[MUD-Dev] Social Networks

[Bruce Mitchener]

Hi Dave and Brian,

Dave Rickey wrote:
> From: "Brian 'Psychochild' Green" <brian at psychochild.org>

>> Actually, how well you connect to the social fabric tends to be a
>> function of size, in my experience.  People in smaller towns
>> still do know everyone in town and new people tend to be absorbed
>> into the social fabric easier.  In larger towns, you tend to get
>> a lot more of the impersonal feeling you describe.

> I was actually thinking of urban neighborhoods rather than small
> towns.  I'm not sure absolute size really has as much to do with
> it on that level, so much as there is nothing in my neighborhood
> to make us want to interact, or even have much opportunity.  Why
> would I want to interact with my neighbors, and when would I do
> it?

>> One reason is due to the frequency of contact with other people.
>> In a smaller town, you are much more likely to run into your
>> neighbors on your way to work (or even at work), at a restaurant,
>> or at the local watering hole.  In a large city, you could
>> potentially never run into your neighbors while you are out and
>> about in town.  I've heard many stories about people talking
>> about the same effect in online RPGs; they meet a friendly face
>> once then never see that person again.

> An alternative theory is that as increased mobility and
> communication made it easier to form relationships with people
> other than those most physically proximate to you, the density of
> neighborhood links inevitably declined.

In the early 1960s, Jane Jacobs wrote _The Death and Life of Great
American Cities_ that dealt partially with this sort of topic.

For some broad overview information on the book:

     http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/08/17/reviews/jacobs.html
     http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/067974195X

She starts the book by discussing the role of sidewalks in fostering
safety:

     "Sidewalks, their bordering uses, and their users, are active
     participants in the drama of civilization vs barbarism in
     cities.  To keep the city safe is a fundmental task of a city's
     streets and its sidewalks."

Quoting from the NY TImes review:

     "Big cities she says, are full of strangers. Citizens and
     strangers alike must enjoy security on city streets. This
     security, she insists, will never come just from a vigilant
     police force. It requires an intricate social system, which
     automatically achieves this effect. You get it from "public
     actors," from habitual street watchers, such as storekeepers,
     doormen and interested neighbors, and from more or less
     constant use at different hours, which is possible only if
     there is a rich mixture of activities in buildings of varying
     age and character."

She goes on to discuss the ineffectiveness of police and special
guards being the only guardian force against barbarism and fear:

     "No amount of police can enforce civilization where the normal,
     casual enforcement of it has broken down."

Some factors that she claims play a role in the safety of a city,
based on some anecdotal stories, are:

    * Presence of passers-by, kibitzers, shopkeepers to intervene
      (or prevent by their presence) in criminal acts.

    * A lack of the above, with a history of danger, leading people
      to remain away or leave, dullness or dispiritedness
      of the district of the city encouraging people to leave, all
      combining to increase the crime rate.

Both of these are directly related to the strength of the social fabric 
in a given district in the city.

How can we go about shaping the world and how we 
structure/organize/present that world to help create a stronger social 
fabric?  Jane Jacobs argues that:

    * There must be a clear separation between public and
      private space.

    * The streets must be watched.  Both the buildings along
      the street and the people in them must face the street.

    * The streets must be in use and have a fair number of users.

       * This means that they need to provide services that
         people need: shops, food, drink, transportation,
         entertainment.

    * The streets need to be interesting.  People don't
      tend to linger or socialize or just watch the world
      around them as much if everything is dull and boring.

There are numerous problems with applying these ideas to a game:

    * Encouraging that level of socialization amongst players
      who may just be focused on their own tasks and happy to
      ignore everything around them.

    * Morality in an online world may differ substantially from
      morality in our every day regular world.

    * The nature of the interface with the game may not make
      actions of socialization.

    * Possible lack of strong enough deterrents and long term
      effects on people who are 'bad'?

    * Cities in games serve different purposes from cities
      in the real world.  How much overlap is there between
      those purposes and where are those overlaps in areas
      that are suitable for some of the ideas that Jacobs
      supports?  To what extent would it be valuable to
      make cities play a more vital role in online worlds?

Her discussion of the role of the sidewalks in assimilating children
into society and socializing them in the process, rather than
relying upon separate areas and equipment such as playgrounds is
interesting, and may be comparable to the use of newbie areas to
attempt to introduce new players into the gameworld.

She goes on and on with many further topics: role of public parks,
neighborhoods, the need for diversity (in population, in the types
of buildings, in the uses that a district is put to, and so on), the
value of having a dense population.

I really recommend reading the book.  It is pretty easy reading,
full of anecdotal stories, and more enjoyable writing than mine.
This post only begins to scratch the surface of what she talks
about.

All of this has a bit of a relation to aspects of Jessica Mulligan's
recent Biting the Hand, which can be found at:

     http://www.skotos.net/articles/BTH_32.shtml

where she talks about the role of gift economies in online games:

     "That common good may represent the prosaic, such as the
     aforementioned English commons land, or the unusual, such as
     the development of the Internet, USEnet and World Wide Web
     before 1993 by the contributions of many individuals with no
     expectation of monetary profit. The beauty of the gift exchange
     economy is that anyone can contribute and anyone can benefit
     from the results; it isn't owned, in the normal sense of the
     word. Rather than diminishing supply by removing something from
     the economy and causing it to change hands, gift exchange
     contributions tend to stack up geometrically, creating more and
     more benefits to the community as a whole.  No one really cares
     whether people 'free ride' or not; the object is to build the
     base of information, land, tools, whatever, which provides
     benefits to the common use and good. Think of it as a
     transaction of the collective soul, rather than a transaction
     of the individual wallet.

     "As an example of how this might work in a persistent world,
     imagine that a number of citizens portion off a section of
     unused 'land' in the game, create a park and are then able to
     trip a flag that makes the confines of park and some portion of
     the surrounding area incapable of player-versus-player (PvP)
     combat. One or more players might donate buffed-out NPC guards
     to patrol the park and keep the player-killers from hanging at
     the edges of the PvP zone to attack those entering or
     leaving. Another might contribute the deed to a gazebo, and
     another a fountain, others might donate tables, chairs and
     other decorations. Some players might donate 'sweat equity' in
     the form of leveling the terrain, so fountain and gazebo can be
     laid down in advantageous positions, or donating time to act as
     supplemental guards over the area. And perhaps someone donates
     a metal forge, free for use by all at no cost, other than
     bringing in your own raw materials to be worked. The end result
     would be a safe harbor that any citizen could enjoy, and which
     would probably be used for unplanned purposes, such player
     weddings, picnics, meetings and other events (such 'non-game'
     events are quite popular in persistent worlds)."

Thoughts?

  - Bruce


_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev