Comments on: Are Social MMORPGs Doomed to Fail? http://alphavilleherald.com/2004/07/are_social_mmor.html Always Fairly Unbalanced Tue, 04 Oct 2016 13:18:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Cocoanut http://alphavilleherald.com/2004/07/are_social_mmor.html/comment-page-1#comment-50150 Cocoanut Sun, 25 Jul 2004 11:43:56 +0000 http://localhost/wp_2/?p=2770#comment-50150 " but talking to anybody anytime is an act of faith, and people are hard to know. online communication is just much more difficult," Exactly. When I say I "know" someone online, I mean I "know" them to varying degrees. When I say I "know" someone irl, I also mean I "know" them to varying degrees. 1. In real life, I know an old friend very, very well, for fifteen years. Then this summer, she changes, inexplicably, for the worse. I start to think about brain tumors. I spend a lot of time thinking of all that I know about her, to figure out what it is I DON'T know. I know my daughters' friends' mothers. I "know" them. Yet I know them less than I know my old friend. But enough to trust them. To a degree of accuracy. To varying degrees of liking for each one; to varying degrees of what we have in common. I make judgment calls. I know my husband, and have known him for many moons. I know him better than anyone on earth does, or probably ever did. Yet I can never really "know" him, in the sense that my knowledge is complete or infallible. His thoughts remain largely unknown to me. He could surprise me, like my friend who recently changed. I can never know him completely; I can never predict his behavior with guaranteed accuracy. He could get a brain tumor. He could just get tired of me and leave one day. He could go through some sort of crisis I didn't even know about and join a monastery. People are, at base, fundamentally unknowable except by themselves (and not always then, particularly if there is brain disease at work), and by their creator (if there is one). 2. Online, I also know people to varying degrees. Those who are my closer friends, I have come to know through doing a whole lot more than typing short messages to them twice a week. I know them fairly well from: (a) talking to them about a myriad of subjects for hours and hours over months and months (b) seeing how they relate to other people (through language, emotes, and game play style) for the same amount of time (c) seeing them over a long period of time; i.e., getting comparative samples from day after day after day after day and (d) learning numerous facts and details about their real lives. Just as in real life, some friends online are pretty much casual, friendly acquaintences, and some I know very, very well. Not as well as I might know a good friend irl, but better than I know my next-door neighbor. And quite a few I have met irl, along with the families of many of them. In all cases to date, the individuals I have met irl have not surprised me in any way. There's always the possibility one of them could turn out to be an ax-murderer, but there's always the possibility my next-door neighbor could turn out to be an ax-murderer, too. So, yes, online relationships are very real. It is a mistake to categorize them all as on the same level as superficial cocktail party conversations. Some are, some aren't; depending on the individuals involved. Most of mine aren't. 3. As Maria pointed out, we actually have MORE visual clues to a person's preferences and behavior through the Sims Online than we have through, say, a chat room, where the only clues beyond language are font choices; or through written correspondence, where the only additional clues are basically stationery choice, handwriting, and postmark. Whereas Humdog, you seem to be arguing that choosing among these avatars and interactions actually is more limiting than liberating. I disagree. I think you may have general contempt for the sorts of avatars one is given to choose from (which I don't), and that causes you to conclude they are more limiting than having none at all. I don't think most people feel that way; hence, as Maria pointed out, the popularity of online games. 4. As you point out, Humdog, people have gotten more sophisticated about the amount of deceit possible online and have put their guard up against online predators. But the fact that online predators exist doesn't negate the very real value of online friendships and relationships, or make them into something superficial that somehow doesn't count. And the predators are outnumbered by normal (if unexciting) online people by thousands to every one. 5. As for those who run off - sometimes leaving spouses and children - to meet the love of their life, that is a somewhat different topic, and one I'm less interested in. As in real life, that is the most intense sort of relationship, and the most dependent on physical knowledge of some duration. That, too, though, is no different from people throughout the ages who have travelled to distant parts to marry someone they have never met irl, and the success or failure of such ventures is doubtless roughly equal, whether they originate from online relationships, lengthy correspondence, arranged marriages to perpetuate dynasties, or mail-order brides. coco ” but talking to anybody anytime is an act of faith, and people are hard to know. online communication is just much more difficult,”

Exactly. When I say I “know” someone online, I mean I “know” them to varying degrees. When I say I “know” someone irl, I also mean I “know” them to varying degrees.

