On Trust (part I) 论信托（第一部分） February 4th, 2006 (Visited 12507 times) Tags: 06年2月4日 （访问12507次）标签：

Trust is a big topic.信托是一个很大的课题。 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!).还有一些定义有相关的不同领域;一切从著名的罗纳德里根“信任，但要核查”的格言适用于国际军控条约，为“可信计算” ，这是不是否是值得信赖的东西，而是它是否表现可预见的软件/内容提供商的角度（而不一定是用户的！ ） 。

In general, most people tend, of course, to assume that “trust” means what the dictionary says: someone or something on which you can depend.一般来说，大多数人往往当然，假设“信任”是指什么字典说：某人或某事上，您可以依靠。

But let’s take a look at what the first six definitions in the dictionary actually say:但是让我们看看上半年的定义字典中实际说：

1. Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing.公司依靠完整，有能力，或一个人的性格或事情。
2. Custody; care.保管;照顾。
3. Something committed into the care of another; charge.一些致力于照顾到另一;收费。
   1. The condition and resulting obligation of having confidence placed in one: violated a public trust.条件以及由此产生的义务有信心在一： 侵犯了公众的信任。

   2. One in which confidence is placed.在其中的信心位置。
4. Reliance on something in the future; hope.依赖于未来的;希望。
5. Reliance on the intention and ability of a purchaser to pay in the future; credit.依赖的意图和能力的买主支付的未来;信贷。

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.共同的线索出现在这些定义：一个期待，期待未来，有一种感觉，即有价值的东西正在举行由别人，并以某种完整性和性质都与这两个因素。 In short, that integrity can be measured as whether future interactions with someone will damage something you value.总之，这一完整可以衡量未来是否与某人的相互作用会损害你的价值。

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.这个削减的核心是什么正在讨论中的哨所和resulant线程的声誉系统，这些系统有时会由另一名在社会各界的软件： “ 信托指标。 ”也许最有名的主张真正强大的信任指标是另一个拉夫乌韦 ，他们的工作我第一次开始意识到，几年前，当系统研究的声誉。

Using Neil Gaiman’s metric of “who is ranked higher on Google,” I’m Raph #2, and he’s Raph #3.用尼尔盖曼的度量“谁是排名较高的谷歌”我拉夫乌韦＃ 2 ，他拉夫乌韦＃ 3 。 There’sa Raph #1 as well, of course.还有拉夫乌韦＃ 1 ，当然。 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.这可能似乎总切线，但它是不会，因为谷歌的PageRank系统 （约）的基础上的声誉票的形式链接到一个站点。 The more inbound links, the higher-ranked you will be.更访港联系，较高的排名会。 Effectively, Neil Gaiman is Neil #1 and is considered to be the prime authority on Neilness , beating out Neil Young.实际上，尼尔盖曼是尼尔＃ 1 ，被认为是总理的权威Neilness ，击败了尼尔扬。 Here Google is leveraging the social reputation of a vast network in order to build a trust metric.这里是利用谷歌的社会声誉的一个庞大的网络，以便建立一个信任的数据。 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.东西的价值是你的时间，并期望未来的互动是不管你网页当你点击“手气不错”实际上就是你想要的。

A while back I attended a conference where the theme was centered on trust.一段时间后我参加一个会议的主题是围绕信任。 The proceedings of that conference are sealed, but an official report was produced.诉讼这次会议是密封的，但一份正式报告产生。 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.最后我去了一个巨大的心理切线在那次会议上，探索自己的心理结构就改为“信任”和“权力” ，并考虑这件事而言，它可能意味着虚拟空间。 Bear with me, because this gets a little bit abstract, and even a bit idealistic, as we go.熊与我，因为这得到有点抽象，甚至有些理想化，因为我们去。

Some basics that I take for granted 一些基本知识，我认为理所当然

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.让我们采取以下作为一个真理：我们很可能会表现很好的人，我们知道我们会再次看到。这里的文献围绕这一点，这不是简单的附近地方-一个一些因素发挥到它来自许多不同的角度。 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.我们也很可能表现很好的人谁像我们展现了共同的社会信号，是关于社会阶层，以及谁是散发某种形式的权威。 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.但大致来说，文献表明，期望未来的相互作用具有非常不同的结果比如果你不希望看到的人了。 The classic depiction of this is Axelrod’s iterative tit-for-tat example.经典的描述这是艾克斯罗德迭代针锋相对的例子。

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.这是很简单连接，这讨论邓巴的号码 ，代号“的monkeysphere 。 ”让我们考虑，作为另一种不言自明： 大多数人只重复了显着的相互作用与数量有限的其他人。

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 .我们可以再回过头来思考的概念“社区标准。 ”这些天这往往意味着某种服务条款强加的文件对高，但实际上正好相反，以我的意思：不是，认为它是“标准的社会强加给自己。 ”这可以概括为另一个词： 文化。

