Why do so many Americans hate America?

Even in the gaming industry you see this vitriolic hatred. As I read posts by bloggers who publish "gaming industry blogs", I'm struck by the number who inject their political views into those posts.

The people who comment to blogger posts aren't doing any better. The majority seem to have the exact same feelings against America.

I've characterized this anti-Americanism as socialist propaganda, which is what it is in nearly every case. I just went through several blogs that are devoted solely to bashing the U.S., especially the Bush Administration and the War in Iraq.

I keep thinking that I just don't understand the mentality, the blind devotion to the anti-American cause, but I understand it perfectly. It doesn't matter what the truth is. It doesn't matter what's right or wrong. These people have an agenda and they're going to push it no matter what anyone else does or says.

Personally, I think we're well to the point where it's time for an up-rising. The "average American" has to stand up for his rights against the socialists who want to destroy what little we have left. It's been an on going process of cultural transformation for the last 80 years (maybe more) that has brought our country to its knees societally.

Patriotic Americans must refuse to be intimidated by claims of "elitism" or "arrogance". Americans are proud of what they have, just as everyone else is. We aren't bad people just because we live well.

When you hear someone regurgitating the propaganda and rhetoric they heard on the Nightly News or in their Sociology class, stand up and set them straight. Ask them some questions about why they think what they think. Get them talking. They will immediately expose themselves for what they are. Many can't even mount a thoughtful defense of their "beliefs". Most don't even know what they believe except "America is bad" and "George Bush stole the election".

Folks, President Bush has some bad policies. His idea of how our border with Mexico should function is destructive to our country. That doesn't mean he's out to get the entire country, or that he's trying to make "fat cat buddies" rich. Personally, I think it's a mis-guided attempt at what he sees as "creating opportunities".

Regardless, the anti-American movement gains momentum because they will always find people who are disgruntled with something. They take the anger and redirect it to fit their ends. That doesn't make their cause, or the anger valid.

FPS masquerading as RPG

Writing the following response to a blog post on Scott Jennings' site, I came to feel that this is the most cohesive and coherent statement I've probably ever put together regarding on-line worlds. I think it is a holistic observation.

I highly recommend reading the entire post and especially Brian Green's comments.

What follows is my response to Brian's response to Scott's post. I think it fits in with the theme of this blog regardless of the original context:

Brian Green nails it perfectly. Most of the problems and complaining I'm hearing from everyone else is about some particular sub-problem of the core issues.

Most of the on-line MMORPGs seem only barely to be related to RPGs and more akin to MMOFPSs. The structure of the game has changed to more accurately fit the model expected by kids with no real socialization skills (they don't have them because once they find the on-line world they only socialize there where socialization is of the "removed and anonymous" sort). Those kids start out playing FPS's and migrate to the on-line communities looking for "something more". When they find out the game doesn't revolve around them they complain (not having developed the socialization skills required to walk into a role-play situation and not expect it to revolve around "me".)

In the "old days", they were pushed into meeting other players and communicating in more meaningful (less me-centric) ways. This naturally caused some friction that I'm afraid many developers mistook for "we'll lose money". They mistakenly tried to fix the problem through accomodating the path of least resistance and in so doing have built in a shallowness to their games that translates to shallow player relationships and shallow players.

Working on inter-personal systems as solutions to the core problems is hard. It's really hard, and getting it wrong can be a death-knell that leaves a lot of people with very hurt feelings. I'm guessing this is why many developers avoid it altogether. Perhaps they were burned before.

This doesn't mean that it isn't the answer, though. Many of you agree (if I read your comments correctly), but I don't see anyone really championing the cause. Even mentioning it seems to incurr ire in some forums.

Has the industry given up trying to create communities and simply abandoned the concept in favor of creating MMFPS?

And my response...

If you bother to drop by this dark corner of the internet, I appologize for what you've had to put up with for the last few days.

I promise I'll get back to actual "game-speak" after this post. Okay, from time to time I'll slip in some tid-bits of political ranting, but this is the last from the Kearns vs. Rigger bout.


Barry,

You aren't particularly interested in addressing anything I had to say in regards to taking responsiblity for not communicating my meaning to you.

You don't want to go point-by-point because your arguements fail at that level. If you can't mount an argument based on a mountain of emotional evidence, you aren't interested in talking at all.

Admittedly, I probably butchered some of your lengthy words, but that was purely out of carelessness and had nothing to do with malicious intent. Despite that fact, my negligence did nothing to detract from your meaning. You couldn't be concise if your life depended on it.

Your consent is not needed for me to post your words, publicly. If you don't want your words posted publicly, then don't say them. When I speak, I assume my words might come back to haunt me, that's why I never say anything I don't expressly mean.

I'm thrilled you (or your twitty friend, "Jeff") chose to post links to the MUD-Dev thread in its entirety (on a blog that has fewer comments than even mine does). It only helps to build my case and add validity to my remarks.

Regarding your leftist propaganda - your assertion that "everyone does it" is untrue and rediculous as a logical premise for an arguement.

I don't really care if you respond to me or not. If you do, I'll try to put things into perspective for you, but since you aren't interested in a logical view-point I don't know what good it will do. Ah, but that's how I am. I'm the kind of guy who will rail against the darkness even when I'm the only one doing it.