1. In real life, I know an old friend very, very well, for fifteen years. Then this summer, she changes, inexplicably, for the worse. I start to think about brain tumors. I spend a lot of time thinking of all that I know about her, to figure out what it is I DON’T know.

I know my daughters’ friends’ mothers. I “know” them. Yet I know them less than I know my old friend. But enough to trust them. To a degree of accuracy. To varying degrees of liking for each one; to varying degrees of what we have in common. I make judgment calls.

I know my husband, and have known him for many moons. I know him better than anyone on earth does, or probably ever did. Yet I can never really “know” him, in the sense that my knowledge is complete or infallible. His thoughts remain largely unknown to me. He could surprise me, like my friend who recently changed. I can never know him completely; I can never predict his behavior with guaranteed accuracy. He could get a brain tumor. He could just get tired of me and leave one day. He could go through some sort of crisis I didn’t even know about and join a monastery.

People are, at base, fundamentally unknowable except by themselves (and not always then, particularly if there is brain disease at work), and by their creator (if there is one).

2. Online, I also know people to varying degrees. Those who are my closer friends, I have come to know through doing a whole lot more than typing short messages to them twice a week. I know them fairly well from:

(a) talking to them about a myriad of subjects for hours and hours over months and months

(b) seeing how they relate to other people (through language, emotes, and game play style) for the same amount of time

(c) seeing them over a long period of time; i.e., getting comparative samples from day after day after day after day

and (d) learning numerous facts and details about their real lives.

Just as in real life, some friends online are pretty much casual, friendly acquaintences, and some I know very, very well. Not as well as I might know a good friend irl, but better than I know my next-door neighbor.

And quite a few I have met irl, along with the families of many of them. In all cases to date, the individuals I have met irl have not surprised me in any way. There’s always the possibility one of them could turn out to be an ax-murderer, but there’s always the possibility my next-door neighbor could turn out to be an ax-murderer, too.

So, yes, online relationships are very real. It is a mistake to categorize them all as on the same level as superficial cocktail party conversations. Some are, some aren’t; depending on the individuals involved. Most of mine aren’t.

3. As Maria pointed out, we actually have MORE visual clues to a person’s preferences and behavior through the Sims Online than we have through, say, a chat room, where the only clues beyond language are font choices; or through written correspondence, where the only additional clues are basically stationery choice, handwriting, and postmark.

Whereas Humdog, you seem to be arguing that choosing among these avatars and interactions actually is more limiting than liberating.

I disagree. I think you may have general contempt for the sorts of avatars one is given to choose from (which I don’t), and that causes you to conclude they are more limiting than having none at all. I don’t think most people feel that way; hence, as Maria pointed out, the popularity of online games.

4. As you point out, Humdog, people have gotten more sophisticated about the amount of deceit possible online and have put their guard up against online predators.

But the fact that online predators exist doesn’t negate the very real value of online friendships and relationships, or make them into something superficial that somehow doesn’t count. And the predators are outnumbered by normal (if unexciting) online people by thousands to every one.

5. As for those who run off – sometimes leaving spouses and children – to meet the love of their life, that is a somewhat different topic, and one I’m less interested in. As in real life, that is the most intense sort of relationship, and the most dependent on physical knowledge of some duration.

That, too, though, is no different from people throughout the ages who have travelled to distant parts to marry someone they have never met irl, and the success or failure of such ventures is doubtless roughly equal, whether they originate from online relationships, lengthy correspondence, arranged marriages to perpetuate dynasties, or mail-order brides.