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.词语的文化，培养 ，当然邪教都来自同拉丁美洲根，这是不是偶然的。 我们认为，邪教的洗脑，但也是文化的事情。他们培养组（得到成长和发展强）由灌输（从拉丁美洲根意思是“武力”和“践踏” ）的某些做法和世界观。 Deviation from these practices is punished, often by removing the support of the group from the deviant individual.偏离这些做法是惩罚，往往是通过消除的支持下，集团从离经叛道个人。

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.我们这里的核心是将“同侪压力” ，并为核心概念的“社区治安。 ”在一组适当的大小，只要有一个文化的建立，您会看到其他成员社会隐含的执行规则的社会。谁背离人民将中伤，排斥，并最终（应该有某种形式的权力，这个权力）被罚出场。

This is only possible because of the promise of future interaction. This is perhaps best illustrated by recent events here on this blog. 这是唯一可能的，因为未来的承诺互动。这也许是最好的说明了最近发生的事件在这里对这个博客。 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).文化已经成立（事实上，我已经工作多年 ，建立它，通过我的方式参与对许多不同的论坛） 。 Certain types of attacks and commentary isn’t welcome within that culture for a variety of reasons.某些类型的攻击和评论是不欢迎的，文化的原因有很多。 When people showed up contravening that unspoken rule, other blog regulars started openly putting down the offenders.当人们发现了违反这一潜规则，其他博客的常客开始公开放下罪犯。 Notably, the authority (meaning me) didn’t.值得注意的是，权力（指我）没有。 Some offenders promised to reform purely so they could maintain their access to the group resource: namely, the blog.一些罪犯许诺改革纯粹是使他们能保持他们进入集团资源：即博客。 Others persisted in their behavior.其他坚持自己的行为。 Eventually, the outcry was enough that the authority (again me) stepped in and enforced the unspoken rules and made them explicit.最后，强烈足够的权力（对我）加强和强制执行的潜规则，使他们明确。 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.实际上，社区警务导致建立一个“法律。 ”谁的人加入，但不是破坏性范到组或被罚通过排斥。

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.该“法律”有趣的是，因为在这一点上，我们走出领域的执法和共产主义变成“权力基础”的信任。 At that point, there need not be any expectation of repeated interaction.在这一点上，有不需要任何期望，反复的相互作用。 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.您有一定程度的信任的家伙在你面前的结帐线是不会回头刺伤你的眼睛与他Snickers酒吧，因为介导的信任-你是依靠权力以上两种你保持这种情况发生。

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.强制性的游戏相关一点：这实际上就是为什么我在社区关系的政策在国有企业手册我建议没有一个“一般游戏讨论”论坛-创造一个社会的自然的共同利益是如此之大，你迅速成长超越邓巴的数量，从而迅速地创造一种环境，你必须呼吁当局为了获得一个民间环境。 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.换言之，一个过于庞大的论坛或游戏将有更大的治安问题，因为较小的群体是更有效地通过自己的警察同侪压力。 This is why the SWG forums were partitioned into so many smaller groups.这就是为什么子工作组论坛，分割成许多较小的群体。

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.我也相信，这就是为什么水平为基础的市场细分的球员人口纳入同伙和“舒适的世界”就是这样一个强大动力，因此levelless和系统必须找到一种补偿技师。 Dunbar’s number is about our support system , not just about our knowledge sphere.邓巴的号码是对我们的支持系统，不仅仅是我们的知识领域。 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.正在超过了世界大坏是不舒服。 一大匿名世界是不是感情上满足作为一个紧密结合的社群的合理规模。

And all of that just covers the very first sentence in the notes I set out to transcribe.而所有这一切只是涵盖了第一句非常的说明中我阐述了抄录。 We have seven pages of notes to go!我们有7页的说明吧！ At this rate, I’ll finish in 2008.按照这种速度，我会在2008年完成。

Still to come in part 2 (and beyond, if need be):不过来的第2部分 （及以后，如果需要的话） ：

• “The relay problem” with authority appeals “中继问题”的权威上诉
• “Trust is not transitive, but mistrust always is.” “信托不迁，但始终是不信任。 ”
• Can we architect communitarian models that resist homogeny?我们能否建筑师社区模式，抵制homogeny ？
• “The more distant the authority, the higher the burden of proof is.” “在更遥远的权力，更高的举证责任。 ”
• Is there such a thing as bottom-up authority? 是否有这样的事，作为自下而上的权力？
• What’s the difference between trust and faith?有什么区别信任和信心？
• Yes, of course we will talk about LambdaMOO!当然，我们将谈论LambdaMOO ！

[?] [ ？ ]

