On Trust (part I) Na Trust (dio I) February 4th, 2006 (Visited 12242 times) Tags: Veljača 4th, 2006 (Frekventna 12242 puta) Tags:

Trust is a big topic. Trust je velika tema. There’sa number of definitions out there related to different domains; everything from the famous Ronald Reagan “trust, but verify” dictum applied to international arms treaties, to “trusted computing” which is not about whether something is trustworthy, but whether it behaves predictably from a software/content provider’s point of view (and not necessarily the user’s!). Ima broj definicija vani se odnose na različite domene; sve od poznatih Ronald Reagan "povjerenja, ali provjeriti" diktirati primijeniti na međunarodnim ugovorima naručje, "pouzdanih computing", koja nije o tome da li je nešto pouzdanija, ali da li se ponaša predictably od softver / content providera gledišta (i ne nužno korisnika!).

In general, most people tend, of course, to assume that “trust” means what the dictionary says: someone or something on which you can depend. Općenito, većina ljudi imaju tendenciju, naravno, za pretpostaviti da je "trust", što znači da se rječnik kaže: netko ili nešto na što možete osloniti.

But let’s take a look at what the first six definitions in the dictionary actually say: Ali Pogledajmo to što prvih šest definicija u rječniku zapravo reći:

1. Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing. Tvrtka oslanjanja na integritet, sposobnost, ili karakter osobu ili stvar.
2. Custody; care. Kustodija; skrb.
3. Something committed into the care of another; charge. Nešto je počinio u brigu o drugom; naplatiti.
   1. The condition and resulting obligation of having confidence placed in one: violated a public trust. Uvjet je rezultiralo i obvezu da povjerenje se u jednom: narušena javnog povjerenja.

   2. One in which confidence is placed. Jedan u kojem se nalazi povjerenje.
4. Reliance on something in the future; hope. Oslanjanje na nešto u budućnosti; nade.
5. Reliance on the intention and ability of a purchaser to pay in the future; credit. Oslanjanje na namjeru i sposobnost a kupac platiti u budućnosti; kredit.

Common threads emerge in these definitions: a looking-forward into the future, a sense that something of value is being held by someone else, and that somehow integrity and character are related to these two factors. Zajednički niti javljaju se u ove definicije: a looking-naprijed u budućnosti, osjećaj da nešto od vrijednosti se održao je netko, i da nekako integritet i karakter su se odnose na ta dva čimbenika. In short, that integrity can be measured as whether future interactions with someone will damage something you value. U kratko, da integritet može biti mjeren kao da budućnost interakcije s nekim će oštećenja nešto vas vrijednost.

This cuts to the heart of what was being discussed in the post and resulant thread on reputation systems , which sometimes go by another name in social software circles: “trust metrics.” Perhaps the best-known advocate of truly robust trust metrics is another Raph , whose work I first became aware of years ago when researching reputation systems. To smanjuje na srce ono što je se raspravlja u post i resulant nit na ugled sustavi, koji ponekad ići po drugo ime u društveni softver krugovima: "povjerenja metrika." Možda je najpoznatiji zastupnik, zaista robusno povjerenja metrika je drugi Raph , Čiji je rad sam prvi put postao svjestan godina kada je istraživanje ugled sustava.

Using Neil Gaiman’s metric of “who is ranked higher on Google,” I’m Raph #2, and he’s Raph #3. Korištenje Neil Gaiman's metarski "koji je rangiran na Google veći," Ja sam Raph # 2, i on je Raph # 3. There’sa Raph #1 as well, of course. Ima Raph # 1 i, naravno. This may seem like a total tangent, but it isn’t, because Google’s PageRank system is (roughly) based on reputation votes in the form of links to a site. Ovaj činiti se poput svibanj ukupno tangenta, ali nije, jer je Google PageRank sustav je (grubo) na temelju ugleda glasova u obliku linkova na site. The more inbound links, the higher-ranked you will be. Što više ulaznog veze, to su veći-rangirani bit će vam. Effectively, Neil Gaiman is Neil #1 and is considered to be the prime authority on Neilness , beating out Neil Young. Učinkovito, Neil Gaiman je Neil # 1 i smatra se premijera vlasti na Neilness, premlaćivanja iz Neil Young. Here Google is leveraging the social reputation of a vast network in order to build a trust metric. Ovdje Google je utjecati na socijalni ugled ogromne mreže kako bi se izgraditi povjerenje metric. The thing of value is your time, and the expectation of future interaction is whether or not the page you get when you hit “I’m Feeling Lucky” is actually what you want. Stvar je u vrijednost svoje vrijeme, a očekivanja od buduće interakcije je da li ili ne stranice koju ste dobili kada pritisnete "Osjećam se sretnim" je zapravo ono što želite.

A while back I attended a conference where the theme was centered on trust. A dok sam natrag prisustvovali konferenciji gdje je tema bila centered na povjerenju. The proceedings of that conference are sealed, but an official report was produced. Zbornicima konferencija koje su zapečaćene, ali jednom službenom izvješću je proizveo. I ended up going off on a massive mental tangent during that conference, exploring my own mental constructs regarding the words “trust” and “authority,” and thinking about it in terms of what it might mean for virtual spaces. I zavrsilo ide off na massive mentalnog tangenta vrijeme da se konferencije, istraživati svoj mentalni konstrukti u vezi s riječi "trust" i "autoritet", i razmišljam o tome u smislu što bi moglo značiti za virtualne prostore. Bear with me, because this gets a little bit abstract, and even a bit idealistic, as we go. Držite se sa mnom, jer ovo dobiva malo apstraktno, pa čak i malo idealistički, kao idemo.

Some basics that I take for granted Neke osnove da sam uzeti zdravo za gotovo

Let’s take the following as a truism: we’re more likely to behave nicely to people that we know we’re going to see again. There’sa body of literature surrounding this, and it’s not anywhere near simple — a number of factors play into it from many different angles. Let's poduzeti sljedeće kao istina: mi se više vjerojatno da se ponašaju lijepo da ljudi koje smo znali da si idući u vidjeti opet. Nalazi tijelo literature koji okružuje taj, i to ne bilo gdje u blizini jednostavan -- broj faktora igrati u njega iz raznih kutova. We’re also more likely to behave nicely towards people who look like us, exhibit common social signals as regards social class, and who are exuding some sort of authority. Mi smo i više je vjerojatno da lijepo ponašati prema ljudima koji izgledaju nas, pokazuju uobičajene socijalne signali u pogledu društvene klase, i koji su izlučujući neki vrsta od vlasti. But broadly speaking, the literature indicates that an expectation of future interaction has very different results than if you don’t expect to see the person again. No, široko speaking, književnosti pokazuje da je očekivanje budućih interakcija je vrlo različite rezultate osim ako ne očekujem da vidim osoba ponovno. The classic depiction of this is Axelrod’s iterative tit-for-tat example. Klasični prikaz ovo je Axelrod's iterativni sjenica-za-TAT primjer.

It’s quite straightforward to connect this to discussions of Dunbar’s Number , aka “the monkeysphere.” So let’s take that as another truism: most people only have repeated significant interactions with a limited number of other people. To je vrlo neposredan za povezivanje na ove rasprave o Dunbar's broj, inače poznat pod imenom "monkeysphere." Tako neka je uzme da kao i druga istina: većinu ljudi imati samo ponovio značajne interakcije s ograničenim brojem drugih ljudi.