coco

]]> By: humdog http://alphavilleherald.com/2004/07/are_social_mmor.html/comment-page-1#comment-50149 humdog Sun, 25 Jul 2004 09:24:13 +0000 http://localhost/wp_2/?p=2770#comment-50149 humans are symbol makers and sign makers. that is what they do, in my opinion. the ability to communicate online is very limited right now because the technology is new, say, relative to writing. as Maria points out there are big chunks/clues missing. people in the presence of missing chunks of meaning will tend to supply what they need to make a message. sometimes the chunks supplied do not line up with the chunks that should have been sent. this creates distortion. if your entire relationship with somebody is going to consist of typing short messages twice a week, well that's not going to be a big deal. but no one in my opinion should agree to the illusion that they *know* anybody that they have typing at. in 1994 i was the host of an online conference for people who had fallen for people that they met online. in 1994 this was a very big deal and the debate at that time was raging about whether or not a person could "know" or "be intimate" with somebody who was known through online communication(s) only. at that same time a philosophy prof i knew (not dr ludlow) assigned, in an ethics class, the following question as a paper: "if a spouse has intimate, non-sexual, conversations with an individual, would that be an infidelity? why or why not?". the question was raised in that manner because, at that time, people were getting involved in very complicated online conversations that created strong bonds between people that in some cases disrupted established families etc. in the conference i hosted for several months, at least three couples left their spouses for people that they met online. (i was not one of those people). in all cases but one, the change was a disaster for everyone involved. it was clear even among those people who stayed where they were, that there was a very large gap between the person they thought they were talking to and the person that they were, in reality, talking to. of course people are now used to doing this stuff so there is now a built-in expectation that the person you meet in meatspace from the online world is going to be different than the person you are expecting. but a game like TSO ties you down more than old text-based chat stuff ties you down. if you mean by knowing somebody that you want to run cocktail party conversations with the world, well, you're in the right place to be sure. but talking to anybody anytime is an act of faith, and people are hard to know. online communication is just much more difficult, and the medium itself is spun all over the place. humans are symbol makers and sign makers. that is what they do, in my opinion. the ability to communicate online is very limited right now because the technology is new, say, relative to writing. as Maria points out there are big chunks/clues missing. people in the presence of
missing chunks of meaning will tend to supply what they need to make a message. sometimes the chunks supplied do not line up with the chunks that should have been sent. this creates distortion. if your entire relationship with somebody is going to consist of typing short messages twice a week, well that’s not going to be a big deal. but no one in my opinion should agree to the illusion that they *know* anybody that they have typing at.

in 1994 i was the host of an online conference for people who had fallen for people that they met online. in 1994 this was a very big deal and the debate at that time was raging about whether or not a person could “know” or “be intimate” with somebody who was known through online communication(s) only. at that same time a philosophy prof i knew (not dr ludlow) assigned, in an ethics class, the following question as a paper: “if a spouse has intimate, non-sexual, conversations with an individual, would that be an infidelity? why or why not?”. the question was raised in that manner because, at that time,
people were getting involved in very complicated
online conversations that created strong bonds between people that in some cases disrupted established families etc.

in the conference i hosted for several months,
at least three couples left their spouses for
people that they met online. (i was not one of those people). in all cases but one, the change was a disaster for everyone involved. it was clear even among those people who stayed where they were, that there was a very large gap between the person they thought they were talking to and the person that they were, in
reality, talking to.

of course people are now used to doing this stuff so there is now a built-in expectation that the person you meet in meatspace from the online world is going to be different than the person you are expecting.

but a game like TSO ties you down more than old text-based chat stuff ties you down. if you mean by knowing somebody that you want to run cocktail party conversations with the world, well, you’re in the right place to be sure. but talking to anybody anytime is an act of faith, and people are hard to know. online communication is just much more difficult, and the medium itself is spun all over the place.