Type in a relevant tag, and click the button, and help organize this blog's information.输入相关的标记，然后按一下按钮，并协助组织本博客的信息。
[More Help] [详细说明]

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.您可以按照任何反应，这个项目通过2.0饲料。答复目前正在关闭，但你可以引用从您自己的网站。

31 Responses to “On Trust (part I)” 31日响应“关于信托（第一部分） ”

1. Ramblings of a little Blue Gnoll wrote on February 6th, 2006 at 7:00 am : 随笔一个小蓝Gnoll上写道06年2月6日在上午7:00 ：

   Blogroll Joel on Software Raph Koster Sunny Walker Thoughts for Now Sex, Lies and Advertising 博客乔尔软件拉夫乌韦科斯特阳光沃克现在思考性，谎言和广告

2. ProjectPerko: Content 3, Somewhat. wrote on February 6th, 2006 at 2:50 pm : ProjectPerko ：内容3 ，有些。写道06年二月六日在下午2时50 ：

   [...] I tried to make my third content chapter, but it’sa toughie. [...]我想使我的第三章的内容，但是这是恶棍。 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. 更糟糕的是，它涵盖许多相同的理由，是涵盖拉夫乌韦在这里和在这里，而是从一个不同的角度（和更简洁地） 。你看，有几个连接的“钻头”在这里。 “Trust” is one thing. “信”是一回事。 “Interaction/Friendship” are another thing. “互动/友谊”是另一回事。 “Exploration” is another thing. “探索”是另一回事。 But all three are intrinsically tied to social networking.One of my favorite game designs (of mine) is a game called “Spider Space”. 但是，所有这三个具有内在联系的社会networking.One我最喜欢的游戏设计（地雷）是一种游戏称为“蜘蛛空间” 。 Utilizing a unique resource allocation system, it encouraged a kind of social networking which would hopefully lead to high-trust environments. 利用独特的资源分配制度，它鼓励一种社交希望这将导致高信任的环境。 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. 但更重要的是，这将导致高互动（友谊）的环境和高勘探environments.Because所有这三个东西有关，所有三个，其中涉及到的内容creation.A社会网络是一个种球员产生的内容，所有大型多人游戏。 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. 我不相信有可能使球员的形成到社会团体，不管你叫他们行或部族或shmurgies.The关键是要记住，内容是一份活的东西。 Rather, it’s intended to be a living thing. 相反，它的打算成为一个活生生的东西。 Content created by a developer is not really a living thing. 创建内容由开发商这不是一个真正的生活的事情。 Players will waltz through it, barely affecting it and barely being affected by it. 玩家将通过它华尔兹，几乎没有影响，并没有受到影响。 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. 如果他们回去是更多的same.Content所造成的一组球员，如社会网络，是一种活的生物体适应性。 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. 与它相互作用不断播放娱乐和今后back.Similarly ，所有的事情你可能认为是播放的内容都是真的只是症状的实际内容。 Someone creates a new quest, or a neat-looking car. 有人创建一个新的追求，或整齐的前瞻性车。 You say, “yaaay, another piece of content!” But it’s not. 你说， “ yaaay ，另一幅内容！ ”但它不是。 Not meaningfully. 没有意义。 That car, that quest, it’sa tiny blip. 汽车，即追求，这是一个微小的波动。 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! 和机会，这是一个毫无意义的现象，因为它是浪费时间相比，最好的追求和cars.The重要组成部分，使汽车或追求是人们说， “这太酷了！ Have you thought about putting in hamsters?” or “that sucks, I bet I can make a better one.”That’s the content. 你有否想过把仓鼠？ “或”那样，我敢打赌，我可以创造一个更美好的一个。 “这是内容。 The content is the part of the game which draws the player into making the little pieces of piffle. 内容是比赛的一部分其中提请播放使小件废话。 They aren’t the best pieces of piffle. 他们不是最好的作品的废话。 They’re probably wastes of time. 他们很可能废料的时间。 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. 