We can then turn around and think about the notion of “community standards.” These days this tends to mean a sort of terms of service document imposed from on high, but that’s actually exactly the opposite to what I mean: instead, think of it as “the standards the community imposes on itself.” These can be summed up by another word: culture . Možemo onda okrenuti oko i mislite o pojam "standarde zajednice." Ovih dana ovo sklon znači svojevrsno uvjete pružanja usluge iz dokumenta nametnuti na visoke, ali to je zapravo upravo suprotno onome što mislim: umjesto toga, mislim to kao "standarde zajednice nameće na sebi." To može biti summed up by drugu riječ: kultura.

The words culture , cultivate , and of course cult all come from the same Latin root, and this is no accident. We think of cults as brainwashing, but that is also what cultures do. They cultivate the group (get it to grow and grow strong) by inculcating (from the Latin root meaning “to force” and “to trample”) certain practices and worldviews. Riječi: kultura, obrađivati, i naravno kult sve dolazi iz istog korijena latinski, i to je ne nesreća. Smatramo od kultova kao brainwashing, ali da je kultura ono što učiniti. Oni obrađivati grupe (preuzmite ga da raste i raste strong) by inculcating (od latinski korijen što znači "na snazi" i "da zgaziti") određene prakse i svjetonazorske. Deviation from these practices is punished, often by removing the support of the group from the deviant individual. Odstupanje od ove prakse je kažnjen, često uklanjanjem podršku grupe iz pojedinih devijantna.

What we have here is the core of the term “peer pressure,” and also the core of the notion of “community policing.” In a group of appropriate size, as long as there is a culture established, you will see fellow members of the society enforcing the implicit rules of that society. People who deviate will be maligned, ostracized, and eventually (should there be a form of authority with this power) ejected. Što imamo ovdje je ključni je pojam "peer pressure", kao i srž pojam "Policija u zajednici." U grupi od odgovarajuće veličine, sve dok postoji i kulture osnovane, vidjet ćete kolega članova društva u provedbi implicitno pravila da društvo. Ljudi koji odstupiti će biti maligned, ostracized, i na kraju (tamo bi trebao biti jedan oblik vlasti s ovom vlasti) ejected.

This is only possible because of the promise of future interaction. This is perhaps best illustrated by recent events here on this blog. To je moguće samo zbog obećanja budućih interakcija. To je možda najbolje ilustrira nedavnim događanjima ovdje na ovom blogu. A culture has been established (and in fact, I’ve worked over years to establish it, via the manner of my participation on many different forums). A kultura je osnovan (a zapravo sam radio tijekom godina da se stvori, putem način moje sudjelovanje na mnogim forumima). Certain types of attacks and commentary isn’t welcome within that culture for a variety of reasons. Određene vrste napada i komentar nije dobrodošao u roku koji za kulturu različitih razloga. When people showed up contravening that unspoken rule, other blog regulars started openly putting down the offenders. Kad je narod pokazao se contravening da unspoken pravilu, drugi blog regulars počeo otvoreno omalovažavanje i prestupnika. Notably, the authority (meaning me) didn’t. Primjetno, autoritet (tj. mene) nije. Some offenders promised to reform purely so they could maintain their access to the group resource: namely, the blog. Neki prijestupnika obećao da reforme u cjelini, kako bi zadržali njihove pristup grupi resource: naime, na blog. Others persisted in their behavior. Drugi persisted u svoje ponašanje. Eventually, the outcry was enough that the authority (again me) stepped in and enforced the unspoken rules and made them explicit. Na kraju, prigovor je dovoljno da vlasti (opet mi) i zgazi u provodi se unspoken pravila i učini ih eksplicitno. In effect, communitarian policing led to the creation of a “law.” The folks who joined but were disruptive were either normed into the group or were ejected via ostracization. Na snazi, kolektivistička policije dovelo do stvaranja "prava." Ljudi koji se pridružio ali su bili ili koji remeti normed u grupi ili su ejected preko ostracization.

The “law” is interesting, because at that point, we move out of the realm of communitarian enforcement and into the realm of “authority-based” trust. "Zakon" je zanimljiv, jer je u tom trenutku, move out of the Realm of kolektivistička i provedbu u carstvo "vlast se temelji na" povjerenje. At that point, there need not be any expectation of repeated interaction. U tom trenutku, ne postoji potreba biti bilo koje očekivanje ponovio interakcije. You have a level of trust that the guy in front of you in the checkout line is not going to turn around and stab you in the eye with his Snickers bar because of mediated trust — you are relying on the authority above the both of you to keep that from happening. Imate razini povjerenja da je čovjek ispred vas u line provjera je da se ne ide okolo i zabiti ti u oči sa svojim Snickers bar zbog posredovan povjerenja - vi ste oslanjajući se na autoritet iznad oba od vas da čuvati da iz događa.

Obligatory game-related point to make: This is in fact why in my community relations policies manual at SOE I recommend not having a “general game discussion” forum — by creating a community whose natural shared interest is so large, you rapidly grow beyond Dunbar’s Number, and thus rapidly create an environment where you must appeal to authority in order to get a civil environment. Obavezni igra se odnose na točku kako bi: To je u stvari zašto se u mojoj zajednici odnosa politike man to SOE preporučujem ne vlasništvo "opće rasprave igre" forum - stvaranje zajednice čiji prirodni dijele interes je toliko velika, brzo raste preko Dunbar 'S broj, i tako brzo stvoriti okruženje u kojem morate Apeliram na vlasti, kako bi se dobili civilnog okoliša. In other words, an overly large forum or game will have greater policing problems, because smaller groups are more effective at policing themselves via peer pressure. Drugim riječima, pretpostavlja veliki forum ili igra će imati veći problemi policije, jer je manje grupe su učinkovitiji i policije se putem peer pressure. This is why the SWG forums were partitioned into so many smaller groups. To je razlog zašto je SWG forumi su particionirali u toliko manje grupe.

I also believe this is why the level-based segmenting of player populations into cohorts and “cozy worlds” is such a powerful dynamic, and why levelless systems have to find a compensating mechanic. I ja vjerujem da je ovo zašto je razini-based segmentiranje od igrača populacije u cohorts i "ugodan svijeta" je takav snažan dinamičan, i zašto levelless sustavi moraju pronaći kompenzira mehaničar. Dunbar’s number is about our support system , not just about our knowledge sphere. Dunbar's broj je oko našeg sustava za podršku, ne samo naše znanje o sferi. Being outnumbered by the big bad world is uncomfortable. A big anonymous world is not as emotionally satisfying as a tight-knit community of reasonable size. Biti outnumbered je veliki bad svijet je neudoban. Veliko anonimni svijet nije kao emocijama zadovoljavanju kao široka-plesti zajednici i razumne veličine.

And all of that just covers the very first sentence in the notes I set out to transcribe. I sve to pokriva samo prvu rečenicu u notes I set out to pretvoriti. We have seven pages of notes to go! Mi imamo sedam pages of notes to go! At this rate, I’ll finish in 2008. U ovom stopa, ja ću završiti u 2008.

Still to come in part 2 (and beyond, if need be): I dalje dolazi u 2 dijela (i izvan nje, ako je potrebno):

• “The relay problem” with authority appeals "The problem relay" s authority žalbe
• “Trust is not transitive, but mistrust always is.” "Trust nije prelazni, ali nepovjerenje je uvijek."
• Can we architect communitarian models that resist homogeny? Može li mi arhitekt kolektivistička modeli koji odoljeti homogeny?
• “The more distant the authority, the higher the burden of proof is.” "Što više udaljen od vlasti, to su veći teret dokazivanja je."
• Is there such a thing as bottom-up authority? Da li postoji takva stvar kao odozdo prema gore "vlast?
• What’s the difference between trust and faith? Koja je razlika između povjerenja i vjere?
• Yes, of course we will talk about LambdaMOO! Da, naravno, mi ćemo govoriti o LambdaMOO!