]]> By: Maria LaVeaux http://alphavilleherald.com/2004/07/are_social_mmor.html/comment-page-1#comment-50148 Maria LaVeaux Sun, 25 Jul 2004 01:51:16 +0000 http://localhost/wp_2/?p=2770#comment-50148 David Attenborrough the naturalist once described Human beings as "Compulsive Communicators" Our ability to Formulate Abstract ideas, coupled with a Complex language for communicating same to others of our species makes us more, or less unique in the world. One thing people should realize however, is that Spoken Language accounts for only about half of anything we wish to convey, Body language, Eye contact, Tone, and inflection transmit almost as much information as the words we use. Unfortunatly, these visual, and auditory signals are not available to us in most On line communication. If no modification is made to typed word, to compensate, then what we say may be taken as misrepresentation (Note, i'm NOT referring to the 45 year old male truck driver claiming to be a 17 year old female cheerleader). Not everyone is fully Adept at using language alone to communicate. Sarcasm, or Phaceciousness, (I have no idea if i spelled that right) are hard to detect in Type alone, as is something spoken in Whimsey. Yes,, All this conversation IS a social action., But we are drawn to these social games over chat rooms because they give us a Few more clues into the intent of the speaker by providing for the Visual, and Auditory need of Human speech. the More representative the game, the More attractive it becomes. I learned to speak English when i was six. I soon realized, at that tender age, that if i did not choose my words carefully, Embarassing, or Hurtful misunderstandings would result. Hence, I read a great deal, and i Choose my words with Due consideration. Language is one of the most Powerful tools at our disposal. Used skillfully, it can be like a Artists brush, an surgeons scalple, or a Barbarians Club. Put any of these impliments in the hands of a Blind man, and their effectiveness is halved at least. Social games will continue because WE as a Species Want to talk to as many of our fellows as Possible and they give us yet another opportunity to do so. Will they remain exactly as they are now? certainly not, because Every form in which we convey our thoughts, Every medium for communication has Continuously evolved along with the thoughts they convey. The only constant in th Universe, is change. Maria. David Attenborrough the naturalist once described Human beings as “Compulsive Communicators”
Our ability to Formulate Abstract ideas, coupled with a Complex language for communicating same to others of our species makes us more, or less unique in the world.
One thing people should realize however, is that Spoken Language accounts for only about half of anything we wish to convey, Body language, Eye contact, Tone, and inflection transmit almost as much information as the words we use. Unfortunatly, these visual, and auditory signals are not available to us in most On line communication. If no modification is made to typed word, to compensate, then what we say may be taken as misrepresentation (Note, i’m NOT referring to the 45 year old male truck driver claiming to be a 17 year old female cheerleader). Not everyone is fully Adept at using language alone to communicate. Sarcasm, or Phaceciousness, (I have no idea if i spelled that right) are hard to detect in Type alone, as is something spoken in Whimsey. Yes,, All this conversation IS a social action., But we are drawn to these social games over chat rooms because they give us a Few more clues into the intent of the speaker by providing for the Visual, and Auditory need of Human speech. the More representative the game, the More attractive it becomes.

I learned to speak English when i was six. I soon realized, at that tender age, that if i did not choose my words carefully, Embarassing, or Hurtful misunderstandings would result. Hence, I read a great deal, and i Choose my words with Due consideration.
Language is one of the most Powerful tools at our disposal. Used skillfully, it can be like a Artists brush, an surgeons scalple, or a Barbarians Club. Put any of these impliments in the hands of a Blind man, and their effectiveness is halved at least.
Social games will continue because WE as a Species Want to talk to as many of our fellows as Possible and they give us yet another opportunity to do so. Will they remain exactly as they are now? certainly not, because Every form in which we convey our thoughts, Every medium for communication has Continuously evolved along with the thoughts they convey.

The only constant in th Universe, is change.

Maria.

]]> By: JC Soprano http://alphavilleherald.com/2004/07/are_social_mmor.html/comment-page-1#comment-50147 JC Soprano Sat, 24 Jul 2004 20:24:55 +0000 http://localhost/wp_2/?p=2770#comment-50147 Mistype: EA's motto or slogan is "Challenge EA" Should be: EA's motto or slogan is "Challenge Everything" Frankly it should be: "Challenge Everything, Except EA" JC Soprano www.thesimmafia.com www.swgmafia.com May the Schwartz be with you! Mistype:
EA’s motto or slogan is “Challenge EA”
Should be:
EA’s motto or slogan is “Challenge Everything”

Frankly it should be: “Challenge Everything, Except EA”

JC Soprano
http://www.thesimmafia.com
http://www.swgmafia.com
May the Schwartz be with you!