但是，作为创造和正在受到挑战，以更好地做到这一点-这是c ontent.That内容是启用的社会网络比任何其他事情。 You can encourage players to do it better with game mechanics, of course. 你可以鼓励球员做更好的游戏，当然。 Most games do this - “levelling up was cool, wasn’t it? 大多数游戏做到这一点-“被铲平了凉爽，是不是？ Now try to level up again!” But that’sa shallow method. 现在尝试再次水平！ “但是，这是肤浅的方法。 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. 它（ a ）不提出上诉，以大多数人和（ B ）是严格限制和limited.Using一个社会网络这种鼓励让一个更强有力的反馈系统和更广泛的各种有用的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. 简言之，它提供了更好，更强大内容创建环比微不足道“的水平和设备的选择”内容“创造”的循环在大多数games.But一个社会网络需要有几个特点，以鼓励创作内容。 These features are always the same, regardless as to what kind of content you allow your players to create.A) Trust. 这些功能总是相同的，不论以什么样的内容您让您的球员create.A ）信托。 Yes, trust is a critical part of content creation. 是的，信任的一个关键部分是内容制作。 There are two ways to enhance trust in this kind of environment. 有两种方式，增进信任在这样的环境。 The first is to make the ruleset support zero-trust interactions. 首先是使规则集支持零信任的相互作用。 Like contracts or trades. 一样的合同或交易。 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. 二是要掌握好的和坏的互动记录-但要小心，可以养殖和g riefed没有多少d ifficulty.B）的相互作用。 Trust isn’t the only important detail. 信托并不是唯一重要的细节。 Interaction is, if anything, more important. 相互作用是，如果有的话，更重要的。 People will learn who to trust through repeated interactions, even if they don’t have any real “trust support” system. 人们将知道谁相信通过反复的相互作用，即使他们没有任何真正的“信任支持系统” 。 But people who don’t interact won’t interact. 但是，人们谁不互动，将不会互动。 So your system has to reward interaction. 因此，您的系统已经以奖励的互动。 Not just creating content, but finding content others have created. 不仅创造内容，但调查内容其他人创建。 Not just talking, but talking meaningfully about content. 不只是谈论，但谈论有意义的有关内容。 This needs to be balanced, however, because it can easily lead to swamping popular creators. 这需要平衡，但是，因为它可以容易导致大的流行创造者。 Hence…C) Membership Control. 因此...丙）成员控制。 Your social network is only a help to you at very specific sizes. 你的社交网络只是一个帮助你在非常具体的尺寸。 If it is too small, it is useless. 如果是太小了，这是毫无用处的。 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. 过大，这是充分的噪音和获得在您的方式多协助您建立content.Therefore ，您需要有一种方式是： （ a ）使人们产生重大的社会网络和（ B ）让他们被攻击的每一个fanboy告示them.The所谓的“填埋气体”综合症属于这里。 People without an adequate social network stand by the sidelines, unable to proceed until they get some useful interactions. 人如果没有充分的社会网络站在场外，无法进行，直到他们获得了一些有益的相互作用。 So they shout, “Looking for group”, and cross their fingers.You need to have something that draws people into social groups. 因此，他们高呼： “展望集团” ，以及两岸的fingers.You需要的东西，吸引人们的社会群体。 Something which makes even useless newbs into something useful. 这使得一些无用甚至newbs成某种有益的。 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. 同时，你必须有东西轻轻地让人们从一个要有内容创建者-既为了这一创造，并允许更多的内容空间已c reators.Spider所有这些。 These ideas really aren’t new to me, but they are the subject of chapter 3 of content creation. 这些想法实际上并不是新的给我，但他们的主题第3章的内容创建。 However, this chapter doesn’t taste all polished and textbooky, does it?Hmmm. 然而，本章没有味道所有抛光和textbooky ，不是吗？ Hmmm 。 [...] [...]