[?] [?]

Type in a relevant tag, and click the button, and help organize this blog's information. Upišite se u relevantnim krpa, i kliknite na gumb, i pomoći organizirati ovaj blog's informacije.
[More Help] [Više Pomoć]

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Možete udarac bilo koji reakcija to ovaj ulaz preko RSS 2,0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site. Odgovori su trenutno zatvoreni, ali možete kugla za pokazivanje from tvoj posjedovati položaj.

31 Responses to “On Trust (part I)” 31 Reakcija to "na povjerenju (dio I)"

1. Ramblings of a little Blue Gnoll wrote on February 6th, 2006 at 7:00 am : Ramblings od malo Plava Gnoll pisao na Veljača 6th, 2006 at 7:00 am:

   Blogroll Joel on Software Raph Koster Sunny Walker Thoughts for Now Sex, Lies and Advertising Blogroll Joel na Softver Raph Koster Sunny Walker Misao Za sada Seks, Laži i oglašavanje

2. ProjectPerko: Content 3, Somewhat. wrote on February 6th, 2006 at 2:50 pm : ProjectPerko: Sadržaj 3, Donekle. Pisao na Veljača 6th, 2006 at 2:50 pm:

   [...] I tried to make my third content chapter, but it’sa toughie. [...] Pokušao sam da moj treći sadržaj poglavlje, ali it'sa toughie. What’s worse, it covers much of the same ground that Raph is covering here and here, but from a different angle (and much more tersely).You see, there’sa couple of connected “bits” here. Što je još gore, to pokriva veći dio iste zemlju da Raph je pokrov ovdje i ovdje, ali s različitim kutom (i mnogo više tersely). Vi vidite, ima nekoliko povezanih "bita" ovdje. “Trust” is one thing. "Trust" je jedna stvar. “Interaction/Friendship” are another thing. "Uzajamno / prijateljstva" su još jednu stvar. “Exploration” is another thing. "Istraživanje" je još jedna stvar. But all three are intrinsically tied to social networking.One of my favorite game designs (of mine) is a game called “Spider Space”. Ali sva tri su istinski veže za socijalnu networking.One o mojim omiljenim divljač dizajne (mina) je igra pod nazivom "Spider Space". Utilizing a unique resource allocation system, it encouraged a kind of social networking which would hopefully lead to high-trust environments. Pomoću jedinstvenog sustava alokacija resursa, ohrabrio neka vrsta društvenog umrežavanja koja će nadamo se dovesti do high-trust sredinama. But more than that, it would lead to high-interaction (friendship) environments and high-exploration environments.Because all three of these things are related, and all three of them are related to content creation.A social network is one of the kinds of player generated content that all massively multiplayer games have. Ali više od toga, to će dovesti do visoke interakcije (prijateljstvo) okruženja i high-istraživanje environments.Because sva tri od tih stvari su povezane, i sve tri od njih su vezani uz sadržaj creation.A društvena mreža jedno je od vrste od igrača generiraju sadržaj koji sve masivno multiplayer igre imaju. I don’t believe it is possible to keep players from forming into social groups, whether you call them guilds or clans or shmurgies.The key here is to remember that content is a living thing. Ne verujem da je moguće da zadrži igrače iz društvenih skupina u formiranju, da li ste ih nazvati cehovi ili klanova ili shmurgies.The ključ ovdje je da zapamtite da sadržaj je živa stvar. Rather, it’s intended to be a living thing. Naprotiv, to je namjerava biti živa stvar. Content created by a developer is not really a living thing. Sadržaj created by razvijen od strane nije stvarno živa stvar. Players will waltz through it, barely affecting it and barely being affected by it. Igrači će valcer kroz nju, jedva da je zahvatio i jedva se pogođeni. If they go back it is more of the same.Content created by a group of players, such as a social network, is a living, adaptive organism. Ako se vratite ga je više od same.Content created by skupina igrača, kao što su socijalna mreža je živa, prilagodljivo organizam. Interacting with it keeps players entertained and coming back.Similarly, all the things you might think of as player generated content are really just symptoms of the real content. Interakcije s njega čuva igrača zabavljajte se i narednih back.Similarly, sve stvari koje bi mogle misliti kao igrač generirani sadržaj su zapravo samo simptomi pravi sadržaj. Someone creates a new quest, or a neat-looking car. Netko stvara novi zadatak, ili uredno izgleda automobila. You say, “yaaay, another piece of content!” But it’s not. You say, "yaaay, drugi dio sadržaja!" Ali to nije. Not meaningfully. Ne meaningfully. That car, that quest, it’sa tiny blip. Da je car, da je zadatak, it'sa tiny jeka. And chances are, it’sa meaningless blip, since it is a waste of time compared to the very best quests and cars.The important part of making a car or a quest is when people say, “that’s really cool! A šanse su, it'sa smisla jeka, jer to je otpad od vremena u odnosu na najbolje zadataka i cars.The važan dio izrade automobila ili zadatak je kada ljudi kažu, "to je stvarno cool! Have you thought about putting in hamsters?” or “that sucks, I bet I can make a better one.”That’s the content. Jeste li mislili o stavljanju u hrčcima? "Ili" da je sranje, ja sam kladiti se može napraviti bolje. "To je sadržaj. The content is the part of the game which draws the player into making the little pieces of piffle. Sadržaj je dio igre koji neriješeno igrač u tome da malo komada glupost. They aren’t the best pieces of piffle. Oni nisu najbolje komade glupost. They’re probably wastes of time. Oni vjerojatno otpada vremena. But the act of creating them and being challenged to do it better - that’s the content.That content is enabled by social networks more than any other thing. Ali djelo stvaranja i da ih dovesti da se bolje - da je content.That sadržaj je omogućena po socijalnim mrežama više od bilo koje druge stvari. You can encourage players to do it better with game mechanics, of course. Možete potaknuti igrače da se bolje igra s mehanika, naravno. Most games do this - “levelling up was cool, wasn’t it? Većina igara učiniti - "levelling up je bio cool, nije ga? Now try to level up again!” But that’sa shallow method. Sada pokušajte razini up again! "Ali To je plitki način. It (A) doesn’t appeal to most people and (B) is tightly constrained and limited.Using a social network for this kind of encouragement gives a stronger feedback system and a much wider variety of useful producables. (A) ne apeliram na većinu ljudi i (B) je čvrsto i prisili limited.Using socijalna mreža za ovu vrstu ohrabrenje daje jači sustav povratne informacije i puno šire razne korisne producables. In short, it provides better, stronger content creation loop than the insignificant “level up and choose equipment” content “creation” loops in most games.But a social network needs to have a few features in order to encourage content creation. Ukratko, ona nudi bolji, jači sadržaj stvaranje petlje od beznačajan "razini i oprema odabrati" sadržaj "stvaranje" petlje u većini games.But socijalna mreža treba imati nekoliko mogućnosti kako bi se potaknuti stvaranje sadržaja. These features are always the same, regardless as to what kind of content you allow your players to create.A) Trust. Ove značajke su uvijek isti, bez obzira kako se tipu sadržaja koji Vam dozvoljavaju da se igrači na create.A) Trust. Yes, trust is a critical part of content creation. Da, povjerenje je kritična dio sadržaja stvaranje. There are two ways to enhance trust in this kind of environment. Postoje dva načina kako bi se poboljšala povjerenja u ovakav okoliš. The first is to make the ruleset support zero-trust interactions. Prvi je da bi ruleset podršku nula-trust interakcije. Like contracts or trades. Kao ugovora ili obrta. The second is to keep track of good and bad interaction records - but be careful, that can be farmed and griefed without much difficulty.B) Interaction. Drugi je da pratimo dobrih i loših interakcija evidencije - ali budite oprezni, da se može obrađuje i griefed bez mnogo difficulty.B) interakcije. Trust isn’t the only important detail. Vjerujte nije jedini važan detalj. Interaction is, if anything, more important. Uzajamno je, ako ništa, važnija. People will learn who to trust through repeated interactions, even if they don’t have any real “trust support” system. Ljudi će naučiti koji se ponavljaju povjerenja kroz interakcije, čak i ako oni nemaju pravi "support trust" sustava. But people who don’t interact won’t interact. Ali, ljudi koji ne međusobno neće komunicirati. So your system has to reward interaction. Tako se vaš sustav ima na plaću interakcije. Not just creating content, but finding content others have created. Ne samo kreiranje sadržaja, ali pronalaženje sadržaja drugi su stvorili. Not just talking, but talking meaningfully about content. A ne samo pričaju, ali pričaju meaningfully o sadržaju. This needs to be balanced, however, because it can easily lead to swamping popular creators. To mora biti uravnotežen, međutim, jer se lako mogu dovesti do swamping popularne stvaralaca. Hence…C) Membership Control. Dakle… C) Članstvo kontrolu. Your social network is only a help to you at very specific sizes. Vaša društvena mreža je samo pomoći da ste na vrlo specifične veličine. If it is too small, it is useless. Ukoliko je prenizak, što je beskorisno. Too large, it is full of noise and gets in your way more than helping you create content.Therefore, you need to have a way of (A) getting people to have significant social networks and (B) keeping them from being assaulted by every fanboy that notices them.The so-called “LFG” syndrome falls under here. Prevelika, ona je puna buke i dobiva svoj put u više od pomoći da stvorite content.Therefore, morate imati put (a) uzimajući narod to imati značajne socijalne mreže i (B) ih održite od zlostavljane od strane svake fanboy da obavijesti them.The takozvani "LFG" sindrom padne ispod ovdje. People without an adequate social network stand by the sidelines, unable to proceed until they get some useful interactions. Osobe bez adekvatnog društvena mreža stoje pred sidelines, ne može nastaviti dok ne dobijete neke korisne interakcije. So they shout, “Looking for group”, and cross their fingers.You need to have something that draws people into social groups. Tako su vikati: "Tražite grupe", i križ njihove fingers.You moraju imati nešto što privlači ljude u socijalnim skupinama. Something which makes even useless newbs into something useful. Nešto što čini čak i beskorisnih newbs u nešto korisno. Simultaneously, you have to have something which gently keeps people from swamping one content creator - both for the sake of that creator and to allow for greater numbers of content creators.Spider Space had all of these. Istovremeno, morate imati nešto što nježno čuva narod od jednog swamping sadržaj kreator - i zbog toga kreator i omogućiti veći broj sadržaja creators.Spider Space je sve od tih. These ideas really aren’t new to me, but they are the subject of chapter 3 of content creation. Ove ideje stvarno nisu novi u meni, ali oni su predmetom Glava 3 stvaranje sadržaja. However, this chapter doesn’t taste all polished and textbooky, does it?Hmmm. Međutim, ovo poglavlje ne okusiti sve polished i textbooky, does it? Hmmm. [...] [...]

3. Raph Koster On Trust at MMOG Nation wrote on February 6th, 2006 at 2:51 pm : Raph Koster na povjerenju u MMOG Nation pisao na Veljača 6th, 2006 at 2:51 pm:

   [...] Somewhat related to the Reputation in MMOGs article and commentary from last week, Raph Koster has a two part piece looking at webs of trust and how trust is relayed through communities. [...] Donekle se odnose na ugledu u MMOGs članak i komentar iz prošlog tjedna, Raph Koster ima dva dijela komad looking at mreže povjerenja i povjerenja, kako je odvija preko zajednice. [...] [...]

4. Friends wrote on February 6th, 2006 at 7:29 pm : Prijatelji pisao na Veljača 6th, 2006 at 7:29 pm:

   [...] http://www.raphkoster.com/?p=310In part II gave the basic grounding for my take on the issues of trust, reputation, and policing. [...] Http://www.raphkoster.com/?p=310In dio II je dao osnovne uzemljenje za moj odvesti na pitanjima povjerenja, ugled i policije. Now I want to dig into some of the deeper issues there. A ja želim da kopaju u neke od dublje probleme. [...] [...]

5. ATITD.net Forum - The "Filtered Society" theory wrote on February 6th, 2006 at 11:08 pm : ATITD.net Forum - "Filtrirano društvo" teoriji pisao na Veljača 6th, 2006 at 1108: pm:

   [...] Raph Koster (former UO and SWG developer) has an interesting post on trust on his website: http://www.raphkoster.com/?p=308 It might be somewhat relevant to your theory, especially this part: Quote: [...] [...] Raph Koster (bivše UO i SWG developer) ima zanimljiv post o povjerenju na njegovoj web stranica: http://www.raphkoster.com/?p=308 To bi moglo biti nešto na koje se odnosi na svoj teorija, posebno ovaj dio : Quote: [...]

6. MMORPG - Spieler mit der Macht andere Spieler zu bannen wrote on February 7th, 2006 at 10:30 am : MMORPG - Spieler mit der Macht Andere Spieler zu bannen pisao na Veljača 7th, 2006 at 10:30:

   [...] Tepper writes, "I fully expected this unique form of in-game democracy that we use, to breed an ever-growing, increasingly intrusive government, just as real-world democracy often does. In fact, one big advantage I saw to Tellings was the chance to undo the implosion that I thought was inevitable. The culture that evolved in ATITD was just the opposite, and I still don’t have a good explanation. The force of law has always been applied with the lightest touch. And it’s not just in law that Egypt has been cautious…In three years we’ve elected about 20 Demi-Pharaohs, players with the power to permanently exile up to 7 of their countrymen. And in three years, that power has never been used…" I don’t think I’m nearly as surprised as Tepper seems to be. [...] Tepper piše, "Ja potpuno očekivano ovaj jedinstveni oblik demokracije u igri koje smo koristili, da sve pasmine-raste, sve više intrusive vlade, baš kao u stvarnom svijetu demokracije često se. U stvari, jedna velika prednost Vidio sam da Tellings je bio prilika da poništi vec implicitno povlaci za sobom da sam mislio je neizbježan. Kulture koja je evoluirala u ATITD upravo suprotno, a ja još uvijek nemaju dobro objašnjenje. Snagu zakon je uvijek bio primijenjen s najlakšim touch. I to ne samo u pravu da je Egipat je oprezna… U tri godine smo izabran za oko 20 demi-Pharaohs, igrača s vlasti na trajno izgnanstvo do 7 njihove countrymen. A u tri godine, da je vlast Nikad nije bilo koristi… "Ne mislim da sam gotovo kao iznenađen kako je Tepper čini se da je. Partly because I think his expectation here invokes a common form of cyberlibertarian narrative about contemporary American politics that is at the least an over-simplified hypothesis about the development of post-1945 liberal democracies, that refers implicitly to some kind of universal tendency of individuals to surrender freedom to authority. Djelomično jer mislim da njegova očekivanja ovdje invokes čest oblik cyberlibertarian priča o suvremenoj američkoj politici da je to najmanje jednom nad-pojednostavljeno hipoteza o razvoju post-1945 liberalne demokracije, koja se odnosi na implicitno nekakav univerzalni sklonost pojedinaca da slobodu da predaju vlast. Partly because, as some players have also observed, the size of the playerbase of A Tale in the Desert promotes a more trusting and close-knit community (an issue Raph Koster has been writing about lately). Djelomično jer, kao što se neki igrači također su zamijećene, veličine od playerbase A Tale u pustinji promovira više trusting i zatvorite-plesti zajednice (jedan problem Raph Koster je pisanje o poslednje). Partly also, as some ATITD players have noted, there’sa selection filter here, that ATITD is a boutique product far less likely to attract the kinds of griefers and antisocial players whoWarhammer Online von Mythic Entertainment. Djelomično je također, kao i neke ATITD igrači imaju navedeno, ima izbor filter ovdje, da ATITD je butik proizvod daleko manje vjerojatno da biste privukli su vrste griefers i antisocijalno igrača whoWarhammer Online von Mythic Entertainment. players in other synthetic worlds might desperately wishMMORPG, dass im Jahre 2005 noch während der Entwicklung eingestellt wurde. igrača u druge sintetske svjetovi možda očajnički wishMMORPG, dass im Jahre 2005 noch während der Entwicklung eingestellt wurde. to control or expel, and far more likely to attract people with a lively interest in participating in the political affairs of their synthetic world. na upravljaču ili protjeraju, a daleko više je vjerojatnost da će privući ljude s aktivnim interes za sudjelovanjem u politička pitanja svojih sintetička svijetu. Link: Pharaoh’s Expectations 150)?150:this.scrollHeight)”> __________________ The tools suck! Link: Pharaoh's Očekivanja 150)? 150: this.scrollHeight) "> __________________ Alati sisati! — Raph Koster [...] -- Raph Koster [...]