Thanks,

Jaycen

P.S. If you're so bent out of shape by what you've read in my e-mails and my blogs, you can start your own blog (rather than referencing other people's) and say anything you like. Heck, I'd be thrilled to have a hate site devoted to me. Then I could tell my family and friends "I've finally made it!"

Just when you thought it wouldn't get any worse...

Welp, apparently I was a little slack in copy/pasting Barry's remarks. That is completely and likely possible. It certainly wasn't "creative editing", any less than it was "fat-fingering".

I did read the entire post, and I still can't understand portions of it. I suppose the arguement that "other kids are jumping off of bridges" suffices for an explanation of how someone includes irrational bits of propagandism in their posts as if they were logical arguements. If you say so.

Anyway, since I certainly wouldn't want Bar-Bar to feel like I was marginalizing his words, I've posted them in their entirety.

If you read the whole thing, you deserve a cookie. In fact, just go eat it now.

More than anything, I want to thank Barry for referencing some of my most coherent thoughts on the entire subject. That which he criticizes me most vehemently for, I consider right on target.

And so it goes...

> Hah.
>
> What I find most unbelievable about your reply is that you don't even
bother to respond to most of what I had to
> say to you.

I'm not terribly interested in participating in a point-by-point
addressing
of every single little thing that you write. My time has more value
than
that, and the resulting size of the responses and counter responses
would
grow explosively. Much of it isn't comment-worthy, and I'm not going
to
descend to the level of addressing childish outbursts like "shit-eating
cock-sucker" and "Fuck you, Barry".

If you want to communicate like an adult instead of an apoplectic
teenager,
I'd be willing to speak to a larger percentage of what you write. In
general, I'm not interested in addressing personal invective and
bile-spewing... it's counter-productive. In the interests of space and
time, I chose a few things to respond to which I could address
productively,
and provided the needed context that you had chosen to chop away in
your
public blog posting.

> I have no idea what you mean by "creative edits".

Chopping the middle out of one of my sentences with no indication
whatsoever
that you had done so, leaving a result that is incomprehensible is a
start.
Since anyone bothering to read that post didn't have the underlying
context
to verify my writing, that gives the impression that I actually wrote
that.
I'm not that stupid, but you made it appear (through your creative
editing)
that I was.

Likewise with the select context-free snippets of my words that you
chose to
use for your posting. Absent the underlying context, these can create
impressions about me that simply aren't accurate. You start off
talking
about my "appology" (sic) entirely out of context... no one else
reading
that would know the extent of what I said and the qualifiers that I
provided. There's a distinct possibility that someone else could look
at
that and assume that I had offered an unqualified "I'm wrong, you were
right" type of apology, when I clearly didn't.

That's why it's generally considered very poor form to post snippets of
someone else's email in a public manner without their consent... it's
generally considered worse than posting the whole thing, where context
is
(at least)preserved. You edited out the portion where I mentioned that
I
was offering you the opportunity to respond person-to-person in a
non-public
format first... leaving that in there might have made you look bad,
though.
More strategic to creatively edit that out before posting, eh? That
way, it
doesn't look like an attempt on my part at private communication that
you
decided to take public without consent.

Now, it certainly helps you look better (and more the victim, and make
me
more out as the bad guy) if you choose to creatively edit it to look as
much
in your favor as possible. I can understand why someone might choose
to do
that... doesn't mean I have to like it.

Likewise with posting that you can't see why I would take it
personally,
when no one reading your post would have the actual context to see
why...
and by extension, see why my reaction was reasonable. Leaving out the
context allows you to paint me as the unreasonable one in the
transaction...
again, by the creative and selective use of editing. I provided the
full
context for the "taking it personally" aspect in my response so that
anyone
reading would be able to see for themselves.

> And you continue to blather on about things that make no sense
what-so-ever.
>
> You wonder why I accuse you of being a rank socialist? Because these
tactics are typical of someone who uses
> propaganda to get their point across.
>
> 1. Avoid the real issue, and only speak to that which you can take
out of
context or blow out of proportion.
>
> 2. Lie outright, and accuse those with whom you disagree of the
things
for which you, yourself, are guilty.

I'd recommend studying a bit more history and social science.
Propaganda,
rhetorical devices and hypocrisy are an expected part of the landscape
in
almost *every* political environment... seeing them is no more an
indication
that someone is socialist than saying that they breathe, eat food, and
sleep
at night. Socialist do those things too... but it's a logical fallacy
to
then assume that everyone who breathes, eats food and sleeps at night
must
therefore be a socialist. Imagining the behaviors when they aren't
present
is even less evidence.

By your two-point definition above, someone would be forced to conclude
that
you must be a rank socialist, since you appear to be doing precisely
what
you accuse me of. How utterly self-referential.

> You completely ignore large sections of my post and pretend like I
only
answered in a negative context. You
> also intentionally ignore the meaning of my words and insert or
construct
your own meaning to suit your own
> agenda.

The majority of what I wrote is not in response to "negative context".
The
entire first half speaks to an entirely neutral point where you are
expressing (what I took as) a genuine lack of understanding. That's
hardly
a negative context... you're simply expressing that you don't
understand how
I came to my conclusion.

Parenthetical observations aside, the last half is also geared towards
addressing things that are not primarily "negative context". I spoke
to the
fundamental aspect of fallibility as a response to the
trivial-but-not-negative assertion that you can determine what other
people
really mean because you have a mind.