3. Raph Koster On Trust at MMOG Nation wrote on February 6th, 2006 at 2:51 pm : 拉夫乌韦科斯特在多人在线游戏信托在全国发表文章2006年2月6日在下午2点51分 ：

   [...] 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. [...]不太相关的声誉MMOGs文章和评论，上周拉夫乌韦科斯特有两个组成部分看片网的信任和信任是如何通过社区传达。 [...] [...]

4. Friends wrote on February 6th, 2006 at 7:29 pm : 朋友写的2006年2月6日在下午7点29分 ：

   [...] 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了第二部分的基本接地为我考虑的问题上信任，声誉，和维持治安。 Now I want to dig into some of the deeper issues there. 现在我想深入的一些问题有更深。 [...] [...]

5. ATITD.net Forum - The "Filtered Society" theory wrote on February 6th, 2006 at 11:08 pm : ATITD.net论坛-在“筛选社会”的理论写在0 6年2月6日在下午1 1点0 8：

   [...] 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: [...] [...]拉夫乌韦科斯特（原UO和开发子工作组）有一个有趣的信任后在自己的网站上： http://www.raphkoster.com/?p=308可能是有点相关的理论，特别是这部分：行情： [...]

6. MMORPG - Spieler mit der Macht andere Spieler zu bannen wrote on February 7th, 2006 at 10:30 am : 游戏-S pieler麻省理工学院之权力a ndereS pieler祖班嫩写道0 6年2月七日上午1 0时3 0分：

   [...] 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. [...]泰珀写道， “我完全预计这一独特的形式在游戏中的民主，我们使用，滋生越来越多，越来越多地侵入政府，就像现实世界的民主往往没有。事实上，一大优势我看到，以Tellings的机会，撤消爆，我认为是不可避免的。文化的演变ATITD是正好相反，我仍然没有一个很好的解释。法律效力，一直适用最轻触摸。而且这不只是在法律上说，埃及一直持谨慎态度...三年来我们已经选出大约20半法老王，球员有权永久流放至7的同胞。在三年内，这一权力至今从未动用过... “我不认为我几乎感到惊讶，泰珀似乎是。 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. 部分是因为我认为，他期望在这里调用一个常见的形式cyberlibertarian叙事对当代美国政治，这是最过分简化的假设发展的1945年后自由民主，这是指隐含某种普遍倾向个人移交权力的自由。 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). 部分原因是，因为一些球员还指出，规模的playerbase的故事在沙漠促进更多的信任和联系紧密的社区（一个问题拉夫乌韦科斯特已撰写有关最近） 。 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. 部分也因为一些ATITD球员们指出，有选择过滤器在这里，这是一个ATITD精品产品远远低于可能吸引各种无赖和反社会的球员whoWarhammer在线冯神话娱乐。 players in other synthetic worlds might desperately wishMMORPG, dass im Jahre 2005 noch während der Entwicklung eingestellt wurde. 球员在其他合成世界上可能会拼命wishMMORPG ，类免疫Jahre 2005年尚未während之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. 控制或驱逐出境，并更容易吸引人们的热烈兴趣参与政治事务，其合成的世界。 Link: Pharaoh’s Expectations 150)?150:this.scrollHeight)”> __________________ The tools suck! 链接：法老王的期望150 ） ？ 150 ： this.scrollHeight ） “ ” __________________的工具吸！ — Raph Koster [...] -拉夫乌韦科斯特[ ...]

7. Raph’s Website » A side note: trust, convention, and guild trademarks wrote on February 7th, 2006 at 11:01 am : 拉夫乌韦的网站»阿方说明：信任，公约，协会的商标上写道2006年二月七日在上午十一时01分 ：

   [...] Anonymous: Raph Koster On Trust at MMOG Nation [...] [...]无名氏：拉夫乌韦科斯特论信托在多人在线游戏民族[...]

8. Terra Nova: February 2006 wrote on February 7th, 2006 at 11:31 am : 特拉诺瓦： 2006年2月发表文章2006年2月7号在上午11时31分 ：

   [...] 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). [...]部分，因为一些球员还指出，规模的playerbase的故事在沙漠促进更多的信任和联系紧密的社区（一个问题拉夫乌韦科斯特已撰写有关最近） 。 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. 部分也因为一些ATITD球员所指出的那样，有选择过滤器在这里，这是一个ATITD精品产品远远低于可能吸引各种无赖和反社会的球员谁的球员其他合成世界上可能拼命想控制或驱逐出境，并更容易吸引人们的热烈兴趣参与政治事务，其合成的世界。 [...] [...]

9. Raph’s Website » Monthly Report: February 2006 wrote on March 2nd, 2006 at 9:59 pm : 拉夫乌韦的网站»月度报告： 2006年2月发表文章2006年3月2号在下午9时59分 ：

   [...] On Trust (part I) [...] [...]信托（第一部分） [...]

10. Raph’s Website » On Trust, Part III wrote on March 13th, 2006 at 12:36 am : 拉夫乌韦的网站»信任，第三部分写上2006年3月13日在上午12时36分 ：

    [...] Read Part I Read Part II Read A side note [...] [...]阅读第一部分第二部分阅读读一边注意[...]

11. Raph’s Website » On Trust, Part II wrote on March 13th, 2006 at 12:42 am : 拉夫乌韦的网站»信任，第二部分写上06年3月13日在上午12时42分 ：

    [...] 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? [...]我们也有可能会自问，是否社区模式实际上是一种礼貌的小说，我们妄自菲薄;添伯克谈到这在他的意见第一部分有如事作为真正的自下而上的权力？ 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. 毕竟，共产主义理想驱动的共识，但在实践中的共识，特别是在小团体，是由强人，自然领袖，通过有说服力的技术。 This is precisely why the development of things like secret balloting was such a core driver of human socil development. 这正是为什么发展这样无记名投票这样的核心驱动力人力socil发展。 [...] [...]

12. Player Accountability Redux at MMOG Nation wrote on May 23rd, 2006 at 12:45 pm : 播放问责制在多人在线游戏Redux民族写道06年5月23号在下午12时45分 ：

    [...] 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.* [...] [...]还有很长的讨论球员信任拉夫乌韦的网站在几个月前，因此我将不开放，可以蠕虫再次，他甚至绕过边缘的这一主题今天主持他的网站.* [...]