]]> By: JC Soprano http://alphavilleherald.com/2004/07/are_social_mmor.html/comment-page-1#comment-50146 JC Soprano Sat, 24 Jul 2004 20:19:32 +0000 http://localhost/wp_2/?p=2770#comment-50146 Randy, I don't think anyone was arguing my right to my opinion of you.. But as for my customer is never right. EA's motto or slogan is "Challenge EA" You say I violated the terms of service, yet most I've ever been suspended for is swearing or having a website. When I spoke to you, you did not even want to listen to my complaints. Did you know that Tigger told me on the phone I had no right to play a mobster since I am not Italian. So much for be somebody else. I tried to explain this to you, but you did not want to hear it becuase like many others you sterotyped me. You did not want to hear my complaints and it was quite clear in your e-mail. Just becuase you think I am violating terms of service (no proof) does that mean I am no longer a customer EA cares about? I am someone that has no say even though I pay my money? I think not. As for customers, news flash I've done customer service and tech support most of my life. I run my own hosting and website design business that is and has been doing well. I know how to deal with customers. I've been doing it since I got my first job. That don't make me an expert granted, but don't tell me I don't know customer service. Reading your e-mails, you had no concept of customer service or care. This is EA's biggest flaw, once they get the customers money, they don't care. God forbid you speak ill of them too. If EA actually did there job groups like myself wouldn't exist. We are the people players turn to when EA Games can't or refuses to help them. My group is simply an extension of customer service that if EA did their job would not be needed. JC Soprano www.thesimmafia.com www.swgmafia.com May the force NOT be with Randy. P.S. I am curious though if your departure from EA Games or at least the TSO realm of it was due to my various complaints about you and how you handled the Tigger situation. I noticed you were no longer with EA/TSO shortly after I made my complaints with corporate. Randy,

I don’t think anyone was arguing my right to my opinion of you.. But as for my customer is never right. EA’s motto or slogan is “Challenge EA” You say I violated the terms of service, yet most I’ve ever been suspended for is swearing or having a website. When I spoke to you, you did not even want to listen to my complaints. Did you know that Tigger told me on the phone I had no right to play a mobster since I am not Italian. So much for be somebody else. I tried to explain this to you, but you did not want to hear it becuase like many others you sterotyped me. You did not want to hear my complaints and it was quite clear in your e-mail. Just becuase you think I am violating terms of service (no proof) does that mean I am no longer a customer EA cares about? I am someone that has no say even though I pay my money? I think not.

As for customers, news flash I’ve done customer service and tech support most of my life. I run my own hosting and website design business that is and has been doing well. I know how to deal with customers. I’ve been doing it since I got my first job. That don’t make me an expert granted, but don’t tell me I don’t know customer service. Reading your e-mails, you had no concept of customer service or care. This is EA’s biggest flaw, once they get the customers money, they don’t care. God forbid you speak ill of them too. If EA actually did there job groups like myself wouldn’t exist. We are the people players turn to when EA Games can’t or refuses to help them. My group is simply an extension of customer service that if EA did their job would not be needed.

JC Soprano
http://www.thesimmafia.com
http://www.swgmafia.com
May the force NOT be with Randy.

P.S. I am curious though if your departure from EA Games or at least the TSO realm of it was due to my various complaints about you and how you handled the Tigger situation. I noticed you were no longer with EA/TSO shortly after I made my complaints with corporate.

]]> By: F. Randall Farmer http://alphavilleherald.com/2004/07/are_social_mmor.html/comment-page-1#comment-50145 F. Randall Farmer Sat, 24 Jul 2004 20:02:12 +0000 http://localhost/wp_2/?p=2770#comment-50145 JC Soprano has a right to his opinion about my status as a 'loser', but I must disagree with the statement that "his employees are always in the right, and never the customer." This is simply untrue and sour grapes on his part. Ask yourself: What if two customers are in conflict (say, about a self-proclaimed mobster violating the terms-of-service by harassing other customers?) Are both customers (the mobster and the victim) right? Pul-eeze. Run your own service some day, deal with some real customers, and then come back and tell me that I'm a loser again. I'll be here. Coco's comments about creativity through object arrangement are right on. We first saw this effect in the original Habitat, and again in WorldsAway and The Palace (it even happened in UO.) The bother was always the 'help' text/names of the objects gave away the clever construction techniques. Though, in the end, I'm still convinced that TSO was missing one of the biggest draws of the Sims: User created textures/rugs/skins/clothing/etc. I can't speak to the operational commitment from EA since my departure, but I personally belive the service could easily be twice the size it is now. It might even be profitable (though I don't think it could ever make back the investment cost.) Randy JC Soprano has a right to his opinion about my status as a ‘loser’, but I must disagree with the statement that “his employees are always in the right, and never the customer.” This is simply untrue and sour grapes on his part. Ask yourself: What if two customers are in conflict (say, about a self-proclaimed mobster violating the terms-of-service by harassing other customers?) Are both customers (the mobster and the victim) right? Pul-eeze. Run your own service some day, deal with some real customers, and then come back and tell me that I’m a loser again. I’ll be here.