I also addressed why people might not see your statement of "I don't
know
how to approach this in a way that you'll understand" as "totally took
the
responsibility for my miscommunication", as you characterized it.
Again,
the premise I chose to address was not a "negative context" one. It
was a
neutral assertion, and I offered a different perspective.

You are again assuming in the paragraph I mention above that you know
my
intentions. IMO, you've been an abject failure at accurately
determining
them so far, and you've done no better in this instance. You're likely
less
qualified than a random stranger to determine my intentions... random
guessing would have given you a better record than you've amassed so
far.
Your deductive process may therefore actually have NEGATIVE utility.

> I think the dumbest part of your post is where you deride my blog as
something of a place of "non-interest"
> whereas you continue to respond as though your reputation on it meant
something.

I would generally prefer to clarify matters if someone was making
misrepresentations about me in a cocktail-party setting where five
other
people heard, and likewise in a setting where someone was saying
similar
things over a public-address system at a football stadium.

I can think (rightly) that one environment is less public than the
other,
but it doesn't change the basic transaction. I prefer that people have
the
truth available to them, and they can judge for themselves rather than
rely
only on the slander. That's why I was interested in providing (some of
the)
accurate context that you had left out.

> You are a walking contradiction.

Your failure to understand my underlying motivations does not imply a
lack
of coherence or consistency on my part. I doubt that you could come up
with
more than a single alleged "contradiction" of mine that doesn't
disappear
once the context is provided to someone who is actually rational, let
alone
show that contradiction is somehow my default state. You're free to
imagine
whatever you like... that doesn't make your imagination into reality
(Thank
God).

> And you wonder why I think you are motivated by a liberal (read
leftist)
agenda?

At this point, I've stopped wondering much of anything about you. I've
pretty-much given up on my original premise that you might be rational.
It
would probably be more productive to attempt to reason with a Markov
chain
generator at this point.

> You're fun. Thanks for all the entertainment. Jaycen

I can't control (nor would I want to) what amuses you.

I've responded to everything you wrote in this email. As you can see,
it
increases the size radically if I provide enough context and a full
answer
to each point you think up.

A requirement of my extending such a courtesy to you again, would
likely
hinge on your ability to consistently interact like a rational adult,
rather
than acting like a petulant, foul-mouthed schoolkid who's still
seething
that someone had the sheer audacity to direct a bit of sarcasm towards
them
in a public forum... when they were the one slinging the invective in
the
first place.

If you can act like a grown-up, we can continue corresponding. If not,
good
luck with that whole poor-impulse-control thing. I've probably wasted
large
chunks of two different lunch hours now in treating you like you might
be
rational, and I'm not keen on wasting any more if you can't control
your
emoting.

And in case you were wondering, there's other blog traffic about the
MUD-Dev
thread in question, with an archive of the thread in question provided
to
any non-subscribers, showing the real set of transactions to the world.
The
easiest way to find that particular blog entry is to Google the
combination
of the words Jaycen, Rigger, and "idiot".

HTH. HAND.

Barry Kearns

FOR YOUR VIEWING PLEASURE

Hi back, Barry,

While I wasn't looking for an appology, and usually don't accept them (since it does nothing to "undo" what's already been done, and if it wasn't meant originally, why'd you say it?), it's appropriate of you to take this particular trek off the general discussion forum of MUD-Dev.

That being said, I find it more than a bit ironic that you've posted the observation "How will someone know he's being an asshole, if no one tells him he's being an asshole?" on your blog, as well as a venting screed about me. To me, the obvious take-away from the whole MUD-DEV affair is that you were, in fact, the one who started being an asshole, and I (as well >as a few others) told you so.

Excellent, man. I can't tell you how pleased I am that you are trying to be "part of the solution." So many people let what they see as "unacceptable behavior" and simply watch it happen, instead of standing up to the perpetrator and saying something to them. I'm willing to do it, and I appreciate it when someone else reminds me of the social debt I owe to others.

My take on the transaction is this: When I offered the my first and second replies to your post, they were considered, calm, and rational... and not at all personal. Please re-read them if you're unsure. In your reply to the second one I offered, on the other hand, you decided to get extremely personal, condescending and insultingly portrayed me as unable to comprehend arguments and see distinctions.

This part is a real shame. I really and honestly and unabashedly didn't think that I was communicating my thoughts to you in a way that was meaningful. The more I tried to clarify my position, the more out of context you seemed to take me.

While I could have said, "You sucking twit, you can't understand the most basic concepts", I find that rude and intrinsicly in error. I was the communicator. The oneous is on me to communicate in a way that is clear and leaves no room for misunderstanding. I thought I was admitting my own failings, but again, obviously I wasn't communicating well again since you really took me at 180 degrees of my intended meaning.

You portrayed players as hopeless addicts who'll put up with anything to get their "fix", and GMs/Admins as lacking the courage to discuss "judgement".

Here's yet another misunderstanding. I thought it was clear that in the context of our previous discussion "players" meant "my kind of player", or "my personality type" and that I was putting myself into the same category. I think that if I include myself in the same group I'm describing, I'm well within my rights to deride myself and my bretheren, just a little bit. The "fix" I was talking about was a "social need for human interaction". I also thought that was clear from my original posts and the way the conversation was moving. Apparently, it was not.