7. Raph’s Website » A side note: trust, convention, and guild trademarks wrote on February 7th, 2006 at 11:01 am : Raph's Website »A strana note: povjerenje, konvencije, i ceh zaštitni znakovi pisao na Veljača 7th, 2006 at 11:01:

   [...] Anonymous: Raph Koster On Trust at MMOG Nation [...] [...] Anonymous: Raph Koster na povjerenju u MMOG Nation [...]

8. Terra Nova: February 2006 wrote on February 7th, 2006 at 11:31 am : Terra Nova: veljača 2006 napisao na Veljača 7th, 2006 at 11:31:

   [...] Partly because, as some players have also observed, the size of the playerbase of A Tale in the Desert promotes a more trusting and close-knit community (an issue Raph Koster has been writing about lately). [...] Djelomično jer, kao što se neki igrači također su zamijećene, veličine od playerbase A Tale u pustinji promovira više trusting i zatvorite-plesti zajednice (jedan problem Raph Koster je pisanje o poslednje). Partly also, as some ATITD players have noted, there’sa selection filter here, that ATITD is a boutique product far less likely to attract the kinds of griefers and antisocial players who players in other synthetic worlds might desperately wish to control or expel, and far more likely to attract people with a lively interest in participating in the political affairs of their synthetic world. Djelomično je također, kao i neke ATITD igrači imaju navedeno, ima izbor filter ovdje, da ATITD je butik proizvod daleko manje vjerojatno da biste privukli su vrste griefers i antisocijalno igrača koji igrači u drugim svjetovima možda sintetička očajnički želite isključiti ili kontrolu, i daleko vjerojatnije da će privući ljude s aktivnim interes za sudjelovanjem u politička pitanja svojih sintetička svijetu. [...] [...]

9. Raph’s Website » Monthly Report: February 2006 wrote on March 2nd, 2006 at 9:59 pm : Raph's Website »Mjesečno izvješće: veljače 2006 pisao o Ožujak 2nd, 2006 at 9:59 pm:

   [...] On Trust (part I) [...] [...] Na Trust (dio I) [...]

10. Raph’s Website » On Trust, Part III wrote on March 13th, 2006 at 12:36 am : Raph's Website »na povjerenju, Part III pisao o Ožujak 13th, 2006 at 12:36 am:

    [...] Read Part I Read Part II Read A side note [...] [...] Čitajte Čitajte Part I Part II pročitati strane, imajte na umu [...]

11. Raph’s Website » On Trust, Part II wrote on March 13th, 2006 at 12:42 am : Raph's Website »na povjerenju, Part II pisao o Ožujak 13th, 2006 at 12:42 am:

    [...] We might also ask ourselves whether the communitarian model is in fact a polite fiction we sell ourselves; Tim Burke touched on this in his comments on Part I. Is there such as thing as true bottom-up authority? [...] Mi možemo pitati sebe da li je kolektivistička model je u stvari lijep fikcija smo prodati sebe; Tim Burke dotaknu na ovo u svom komentare na Dio I. Da li postoji kao stvar kao istinski odozdo prema gore "vlast? After all, communitarian ideals are driven by consensus, but in practice consensus, particularly in small groups, is driven by strongmen, by natural leaders, by persuasive techniques. Uostalom, kolektivistička Ideali su odvezeni konsenzusom, ali u praksi konsenzus, osobito u malim grupama, upravljana je mochnika, prirodni lideri, tako uvjerljiv tehnike. This is precisely why the development of things like secret balloting was such a core driver of human socil development. Upravo je stoga razvoj stvari kao tajna glasanja bio je takav core driver ljudskih socil razvoj. [...] [...]

12. Player Accountability Redux at MMOG Nation wrote on May 23rd, 2006 at 12:45 pm : Player Accountability Redux na MMOG Nation pisao na 23 Svibanj, 2006 at 12:45:

    [...] There was a long discussion about player trust at Raph’s site a few months ago, so I won’t open up that can of worms again, and he is even skirting the edge of this topic today over on his site.* [...] [...] Postojala je duga rasprava o povjerenju igrač na Raph's site nekoliko mjeseci prije, tako da neću otvoriti da mogu od crva opet, i on je čak i lajsne rubu ovu temu danas više na njegovu site .* [...]

13. Integral Visioning - Michel Bauwens: Foundation For Peer To Peer Alternatives Newsletter Issue 120 wrote on June 11th, 2006 at 9:19 am : Integral Visioning - Michel Bauwens: Zaklada za ravnopravnih Izbor Newsletter Issue 120 je napisao na 11 Lipanj, 2006 at 919: am:

    [...] - Three part analysis of Trust, with many comments, and applied to gaming worlds in particular, at http://www.raphkoster.com/2006/02/04/on-trust-part-i/ [...] [...] - Tri dio analiza Trust, sa mnogo komentara, i primijeniti za gaming svijeta posebno, na http://www.raphkoster.com/2006/02/04/on-trust-part-i/ [ ...]

14. Darniaq: Verbosity Unleashed » 2006 » March wrote on June 12th, 2006 at 2:17 am : Darniaq: Verbosity Unleashed »2006» Ožujak pisao o Lipanj 12th, 2006 at 2:17 am:

    [...] Raph has been building a series on Trust. [...] Raph je izgradnja niz na povjerenju. I find the meandering through all things real and virtual, personal and sociological, to be a great springboard for one of the potential themes throughout: the relationship between MMOG developers/publishers and the players. I naći vijugave kroz sve stvarne i virtualne, osobne i socioloških, da se veliki Springboard za jedan od potencijalnih po temama: odnos između MMOG razvijen od strane / izdavačima i igračima. [...] [...]

