Meanwhile over at The Secondlife Herald (yes this was the Alphaville herald) Cienna Samiam has gone for the headline grabbing angle: Linden Lab Supports Invasion of Your Privacy?. The Herald's angle is that detecting breaks all kinds of Linden rules but Hamlet’s ‘McStory’ constitutes support from Linden – hence they are encouraging players to break their own rules. I submit for your comments the idea that the reason many developers have a hard time finding anything of value not only from researchers, but often from their own players, is that they are, in effect, seeing a different world, all the time.

A question that is probably as old as clay tablets is whether mediated-sex (be it via phone, email, IM, SMS or in a VW) really counts as cheating on ones partner. While some of us muse about the ethics of this, others have gone ahead and based business models on it. I submit for your comments the idea that the reason many developers have a hard time finding anything of value not only from researchers, but often from their own players, is that they are, in effect, seeing a different world, all the time.

I put a longer post up on my SL blog but Accelerating Change 2004 was such a good show that it deserved a post here as well. There were an amazing number of interesting discussions that related to digital worlds, including a panel I moderated with IGE's Steve Salyer, GOM's Jamie Hale, Meridian 59's Brian "Psychochild" Green, and Puzzle Pirates' Daniel James. Very fun but I'll leave it to Ren to write about it since he took copious notes. I also gave a keynote on digital worlds that focused on the inevitable flow of production and community into them. The best way to put the assertion (and this is all it is at this point; and again, please keep in mind that there are a number of familiar exceptions) is that the practice of game software development generates a way of seeing and defining problems (as essentially precise, logical, and algorithmic), and creating solutions (through linear, text-defined code) that makes other ways of accounting for what happens in VWs seem at worst nonsensical and at best irrelevant or quixotic.

Suppose I went to a conference on Artificial Intelligence and introduced my talk with the following words: "I'm not interested in AI, I know very little about it, and what I do know is beyond my comprehension. I'm only interested in computer games." What kind of a reaction could I expect?

It's beginning... I recently exchanged email with friends about some of these themes; a number of stories emerged how we at various times encountered online talented young players who ran guilds/clans with great ability. A friend described his 10 year old son as having organized a First Person Shooter (FPS) game clan. He attributes this experience has helping his son lead and organizes RL sports teams.

For those out there looking for seasonal stocking fillers for the budding game designer, but who does not know anyone with feet big enough to accommodate Salen and Zimmerman’s magnificent Rules of Play – try The Official Rock Paper Scissors Strategy Guide.

GameGirl's summary (November 10) described these assertions about workers who have played games: The best way to put the assertion (and this is all it is at this point; and again, please keep in mind that there are a number of familiar exceptions) is that the practice of game software development generates a way of seeing and defining problems (as essentially precise, logical, and algorithmic), and creating solutions (through linear, text-defined code) that makes other ways of accounting for what happens in VWs seem at worst nonsensical and at best irrelevant or quixotic. They looked friendly enough--at least, no one had fruit ready to throw at us.

As I posted on prompt criticality, Cory Doctorow has written "Anda's Game", a short story on Salon about MMOs, IP rights, play, and the power of the people. It is a science fiction story, although it seemed to match what Constance Steinkuehler talked about at State of Play 2, where armed mobs in Lineage 2 bring vigilante justice down on the farmers. It's also a good, quick read and IMHO gets a lot right. It's CC licensed, a first for Salon, although you have to click through Salon's annoying "read this advert to read our content" but if that 10 seconds keeps Salon alive, so be it. Games, for most journalistic outlets in the US, don't seem to justify or require anything more than that.

This is a bad move for gamers because it breaks the social contract inherent in competition. It may be a good short-term move for SOE in that it will rationalize and decriminalize the problem of virtual property distribution, but there's strong potential for the cure to be worse than the disease. A gross-level analogy by way of example: Thor and Biff meet on the PvP field of battle. Both are skilled players and both have the same amount of knowledge. Thor, however, in real life is a 50-year old dentist who makes $85,000 a year. Biff is an undergraduate at Generic State U. with $12,000 and counting in student loans. Thor thus has the +5 Sword of Noggin-nocking, while Biff has the +1 Sword of Thrift.

Before we see the system in action it is difficult to know what the consequences are going to be. In the sort term this could be good news for SOE customers (well those that want to trade), if SOE takes responsibility for transaction tracking and customer service. That is, we know that one up-shot of MMOs is a rise of old crimes revolving around new objects. While SOE's move will not help in crimes of virtual passion like we saw in China recently, they might help with the various forms of scamming that we see. Though how exactly they are going to guarantee trades I'm not sure about - maybe there will be an in game contract and the system will act as trusted third party holding both items and funds before things are released to each player, this would eliminate some scamming.