In short, you were being an asshole. I responded based on being thoroughly insulted... and should have known better than to do so.

What I don't understand is how you felt directly insulted. To this point (in this particular e-mail and to the point of the discussion we've covered) I don't think I applied any of my characterizations directly to you. I'm usually very clear when I'm trying to insult someone. My blog post is a great example of when I'm deliberately trying to insult someone. Compared to that, I might have called your logic into question, but if you can't stand to that kind of criticism on an e-mail forum like this, you should find another forum. Maybe one that focuses on kitty's and care-bears.

I'll offer some unsolicited advice. Feel free to take it or leave it, but please know that it's offered in the spirit of trying to improve communications. I've had similar advice offered to me when I was on that end of the incident, and I think it has helped over the years.

Awesome, I'm all ears. Maybe afterward, I can offer some to you in return.

In my experience, there are certain lines that simply shouldn't get crossed

I totally agree.

... and you crossed a bunch of them. IMO, you don't insult someone by characterizing their argument as a "vacuum of developmental pontification" unless you're asking for a fight.

Right! I love being controversial. You'll notice that one e-mail thread had an "ass-load" of e-mails and sub-threads spawned from it. I'm thrilled that I inspired so much conversation about a topic that TO THAT POINT had consisted of "Great! That's just neat!" I was beginning to feel like the whole MUD-Dev group were a bunch of yammering syncophants.

More to this specific statement, though. I read the blogs and webpages of many of the MUD contributors on a daily basis. I've purposefully immersed myself in this culture on a quest for the smartest/best/most efficient/most contextual/most player-friendly/best balanced ideas I could find in regards to running an online community.

When I read many of the arguements (logical thought processes) put forth by contributors who are paid by a game company for what they think and offer to the industry, I'm annoyed by the number who preach one set of standards in their "papers" they publish, but then argue from the perspective that 1 particular system only affects itself. I've seen some of these guys say that a particular idea will "drive all the players away" but completely ignore the rest of what someone has to say.

Many of the MUD contributors pontificate ad naseum about their ideas and how players interact with each other, etc, etc. However, some refuse to acknowledge that systems affect each other. It's almost like they are incappable of conceptualizing the fact that mulitple factors can contribute to how players will react to each other and to various game systems. Once some of these guys have formed a notion about how a particular game mechanic didn't work on one particular server, they simply can't see beyond that point.

I am not a detail-oriented kind of guy. That is one of my biggest failings. I have a tendancy to get distracted looking at the whole big, beautiful picture and never notice that I bought a fake because the brush strokes are all wrong and Da Vinci's name is mispelled. That's why I like to throw my ideas at this group. Let some smart guys who are very detail oriented pick my ideas apart and expose the weak points and "holes" in my arguements.

On the other hand, I'm a very big-picture kind of person. I have an absolute knack for immediately seeing the results of changes in one system and how they'll affect other systems down stream. It's really what makes me so good at my job. People who lack my ability to see the broader picture tend to argue as if their concept existed inside of a vacuum, where it is unaffected by anything else and where it does not affect other things beyond it's immediate vicinity.

THAT's where my snide remark came from. If I was off base, well....naw, I was right on the mark.

Likewise, I don't know that it's ever justifiable to TELL other people that THEY don't see a distinction. THEY are the only ones qualified to say whether they do or not, because they're the only ones in their head. It's important to allow for the possibility that you're misunderstanding someone else's argument or reasoning. Telling someone else that they have "forgotten what it's like" is also likely to be a powder keg for the same reason... you're not inside their head, so you really have no way of knowing. Better to ASK rather than TELL.

Barry, one of the great things about the human brain is its ability to reason out a logical conclusion. I can read your statements, and begin to piece together a picture of what's going on behind what you write in response to my ideas and words. Within that context, I can immedately tell that you are not comprehending that I see two seperate issues that you are not seeing, either because you can't, or because you don't want to. I don't have to ask you whether you see it or not, I can tell. I'm not stupid.

A simple qualifier like "It seems to me that you don't..." would have gone a long way towards defusing those observations. It allows for the possibility that you're simply misunderstanding them, and you make it clear that you're offering a personal impression rather than talking about indisputable facts.

My way also allows for the possibility that you are misunderstanding my meaning, which, in fact, is what I said. Maybe I'm not understanding you.

My way is also far more efficient. It avoids all the pussy-footing and bullshit.

In general, it's considered "asking for a fight" if you portray someone else as too stupid to understand what you're saying. In the vast majority of cases, a lack of understanding should be taken as evidence of a poorly phrased argument rather than stupidity on the part of the other person.

RIGHT! I totally agree, dude. I kept telling you that I wasn't making myself clear, and that I didn't know how to make myself clear to you. I thought it was BRUTALLY clear that I WAS THE ONE WITH THE PROBLEM.

You kept taking me out of context. Again, my context was probably poor, so maybe it's not your fault. That doesn't make you less of a jackass for the way you responded. You got really nasty, and cherry-picked comments of mine in an attempt to make me look bad in front of the group. Not only were you taking me out of context innocently, but you began to do it on purpose, which makes you a shit-eating cock-sucker:-)

That's what makes the phrase "I don't know how to approach this in a way that you'll understand" into a complete grenade when thrown into a conversation, IMO. It tends to "dumbed down" in order to understand.

No, it portrays me as the one who can't express himself in a meaningful manner. I totally took the responsibility for my miscommunication.

A relatively harmless alternative might be "I'm having trouble coming up with an approach that makes the distinction clear."

Yeah, those are a lot of extra words that are meant to make you feel fuzzy on top of admitting that I'm not doing a good job on my end of the conversation. Fuck that.

Likewise, throwing out terms like "fascist"

Fascist is what it is. It is a term that is well defined. I personally think that certain behaviors on MMORPGs can ONLY be dealt with through the direct application of FASCISM. Does that start a fight?

Barry, you have to read the words AROUND the word that makes you feel uncomfortable if you're going to keep up with me.

and portraying people as afraid to use the term "judgement" are definite fight-starters.

HEY! I was talking about the game companies when I said that. Go check. The game companies, like many in our modern society, refuse to "judge others" like it's some kind of anti-social behavior. It's exactly the opposite. Only when we walk around judging the behaviors of others in society can we maintain a level of civility.

I can't think of how to convey the proper contexts in a less inflammatory way, because I'm unsure of what your intent was. It's hard for me to see that as anything other than simply being provocative... which has a natural tendency to provoke people. =/

Great, because that's how it was intended. When people refuse to judge others on their bad behavior, they are helping to make the bad behavior more acceptable in the society. People like me have the testicular fortitude to stand up and call them on it. It wasn't meant to come off in a "nice" way.

In general, I try to approach public conversations as an opportunity to
learn. Assume that the person you're talking with knows something that
could benefit you if you understand it.

I do, that's why I joined the MUD-Dev forum to begin with. That's why so many of their members make it into my "Smart Guys" column on the blog, even some of the guys with whom I VEHEMENTLY disagree. I still learn a lot from those guys.

Assume they have a valid differenceof opinion, rather than assuming they are just "wrong" right out of the gate.

Your logic is flawed on both points. First, I don't assume that people are wrong out of the gate. I always listen even when I don't agree. You never know when something will change your mind about a situation.

Second, you shouldn't "assume they have a valid difference of opinion". Validity is EARNED, not ASSUMED. It's just like respect. Your validity will be judged as we move through the arguement. By your line of logic, I should start out assuming that pedophiles have valid differences of opinion on why children and babies should have sex with them.

As to your blog-post screed, I think you have some definite erroneous impressions of me. Politically, I'm a significant distance from "liberal"... if I land anywhere, it's within a triangle bounded by modern conservatism, Jeffersonian and Objectivist.

How nice for you. Now go back and study the subject matter again, because it hasn't done much to shape your thought processes.

I found David Reim's predictions for E3 compelling not because I agree with him, but instead because he has an obvious gift for painting word-pictures succinctly. I can only dream of being able to convey a spectrum of ideas that well in only 130 words or so. It's his writing gift I envy, not his politics.

But his politics were right out there in the open in the rant he posted. Why, if you don't agree with him, didn't you make that clear? Why didn't you simply clarify that you love the way he writes, but disagree with his message?

Because it doesn't matter. He's as nasty as you were to me, that's why you love him. He'll shit all over other people in the worst way, and you'll both sit back and call it "enlightened".

Fuck you, Barry.

As to the "socialist" nature of the proposed ruleset, I'm simply exploring the boundaries of what we can do to make eBaying a non-starter and still have a playable game. It's not designed or intended to be a commentary on politics. I would never espouse anything remotely like that for the real world... but many people turn to virtual worlds precisely to ESCAPE the real world. In games, we can explore themes that can be entertaining without having to make them a mirror-image of what we'd like to see in the real world. I can enjoy FPS games without ever wanting people to go out and do that in real life, after all.

Fair enough. After reading your buddy's post, and then looking at that system and the reasoning behind the player interactions, I made a poor assumption. I'll take that part back.

By my own poor logic, other people could assume that I'm an Imperialist, which I'm not.

Our current design is about trying to prevent "counterfeit achievement" on at least some servers... that's definitely NOT a liberal idea. We want to celebrate and reward in-game individual (and group) achievement and success, not water it down into "everyone's a winner". We've had to shuffle the landscape around a bit to make it eBay-resistant, but it's still a great place to play for achievers, explorers and those who are attracted to MMOs for the social aspects as well. It's certainly less "mercenary", but I don't think every fun game has to be about selling stuff to other players. There are plenty of games I can play if I want that.

I think my real problem with this kind of system, is that it restricts the freedom of the players to trade in any way they like. You might say that I'm contradicting myself, but I'm not. I want a fair trade. If that means that some people will take advantage of the system and cheat, then that's what it means. It also means that the designers need to motivate players not to cheat, and that administrators have to castrate players when they catch them cheating.

In the real world, I'm all about extracting dollars from happy customers. I'm just trying to create environments that cater to as many different styles of play as I can, and thereby hopefully attract and keep the maximum number of players. I try to do that by listening to customers and trying to meet their desires where I can. It's all about customer satisfaction for me.

"I'm just trying to create environments that cater to as many different styles of play as I can, and thereby hopefully attract and keep the maximum number of players."

That's exactly what I'm trying to do, too. Only, I'm not getting paid for it, which really doesn't mean anything, other than I am the master of what I do, and I'm not bound to concerns of "this might make 20% of my base quit" (which is great if it means I lose a bunch of "jerk-players" and pick up a 30% increase in "casual gamers".)


Barry, I'll put this up and those who actually bother to read my blog can look at my first post and this one and judge for themselves. You've had your say on the matter and I've responded.

I don't hope you get hit by a bus, but that could always change tomorrow.

Thanks,

Jaycen

Societies: Virtual and Real

This is a fundamental truism for all societies. I think it is the distillation of the purpose of society:

How will someone know he's being an asshole, if no one tells him he's being an asshole?

When this element of society begins to break down (i.e. "Don't judge me."), then society breaks down. If this element isn't present at the outset (e.g. Virtual Communities) society never has the chance to take roots.

TableSmith and Pen & Paper Gaming

As someone who used to have enough free time to laboriously roll up and create cities worth of content, I submit my newfound favorite software, TableSmith.

This is a terrific software set for randomly generating anything you could possibly want. There are already several content-packed tables created and available free of charge that can be used to create anything from humorous Kung-Fu Fighting Techniques, to Entire cities (including inhabitants, shops, shop inventories, pricing, economies, etc.).

The ability to create your own custom tables is built in to the system, and the "scripting language" is one of the easiest to understand I've seen. Bruce A. Gulke has done a wonderful job, and I hope many people visit his website and pay him money for his free software. He deserves it.

Dave II

Spoke to Dave on Saturday night. I think I finally convinced him that he had to think of the kids above all else, and give up the damned affair if he was going to have any chance of working on his marriage.

He reitterated his wife's desire NOT to be divorced, but sounded like she wasn't getting the seriousness of the situation. This could be true, but I don't know her side.

As I told him, I don't really care. I am the advocate of their children.

The two "adults" in this situation have trivial, meaningless problems which they can eventually work out. The children have no say in the matter, and are going to suffer the greatest impact of all involved parties.

He said, "I guess I have some more things to think about." That was about the end of the conversation. I offered him my support in anything that would help keep the marriage together.

I haven't heard from him since.

Dave

Whew. Flew home from Los Angeles on a 4 hour flight. Took the kids to the pool for three hours. I've just spent the last 4 hours catching up on MUD-Dev and taking the beating of my life. I refuse to respond to a lot of it. One of these guys was just so incredibly nasty I couldn't believe it. I wonder how he made it passed the moderator. There were more presonal attacks than actual commentary on my posts.

Barry Kearns is an incredible jackass. Read his recent blog Nailing E3 to the wall, dated May 10, 2005. If that's the kind of guy he "worships", no wonder he felt free to treat me like dirt on a public forum.

Whatever, it's pretty typical liberal ranting. "I hate people, they're all so stupid. No one feels as deeply as I do". Even his proposed virtual world economy is a socialist system. Good luck with that one, fuck head.

So, all of this got dumped on top of the real kicker for the day - my freind, Dave.

Yeah, the same one I mention in my First Post. Dave had some marital issues for a while. There was at least one affair that I know of, but I thought that was over and done with. Apparently not.

Dave has been seeing some little honey named "Penny" while he's still married. He apparently gave the marriage "a couple months" to start getting better, but since it hasn't he's just putting an end to it.

He told his wife he wanted a divorce, and she said, "If you aren't happy, I won't make you stay, but this isn't what I want." Apparently it is what he wants.

He's leaving his wife and two young sons. I guess what shocked me most was his demeanor as he related all of this to me on the ride home from the airport. He was just so cavalier about the whole thing. He seemed happy that he was getting the chance to start his life over.

I haven't confirmed it yet, but he apparently talked about some of this to one of our other gaming buddies, Shad. I phoned Shad to talk about it (he's been in Nevada on vacation) and it sounds like Penny is married with kids, too (though, she's apparently been seperated from her husband once before).

So, here we are, all primed to destroy two families - at least two children's lives - so that two very selfish people can feel good. Did I mention that he's moving out next week, the same week as his oldest son's birthday? Happy Birthday, Ben.

Well, I've already talked to most of the rest of the group, and I told my wife tonight; I'm out. If they want to keep playing on Friday nights they can all go somewhere else and play with Dave, because he's not welcome here anymore. I won't hold it against the guys if they choose to "support Dave" on this thing. Not all of them have my strength of character or any kind of perspective on what it means to be a father and a husband, much less what it's like to grow up under divorced parents.

I just get sick every time I think of the kids. The oldest boy is a year older than I was when my parents destroyed my world. I cried and begged my dad to stay. I cried for days. How do you sit down in front of your 6 year old son and ask him to choose which parent he wants to go and live with? What kind of chicken-shit piece of garbage puts that responsibility on the shoulders of a child?

Well, Dave isn't doing that at least, he doesn't want to have to take the kids. He's just going to let Robin take them, though I'm sure he'll see them, from time to time.

I'm very sorry for his Wife, Robin, and his two sons, Ben and Calvin. I tried calling the house tonight to talk to her and offer some kind of support, but I got the answering machine. I noticed it's been changed recently. It's her voice and it doesn't mention "we", just "I". Christ, you guys.

Lords, Vassals, Serfs and the Clergy

(Why player governments never work in fantasy MMORPGs)

I’ve been on a lot of “player-run” servers. I’ve been a Game Master (GM) on a few. One concept that never works out is a player-run city.

The reasons for this vary, but rarely do those reasons have much to do with the ability of the “mayor” to be a good leader. The problem is that designers don’t write game mechanics to handle the position.

Sadly, administrators think that voting (handled either by the players, or by a GM) is a good way to choose a ruler. Worse, they think the players should be able to enforce the rule of law through “good role-playing” or by shear Lord of the Flies governance (if you don’t listen to me, I’ll get my 4 buddies to kill your character and loot you). The worst scenario is when an administrator thinks that a player can rule a city through the beneficent influence of a GM assigned to that player’s city.

VOTING is the basis of democracy. Democracies make no sense in terms of a fantasy role-playing game. Beyond the fact that it’s difficult to get a fair and accurate account of votes from your player-base (people might not log in for weeks at a time), democracies make “getting things done” hard to do. When things are left up to a committee, progress grinds to a halt. In an on-line world, where there’s no real consequence to your choices (you don’t have to live with the effects) it’s hard to get people to understand how important those choices are. This is especially true if much of your player-base is young.

PLAYER ENFORCEMENT doesn’t work because when it comes to role-playing, there is no set standard. If someone chooses not to “go along” with your idea of role-playing, then the system instantly breaks down. Without the ability to actually enforce your will through the mechanics of the game there is no way for you to actually have any authority.

GAME MASTER ENFORCEMENT is the worst policy because it always leads to favoritism. Even when it doesn’t, everyone will think it does. A Game Master or group of Game Masters will not be able to objectively and fairly apply all rules all the time to all players. It simply isn’t possible.

It is possible for player governance to be a success, but certain changes to the game will be required:

• A player government must be built into the game mechanics to function. Game Masters should only have to intervene in rare circumstances (the ruler doesn’t log in for long periods of time, etc).
• There must be an in-game system for players to become rulers, and for those same players to have their rule deposed.
• The ruler must have real authority over his lands within the game and that authority must be backed by the game mechanics.
• There must be some motivation for the rest of the player-base to:
1. Put another player into a position of power.
2. To actually follow the rule of that player or another with similar power. (i.e. What’s in it for me?)
• Removal of the ruler from his position of power must result in a negative impact for that ruler’s subjects.
• A system must exist to back up the ruler’s reign so the negative effect of the ruler being deposed is thwarted.
• The entire system must support the ruler’s power and make removal of the ruler difficult in order for the system to attain stability.

History provides the perfect model for a societal structure that will function in the context of a fantasy MMORPG. The rigid hierarchy of feudal Europe is an ideal system on which to model the typically chaotic social disorder of a virtual world.

To support the ruler and “begin the process” of erecting a society, a system for religion is required. In most societies, the “chief” rules by divine right, or the two power structures are closely linked.

Religions give characters sub-groups in which they can participate and upon which the greater societal structure is formed. The religious orders must have the ability to police themselves via a game mechanic for indoctrinating new priests and followers, as well as excommunicating priests and followers who fail to participate in the religion in a way that is deemed appropriate by the group. Ultimately, the gods of the religion(s) should be played by Game Masters who can help “influence” the direction the order follows.

Priests must not be allowed to be rulers through the game mechanics. That is, unless a pure theocracy is desired, and the entire game world is built upon this principle. Otherwise, that’s what you’ll get.

A priest should be necessary to the creation of a ruler. My suggestion is that each major city be laid out similarly, such that each city has its own castle. The castle is the seat of power, and is the place in which the ruler should be required to conduct his official business. If commands which are accessible to only a ruler are only accessible while the ruler is in the castle, then the ruler is encouraged to spend time in the place which serves to maintain the context of the game. It is in this castle that the potential ruler and priest must meet in order to confer the title to the new ruler.

I’m also suggesting that multiple religions be capable of performing the same “anointing ritual” on the ruler, so a ruler can strengthen his rule by garnering the support of multiple faiths. This also leads into regional banking.

Once a character has become a ruler, he can immediately begin to subject other Player Characters. If a PC agrees to subject himself to the ruler’s power, that PC instantly gains any and all benefits conferred by the active improvements in that ruler’s city, and the PC begins to pay taxes on the next, and subsequent tax cycles.

PCs should be taxed at a standard rate set by the game. Rulers should have the ability to adjust the prime tax rate by +/- 10% for their particular city. PC tax burden increases for property ownership and merchant status (owning a player-vendor and vendor stall). This places an increasing tax burden upon those most likely to create and hoard the most junk, encouraging those players to sell off junk to pay taxes.

Each tax cycle, gold is collected from all the subjects of a city. This takes the form of a pop-up window asking the player to pay their taxes. Requiring players to pay taxes directly and from their pack (as opposed to having the gold automatically taken from their “bank account”) keeps the tax obligation in the mind of the player. There is no penalty for failure to pay if the player has not logged in for a few cycles. The total tax due is simply collected on their next log in. At that time, the PC can pay their taxes, or go get the gold required to pay and log out and back in, re-prompting the PC for tax payment.

If a PC refuses tax payment long enough, however, the ruler can choose to jail the character. If the character’s tax burden becomes greater than their property value, the ruler can choose to repossess the PC’s property. This removes the higher tax burden from the PC (assuming the ruler doesn’t kick them out of the city entirely), and it grants the ruler ownership of all the PC’s possessions within that property.

