Continuing my quest to post all academic papers that professors write about MMORPGs, I present a paper discussing possibilities of testing various law in Everquest, UO. and Sims Online.
Skip ahead to page 31 (out of 35), and they come up with a bunch of experiments about taxes and property law that would work in MMORPGS. Do you want progressive or flat taxation on your EQ server?
But there is this…
One set of implications of this lower level of complexity in virtual worlds is that they do not (so far) include lawyers. While it is possible to conceive of the development of Everquest lawyers in response to a development of Everquest law, until that time it would be advisable to avoid using legal rules in the virtual worlds that would be so complex that players would need to consult a lawyer to understand them.
So no probably no level 65 lawyers filing suit on the planes of power anytime soon.
This sort of thing is half-assed until a game is created from the ground up with social experimentation in mind. All in good time.
What should happen, logically, is a game is made as a joint venture between the game industry and research groups. Research groups who get their funding from universities perhaps even publish the game, but the game still benefits greatly from popularity so a game developer (who knows how to make a fun VSOG) works closely with researchers during development. Discussions between the two camps allow researchers to build their experimental models prior to game development, and then the game is made to suit both market demands (for fun and satisfying gameplay) and research demands for a rich experimental environment.
The benefits of this is that the researchers know the code of the game intimately, so they know the physical world in which their experiments are occurring. Also, unlike a game like EQ the code is well-suited to the experiments they most want to run, and these experiments will be well-timed since they occur from day 1. Any modifications to experimental models can be done since so much knowledge of the game is presented to researchers.
Also, such a good environment and intimate knowledge of a VSOG community for researchers will mean a second such game (after learning the failures of the first) will be all the more valuable.
These kinds of questions deserve to be asked, but damn if they don’t scare the shit out of me. They should scare everyone who ever cared about MMOGs as entertainment.
Plenty of discussion about whether MMOGs (or MUDs, as their text-based predecessors are called) qualify as societies. One group of college kids once got their professor to concede that their MUD qualified, because it had a perceivable history, which is supposedly required.
But MMOGs, to survive, must not cross that line in the sand that divides virtual reality from the real world. It’s already being toed by eBay sellers and criminal extortionists, and several Korean street gangs that might just chop off your fingers if you attack the wrong group in Lineage.
Threat of legal action has already taken its toll. No one wants to have volunteers anymore, for example, after the Ultima Online debacle (though one might argue that the real problem there was inadequate documentation, code and design support that made volunteers a practical requirement, not to mention all the stories about these “counselors” literally whoring for paying jobs by sex0ring the paid Game Masters.)
No one should be looking forward to the reality of MMOGs getting resolved by some lawyer, or even a judge.
One set of implications of this lower level of complexity in virtual worlds is that they do not (so far) include lawyers. While it is possible to conceive of the development of Everquest lawyers in response to a development of Everquest law, until that time it would be advisable to avoid using legal rules in the virtual worlds that would be so complex that players would need to consult a lawyer to understand them.
Legal systems, election systems, and perhaps even enforcement systems by communities inside of the game is a wide open territory for new development theory. I hope to see some of these concepts emerge in the virtual world at some point.
It would be a fascinating experiment in and of itself.
Interesting, but there’s one major flaw, namely that MMOG providers are self-serving entities. At the end of the day, they are interested in taking home a profit, and arbitrary inclusions of laws runs the very real risk of disenfranchising some percentage of your player base by sabotaging the game’s relative entertainment value.
The problem with “MMOG law enforcement” is simply a lack of accountability. In some cases it’s better to get ban certain players in order to preserve the gameplay for others, but aside from that there really aren’t any in-game consequences that are enforceable/meaningful.
The only real way to enforce policy is to build it into the game engine such that the player has no choice in the matter (e.g. no PVP allowed). If this is something that the player wants, then you’re fine. Otherwise, there is a risk that the player will simply unsubscribe. High monthly fees are an example of this.
I am more interested in Community run mechanisms truth be told, and yes disenfranchisement is a risk (adequate recall <hehe> and other electoral processes would be a must), as well as specific parameters of authority and limited powers granted by the code for just such a purpose.
Too often innovation is stifled by the fear that some portion or all portions of a potential user base would be disadvantaged or unhappy with some of the outcomes and then unsubscribe.
While these concerns are certainly reasonable and valid, I think more often than not - it is simply a crutch for not taking the path less travelled etc etc.
Granted - I speak of this only in context to design. In terms of investors, publishers, and marketing - the road well worn and travelled is usually the most profitable one. Not an easy obstacle to overcome…
Vosx, people play MMOGs to -escape- reality. Lawyers make things too real. :p
Good parallel example: Ever hear of people try to set up in-game courts and such? Wasn’t it laughable? Now why would you want -real- courts having jurisdiction over what happens in game?
Yeah, ATITD. Good luck to them and their fans. Now go flax yourselves. :p
I am more interested in Community run mechanisms truth be told, and yes disenfranchisement is a risk (adequate recall <hehe> and other electoral processes would be a must), as well as specific parameters of authority and limited powers granted by the code for just such a purpose.
Too often innovation is stifled by the fear that some portion or all portions of a potential user base would be disadvantaged or unhappy with some of the outcomes and then unsubscribe.
While these concerns are certainly reasonable and valid, I think more often than not - it is simply a crutch for not taking the path less travelled etc etc.
Granted - I speak of this only in context to design. In terms of investors, publishers, and marketing - the road well worn and travelled is usually the most profitable one. Not an easy obstacle to overcome…[/quote]
If you want to see an MMO become a testbed for social theory and other headache-inducing subjects, maybe the best bet isn’t a commercial game but an MMO run by a university. If the Army can pay to have a game developed, we might see similar initiatives from other sources that don’t have profit as a primary goal.
I will be playing in the games designed to make money, however. They will be more concerned with entertaining me than studying me, though I admit that at times MMOs make me feel a bit like the lab rat in the exercise wheel.
