... But people *are* figuring out how to be kind of evil despite constraints against it and a total absence of an ULTRAVIOLENCE! button. That's pretty interesting. And I think a lot of people (so, so many) really are playing the game as individuals instead of socially. TS is working hard to block off as many of those strategies as possible with nerfs, but... I'm not sure they're keeping up. And I think unlaunching and going back to limiting the number of new players gives them a chance to make some big lockdowns.
  All part of working with a dynamic pool of living subjects and trying to figure out how to make them hive in particular ways.
  Posted 12 months ago by Aviatrix | Permalink
- Thanks for telling me about the Sokal hoax, thread-people! It reminds me of everything I like about postmodernism, while simultaneously reminding me of everything I dislike about people who like postmodernism. It's more interesting as a false article, since the "truth" of an article isn't particularly necessary or useful in a number of contexts (intellectual stimulation, basest enjoyments, etc.)
  Posted 12 months ago by Clockwork Rabbit | Permalink
- Fine point, Clockwork Rabbit. Truth is an instrumentalist concept at best. I like it, I'm a big believer in truth and trying to tell it, and I'm an ex-postmodernist (we're more rabid than ex-smokers when it comes to hating our former vice, too). But yeah.
  My first whirl at grad school was in comparative literature at Emory. I once saw a Derridean and a phenomenologist get into a heated argument over the empiricism that ended with the phenomenologist LITERALLY BITING the Derridean's ear. There was BLOOD! The Derridean freaked out and ran out of the house. [Side note: he was an annoying neurotic from New Jersey, the rest of us secretly called him The Rat Man after a patient of Freud's because of his verbal habits.] He called the POLICE! The police came! The police then asked a question that resulted in answers that confirmed Sartre's postulate that hell is other people! Especially if they are comp lit grad students! Which was "What really happened?"
  Ugh.
  Worse than Bill Clinton. "Can we ever talk about anything REALLY happening?" and blah blah blah with air brackets and everything. Dreadful. I dropped out of comp lit and became a corporate semiotician (copywriter). Worked in advertising and then high tech. Eventually went back to grad school for history and philosophy of science. Advertising is actually a pretty good professional field for people who like postmodernism but hate the people who like postmodernism. Everyone has read Bourdieu but nobody gets totally poncy about it.
  Posted 12 months ago by Aviatrix | Permalink
- This is a really enjoyable thread -- glad Stoot popped up to clarify the choice of dolls!
  Posted 12 months ago by Ashbet | Permalink
- @Avi - In regards to the deism question, I probably don't have the whole picture, so I abdicate to your understanding. :) My education on that issue has been from a theologian's perspective, and may not be complete. I declare my bias and ignorance!
  I don't feel confident drawing conclusions on your multiple-variable assertion since sociological experimentation (again, as I understand it) is not as strict as scientific experimentation. What I'm trying to do in this issue is determine exactly what variables you suggest would be tested in Ur and what would qualify as results. For example, could price spiking be considered an ethical issue? Seems more like the offal of the market system. Potions mischief could be considered. As compared to other games, this one is incredibly friendly, lack of free will notwithstanding. First game I've ever heard of where someone got banned for avatar rape. As far as playing individually is concerned, that's a hard one to pin down motives for. At the moment I'm working quite individually, but only so that I can be prepared to help others more effectively. Another opposite example of this in my previous links: Fansy, the "good guy". Hero or villain? Hard to say.
  And again, I have to point out that the format appears less like an experiment than the inevitable convergence and divergence of two differing wills, similar to Hegel's dialectical process. Also, what Stoot said.
  P.S.: I used to love those choose your own adventure books as a kid. :)
  Posted 12 months ago by Fitzibitzin | Permalink
- I'm struck by the prevalence of "ex-postmodernism" being referenced in this thread. I'd love to hear people's thoughts on that, and how the change occurred for them, if anyone cares to share.
  Posted 12 months ago by Fitzibitzin | Permalink
- In another thread (Is My Glitch Me?), I speculated that TS expected most players to see their Glitch character as a creative work or performance rather than as an extension or representation of self. Some people are indeed playing their character as a performance. Do you think Xev would host matches IRL in which people try to knock each other silly? Do you think I would tell someone IRL (as I once did in this game) to wear orange toe socks while otherwise going nekkid?
  If you step back and look at Glitch as a kind of improv theatre, it puts some of the decisions that Stoot and theTS devs have made in a different light.
  At any rate, it's very difficult for software developers to experience their app in the same way as other users. What may seem obvious to an astute player -- or to a social scientist who happens to wander in -- may not be obvious to, much less intended by, the creators of an online game.
  If you look at a table of random numbers, you can find patterns. Were they put there by God or are we simply wired to find patterns, with the result that we sometimes "overachieve?" Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. But we humans are symbol makers, so usually it's not just a cigar -- but what that cigar means to me may be a lot different than what it means to you.
  It there's a theme to my (often pedantic, i know) posting, it's that we're all different AND we're all in this together.
  Oh, and when it comes to theology, don't forget the Pelagians.
  Posted 12 months ago by Splendora | Permalink
- You know, just because you wouldn't wear orange socks and nothing else IRL doesn't mean your Glitch isn't an extension. I'm pretty sure that actors would tell you that every character they've played is an extension of themselves and their own experiences, except for maybe hardcore method actors.
  The only Glitch I can think of who truly seems to be playing a character (consistently, and doing it to the nines) is Jesus Christ. How 'bout THEM apples? ;-)
  Ah, intentionality. Tricky wicket. Having quite a lot more to do with self-awareness and whether other parts of the mind than the conscious have agency than it does with whether or not there was a meeting and an agenda.