Once a city accrues enough tax money in the “coffers”, the ruler can begin to buy improvements for his city. Each city improvement has a start up cost and then draws gold from the coffers for upkeep. Each tax cycle, the system checks to see if there’s going to be enough gold in the coffers to cover each improvement. If not, improvements begin to disappear in order from the most expensive upkeep to the least, until there is enough gold in the coffers to cover the burden of the remaining city improvements.

City improvements should confer some skill or attribute bonus to subjects of the city, or provide some service that is greatly desired. In any case, the reward for removing gold and items from the system should be a service. This resource/item sink helps to increase the efficacy of the ruler system as a whole, and helps to drive the entire system in a realistic fashion, even when the actual systems for removing the resources aren’t totally realistic. Even so, the realism with which these systems have been implemented in some games ended up being a serious negative due to player expectations of what a game should be (see Raph Koster’s treatise on player economies - work equals profit).

Finally, to add stability and longevity to the entire structure, and in order to deal with those players who inevitably collect insane amounts of gold, a “hierarchy” system needs to be in place. The ruler needs to be able to sell “titles of nobility” to the richest players. Titles are priced by the system, but who is allowed to buy a title is the purview of the ruler. The nobility must pay a one time price for their title and then an upkeep fee that is higher than the standard tax rate, but is not applied to the tax coffers, but is kept in a separate fund.

If there is no hierarchy in place when the ruler is deposed, then the entire political structure of that ruler’s city collapses. All the city improvements and their conferred bonuses are lost. If a hierarchy exists, on their next login, each member of the top tier is prompted for a vote. If the vote succeeds, the new ruler is chosen from the top tier, the second tier is then prompted for a vote to move a member of that level to the next tier, and so on. Assuming the top tier successfully votes in a new ruler, the gold in the hierarchy fund is moved to the tax coffers to cover the cost of all current city improvements until the next tax cycle as the “ruling families use their own money to prop up the government during the time of turmoil”.

The ruler would receive pressure from his own subjects to sell titles to players who can afford them, so everyone doesn’t suffer should his rule be deposed. At the same time, the ruler will want to put players in positions of power whom he trusts.

The ruler enforces his law through his knights. Knights are standard fighter classes who are 1.) members of the same religion of that anointed the ruler (or one of the other supporting religions in the city) and 2.) a current subject of the city. The ruler can knight a fighter class character and turn him into a Paladin, the sword arm of the Priests. Priests can excommunicate a Paladin and strip him of his powers should the priests wish.

I’ve got some more detailed ideas about rewarding crafters and other classes with experience points and using those points in conjunction with this system, but I’ll save that for the next article.

Broken Storefront Windows

Sony Entertainment is now officially condoning the sale of in-game items via an outside site that is maintained by the company! That means, instead of encouraging players to deal with someone in-game, the creators and maintainers of the game are actually encouraging players to break context and cheat.

What’s going on, exactly? In the realm of on-line gaming there are those who play the game, then sell the virtual property and/or characters acquired in-game through some out-of-game service, such as e-bay, to other players who are less-than-scrupulous. Apparently, some players are willing to pay real-life money in order to get a jump on other players in these games.

Aside from the fact that this is sad and pathetic, it’s really annoying to players who feel that they worked hard for what little they’ve been able to achieve in the game. Since every player must pay the monthly subscriber fee to play, it’s unfair that some players are able to pay a little extra in order to circumvent the mechanics of the game.

Sony calls their service “Exchange”, as if it were simply another place for player characters to congregate and trade goods and services. Except, it isn’t. Sony thinks that by offering certain “Exchange-enabled servers”, and servers that are not “Exchange-enabled”, they can avoid pissing off their non-cheating player base, and cheating will actually go down on the servers where it isn’t specifically condoned.

This seems like a non sequitur, but I’m finding a lot of industry people (a.k.a. designers) are acting as cheerleaders for this mentality. I think that G. Gordon Liddy said it best, “How do you get more of a behavior? Subsidize it.”

The same people who have pushed the Broken Windows theory in reference to bad player behavior now act as though the theory doesn’t apply to this behavior. This blows me away after reading several accounts of the "virtual sociopath". The virtual sociopath thinks it’s okay to kill other player characters for personal enjoyment because the game implicitly makes that behavior legal. After all, if it wasn’t built into the game, you couldn’t do it, right? That’s the kind of logic I see in the Sony Exchange fiasco.

My question to the industry is this; Why not just let players buy anything they want to buy directly, in-game? You could have a window that’s always available and just scroll through the list of possible junk in that game and rack up a charge on your credit card at any time to buy something for your character. You could even pay $2.50 to do an automatic 50 points of damage to a creature you’re currently fighting. That seems like it would cut out the middle-man and the need to leave the game to go to some other web-site. It’d be a hell of a lot more profitable, too.

What the hell is the point of playing if the rich can do whatever they want, while the rest of us have to slog through the normal game mechanics to get by? Buying virtual property outside of the game mechanics is cheating, pure and simple. You could police it if you wanted to, but you’re too damned lazy and greedy to do it.

Congratulations, Sony. May your blackened souls rot in digital hell.