13. Integral Visioning - Michel Bauwens: Foundation For Peer To Peer Alternatives Newsletter Issue 120 wrote on June 11th, 2006 at 9:19 am : 积分展望-米歇尔B auwens：基金会的点对点通讯替代1 20期发表文章2 006年六月1 1日在上午0 9时1 9分：

    [...] - 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/ [...] [...] -三个组成部分分析，信托，有许多意见，并适用于游戏世界特别是在h ttp://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 ：赘言释放» 2006 » 3月发表文章2006年6月12号在上午02点17 ：

    [...] Raph has been building a series on Trust. [...]拉夫乌韦已建立了一系列的信托基金。 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. 我觉得通过蜿蜒的一切事物真实和虚拟，个人和社会，将成为一位伟大的跳板之一，在整个潜在的主题：之间的关系多人在线游戏开发商/发行商和播放器。 [...] [...]

15. Raph’s Website » Community relations, management, design, and governance wrote on September 29th, 2006 at 10:04 am : 拉夫乌韦的网站»社区关系，管理，设计和管理上写道06年9月29日在上午十点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. [...] [...]这是真正的问题;的三个，这是有关系的一个社区，不规模的非常好，我已写在我的面前的一系列“信任” （ 1 ， 2 ，一边注意到， 3 ， 3.5 。 [...]

1. abe said on February 4th, 2006 at 1:32 pm : 安倍晋三说， 2006年2月四日在下午1点32分 ：

   You sir would make a good Brit, where a natural appreciation for irony is a pre-requisite!主席先生，您将成为一个好英，那里的自然赞赏具有讽刺意味的是一个先决条件！

2. Michael Chui said on February 4th, 2006 at 2:14 pm : 迈克尔翠说， 2006年二月四日在下午2点14分 ：

   Your first paragraph can be summarized as “Familiarity Breeds Trust”.您的第一款可以概括为： “熟悉信托品种” 。 That doesn’t include authority issues, and probably a host of other things, but those three words put together a lot of it.这还没有包括权力的问题，并可能许多其他事情，但是这三个字把很多的。 =) = ）

3. Michael Chui said on February 4th, 2006 at 2:15 pm : 迈克尔翠说， 2006年二月四日在下午2时15分 ：

   Your first paragraph (where it begins “Let’s take the following as a truism”) can be summarized as “Familiarity Breeds Trust”.您的第一款（其中，它已经开始“让我们采取以下作为一个不言自明” ）可以概括为： “熟悉信托品种” 。 That doesn’t include authority issues, and probably a host of other things, but those three words put together a lot of it.这还没有包括权力的问题，并可能许多其他事情，但是这三个字把很多的。 =) = ）

4. Aufero said on February 4th, 2006 at 2:17 pm : Aufero说， 2006年二月四日在下午2时17分 ：

   Interesting, to say the least.有趣的，至少可以说。

   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.至于我的儿子指出，虽然我读这一点，并讨论它与他，网上的限制大小的一个社区可能会大大低于邓巴的数量由于每个人的需要保持关系以外的网上媒介。 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?由于线上社群仅占一小部分人的“ monkeysphere ” ，并相对容易（相对于社区为基础的物理距离，反正）改变网上社区，我不知道网上社区有更多的流失？ How does that affect trust?如何影响信任吗？

5. Raph said on February 4th, 2006 at 2:37 pm : 拉夫说， 2006年2月4号在下午2点37分 ：

   I am not sure that familiarity breeds trust.我不知道熟悉滋生的信任。 Familiarity is perhaps an indicator of repeated past interactions, which then results in a decent predictor of future interactions.也许是熟悉的一个指标重复过去的相互作用，然后结果体面预测未来的相互作用。 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.但是，我们也知道的故事“燃烧的桥梁” -谁是人民熟悉和尚未采取行动的方式，打破我们信任他们，因为他们选择了过去断绝关系。

   Aufero, good questions. Aufero ，良好的问题。 I am pretty sure online communities do have more churn, but it would be very interesting to see real data on that.我很相信网上社区有更多的流失，但它将会非常有趣地看到真实的数据上。

6. xaldin said on February 4th, 2006 at 2:42 pm : xaldin说， 2006年二月四日在下午2点42分 ：

   Ok I think you stopped a little short however as to why large anonymous worlds aren’t as well recieved as tight knit communities.好吧我想你停止有点短但是，为什么世界上大的匿名并不以及收到的紧密结合社区。 It gets into the realm of expectations of reciprical support.它进入境界的期望reciprical支持。

   I help you, you help me.我可以帮你，你能帮我。 That I can rely on to a point.我可以依靠一个点。 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.如果您不能成立的信托目的是打破，我从来没有帮您再次，它容易降低你，因为只有我们。