15. Raph’s Website » Community relations, management, design, and governance wrote on September 29th, 2006 at 10:04 am : Raph's Website »odnosi Zajednice, upravljanje, izrada, upravljanje i pisao na 29 Rujan, 2006 at 10:04:

    [...] That’s really the problem; of the three, it’s having a relationship with a community that doesn’t scale very well, as I have written about before in my series “On Trust” (1, 2, side note, 3, 3.5. [...] [...] To je stvarno problem, od tri, to je vlasništvo odnos sa zajednicom koja ne scale vrlo dobro, kao što sam ja pisano o prije u moje serije "Na Trust" (1, 2 , Strane, imajte na umu, 3, 3,5. [...]

1. abe said on February 4th, 2006 at 1:32 pm : Abe je rekao na Veljača 4th, 2006 at 1:32 pm:

   You sir would make a good Brit, where a natural appreciation for irony is a pre-requisite! Vi gospodine bi dobro Britanski, gdje je prirodni zahvalnost za ironija je pre-Traženo!

2. Michael Chui said on February 4th, 2006 at 2:14 pm : Michael Chui, rekao je na Veljača 4th, 2006 at 2:14 pm:

   Your first paragraph can be summarized as “Familiarity Breeds Trust”. Vaš prvi stavak se mogu sažeti kao "Familiarity pasmina Trust". That doesn’t include authority issues, and probably a host of other things, but those three words put together a lot of it. To ne uključuje vlast pitanja, vjerojatno i niz drugih stvari, ali one tri riječi staviti zajedno a lot of it. =)

3. Michael Chui said on February 4th, 2006 at 2:15 pm : Michael Chui, rekao je na Veljača 4th, 2006 at 2:15 pm:

   Your first paragraph (where it begins “Let’s take the following as a truism”) can be summarized as “Familiarity Breeds Trust”. Vaš prvi stavak (gdje počinje "Let's poduzeti sljedeće kao istina") može se sažeti kao "Familiarity pasmina Trust". That doesn’t include authority issues, and probably a host of other things, but those three words put together a lot of it. To ne uključuje vlast pitanja, vjerojatno i niz drugih stvari, ali one tri riječi staviti zajedno a lot of it. =)

4. Aufero said on February 4th, 2006 at 2:17 pm : Maknuti, rekao je na Veljača 4th, 2006 at 2:17 pm:

   Interesting, to say the least. Zanimljivo, da kažem najmanje.

   As my son pointed out while I was reading this and discussing it with him, the online limits to the size of a community may be considerably lower than Dunbar’s number due to each individual’s need to maintain relationships outside the online medium. Kao što je moj sin je ukazao dok sam se čitajući ove i razgovarati s njim, online ograničenja na veličinu zajednice svibanj biti znatno niži od Dunbar's broj zbog svakog pojedinca je potrebno za održavanje odnosa izvan online medium. Since the online community only represents a fraction of the individual’s “monkeysphere,” and it’s relatively easy (relative to communities based on physical proximity, anyway) to change online communities, I wonder if online communities have more churn? Od online zajednica samo predstavlja djelić od pojedinca "monkeysphere," i to je relativno lako (u odnosu na zajednica temelji se na fizičke blizine, svejedno) da biste promijenili online zajednice, ako sam čudo online zajednice imaju više stepka? How does that affect trust? Kako da utječu na povjerenje?

5. Raph said on February 4th, 2006 at 2:37 pm : Raph, rekao je na Veljača 4th, 2006 at 2:37 pm:

   I am not sure that familiarity breeds trust. Nisam siguran da prisnost pasmina povjerenja. Familiarity is perhaps an indicator of repeated past interactions, which then results in a decent predictor of future interactions. Upoznatost je možda pokazatelj ponovio prošlosti interakcije, koje zatim rezultate u pristojne predviđač budućih interakcija. But we also know the stories of “burning bridges” — people who are familiar and yet act in ways that break our trust in them because they have chosen to sever past ties. Ali, mi također znamo priče o "spaljivanja mostova" - ljudi koji su poznati još i djelovati na način da break naše povjerenje u njih jer su odlučili podijeliti prošlost veže.

   Aufero, good questions. Maknuti, dobra pitanja. I am pretty sure online communities do have more churn, but it would be very interesting to see real data on that. Ja sam ljepušan siguran online zajednica učiniti imati više stepka, ali to bi bilo vrlo zanimljivo vidjeti stvarne podatke o tome.

6. xaldin said on February 4th, 2006 at 2:42 pm : xaldin, rekao je na Veljača 4th, 2006 at 2:42 pm:

   Ok I think you stopped a little short however as to why large anonymous worlds aren’t as well recieved as tight knit communities. Ok mislim da ste prestali malo kratka ali kao da zbog velike anonimne svjetovi nisu te primili kao široka plesti zajednice. It gets into the realm of expectations of reciprical support. On dobiva u carstvo očekivanja reciprical podršku.

   I help you, you help me. Sam vam pomoći, te pomoć mene. That I can rely on to a point. Da se mogu osloniti na to mjesto. If you fail to hold up your end the trust is broken and I never help you again, its easy to cut you off because there is only us. Ako ne držite do vašeg kraja povjerenje je u kvaru i nisam vam pomoći opet, svojim jednostavno cut off jer vas je samo nas.

   However as I help more people (X number) it gets much harder for me to keep track of transactions. No kao što sam pomoći više ljudi (X broj) se dobiva mnogo teže za mene praćenje transakcija. You also end up in conflicts, I helped Y and Z but they have conflicting goals so now I have to choose. Također završiti u sukobe, sam pomogao Y i Z, ali su konfliktne ciljeve tako da sada moram odabrati. The interconnectedness gets harder and harder to maintain as the numbers grow larger, hense why folks maintain smaller communities. The interconnectedness dobiva teže i teže održavati kao brojevi rastu veće, hense zašto ljudi održavanje manjih zajednica. In the end its all about the ‘Me’ however and what the ‘Me’ expects from those around that owe ‘Me’ (owed as in actions done or actions that may be done in the future). Na kraju svojih sve o 'Me' ali i ono što je 'Me' očekuje od onih koji dugujete oko 'Me' (kao što mu dugovaše u radnji učinio ili akcije koje svibanj biti učinjeno u budućnosti).

   Thats a very nutshell view of the various social theories on the matter just from what I remember from my college days. Taj vrlo nutshell pogled na raznim socijalnim teorijama o tome što sam upravo iz sjećate iz moje fakultet dana. A full discourse on it really precludes a blog honestly. A full diskursa na to zaista onemogućava blog iskreno.

7. Michael Chui said on February 4th, 2006 at 3:44 pm : Michael Chui, rekao je na Veljača 4th, 2006 at 3:44 pm:

   Churn Stepka

   What would contribute to higher churn in an online community is ease of entrance and exit. Što će pridonijeti višoj stepka u jednom online zajednica je jednostavnost ulaz i izlaz. It’s harder to leave a community when you can’t go more than ten steps without bumping into one of them. To je teže napustiti zajednicu kad ne može ići više od deset koraka bez bumping u jednu od njih. But if all you have to do is log off… Ali ako je sve što morate učiniti je prijaviti off…

   Familiarity Upoznatost

   And I was a bit off-base… maybe it’s more accurate to say that familiarity breeds expectations, and some expectations are trustworthiness. I bio sam malo off-base… možda je preciznije reći da poznavanje pasmine očekivanja, a neki su očekivanja trustworthiness. Behavior patterns? Obrazaca ponašanja?

8. Anon said on February 5th, 2006 at 9:32 am : Anon, rekao je na Veljača 5th, 2006 at 9:32 am:

   “Familiarity breeds trust” doesn’t sum it up at all. "Familiarity pasmina povjerenja" ne sam ga na sve. For instance, if you move from Los Angeles to a town of 40 people in Montana, you *will* treat your neighbors nicely on your very first interaction with them, though you’ve never seen them before. Na primjer, ako premjesti iz Los Angeles da grad od 40 ljudi u Montana, * * će liječiti vašeg susjeda lijepo na vašem prvom interakcije s njima, iako ste ih nikad vidio prije. Because you know you’ll see them again. Jer znate da ćete ih vidjeti opet. It has nothing to do with familiarity. To nema veze sa familijarnost.

