Raph's Website » Anarchy on-line

blog · games · writing · music · art · shop · about Raph · contact

Anarchy on-line

August 23rd, 2007 (Visited 3714 times) Tags:

No, not the game. The article on CNN, for which I was interviewed, and which is mostly about griefing, but somehow ends up at the avatar rights issue.

“In computer science there’s this term — an N² problem,” explains Koster. “This is where, as you add more things to a system, each new thing interacts with all the existing things so that problems scale exponentially rather than lineally. Human behavior is a kind of N² problem.”

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

10 Responses to “Anarchy on-line”

Jump to reader comments » | Leave a reply »

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

Koster: Human Behavior is a Problem | IGDA San Diego wrote on August 23rd, 2007 at 3:16 pm:

[...] this subject here. These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web [...]

Reader Comments

Tim Elling said on August 23rd, 2007 at 12:56 pm:
sigh…
A bit of a pet peeve of mine is people misusing the term “exponential”. Sure, in common usage it’s grown to be (incorrectly) equated with “quadratic” or “polynomial”. But you, you’re SMRT! You’re being precise, and well-spoken, and… oh well. Never mind me and my ill-fated crusade. Technically, there is exponentiation going on, but referring to a function as “exponential” implies that the argument is in the exponent, such as in “2^N”, not “N^2″.
That’s what I get for being a computer scientist / mathematician.
Raph said on August 23rd, 2007 at 1:32 pm:
Heh. Well, technically, it’s more like N^N*griefFactor. But I wasn’t going to try explaining that over the phone…
Morgan Ramsay said on August 23rd, 2007 at 3:05 pm:
“In computer science there’s this term …”
That’s what I try to explain to people when I talk about branding, only in terms so simple that I get confused. ;p
Michael said on August 23rd, 2007 at 5:09 pm:
“If you are going to be technical about it [griefing] should be defined as harassment that one couldn’t do in real life,”
I don’t understand this. I always called it griefing any time a player receives satisfaction from denying another player from enjoying the game experience.
The “griefer attack” mentioned in the first section of the article could actually happen during a newscast.
Morgan St. John said on August 23rd, 2007 at 6:49 pm:
I’m a friend of…Kristen’s. I have an ATARI.
My children suffer through Nintendo Mario Brothers.
I write books.
thanks for sharing your wife with us…
and also for making great games.
Morgan
Adele said on August 24th, 2007 at 5:12 am:
I think it is very true that a huge part of the problem is that people forget that the avatar, handle, or forum post they are flaming is a real person. They lose that human connection making it ok to trash the other person.
The Avatar Bill of rights is a very interesting idea. Although I don’t think it would work very well across the entire internet I could see something like that coming about in a game. Harrass enough players and the players of that server can decide you should not be playing in the world.
Talaen said on August 24th, 2007 at 9:04 am:
I think you sort of hit on it in the article, what’s really needed is a combination of a set of expectations (Avatar Bill of Rights) and a common set of tools that online communities can use. Right now, the tools are going to be different whichever community you go to – there’s not an accepted standard, and nothing that can be easily transported from one community to another.
chabuhi said on August 24th, 2007 at 9:44 am:
@ Adele
I wonder if it’s the opposite of what you describe. I think maybe the griefers know full well that the person they are “attacking” is a real person. I think what the griefers forget is that they are, themselves, real people with basic obligations to conducting themselves appropriately in (a) society.
Click my name for their themesong
Ola Fosheim Grøstad said on August 27th, 2007 at 8:56 pm:
The O(N²) problems assume that N goes towards infinity, and it’s about computational complexity in terms of space and time, not anything else. Bad analogy.
(All problems involving real human beings would be O(1)).

Page optimized by WP Minify WordPress Plugin

Recent Trackbacks

Twitter @raphkoster

At the Genius Bar getting daughter's iPhone fixed. Good thing it was the back and not the front! http://t.co/RKo9YcJs 20 hrs ago
ARRRGGGHH I feel very inadequate RT: @s_bura: http://t.co/jo76KjUp A flying castle in about 400 moves #TripleTown 1 day ago
Huh. http://t.co/RJwQRmPK just told me my song hit their homepage. I haven't gone there in 2 yrs. FWIW, album here: http://t.co/FYXvw6CV 2 days ago
More updates...