Coco’s comments about creativity through object arrangement are right on. We first saw this effect in the original Habitat, and again in WorldsAway and The Palace (it even happened in UO.) The bother was always the ‘help’ text/names of the objects gave away the clever construction techniques.

Though, in the end, I’m still convinced that TSO was missing one of the biggest draws of the Sims: User created textures/rugs/skins/clothing/etc. I can’t speak to the operational commitment from EA since my departure, but I personally belive the service could easily be twice the size it is now. It might even be profitable (though I don’t think it could ever make back the investment cost.)

Randy

]]> By: Cocoanut http://alphavilleherald.com/2004/07/are_social_mmor.html/comment-page-1#comment-50144 Cocoanut Sat, 24 Jul 2004 18:54:50 +0000 http://localhost/wp_2/?p=2770#comment-50144 P.S. Ian? I don't think Ian has commented in this thread. P.S. Ian? I don’t think Ian has commented in this thread.

]]> By: Cocoanut http://alphavilleherald.com/2004/07/are_social_mmor.html/comment-page-1#comment-50143 Cocoanut Sat, 24 Jul 2004 18:52:12 +0000 http://localhost/wp_2/?p=2770#comment-50143 The language used in correspondence is entirely available to use in the game, too. When I talk with another person online I understand that I actually AM talking with another person online, not just their "projection". I've met about 60 online friends, two of them from the Sims Online. So I really don't think you have much to teach me about this. coco The language used in correspondence is entirely available to use in the game, too.

When I talk with another person online I understand that I actually AM talking with another person online, not just their “projection”.

I’ve met about 60 online friends, two of them from the Sims Online. So I really don’t think you have much to teach me about this.

coco

]]> By: humdog http://alphavilleherald.com/2004/07/are_social_mmor.html/comment-page-1#comment-50142 humdog Sat, 24 Jul 2004 17:59:00 +0000 http://localhost/wp_2/?p=2770#comment-50142 you apparently do not understand that when you talk/deal with online people you are more likely to be dealing with projection than with another person. this is particularly true when the environment, because of its cumbersome qualities, does not allow for spontaniety of word and gesture. when a person writes a letter (your analogy)the person displays a great deal of the essence of their self-ness. in online environments particularly those where practically the only options available are to look like a barbie doll or a creature from a freakshow-zoo, you have to figure that you are not so much talking to the person but to the image that person likes to sell. i will give you and ian a new word to add to your dictionary game. the word is AUTHENTICITY. you apparently do not understand that when you talk/deal with online people you are more likely to be dealing with projection than with another person. this is particularly true when the environment, because of its cumbersome qualities, does not allow for spontaniety of word and gesture. when a person writes a letter (your analogy)the person displays a great deal of the essence of their self-ness. in online environments particularly those where practically the only options available are to look like a barbie doll or a creature from a freakshow-zoo, you have to figure that you are not so much talking to the person but to the image that person likes to sell.

i will give you and ian a new word to add to your dictionary game. the word is AUTHENTICITY.

]]> By: Cocoanut http://alphavilleherald.com/2004/07/are_social_mmor.html/comment-page-1#comment-50141 Cocoanut Fri, 23 Jul 2004 00:00:27 +0000 http://localhost/wp_2/?p=2770#comment-50141 Well . . . I choose to pay for TSO, and I choose to have a phone, and to have a computer, and a television, and a VCR, and all kinds of things like that for communication and entertainment. I don't think most people are deceitful online. It's just that it's not the same as when you meet a person face-to-face. Which is actually a good thing, in that you have a meeting more purely of minds. I have real relationships with people online, and some of those friends I have met irl. Friends are friends, what can I say? Works for me. coco Well . . . I choose to pay for TSO, and I choose to have a phone, and to have a computer, and a television, and a VCR, and all kinds of things like that for communication and entertainment.

I don’t think most people are deceitful online. It’s just that it’s not the same as when you meet a person face-to-face. Which is actually a good thing, in that you have a meeting more purely of minds.

I have real relationships with people online, and some of those friends I have met irl. Friends are friends, what can I say? Works for me.

coco

]]>