   However as I help more people (X number) it gets much harder for me to keep track of transactions.但正如我在帮助更多人（ X数字）它获得更难，我跟踪交易。 You also end up in conflicts, I helped Y and Z but they have conflicting goals so now I have to choose.您也结束了在冲突中，我帮助Y和Z ，但他们相互冲突的目标，现在我必须选择。 The interconnectedness gets harder and harder to maintain as the numbers grow larger, hense why folks maintain smaller communities.得到的相互难以维持的数量增长较大， hense为什么人们保持较小的社区。 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).在结束其所有的'我'但是什么'我'预计从周围的人认为应该'我' （欠款的行动做或行动，可采取在未来） 。

   Thats a very nutshell view of the various social theories on the matter just from what I remember from my college days.多数民众赞成在一个非常简单地认为各种社会理论关于这个问题刚才从我记得从我的大学时代。 A full discourse on it really precludes a blog honestly.全面论述真的排除一个博客诚实。

7. Michael Chui said on February 4th, 2006 at 3:44 pm : 迈克尔翠说， 2006年二月四日在下午3点44分 ：

   Churn 流失

   What would contribute to higher churn in an online community is ease of entrance and exit.什么将有助于在更高的流失一个在线社区，是易于入口和出口。 It’s harder to leave a community when you can’t go more than ten steps without bumping into one of them.这是很难离开一个社区时，你不能超过10个步骤桥头到其中之一。 But if all you have to do is log off…但是，如果所有您需要做的就是注销...

   Familiarity 熟悉

   And I was a bit off-base… maybe it’s more accurate to say that familiarity breeds expectations, and some expectations are trustworthiness.和我有点场外基地...也许是更精确地说，熟悉品种的预期，以及一些期望的可信性。 Behavior patterns?行为模式？

8. Anon said on February 5th, 2006 at 9:32 am : 阿农说， 06年2月五号在上午09时32分 ：

   “Familiarity breeds trust” doesn’t sum it up at all. “熟悉的信托品种”不总之所有。 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.例如，如果你从洛杉矶到一个小镇的40人在蒙大拿，你会* *对待你的邻居很好的第一次与他们的互动，虽然您从未见过的面前。 Because you know you’ll see them again.因为你知道你会看到他们。 It has nothing to do with familiarity.它已没有任何关系熟悉。

9. Michael Chui said on February 5th, 2006 at 11:53 am : 迈克尔翠说， 2006年2月5号在上午11时53分 ：

   Hm… yes, you’re right.嗯...是的，你说得对。 I think I made a subconscious connection and expressed it completely wrong.我想我作出了潜意识方面，并表示它完全错误的。 Expectation of familiarity, perhaps?展望熟悉，也许？ The term is important, I’m sure of it; it’s just HOW that’s befuddling me now.这个词是很重要的，我敢肯定它，只是如何的befuddling现在我。

10. Timothy Burke said on February 5th, 2006 at 1:00 pm : 霍震霆伯克说， 2006年2月5日下午1时 ：

    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.您可能已经注意到，即使在论坛管理人员（在游戏或其他）尝试保持“一般论坛”的形成，它往往会自发地爆发在其他一些空间。 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.您可能还注意到，企图适合工程师之间的设计空间和紧密的社区也往往受到挫折随着时间的推移通过建立信息流动和沟通渠道，互联更大的信任和减少为中心的社会网络在全球范围内。

    You’re missing something here, perhaps because you’re focusing too exclusively on trust.你在这里失去了一些东西，也许是因为你过分强调完全的信任。 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.让我们这样说：有一些对推动关系密切的社区规模和合理的各种形式的futureward他们产生信任。

    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”.旧的共同体， geschelleschaft区别可能有望推动了解对试图限制社区，据说有些人自然或内在的“适当规模” 。 Small face-to-face communities all around the world have given way to large anonymous ones in the last two centuries.小面对面社区世界各地已经让位给匿名的大型在过去的两个世纪。 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.有很多原因，其中许多人已没有任何关系的意愿或意志的个人或社区的人。 But some of the reasons do lie in what people want, what they desire.但是，一些原因不在于人们希望，他们的愿望。

    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.在某种程度上，它们属于某种形式或概念的自由;的事情非常产生“信任”你确定它也产生亲密的暴政，限制，形式的统治。 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.许多人寻求全球不愿透露姓名的以是免费的约束和选择自己的社区，而不是这些社区为他们选择。

    And there is a “culture” that is vital and powerful at that larger anonymous level of sociality, even a form of “trust”.并有“文化”这是重要的和强大的，更大的匿名程度的社会，甚至某种形式的“信任” 。 But the trust which can exist at that scale is a completely different thing.但信任可以存在于这一规模是一个完全不同的事情。 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.一方面，它取决于至关重要的信息的自由流动，整个整个社会空间，而不是恐惧或期待什么个人特别是可能会认为你是一个人的明天。 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.因此，每当社会的经理试图限于人谁知道他们是在一个较大的整体，他们的法官有一些适当的分社区的利益，人民寻求推倒壁垒的信息流在全球范围内的社会。

11. Raph said on February 5th, 2006 at 2:18 pm : 拉夫说， 06年2月五号在下午2点18分 ：

    From a practical point of view, though, Tim, it doesn’t matter if the larger forum erupts elsewhere.从现实的角度看，虽然，添，不要紧，如果发生较大的论坛，在其他地方。 In fact, more power to it if it does.事实上，更多的权力，如果它。 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.只要你作为一个服务运营商已较小的社区，您仍然可以有效地沟通，以及您是否可以警方在一个合理的成本，你仍然获得的好处运行论坛。

    I agree that there are many social forces that pushes against staying at the smaller size.我同意，有很多社会力量，推动对住在面积较小。 That’sa separate issue from the issue of whether a given particular service provides forums of a given size.这是一个单独的问题从问题的某一特定的服务提供了论坛的某一大小。

12. Tess said on February 5th, 2006 at 9:29 pm : 苔丝说， 06年2月五号在下午九时二十九分 ：

    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.在一组适当的大小，只要有一个文化的建立，您会看到其他社会成员的强制执行的隐性规则的社会。 People who deviate will be maligned, ostracized, and eventually (should there be a form of authority with this power) ejected.谁背离人民将中伤，排斥，并最终（应该有某种形式的权力，这个权力）被罚出场。

    This is exactly why RP-MUSHes work.这就是为什么反相MUSHes工作。

    Though, unless someone is exploiting code, cheating, or harassing other players, ejection is largely voluntary.虽然，除非有人正在利用代码，欺骗，或骚扰其他球员，弹射主要是自愿的。 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.当结构的存在在比赛挂钩，在一定程度上，在您参与的文化，游戏将不再是利益而不是很快，如果你不能遵守其规范。 After all, you can’t roleplay solo.毕竟，你不能独唱角色扮演。

    As you might imagine, the Dunbar limit is extremely evident in RP MUSHes.正如你想象的邓巴限制是极为明显的反相MUSHes 。 Once the player base exceeds a certain size, it will by necessity fracture into various social strata and cliques.一旦玩家超过一定规模，它将必然断裂成不同社会阶层和集团。 I’d say that the stable state for an RP-MUSH is well below Dunbar’s 150 — or even below the UO 60.我想说的稳定状态的反相玉米粥远远低于邓巴的150 -甚至低于U O6 0。

    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.然而，反相MUSHes还需要一个混合碗型区（或“主舞台， ”我叫） ，以促进相互（和制造紧张局势）各派之间，并提供机会，戏剧性的对抗。 The Crossroads tavern kidnapping in A Game of Thrones is precisely the sort of thing a main stage is for.小酒馆的十字路口绑架游戏中的无双，正是诸如此类的事情，一个主要阶段是。

    I think this sort of interplay happens naturally in most MMOs, due to trade, resource competition, and other factors.我认为这种相互作用发生在最自然MMOs ，由于贸易，资源的竞争，以及其他因素。 During these interactions at the interfaces between factions, we are standard-bearers.在这些互动在各派之间的接口，我们的标准承担。 Our outside interactions affect the reputation of our entire faction.我们的内外互动的声誉影响我们整个派系。 Thus, it’s possible to not just ostracize someone from your group, but to pressure other groups to ostracize someone, as well.因此，有可能不只是排斥别人从您的小组，但其他群体压力，排斥别人，以及。 (You will sometimes see on the WoW forms, for example, people pressuring guild-leaders to boot known ninja-looters.) （您有时会看到关于魔兽世界的形式，例如，人民施加压力，工会领导人开机称为忍者，抢劫。 ）

    So, guilds/factions/cliques can act as atomic players in terms of future-interaction, on a whole different scale from individual players.因此，行/派别/集团可以作为原子弹的球员而言，未来的互动，对整个不同规模从个别球员。 And this could expand to higher tiers, as well.这可能会扩大到更高的层次，以及。 (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. （我们正处于战争与民族十大持有公会坐标持有球员威尔并不重要，如果Z是最好的家伙在地球上。我们过去从未见过Z的，他只是一个X给我们。 ）当有太多的人知道，我们组织我们相信通过抽象的概念。

13. Timothy Burke said on February 6th, 2006 at 6:22 am : 霍震霆伯克说， 2006年2月6日在上午06点22分 ：

    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梅塔

Recent Comments

• Yukon Sam on UGC and IP in a cloning world
• Ingrod on Marketing in games vs web
• Stephane Bura on From the Mailbag: Where’s A Grammar of Gameplay?
• len on Marketing in games vs web
• Morgan Ramsay on Marketing in games vs web
• Ingrod on Marketing in games vs web
• Michael Chui on UGC and IP in a cloning world

Categories分类

• Art (10)
• Game talk (1322)
• Gamemaking (42)
• Mailbag (13)
• Misc (178)
• Music (80)