  Shall we continue... You know. In the philosophy group. I'm trying to steer things over there just to save wear and tear on poor Casombra and that other guy who can't resist opening the thread even though it makes their heads explode, which causes them to feel cranky. They're probably not alone, and I'm sympathetic.
  I love Pelagians! I was once accused of being a neo-Pelagian by a priest who didn't even know I was a medievalist! <3
  Posted 12 months ago by Aviatrix | Permalink
- @Aviatrix... Probably a good idea. Might be easiest if you create a thread over there, link to this one for history, and then put a link here for folks to follow if they want to continue.
  Posted 12 months ago by EnnuiStreet | Permalink
- Done!
  http://www.glitch.com/groups/RHV68UA943J29H6/discuss/7141/
  If folks want to continue the conversation or start new ones, we can do it over there. If you want to, aren't in the group, and need an invite (it's open but evidently there's a limit on the number of groups you can join without one or something) just let me know.
  Posted 12 months ago by Aviatrix | Permalink
- Shoot me an invite!
  Posted 12 months ago by Fitzibitzin | Permalink
- Done!
  Posted 12 months ago by Aviatrix | Permalink
- @Aviatrix: That's exactly right - the fights were suspended temporarily because of the current mood. There's just too much opportunity for something unpleasant to happen, especially because the enjoyment of the fights depends ENTIRELY on the mood of the people involved, rather than the fight itself. Splank fights are in good fun, and I would never want to put anyone in the ring who is seriously looking to relieve stress by smacking another player with a plank. The fun of the event itself is the stress relief, not the perceived violence.
  That being said, there will be fights held again in the near future. It seems like the cloud is lifting a bit.
  @Splendora: If, in real life, splanking worked the same way it does in glitch, you can bet your ass I'd have real splank fights.
  Edit: Reading comprehension for the lose...
  Posted 12 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- @Xev - Point taken re splank fights. I think you misunderstood Lucille's reference to "clubs." The term was not used to refer to Glitch groups; it was referencing an article by a social scientist in which game players were referred to as "hearts," "diamonds," "spades," and "clubs" based on their motivations and play style.
  Posted 12 months ago by Splendora | Permalink
- Of all the threads in the forum, I've enjoyed reading this one the most (even if I don't understand it all)! Thanks for the discussion! It's been a nice change to the recent tone of the forum. I'm a bit sad to see it move to a private area, I don't really understand why some people find it necessary to rain all over other people's discussions simply because they don't like the topic or don't agree with it. Anyways, thanks again.
  Posted 12 months ago by Autumn Breeze | Permalink
- @Splendora: Oopsie, too right. Thanks for catching that :)
  I read the last half, not the first. Reading comprehension, woo! I was going off of Aviatrix' post first, then reading the last paragraph for context.
  I'm reading the rest of this thread more carefully and the paper is fascinating. At Aviatrix' request, I will be posting a fuller response in the Group forum.
  Posted 12 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- @Xev: thanks! I love your splanking ring and the more discussion about it, the better. :)
  @Autumn Breeze: I do so agree with you. I'm pretty sure you can join the group if you'd like. I would enjoy seeing you there!
  Posted 12 months ago by Flowerry Pott | Permalink
- @Autumn - I've learned a great deal from the commentators in the thread too, and I hope that we can continue the discussion (and start new ones!) in Inveniemus (the philosophy group). We're definitely not getting kicked out - staff didn't say anything (heck, we evenv got a little participation from stoot), this is voluntary. Please don't think of it as the discussion being bullied out of General or think less of the people who are getting upset - I teach and I'm very sympathetic to how frustrated and hostile this sort of thing can make certain types of people. I know where that comes from - the fact that the individuals who find philosophy so upsetting can't seem to resist coming back in here is actually a pretty good indicator of how traumatic they find it. Plus, since it has become really super topical instead of general interest, we might as well move - it's a public group and anyone can join!
  If there are any problems finding it, just message me. :-)
  Posted 12 months ago by Aviatrix | Permalink
- I think the people who have gotten upset (of which there are VERY few), are confusing the way we use "experiment" with how we culturally understand experiments.
  In this context, the experiment is literally, "let's set up this environment and see what happens." There's very little in the way of manipulation. The baseline criteria of any experiment is to see what reactions occur. Life is about actions and reactions. If that's manipulation, then everything in life is manipulative (in fact, this is true).
  A lot of people think of manipulation / experimentation as a malicious type of social engineering, and often the terms are interchangeable. So I understand the upset, but I must stress that we aren't talking about THAT kind of experimentation.
  Posted 12 months ago by Xev | Permalink
- @Xev - you're right to observe that there were very few - really only two, which isn't bad at all and actually fairly encouraging to observe.
  As far as manipulation, none of it is shady, but things do get tweaked and nerfed to encourage different kinds of play - I think it's interesting that the dev's best efforts to encourage greater interglitch dynamics (nerfing NPCs to buff the AH exchanges, for example - and perhaps the herb thing was meant to cause players to consider the "I can't have it all, but I can negotiate with others in cooperative play" concept) have been really problematic and frustrating for those who prefer more solo play (and socialize on the side, in chat, in streets, etc.). To some extent that is a benign manipulation.
  I think it's interesting that the signs that got posted in the Herb Gardens basically authorize the raiders to consider the herbs planted there as anyone's grab, whoever gets there first. That's a pretty active choice. And I wouldn't say it's popular.
  I think your point that dev choices aren't malicious (even if they're following a goal, a hypothesis, a design - benign manipulations) is pretty important.
  Posted 12 months ago by Aviatrix | Permalink
- Great original post, good conversation. Topping in light of current/continued arguments.
  Posted 12 months ago by ruptures | Permalink

Previous 1 2 3 Next