9. Michael Chui said on February 5th, 2006 at 11:53 am : Michael Chui, rekao je na Veljača 5th, 2006 at 11:53:

   Hm… yes, you’re right. HM… da, da ste u pravu. I think I made a subconscious connection and expressed it completely wrong. Mislim da sam napravio podsvijesti veze i izrazio je potpuno kriva. Expectation of familiarity, perhaps? Očekivanje familijarnost, možda? The term is important, I’m sure of it; it’s just HOW that’s befuddling me now. Pojam je važan, siguran sam da je ona, ona je samo kako se to u befuddling me sada.

10. Timothy Burke said on February 5th, 2006 at 1:00 pm : Timoteju Burke, rekao je na Veljača 5th, 2006 at 1:00 pm:

    You may have noticed that even when forum managers (in games or otherwise) try to keep a “general forum” from forming that it tends to spontaneously erupt in some other space. Svibanj Vi ste primijetili da čak i kad forum menadžerima (u igrama ili na drugi način) pokušati zadržati "opći forum" iz formiranju da teži ka spontano izbacivati u neki drugi prostor. You may have also noticed that attempts to engineer a fit between a designed space and a tight community also tends to be frustrated over time by the creation of information flows and communication channels that interlink much larger and less trust-centric social networks on a global scale. Svibanj Vi ste također primijetili da pokuša inženjer jednom stane između osmišljen prostor i široka zajednice također teži da bude frustriran s vremenom po stvaranju informacije kanale i komunikaciske kanala koji interlink mnogo veće i manje povjerenja-u središtu socijalne mreže na globalnoj ljestvici .

    You’re missing something here, perhaps because you’re focusing too exclusively on trust. Vi ste ovdje nešto nedostaje, mozda jer ste previše usredotočuje isključivo na povjerenju. Let’s put it this way: there is something that pushes against tight-knit communities of reasonable size and the kinds of futureward forms of trust they engender. Let's stavi ga na ovaj način: postoji nešto što pushes protiv zbijeno-plesti zajednice razumne veličine i vrste futureward oblike povjerenja da produbiti.

    The old gemeinschaft-geschelleschaft distinction may hold promise in understanding what pushes against attempts to restrict communities to some allegedly natural or intrinsic “appropriate size”. Stara gemeinschaft-geschelleschaft razlika svibanj držati obećanja u razumijevanju što pushes protiv pokušaja da se ograničite na neke zajednice, navodno, prirodno ili pravi "odgovarajuće veličine". Small face-to-face communities all around the world have given way to large anonymous ones in the last two centuries. Mali licem-u-lice zajednice diljem svijeta dali do velike anonimne one u posljednja dva stoljeća. There are a lot of reasons for that, many of them having nothing to do with the will or volition of individual human beings or communities of human beings. Ima mnogo razloga za to, mnogi od njih imaju ništa za napraviti sa ili će volja pojedinih ljudi ili zajednice ljudskih bića. But some of the reasons do lie in what people want, what they desire. Ali neki od razloga učiniti laž u ono što želite da ljudi, ono što oni žele.

    In part, they lie with a certain form or conception of freedom; that the very things which produce “trust” as you define it also produce intimate tyrannies, restrictions, forms of domination. U dijelu leže s određenom obliku ili koncepcija slobode, da je vrlo stvari koje proizvodi "povjerenja" kao što je definiranje i izradu intimna tyrannies, ograničenja, oblici vladavine. Many people seek global anonymity in order to be free of constraint–and to choose their communities rather than have those communities chosen for them. Mnogi ljudi traže globalna anonimnosti kako bi se ograničenje od-free i da odaberu njihovih zajednica, nego su one zajednice izabrao za njih.

    And there is a “culture” that is vital and powerful at that larger anonymous level of sociality, even a form of “trust”. A tu je i "kulture", koja je bitno i snažno u to veće anonimni razini sociality, čak i jedan oblik "povjerenja". But the trust which can exist at that scale is a completely different thing. Ali je povjerenje koje mogu postojati u tom mjerilu je potpuno različite stvari. For one, it depends vitally on the free flow of information throughout the entirety of the social space, not on fear or anticipation of what particular individuals might think of you as an individual tomorrow. Za jedan, to ovisi vitally na slobodan protok informacija kroz cijelosti od socijalnog prostora, a ne na strah ili anticipacija onoga što određeni pojedinci mogu misliti na tebe kao pojedinca sutra. So every time a community manager tries to confine people who know they’re in a larger whole to what they judge to be some appropriate sub-community of interest, people seek to tear down the barriers to the flow of information across the global scale of community. Tako je svaki put zajednice manager pokušava zarobiti ljude koji znaju oni su u veće cjeline što sudiš da se neki odgovarajući pod-zajednica interesa, ljudi žele suza niz prepreka na protok informacija preko globalnih razmjera, zajednice.

11. Raph said on February 5th, 2006 at 2:18 pm : Raph, rekao je na Veljača 5th, 2006 at 2:18 pm:

    From a practical point of view, though, Tim, it doesn’t matter if the larger forum erupts elsewhere. S praktične točke gledišta, iako, Tim, to ne smeta, ako je veća forum erupts drugdje. In fact, more power to it if it does. U stvari, više snage da ga, ako ga se. As long as you as a service operator have smaller communities that you can still effectively communicate with, and that you can police at a reasonable cost, you’re still gaining the benefits of running forums. Sve dok ti kao uslugu operatera imaju manje zajednice da još uvijek možete učinkovito komuniciraju s, i da možete policije i razumnu cijenu, koju još uvijek dobivaju pogodnosti pokrenut forum.

    I agree that there are many social forces that pushes against staying at the smaller size. Slažem se da ima mnogo društvenih snaga koje pushes protiv borave na manju veličinu. That’sa separate issue from the issue of whether a given particular service provides forums of a given size. To je zasebna tema iz pitanje da li je dao određenu uslugu pruža forum za određenu veličinu.

12. Tess said on February 5th, 2006 at 9:29 pm : Tess, rekao je na Veljača 5th, 2006 at 9:29 pm:

    In a group of appropriate size, as long as there is a culture established, you will see fellow members of the society enforcing the implicit rules of that society. U grupi odgovarajuće veličine, sve dok postoji i kulture osnovane, vidjet ćete kolege članovi društva su se podrazumijeva provedbu pravila koja društva. People who deviate will be maligned, ostracized, and eventually (should there be a form of authority with this power) ejected. Ljudi koji će se odstupati maligned, ostracized, i na kraju (tamo bi trebao biti jedan oblik vlasti s ovom vlasti) ejected.

    This is exactly why RP-MUSHes work. To je točno zašto RP-MUSHes rad.

    Though, unless someone is exploiting code, cheating, or harassing other players, ejection is largely voluntary. Iako, osim ako netko je kod iskorištavanja, prikraćivanje, harassing ili drugih igrača, izbačaj je uglavnom dobrovoljno. When the very fabric of your existence in the game is pegged, to some degree, on your participation in the culture, the game will cease to be of interest rather quickly if you can’t adhere to its norms. Kad je vrlo tkanina svog postojanja u igri je klinčani, na neki stupanj, na Vašem sudjelovanju u kulturi, igra će prestati biti od interesa za vrlo brzo, ako se ne pridržavaju svojih normi. After all, you can’t roleplay solo. Uostalom, ne možete roleplay solo.

    As you might imagine, the Dunbar limit is extremely evident in RP MUSHes. Kao što ste mogli zamisliti, Dunbar ograničenje je vrlo vidljivo u RP MUSHes. Once the player base exceeds a certain size, it will by necessity fracture into various social strata and cliques. Nakon što igrač base premašuje određene veličine, tako da će nužnost fraktura u raznim socijalnim slojevima i cliques. I’d say that the stable state for an RP-MUSH is well below Dunbar’s 150 — or even below the UO 60. Ja bih rekao da su stabilne drzave za jedan RP-MUSH je dobro ispod Dunbar's 150 - ili čak ispod UO 60.

    However, RP MUSHes also need a mixing-bowl type area (or “main stage,” as I call it), to foster interplay (and create tension) between the factions, and provide opportunities for dramatic confrontations. Međutim, RP MUSHes i need a mixing-zdjela vrstu prostora (ili "glavni stage," kao što sam ga zovu), poticati Interplay (i stvarati napetost) između strana, i pružaju mogućnosti za dramatičnih sukoba. The Crossroads tavern kidnapping in A Game of Thrones is precisely the sort of thing a main stage is for. Raskrižja konoba u otmicu Igra prijestolja je upravo takav pristup draži glavni stage je za.

    I think this sort of interplay happens naturally in most MMOs, due to trade, resource competition, and other factors. Mislim da ovu vrstu Interplay se dogodi, naravno, u većini MMOs, zbog trgovine, resurs konkurencije, i drugim faktorima. During these interactions at the interfaces between factions, we are standard-bearers. Tijekom ovih interakcija na sučelja između strana, mi smo standard-nositelja. Our outside interactions affect the reputation of our entire faction. Naš izvan interakcije utjecati na ugled našeg cijelog frakcija. Thus, it’s possible to not just ostracize someone from your group, but to pressure other groups to ostracize someone, as well. Ovako, moguće je da ne samo ostracize netko iz vaše grupe, ali da se pritisak na druge grupe ostracize netko, kao dobro. (You will sometimes see on the WoW forms, for example, people pressuring guild-leaders to boot known ninja-looters.) (Ponekad ćete vidjeti na WoW oblike, na primjer, ljudi pressuring ceh-lideri u dizanju poznat ninja-looters.)

    So, guilds/factions/cliques can act as atomic players in terms of future-interaction, on a whole different scale from individual players. Tako, cehovi / frakcije / cliques može djelovati kao atomska igrača u pogledu budućnosti-interakcije, na cijeli različitih skala od pojedinih igrača. And this could expand to higher tiers, as well. A ovo mogao proširiti na veći tiers, kao dobro. (We are at war with Nation X, which holds Guild Y, which holds Player Z. It doesn’t matter if Z is the nicest guy on earth. We’ve never met Z, and he’s just an X to us.) When there are too many people to know, we organize our trust through abstraction. (Mi smo u ratu s X Nation, u kojoj su pohranjene Cehovska Y, u kojoj su pohranjene Player Z. To ne smeta ako je Z najljepših Gvido na zemlji. "Smo nikada susreo Z, i on je samo jedan X do nas. ) Kada postoji previše ljudi da znaju, organiziramo naše povjerenje kroz apstrakcije.

13. Timothy Burke said on February 6th, 2006 at 6:22 am : Timoteju Burke, rekao je na Veljača 6th, 2006 at 6:22 am:

    What I’m suggesting is that the larger forum will erupt within the space of the smaller communities that a manager is trying to gerrymander into existence–that if you fail to provide one on the grounds that you don’t want that larger forum, you’re going to get it anyway, and then have to invest serious effort constantly slapping it down. You cannot manage the desire for a global information channel out of any community; if you don’t want that channel to exist, you might as well have no forums at all.

14. Raph said on February 6th, 2006 at 8:29 am :

    It’s been my experience that it really isn’t that hard to create and manage this situation, Tim… Remember the goals from the service provider’s point of view:

    • have high-quality forum feedback
    • make it easy to find relevant feedback to the issues you are interested in
    • minimize the amount of policing and disruptive behavior required

    Providing lots of forums labelled with smaller group identities (say, by class and by server) gives you all of the above. Adding larger forums that are not intended to meet those above and serve merely as places to blow off steam is a minor addition; they can even be largely unpoliced.

    In addition, there are surprising labels you can come up with; a forum specific to game development can, if the culture is established early of it being very thoughtful and wordy, keep its size small and limited only to thoughtful participants.

    Again, it’s not that you don’t want that channel to exist — it’s that it is of limited utility for those trying to read it for governance purposes. (This leaves aside the issue of its utility in terms of datamining — a service like Intelliseek can glean much from such a channel).

15. Timothy Burke said on February 6th, 2006 at 2:14 pm :

    I guess I disagree with the latter claim you make–that the larger global channel is of limited utility for governance purposes. I think that’s about poor heuristics on the part of the readers plus a desire to make governance about the details and the mechanics and not the general will or public sphere of a virtual world. I know that developers or community managers feel like they have limited time, but as someone who watches those kinds of forums on the side, I don’t feel I have much trouble finding “high signal” messages.

    It’s too easy to just complain about the noise in a general forum, or dismiss it as filled with negativity, or some such. I’d tie this a bit to my running critique of the avoidance of sovereignity as a concept by developers, a desire to make governance a question of managing specific mechanics, playing factions off against one another while veiling interior processes of decision-making, and so on.

    If there’sa trust issue between player communities and developers, in fact, I’d say in part it’s because developers tend to want to decompose general, sweeping issues that involve the geist of their communities into game-mechanical questions that treat each class or race or faction as a community of transfer-seekers who can be met as an isolated constituency. This gives the general citizenry of a virtual world a sense of being evaded, of shouting into the void, of knowing about overall problems that developers refuse to speak to.

    It’s not unlike the problem technocratic bureaucrats have in responding to general social crises, or moments of public malaise. They want to meet those moments in manageable chunks, in terms of particular constituencies seeking service. But sometimes geist is geist. You won’t find and meet the tipping point moment in class or server forums; you’ll find it only in a general, noisy channel. When it comes time to speak to the citizens as a whole, that function gets ceded to public relations-speech, or there is an engagement that seems not to meet the general will head-on or in a way that corresponds to the social reality of the virtual world.

16. Raph said on February 6th, 2006 at 2:35 pm :

    I hear what you’re saying, Tim. And I think many aspects of your critique are dead on. But the fact remains that high signal messages are often not impactful messages (usually the opposite, actually — they tend to get lost). That smaller constituencies easily get lost in large forums. That changes often ARE made for individual constituencies, or to manage specific mechanics.

    I’ve been an advocate of direct interaction with “the citizens as a whole” for a long time; luncheons, the UO essays, House of Commons chats, and my methods of interaction on forums all point towards that. I will say, however, that the geist actually does manifest in the smaller forums — if it’s truly the geist, it will be apparent in the sum of the parts as well as in a general forum.

Meta

Recent Comments Recent Comments

• Dusan Writer on VW08: Business Guys Debate the Future, one take
• Jon on VW08: Business Guys Debate the Future, one take
• Eolirin on Red 5’s chasing the persistence dream
• Eolirin on VW08: Technical Visionaries Debate the Future
• BadMisterFrosty on Happy birthday, blog: 10 years
• Eolirin on Red 5’s chasing the persistence dream
• Amaranthar on VW08: Technical Visionaries Debate the Future

Categories Kategorije

• Art (9)
• Game talk (1278)
•